AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Assassinator

form_srcid: Assassinator

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Assassinator

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Assassinator%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/11/03 19:27:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

O for the love of God >.< I joined this forum because i thought i finally found a good forum dedicated about evolution and it's side-subjects with adult acting people who actually know something about the subject. And what do i find: topics like this. I'm 17 years old myself, but i have to say something to the lot of you: grow up! All the ranting, all the swearing, it's not getting you ánywhere!! Is it so hard to discuss like adults without name calling and with respect to eachother even if one is clearly stating some wrong things? Jeez....

(well, so far for my first post :))

Date: 2007/11/03 19:42:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
I didn't cry at Shawshank, but it's truely one of the best drama's I've seen in my short life so far and I definatly don't like drama's :P
And because my life is short, I don't have a lot of fav movies yet, but some nonetheless.

Such a beautifull sci-fi movie, it almost made me cry. Just to see in what world someone could do to achieve his dreams, beating the system...downright beautifull, hard to explain with more words.

How people would react to the discover of intelligent extra-terrestial life, the phylosphical (I misspelled that didn't I?) and religious questions it would arise. Awsome.

The Matrix Trilogy:
Simply lóve the fighting :D

Kill Bill 1 and 2:
Simply awsome :D Delightfuly over-the-tup, pure cult, awsome martial-arts.

The Big Lebowski:
Seen it a couple of time's, it's soooo funny! Awsome cult-status.

Hmmm, all i can think off right now.

Date: 2007/11/04 04:34:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
Sorry to break in guys, i'm just new here, but i've got a few questions for Daniel.
First of all, what do you want Daniel? I don't get it, are you interested in reality of are you interested in confirming you're own thoughts? Because if it is the latter, that's not what science is about. I also read you were more interested in the scientists who were shunned by the scientific world, the one's who were laughed at etc etc. But also, that's not where it is about, it's pure about evidence. Hell, it doesn't matter if correct statements are brought by a light-blue, Satan worshipping fairy with daisy's sprouting out of it's head: evidence is evidence, no matter who brought it up. Persons do not matter, and so does your own thoughts about this subject. If you want to learn, let those things go. I don't have the idea you want to learn, but only want to confirm you're own thoughts, that there must be some form of design, designer or end-goal. I think you have emotionally attached yourself to your own idea about reality, i wonder why.
This may be a lot for me to ask, because i'm new, but maybe you could give a little summary about what you think Daniel. Maybe this would help the discussion in general, it's getting a little out of hand because people start ignoring important parts of posts from eachother.

Date: 2007/11/04 08:12:19, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Aha, well, i guess i have to look further for a better suited forum. Mocking other people's thoughts get you nowhere in science. If this is the darwinian community, i wouldn't want to be part of it. Too many presumptions about other people, too much childish name calling. Bah. Well, go on then, i guess reason can't stop it anyway.

Date: 2007/11/04 11:41:48, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

O yes I have, and I see loads of missconceptions from him. Is that a reason for mocking him? No. Sharply written comments are good because they keep you on your toes, but that has nothing to do with swearing, calling names and simply laughing at someone. I do understand a bit why you guys are doing it, VMartin is simply dodging questions and ignoring large parts of posts he quotes from, most of the times the parts wich are actually relevant to the subject, same with Daniel. Because they're so wrong, they're easy targets to pick on, but you're not building a good reputation.

I have only one real question: why can't it just stay friendly? By swearing, you're only giving people like VMartin a reason to get offtopic. If you just react on there thoughts, on there arguments and nothing left you give them no room to go offtopic and thus cornering them. And please don't start with "But he started!!" things, you guys arn't toddlers ^^

But if this forum is indeed just a place to mock other people's (aka kinder garten) wrong thoughts instead of trying to explain evo and all it's surrounding subjects (wich is the main problem of evo, it has a HUGE PR problem) to other people, then i guess it ain't the right place for me. If so, does anyone knows a forum wich is doing that? I'm just trying to learn here, because it's my goal to get into evolutionary research with my bio-informatics study.

Date: 2007/11/04 11:59:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

You're saying i'm trolling? Odd, I'm just asking if discussion just can't be friendly, why it has to be done with swearing and mocking.
If you want to react, fine, but a reaction on the contents would be nice. What do you want: a flamewar, or a fruitfull discussion?

Date: 2007/11/04 12:29:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

The fact that someone gets rude, isn't a reason to get rude yourself ofcourse. Then you're just lowering yourself to there standards. If someone gets rude: ignore mode activated, filter out the relevant pieces of there posts and react on those. It's true thought that even if one doesn't respond to the other's ranting, the flamer usually stops posting and leaves. A shame really, it's pretty hard to find a good discussion with someone who supports the ET and someone who does not support the ET or certain parts of the ET. I've met someone though who could react ontopic without ranting, but lots of times when I saw a discussion sparking between him and a pro-evo, he was usually welcomed with lots of prejudges.
And well, just because it's true that lots of discussions with anti-evo people grind to a halt, isn't a reason not to try ^^ Although I could understand it's wearing people out, explaining those misunderstandings about evolution over and over and over again.

Date: 2007/11/04 12:31:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

O and for the record: I'm NOT here to flame. Just to learn, observe and discuss. I was hoping this was at the right address for that here.

Date: 2007/11/04 12:32:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I mean troll, not flame :P Where is the "Edit" option on this forum?

Date: 2007/11/04 13:05:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
I agree that lots of people also have preconcieved ideas about a god. But there is also something else, it looks like you're emotionally attached to your preconcieved ideas. Note that the word "God" doesn't mean anything by itself, it's rather a coat rack (i hope i translate that correctly) on wich people put there own image of the word "God". The word "God" is thus worthless to science. Science can only work with certain images of the word "God". It's so easy to modify that image. Not even that long ago, and even today, people still beleive that God created and designed everything around us, but not in the way you would beleive it. The role of God has changed, it's like the God of the Gaps.
The fossil record and the molecular evidence are both consistent with a belief that God designed and implemented life on this planet.

Explain yourself. Because i don't see why. I'm only seeing a certain interpretation of the available evidence so the evidence fits in your beleifs. But is that interpretation in agreement with reality? Ofcourse, you can ask the same with other interpretations.
The fossil record shows "explosions" of lifeforms suddenly appearing and then diversifying.

You shouldn't take the world "explosion" too literally. It still took several millions of years, and that's VERY long and LOTS of generations fit into that.
The molecular evidence shows an extremely complex, sophisticated, multi-layered coding system that defies any unguided evolutionary explanation.

No, it does not. It's complex in your eyes, nothing more. Hell, we may meet aliens who laugh at our simple planet with our simple lifeforms. It's simply not an argument to say it's complex compared what we can do. The fact that we don't get it, is no argument for design, it's only an argument for our limited knowledge.
Now, I could take your questions and turn them around and ask them of you:  What is your goal?  What are your preconceived ideas?  Are you willing to let them go and consider the possibility of a designing God?

My goal? To learn more about reality. My preconcieved ideas? No idea, i don't give a ratsass if our planet was made by a God, erupted out of natural laws or made by aliens from starsystems thousands of lightyears away for an experiment. I just care about what's true. Ofcourse i consider the possibility of a designing God, but as i sad before there is no evidence or objective sign for such a being.

Date: 2007/11/04 13:12:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
I don't know if they're not falsified, so i'm asking other people now if they do know if they're falsified and if they can post links to papers and other stuff about it. (and please, no ad hominems on that :) )

Date: 2007/11/04 13:24:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well it's not about having a better idea, evolution isn't right just because it's the only real scientic theory about it (don't get me wrong, i'm an evolutionist) so you shouldn't ask martin about that. I've read comments from him, he has indeed lots of faulty idea's about the ET in general. Also i don't see a lot of ontopic reactions from him, and he dodges questions frequently.
believe you have seriously underestimated the entertainment value of this forum.

Science isn't a circuss, don't abuse science for entertainment purposes. If you want to have fun: go join a flash mob somewhere :P

Date: 2007/11/04 13:31:59, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'm sorry Martin i don't really see what you're trying to prove here. I don't think you're trying to disprove natural selection, because it's easely viewed in daily life, but i think you're trying to disprove that natural selection is leading to new species. Am i right?

Date: 2007/11/04 13:34:03, Link
Author: Assassinator
Ofcourse not, but this forum is about evolution, and evolution is science (just ignoring Hovindt here) :)

Date: 2007/11/04 13:35:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
Thanks, do you have links to articles about that? Would be nice ;) (just here to learn :D)

Date: 2007/11/04 13:43:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
And because you are emotionally attached to your views, you won't accept evidence. Before you would, you would first try to fit in that evidence in your own picture of reality. Also, you're giving your own images about reality too much credit: Face it: they're unimportant, the universe doesn't give a rats ass about your views and also about mine and any other human.
But again, it's complex in YOUR eyes. Take for example sea urchins. We humans share 70% of our DNA with sea urchins. Now you can say 2 things: either sea urchins are VERY complex, proving your point, or you can say that we are VERY simple because we're still that similair with sea urchins. Now who is right? The choice is completly made on personal taste, and has nothing to do with science. It's simply not an argument. You're using all kinds of emotional words, like "elegance" and "sophistication" but those words mean nothing. They're all bound to your emotions, and your emotions are worthless here just like mine. I don't think you want to learn about reality, because you've already made up your mind on nothing more then personal preferences. What's left to discuss then?

Date: 2007/11/04 13:53:24, Link
Author: Assassinator
Another thing, i do understand your point-of-view a bit. Because it's ages old. Hundreds of years ago people saw lightening, it made no sense to them, they were overwhelmed and simply didn't know what it was. The most reasonable thought: something greater then us is causing it. It's exactly the same as we're having with the developement from life on earth: we don't fully understand, and some people totally don't understand (again: evolution has a VERY big PR problem) because they don't understand the science behind it.
I've got the same, when i watch at the stars at night (when the ratchet Dutch weather allows me) i find it so incredibly beautifull, but i know my personal feelings have nothing to do what's out there. I know what i'm watching it, nothing more then huge balls of gas billions of lightyears away. But that knowledge is making it more spectaculair for me, i'm realising that i'm watching light erupted thousands if not millions of years ago, a downright timemachine! I'm so amazed by what i'm watching, but again it has nothing to do with science. My personal feelings about the universe don't say anything about the universe itself. It's exactly the same as what you're having with life on earth.

Date: 2007/11/04 13:58:20, Link
Author: Assassinator
What the HELL is hereoisreal trying to say?? Bible quotes, wierd math things wich completly lack any form of sense and odd statements. I don't get it.

Date: 2007/11/04 14:23:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
Those kind of people are the reason i want to become an anthropologist or socialist (i hope i translated that correctly) :P But i don't think he's posting here for our amusement right (aka, he's dead serious)?

Date: 2007/11/04 14:58:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
O dear...well, too bad for him. Our whole westren vacination program is based on natural selection. If natural selection didn't the hell would vacination work anyway?? I mean, bacterial strands who are not resistant to the medicne die and those who are do not die, so in the end only the one's who are resistant will live: voila, natural selection. And then we have to make new medicine etc etc etc.

Date: 2007/11/04 15:22:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'll be waiting for a reaction from him ;) I've had some experience with people claiming such things, but i'm still hoping he will be different. You may call it naïve, but i'm just trying to keep an open mind ^^ O well, the future will tell us.

Date: 2007/11/04 17:19:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
Then i'm also curious why you're (directing at Daniel here, ofcourse) so sure of those theory's because apperantly you don't know a lot about them. Is it really just because Shindewolf was mocked at by the scientific community? You do know that that has absolutly nothing to do with the vality of his theory, right?

Date: 2007/11/05 11:55:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
Again VMartin, the whole medicinal industry is based on natural selection. I don't get it, natural selection doesn't exist?? It's the most easly spotted and easly observed in nature! You're saying natural fitness does not exist, huh?? You're basicly saying genetics is bullshit, odd. Another example of selection, out Biology Seventh Edition. Scientists had 2 pools with guppies. One pool had killifish as predators who prey on small guppies. Another pool had pike-cichlids as predators, who preyed on large guppies. The guppies in the killifish pool were larger at sexual maturity and the guppies in the piki-cichlid pool were smaller at a sexual mature age. Then they transplanted guppies from the pike-cichlid pool in another pool with just killifish. After 11 years, the average size and age at maturity of guppies in the transplanted population increased compared to those of guppies in control populations. The experiments were conducted by Reznick and Endler. That's natural selection, a transplant like that can happen in nature too. I'll try to look it up on the web.

Date: 2007/11/05 11:59:00, Link
Author: Assassinator
Ofcourse i'm talking about the offspring, forgot to say that.

Date: 2007/11/05 12:44:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
Yes, it is interesting is it not, Jack?  Such outrageous assumptions being thrown around here and there, and  conclusions being made about human socials skills based on what we observe in the ape world *today*.

News flash: we ARE the ape-world. We're just a primate as chimps are. Human = primate, chimpansee = primate, gorrilla = primate etc etc etc.

Date: 2007/11/05 12:51:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
I think maybe you meant "sociologist"?  You could become a socialist sociologist, though.  At any rate, Hero is a crank, but a very good-natured one, which is the best kind.

Thanks Jim, still working on my english :) Anyway, there is NO way i could ever react to the things he says, they simply do not make any sense. Funny to see btw, how so many people can't make difference between reality and they're own thoughts and ideas.

Date: 2007/11/05 14:05:19, Link
Author: Assassinator
Assassinator, reality was 'mind made', planed.

To use a famous internet lingo: ORLY??? Now what do you have to prove that, just ancient texts wich you interpret in a certain way?

Date: 2007/11/05 14:08:00, Link
Author: Assassinator
You have a good day and hope you meet your
goal to become a sociologist.

It's not really my goal to become one, i'm studying bio-informatics at the minute :)
But have a good day too.

Date: 2007/11/05 14:23:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
Haha now THAT would be really funny. Then he's also saying genetic diseases do not exist. How the hell would he support that statement, this is getting funnier by the minute.

Date: 2007/11/05 14:51:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
I think they mean that 99.8% of the men and 41.1% of the women were literate. I can't imagine that even in 2006 almost every man would be illiterate and more then 40% of the women would be. Sounds odd anyway, women more litterate in Arad country's then men? And not even a bit, no WAY more litterate. Hell you would think women would run those country's then, but we know that even in 2006 the truth is the other, harsh, way around.

Date: 2007/11/05 15:21:15, Link
Author: Assassinator
No no no the ape only had the ape version of HIV, it mutated into a virus wich could also infect humans. O dang! Forgot, ofcourse that's impossible, mutating virusses, how rediculous!

Date: 2007/11/05 16:42:58, Link
Author: Assassinator
You're reading in the Bible what you want to read, "search and you shall find". In all, it's an age old collection of scriptions and no sort of manual on how to read it is preserved. We only have the scholary methode to get some clues about what the writers could've ment with there texts. Have you ANY idea how many interpretations there are of scriptures like the Bible?? Your just 1 of them, 1 of many who all claim to be right. This has nothing to do with patterns. For example, i have to bike across a bridge everyday to get to the trainstation for school. Now when the sun is bright, i see lots and lots of triangles because of particles in the tarmac are flashing in the sunlight. Would this mean the bridge is actually just another Masonary sign of there goal of world-domination (1 of there signs is a piramide: triangle). Ofcourse not.
You say you're not proving anything? Ofcourse not, it's all clear to you, you've got your answers, you've made up your mind. Are you trying to enlighten us then? With what?

Date: 2007/11/06 02:58:25, Link
Author: Assassinator
Neodarwinists with their babbling about "evolution in action"  and "natural selection" are ridiculous as well. They should better test their hypothesis.

Ya know Martin, it would be nice if you would actually do something more then just rant.

Date: 2007/11/06 03:01:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
Nothing more then rants from him indeed. And still, no answer from him :)

Date: 2007/11/06 06:52:25, Link
Author: Assassinator
Haha, nah it won't come to that ;) I'll rather watch with a big grin on my face seeing how people totally make fun of themselfs without even realising.

Date: 2007/11/06 11:41:55, Link
Author: Assassinator
HIV/AIDS/HIV-AIDS link denial isn't crea-only though. I've followed some discussions from people who were VERY anti-religion, but they definatly sad either AIDS is not caused by HIV, HIV has never been found or HIV simply doesn't exist. Hell, i've even seen someone deny that virusses cause disease! I'm still curious about the non-crea arguments, the crea arguments are too obvious and stupid anyway.

Date: 2007/11/06 12:09:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
Yup, to bad the discussions I followed are in Dutch, or else I would link there arguments. I don't know enough about virology to make sense of it.

Date: 2007/11/06 13:05:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
Yes :)

Date: 2007/11/06 14:45:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
Haha it's not as good as you would expect :P Most of my english is self-taught, and still full of errors. In my last 2 years of high-school, they repeated 1st year grammar >.<
Anyway, I've tried to find some links about that guy who says virusses don't cause disease, but i can't find it anymore.

Date: 2007/11/06 15:06:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics.

Depends Martin, apperantly you forget that not every part of the planet is the same.

Date: 2007/11/06 15:21:26, Link
Author: Assassinator
There is no battle Christopher, because "God" is a totally unworkable hypothesis for science to work with. "God" does not mean anything by itself, it only has meaning because of what people link to the word "God". It's an untestable hypothesis, completly worthless. And because of that, "God" never lost from science, simply because there was never ever a battle to start from.

Date: 2007/11/06 15:21:56, Link
Author: Assassinator
Dang, some mistakes in that post, but can't correct it. Sorry for those.

Date: 2007/11/06 17:39:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
If a (neo)darwinism is a scientific theory I don't see a reason why telepathy and astrology are not also taught at school.

It's ok if someone comments darwinism and neodarwinisn, but only if the person in question would have good knowledge about those theory's. You Martin, do not have such knowledge. At least, in your recent topics and reactions you have shown 0 knowledge about any evolution-linked topic. That would be fine ofcourse, but you're making al kinds of statements wich i'm still wondering about how you support them with your VERY limited knowledge about the subjects, other then just acting like a sheep and following those anti-evo guys without question.
They should be taught about living organisms and Nature  from some different point of view, which is much more sensitive and have more sympathy for life as those reductionist concepts of "struggle for survival", "selfish gene" etc...
Such concepts  have harmful effect on youngsters on my opinion. Whats more such concepts are unscientific. Such concepts spoils the perception of beauty of living world, where "struggle for life" and "natural selection" obviously play no main role, but creativeness of life itself.

O please Martin, are you trying to get ethics into this? Ethics have NOTHING to do with the workings of nature, absolutly 0. The world works in a way, if you like it or not: it simply does. You're not living in some kind of fluffy Bambi world wich you think is nature, right? You're bassicly saying that evolution would totally reduct nature into nothing more then a cold machinery. You couldn't be more wrong. The fact that we would know how certain aspects of nature would work, doesn't say anything about my emotions I linked to those very aspects of nature. I know what I'm looking at when I see the sunset, but the fact that I do says absolutly nothing about the beauty of that very sunset. Same with the stars at night. I know what I'm looking at, but I'm actually even more amazed because of certain facts I know about what I'm looking at.
You're mixing things up, BIGTIME.

Date: 2007/11/06 17:48:03, Link
Author: Assassinator
I still don't really fully understand you Martin. You're bassicly saying natural selection is pure bullcrap, but on what scientific base are you saying that? What's your scientific comment against all those countless numbers of experiments (I gave you one 1 or 2 pages ago, wich you completly ignored). You're bassicly whiping away the whole of genetics, now that's some serious stuff. So I'm asking again: on wich ground are you totally whiping away a major quantity of modern science, right into the dustbin. Our constant struggle to develop new antibiotics is actually proof for natural selection, to put in easy language: we pwn bacteria with antibiotics, then lots of bacteria die but not every single one of them because of certain biochemical properties because of certain genetic differences. They reproduce, and pwn our drugs. Then we develop new antibiotics to pwn those bacteria, but not every bacteria dies because of etc etc etc. And so the patern continue's. Now what's your scientific comment against all that? Are you saying we're making all those new antibiotics for nothing? What's actually happening then?

Date: 2007/11/06 17:51:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
Ok I admit it, I love seeing these guys lose..Over and over and over and over...

Lose?? By the looks of it, they're getting more support by the people though. We gave them space to do so because we're a bit in an ivory tower, evolution has a huge PR problem. I don't see it as funny, but rather a bit dangerous.

Date: 2007/11/07 03:11:12, Link
Author: Assassinator
Thank you Martin for again ignoring any substantial ontopic reaction and only reacting on a tiiiiny fragment of just 1 post that's nothing more then an ad hominem!

Date: 2007/11/07 08:29:04, Link
Author: Assassinator
Assassinator, this answer is not for you.  You have made up your

That's what you say, but it's simply not true. You should watch the movie 23 with Jim Carrey (he's playing a serious role in that movie) and see the rediculousness of your "patterns" in the Bible. I won't even begin about how many serious Biblical scholars would say your ideas are bullcrap. It has nothing to do with science, you're making your own answers. You're quoting one site, why would I trust them?

Date: 2007/11/07 09:10:03, Link
Author: Assassinator
Ya know FtK, you may rant about Louis, but you didn't react on the content of his post. Because i still wonder, is it true what he says, or is he simply lying? Can he look up comments from you, or won't he find any?

Date: 2007/11/07 09:20:55, Link
Author: Assassinator
Comments are fine FtK but stop making fun of yourself by actually backing up those comments with arguments and facts.

Date: 2007/11/07 09:22:04, Link
Author: Assassinator
Ofcourse i mean that you should stop making fun of yourself by NOT backing up those comments with arguments and facts. Silly me, it has been a hard and tirering day for me ;)

Date: 2007/11/07 09:28:19, Link
Author: Assassinator
Sorry, that's a lie. You've also got radial symmetry next to bilateral symmetry. It would be nice if you would actually know something about biology. Besides, the fact that those symmetry's exist doesn't say anything, that's been observed for ages. You're not saying anything with it, nor is your Bible quote.

Date: 2007/11/07 09:37:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection.

The resistance against antibiotics is as natural as it can be, we're not doing anything there. That would be pure bullcrap too, because that would mean we're destroying our own medical systems. Also the guppy experiment is not artificial selection, it's purely natural. I don't think you actually know what artificial selection is.
In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities.

Wrong Martin, you're only talking about 1 kind of natural selection. Next to stabilizing selection, you've also got disruptive and directional selection. It would be nice if you would actually know something about the subject.
Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality.

They're very weak you say, tell us why, explain it yourself.

And like Arden Chatfield asks time and time again, how are you explaining the variaty between living creatures then? Take for example the Dubuatia plants on the Hawaiian islands collectivly known as the "silversword alliance". How do you explain those huge external differences without natural selection?

Date: 2007/11/07 10:46:30, Link
Author: Assassinator
What do you call a fish without an "eye"?  
I don't know how to pronounce it but it's spelled Fsh.

Why was a mushroom the life of the party?  He was a fungi.

Haha, good one's. Mellow humor, gotta love it.
There are an infinite number of directions, parts of degrees, around
a point or circle.
There are an infinite number of axis and plains in a sphere.
Each plain inside a sphere forms a circle.
A sphere is the only thing in reality that appears the same shape
from any direction.  IMO, that's why we live on one.

It has to do with gravity, if you really want to know. That

Date: 2007/11/07 11:32:08, Link
Author: Assassinator
Yeap, and don't forget the fun with globes of water in zero G, it stays fun :P

Date: 2007/11/07 11:43:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
Nooo he didn't JohnW!!!
As a prolific singer, songwriter, bandleader, and record producer, Brown was a pivotal force in the evolution of gospel and rhythm and blues into soul and funk.

And we all know that doesn't exist! Damn you JohnW, you Stalanistic Satan-worshipper!!!

Date: 2007/11/07 12:53:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'de like to speak to God, and since he's God afterall it would be nice if he could place a post in this topic. Ya know just to varify things. Is communication that much to ask?

Date: 2007/11/07 13:31:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'll revert to
Thank you Martin for again ignoring any substantial ontopic reaction and only reacting on a tiiiiny fragment of just 1 post that's nothing more then an ad hominem!

again, thank you.

Date: 2007/11/07 14:08:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
Because in your opinion I don't know anything about natural selection there is obviously no need to discuss the issue with me. In your opinion I am wrong and I don't know anything about the subject of my own thread.

Why don't you show us that you DO know something about it then? Instead of avoiding the contents of my post, you can easely counter then if you would know so much about the subject.

Date: 2007/11/07 14:30:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Mimicry is a bad name for it imo. Because they're not really mimicking, they're just certain heritable colorpaterns wich were better suited then other paterns.

Date: 2007/11/08 08:13:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'll quote myself for the 2nd time Martin:
Thank you Martin for again ignoring any substantial ontopic reaction and only reacting on a tiiiiny fragment of just 1 post that's nothing more then an ad hominem!

Date: 2007/11/09 16:45:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well I'de like more reactions on Martin's examples too, instead of constantly repeating "Do you have something better?" (I sound like a traitor for some people now :P)

Date: 2007/11/09 18:09:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
I still wonder about one thing: what does the bird stomach research Marty quoted mean? What is the correct conclusion from it, based on what? (I'm here to learn remember)

Date: 2007/11/10 12:08:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
Got a little question :)
I look forwards to Behe attempting to defend all the various aspects of his "work" that have been demolished so far in reviews.

Can anyone post links to those reviews? (I already got the TolkOrigins link)

Date: 2007/11/10 16:39:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
These saltational events are too extensive to be random.

Wich "saltational" events? You mean like the Cambrian Explosion? That still took several millions of years, and that's one HELL of a long time.

Date: 2007/11/14 09:44:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
Can I view that show online? I don't think it's being broadcasted here in Holland and I'm dying to see it.

I HATE labs :P The dangerous stuff and all the safety crap make me icky ^^

Date: 2007/11/14 11:39:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
Thanks Louis :P Btw, pretty randomn sentences you know :D Mijn (Mein is German) geschlachtsorganen doet pijn." = My genitals hurt. And "Stoned als een garnaal" = Stoned like a schrimp. I live in the middle of Holland, in the south-western tip of a province called Gelderland.
And yea I hate labs, at least what I have to do in labs with my Bio-Informatics study. What do you have to do in labs then?

Can't wait for it to come online, it sure sounds hilarious :P

Date: 2007/11/16 07:31:03, Link
Author: Assassinator
Birds in free eat wasps as well as they eat flyies, beetles, catterpilars, fruits and grains. There is no reason to believe that wasps are somehow protected, because some armchair selectionist claims so.

Are you forgetting that not all birds are the same, and not all insects are equally spread throughout the world? The world is DIFFERENT remember, and so are bird-species and insect-species.

Date: 2007/11/16 08:33:30, Link
Author: Assassinator
Someone sad the show would be online on friday, is it there already and if so what's the site?

Date: 2007/11/18 06:59:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
Don't bother, he thinks he owns a blog here or something. Things like
Eve + 22 = God
Eve x 22 = God

simply do not make sense, it's bullcrap. I discuss with biblical scholars every day, they laugh at stuff like this.
There is no way you could engage in a meaningfull dialog with heroisreal, he doesn't even realise he doesn't make any sense.

Date: 2007/11/18 07:27:23, Link
Author: Assassinator
See what I mean BWE?

But ok, so this is your personal place to make yourself ridiculous, goodluck with it.

Date: 2007/11/23 16:46:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Have you got any idea how long those "explosions" took?
Furthermore, convergent evolution isn't a piece of evidence for directed evolution. It's simply an unsupported interpretation of it. I'll simply quote the Wiki about convergent evolution:
[quote]In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches[1]. It is the opposite of divergent evolution, where related species evolve different traits.[/

Date: 2007/11/23 16:59:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
Indeed, what's better: some protection, or no protection? Yes there is a bird family devoted to those nasty lil' stingers, but how big is the % of that family compared to all bird family's? Those bees still have that protective coloring, but that bird family simply doesn't fall for it. The rest still does, still shrinking the chance of getting eaten and increasing the chances of a population to reproduce better. Only a fraction of all animals alive today doesn't have natural enemies (except from it's own kind and us).

Date: 2007/11/23 17:04:54, Link
Author: Assassinator
See I'm not finding this erotic either.

Ya don't wanna know what kind of fetishes are around the world ;) I bet at least some people on this planet would get a hard one from those pictures, wich grosses me out.

Date: 2007/11/24 11:53:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
It ain't no happy accident! Natural selection and bio-chemistry aren't random. Besides, simple doesn't mean correct.

Date: 2007/11/25 15:13:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
Don't even bother responding, I really think he has some mental problems. I can't imagine that someone with a healthy mind can produce this kind off.....flapdoodle... There is no way you can engage in a real conversation with this guy.

Date: 2007/11/25 15:22:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
If you don't like evidence proving that wasps have many predators I can offer you another one

Everyone can see that Martin, we're not saying they don't. There is no perfect mimicry, but what's better: imperfect mimicry wich offers some protection against a certain number of predators or no mimicry wich offers no protection against at all. Besides, mimicry is just another form of camouflage.

Date: 2007/11/25 15:28:44, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I think you don't get it skeptic, they were engaged in something called a "humorous conversation", they were not serious. You just missed 2 times of sarcasme.

Date: 2007/11/26 13:22:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
Among unique sequence, most (70-90%). Among repeats, less, and I'd predict that the probability of transcription increases with proximity to genes for both repeats and nonrepeats.

At biology class we calculated that about 1.7% of the whole human genome is for coding. Is that correct?

Date: 2007/11/26 13:54:59, Link
Author: Assassinator
No hero light comes from lightsources like the sun or a lightbulb. Fotons react with the receptors in your eyes, that's how you see. The wavelenght determins the color.
(see what I mean Steve?)
And yes hero, things like
Eve + 22 = God
Eve x 22 = God

are indeed bullcrap.

Date: 2007/11/26 15:05:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
If you would actually KNOW what's being sad here, you would know you're talking out of your ass.
The question is still open though:
If natural selection does not explain mimicry, what does then? What's another viable, testable hypotheses?

Date: 2007/11/26 15:42:04, Link
Author: Assassinator
Do you REALLY think they were serious?

Date: 2007/11/26 15:44:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
A fresh start would be a good idea indeed, I'm waiting like a little boy who is waiting for Christmas :)

Date: 2007/11/29 17:16:56, Link
Author: Assassinator
I see everything as designed - even lightning.

And that Daniel, is your whole problem. It's something we called "biased" but not a bit, no you're severly biased because of your faith. This though, life, lightning, is all in the realm of reality. Your faith, you're own personal opinions do not matter there. Lightning doesn't give a damn about what you think, hell the whole universe doesn't give a damn about what you, me, Steve, Arden or anyone thinks! Science is nothing more then a tool to uncover that reality, to know about that reality. It has nothing to do with your emotions, with you as a person. Individuals do not matter in science, they do not matter in the process of uncovering reality.
In your first post in this topic you already admitted, wich was very good, that you're not a scientist and not schooled in this matter. But you are still thinking you can form a decent image about this subject, even though the little things you do know are self-taught and not even neccesarly true because you don't know if you have seen the whole picture.
You can only learn when you let go of that emotional bonding to your personal ideas and thoughts. Myself, I still hope that reïncarnation exists, but that personal thought is not blurring my vision on reality.

Date: 2007/11/29 17:18:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
I've asked a little question about that matter myself a while ago, it seems it isn't answerd yet :)
Anyway, a while ago we've calculated in life-science class that only about 1.7% of the whole human genome is for coding. I wonder if that is true.

Date: 2007/11/30 04:49:26, Link
Author: Assassinator
Assassinator, the sun and light bulb, IMO, fall
into the catagory of 'reality'.  I'm sure we both
can name some more.

You never remember, day dream, or night dream
in color?

Edit/ Do you ever remember running a red light
or seeing a rainbow?

Yea, I do, so what? Do you know how dreaming works? If not, don't say those things about them.
GD + 00 = GOOD

Even your meaningless "math"  fails. GD+ 00 = GD00

As Steve says, you're seeing things who aren't there. Just watch 23 with Jim Carrey.

Date: 2007/11/30 18:18:50, Link
Author: Assassinator
You can't compare biology with human technology in that way. There simply is no solide ground to support that comparison.
We can see and explain why kidney's are inefficient, and well badluck that we don't have the technology to increase that. That doesn't change anything to the fact that kidney's are inefficient. And don't forget, there is simply no way to test if life is designed. It's a worthless hypothesis because it's based on a flawd comparison between nature and man-made technology.

Date: 2007/12/01 16:32:09, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well there is a rift between orthodox religion and science. Religion once served as a method to explain the world around them. It's not that wierd that 2 millenia ago the most logical answer to lots of answers was a supreme being. People just couldn't imagine anything else. Only recently we're been exploring other options with reason and no longer with emotion. That way of thinking is pretty young, only about 2 century's. But the other way, the emotional or religious way is as old as mankind. No wonder there is conflict, the emotional way is totally baked into our society. People generally don't like change, don't like uncertanty's. Religious explanations offer security because they're so old and thus lots of people are emotionally bonded to those explanations.

Date: 2007/12/01 17:25:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
The opposite? How? Science is about learning, is about progress. It's just a tool to find out more about the world around us.

Date: 2007/12/02 09:24:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
To bad hero, your doing it in the wrong language. The Bible isn't in english, it's original language of the Old Testament was Hebrew and the New Testament was in Greek. Your patterns are flawd.

Date: 2007/12/02 11:15:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
English is my second language, no one is perfect.
Anyway, the English written Bible isn't the original Bible, it's not the language from the so-called "divine inspired" writers.
1,000 years = 365,000,000 years (one day)

And what about a Martian day then? Or a Plutonian day?

Date: 2007/12/02 17:52:34, Link
Author: Assassinator
Europian day then? Mercurian day? Or a day at Gliese 581 c perhaps?

Date: 2007/12/03 12:33:25, Link
Author: Assassinator
Why not just earth day?  That's closer to home.  I'm not in to astrology.

Because it's far from the only planet. Besides, even if you want to use an earthren day, do you want a day from 5 billion years ago? Or now? Or maybe just 500 million?
Anyway, you keep posting those mathy thingies, but still they don't make sense. It's simply not math, again you're seeing things that aren't there just as in the movie 23.

Date: 2007/12/03 15:42:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
What fascinates me about the way I seek answers?  I like to find
pieces of the puzzle that fit.

You've first made yourself a puzzle, and then went searching for the pieces. Seek and though shalt find.

No need to apologise, but I'll ask again: why aren't you just seeing what you want to see?

Date: 2007/12/04 14:18:20, Link
Author: Assassinator
My faith dictates that knowledge can come from God.

It's not about your faith, it's about the world outside your head. Your faith is about the same world you and I live in. Your form of "God" does not exist just because you beleive in it. If so, it has nothing to do with the reality outside your mind.

Date: 2007/12/04 14:36:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
Thanks for the correction Lou.
Anyway, can you explain that to us hero, what I and Steve sad.

Date: 2007/12/04 14:38:46, Link
Author: Assassinator
Huh? IDers/crea's are actually using the eugenics/moral "argument" against evolution sometimes but judging the start post of this topic they're actually linked sometimes with groups involved in eugenetics?? My my, talk about hypocrisy, that's almost an understatement.

Date: 2007/12/04 14:57:02, Link
Author: Assassinator
I've discussed with a lot of crea's, this is what usually happens when I'm starting to get to-the-point:

Noezz! Teh argumentz r hurting ma hed! Im out kthxbaibai. And then the PM's/posts stop.

Date: 2007/12/05 08:44:00, Link
Author: Assassinator
Oooo, all the crea's will get pwned now!
[b]Natural Selection, even in science![/quote]

Phear ma leet Paint skillzzz!

PS: This is my own cat, the photo is made a week ago. The backyard was one big feathercarpet :D

Date: 2007/12/06 14:35:41, Link
Author: Assassinator
Haha, there are more songs from MC Hawking. Gotta love Microsoft Sam ;) I wonder if anyone ever switched Microsoft Sam voice with Microsoft Sally while Mr Hawking was sleeping, that would be quite a suprise for him.

Date: 2007/12/06 14:43:49, Link
Author: Assassinator
Maybe the eeevil conspiracy that science is against them! I'm in a discussion at the minute, with a guy who blaims the scientific system for making the standards for empirical data/proof too high.
Damn you science, it's aaaaaall your fault!!

Date: 2007/12/06 16:07:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
You're ignoring the language question, I'm still eager to hear.

Date: 2007/12/07 03:50:19, Link
Author: Assassinator
Assassinator, there is no 'language question'.

I live in America and speak English.

There is. When the Bible was written, wich didn't even happen simultaniously, America didn't even exist. The language we're speaking right now didn't even exist. The Bible wasn't written in your language, it was in Hebrew, Greek and Araimac. The Bible your finding "patterns" in is nothing more then a (rough) translation.

Date: 2007/12/07 03:52:44, Link
Author: Assassinator
Heaven, the first thing God made, has never and will never move.
God has never raised or lowered the bar.
God has never changed directions.
God has never changed his plans.
God does not change, give up, or quit.
God has never changed the plan of salvation:

How incredibly cocky! You're speaking for God, who do you think you are?? He can speak for himself, you don't have to tell him what to do.

Date: 2007/12/07 09:10:49, Link
Author: Assassinator
If someone has faith in reason, they've missed the point.

Well, ofcourse you've got different grades of faith. Trust is also an example of faith. But the key difference is the foundation of that trust. For example scientists trust other scientists that they can do there work, but the foundations of that trust are the proof that those scientists can be trusted. Phd's, peer-reviewd work and things like that. That's the main difference with the faith in religion. It's, in a way, blind. It has no solid foundation.

Date: 2007/12/07 09:42:22, Link
Author: Assassinator
No, CM.  The problem seems to be certain anti-creationists who say they want creationists to engage them, but when it actually happens (they never expected that it would), then they suddenly decide it's not so great after all having their broken arguments refuted and they resort to all kinds of psychobabble such as the variety you engage in.

Gee, that's odd afdave. Every time I actually started a discussion with a creationist, it's the creationist who walked away and didn't respond to new posts and/or PM's.

Date: 2007/12/07 11:58:20, Link
Author: Assassinator
A gippy? Now how the f*** do black, skulls, 18th century style clothing (for the girls at least) combine with happiness, bright green, yellow, blue etc etc and flowers correspond to each other??
Besides, that Southpark kid isn't a goth, he's an emo.
Anyway, I "spin" so much different stuff it's almost schizofrenic. I like this, I'm the only one I know in real life who actually listens this and this wich is pretty normal for my age but this ain't and also this ain't considerd normal for my age too.
And well, that's only a start ;)
In total it would be, well the main genres: taiko, hardstyle, classical, trance/dance, jazz, metal and hardrock, disco (yea that 70's stuff) and much much more.
Now don't tell me this ain't original for 17 year old! Only possible because of the internetzzz ofcourse, huzzah for Limewire.

Date: 2007/12/07 14:22:20, Link
Author: Assassinator
I still find it very odd that they keep screaming out those obvious cliché things. It keeps going on and on and on and on. Irritating.

Date: 2007/12/08 10:41:08, Link
Author: Assassinator
The point is whether or not knowledge can come from sources other than human reason.

Depends on what knowledge you want to have.
Taking this back to God.  I accept what God says because he's God and that's a reasoned (not rational) decision.

And who says he's actually saying that? And who says he's still saying that now? It's like something from a Dutch comedian (wroughly translated): So how do you know that God exists? Well the Bible says that. But how do you know that what the Bible says is right? Well the Bible says that.
What's sad in the Bible, is sad by humans. Who says God has ever spoken? People who hear voices in there head nowadays are called schizofrenics, why would the old prophets be different? And also, who says that who claims to be God, is actually God? Why would I trust such a voice?
O and about Buddha, he actually has nothing to do with God, yes nature gods are in most buddhist teachings (the original nature religions mixed with buddhism, as also happend with christianity or the islam at some places) but the original teachings only involved life after death.
Blondes are more beautiful,
Brunettes are hotter.

There, now that we've settled that.

Tsk tsk tsk, you're totally forgetting Asians wich are generally more cute ;)

Date: 2007/12/08 11:59:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
As the description says, I've engaged in another evo discussion recently. The guy isn't a real ID-ist, but rather someone who symphatises with them. It all started pretty cliché, that nature looks o so much like machines, that design is such a logical thing and that it is science etc etc. I explained to him why ID was not science, why his analogy with machines, nano-technology and stuff like that was flawd and couldn't be used as an argument. In other discussions I had with people like him, usually real ID-ists, they usually repeated themselfs, walked away or changed the subject to something completly different. But this guy did something I haven't seen before, he actually accepted my explanation and saw the logic in it. But ofcourse, since he sympathises with ID he sad that logic would also apply on ND/evo wich would let nothing standing of ND/evo, just like with ID. Bassicly I used the explanations from this link.
Anyway, this is a rough translation of what he sad:
By means of the same reasoning, as it happens, also nothing of ND/Evo, anyway no science, remains.

An example, there is there more, to make this point clear.

Common descent: Resemblance between DNA are no proof for affinity. One can possibly postulate it to be an indication for affinity but it proves on itself no affinity. Yes, individuals who are related to each other show lots of resemblance, but that you can't turn that around as if all resemblances in DNA automaticly implicate affinity. All cows are animals, but not all animals are cows.

Notice that cladistics, strictly speaking, measures no affinity but resemblance. Affinity is an unfounded diversion from these resemblances.

I used, but tweaked a bit on the outcome (at least it's better then Babelfish). And if anyone here is able to speak Dutch too, then check the Dutch Science-Forum for the original text from the user named qrnlk (I'm also Assassinator there, it's a tradition ;)). I hope the translation makes things clear enough.
I'm a bit stuck on factual arguments, and not yet deep enough in the whole spiel of evo (next semester I will get deeper in it, we'll be making a phylogenetic tree for example) so I'm asking some people here for some help on the arguments, since the topic on that forum is leaving the logical part and it's entering the factual part of the subject.
Maybe some more questions will come, I can't predict how he will react. At least thanks in advance.

Date: 2007/12/08 15:55:33, Link
Author: Assassinator
Slap me and call me a donkey, but I alwayse thought evidence and proof were 2 synonyms. Before I want to use that in that discussion, can you explain a bit more about the difference between those 2?
(It's almost astonishing how much you can learn on the internet ;))

Date: 2007/12/08 16:09:28, Link
Author: Assassinator
Ofcourse, that I haven't thought of that. And now to correctly translate that too Dutch :P
Anyway, so far for the starter. I predict he will say it isn't evidence either, for some random reason. I've looked around, but can't find proper links about it (e.a why it is evidence for common descent).

Date: 2007/12/09 07:11:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
A, I remember that link, bad thing is that he countered that with this link. To bad I was never able to find a critique on that.

Date: 2007/12/09 09:04:34, Link
Author: Assassinator
That's why I came here for help, to understand arguments he brings better ;) Just here to learn.
I'm alright with the logical part, but still not that at home on the factual part. I'm to learn about those flaws.

Date: 2007/12/09 10:02:35, Link
Author: Assassinator
I overlooked the obvious. Well thanks for that, I've got some reading now ;) That guy isn't alwayse an honest discusser, he almost refuted to accept arguments from TalkOrigins because he says they're produced by atheïstic madmen. Ridiculous ad hominem ofcourse.

Date: 2007/12/09 16:18:15, Link
Author: Assassinator
I won't call it perfection, but it's pretty damn wierd that designer would constantly re-design his original, constantly adding new stuff or removing stuff and still certain things won't work as good as they can work. Can't he make up his mind? Ofcourse, we humans do that, but the difference is that we discover new materials, new methodes, new manufacturing methodes. Is that evident in nature too?

Date: 2007/12/10 07:01:47, Link
Author: Assassinator
And don't forget it's re-designed a gazzilion times, seems the designer can't make up his mind.

Date: 2007/12/15 14:32:57, Link
Author: Assassinator
Now you're just lying.  I can look at virtually any biological system and immediately see its elegance and sophistication of design.

That's an emotional opinion not backed up by anything else then your opinion and emotions. It's not a scientific conclusion, you're not even really educated on these parts.
See this one for this argument:
Design is self-evident. You just need to open your eyes and see it.

Date: 2007/12/18 03:46:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
Are you admitting life shows the appearance of design?

The fact that life looks designed in your eyes has nothing to do with science and it's also 0.00 evidence for design. You're overrating your own emotional opinion.
But I already believe in God.

Wich is the main problem, you're so emotionally attached to your beleifs that you're only looking for things wich confirm your own beleifs.

Date: 2007/12/18 13:32:24, Link
Author: Assassinator
Fair point Ichy. How would you suggest going about that? I wouldn't know where to start.

The bad things missionairy's did in South-America, Africa, and well all around the globe (and not only from 1 religion, or a religion at all, communism falls under that too imo)?

Date: 2007/12/18 13:54:47, Link
Author: Assassinator
Fascinating indeed, reminds me a bit of endosymbiosis but then mixed with insertions. I'll read it more thoroughly when I've got the time, busy with school atm and I've also got World of Warcraft to attend to. Ooo what a busy life :p

Date: 2007/12/21 10:09:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
Meeh that was obvious for a loooooooong time :P
“from the creation of the world to the healing power of prayer . . . on a search for the truth.”

Looking at the above, I wonder if you could sue them for quackery.

Date: 2007/12/21 18:24:58, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (wonkuoynahtevoleromdeeni @ Dec. 21 2007 @ 18:17)
Being a biotechnology student, I have to sit in whole class periods about evolution and other things I don't believe in.

I don't get it. Why do people keep thinking that what they beleive about the world (and I mean literal, non-personal matters like the origin of life or this universe) matters a damned thing. The universe does not care about what you beleive, evolution isn't suddenly bullcrap just because you don't beleive in it. You've got no influence on that, reality does not work that way. Also, I wonder about how educated you are about evolution and subjects surrounding that. I noticed in high school that teaching about evolution was poor, very poor. Not that they were against it, they just simplified it soooo much that loads of important nuances were swepped away wich can easly lead to lots of missconceptions about evolution. A shame really, science should work more closely with school imo, at least here in Holland.
Now I know I'm only 16 and I'm probably way younger than anyone else but I have good perception and I'm intelligent.

I thought the same when I was 16, e.a a year ago. Lots of people, not only on this forum, waked me up from that thought. It's easy to say from yourself that you've got a good perception.
And ofcourse, like the rest sad, this forum isn't about Iraq. It's about evolution, and more important about the people who oppose evolution, there idea's, methodes, "theory's" etc etc.
the things we teach our children in schools.

You don't wanna know how many people want to see stuff like he wrote in schools.

Date: 2007/12/22 13:11:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Very good innitiative, however I still wonder how good the rice gets delivered at the right people knowing that Africa is as corrupt as the White House. I also wonder how many kilo's/pounds 11 billion grains are. Anyway, I'll be doing the quiz too :)

Date: 2007/12/22 18:13:30, Link
Author: Assassinator
I only want this really:

Even though I'm legal to drink and most of my mates, wich are my age, like to indulge themselfs sometimes in alcohol I never do that. Just gimme some good ol' Lipton Ice, lemon ofcourse :D

Date: 2007/12/22 18:18:05, Link
Author: Assassinator
Now you want me to critique such a system?  It's way over my head.

But then again I have no idea what God was thinking when he designed start and stop codons.

The fact that there even are such things; and that they stop and start the encoding of amino acids; which then somehow "know" to join together and fold into proteins; which then "know" exactly where to go and what to do when they get there, is mind-boggling enough.

Get yourself into bio-chemistry. You're really making yourself to important to yourself. And also, but this is a common thing wich happens, is that you're looking wáy to much from a human perspective.

Date: 2007/12/22 18:29:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
They just act, it happens, that it's. That happening is an action, and is also a reaction from an action that caused that happening. Again, you're think too much in human terms. Trying to fit the normal human perspective onto non-human things.

Date: 2007/12/22 18:54:23, Link
Author: Assassinator
No, what I'm saying is that it boggles the mind that exactly the right chemical reactions occur at exactly the right time and exactly the right place.

Biochemistry is not chance, so the word "exactly" does not mean anything. It happens, that's it, that's just what it does. Nothing more, just happening.
Oh, and are you seriously saying that only stupid people think there isn't more to life than what we can see? Chemical reactions and such like?

Yeap, that's earthern life: chemistry. Bad thing is, we don't know what the exact circumstances were when life first arouse on earth, so we can't.

Date: 2007/12/23 07:55:55, Link
Author: Assassinator
The question is:  How did we get from "chemicals" to "living, breathing organisms" - if not by chance?

By certain chemical mechanisms. Another bad misconception about the origin of life, is that lots of people think that abiogenesis says that life spontaniously arised. That's a huge mistake, abiogenesis isn't letting out external sources.

Date: 2007/12/24 14:18:30, Link
Author: Assassinator
Merry Xmas to all guys, may your scientific adventures in 2008 be fruitfull!

And yea, Ftk does deserve another chance, doesn't she :)

Date: 2007/12/24 18:10:15, Link
Author: Assassinator
To cut to the chase- are you an atheist because you believe that no gods exist, or because you have not come across any evidence to make you believe in a deity?

I thought that was the difference between agnostism and atheïsm. If your an agnostic, you're not saying anything about the existance of a deity because there isn't any evidence pointing towards both options. And if you're an atheïst, you beleive that deity's don't exist. I alwayse thought that was the difference.

Date: 2007/12/26 11:11:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
Daniel, I'll repeat Erasmus:
Ecology.  Look it up. There is a precedent.

Date: 2007/12/26 16:36:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
Meeh he just says darwinismus can't explain balls, well here Marty. Too bad you have to purchase the full article, but it's a start.

Date: 2007/12/26 18:33:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
I say that that organization cannot be explained via natural causes and therefore requires design.  But that's just me.

I don't just want to know your explanation, I also want to know why you think that and wich knowledge (or lack of it) caused you to think that. Because I wonder how you can know such a thing.

Date: 2007/12/26 18:57:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
"That's the way it is."; or "It just happened"; are no explanations at all.

As Erasmus sad: read up on molecular biology and biochemistry. Besides, is that any different from "It just got designed.", now what does that explain?
This is what frustrates me:  In spite of all the smug answers - no one can explain to me how even the simplest living systems originated via natural causes.  At some point, when no natural explanation is forthcoming, you have to begin looking outside nature for an explanation.

Gee, maybe that is because we don't know what the simplest living systems were. Life is natural, why the hell should we go looking for an explanation outside nature just because you're tired of looking.

Date: 2007/12/27 05:40:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
I don't have to purchase it. It is full of darwinian nonsenses as well as doctor Myers' article is.

You know how we call that Martin? We call that biased.
As Hawk says, birds are far different from mammals. Where did you get schooled in biology again Martin?

PS: Hawk, a PS2 is outdated, we all demand a PS3 now :p

Date: 2007/12/27 05:51:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
You're a product of your envoirment skeptic. It's not suprising that you find everything else a confirmation of your beleive. That beleive is imbedded in your mind, in your personality. It's nothing wierd that you fit new things into the image of the world you had already. This may be the same if you're raised with the beleive a god does not exist. Myself, I haven't been raised with a god at all. I don't even know if my parents beleive in a god or not. I have been in contact with religion though, my grandma is a christian and I went to a youth-church from evangelicals just because it was fun (I had a good time there, very interesting). I don't beleive in a god though, but neither do I beleive that a god does not exist.

Date: 2007/12/27 10:06:59, Link
Author: Assassinator
I never claimed it was a fact, I just responded to you saying "darwinismus" can't come up with an explanation: you were wrong, they're working on it.
(at least according the article you have sent but didn't bothered to read)

How the hell can you say that when you haven't read it? Do you know how we call that? It's called biased.
Did you know that retina must be also cooled in order to work properly? Yet I have never heard about external eyes or "descent of retina" from the eye sockets.

Here some information about the evolution of retinal structures
Not that I think you will read any of of, nor understand any of it.

And the question is still open, where did you study biology? Or are you studying it at the minute?

Date: 2007/12/27 10:10:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 25 2007,09:10)
YEA, SAL!!!!  Congrats on the "A"!!!!

Keep up the good work...

Do I notice a bit of sarcasme in that? Or is it just my mind playing tricks on me?

Date: 2007/12/27 15:20:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'll ask again Martin: where did you have your biology education? Where did you get educated in the evolutional theory and Darwinism? Where did you get science training?

Date: 2007/12/28 05:33:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
Did you notice that it's just ONE article (wich I quikly looked up just to give an example to you) from an entire research topic? Just one? How do you know there isn't more hmm? You know how we call that, that's called biased.

Date: 2007/12/28 07:16:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
In fact I suppose there is no more of them.

And how, Martin, on EARTH do you know that?

Date: 2007/12/28 07:47:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
On a totally different topic, does anyone else think that skeptic, when presented by, well, anything, plays an intricate game of mental tetris to assimilate the information without letting himself be wrong?

I think that's completly natural, and that lots of people do that without noticing. The amount of how much they do that differs a lot.

Date: 2007/12/28 08:28:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
It's good that you do, but
Of course, it’s obviously easier to focus on horse fucking than the real point, unfortunately.

the whole point, even with a better example, is bullshit.

Date: 2007/12/28 08:37:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
Really, it isn't. Darwinism is, like the whole of science, just describing something. Explaining the works of something, nothing more. If people are using it for more, for example moral things, they're wrong. Using it for something like that says nothing about Darwinism, it says something about the person. You and Sal may find these things worying, but it's far from because it's not what Darwinism is all about. It just shows that you and Sal don't understand science, nor Darwinism. And it's the same with people who use Darwinism for such purpouses.

Date: 2007/12/28 17:29:57, Link
Author: Assassinator
As for the rest of your immediate post as well as Dave's, I have more to respond to, but don't have time now.

I'll be looking forward to that Ftk.

Date: 2007/12/28 17:37:26, Link
Author: Assassinator
This, from the Scientific American about relgious feelings, may be interesting to read in connection with this topic for skeptic but actually everyone.

Date: 2007/12/29 04:48:49, Link
Author: Assassinator
the burden of proof does not lie on the theist

It does Skeptic, because they're making the claim.

Funny thing is, we're just talking about 1 single image of God, just skeptic's one. There are billions of idea's about what God is. "God", as a word, is meaningless unless a person gives meaning to that word. We don't know what meaning Skeptic gave to the word "God". But he has to take 1 thing in notion: he's just 1 single person, out of 6 billion. He's just 1 of the billions of idea's about what God is, that puts things in perspective. Because out of all those billions of people why would YOU Skeptic be right. Is it the Bible? Well, loads of people also use the Bible for that, but you don't want to know what they think (for example, the Westboro Baptist Church, scary people). Why aren't they right?

Date: 2007/12/29 04:56:34, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 28 2007,17:47)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,17:29)
As for the rest of your immediate post as well as Dave's, I have more to respond to, but don't have time now.

I'll be looking forward to that Ftk.


To rip it apart???

I'd *very much* like to reply to a couple comments here, and I'd certainly like to address Bill's issues with Sal's post, but I believe I'm only making matters worse with every word I write.   Sal and other ID advocates have warned me that I am completely wasting my time carrying on dialogue in places like this.

So, tell me...

It posting here a complete waste of time?  Is there anything...anything at all that I could say that would make any difference in regard to the issues in this debate whatsoever?

No, I just want to see your foundations about why you have those odd views about Darwinism (I mean the moral part, social-darwinism etc). I want to know what's troubling you and I'de like to confirm (or the opposite ofcourse) if you indeed have a twisted view of Darwinism/evolution.
We just say you're worrying yourself for nothing, that there is nothing to worry about. Bassicly, we're just trying to calm you :p

What's your education  in science Ftk, what's your education in biology, antropology and all other topics linked to evolution? Where did you get your current information about evolution and Darwinism?
We're just trying to explain something, we're not telling the "truth" or something. That's what science is about: explaining things.

Date: 2007/12/29 14:42:09, Link
Author: Assassinator
Correction: he's obsessed with certain things he calls science.
Besides, the fact that he's obsessed doesn't say he's right. Hell, Behe gives good biochemistry classes (or so I've heard) but he still talks bullcrap about ID.

I wonder, why do you defend Sal? Do you understand our arguments why he's talking out of his ass? What's your reaction to those arguments?

Date: 2007/12/29 15:48:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
The only thing conclusion you can come to when the theist fails to present evidence for the existence of God is that the theist has failed to provide evidence for the existence of God.  The mistake is made by making the next step and saying therefore God does not exist.  There's the positive claim.  Imagine me asking a 12 year old to provide me evidence for the existence of an electron and then when he fails to do so I falsely claim that electrons do not exist.  Again, the only rational conclusion is no conclusion at all.

The evidence is only about a certain image of God. It's not againts all images of God, only against one or a couple. It's a mistake to say all images of God won't exist, it ain't however to say that certain images of God won't exist.

Just to make things easier, in what image of God do you beleive Skeptic?

Is the possibility of one god the same as the possibility of 2 gods?  7?  31?...

At this point, even a billion, a whole species of gods. The possibility is just as great for all options, since we have 0 evidence for either of them.

Date: 2007/12/29 16:09:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
To bad my questions considerings Sal's arguments are lost. I still wonder a lot about you Ftk.

Date: 2007/12/29 16:18:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,16:10)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 29 2007,16:09)
To bad my questions considerings Sal's arguments are lost. I still wonder a lot about you Ftk.

sigh...what questions.  Go get them, and I'll give it a shot.

I wonder, why do you defend Sal? Do you understand our arguments why he's talking out of his ass? What's your reaction to those arguments?

Really, I wonder about it. You sad before you're worried about the moral implications from Darwinism and evolution.

Date: 2007/12/29 17:52:22, Link
Author: Assassinator
There's nothing very specific there to answer, so I‘ll just address a few things quickly.   As I said, I thought Sal was pretty much acting like the rest of you when you over exagerate many issues in this debate.  Obviously, a Darwinist isn't going wake up each morning longing to fuck a horse rather than his wife.  It seemed obvious (to me) that he was going the route of moral relativism and that is what I addressed in my post at YC.  So, I’m not sure what further questions you have in that regard.

I'de like to see a link to that post, if you don't mind. Because I don't see what Darwinism has to do with morality. It's science, science only describes things. Ofcourse, lots here just made fun of that analogy. We all know he wants to adress something else.

Date: 2007/12/29 18:04:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
Assassinator, I have to answer that question two ways.  As a matter of rational inquiry I accept God as First Cause and as a matter of belief I'm a Christian.  I can make reasoned arguments concerning God as First Cause but as far as a Christian God I can only fall back on faith and personal spiritual experience which really holds no relevance beyond myself.

If your God is the first cause, it also exists for me. The universe you live in, is the same as where I live in. It does not matter what you beleive, it doesn't matter anything. God as First Cause is either true, or it is false. Your beleives aren't changing anything to that.
You may also rationally accept that God is the first cause, but that does not mean you're right. It's an option, yes, but so far nothing is pointing that way. It's not rational to accept God as the first cause if zit is pointing to that. You don't want to know how many creation stories there are around the world, all with zit zero evidence. Why are you right then, and why are they wrong?

Can also explain why existance itself is a rational argument for the existance of God. Who is this God person anyway? What IS God? You may say there is one, but who says that's actually true?

Date: 2007/12/29 18:11:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
This is what it is all about for me:
But, if atheists are honest, they have to admit that from a Darwinian stand point, almost any form of what many of us consider perverse could very well be acceptable for some and perhaps for all in the future.

Darwinism has nothing to do with morality. Science is, as I sad before, describing things how they are. Not like morality, who says how things should be. See that crucial difference?

Date: 2007/12/30 05:38:28, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,18:21)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 29 2007,18:11)
This is what it is all about for me:
But, if atheists are honest, they have to admit that from a Darwinian stand point, almost any form of what many of us consider perverse could very well be acceptable for some and perhaps for all in the future.

Darwinism has nothing to do with morality. Science is, as I sad before, describing things how they are. Not like morality, who says how things should be. See that crucial difference?

Okay.  So, when discussing morality with an atheist, how would one go about starting that conversation?

Atheism has nothing to do with Darwinism in the first place. Really. An atheist has certain moral beleives too, just ask them about it and there arguments for them.
And don't forget that "THE atheist" does not exist, that's generalisation. Same as THE Christian doesn't exist, take for example the Westboro Baptist Church. They're Christian, oooo yes, but do they have the same moral system as you Ftk even though you're a Christian too? I don't hope so ;)
And yes, like carlsonjok sad, at the time you asked where I was, I was asleep (but I'm 17, not 16 :p)

Date: 2007/12/30 05:48:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,19:11)
The argument goes that because the Universe exists and it is a universe of cause and effect and it is a finite Universe then there must have been a First Cause.  We may descend into semantics as to whether or not it is right to call this First Cause God but I'll bypass that for now.  Mind you this is not the God of the Bible or any other specific deity that mankind attempts to know but it lays the foundation, if that makes any sense.

You're right, if God is the First Cause then he exists for both of us regardless of what we believe and the converse is true that if no God exists then no God exists for us all.  Having no way to actually access this knowledge forces us to rely on belief and that is neither right or wrong for anyone but the individual.

I can see the logic in that, I understand why you think that. From a human point of view, it's very logical that there has to be a first cause (why would you call it God though, because what does "God" mean in that context?) because we're not used to something else. But what says there has to be a first cause? And also, like UnMark says, we don't even know if the universe is finite. Problem is, we can only comprehend things in a certain frame (like that we're used to cause and effect), fat chance the whole universe is not in that frame.
There are also soooooo many other creation story's and gods. Why would you rationally beleive in only 1 of those, since they're all equal on the evidence ground, namely zero evidence.

Date: 2007/12/30 08:36:22, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,08:00)
From that context God is simply that which created or set the Universe in motion.  From there you start to infer things about God like if it started the Universe it was not a product of the Universe and therefore outside of time and space and etc and so forth.  Also, from this starting point you can end up with many different creation stories which is why I say that everything after this is arbitrary.  That's when it comes down to personal experience, faith, emotion, spiritual experience, etc.

Now from a rational standpoint you can only believe one of them or maybe view them all as parts of the same elephant but what you choose is an individual choice and not based on reason at all.  Maybe some theists don't realize this but it is unavoidable.

But what do you mean with God then? Simply the start of the universe? Nothing more? What's rational about beleiving that, and what's rational about beleiving 1 option without any supporting evidence? Is beleiving itself rational?

Date: 2007/12/30 12:09:33, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,09:17)
not exactly, God as the start of the Universe is the only rational conclusion with the only piece of evidence being existence itself.  Certainly there's very little utility in that from a religious standpoint but all the rest is man's attempt to understand God in a personal sense.  Believing in a personal God is not rational but it could be argued that believing in a First Cause is.  

I'm not sure if I'm doing a good job of differentiating between the rational and irrational,let me know.

I really don't see the logic in that. We exist, yes (even that isn't 100% sure, who says we're not in a buffed up version of The Sims?), but what does that have to do with your image of the word God? Why do you think that existance is a piece of evidence for the existance of a God as First Cause? You make it sound if we can't exist without God as First Cause, how can you argument for that and thus be reasonable?
I see no reason not to believe in God

And why is that? What about AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the other gods in the world? Why don't you beleive in them?

Bottemline is, you've grown up with your religion, it's embedded in you and part of your personality.

Date: 2007/12/30 15:37:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
Aside from the executions, the jails filled; orphans proliferated; farms fell to ruin, all because people had good intentions about leading a village "back to God."

I've heard it lots of times, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Date: 2007/12/30 17:00:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'm studying Bio-Informatics at the minute, and we're using the international edition from Campbell's Biology Seventh Edition (we in Holland can't use the US/Canada version for some reason, or was it the other way around?). I think the US and Canada edition is this one. I don't know if it's the best one out there, but I can say that I'm enjoying the international edition a lot and I don't think the 2 versions are much different ;) I also suggest you try it out yourself first, it's not cheap however (122 bucks thank you very much) but if it's about education I think it's worth it ;)
Goodluck with your search!

Date: 2007/12/31 08:17:32, Link
Author: Assassinator
O you funny funny guy :p

Date: 2007/12/31 08:27:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
We're simply working out semantics here.  "Darwinism" (molecule to man - naturalist view of life) really has everything to do with morality.  "Morality evolved in tandem with intelligence".  

That is why IDists always harp on moral Darwinism.  Morals are obviously connected to and the result of evolution.  If you are an atheist, that is the end of the story.  That also means that moral absolutes don't exist.  They simply can't because there is no ultimate law giver and life continues to evolve.  

So, evolution establishes morality = moral Darwinism.

That was one of the points I wanted to make for Assassinator.   (I keep wanted to shorten your name, but I know that would pose a problem.;)  )

I'm sorry Ftk, but you missunderstead my post. Darwinism is describing morality, it is not dictating morality. That's what I ment with "Darwinism has nothing to do with morality" because it's only describing something, nothing more. Do you see and understand that difference?
(PS: My nickname-nickame is usually Assi, but yea I see what the problem is ;))
Carlson, OM makes it impossible to carry on any kind of conversation whatsoever because he is only interested in tearing creationists apart...nothing else.

I've been following his reactions to you, and your reactions to him. I have to admit, that you're really not answering him. Then he repeats himself, he starts making remarks wich is definatly not helping to get an answer from you. It's a vicious circle, someone has to step out of it (either OM stops with the remarks, or you Ftk just answer his questions without paying attention to the remarks, you're a grown up right?)

Date: 2007/12/31 08:48:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well I can't imagine that he's offering that seriously, because the title says enough:
Philosophy/Liberal Studies 333: Evolution and Creation

And yea, i'm 6-4. It's cold up here.

Date: 2008/01/01 13:24:23, Link
Author: Assassinator
I don't want to rush things Ftk, but I haven't read an reaction on my previous post concering morality.
Anyway, it may be helpfull to address what you understand from evolution, so not what you think about it but what you understand from it.
O and happy New Year all, you to Ftk :)

Date: 2008/01/02 06:16:25, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,00:25)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop right here. Your "29 lame" links to Theobald's 29 evidences of common descent, with the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that Theobald's points have been refuted. Have they? If so, please provide a link.


Also read this book.

At least stay consistant Ftk, and read Theobald's response to both his critique's:

I'll repeat myself Ftk, I don't want to rush things but so far you've ignored my respons to you concerning morality in Darwinism.
Also, where did you learn about evolution Ftk? How well do you understand it (and thus what is the base for your vision concerning evolution)?

Date: 2008/01/02 12:16:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
You REALLY do miss the point now don't you?

Date: 2008/01/02 13:37:35, Link
Author: Assassinator
My children don't have blogs, and they don't have any want to force their beliefs on others.

And what about there own children then? How is that moral?

Aside from the other morality and general questions (I'm waiting with patience ;)), I wonder why you support Sal.

Date: 2008/01/02 13:43:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
We've explained why he doesn't have a good/decent point, he has nothing (except a physics degree). Really, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, we only care about the lousy point he's making. And it is lousy. I've explained why before.
I don't force my views on my children any more than an parent on this earth does.

Wich is the main problem. Lots of parents raise there children with there own religion, as if the kids were also christians/jews/hindu's/hippies/communists/whatever. They think it's the best, they have good intentions, but there denying there kids the right to become individuals. They don't have a free choice now. I think I do, because I really don't have a clue what my parents beleive or think about shitloads of things.

Date: 2008/01/02 14:10:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,13:59)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,13:43)
We've explained why he doesn't have a good/decent point, he has nothing (except a physics degree). Really, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, we only care about the lousy point he's making. And it is lousy. I've explained why before.
I don't force my views on my children any more than an parent on this earth does.

Wich is the main problem. Lots of parents raise there children with there own religion, as if the kids were also christians/jews/hindu's/hippies/communists/whatever. They think it's the best, they have good intentions, but there denying there kids the right to become individuals. They don't have a free choice now. I think I do, because I really don't have a clue what my parents beleive or think about shitloads of things.

If you think you're parents have not influenced you on matter of religion and other issues, then you're pretty naive.  A lack of involvement and education on the subject of religion can also be of influence to a child.

O I was involved, my grandma is christian and I went to an evangelical youthclub all by myself (it was fun). My parents had nothing to do with it, I really don't know what my parents think of religion and what they beleive themselfs.

Date: 2008/01/02 14:18:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start.
Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.

Date: 2008/01/02 14:29:46, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:19)
I really don't know what my parents think of religion and what they beleive themselfs.

Honey, the fact that they never discussed the issue of religion with you is influential in and of itself.  Parents make a point of talking with their children about things they hold dear or that they think are important.  The fact that you've never heard word one from them about religious matters tells you that it's simply not important to them.  That is influential to a child.

Not just words, nothing. No hints, nothing. I really don't know what they think is imporant, I don't know what they hold dear. It's odd I know.

Date: 2008/01/02 14:45:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,14:26)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 02 2008,14:18)
If the animal finds no trouble in it: what's the matter? Hell, dogs sometimes start humping people out of themselfs, they start.
Why would I condemn such an act, if no one is getting hurt.

Exactly...why condemn it?  That's the point.  Sex in any fashion is okay just as long as the other person, animal, brother, sister, child, or adult is okay with it.  In fact, there is really no need for marriage either.  Kids don't need the influence of both a father and a mother.  We already know they get along fine with 2 mother's or 2 father's or a single of each.  

So, let's set up a huge orgy tonight and have a ball!!  I can't imagine it would hurt any of us (unless Rich gets out the whips).


Then ask me, why the hell should you condemn someone who has sex with a horse (who doesn't even notice such a small human penis, compared to what a horse has) if the horse isn't troubled and if the human isn't troubled. Yes it's biological odd, I even think the brains of people who do that are damaged (afterall, it has no function or use whatsoever, it can be dangerous!) and I actually think the same about homosexuality (thus a little misswiring) but why the hell should I condemn it if 2 men are happy toghether even though it's biological odd.
Besides, are you saying someone can't be brought up by a homo-couple?

Date: 2008/01/02 17:15:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
Too bad I haven't seen a reaction from Ftk yet on my posts concering morality and Darwinism, wich is also concering the zoophilia part.

Date: 2008/01/02 18:17:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
Ftk, fact is, you're lacking a LOT of knowledge the evolutional theory and Darwinism. Really, a lot, even some mucho importanté basics (like the morality thing). How can we properly discuss this with you then?

Date: 2008/01/03 06:40:49, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,22:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 02 2008,21:45)
Jesus, Lady (Jesus-Lady), you are a freak.  


It has nothing to do with it.  it is simple.  You know this, and that makes you a liar.  And a stupid one too, because you can't even keep a straight face while you do it.


From an atheist's stance, evolution certainly does affect morality and how we "fuck".  We evolved from the animal world and morals and "fucking" evolved along with it.  

How dense can you be?  There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".

My GOD Ftk!!! I explained multiple times why that is bullshit, but you simply ignore it. How dense can you be?? Darwinism is science, and science describes phenomenon like morality, it does NOT dictate morality.
I'll repeat myself again, how the hell can we discuss this with you if you miss vital parts of knowledge about evolution, Darwinism and science itself??

Date: 2008/01/03 07:14:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.

Ooo now I really feel insulted :p

Date: 2008/01/03 10:14:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
No, I believe they were engraved with a moral compass.  They could certainly be living immorally, and IMHO, their lives would be enhanced by living according to biblical guidelines.  That is why there are missionaries thoroughout the world.

You do know that missionaries f*cked up every single thing they touched? Missionaries are one of the most revolting groups of people in the world. Do you know perhaps about the ethical politics from Holland in there Indonesian colonies back in the mid-20th century? That's a nice example.
But why would the biblical guidelines be better? At least the OT promotes incest (afterall, how the hell do you make a world population from 6 billion from 2 in just 6000 years?), killing other people is promoted, lots of immoral things are promoted. Are there good things in the bible? Yes, ofcourse. Love thy enemy, love thy neighbore. Nothing bad about that. The thing is, why do I need the bible for that? I can make up those things with simple logic.

Date: 2008/01/03 10:42:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
But, Ftk, do you now understand why Sal's point about morality is complete and utter bullshit? Since we've explained a couple of times now.

Date: 2008/01/03 10:53:05, Link
Author: Assassinator
You're missing the point, we do not care about the words he chose, nor about his humor. We only care about his ridiculous point, and do you understand why that point is bullshit? I think we've explained why enough times.
Edit: You were slightly faster. I'll refer, again because you haven't reacted on it yet, to this.

Date: 2008/01/03 14:17:19, Link
Author: Assassinator
Do you know why constant jokes are made? Do you know why people like Sal are ridiculed?

Date: 2008/01/03 14:25:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
You know what she says with that? She says that she understands why people do it. She can understand there feelings, have emphasis for them. She can place herself, at least for a bit, in those people's shoes.

Date: 2008/01/03 14:32:15, Link
Author: Assassinator
Have you got ANY IDEA why Sal is getting ridiculed?? We've explained dozens of time's to you WHY he's talking complete bullcrap. And apperantly it won't come through to you, or you're simply ignoring it for some reason. We don't care about Sal himself, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, just about his point.

Date: 2008/01/03 14:36:54, Link
Author: Assassinator
If Sal or I had said that, you people who have gone stark raving mad.  The blogophere would have lit up like the 4th of July.

O really? And what do you have to proove that? What's the base of that assumption? Why are you biased like that?
AGAIN: We don't care about Sal himself, we don't care about his choice of words, we don't care about his humor, just about his point.

Date: 2008/01/03 15:41:22, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:16)
Dear Bill, I am NOT defending Sal.  I am truthfully relaying the facts in this incident.  Period.  Sal is his own person, as am I.  I don't suppose you want to be responsible for everything that is written here, do you?  Do you really???  Think about it.

I can post at a blog without on every belief of the other bloggers.  In fact, I personally think it is a good think to have people with varying opinions a blogs and forums.  That is why I come here and defend *my* position and try to tell you about my beliefs and why I support them.

My blog is open to those who are interested in meaningful conversation, and just like PZ, I'll moderate when someone gets nasty, or when I feel the conversation is repetative, going no where, or when someone is posting only to try to make points.  But, I don't ban like PZ does.  Never have.  Even blipey gets a few comments to slip by on occassion.  I've not banned him.

And, if someone was brought up in a topic or comments of my post, they would have the right to defend themselves.

It doesn't matter if you defend him, we care about his point. And THAT'S what it's all about: his point is utter bullcrap, nonsense. Too bad you're not reacting on our explanations why his point is nonsense.

Date: 2008/01/03 15:48:55, Link
Author: Assassinator
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?

Date: 2008/01/03 17:42:09, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:03)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)
Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?

In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor?  Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor.  I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality.  I stand firm.  What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong".  Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die. many times have I repeated this? We DO NOT CARE about his humor, his words, his style of writing, ANYTHING but the point he is making about morality and Darwinism.
So odd, I've sad the above so many times, why doesn't come through?
You put Sal to shame a hundred times over with your antics.  Yet absolutely no one calls you on it.  No one.  Yet, posters here believe that I should be held accountable for every single word that Sal says, and that I should go and confront him whenever he is being unfair.

Do you have any idea why Sal is put on display like that? And who says we are holding you accountable? We're holding you accountable for agreeing with the point he is making without listening to ANY response from any of us why the point he is making is complete and utter nonsense, worth putting on display. And if you want to know why it's worth to be put on display, just ask, it's fairly simple.

Date: 2008/01/03 18:03:57, Link
Author: Assassinator
Don't forget it's not only with christianity, it's the same with loads of things. It seems that, explained simplified, parents think that if they are christian/jewish/islamic/hippy/capitalist/communist/whatever there childeren are that too by default. How wrong can they be? I'm so glad I really have nó idea what my parents beleive or think. I really have no idea what they hold imporant, what morality they live by etc etc. Just totally nothing. Yes it may sound distant, or cold, but at least I have the space to think about stuff without having they're thoughts in the back of my head. I'm starting to find out now however, but I'm 17 now so I don't copycat them in that way anymore ;)

Edit, because Christopher did:
Reminds me when I was that age :D (e.a 10 years ago, not that long now I think of it) Ever since one of my relatives showed me a little fossil of something, just a shell or something, I kept looking and looking when we visited rocky places or beaches. I never really found anything though, I'm jealous at your daughter. I even caught myself last year when we visited Italy when we went up a ski-slope in the summer. Even then I was looking at the ground, scanning the rocky path and picking up odd looking rocks. Self-reflecting, it's funny :p

Date: 2008/01/03 18:14:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
Christians don't have a moral base too, are you the same as those wierdos from the Westboro Baptist Church?? I think not. Are you a Jehova Witniss? Are all Christians the same?
You're not just putting atheists into boxes, you're just stuffing them into 1 big ballroom. I'm an atheist, how do you know I base my moral beleives on evolution? If you have payed attention, or did any proper research, you would know that evolution has nothing to do with morality in the way we're talking about it. Evolution is science, science does not dictate morality, it only discribes things.
Your generalisation is awfull. And what's the foundation of this generalisation anyway? What made you think those things?

Date: 2008/01/04 09:12:24, Link
Author: Assassinator
Hopefully, other trusted adults will lead those children to the accepted scientific understandings:  that the earth does, indeed, go around the sun.

IMO, csadams, that's a bad thing too. Parents shouldn't lead there children like that, not in anything. Adults can't be trusted, they want too dearly that they're children do things the adults think are best for them.
They should let there children go free, develop logic themselfs and experience things by trial and error. Yes let them get hurt, let them break an arm or leg, let them make bad choices and mistakes because they're all learning moments.

As csadams says, scientific explanations often ignore common sense. Common sense is only handy for your own mental comfort. Just think of quantum-mechanics, an electron can be on 2 places at once.

Date: 2008/01/04 09:45:55, Link
Author: Assassinator
It's not wrong as in that it is indeed true that it looks like it does. It's not corresponding with the factual evidence though. Same with design. Yes I agree that sometimes life looks design, I won't disagree with that, but it's something interly different if it is actually designed, e.a corresponding with the facts.
I fully agree with
“What do you see in the painting that makes you say that?”

I think that question is absolutly vital when you're raising kids, since it highly promotes the children to think about there own ideas themselfs rather then being told things wich not only happens with religious parents or religious schools, but also with normal science-education. Even my own parents want to do that with me, but I'm not taking that. That may be 1 of the reasons why I'm constantly fighting with my dad.

Date: 2008/01/04 12:24:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:45)
But Oleg, you left off the best part of that quote. It ends with "See the difference?"

To which one can only say, "Oh, yeah!"

Well, that's quite interesting.  

I guess I didn't take you for the closet transvestite/Internet porn/dreaming of 21 year old girls-getting-slimy type.

Learn something new every day....yeah, biblical morals wouldn't be your cup of tea.

Tell me Ftk, why are biblical morality's better then non-biblical one's? Really. Take for example those good ol' Westboro Baptist Church folks, devowed Christians who live the bible by the word of it. Meanwhile, they walk around at Iraq deaths burials with signs who say things like "God hates fags", "USA fag nation" and "God is USA's terrorist" and stuff like that. They say they're very friendly folks, who want to warn those poor poor gay's that God is revolting on them, and that they want to safeguard them from God's wrath because afteral they're morally good people. Yay for the bible then.
LOL, there are lots of problems with the first two, but seeing as Lou is the moderator, I probably shouldn't go there.

You don't have to be afraid of that, go ahead, tell me why people who want to be happy by dressing as the opposite sex are immoraly baaaaaad people. Do you know about those people who really feel like they're born in the body of the wrong sex? Is it one of God's little jokes to himself?

FtK, let's see them.  i don't believe you have any list, much less a long one.

Sure she has, but it's something different then a list who actually makes sense. But ok, let us show that list Ftk. What's wrong with feeling attracted to girls in they're prime-age.

Date: 2008/01/04 14:37:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
Just ask Ftk, just ask.

Date: 2008/01/04 14:42:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
No reason, just ask. You want a cookie to soothe you?

Date: 2008/01/05 13:54:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
Daniel, let me ask you a simple question (and thanks for that Kristine): What do you see in life what makes you say it's designed?

God introduced disease as a consequence of the fall.

You DO know that's completly awfull? It was there first mistake, instead of giving Adam and Eve another chance and talk about what they did (God was so forgiving right?) He gave them the deathpenalty (made them mortal) and forced them into incest (how the hell do you make a population of 2 billion from 2 in 6000 years?) and forced the whole of humanity to suffer horrible from ONE dammed mistake. Sounds good doesn't it? Really sounds like someone I would want to worship...
It's all there in black and white if you want to read about it.

O really? And who says the writers wanted those texts to be interpreted so literally as you do it? Why are YOU right and for example Hindus not? You have any idea how many creation stories are out there completly different from yours? What's so special and good about yours that makes it right?

Date: 2008/01/05 14:32:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
1.  I believe that bestiality is morally *wrong*.  I believe that it is unquestionably unacceptable to have sexual relations with animals regardess of the circumstances.

What makes you think it is wrong? Why is it unquestionably unacceptable?

Date: 2008/01/05 14:55:30, Link
Author: Assassinator
Another question Ftk, next to my previous one: Why would your morals be better then mine?

Date: 2008/01/05 16:44:56, Link
Author: Assassinator
As I mentioned before, Christ was the ultimate sacrifice

Why? What's a sacrifice worth when the sacrificed person is actually immortal, not even a man.
Christians recognized this, and the practice was done away with after Christ's death and resurrection.

Tell that to some group of Christians who choose a man at a festival every year who gets nailed (literally) on a wooden cross.
But, a grand majority of those laws are still covered under the two commands that Christ gave us.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. When we read the bible in it’s entirety, it is quite obvious that we should consider our bodies a temple, and immoral acts are pointed out time and time again.  The New Testament is full of them too, and Paul (who was the first missionary and instigator of the Church) speaks of immoral acts to the body many times.

The loving your neighbor part sounds good, but why should I love "God", what does that word mean anyway?

I already think why we should consider our bodies a temple, because that's where our God-given souls rest in. But why would I base my morality on myths like that, why would I pay attention to them?

Fact is, lots of these forms of morality, are based on both age old mythology and current envoirmental circumstances. I can get into that, why at least the latter were logical. It's logical that those things change, but why should I take notice on the first? Why would I base morality on ancient mythology, wich is also based on curaint circumstances (from the time of writing). Why would I base morality on those things?
The bible is, pure factional, just a collection of old scriptures from different times from different writers in different enviorments. The bible can't even be viewed as a true book. I won't say you can't learn valuable things from some parts of the bible (like the love your neighbor part) but what does that have to with God, and why is the bible superiour to that? I don't need the bible to tell me it's best to love your neighbor, and love your enemy, I can reason that, with logic. Why would I need myths for that, and why do I need an age-old collection of scriptures were lots of people emotionally bonded themselfs with.

Date: 2008/01/05 17:03:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
Jasper, I've tried to explain the latter at least 6 times. It didn't came through. Ftk hasn't responded to it yet.

We could go back and forth forever, but for me, the God of biblical scripture ultimately makes perfect sense.

And how do you think you came into thinking that? Ofcourse it makes sense to you, this religion is part of your own personality and thus it fits perfectly into YOUR sense.
Another little fact, what YOU think is the God of biblical scripture, is not what tens upon thousands of other Christians think is the God of biblical scripture. Now, why are they wrong, and you right?
Remember 1 thing Ftk, you're just 1 measely unimporant person in this matter, there are billions of people who all think different things on this matter. Why are they wrong, and you right? This has nothing to do with faith, because in the end the universe does not care what you beleive. For example, if you beleive that the core of the earth is made out of strawberry jelly, the core of the earth does not POOF change into strawberry jelly just because you would beleive that. It's the same with a literall God, if it exists for you it must also exist for me, God does not start existing just because you would beleive in it. Do you understand that?
The layers of scripture are endless, and the insights are beyond mere man.

O really? Now, explain that in details please. I'm very curious why that would be. Because the fact that we would not understand them says nothing about a supposed godly origin of the texts. Fact is though, that we don't have a manual for the different texts in the bible. Those secrets went in the grave with there writers.
Even most "Jesus Seminar" scholars recognize that fact.

And why would that be a fact then? Why would I trust those scholars? Who says they're not extremly biased?
They reject many aspects of the bible, but can't negate it's overall content as being something other than purely coming from the human mind.

Same as above.

Date: 2008/01/05 17:41:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,17:24)
Another little fact, what YOU think is the God of biblical scripture, is not what tens upon thousands of other Christians think is the God of biblical scripture. Now, why are they wrong, and you right?

That's not accurate.  Most Christian creeds are universal.  There are secondary issues that people interpret in a variety of ways.  For example, the sacraments and beliefs in regard to evolution and biblical history.  That's fine, and it's good to discuss these issues as it brings everyone to a better understanding of scripture.

O really? Habe you heard about the Mormons? Jehova Witnesses? And my all time favorite: the Westboro Baptist Church,
A simple quotation says enough:
A collection of Westboro signs and slogans can be seen at their website called "The signs of the times".

Other slogans are[21]

God Hates You[22]
God Hates Your Tears[23]
God Hates Fag Enablers[22]
God Is Your Enemy[22]
Thank God for 9/11[22]
Thank God for the Tsunami[24]
Thank God for Katrina[25]
Thank God for Dead Soldiers[22]
Thank God for IEDs[22] (improvised explosive devices)
Thank God for California fires[3]
Thank God for AIDS[7]
Fag Santa (carried at Christmas time)
Fag Flag (with an American flag)[22]
Fags Doom Nations (Image)
Fags Are Worthy of Death (Image)
Fags Eat Feces = Scat
Fag Troops[22]
Menninger Therapy (complete with two stick figures mounting)
Repent or Perish[26]
Dyke nuns and Fag Priests (carried outside Catholic churches)
Dyke Sows Wed Here (complete with pictures of pigs in wedding dresses covered with feces; carried at lesbian weddings)
Brides of Satan (referring to lesbian weddings)
Don't Worship the Dead[22]
Disney Fags (used during Disney on Ice at the Expo Center.)
Your Pastor Is A Whore[22]
Semper Fi Semper Fag

So, who says they're not right when they say they're the true Christians? Who says they're not right when they say we're all going to suffer, except for a couple dozen people, for ever in a place called Hell? Don't forget, reality is the same for you and me as for them.

PS: I've edited my previous post for a large amount, I don't know if you noticed, it would be nice ofcourse if we could discuss about those other things aside from the post I quoted from you above. things.

Date: 2008/01/05 17:57:49, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,17:51)
Okay, this conversation is over, at least from my side.

I've got some things to do, and then I'll be back next week to try to answer other questions unrelated to this episode.


Just with certain people, or do you ignore everyone now? Now that would be unnecessary, won't it? Ignoring bad comments, sure, but it's kind of overreacting to ignore absolutly everything then, don't you think?

Date: 2008/01/05 18:21:56, Link
Author: Assassinator
People like that freak me out, I haven't even bothered posting under his video, I'll just send him a PM.

Date: 2008/01/05 18:26:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
Something inside me doesn't stop me from PMing :P I didn't even gave my opinion about the video, o well, I guess that he indeed does not respond anyway.
But seriously, these guys really scare me. A lot, really.

Date: 2008/01/06 14:54:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 06 2008,13:36)
Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 05 2008,13:54)
Daniel, let me ask you a simple question (and thanks for that Kristine): What do you see in life what makes you say it's designed?

I don't know where I got it or who wrote it, but I think this quote fairly sums up my reason for viewing life as designed:    
Biology is full of problems that are solved, including the problems of
how to harness the sun's energy and how to obtain nutrients.  The
solutions to numerous problems are present throughout biology, and the
solutions involve extraordinarily-complicated and interdependent
organs, structures, and biochemical processes.  The incredibly-complex
solutions strongly exhibit the appearance of having been established/
put together by a problem-solving being(s).

E.a, because it's so complex from your point of view, it must be designed. I can understand that life looks designed, but you have to make a difference between your own point of view and opinion, and reality. The fact that it looks designed in your eyes, says 0.00 about reality. You do understand that, right?

Date: 2008/01/07 13:22:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
I still don't get why those guys still use those failing analogy's. How think can heads be.

Date: 2008/01/08 03:10:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
The main attraction for me is the man, Jesus.

Jesus has nothing to do with the origins of life, earth and the universe. If he existed he was a man with a message, a message of love wich has nothing to do with science.
Yes, of course I do.  That is why I've said numerous times that science will never find a plausible explanation for the origin of any of life's most basic biological systems.  This is a prediction that anyone can falsify.  So it's not just me, and it's not just opinion.
You understand that don't you?

No, I do not. The fact that your opinion is not equal to reality, has nothing to do with science. Explain yourself.

Date: 2008/01/08 10:03:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
Nah she already sad a couple of days ago she would be back next week.

Date: 2008/01/08 17:30:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
*cough cough* Pfew, some dust on this one. But I've got a few questions again. The discussion has reached some kind of stalemate. He says he knows that evolution happens, that he understands why. For him, the question is where the boundaries of evolution are, he gives this book as reference, but I'm not able to read it. He says that countless of experiments say that the theory of Universal Common Descent contains boundaries wich evolution can't cross. Now because I'm not able to read the book, I have no idea what he's talking about (wich experiments for example). I also wonder what that book from Behe says then about boundaries.
I wish I was able to read all those books, I've seen so much book links here and on other forums wich I'm dying to read ;)

Date: 2008/01/09 08:48:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
Thanks Coyote and Henry J :)
But I still have some questions, next to rebutals of Behe's book, does anyone know what Behe says in his book? Does anyone also knows wich experiments the guy I'm discussing with is reffering to? I've asked, but he ignored it. Does anyone also new were the article in the 3th link in Coyote's link went? It seems like really interesting rebutal, but it's kinda gone.

Date: 2008/01/09 11:35:41, Link
Author: Assassinator

As for creation stories, I think they all have an element of truth to them.

Because of what? Why would they?
(BTW, the bible claims that Jesus did have something to do with "origins of life, earth and the universe", FYI.)

What I ment that, even if Jesus existed, it says nothing about the origin of life etc etc.
Uh, I think your going to have to explain yourself on that one.  I have no idea what you meant by that - nor do I know what you want me to explain.

I've asked if you understood that your view that life looks designed says nothing about if it's actually designed. Then you say that science will never find a plausible explanation, huh?

Besides, what do you know about this subject Daniel? Have you got any education on these subjects whatsoever?

Date: 2008/01/10 07:06:25, Link
Author: Assassinator
They all (to my knowledge) point to life as being designed/created by an intelligent being of some sort.

Yea, so? And why would those contribute to the actual truthness of those stories? The fact that they say life was formed by some sort of design, doesn't mean it's per definition true.
But that is one of the tests for design.  If there is no plausible chance/random/natural explanation, we can infer that something happened as the result of the actions of intelligent beings.  This is the method coroners use to determine whether a death was the result of natural causes or human intervention.

No, it's nor a test for ID nor the method of coroners. If we would not be able to get a plausible explanation for life, that's not proof for ID, that's not the way science works. Same with a coroner, if there is no explanation for the death of someone that isn't proof for someone being killed by someone else if there isn't direct evidence for that.
And like swbarnes2 sad, you don't have any real background for this subject, just self-taught stuff. And by the looks of it, that means you picked up information from sources confirming the world-view you already had. That's not learning. You admit that you've got gaping (and how!!) holes in your knowledge yet you have your opinion set. That's not learning.

Date: 2008/01/10 07:49:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
Thanks for those links ;) I've asked indeed about the experiments, at first he ignored them but now he sad he would look something up.
Note though, that this guy isn't anything close to a biologist. He's an informatic, and he has it's own business. It seems that he copied his views about evolution almost directly from both Behe and Demski, and he's looking at life like he's looking at huma technology. I have also rebutted his silly analogy's, I wonder if it came through though. Ironically enough, he has this in his signature:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

People like him make me go:

(God I love that picture :p)

Date: 2008/01/10 08:21:55, Link
Author: Assassinator
Answer the question, then we will answer yours. Don't turn things around.

Date: 2008/01/10 11:23:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
Daniel, how good is your science education (in general)?

Date: 2008/01/10 11:37:47, Link
Author: Assassinator
Now, don't flame me, I posted this on your link Kristine:
*Looks around anxiously, as if he was checking for potential danger* Although I'm not religious, I do want to save my first kiss ánd first sex for my first real love (read: first real love, not marrage) because I feel like it's more then just fun. But heej, I'm just a hopeless romantic ;)

*Quikly duckes and takes cover* Please don't hurt me :p

Date: 2008/01/12 12:19:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
A Dutch ID proponent (although he's not your avarage Behe, he's trying though at least not knowing that he sounds like a stuck and véry old record) has put this in his signature recently, I think because of our ID-disscussion:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

So much arrogance from an IT-person, who had no training on biology, ecology and aaaaall evolution connected subjects.

Date: 2008/01/12 14:50:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
Then what's your problem with the chronological order? We know that life arose step by step, in a certain order (the very first steps of life are unknown, then we've got the theorised RNA-world, DNA-organisms, recognisable microbial life, multi-cellular sea life, multi-cellular land life etc etc). Then what's your problem?

Date: 2008/01/13 07:06:05, Link
Author: Assassinator
Daniel, what's the difference between that natural law and selection (selection is a natural law).
As far as I can see, you're talking about protein folding, we know why that happens. It's biochemistry. I think you don't think what natural selection is, yes the folding of proteins happen by natural law, but that's not what selection is about. Selection works on a bigger scale and we can view the effect of selection in nature and document it.

Date: 2008/01/13 08:36:23, Link
Author: Assassinator
Odd though that a just-beyond-highschool kid like me can note those things, but you Daniel can't.

Date: 2008/01/14 05:11:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 14 2008,00:00)
Any other neodarwinian explanation (e.g. abuses) of descent of desticles?

What exactly is YOUR explanation? Ofcourse, we admit that the current explanation is not necceraly true, but the only think YOU can do is flame it. Do you have any better explanation to offer then the current one? Do you even know on wich observations etc the current explanation is based?

Date: 2008/01/14 13:06:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
You've got the full essay too? Sounds like an interesting read.

Date: 2008/01/14 13:25:57, Link
Author: Assassinator
Thanks, that'll keep me busy ;)

Date: 2008/01/14 13:57:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 14 2008,10:53)
In relation to the story about the pregnant Marine who was recently killed here, Freaky Fred and the Westboro Gang will be coming here to Jacksonville this coming Saturday.

This is not going to be pretty.  Marines here are not exactly known for their... gentility and manners, shall we say?

I'll be there with as much photographic equipment as I can carry.

Someone at least doesn't like them, taken from that news link:
QUOTE Meanwhile a fax purported to be from the Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas group that has infuriated many Americans by picketing the funerals of US troops killed in Iraq, announced that the church planned to picket at Camp Lejeune on Saturday END QOUTE I predict a bloodbath if these fools try their usual BS at Lejeune. Sure wish I could be there. Members of Westboro Baptist Church I suggest you make peace with your maker before Saturday. It is pretty certain it will be your last chance.

Can't really blaim them, with this....impressive list of slogans:
God Hates You[23]
God Hates Your Tears[24]
God Hates Fag Enablers[23]
God Is Your Enemy[23]
Thank God for 9/11[23]
Thank God for the Tsunami[25]
Thank God for Katrina[26]
Thank God for Dead Soldiers[23]
Thank God for IEDs[23] (improvised explosive devices)
Thank God for California fires[3]
Thank God for AIDS[7]
Fag Santa (carried at Christmas time)
Fag Flag (with an American flag)[23]
Fags Doom Nations (Image)
Fags Are Worthy of Death (Image)
Fags Eat Feces = Scat
Fag Troops[23]
Menninger Therapy (complete with two stick figures mounting)
Repent or Perish[27]
Dyke nuns and Fag Priests (carried outside Catholic churches)
Dyke Sows Wed Here (complete with pictures of pigs in wedding dresses covered with feces; carried at lesbian weddings)
Brides of Satan (referring to lesbian weddings)
Don't Worship the Dead[23]
Disney Fags (used during Disney on Ice at the Expo Center.)
Your Pastor Is A Whore[23]
Semper Fi Semper Fag

Date: 2008/01/14 14:11:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
With this government? No, I'm afraid not.
Funny thing is, using lots of normal christians logic, why won't they not be right? Scary stuff.

Date: 2008/01/14 14:21:54, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 14 2008,14:17)
I meant some marines on guard duty might get a bit jumpy, and I don't think the US military is quite as bushified as it could be.

Anyway, looks like several thousand people will be lining up to throw things at them anyway.
Form a queue please.  

I don't have much time for marines or suchlike, but picketing their funerals is just sick.

Ooo like that, yes I can understand why marines would. Wouldn't advice it though, they'll only make martyrs out of them.

Date: 2008/01/15 17:15:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
Question - Dembski claims he has a list of ID predictions that have been confirmed by "researchers" - why is he witholding that information from his UD cultist followers?

They're soooo obvious ofcourse, that any member of his group can point them out, resulting in a nice little list:



6:29 pm
Here’s a few:

1) Origin of life: Intelligent design can predict that science will never be able to explain how this complex life arose (homochirality). This prediction has been confirmed every year for decades.

2) History of life: Life is shown too complex to develop slowly over time. Life will appear rapidly and remain in stasis. This has been confirmed countless times, i.e. the big bangs of life.

3) Irreducibly complex living forms exist.

4) Molecular machines.

5) Evolutionary convergence.

Hmm...yea...that's scientific.

Besides, I start crying at posts like that shoghi dude. Where the hell did he get his education?

Date: 2008/01/16 07:11:04, Link
Author: Assassinator
I live in the middle of the Dutch Bible Belt, and I can tell you I've debated similair people. They didn't seem to make use of AiG presentations though, but still used those ye ol' YEC arguments. They did use our old friend Hovind. They even broadcast his presentation on our local tv-network (As I sad, I live in the middle of the Bible Belt here, it's full of crazy evangelical extremists here although not as bad as the Westboro folks...I hope). It was só awfull to see...

Date: 2008/01/17 07:51:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
I bet you can still view it here.
I still find Scientology a bit scary, especially thisp YTMND (although it's not funny, at all). Andthis is the sequel.

Date: 2008/01/18 11:49:12, Link
Author: Assassinator
We may not have a clue, but we really don't care.
Bottom-line is, you have no clue what the ET and Darwinism is, you have no clue about the science behind it (or even about science itself!), you are not schooled in these things and you have proved that time and time again by the things you post.

Date: 2008/01/19 10:39:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
You don't know what natural selection is, wich you prove in that post. Please learn what natural selection is, thank you. I hope I don't have to explain why.

Date: 2008/01/19 16:07:48, Link
Author: Assassinator
Not only in economics, engineering and technical companies (stuff like Siemens and Mercedes, yea I've seen The Blind Watchmaker :P) love evolution for improving stuff for them.

Date: 2008/01/20 07:24:34, Link
Author: Assassinator just made me hate you, a lot actually. Sunday is dad-cooking day, he'll try to brew something again out of all the crap left in the fridge, freezer and places like that....yay....

Date: 2008/01/21 10:45:41, Link
Author: Assassinator
This looks like the same old morality argument again, made over and over again for ages. This horse is só dead, is it even worth mentioning again? (hoped I used that expression in a proper manner ;))

Date: 2008/01/21 13:27:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
Fact is TP, the base of both Mike's and Dembski's method is complete pseudo-science, like this list in your opening post:
1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?

Date: 2008/01/21 18:21:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
You don't completly grasp the idea of natural selection Daniel. But it's pretty easy (that's why I wonder why you've got so much trouble with it...). First of all, it's relative, because natural selection matters between other groups of animals. Imagine a population of butterflies living in a dark forest, you've got red one's and you've got brown one's. The red one's will be a much easier prey for birds for example, because they're much easier spotted by a fast flying bird then brown one's. The red one's will be the number one on the bird's menu, and will get eaten much more then the brown butterflies. The brown one's can preduce much more offspring then the red one's, and after a while a dominatly brown population of butterflies will populate the forest. You can turn it around ofcourse, and set them in a brightly collored field of flowers, where the red butterflies will have a survival advantage. Thus you can get a red population in the field, and a brown population in the forest. If certain separations occure, you ultimatly end up with 2 different species of butterflies.
If anyone can correct me on errors, I'm not perfect afterall, please do.

Date: 2008/01/22 15:50:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
We should really set an own clothing line with our own logo, given to us by those friendly Christians from Conservapedia (they must have whole warehouses full of logo's).

Fear us, we're grouping!

Date: 2008/01/22 16:32:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
Groping people like


You scare me Bill, a lot.

Date: 2008/01/24 15:11:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
The best we're getting here are herons, pigeons and Apache's. But I've got my own personal wildlife:

(I so love my cat, and this is a really small one)

Date: 2008/01/24 15:32:48, Link
Author: Assassinator
doves (eaten by the sharp shinned hawks)

We ain't got hawks, someone else is eating our doves, *points at previous post* ;)

My cat would be a great LOLcat with that picture, won't it :p
Tragically, it didn't survive the night.

Such a shame :( Wildlife housings should alwayse be open.

Date: 2008/01/27 10:08:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Baseball?? Cricket?? Pffff, games for sissy's, it's all about hurling baby! Wished I could play that, think I would shit my pants 7 times though.

Date: 2008/02/01 06:38:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
Joy, the dude in the discussion I started this topic about is back. I really don't get it, he still thinks specified complexity is new and research-able. I tried to address the fact that those things are long since addressed, I even showed an article from Wesley but he ignores it saying it would be wise to show something else then arguments from own ground (and he means evolutionists by that). So annoying, how do you EVER discuss with people like that?

Date: 2008/02/03 05:35:03, Link
Author: Assassinator
I asked him indeed for papers on specified complexity. He just came up with someone named Orgel, wich is apperantly the one who came up with specified complexity (Dembski's inspiration?). Apperantly, he thinks that he also supports the ID hypotheses (at least I made him admit ID is not a theory at all) but I'm not that sure. He also popped up something, wich made me wanted to ask a question too:
He says that fossils and genetic similarity's don't say affinity, but júst similarity's. So they're not really proof for common descent. He also sad that they're extremly prone to interpretation, people see in them what they want to see. That made we wonder, what do fossils and genetic similarity's proof? I know about TalkOrigin's 29 evidences for common descent article, but strangly he doesn't accept it. It may work for me, but not for him.
The last thing he sad wich makes me wonder is (rough translation):
Macroscopic events wich require extremly improbable microscopic events don't happen spontaneously, but can happen with intelligent intervention.
Now I asked for an explanation for that statement, where he got it from etc etc. But he's in the hospital atm, so it can take a while. So maybe, in the meantime, someone here can explain what he means with that statement and where he got it from.
It's an odd fellow, sometimes he dodges more questions then Neo dodges bullets, sometimes he's a really good person to discuss with, and sometimes he simply spews ad hominems vs sources and people (like he called TalkOrigins a collection of atheïstic madman not worth mentioning, and he swept all things I got from that website from the table).

Date: 2008/02/03 08:02:00, Link
Author: Assassinator
I don't think he actually supports the Explanatory Filter, but it never hurts to ask ;)
But yea, the thing about the fossils, you exactly make his point. What's the foundation for the common-descent interpretation from the fossil record and genetic data.
He also decided he wanted to shift the subject to the origin of life and why it is so improbable and doesn't happen without an act of intelligence intervening. He says that a replicator can't arise from stochastic processes because that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ofcourse I asked for peer-reviewd papers and experiments, and I also asked if the processes involved in making a replicator are indeed stochastic or random.

Date: 2008/02/03 10:10:47, Link
Author: Assassinator
Yes I have addressed that, since he kept talking about a No Design hypotheses and talked about it if it was the crux from the evolutional theory. I just sad that evolutional research hasen't found design or a designer yet, and thus it's not involved in the current research since they manage without.

He does not talk about the workings from the so-called designer, I can't remember he ever did. He once sad that  it didn't sound that wierd to him if we would've been designed by aliens.

I've read about the nested hierarchy yes, but only like half a year ago or something like that. I sure have to fresh things up, I'll first dive back into Biology (International and 7th edition) from Campbell and Reece and I'll look up some info on the internet before I address it to him. I'll have to look first where the OOL discussion is going anyway ;) At least I've asked for papers and experiments, and I've "firmly" addressed his ad-hominems vs TalkOrigin-linked sources. I'm curious how he works himself out of that, I think he'll ignore it.

He suddenly flooded me with quotes from an article from Orgel:
I'm reading it atm, but I could use some help understanding the article. I can't really ask the dude himself, since he's an IT person and not into chemistry. I've only just begun studying chemistry, so again if anyone could help me understand this article (what the article wants to say, things like that): help would be appreciated ;)

Date: 2008/02/03 16:27:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
I SO recognise this from the guy I'm discussing with right now. I still find it hard to address, but maybe that's because I'm not yet familiar enough with the importance of peer-reviewed papers.

Date: 2008/02/03 17:05:50, Link
Author: Assassinator
If Dawkins is going to assert that bringing up children in religious faith is equivalent to child abuse, one should throw his assertions back in his face and ask that he consider his own child’s upbringing and leave my kids out of the equation.  Personally, I’d prefer my children being brought up in a loving family who honor the sanctimony of marriage, and put their children first rather than leave them to go off and marry another women.  I also believe that it is my right to raise my children in response to biblical morality.  It is my right to raise them in the way in which I believe they will best serve God and respond to their fellow man.

Your children are not you, they are individuals. You give them a very coloured worldly image and you don't recognise them as individuals. Raising childrens isn't about you and what you want, it's about the kids. You don't let them develop themselfs, you don't give them all the space to find out about morality on there own and let them find out what's right and wrong themselfs. That's very selfish, although you have good intentions, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Date: 2008/02/04 07:01:41, Link
Author: Assassinator
He only has a problem with the 2nd law with the origin of life, not really with evolution. His problems with evolution are bassicly with Common Descent.
I don't know, but I'm not. It sounds very interesting though, I'll look something up about it for myself first :)

Date: 2008/02/04 09:00:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'd ask that you allow me to raise my children to honor their Maker, and you can tell your children whatever the hell you like.

Sorry Ftk, can't do that. It can almost be called criminal to brainwash your children like that, the fact that you may be christian does not mean your children are automaticly christian too, or jewish, islamic, hindu, hippy, communist etc etc etc: whatever. You do not let your children the room to fully develop themselfs.
Wich right do you even have to teach your children those things? Your children are not yours, they are from themselfs: individuals, not your clones. It does not matter what you deem important, let them find out with trial and error. I wonder btw, if you teach your kids your distorted (read: distorted as in incomplete and factually wrong) views about life on earth? (wich is evolution, the origin of life, etc)
If you do: STOP IT. You are définatly not the correct person to do that, you have lots of wrong views according the theory of evolution, you are not trained in ány way in the science of evolution and all linked subjects, you CAN NOT teach anyone about those subjects, your children are in that way not different that anyone. Why don't you understand and accept that?

By the lack of a better set of words (abuse is a bit too heavy), what you are doing is a socially accepted form, aaaaall around the world, of child abuse.
How is a child to learn about anything, if they are not afforded the chance?

Let them explore, don't force them your views. Kids are like sponges, by telling them those things you immidiatly form there personality for them, instead of letting them figure it out by themselfs. Let them see all uncoloured raw information without any interpretation from you, and let them figure it all out by themselfs. Be as objective as possible. And when they're old enough, you can discuss your views with there views.
Give them the oppertunity to view facts, and not interpretations of facts.
Dawkins is no different than any other parents in this respect.

If he forces his own dogmatic views to his children, rather then respecting them like developing individuals and let them figure out all by themselfs, like it's the truth (like YOU are doing), yes then he is just as bad.
There is no reason to tell them they are going to “go to hell for this or that” because ultimately, no one will be going to hell unless they reject their Creator and his plan for salvation.  No other religion offers this assurance, as other religions are based upon your level of goodness, which begs the good is good enough?  With the Christian faith, we all acknowledge our sin and realize that the best we can do is strive to be like Christ, and when we fall astray, we regroup and ask for God’s forgiveness, which He always offers those sincere in the asking.

Don't you see how horrible this is? "Do like I say, or SUFFER." that's it, just terror, no room for an own path, no room for a personal life. Nope, if you don't do what He says you'll suffer eternaly. Don't you see how terrible this view is?? Is it even the correct Christian view? Why are you right in these matters, and millions and even billions of other people are wrong?
DON'T raise your children like you know the truth, you are doing know, that's bad.

Date: 2008/02/15 10:07:41, Link
Author: Assassinator
T-rexes? Imagine Giganotosaurs then , if we're talking about carnivorous dino's:

But ofcourse, if you really want to see some earth-rumbeling dino action, see these little babies:

Those would actually make the earth rumble when they would mate.

Date: 2008/02/20 19:03:33, Link
Author: Assassinator
Daniel, why do you value analogies like that to make certain things more clear so much? Those things aren't the real world, programming and IT isn't the same as the inner-workings of a cell, not even clóse.

Date: 2008/02/22 10:37:44, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2008,10:19)
Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 20 2008,17:03)
Daniel, why do you value analogies like that to make certain things more clear so much? Those things aren't the real world, programming and IT isn't the same as the inner-workings of a cell, not even clóse.

The question is not "why do I value these analogies?", but rather "why do these analogies work?".

Also, how is it that these analogies (in your words) "make certain things more clear" if they're (also in your words) "not even clóse"?

They make things easier to understand for people outside the ivory tower of biology.
Sure, there are analogies, but they're A supperficial (yea, wrong spelling) and B even analogy's don't mean they're the same, because they simply aren't. Can't you see those things for yourself?

Date: 2008/02/27 17:01:15, Link
Author: Assassinator
A happy happy birthday here from Holland! Sadly I can't present you with a nice LOLcat, since all the good one's have been given already. I can however wish you another happy happy year full of burning churches and ebola spreading (HA! Now that one is taken too! ), ofcourse you can't stop that, that's a LIE, you can't leave the almighty fundie atheist camp wich has assimilated all forms of science to conspire against those....theists! Don't leave us!
Good luck, have fun, and may the Non-Intelligent-Not-Caring-Force be with you :)

This post does not resemble the true opinions of Assassinator, nope not even the "Happy Birthday" :p

Edited, because you're worth it (this never gets old).

Date: 2008/03/06 14:33:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
I thought this was our symbol:

Looks evil doesn't it? Mad scientists all around!

Date: 2008/03/07 16:50:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
There is no question that well educated, well motivated and economically well off parents will be excellent home schoolers.  I would rather see them involved with their community.  I would rather see their knowledge and enthusiasm helping more than just their childern.  (More of that social justice thing).

I agree with that, although I think that parents can never be real honest educators for there children. But it's stupid to think you can ignore parents in education, and parents who know what they're doing should be involved with school (homework assignments, extra lessons outside school, workshops etc). But ofcourse, only parents who know what they're doing. Most parents I know and see around here are FAR from qualified to teach stuff, and that doesn't have anything to do with religion (except for the religious-extremist part of the population from the village I live in), they simply don't know enough.
In the end, it's not about what the parents want, it's about what the kids want. Let them explore, discover, make own choices and let them learn from mistakes.

Date: 2008/03/07 17:25:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
It's actually pretty funny to see how people follow a comedian/actor on a subject like this. I still wonder how those minds work, makes me want to study psychology.

Date: 2008/03/10 18:59:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
I say society can go fuck itself.

People who say this should be honest with themselfs and go hermit-style. No gas, no electricity, not visiting stores, no doctor, nothing.
don't like government.  Nor do I like government telling me what my kid should or should not learn.

Remember: the government is the help of the people (at least it should be in our country's). They help us with stuff we can't do, and we give them money to do that (taxes). If we see certain things in our society suck, we should do something about it, because we can (democracy, remember?). Besides, it's not about the fact that they would say what they need to learn, it's about the arguments they give for that.
i just don't give a damn about what someone else thinks god is in the same way that i don't give a damn about what someone else thinks my kids should learn.

Problem here: your kids aren't you or clones from you, it's not about what you want it's about what your kid wants. If you're an honest parent you let them discover stuff themselfs, you may not care but they might. Kids aren't property, they're individuals in development.

Anyway, I don't really get home-schooling. I mean, how can you school kids on your own? Imo, kids learn best from eachother with help from parents and experts wich is not at home.

Hell,  we're one of the two UN member countries that hasn't signed the UNCRC.

You gotta be kidding me?? And they should supposidly rule the world?? It's worse then I thought...(I start wondering if the US is a real democracy at all, or even free!)

Date: 2008/03/13 07:23:22, Link
Author: Assassinator
Most Christians accept that God requires certain things of them and not the other way around for a multitude of reasons, chief of which is just who do you think you are?

Who does God think he is then? Saying me what to do, if I don't I'll get punished and if we ask why the excuse comes that we wouldn't understand anyway. Wich would also mean that God isn't all-powerfull: he can't even explain his own morality to us. Why would his morality be superior anyway? He apperantly destroys someone's life just to prove a point.
Like philbert says, why on earth do I want to worship such a sadistic being?
Who are you to say what is and isn't God's plan when you see such a tiny part of it?

Who is God to be so arrogant to not explain it? So we should just let murderers go when they say "Yea, I got a plan wich you don't understand anyway.", I wonder what we would do to the judges then.
What kind of lame excuse is that?

Anyway, about the topic starts. It's so funny to see people like that, a couple of days ago I've seen an advertisment from the WWF simply saying "Help us stop global warming!". It's so arrogant, so ignorant, I couldn't stop giggling. Stop global warming...hilarious. Must be a new symptome from the Bambi Syndrome.

Date: 2008/03/13 19:17:09, Link
Author: Assassinator
this is like listening to a child reason, in fact I think I heard my six year old say nearly the same thing when I told him not to touch the hot stove.

What's wrong with asking certain things? Why can't we question God, what in God's name is wrong with that? Does it make us inferior? Does it make us burn and suffer forever? Why wouldn't God say those things?
Or am I interpreting what you sad totally wrong and did you mean this against what I sad about global warming? (those things happen ofcourse, better clear them up)
That is the height of arrogance.  In fact the root of all sin is pride and that seems to be the fundamental lesson of the Bible.  In short, get over yourself.

Can you please tell that to God then? I'm just asking for some explanation from His side, nothing more. If God thinks that's wrong, He can say that to me.
I still don't understand something, why on earth worship such a being? Why worship a being who apperantly does nothing for you even if you ask it from the deepest bottom of your heart (ask my grandma about that)? Not doing those things is 1 thing, but apperantly He won't even explain anything! How on earth is that not cruel? Why can't we demand certain things, have you ever heard about the principle of equal trade?

Date: 2008/03/14 10:22:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
I would say that the "perfect" label is very soft.  How can we say that God is perfect when we have no other God to compare him to.  Also, we're evaluating God from a strictly human perspective and that is skewed by our desires and priorities and not objective.

Oooo we got a whóle lot of God's to compare with your God, craploads actually! Even compared to humans He's completly awfull, at least WE are trying to do something about shit.
(note: not necceseraly meaning global warming with that)
Assassinator, you can certainly ask anything you want but you have no reason to assume or except an answer.  You've just placed expectations on God that are unreasonable or at the least unresolved.  If it comes down to a matter of equality then the answer is simple, we are not on equal footing with God.

Why not? Apperantly he has a WHOLE lot of power, what's unreasonable about asking some kind of refference? Now if I would've asked something completly rubbish, something wich is really bullcrap, but no I'm asking basic and fundamental questions. Not even an explanation about why they would be too much to answer, now how's that not arrogant?
Besides, why would God be better and more worth then me? Who does God think he is?

Date: 2008/03/14 15:07:46, Link
Author: Assassinator
umm, just the Creator of the Universe, Reality and all of  Existence.

O really? Says who? Haven't seen anything wich points in that direction, and we all know that the Bible isn't a biology/physics/chemistry book.

Date: 2008/03/14 16:41:57, Link
Author: Assassinator
That's not what I sad, you bind certain properties to the word "God" wich I doubt about, since there is nothing that points that way. Remember that the word "God" is kind of hollow by itself, different people give different meaning's (millions of them).
Besides, if that being indeed created everything, we don't have to beleive in it. Such a being either exists, or it doesn't exist and it does not matter what your personal opinion is about it. If it created the universe, it did that for all of us, it's the same for all of us. We live in the same universe, on the same earth, it didn't get into existance on a different way for you then for me. Now that would be silly, wouldn't it?

Date: 2008/03/14 20:09:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
so you believe in something just not what I believe in?

It does not matter what you beleive in, the earth came into existance the same way for you as it did for me. That has nothing to do with opinions, either a 'supreme' being (wich you call "God") did create this planet or it did not. Also, there are WAY more creation-myths then just yours, hundreds, maybe thousands of local myths exist all around the globe. Science however isn't based on age-old stories.
who says it sucks? I certainly don't.  Opinion.

Like Ian already sad, your life (and mine, partially) are good. But what about those couple of billion people who live below the poverty line? The people who need to drink the water there neighboors took a dump in, the people who still die from something as diarrhea.
People like this skepic:

Can you féél the love flowing here?

Why the héll do I want to worship a being who allowes (read: I'm not saying the being caused it) those things??

Date: 2008/03/15 05:41:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
I would say those falcons aren't selective agents.

They are, everything non-random (because random things like forest fires and vulcanoes are called genetic shift, or was it drift? keep mixing those up) that alters the allel-frequencies in a population is a selective agent. Predation, like those falcons, is an (non-random) example of them.
You should probably find some example where a predator has been bitten by the snake and survived. Such an example would support your neodarwinian fairy-tale about coral snake mimicry.

It's about the fact that predators would be scared shitless, won't hunt them. Our current explanation is that that's because they look poisonous even though we're not (and we can check that, just capture one and check if they have poison glands). If you've got something better wich eliminates our current explanation we would be glad to hear it (and perhaps a Nobel-price in biology would await), currently you haven't offerd anything better.

Date: 2008/03/15 20:32:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
So, if God sends beings he loves to hell, that is evil. And if he sends beings he hates to hell, that is also evil. A peculiar case, if you will, of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Simply sad: sending people to hell is evil. But that's not what it's about. It's about the fact that we're getting told that God loves us all, but A apperantly he condemns craploads of people to eternal doom and B he apperantly does not care about the majority of his creation suffering horribly. It's not about the fact that God would do such a thing, it's about the fact that those things aren't really making Him a good subject for worship. Ofcourse there is another option, he does care about those things but he simply can't do anything about it. That would mean however he isn't all-powerfull, and it would also be a problem for all-knowing. Afterall, then he would know that the majority of his creation would suffer that much, that he would know he would care about that and that he would know he couldn't do anything about it. But despite all that knowledge, he created us. Wierd isn't it?

I am not lucky Ian, I live the life I live because of the choices I have made.  The same can be said for mankind.  The world is the way it is because of the actions that man has committed.

Would you mind telling that to this kid,

That picture speaks for itself, doesn't it skeptic?

Date: 2008/03/16 09:34:49, Link
Author: Assassinator
Skeptis, you totally miss my point. I never sad that starvation is evil, or talked about some Utopia. I ment that against your bullshit about choices, YOU have choices. Was it that little boy's choice to starve to death? Was it his choice to get born there? You ARE lucky, lucky you cán choose. They can't.
If your God exists, with those properties it's simple: he wants those children to starve, he lets them starve, he lets them suffer.
Skeptic, do yourself a favor and stop bullshitting about choices. You're damned lucky you're not born in Kenia or Ethiopia. You're damned lucky you cán choose and they cán't, and you know that.
Edit: I see you posted slightly faster, so it's that kid own fault he starved to death?? Was that his own responsibility??
In light in all of your logic skeptic, why would I worship your God? Why shouldn't I worship another God, because there are countless numbers of Gods.

Date: 2008/03/16 16:53:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
When you guys come back to reality and start to think again in lieu of these boorish generalizations you might try thinking about the condition of humanity as a whole and the causes for that conditions.

Certainly, but you know that the little kid I showed earlier has nothing to do with that and doesn't deserve that.
Is it God's fault that man has chosen to act the way it has, to squander it's resources the way it has, to kill one another the way it has?  As much as you wish it to be so, this has nothing to do with me and where I was born or what I've been exposed to.  This has to do with free will and humanity's exercise thereof.

We never sad it was God's fault, we just blaim him for not doing anything. And again, that little kid and thousands like them have nothing to do with those choices. You do know that don't you?
I wasn't talking about us as a whole, I'm talking about individuals, individuals like that little child who are apperantly ignored by God and left to die horribly just like tens of thousands like him.

It's about this Skeptic:
You and I have choices, that little kid had none. Nothing has been done about it, he died slowly and horribly. We're only wondering how that is compatible with a loving God, we're just wondering why the héll we want to worship such a being. Do you understand that?

No no what he sad about population control, is that population control would be a 'solution' for climate change. I do find it almost funny that we westren people think we can and should stop climate change. Really, isn't that the most retarted thing you've (and anyone) has heard?

Date: 2008/03/18 15:41:26, Link
Author: Assassinator
But hey, why should science be used to vet the information taught to children in science classes?

Ofcourse, it would be completly ridiculous if science would teach science! I mean, science is best learned from people who've got nothing to do with science, isn't that SO obvious?
With things like that, I even start thinking if people in the project aren't starting to back off. Even those people have limits.

Date: 2008/03/20 09:00:24, Link
Author: Assassinator
I recognise his voice too...from that black dude (John Tickle or something) from Brainiac, but I doubt that's helpfull. Too bad these video's are completly futile, they'll keep repeating themselfs like broken records anyway.

Date: 2008/03/24 15:17:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
Finished high school last year, busy atm with a Bachelor in Bio-Informatics although it's not sure I'm finishing that (I found out I hate programming). Maybe I'll quite and start a Bachelor in journalism, still talking/working with my study-councelor.

Date: 2008/03/24 15:38:22, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well at least I got O'Reilly's book Learning Python (but I've never heard from Rush Limbaugh), and I'll keep that (not like most students who stop after 1 year and sell there books on Ebay). So even if a certain interest in programming would return, I can pick it up with some help from friends and books. I just don't think that Bio-Informatics is my "thing", shame though but you can't really expect a 17 year old to immediatly know what he wants to do for the rest of his life.

PS: I'm not really sure if I should feel slightly insulted by that post J-Dog ;)

Date: 2008/03/28 15:10:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
I think it was L'Oreal claiming to have the latest hype in face-créme land: amino-peptides, well woopydoo isn't that the most amazing stuff you ever heard from! Cilit Bang with it's "active oxygen" is also a great one. Or what about that "DNAge" stuff, claims to repair the DNA from your skin with some kind of simple acid, wich is in craploads of food. Worst is, when my mum watches it, she really thinks it's honest science, then I have to tell her what it really is. Hurray >.<

Date: 2008/03/29 13:25:35, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well, the most bullshit in commercial's are in beauty-product commercials. And those products aren't really for a 10-year old ;) I think the king (or rather queen) from this bullcrap is L'Oreal: the latest discovery in skin-healthcare, amino-peptides!!! Grrrrrrr...
But yea, it's true that advertisers exploit the ignorance of the average Joe/Jane. With such logical bullshit as the example above, I even wonder if it's légal to do it...

Date: 2008/04/02 19:16:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
From Louis:
Why anyone would carry a knife or gun or any overt weapon in today's society is beyond me

QFT I say, I really don't understand it. I got bullied around a lot when I was on high-school and middle-school (hope that's the correct term) but I never got into real fights, although I nearly lost my temper once (and I had a strong desire to, literally, smash someone through a computer screen). Anyway, I never bothered with 1 of the above, although Aikido appealed to me for it's fluent style and "pwning" (I'm a gamer, sorry) an opponent with the kinetic energy he creates himself.

Side note, how to prevent a fight, get named Staff Sergeant Max Fightmaster
Then you're safe for life, "No you fool! you can't fight him! He's Staff Sgt. Max Fightmaster! Think about this for a second!"

Date: 2008/04/04 09:53:47, Link
Author: Assassinator
It all comes down to this: if we don't watch out, we're going to f*ck ourselfs. We can do all we want, we're just destroying ourselfs. If we want to live properly as well the next 200 years or so, we'll have to change certain things. If we don't care, we can just do what we want because in a stamina-fight between us and Earth, Earth alwayse wins. And that's the only benefit we should keep in mind.
That's all there is to it, and it has nothing to do with the Bambi-Syndrome wich is rampant out there.

Date: 2008/04/04 13:00:09, Link
Author: Assassinator
Please Christopher, don't make this thread more scary then it is already. But just to give him a break, I'll do it for him:
Jesus = 74
Root from 74 = 8,602 ofcourse rounded off.

Date: 2008/04/04 19:44:41, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (BWE @ April 04 2008,18:30)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 04 2008,18:10)
Thanks Gary. That's what I think I meant to say right from the start. The mindset that resources are convertable to currency and back again. It's like saying well, hell. We've converted the matter to energy, now we'll just convert it back.

ETA: And it sometimes pisses me off just a little.

Best is, we've been warned for that at the beginning of the end (and I think you know what I mean with that):
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught...
Only then you will realise, that money can't be eaten.

And after that, our all time favorite comes:
I told you so, didn't I?

Date: 2008/04/05 19:30:28, Link
Author: Assassinator
Another Brick in the Wall?
(sorry, couldn't resist)

Date: 2008/04/08 04:28:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
I sometimes do, but I still prefer written language over face-to-face. I'm way to impulsive to discuss things like this, I don't have the time to really think about what I want to say. Also, what Louis says, some friends of mine are complete tards if it's about science, but ofcourse I don't want to spoil our friendship over that (although I'm dissapointed when I find out retarted things). The only exception, are my parents. Especially my mum likes pseudo-science stuff, and falls for the bullshit beauty-product commercials (like DNAge) and then I totally burn here. My dad is a douchebag when it's about politics, and he's fun to burn down as well. To illustrate the atmosphear at home: I've been kicked out the house 7 times, and I think I'll move out pretty soon.

Date: 2008/04/08 05:17:47, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Louis @ April 08 2008,05:01)
P.S. Kicked out 7 times just for arguing? Excellent effort on your part. I highly recommend a change of sex/sexuality and a profoundly expensive drug habit for the win! I have some people I can put you in contact with....

Ooo that's not needed, I'm Dutch, at least pot is alwayse a doorstep away ;-) (although I live in the middle of the Dutch Bible Belt, but it's still Holland; we had a weed 'farm' 1 block from my house)
But yea it's mostly for arguing, but my dad and I don't really get along anyway since character wise, we're WAY to similair. It's not that he's christian, or some other kind of fundie, it's just he's a tard on some area's. And lot's of times, there is a complete lack of logic in his parenting (and even my mum acknowledges that sometimes). And that's a pretty volatile mix.

Date: 2008/04/08 18:52:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (BWE @ April 08 2008,06:22)
Quote (Assassinator @ April 08 2008,05:17)
... my dad and I don't really get along anyway since character wise, we're WAY to similair. It's not that he's christian, or some other kind of fundie, it's just he's a tard on some area's. And lot's of times, there is a complete lack of logic in his parenting (and even my mum acknowledges that sometimes). And that's a pretty volatile mix.

Your children will repeat that paragraph dang near verbatim someday.

Thus spake BWE

I really can't wait for that moment, because that would mean they would start thinking for themselfs ;-) At least I will try 1 thing my dad lacks right now: dialogue. He thinks I should listen to him just because he's my dad, problem is I simply won't do that (ofcourse, the fact that I'm still a kid and that I sometimes still am a impulsive and rebelling teen plays a part as well, I won't deny that). And although I never hestitate to at least try to discuss with my dad lots of time, I do hestitate to discuss with other family members. My grandma for instance, she's amazing, is a "regular" christian and a creationist (although I doubt she's a YEC). I once started a dialogue about that with her, when I was 10, and never bothered again because it's a way too nice relationship to spoil wich such a debate.
Quote (BWE @ April 08 2008,15:47)
I discovered that Christians really exist, the kind that thump their bibles, only after I went to college. I've only met a handful even still.

It's quite foreign to me.

I've lived with them my entire, yet short, life and I still do. Although they're pretty friendly in most cases, some are actually pretty scary. 1 Morning I was biking to school pretty early in the morning past 1 of those folks houses, there a mother who looked a bit like that girl from The Ring (a sleeping-gown wich looks Victorian, pale face, long black hair although not hanging infront of her face) kept following me with deep-socketed dark eyes. Scared the crap outa me, but luckely even she is a bit of an excess from that community.
Although that community is pretty damned clear they're fundie's, the fundie's who definatly don't look or sound fundie frighten me the most. I met this really beautiful and friendly girl a while ago, and I was shocked when I found out she was a YEC fundie. It was so wierd, I also attempted dialogue with her but I left that to rest as well because I didn't want to create tension. That's the main reason why I barely discuss controversial things at all with other people, I can't stand tension.
Quote (Louis @ April 08 2008,05:30)
Dutch? Did I mention that the Netherlands is one of my most favouritest places in teh world. I've been to Amsterdam several times and a good friend of mine is Dutch. Ahhh the Van Gogh Museum, the Ann Frank House, the canals, the beautiful yet strangely leaning architecture.....ah yes, I remember them very poorly for some reason. Particularly of interest is a little cafe on the Warmoesstraat in Amsterdam called "The Greenhouse Effect". Their White Widow is superb...erm someone told me once, apparently. You can't beat Jack Herrer though...allegedly.

Anyway, since the only Dutch I can reliably remember is a few plesantries, "mijn geschlactsorganen doen pijn" and "Ik hab een zwelling"* I'll leave this there.


*Learned only for comedy purposes I can assure you, Your Honour.

I never really felt the urge to go into Amsterdam, I visited it once on our way to the popu-science museum Nemo, but I wouldn't call that a real visit to Amsterdam. When I watch that city on tv and what I've seen on that 1 trip myself, Amsterdam feels a bit...icky to me. Although I'm definatly not a christian boy, I'm pretty damned prudish on some things ;-)

Date: 2008/04/08 19:07:34, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (MR_Christopher @ April 08 2008,12:23)
Ben Stein is an actor?  Hmmmm...Has he ever actually acted?  I've never seen him "act".   I always thought he's paid to portray himself.

Just watch The Mask where he plays, *gasp*, someone who actually embraces and uses science (a psychologist, treating Stanly about his mask problems)! Must be the hardest part he played his entire life, especially the fact that his character embraces logic.

Date: 2008/04/09 14:55:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Kristine @ April 09 2008,12:29)
The religious anti-gay movement is dying, after all. A new generation of evangelicals is coming up who are less concerned with that crap.

Really? I thought those anti-gay Bible camps (for gay boys and girls to "transform" them into straight people, I can just wonder about the problems those kids will have in the future, my society-teacher in high-school commited suicide from supressing it) were relatively new, or would just be the last twitches?

Date: 2008/04/09 15:01:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
Although Showgirls sucked (o ha   ha   ha), it still had lots of hot naked girls. Wich is what matters with a porn-flick. Now this is a proper cult-classic:

PS: midwifetoad, suprise us with some good Photoshops from both of those filmposters. It's excellent material.

Date: 2008/04/11 19:17:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
Scientists often use simplifications and personifications to (try to) explain certain things, simply because it's handy and it's the easiest way to do it. And yes, some people mix that up. But ofcourse, antromorphisation is nothing new or special. Just look at the climate-change stuff what's all around us, craploads of people seem to suffer from the Bambi Syndrome

when we're talking about nature. Compared to that, those little simplifications for the sake of explanation are nothing, but they can get irritating sometimes but a WHOLE lot less irritating then the Bambi Syndrome.

Date: 2008/04/12 10:43:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 12 2008,08:52)
Quote (Assassinator @ April 11 2008,20:17)
Scientists often use simplifications and personifications to (try to) explain certain things, simply because it's handy and it's the easiest way to do it. And yes, some people mix that up. But ofcourse, antromorphisation is nothing new or special. Just look at the climate-change stuff what's all around us, craploads of people seem to suffer from the Bambi Syndrome

when we're talking about nature. Compared to that, those little simplifications for the sake of explanation are nothing, but they can get irritating sometimes but a WHOLE lot less irritating then the Bambi Syndrome.

I gather that Bambi is ultimately a surprisingly dark and existential movie, as Bambi's mother is shot and killed by hunters and Bambi is forced into adulthood.

I know, that's what made the movie fun for me (lots of the original Disney movies are actually pretty dark and evil) :P But say that to your regular 9 year old, like my sister (e.a, kids are raised with an antromorphesised version of nature). Like skeptic says, it's a regular heard sentiment and it's increasing with the climate debate. It's pretty dámn irritating, I saw a WWF advertisement in a magazine simply saying "Stop climate change!". It really made me go, "WTF?".

Anyway, it's pretty dumb from myself that I forgot about it. The best example wich fit with skeptic's earlier examples is ofcourse ID. If ány group of people abuses the anthromorphisised examples from scientists to explain things, and the human habit of anthromorpisation in general, it's the ID community.

Date: 2008/04/12 13:55:41, Link
Author: Assassinator
The whole idea of "Stop Global Warming/Climate Change" is retarted already, not just stupid. Isn't it just arrogant to think we can or should stop those things?
By the way, since when does ginseng grow in the US ^^ But yea, you're right, problem is people don't care about what you like. They only care about the money they earn with it, the New World's new god.

Date: 2008/04/13 08:36:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
O no I never denied the "problem" (I don't call it a problem really, climate change is pretty normal, the Sahara wasn't alwayse that desert), I just hate the fact that we're putting all our efforts in trying to stop it instead of learning to deal with a changing earth. Because why on earth to people think we can or should stop climate change? The earth changes every seconde, yes Holland could be flooded in the future (the risk of living in a giant bathtube), but what's wrong with that? Millions of years ago, Holland was just the seafloor and it could become seafloor once again, what's wrong with that? Yea, then we have to move, like animal life does for millions of years, why should we be an exception?
It looks like people can't accept that the earth changes, also in our dissadvantage and instead of learning to deal with it we're trying to stop it without even knowing if we cán or even should, isn't that dumb?

Date: 2008/04/13 12:26:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
I think we indeed talked passed eachother ;-) Because, obviously, I agree on most of what you wrote there.
Quote (Louis @ April 13 2008,11:20)
What ISN'T at all stupid is trying to minimise certain specific changes that result from (or are greatly exacerbated by) certain specific human activities. And of course, learning to live with certain aspects of climate change is one of these things we need to do.

What kind of minimisation would you have in mind then? Wich effects? For example, we can easely see we cause massive deforestation and desertification and the damage it causes to loads of people. The problem is as well, that those things are mainly caused by the same people, simply because there are lots and lots of them. Isn't that our main problem, that we're simply with too many?
And, I think we're not focussing enough on learning to live with possible effects. And even if we do, it seems that we're mainly focussing on ourselfs and less on the country's that really need our technical expertise on this subject.
In what you wrote I am reminded of one of the most astounding things I ever heard. I was talking to a chap once who said "I don't understand why these poor starving people in Africa don't just walk out of the famine zone and into somewhere where there is food.". It should be immediately obivous why that is abundantly daft!

You don't have to be afraid that I think something like that, I fully realise that simply moving away from changing enviroments is FAR as easy as it sounds ;-)
Climate change affects people in places less well able to cope with/change because of it than Holland. It affects places with high population densities, in countries where there is little no infrastructure available to help people. You'd be amazed just how many people can die in even a minor natural catastrophe. Look at the death toll and havoc wreaked by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. And this was in the richest country with nigh on the best infrastructure in the world (subsequent mismanagement notwithstanding). Think about millions of refugees trying to get to countries that are marginally safer than where they are, think about extreme weather patterns becoming more common, sufficiently common to make certain very densely populated parts of the world uninhabitable, think about where those people are going to go and how they are going to get there.

Again, ofcourse I realise that such a worst-case scenario can become reality. The problem is again: can we really do something about it? The liveability (if that word even exists, but I hope that you know what I mean) of area's has changed craploads of time's, the main difference now is that hundreds of millions of people live in area's who are prone to change already (coastal area's). Can we stop those area's from changing? Can we even protect those people? Ofcourse I deeply hope we can, but sometimes I think really really bad things to those people are going to happen wich we can't stop. I don't think we're thinking enough about what can happen to those people and how we can protect them. I see expensive projects to put CO2 in the ground, I see alternative energy's. Do those things (well, at least some of them) help? Yes, they can help with coping with the changes for us in the future, but what direct help do they offer to those millions of people who can be very screwed?
It's all right saying "well the climate changes so why should be do anything about it", but to be blunt I think you've missed the point. No one is trying to keep the world in some static paradise, no one is even suggesting this. What people are saying is that there are a huge number of things we need from the planet to survive and some of the things we do are jeapordising those vital things. More than that, some of the things we do are having effects on climate that are directly responsible for killing other people in other countries. "Climate change" is a shorthand for "the adverse effects of certain activities of H. sapiens on the environment that result is specific changes in specific aspects of the global climate". Do make the mistake that people are somehow trying to stop the world from ever changing at all. That's a gross misunderstanding of what IS going on.

Ofcourse I agree that we are destroying and depleting lots of things who are vitale for our survival (or at least for our current civilisation), but it seems that those direct things aren't the things who are in the spotlight right now (deforestation, desertification). CO2 is thé subject right now, and although I realise we should definatly decrease polution output wich also means less CO2, I think "Guys, aren't there things who deserve that space in the spotlight more then that?". That's mainly my adversion against the current debate, that we're making the wrong priority's.

Date: 2008/04/13 14:11:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well, I agree on 1 thing, that is that we (media, certain groups) use CO2 as a really really big scapegoat to blaim all climate problems on, that it's THE cause of the predicted climate change and current weather changes. Forgive me, but I still doubt we are thé cause of all the changes since it happend before without us. Ofcourse we can't ignore our influence, but again is CO2 worth his spot in the spotlights? Aren't there things who need our attention much more? Like deforestation, like desertification, like the real changing (and not the possible cause) of coastal area's.

Date: 2008/04/13 14:30:35, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Nerull @ April 13 2008,13:08)
Quote (Assassinator @ April 12 2008,14:55)
By the way, since when does ginseng grow in the US ^^

Erm, its native.

That's not what I read on Wikipedia (it says Asia), but I kinda fail at reading.

Date: 2008/04/15 03:00:12, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well, still, even though they look similar, that's not that strange. It's still the same cell, the same processes. There isn't that much room for difference, the Harvard animation kinda set the standard (so to say). No wonder they look alike, although the walking over the microtubule really made me frown. The rest isn't that super-duper plagiarised, tbh.
(I really feel like playing the devil's advocate)

Date: 2008/04/15 03:20:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
@Louis regarding his reactions to my posts:
Well, can't say much else then that I agree with you ;) Tha faulty portret the media paints of science may be one of the reasons I want to get a bachelor in Journalism.
Quote (skeptic @ Posted on April 14 2008,21:05)
Actually, I was thinking how the use of language in the global warming issue can in some ways hamper communication with the lay public in two ways.  One by turning them off with the dire implications and also the sometimes unscientific extrapolations that confuse or mislead activists who then perpetuate them.  This came to mind in light of a recent poll that asked Americans to name some current scientists and the two leading vote getters were Al Gore and Bill Gates.  

This is somewhat on target, isn't it?

O yes indeed, as Louis sad earlier, the main source from people's knowledge about science is the mainstream media. And the media is portrating science and scientific knowledge, data and theories very, VERY bad. And it's not just with global warming, ID may find it's foundation in these matters.

Date: 2008/04/15 10:06:34, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD, Posted on April 15 2008,08:30 )
b3:Why do the dogs never learn the skunk stinks?

Do dogs care if they stink or not ;)
Anyway, you guys sure have some fascinating wildlife around there. It's just boring crap here in Holland, the little and plain birds (blackbirds, pigeons, several species of tits and unfortunatly not the interesting types of tits) we have here are mostly chased away by my 2 cats (who still occasionally catch one, picture on 1st page). The best I can spot here, are grey herons who occasionally fly over. They like my neighborhood (densly build quarter build like 12 years ago) because lots of people have small ponds in there backyards, thus fish. Also the nightly sky isn't that woopy, because I live 200 meters from a freeway. And still the area where I live would be labeled as "country-side".
Yay for Holland...

Date: 2008/04/15 10:36:47, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (charlie d @ Posted on April 15 2008,10:21 )
There will be notes and e-mails of discussions between animators and actual biologists, the biologists' own notes, the evidence of 3D modeling from existing protein structures and cell microscopy (e.g. confocal, SEM and TE) data in the literature and databases, and so on.

Did biologists in general even worked on Expelled?

Date: 2008/04/20 09:06:46, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Annyday @ Posted: April 20 2008,08:58)
Obvious troll is obvious. The first guy can't be real ... can he?

He sure as hell is, I live next to people who are actually worse. Yes, indeed, worse then that guy. *shivers*

Date: 2008/04/23 07:07:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,11:56)
sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth.

Skeptic, this has nothing to do with opinions. We simply asked you to support your opinion, because we can't discuss without content. Apperantly, you don't understand what Louis sad, he sad he wanted (just like me) to see some foundation for your statements.
Really, how the héll can you base your opinion on data you haven't seen (does it even exist)?? I really don't understand how you do that.

Date: 2008/04/23 12:09:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Nomad @ April 22 2008,23:19)
Quote (J-Dog @ April 22 2008,18:29)
Here's your Cliff Notes:  If there is a god, (s)he's a dick.

The Greatest Story Ever Told

Yeah, but, see... that's just it.  I want an interpretation that makes it all actually make sense.  That's the tricky part.  I want to somehow make this concept of a supernatural monstrosity that so many worship today actually come out as a respectable, honest character, even if it has to be framed from a different perspective.

That's been done by saying, "Don't worry, it's all part of a big plan we don't understand, it's all for our good!" and well, that's it.

Date: 2008/04/24 18:37:46, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,18:33)
that's the problem Lou, you weren't thinking.

No no no he díd think, and thát was the problem. Who needs thinking when you got the neo-cons ;)

Date: 2008/04/25 17:42:05, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well...skeptic did point out what he exactly ment, and where he got it from. Isn't that like, more you could ever ask for? At least enough to like, react on his opinions, right?
Quote (Louis Posted on April 25 2008 @ 05:17)

Indeed, can't say nothing more then I agree. The point I'm kinda worried about, is the affordability from goods like that, and if they don't come too late for those tens of millions of people who are fleeing already from the changing enviroment already. What can we do to prevent them from dying an mass? We're already on the good road, making sure are alright and prepared, but what about them?

Date: 2008/04/25 18:27:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
Hell yes they're fleeing, especially in Africa, people running from desertification and drought.
I'm not sure about SE Asia, but I can imagine it will happen or already is happening with increasing floods.
The really shitty side about those African people moving, is that they move to more fertile area's (ofcourse), but because they're with so many and just want to survive, they completly drain those area's as well and then the story starts over again. And o boy, the locals from those refugee area's don't like that. But what to do? It's like a spiral diving deeper and deeper.

Date: 2008/04/25 18:35:35, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Louis @ April 25 2008,18:24)
The universe just got a whole lot darker.

Here's to Humph. Brilliant musician and wonderful raconteur and, to be frank, a genius.

I'm off to toast a brilliant man with something inordinately expensive.


P.S. In his honour: Cockfosters.

I'm not a huge fan from his style of jazz (I'm more of a John Coltraine person), but he sure as hell is one awesome trumpetist. Shame to see such people go, glad to see those people are rememberd.

Date: 2008/04/25 19:02:02, Link
Author: Assassinator
Well ok I can agree on that, posting articles who just repeat your own p.o.v isn't an explanation in any way. And I as well still want an explanation from skeptic (yes skeptic, you indeed) on why it's indeed crap in his eyes (I'm not even condemning his views), and not just examples of more people who agree with him.
But I'm just pretty optimistic and saw sóme content, seeing at least a weeee small oppertunity for a reaction on his views ;-) Just my hopefull side I guess.

Date: 2008/04/26 05:18:08, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,23:24)
ok, a couple of quick points.  first, how are prehistoric CO2 levels irrelevant in this debate, if that is indeed what you are saying?  The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability. Please tell me what I'm missing here.

It's not about the earth or nature here, climate change IS a part of nature. This problem is purely about us humans: how do wé as a species manage with the changing enviroment. The answer is, a large part of our species manages véry shitty with the changing envoriment and is likely to be in a world of hurt.
An investment that, IMO, would be wholly and utterly wasted on my part because Louis isn't really interested in those things.

And thát kind of attitude grinds discussions to a halt, or even preventing them to take off in the first place. Just try, show it to us, and wait for a reaction. The only thing we ask for is to explain why climate tipping points are bogus in your eyes. Just dive a little bit in the deep, show us what you got, and we can have a discussion about the content. That would be a nice change, wouldn't it?
EDIT: It seems Louis posted a split second before me (my my you're up early), and as you can see he talks about the content. Now please, be a sport, and help this make a constructive discussion, ok? ;-)
for me GW is about as relevant in my daily life as who's going to win the Stanley Cup.

And that short-sightness is 1 of the main problems we're facing. It's not neceseraly about you, it's about our children and grand-children. It's not even about us Westren folks, we'll manage in the end, it's about those millions of near-dead people in developing country's who have no way to go.

Date: 2008/04/26 05:46:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
The "please be a sport, and help this make a constuctive discussion" was ment against skeptic, not you Louis ;) I don't really think you're too harsh, I amaze myself why I keep so calm sometimes.

But ofcourse, can't agree more, there can't be a fruitfull discussion without support for any claim. Now let's wait what he comes up with (I keep hoping, but that's just me).

Date: 2008/04/26 11:46:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (skeptic @ Posted on April 26 2008,09:35)
if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.  I'll take that.  But you do touch on a good point, in reality, developed nations are going to plod right along and the third world is going to suffer.  Unfortunately, this sounds conveniently like an agenda.  Only in this case, not only will the third world suffer disproportionantly, but we are the primary cause according to scientific fact.  Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection.

An agenda to whipe out the poor country's?? Before this goes on the conspiracy-express, care to explain? Ofcourse more things are at work, things aren't as simple as we portrait it.
But yea, we're to blaim with our huge amount of overconsumption, what's so wierd about that?

quick point before I move on, Louis I read the first two lines of your long post and skipped the rest entirely.  If you said anything novel you might want to post that separately.

You do know that skipping posts doesn't give you any real credibility? Really, how can we ever discuss with you like that? You may skipped it, but unfortunatly he has some valid points there if you like it or not. Ignoring only makes it worse.
Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same.  I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one.  This relies heavily on our understanding of the science of climate to quantify it as accurately as possible but unlike my field we don't have a test system with which to refine and strengthen this model.  This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence.

Science is never sure, ofcourse, but are you saying we're not picking the correct variabeles? Care to explain more about that piece of text?
What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right.  Now we run this model forward with our best estimates of CO2 increases and we have an idea of the temperature increases.  This is the extrapolation step and here's where the problem comes in.

Automatically we've introduced bias into the model because we've correlated CO2, accurately or not, with temperature increase.  In this simplistic model we've also completely weighted CO2.  We could be looking at two completely unrelated independent variables but the model we built looks good and conforms to past data.  We have a good mechanistic basis for using CO2 conc. but we have to add   in other factors to account for the complexity of climate.  This becomes a test of what we actually know about climate as opposed to what we think we know.  Our model is going to be force fit to the past data no matter which variables we choose and the true power will be revealed as we go down the road and deal with the predictions as they become current data points.  Again we're hampered by the lack of a test system.  But that's the limitation we have to deal with.

First of all, isn't the whole ideá of a model like that to try to find a connection between temperature and CO2? If the variables are completly unlinked, we don't expect to see a relation between the 2. But like you say, it's an oversimplification, so do you have a more realistic example then?

As an example I can produce CCs in the 70-80% range when interpolating data and when I move outside that set to the data set I can watch those CCs drop to 50-60%.  Don't get me wrong, computer models are a powerful tool but there are limitations and those should always be kept in mind when proclaiming their results.  The pharma industry is a real good example.  As a real of thumb, at each stage of development only 10% of your molecules are going to advance to the next stage.  Starting with the models predicting activity and toxicity you'd think that of the thousands of molecules screened you could do better than 10% but you can't and sometimes 10% is a dream.  I would propose the same for climate modeling, a good tool but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power.

This goes a little bit above my head, it's more something for Louis (at least he's more at home in the pharma industry).

Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew!

Date: 2008/04/30 12:25:24, Link
Author: Assassinator
Question: how the hell do you keep those bees in the box, and isn't such a hive way to heavy for a cardboard box like that?
Anyway, 2 days ago I saw a pretty nice bird, wich I've never seen here before. I didn't take a picture, because I was just on my way back from school, but I think it was this one:

The Eurasian Nuthatch, mainly because it was spurting down up and down the trunk of a tree so smoothly. But I could be wrong ofcourse, I'm far from a connaiseur ;-)

Date: 2008/05/08 13:15:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,13:03)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 08 2008,12:23)
If you do go "over there" you will be treated to such gems as this:

For example, the oft-repeated idea that an object of a specified size and shape dropped from a specified height in a vacuum will take an amount of time to fall that is independent of the dropped object’s mass is simply untrue. But it is a useful approximation, and widely considered to be “true” even among the scientifically educated.

It is a gem, thanks.  Come on over to discuss further, if you dare.

Why do you want so dearly to do it at your place? Aren't we fine over here? No banning and stuff like that, no post deletion (although some posts can be moved, but not deleted). Really, we cán we friendly folks.
Also, we don't want to just discuss science. Some people already asked some questions, that would prevent nasty mix-ups and stuff like that.

Date: 2008/05/13 07:09:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (William Wallace @ May 13 2008,00:49)
Yawn, most of the lamers can't discuss my latest post.  Ones from here that show up just come to insult.  This place is like third grade.

When you boys are ready to grow up, come on over and discuss your religion, ahem, I mean "science" (as opposed to science).

Why do you only want to discuss on your own place? I mean, if you got good arguments, they're good everywhere.
By the way, better answer "Yes" to those questions from Zero, because he has the math as proof!

Date: 2008/05/18 11:09:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 15 2008,12:09)

Olberman blasts His Holiness, The Glorified Houseplant Who Would Be Caesar

One of his best.

*claps* Brilliant, that's simply amazing. I'm surrounded by punks (note: I mean, people who have the punk life-style) who ofcourse bash Bush every single day. That's nóthing compared to what this guy does, awesome.

Date: 2008/05/18 12:19:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (hereoisreal @ May 18 2008,11:26)


Awwwww that really is cute, most of the time's those shows are just mindless laughing material. But there sure are gems.

Date: 2008/05/19 08:39:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 19 2008,01:18)
Oh. has evolved!

Wow, she allowed me to post there:
It would've been nice if that video actually properly represented what evolution is all about. To bad it doesn't. Just 1 example, those chances. Fact is, biochemistry is not a dice game, thus those long long chances are meaningless. Even more, that's about the origin of life, a topic that's a whole different field of scientific study. Also, what he sad about moths changing into bees, that's not even how evolution works! It would've been nice if that guy in that video would've just used evolution studies as the base of his opinion.

Date: 2008/05/19 09:55:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
Yea the video sad some good things about ID, got shitty when it went on about evolution. Very superficial, but to be honest I did not expect Ftk would post something like that ;) Nor did I expect my post to come through, it seems like she....changed a bit, would that be possible :O

Date: 2008/05/20 07:15:32, Link
Author: Assassinator
I live in a little rotten village (where I'm surrounded by religious extremists, I live in the middle of our Bible Belt) called Waardenburg in the middle of Holland. I don't think ányone lives near me, and also that I'm the only Dutch person around here. I can't wait to move out of this place, and I already started thinking about migrating some day.

Date: 2008/05/20 17:23:26, Link
Author: Assassinator
The task fell to me to rescue the little fella and we tried a wet wash cloth on the webbing to no avail - and I was real concerned about aplying too much pressure to its wings, the thing seemed so fragile in the palm of my hand.

Then I can say again, poor spider, deprived from his food ;)

Date: 2008/05/25 16:41:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
Can't wait as well. Ya know, you guys sure revived my love for the outdoors ;)
Anyway, maybe a funny little "wildlife" story to tell as well. Yesterday, at work, we had ourselfs a bird in the supermarket's storage. For some odd reason, all my co-workers were scared shitless from the little fella. I just found it a pretty nice experience to watch a bird up close, and his singing sounded even better! And because I was the only guy around (all my co-workers are girls, except for the boss who wasn't around) I was the one who could scare it away, and thus I got crap all over me (thanks girls!).
I think it was one of these:

A female blackbird, a kinda dull and normal bird but the song it sang was still really nice, but I'm definatly not sure (1 of the reasons I would like a camara on my cellphone).
All in all another fun day at work, at least my newest co-workers who just had her first day has one to remember.

Date: 2008/05/26 09:51:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Richard Simons @ May 25 2008,20:54)
A female blackbird, a kinda dull and normal bird but the song it sang was still really nice, but I'm definatly not sure

The male blackbird (which is the one that does the singing) is jet black with a bright yellow beak. The starling is chunkier with a dull beak but if you see it reasonably well you can see it is spotted, not uniform black and I would not describe its song as sweet. If it was brown, likely contenders are the thrushes but they are light underneath with obvious dark spots. They, like the blackbird, have clear, fluty songs.

The blackbird is the one that is most likely to be comfortable enough around people to enter a building (at least, in the UK). I remember one that used to come into a lunch room and pick up crumbs from under the tables while people were sitting there. When the janitor saw it he rushed at it, shouting and waving his arms. The bird would quickly fill its beak with everything within reach and casually fly out inches in front of him.

Hmm yes then it was definatly not a female blackbird. I can only recall it was a slim bird who was totally brown, with a fluty song. It could be a European Starling, but I can't recall it being that spotted. The beak was also different, it had a darker color.

Date: 2008/05/27 13:22:56, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (didymos @ May 26 2008,23:34)
Quote (sparc @ May 26 2008,21:26)
Bad Math Alert!
What else would one expect from someone who describes himself the following way:        
So anyway as one can carefully see half this blog is centered around a new approach to politics but the other half has to do with things that allow you to be someone that can't in anyway be labeled as average. It's primarily centered around being a superhuman, or super soldier so to speak. If you care about playing a huge role in this nation, and you want to die knowing you made a positive change, these articles should give enlightenment.

Well, the dude is 17, according to his blog.  Lots of 17 year old American males are convinced of their innate awesomeness and that with sufficient dedication and a bit of providence, they can be superhero ninja genius bad-asses (unspoken assumption/hope being: and then I will seriously score with teh ladeez).

I am ashamed from some of my age-companions. It's nothing special though, you should see my school.... It's (hopefully) just another phase, sometimes.
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 26 2008,22:36)
This confirms my working hypothesis that *the* main reason people go into global warming denial is because they hate Al Gore.

Can't réally blaim them hmm ;)

(The LOLcat universe is soooooo big)

Date: 2008/05/27 14:44:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
Can all the links above even be called "action"? Really, it's all just the same crap, boring monotous chatter from odd people. Not much fun, where is the creativity in the anti-evo camps, that would spice things up.

Date: 2008/05/30 08:06:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
Haaaappy birthdaaaay! Kinda late I know, but it's about the idea ;)

Date: 2008/06/05 19:02:49, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (skeptic @ June 05 2008,13:56)
I appreciate you all missing the point.  I congratulate you as you continue to be part of the problem.

Then do us a favor, and make it clear. Apperantly you kind of failed at first, because we all missed it.

Date: 2008/06/12 09:12:11, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,08:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2008,08:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,08:27)
Damn, 5 lies in the course of a couple days?  Wow, I'm a mess, no?  

I can feel those flames of hell even as I'm writing...

Don't you even have a comment on the *fact* that VOX is not a Christian as you understand the term and you are cheerleading for somebody that in days gone past you would have been required by your religion to treat as an enemy?

After all, by your religion's own rules he's a heretic.

He believes in *gods* FTK, not *God*

Does that not matter to you at all?

OM, you poor thing.


Vox is a Christian.  Vox used the word gods as a platform in which to debate PZ.  From what I gathered, he wasn't arguing primarily for the God of Christianity, but rather the notion that there is an ultimate creator of the cosmos.

For wich he has how much evidence? Any emperical data, emperical observations perhaps?
Of course.  I've never argued that there are not any lateral mutations that benefit an organism.  I'm saying that they are very few and far between, they are ~relatively~ non-existent, and that they are the result of massively complex systems already fully functional.

Any emperical data? Evidence? Proof? Any scientific foundation for that statement?
To demand that all of nature worked it's way through slight microevolutionary changes throughout millions of years to what we presently observe in nature today is ~NUTS~, IMHO.  But, then, what the hell do I know...I ain't got no science degree.  All I know is that the empirical evidence to make these claims just isn't there.

Again, any support for that statement? Without any foundation, those statements are nothing but hollow cries.
Besides, how the héll can you "know" that emperical evidence is not there if you don't have any science degree? Do you have ANY education on these matters at all?

Date: 2008/06/12 09:21:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,09:1)
I agree with him that feminism has done quite a bit of

Care to explain please?

Date: 2008/06/12 09:36:56, Link
Author: Assassinator
Nice one, but emmm, care to adress 1 of those previous questions from anyone of us?

Date: 2008/06/12 19:21:08, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,19:06)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 12 2008,18:39)
Quote (stevestory @ June 12 2008,16:14)
Glenn Morton tells her, "Walt's pre-flood arrangement is physically impossible. And if the flood had happened the surface temperature of the earth would get hotter than the sun by 10 or 100 times. Everything would have died and the oceans and atmosphere would be gone." Olegt is a physicist and he's told her that. I'm a mere bachelor's in physics and I've told her that. JonF is a scientist and he's told her. The people at KCFS told her.

FtK at some point it starts to look like you have a learning disability.

Even Answers in Genesis warns people away from Wally.

I think it's more that FTK thinks that in order to be truly 'saved', she has to assume the most extremist position on any of the Christian cultural signifiers. You know, she's afraid of being "lukewarm, neither cold nor hot".

Either that, or it's just that she knows that wicked atheists really can't abide Brown, so that means that she has to embrace him, regardless of how little sense he makes. In other words, she assumes doing the opposite of whatever the meanies do is an easy no-brainer shortcut to being religiously correct.

Not really, Arden.  You guys are the ones that maintain I hold to Walt's theory as unquestionable fact.  I've never said anything other than I find it quite interesting.  I think many things he brings up about evolution are worth considering, and his theories are compelling.  I don't know if you're familiar with his theory about the grand canyon, but it's another one that's an interesting read.

I don't really care if you think I'm off my rock for considering something other than evolutionary paradigm.  

Actually, I think the reason people keep bringing the issues of Walt and a young earth back to the surface is because they'd rather discuss that than why it is necessary to adhere to the notion of common descent to practice science.  So, I think I'll get back to that rather than let you boys steer the conversation away from that query.

You do need to understand that it doesn't matter if something is interesting or not. The only thing that matters in science, is data, evidence, support for your claims. It can be as dull as batshit (and I bet somewhere in the world, someone heavely dissagrees) but if it's thoroughly supported, it doesn't matter a damned thing. Fact is, that for example his hydroplate theory is complete and utter rubbish, and it doesn't matter how interesting it sounds. I can't imagine you can't understand that. Same with sources. It doesn't matter if a 10 inch tall blue Odin worshipping tripple winged elf provides the proper foundation for a statement or theory, it's the foundation itself wich matters and not the person (thus including his personal beleives).

But really, lets put it aside then if you don't care about it. You care about common descent, ok, what do you have to ask about common descent then?

Date: 2008/06/12 19:29:48, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,19:15)
If scientists know that to be true, why do you folks seem to insist that speciation is not a problem and it's merely due to microevolutionary changes over billions of years?

Speciation has been observed, numerous times. Go Google it or something.
Another thing is, that we don't insist that it's "merely" due to microevolutionary changes over billions of years. John S. Wilkins. probably adresses the problem with micro and macro evolution better then I ever can in this article he wrote:
Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.

It isn't all 100% done and over in the field of biology Ftk, it isn't as closed as you seem to think it is.

Date: 2008/06/13 11:33:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ June 13 2008,10:49)
Quote (olegt @ June 13 2008,10:41)
Sorry, Ftk, but where's the science on the other side?

There's no fact based supporting science on either side.  Common descent / Common design....scientists can come at their work with either ideology and accomplish the exact same things.

Like I said, the whole mess is ridiculous.  What people are really looking for is "truth".  I certainly encourage that, but at the moment, sticking either concept in the realm of science is somewhat of a joke.

Can you explain, please, how you can say that without any proper education on these matters? That's a mystery to me, so can you please enlighten me?

By the way Ftk, can you also please explain to me why the hell you are avoiding any post wich goes against the scientific statements you made? Like Louis posts, sure you got 0 respect for him, but that doesn't make the content of hist posts less valuable. Again, personality's do not matter in science.

Date: 2008/06/14 18:28:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
Happy B-day to all you folks.

Date: 2008/06/16 11:03:11, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (BCtheEra @ June 15 2008,14:25)
Quote (keiths @ June 14 2008,01:48)
Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2008,21:42)
Never heard of this Sean McDowell guy.

I'll bet he's the son of Josh "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" McDowell.

Poor kid, and now he's getting mixed up with Dembski.

It would seem that your design inference is correct, Sean McDowell is the son of Josh McDowell.
Sean did find answers that satisfied him, and today he is working with his father to update The Resurrection Factor, a book Josh McDowell wrote in 1982 in defense of the resurrection. Sean also heads the Bible department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. Like his father, one of Sean's goals is to help young people ask the tough questions about Christianity so they can make their faith their own.


Date: 2008/06/17 06:01:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ June 17 2008,04:32)
Or is the funny bit here:

Dammit, why isn't that being broadcasted here in Holland, I miss all the good stuff! O well we dó have the Daily Show over here.
Anyway, not much new stuff in that one, just saying what we already knew. That Colbert guy is awesome though.

Date: 2008/06/17 14:50:49, Link
Author: Assassinator
Happy birthday! Good luck with getting that done ;)

Date: 2008/06/22 14:12:59, Link
Author: Assassinator
1 Thing though: hate mail is nothing more then contra-productive here. I doubt anything will help, but if you try, do it seriously.

Date: 2008/06/26 10:34:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ June 26 2008,10:10)

Evidence, my ass.  More like massive assumption and just so stories in the case of Darwinian evolution.

You dó know that, without ány form of support that is just a hollow comment? Support it please.
(What will happen with this comment, I wonder I wonder...)

Honest to god, I’d love to freak your world for a semester.

Seeing you have no proper education on these matters (evolutionary biology, chemistry, ecology, just to name a few) and he actually did, that's why he's in his position right now, I wonder how you will rock his world... *gets really dirty pictures in his mind*

Date: 2008/06/26 10:39:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
Ftk, I wonder about another thing. Do you actually realise that discussions tend to fail if you ignore the actual on-topic responses to what you say?

Date: 2008/06/26 10:50:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
Why are they assholes Ftk? Because they mock you? Ever thought about why they mock you? Instead of whining about them, just post what you want to post. It sounds like you actually want to post someting ontopic, something wich is supported by evidence! The excuses are worthless.
I think lots of those "assholes" would fall of there chairs if you do.

Date: 2008/06/26 10:53:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Louis @ June 26 2008,16:50)
Naaaah, not fall off our chairs, we'd leap into the air cheering. We've been waiting for years/months (depending on the individual


Leaping, falling. Same emotion, different directions ;) But whatever will happen, I'll grab my popcorn. It's amusing really, more drama then TV can éver produce.

Date: 2008/06/26 11:13:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Louis @ June 26 2008,10:57)
Quote (Assassinator @ June 26 2008,16:53)
Quote (Louis @ June 26 2008,16:50)
Naaaah, not fall off our chairs, we'd leap into the air cheering. We've been waiting for years/months (depending on the individual


Leaping, falling. Same emotion, different directions ;) But whatever will happen, I'll grab my popcorn. It's amusing really, more drama then TV can éver produce.

It's an important distinction. Imagine if you're in a room with either very hard floors or very low ceilings. These are vital considerations! ;-)


Ooo you'll have a problem then if both are present. If that's the case, lets hope that it doesn't happen then ;)

But anyway, Ftk, do you read that?? People you call assholes would actually he háppy and cheerfull if you would post what you seemingly want to post. What are you waiting for? Astound them!

Date: 2008/06/27 05:28:08, Link
Author: Assassinator
Maybe it's because I'm just a naive young dog (most probably), but for some reason I find it difficult to mock those ignorant folks. For some reason I keep trying to explain things to them, apperantly it won't come through that they really will never ever change, wich is something I can't understand, thus I keep trying even móre. I keep being fascinated with there crap, idea. Where does that magical attraction to the TARD come from, it's hyyyypooooontiiiisiiiiing. Hopefully it won't screw up my Bachelor in Journalism next year, we should set up the Anonymous Tardaholics ;)

Date: 2008/06/27 18:21:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Louis @ June 27 2008,07:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 27 2008,13:18)
Hi I am Erasmus and I am a tard-a-holic.

Louis has more than enough to say on the subject (jeez you ramble along like some kind of daily science professor atheist).  I just wanted to point that in no way is it possible that he is actually sorry about the profanity.

Also, it certainly goes home with you.  I can't wait to see the next stupid thing that one of these fools manages to do.  That also goes for my local newspaper and several other forums and outlets.  The god damned intarwebz have accelerated my tardaholism, but I'd say I've always had a healthy portion.  For instance I have collected pseudoscience books for years, long before I met you guys and started mainlining this shit.

but it seems to me that, despite louis' taxonomy that implies lost causes, correcting self-deluded fuckwits is a pretty honorable thing to do with your time.  just make sure your homework is done and the mater bushes get watered.  don't forget to buy your wife flowers and play with your younguns before surfing uncommonly stupid.

I fucking well am fucking sorry for the fucking profanity....waaaaaaaaiiiiitt a minute! Did i fuck up?

I don't think it's ALL hopeless, just that there are some hopeless cases out there. I share Assassinator's optimism, I think that the majority of people are peferfectly capable of understanding the basic elements of science should they so desire. What I have to remain curious about is the motivations of people who actively seek to oppose scientific data due to ideological considerations. As with many things, I think there's a spectrum!


Wow, I never thought I would be viewed as an optimist really :P Because what I actually ment is that, although I keep trying, I do know that it's useless anyway. Besides, if someone is genuinly interested or really confused and really wánts to learn something, he/she isn't a tard really. Maybe that defines that wierd species we call the Tard: a skull as thick as Dembski's bullcrap.

Date: 2008/06/29 10:03:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (stevestory @ June 29 2008,00:21)
One morning, after she was awakened by her bedside alarm, she sat up and, she recalled, “this fluid came down my face, this greenish liquid.” She pressed a square of gauze to her head and went to see her doctor again. M. showed the doctor the fluid on the dressing. The doctor looked closely at the wound. She shined a light on it and in M.’s eyes. Then she walked out of the room and called an ambulance. Only in the Emergency Department at Massachusetts General Hospital, after the doctors started swarming, and one told her she needed surgery now, did M. learn what had happened. She had scratched through her skull during the night—and all the way into her brain.

With apologies to our viewers: fuuuuuuck.

Is that even póssible?? How can someone scratch open there skúll in the first place, and even if that's possible do it without waking up! That's just scary shit. I used to scratch open my legs during the night though, sometimes untill it bled. Never got myself tested on an allergy though, I better do, I don't want to end up with my lower leg scratched off or something...apperantly it seems possible.

Date: 2008/07/01 11:16:22, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,10:33)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,10:15)
Quote (Nerull @ July 01 2008,09:31)
You are no better.

"Kinds" seems to be your only point. And that's pretty sad.

You don't even know how evolution is supposed to work, do you? The only thing you know are the lies you've been told.

It's not "Poof!". And its not quick morphs between stable states - its a constant state of change.

As for transitional fossils - we find them all the time. You've simply closed your eyes and refuse to see.

If you acknowledge that e. coli. changed, than you must acknowledge evolution. The micro .vs macro evolution thing is a strawman used only by the least intelligent, much like the thermodynamics thing. There is no difference. Small changes over time add up to very big changes.

Is your car a horse cart? No? Yet it was developed by a series of small changes. It is your belief that small changes can never amount to big changes, is it not?


I take it you play DnD.  How do you like 4.0?  I like 3.5 much better.

Not much better?  Okay.

Evolution works by animals changing.  New species being made (and you've seen this when?) from old ones.  The gain of information, somehow, from mutations that are almost always fatal.  Interesting that there's some gain of information when it is so easily seen when codes get muddled and broken, the information in DNA, the result is a loss of information.

Transitional Fossil?  Where?

Oh, so no "Poof".  Well, in the class I was at, we learned about "Punctuated Equilibrium".  Wow.  There's a novel approach.  Things happen so fast that there are no fossils and this is from an evolutionist (rest his soul and may God forgive him and his atheism)!  So Evolution doesn't need Transitional Fossils now!  Again, where are these "transitional fossils"?

Well the E. Coli changed but it's still E. Coli!  So there's no evolution.  They may have had a trait come in from being dormant but how is that evolution when the culture is still E Coli?

The Horse Cart to a Car.  good analogy.  At each point in the design was there intelligence doing the changes.  Which is what ID is all about.

The predictive power of ID is powerful as it is simple:

When systems become so complex that one parts falls away, it stops working so how does it get to be in the first place?  The answer, "It was designed that way".

The gain of information, somehow, from mutations that are almost always fatal.  Interesting that there's some gain of information when it is so easily seen when codes get muddled and broken, the information in DNA, the result is a loss of information.

Please tell me how much "information" there is in a particular organism that you choose.

Then please tell me how you have determined

a) The amount of information in that organism
b) What units this "information" is measured in
c) How you determined the amount of information in the organism you chose.
d) How you measured the decease or loss of information.

I don't believe you can even prove that there is information in a organism, let alone prove that a measurable loss occurred. Can you?

I ask again, what units is this information loss (when codes get muddled and broken) measured in?

I heard someone using "bits" to measure that, although I after I asked more about it (how do you measure it, where does it come from, where are the publications about it, etc etc) it became awfully silent as usual. The only "bits" I've ever seen in something actually scientific, was in an online sequencing program (I think BLAST but I'm not sure) a while ago. Can't remember exactly in wich context though.

Date: 2008/07/01 13:34:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,13:21)
What would you take as evidence?

Emperical data, facts. Like with all forms of science, so where are they when it's about ID or Creationism?
So what would you people take?  Things such as Dembski's Design Filter can be used, although it may need to be perfected.  Is that a problem?  Why is Evolution allowed to change stripes, "Punctuated Equilibrium", no wait, "Gradualism", oh that don't work, back to "Uniformism"?  It seems as those ID Theories, some of which may be still being built upon, doesn't get the same respect.

Evolution is allowed to "change stripes" because that's the way science works. Science keeps correcting itself, that's the power of science. If something is wrong, it will change.
O and by the way, Dembski's "Design filter" or commonly known as the Explanatory Filter (if that's not the one you mean, correct me) if utterly useless. To save me a lot of typing, read this nice little article from our own Wesley Elsberry:
Or can money only be spent at the altar of Evolutionary Science?

Money can be spend on science. So either start conducting it, or stop moaning. And you sir, are only talking about (bad?) theology, and not science.

Date: 2008/07/01 14:15:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,13:41)
Quote (Assassinator @ July 01 2008,13:34)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,13:21)
What would you take as evidence?

Emperical data, facts. Like with all forms of science, so where are they when it's about ID or Creationism?
So what would you people take?  Things such as Dembski's Design Filter can be used, although it may need to be perfected.  Is that a problem?  Why is Evolution allowed to change stripes, "Punctuated Equilibrium", no wait, "Gradualism", oh that don't work, back to "Uniformism"?  It seems as those ID Theories, some of which may be still being built upon, doesn't get the same respect.

Evolution is allowed to "change stripes" because that's the way science works. Science keeps correcting itself, that's the power of science. If something is wrong, it will change.
O and by the way, Dembski's "Design filter" or commonly known as the Explanatory Filter (if that's not the one you mean, correct me) if utterly useless. To save me a lot of typing, read this nice little article from our own Wesley Elsberry:
Or can money only be spent at the altar of Evolutionary Science?

Money can be spend on science. So either start conducting it, or stop moaning. And you sir, are only talking about (bad?) theology, and not science.

So "science can change stripes as that what science does it's self correcting".

Yet when Creationism goes to show that it is a science, witness ID, it's "snake oil", "lies" and worse.

Let me see if I can get this straight.  What you and your heroes do is wholesome, self-correcting and right.

What ID scientists do is lie, cover up and take money from unsuspecting dupes like myself.  What that makes me, in your opinion then is a sucker.

Do I smell a hypocrite here?

The problem is, like what's sad before, that Creationism ánd ID have not shown they're science.

Date: 2008/07/01 15:00:46, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:22)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,14:18)
Persecution claims. Check.

If your logic made any sense, you'd be able to answer questions all by your lonesome. It isn't happening.

If you guys would listen, I just might.  As I am fending off so many of you and the questions are coming fast and furious, and smack me down if I don't answer someone's question or one they want to see answered quickly, I may not be able to get to them all.

But I must be going for a while.  Got to get back to the job site.

From now on, I'll only answer those who are at least trying some civility.  It will help me maintain my composure.

Ok then, I'll try:
A couple of posts back, you sad that when ID or Creationism has shown it's science, it has been ridiculed, called lies etc. So can you explain please, what Creationisme and/or ID has done exactly to show that they've done to show they're actually scientific. Because as far as we know, they have not. Maybe you could tell us more about it then.

Date: 2008/07/02 04:30:04, Link
Author: Assassinator
If you make it to that stand, please share your experience with us by making some pictures ;) Sounds funny.
Anyway, I'll probably won't do much. I'll just work (yeap, summer vacation for students means work, woohoo) so I can pay for a laptop (about 700 euro's) and the schoolbooks I need for next year (apperantly about 600 euro's). Yay...summer... I should do something about my potbelly though, a 17 year old weighing over 90 kg's (even if he's almost 2 meters in length), isn't réally good.

Date: 2008/07/03 13:57:04, Link
Author: Assassinator
That discussion I made a thread about (a long long time ago) has flared up again. And this guy is summing up ID like this:
ID says that *ahem* non-trivial algoritmic systems cannot spontaniously arise. To realise non-trivial algoritmic systems, you need an intelligent designer.
How does that compare what Dembski says in his book?

PS: And ofcourse, I kept asking if he could actually start talking about biology here. And ofcourse, he won't do that, because according to him everything would just get confusing then. A lovely discussion.
PPS: He sums op the theory of evolution like this:
A bunch of just-so stories for wich there is A no evidence that it happend "that way" and B no evidence that it can happen.
Ofcourse I'de love to respond to the bloke, but because he doesn't talk about biology and apperantly just about sci-fi (that's what it looks like), I have no idea what to say. Ain't those people lovely?

Date: 2008/07/03 14:17:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
My my, 35, you're getting old!

So a very happy birthday from that shitty little country called Holland!

Date: 2008/07/04 11:29:50, Link
Author: Assassinator
Maybe these quotes aren't the most tardish, but they sure are the most ingenious pro-ID argument and anti-evolution argument I've seen in a while. I'll try to translate them.
The pro-ID one:
All modulair cybernetic systems we know are the result from rational and intelligent design. (ofcourse that's not true by definition, because we don't know if that's the case with life, wich is apperantly also a modulair cybernetic system) The reason we prefer modulair designs, is because we want expandability, re-use, and control for bigger designs.

We don't know any (unintelligent) mechanism wich causes something with a structure like (with wich he means modulair cybernetic systems, ofcourse) that to arise out of it's own (in an unknown number of steps). There even are good arguments that such a mechanism is impossible: For example, there is no reason why a goal-less and unintelligent process should result in a modulair system. A modulair system always is less efficient then a non-modulair system. All examples of "design" by evolutionaire algorithms (I think he's trying to compare apples with pears here, because how well do those evolutionaire algorithms (he doesn't even name one) simulate the whole of the evolutionaire theory ánd reality.) show that there is a preference for non-modulair design.

The bolding is from me.

Date: 2008/07/04 13:18:41, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 04 2008,12:24)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 04 2008,11:11)

Now that you are out of the dog house (or is it back in the dog house?) you can respond to this (but don't pour water on my head.)

It's probably not the best day to get into that discussion central around here.

And, to be quite honest, I'm afraid you'd probably be swimming in water if we were discussing these issues face to face.  No, on second thought, there would be no way we could discuss these issue in person.  I'll flip out.  Honestly, I steer clear from ID/evo discussion like the plague other than Internet discussions.  

Have a great 4th, Bill.

Now really, you have been given the oppertunity to transform this thread from a flamewar into a (hopefully) usefull thread where is the actual content of the matter is being discussed. And you're just waving that away? Don't you think that's a shame? Some people would be jumping up and down out of joy, others would fall of there chairs, totally flabbergasted. I'm réally curious about what you actually have to say about the content, and not about the people here, and I think many others can't wait to hear that from you as well. Our ears (well, eyes) are wide-open. Come on, give it a shot, trying doesn't hurt.

Date: 2008/07/04 18:48:24, Link
Author: Assassinator
Yes indeed ;) He actually sounds suprised that no one ever suggests that we are just really high-tech technology. Latest from him just came in, he quoted an article stating this:
Natural selection could select the ?ttest already-
programmed phenotypes. Evolution works through
differential survival and reproduction of the superior
members of each species. Phenotypes are the ?nished
products of nucleic acid (genetic) algorithms. Natural
selection could not have programmed nucleic acid
algorithms at the covalently-bound primary structure
(sequence) level. The environment does not select
nucleotide or codonic sequences. The environment
favors only the ?ttest phenotypes. It knows nothing of
genotypic programming directly. Nature has no ability
to optimize a conceptual cybernetic system at the
decision node (covalently-bound sequence) level. Nature
cannot organize conceptual, holistic operating systems
and instructions from ‘‘necessary’’ (Monod, 1972) mass/
energy relationships. Freedom of selection is necessary at
each decision node. Gene regulation and coordination are
programmed algorithmically. No known hypothetical
mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of
nucleic acid algorithms.

And he's suprised that's not common knowledge. Like no one knows that natural selection only selects on the phenotype...yea that's true hidden knowledge, they're all hiding it from us! No idea what his point with the algorithm is though, I can't stand that math-language...I háte math.

Anyway, what I want to say with quoting this, is that you guys would lóve to discuss with this bloke. I bet that he would be one of the few ID-supporters that would actually engage in a meaningfull discussion. Ok, I bet it would end in nothing anyway, that happend to me as well, but at least he would say something meaningfull. To bad he hates the attitude on places like that, or else I would've tried to get him over here ;)

Date: 2008/07/05 12:19:58, Link
Author: Assassinator
Another happy birthday!

Date: 2008/07/05 19:40:58, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,18:24)
BTW, ISCID doesn't necessarily mean contact. I called the ISCID phone number three times during business hours last year and got nothing. It rang and rang, and after a while, a fax machine tried to pick up.

Ooo that's normal, like my new discussion partner sad, life is just high-tech technology anyway ;) I guess that because of there low budget, ISCID has to do with a little less high-tech receptionists. They have to save all there money for that super-duper research they're conducting.

Date: 2008/07/09 10:17:59, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,10:12)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 09 2008,09:53)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,00:42)
Oh dear, Erasmus has risen from the depths of hell to provide his usual blather. a dear, and set a good example for the fine folks here since you're a science professor and all.    Why not answer my questions?  

Consider this: To claim that something like bacteria evolved into birds and humans, you must consider that the hypothetical series of steps had to traverse hundreds of vital organs. After a new vital organ evolved, one should wonder how the organism had survived before it had that vital organ, because without the newly evolved vital organ, the “critter” is (by the definition of vital) dead! Macroevolution must produce greater complexity which requires large increases in information. New vital organs and irreducible complexity would be examples of greater complexity. Where is the empirical evidence that this has actually occurred? Can you show me any natural process that produces large, nontrivial amounts of information? Natural processes tend to destroy information. All living things contain gigantic amounts of information! Here’s a question for the scientists out date, what are some of the most beneficial mutations to organisms in their natural environments that scientists have observed through the years?

[prediction:  Erasmus will not answer the questions, but will make a statement similiar to the following:  "Why should I answer your questions?  You never answer anything we ask you."  Then I will reply "BS" and he will  spout off some more about fish hooks and ignorance.  I swear sometimes I wonder if Erasmus is a reincarnation of Lenny Flank.  Other times I wonder if he is the hound of hell himself, PZ Myers.  Nope, no proof or evidence of any kind that this may be accurate.  Just speculating....kind of like the speculations you all make about common descent.]


Clearly you are not paying attention.  Your use of information is the problem.  Until you can even define what in the hell "information" means your 'question' above is meaningless nonsense words strung together.  

I won't bother to set you straight about who I am or what I do, but you may continue in your delusions for all I care (since you will anyway, my concern is as irrelevant as your 'objections' to evolutionary biology).

Although it is worth pointing out that the mechanism of evolution is speciation, not the 'increase in complexity of information' nonsense that the IDCers have fish-hooked you with.  Keep working on that barb, hon, you'll get it out one day.  Can't promise that you will be able to think any more clearly once you are free of that brand of stupidity because you are obviously gut-hooked by an even deeper hook of idiocy.

Walt Brown?  Jelly fish?  

I answered your question, now I believe Blipey has a few for you. you should get around to rolling your eyes, shrugging and flouncing off.

That's your answer to those questions?  Then I guess I win!  

What is information?  Beats the bloody hell out of me.  What do you call the *stuff* that evolved from that first primordial protocell to the massive amount of *stuff* we see in nature today?  

It is a scientific farce to claim that there is any empirical evidence worthy of explaining how a lucky lump evolved into the massive complexity we observe in the world today.  

Logic defies your assumption.

No, you don't. How can anyone answer your question if a vital part of the question is nothing more then a big gray blur? Then it is impossible to formulate a proper answer, since the question is meaningless.
We could call the stuff "life" by the way.
O and I can answer your question, here's an example about such a benificial mutation from a bacteria in nature, the nylon eating bacteria:
In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were novel, significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.[1] This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes collectively known as nylonase.

Good enough? The evolution of a whole new set of enzymes, that's big.

Date: 2008/07/09 10:23:19, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,10:21)
You do better with the pom-poms, really.

okey dokey....i'll get back at that!

But, my logic is no more warped than your own, Wes.  You base your science on your ideology, your philosophy, and your theological leanings.  THAT'S A FACT, DUDE.

Or you could start with giving evidence for your statements.
And how do you know that's a fact? Do you know him? Do you know his history? Anything other then this forum? Any evidence that that's a fact?

Date: 2008/07/09 10:39:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,10:34)
Ah yes, nylonase.  I've heard that one for years's always the first to be pointed out.  Yup, that's positively devestating to my

Is that good enough?  HARDLY.  Look around you, luv.  See all that complexity that supposedly arose from a lump of *stuff*?  Yet, we're supposed to consider nylonase and say, "oh yea, dude, you are so right on".

You asked for examples of important benificial mutations in natural enviroments, I gave you one. Thus, I did what you asked, what's the problem?

Date: 2008/07/09 10:41:35, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,10:39)
Quote (Assassinator @ July 09 2008,10:23)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,10:21)
You do better with the pom-poms, really.

okey dokey....i'll get back at that!

But, my logic is no more warped than your own, Wes.  You base your science on your ideology, your philosophy, and your theological leanings.  THAT'S A FACT, DUDE.

Or you could start with giving evidence for your statements.
And how do you know that's a fact? Do you know him? Do you know his history? Anything other then this forum? Any evidence that that's a fact?

In the same respect do the lot of you know that all IDists are liars, dishonest, morons, lunatics, Idiots, tard-addled, delusional, etc., etc., etc..?  I'm pretty sure I'm as good at mind reading as the rest of you are.

And since when is that an excuse to just do it yourself as well? I thought you were a grown up (not unlike me, I'm just a kid) who would know better then that. Because guess what: we don't know. For example, I discuss with an ID "sympathist" for months now, and you won't hear people here calling him (the bolding is because most of the time, they talk about the ideas) a delusional idiot, because they don't know him.

Date: 2008/07/09 11:54:33, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,11:05)
Quote (Quack @ July 09 2008,11:00)
We have a saying around here: An idiot may ask more questions that a hundred wise men can answer.

I guess that about rounds it up as far as Ftk is concerned. it is pretty obvious that there is something fundamentally wrong with her cognitive apparatus. What it is I can't say, expect it is a symptom often found in connection with advanced cases of religionism.

I offer for evidence this clip that I made at UcD before reading this thread:

After a new vital organ evolved, you have to wonder how the organism survived before it had that vital organ, because without the newly evolved vital organ, it’s dead, isn’t it?

Words fail me.

Then answer the god damned questions instead of skirting the issues.  

Thanks in advance.

It would help if you would actually do the same, and support your claims with e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.
But the answer to that question is simple: it's an improvment of the creature, helping it to survive better compared to other members of it's population. I'll write down a little story as an example so you know what I mean:
Bob and Frank were walking in the woods. Suddenly a mountain lion pops up, sniffs around looking for prey. Then all of a sudden, Bob grabs his running shoes and quikly puts them on. "What, you can't out run a mountain lion!" says Frank. Bob responds very simple": "Ofcourse not Frank, I only need to out-run you."
This is called relative fitness.

Date: 2008/07/09 12:00:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,11:56)
How is Ftk supposed to actually respond to real questions when so many of you are only out to be very vindictive, call names or speculate on private matters with them?

Very sad actually.

If you look really really good, you've seen that there is a simple yet unanswered list of questions. As long as the questions remained dodged, they keep mocking. If the questions start getting answered, and evidence is produced by Ftk for her claims, then people would either fall of there chair or jump in the air (depends on the height of the ceiling and the hardness of the floor) and don't have time anymore to call names.
By the way, before you defend Ftk so easly, you've seen her insults lately? Like "coward" to Wesley, just to name 1. What do you think of that then?

Date: 2008/07/09 12:03:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:00)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 09 2008,11:31)
The argument is valid...nothing juvenile about it.  Perhaps you can explain to me how it's invalid?  The conspiracy element is an accusation forwarded by both sides of this debate.

Being caught lying under oath about your motives is evidence of a conspiracy. Being caught changinging creationism to intelligent design in a textbook is evidence of a conspiracy. Hiding a strategy paper is evidence of a conspiracy.

Anything you might put forth in this regard is completely off base when you are addressing ME.  Just as I don't accuse someone like Wes of the things I would accuse PZ of, you have to take my word rather than toss me in with some fringe group trying to shove religion into the public school science class.  


I DO NOT believe that Behe, Dembski et. al. are conspiring to teach the book of Genesis in public school biology classes!  Though this is the stance that Elsberry, Forrest, Scott, et. al. are projecting!  Of Pandas and People that was presented in court DID NOT TEACH BIBLICAL CREATIONISM.  It doesn't matter one flipping iota if words were changed from creation to ID.  One must look at the entire content of the book, not the single word 'CREATION'.  As I've said numerous times before ID AND EVOLUTION HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED IN DIFFERENT FORMS SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME AND THEY ALWAYS WILL BE!!!

I can get that from ID, but evolution? Sure the development of the evolutionary theory started before Darwin, but since the dawn of time? Can you support that statement please?
Other then that, it doesn't matter whereither ID is religion here, it matters that science belongs in the science class, and ID is not science (yet perhaps, heej you gotta keep an open mind here ya know) thus doesn't belong in the science class whereither it's religious or not.

Date: 2008/07/09 12:23:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:12)
It would help if you would actually do the same, and support your claims with e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.


Ok what do you want to see. Please try to be specific, and please post a question wich we can actually answer (not like your information question) because we know what to answer to. Fire away luv.

And in the meantime, do deliver some evidence yourself ok?

Date: 2008/07/09 13:12:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:50)
Well ignore us and just show us why ID makes it better.

Luv, let's try this one more time.  I don't think that ID is a "better" explanation than Darwinism.  I do not want to erradicate evolution from science curriculum.  

I'm saying that it is no more based on empirical evidence than ID is.  Thus, ID SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM WHEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ORIGINS TAKE PLACE.  

That's all.  

That's it.  

Keep your theory, it has nothing to fear from me.  My kids are probably more well versed in the theory than other kids their age.  I am not threatened by the theory in any way whatsoever...I merely feel that it doesn't even come close to answering the questions about our origins...neither is it based on empirical evidence, but rather historical evidence.

IOW....ID and Darwinism are both lacking in regard to empirical data, they both deserve a fair shake in science classes, and both the evidence for and against both should be addressed as well.

No, it should not. Why not? Because it's not science. Science belongs in the science classroom, hence the name "science classroom". When ID shows it's science, it can be taught. Before then, it won't. Or do you want the creation myths from the Lakota tribe be taught in science class as well? Or astrology?
And also, scientific classrooms are not the place where scientific discussions take place. Those take place in the scientific community, in labs, in university's and nót in some random high-school with 15 year olds.

Date: 2008/07/09 13:16:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,12:27)
If you look really really good, you've seen that there is a simple yet unanswered list of questions. As long as the questions remained dodged, they keep mocking.

Yes, you see, lcd....ftk has to answer every question posed to her. These folks don't have to follow those rules.  

I'm still waiting to be told why common descent must be adhered to in order to do biology.  No one addressed the primary topic of my post.  Although, if I know Bill he's sitting back watching the fireworks while putting together a thoughtful response rather than blurting out in emotional furor like Eramus et. al.

So the question would be: Why is common descent so important. Not a too shabby question I suppose, let me quote from Theobald's article "29+ Evidences for Macro-evolution.":
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

Any other questions?

Date: 2008/07/09 13:24:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:20)
That’s where you and I differ.  I’m all for both sides being addressed in the classroom.  You, OTOH, like the others here, want to silence anything that does not jibe with your worldview.

I'll repeat: ID = not science. Science classroom is for science. Thus, ID does not belong in the science classroom as long as it doesn't show it's science. Ok?

Date: 2008/07/09 13:55:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:39)
[And, no Assinator, your answer is no sufficient.  That does not answer why one *must* adhere to common descent in order to "do science".  It's merely a mind set.  Nothing more.

To do science? You can perfectly do nuclear physics without common descent, you can perfectly do math without common descent, you can perfectly do astronomy without common descent. Shall I go on?

Date: 2008/07/09 14:04:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,14:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2008,13:26)


See there, lcd?  I love these guys.  Truly.  

*GROUP HUG (for real)*

*hugs back* But really, you can do science without common descent. The reason why common descent is so important for biology, is that it's the best explanation we've got, or better sad by this:
No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data

Date: 2008/07/11 18:32:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:44)
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37)
All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood.

Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK?

Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood?, I'll give you a reading assignment instead, because as soon as one question is answered, they'll be another.  You need to read it very, very, very thoroughly.  He covers a LOT of stuff in the chapter, notes and links.  Now get to it!  

Miss Crabtree

Is that an...excuse so you don't have to explain it yourself? Because I can't get my hands on that book, so can you explain it? Apperantly you've read it.

Date: 2008/07/13 18:14:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (blipey @ July 13 2008,16:35)
17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

Ooo I réally want to answer that, as you may know I've been discussing with someone for a while now, according to him "common design" predicts that:
1: That the designer didn't 'reinvent the wheel' every time and used parts over and over again, sometimes with minor adjustments. This would explain the shared use of DNA, the 'standard liberary or enzymes' and other shared similarities.
2: Common design predicts that new designs were introduced suddenly. After that variations from those were made, and sometimes they were replaced all toghether by new designs.
3: Common design predicts that the properties of lifeforms and the sequence they arise are all part of a plan. That could be detected by large global changes who are...
And then I can't translate it anymore, because his Dutch is pretty crappy.

Ofcourse my question regarding these predictions was easy: what's the theory behind these predictions?
I'm dýing to get an answer from him in our thread (yes, I am a tardaholic as well), but he's on vacation.

Date: 2008/07/15 05:00:52, Link
Author: Assassinator
What do you actually know about biological anthropology? What do you know about what those fossils mean?

Date: 2008/07/15 11:10:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
Happy Birthday, and thanks for making me feel like a little pup!

Date: 2008/07/18 07:57:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ July 18 2008,06:45)

As for UD running out, on the contrary.  I think by the 1000th page we'll see more coming out of ID inspired research than ever before

To bad ID isn't science hmm? Let them start by gétting scientific first, and then *gasp* produce some research and actual evidence.
that is if the Ivory Tower elite and government "yes men" to those people are really interested in science and not just perpetuating a new religious dogma from the Church of Darwin.

I thought Jesus didn't like lying? Couple of things:
A: Science isn't an ivory tower, scientists are eager to share there knowledge and experience to people who are nog arrogant quaks. The only thing they would like, is for people to show some effort, and ofcourse not be arrogant quaks.
B: Have you forgotten the 150 years of research and data áfter Darwin?
C: Do you actually know whý Darwin's theory is still around?
I haven't seen a lot of the UD thread, but what I've seen I enjoy, and it sure teaches me a lot.

Date: 2008/07/19 17:34:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 19 2008,15:27)
Just got pointed to this.

It moves me.

My gód that's depressing, the sad Youtube comments say the same. But ofcourse I'm not easely moved, but that's just because I'm a bitter person ;)

Anyway, a classmate (well, ex-classmate now, bye bye Bio-informatics :() of mine showed me this. Awesome stuff really, makes me a

Happy pandaaa!!!

Date: 2008/07/19 18:16:32, Link
Author: Assassinator
Little reminder here, it got snowed under (someone else brought it up, too lazy to look it up at this hour), but I would like to say that the original UD thread is worth being stickied. Too much history and gems are in there to let it sink down into the sewers of this site under all the other stuff.

Date: 2008/07/21 17:20:20, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 19 2008,20:22)
Quote (Assassinator @ July 19 2008,18:34)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 19 2008,15:27)
Just got pointed to this.

It moves me.

My gód that's depressing, the sad Youtube comments say the same. But ofcourse I'm not easely moved, but that's just because I'm a bitter person ;)

Anyway, a classmate (well, ex-classmate now, bye bye Bio-informatics :() of mine showed me this. Awesome stuff really, makes me a
(snip image)
Happy pandaaa!!!

Depressing?  I found it mellow and romantic.  In fact, you've been looking kind of cute lately...


Judging from the Youtube comments, it mostly reminds people of dead loved one's. But maybe you're hearing something they aren't hearing.
But if you don't mind, I'll walk step back slooowly now, I'm a bit...scared. A bit of this medicine should emmm, fix that. To bad it's not the full version of the song, wich I really like better.
PS: Especially the solo from 3:22 is pure awesomeness.

Date: 2008/07/22 11:15:26, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2008,21:34)
Should we call this the Lifestyle thread, rather than just food and drink? I don't know. But treating it as such, here goes.

I've lived in Texas, Indiana, Florida, Georgia, and now North Carolina. Nine years ago I moved, from Florida, first to Raleigh, then Durham, now Chapel hill. I just walked to the convenience store and back, at 10 pm, and my shirt is sticking to me. I hate this. I'm not doing it much longer. I'm going to base my next move on one thing. I am going to find somewhere with a medium size city, where the average temperature is somewhere around 60-70 and the annual temperature variation is one of the lowest in the country. I didn't like the heat and humidity in Florida and it's better up here but it's starting to piss me off here too. 100 degrees can kiss my ass. A lot of wind would be nice too. Based on data like this:

it looks like I'll be moving to Oregon next. I don't care if the high in January is only 45º, because the high in August is only 79º. Here it's 85º right now at 10:15pm at night. Screw this.

Why would you want a lot of wind? It's just annoying when you're going to cycle somewhere (something wich I wich I do a lót, ya know, Dutch ;)). A nice breeze on warm days is nice though. Agree on you about the temperatures though, those in Oregon sound perfect (although 45 in January doesn't mean snow :().
But it seems you've moved a lót, what about friends and family then? I mean, talking to them via teh intrawebz isn't everything. Can't imagine moving so easely so far away.

Date: 2008/07/22 12:50:24, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,09:31)
Beats the heck out of looking at pictures like this...

...and trying to figure out what it is that renders it the jaw of a transitional.

Perhaps you can help me out.

[Devil's Advocate] To be honest, that looks like a question worth answering. Because when I'm honest, I do not understand the anthropological methodes very well as well (I only had Moleculair Biology, and just for a year) and I am amazed about how you guys do that. [/Devil's Advocate]

Date: 2008/07/22 14:02:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

That has to do with the history of the world Ftk, and goes further then just the fact that you don't master those anthropological techniques. It's about how you talk about it, with a certain air. That fact that you have no idea how those things are established, doesn't mean it's impossible or illogical. You just don't understand jack shit about it. Is that a problem? No, a grand majority doesn't. The problem is the assumptions you make based upon that lack of knowledge (wich is, again, by itself not such a big of a problem). And that is, without any softness, a plain dumb thing to do, and it's not appreciated. It's like you really don't care about the skills and knowledge the scientists have about these subjects, and you only care about your own opinion and not the actual science behind it. This is not about questioning Darwinism nor about worldviews. This is about how you treat science and knowledge, the way you talked about Tiktaalik although you lack any knowledge about the subject, showed a certain air of arrogance. Thát's what's hated here by certain people.
People are starting to make predictions based on experiences with you in the past.
@ Rilke's Granddaughter:
Now you may think the question does not matter, I'm still véry curious about the answer on that question (and I still think Ftk is, but call me naïve) from any expert (wich we apperantly have here ;)).
Please, fire away! At least do it for meeee *puts on puppy eyes*

Date: 2008/07/22 14:08:58, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 22 2008,12:49)
Quote (American Saddlebred @ July 22 2008,06:34)
Quote (fusilier @ July 22 2008,08:11)
Happy birfday.

25?!?! Child.

It gets worse.  I have been reading PT and the like for at least 4+ years =p.  Nerd alert CODE RED!

Anyway, HAPPY BIRTHDAAAAAY!!! Although it's late, but rather late then never!

Date: 2008/07/23 06:07:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,23:54)
Yo, Chayanov, Assassinator and I were wondering if you would explain to us what it is about this jawbone that renders it a "transitional".

I'm listening to Bill's audio links at the far, the dude seems to indicate that he's not sure what the heck he's found.  But, I'm not done listening YET!

Afaransis has indeed given us an answer (he didn't dare to tell based upon that photo alone, no problem). And he has now posted some hypothetical questions about transitionals for you. I'll quote them for your convenience:
For example, let's say we had a theory that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor some five million years ago. Suppose we found a fossil dating to 3 million years ago, how could we tell whether we had found something on lineage leading to humans? What morphology would it need to have to allow us to say yes, this is transitional or no, this isn't transitional? What would something only a few million years removed from a chimp look like? Keep in mind that temporally it is closer to chimps than humans.

Give it a shot.

Date: 2008/07/23 07:07:44, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,07:03)
Are you guys sure who is and who is not a "sheep in wolf's clothing"?

On the Telic Thoughts board there are some who are promoting "Front Loading".  At first I had no problem with Front Loading.  I thought it was a great way to disprove Darwinism and made a great way to show just how Intelligent the Designer is.

My wife brought home a copy of the "Design Matrix" from one of our friends from Church.  When I first read it, I thought, "Great, now this is what we need to drive a stake in the heart of the Darwin Beast".  Then that is when it hit my wife.

What my wife did was she asked this one question, "Ed, why did God do this?  Why did God plan to have things come into to the world later as if He expected something to go wrong?"

I was asked by kornbelt888 "if my theology is more important than what the evidence suggests".  It is.  This is also on a blog that had people posting about "The Road to Truth" and that how "evidence can be superficial".

As I said earlier, I am not happy.

Ofcourse you're not happy, Jesus is against lying, and you're clinging on to a lie (The Darwinist Beast, what the hell?). And I agree with Jesus here, ooo yes.

Date: 2008/07/23 07:16:38, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,07:12)
Quote (Assassinator @ July 23 2008,07:07)
Ofcourse you're not happy, Jesus is against lying, and you're clinging on to a lie (The Darwinist Beast, what the hell?). And I agree with Jesus here, ooo yes.

Great, if you agree with Jesus, should should also agree with what he said about His Father.

That would be God created it all and His Word is really all we need.

Why should I? I never sad I agreed with everything Jesus supposedly sad, and if reality shows that the literal interpretations of the texts you're refering to are nót correlating with reality, then so be it. You're clinging to an interpretation, nothing more, an interpretation wich is apperantly nót in correlation with reality to our current knowledge. That's holding on to a lie, and you know Jesus was opposed to lying, yet you are still doing it. Don't you agree with Jesus on that point then?

Date: 2008/07/23 08:40:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,07:25)
I am not lying.

I am telling you what I believe to be true and that in His Word is the Truth.  I fail to see how that is lying.  It sounds more like you're deliberately trying to be confusing.

It doesn't matter what you beleive, reality doesn't care about what you beleive, what I beleive or what anyone beleives. You knów about how our view on reality is developing, and that it's not in correlation with your interpretation of your holy texts. Yet, you keep clinging on your interpretation and reject anything that goes against it. I call that lying, dishonest would cut it as well. And Jesus doesn't fancy that, and I thought you were pretty fond of Jesus.

Date: 2008/07/23 09:08:25, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,08:47)
Quote (Assassinator @ July 23 2008,08:40)
It doesn't matter what you beleive, reality doesn't care about what you beleive, what I beleive or what anyone beleives. You knów about how our view on reality is developing, and that it's not in correlation with your interpretation of your holy texts. Yet, you keep clinging on your interpretation and reject anything that goes against it. I call that lying, dishonest would cut it as well. And Jesus doesn't fancy that, and I thought you were pretty fond of Jesus.

I have no reason to go against the Word of God.

What I find interesting is that I am supposed to not believe in God's own Words and what believe in the same stuff you do?  I'm supposed to change my belief in God into your belief in Darwin.

No thanks.

As for my believing in what the Bible says, not believing in God's Word is not an option for me.  Some may pick and choose what they believe from the Bible but as they say, the road to salvation is narrow while the road to damnation is well paved and easy to follow.

I choose the road that leads to salvation no matter how difficult it may seem.

Reasons do not matter, beleiving does not matter. You are dishonest and lying about reality, and if I recall correctly that leads to damnation as well.

Date: 2008/07/23 10:36:20, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,10:29)
So killing a child who sasses?  No.  Using Capitol Punishment on your offspring who is committing serious offenses such as murder, yes.

You're choosing what to beleive, you're beleiving in an interpretation of the texts you quote. It's your version of the "Word of God" and millions of other people have there own versions. If you take it completely literally, the texts say I should be killed.

Date: 2008/07/23 13:47:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,12:41)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ July 23 2008,12:33)
Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,12:27)
The ancient law was a shadow of what was to come. Jesus' law is much more severe. You don't have to murder to get an eternal death sentence, you just have to hate someone or call your brother a fool.

Well, that sucks, because I hate my brother.

Well, for Christians that's the point. The Jewish law could, at least in principle, be obeyed. With Jesus' law there is no possibility. Who doesn't hate someone? Who hasn't lusted? Who hasn't called his brother a fool? But, for Christians, that's the good news. The impossibility of us saving ourselves through obedience means that someone else has to save us.

For Christians it is, rest of the world's population it isn't. Why is a being who sets such impossible and draconian laws even worth worshipping? That's beyónd cruelty and barbarism. That you're doomed to suffering hellish agony's for eternity almost per definition, beleiving things like that and beleiving that they're good and just honestly shock me.

Still, even you are choosing what to beleive, how to interpret the texts you read. You are no different then any other human being on that matter.

Date: 2008/07/23 14:45:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 23 2008,14:24)

Calling bat^shit77... we have a móónlanguage infraction...

Nooo that's just accentuation, not idiotic self-censorship ;)

Date: 2008/07/23 14:48:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Quidam @ July 23 2008,14:42)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ July 23 2008,08:15)
His favorite co-author believes Sun Myung Moon is the second coming of Jesus (Jesus v2.0).

You'd think Jesus V2.0.01 would be able to keep a helicopter flying

Remember that Jesus 2.0 is still in beta or even just alpha stage, and not yet available for retail.

Date: 2008/07/29 13:53:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,07:21)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)
What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so".

I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'?

Because their pastor told them so.

Hehe, good one.

Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe.

I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word.

Yes, you read, interpret the texts and beleive in thát. I talk to people on a regular basis who don't beleive in what you do.

Date: 2008/07/29 14:11:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 29 2008,13:54)
Quote (Assassinator @ July 29 2008,19:53)
Yes, you read, interpret the texts and beleive in thát. I talk to people on a regular basis who don't beleive in what you do.

In fact, some of us are atheists on a daily basis.

Or the tons of other Christian splinter-groups, or the thousands of other religions in the world.
For the record I believe you guys, like me, are here to learn and teach.

Nope, that's not what this site is about, it's just about mocking tards actually. Although occasionally, something usefull and smart comes through.

Date: 2008/07/30 05:47:21, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 30 2008,00:47)
hold up hold up hold up

this fool you got to watch

on second thought it is painful tard to endure.  unless you like getting preached at.  

but this shit keeps winding up in my inbox.  too much trolling creobot boards i reckon.  beware, this is some heady shit.

Heady shit? All I see is the typical crea-argumentation, nothing special, just the same ol' boring crap. What is fun by the way, is that he's calling himself "Dr." really proud in that video, but his degree (English) has 0 to do with his bla-bla in the video.
The creo's are really feeling like stuck records, I'm getting bored of them. Let's hope they shed the skin called ID soon, and something new and fun emerges from underneath it.

Date: 2008/07/30 06:49:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 30 2008,06:45)
So why do they do it?  What's to gain?

Spread knowledge, make sure that sciencists don't die out so science will continue it's existance. That's what teachers do: teach stuff to people. You know, some people have jobs because they like the job, because they find it fun or want to serve a greater cause. Money isn't all there is, and that calls us materialists...
The grants are for doing science, not big-screen tv's or expensive cars, and tenures are more likes contracts so proffs have a fixed position on a university.

Date: 2008/07/30 10:36:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 30 2008,09:21)
not heady as in 'brainy', but can you feel the vapors.  pungent aromatic squishy tard.

i admire his rhetorical style but it's all he's got.  i posted this because it is the kind of stupid tard that gets passed around in the creo circles.  god dammit it still shows up in my inbox.

Well yes I'm amazed at there stamina, how after só long they can still keep pumping out this crap. Kudo's for that. But even the smell of this isn't so tardilishious anymore, for me at least. I'm like "Is this all you got?", ready for fresh heaps of tard instead of this dried up ol' turd.

Date: 2008/07/30 10:43:04, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ July 30 2008,07:53)
Here's something my first boss told me.  I really didn't like the man but he had a few pearls of wisdom.  "When your reality clashes with another's perception, don't think your reality means squat to that person."

In your reality, Gish and others are the liars.

In other people's perception, their reality, Evolutionists are.

For those of you who "want to teach", you certainly haven't been doing a very good job of that would be my perception.

Science has nothing to do with "your" reality, the earth I live on is exactly the same for you, the way it came into existance is the same for you as for me. It doesn't matter what you like, facts don't change when you don't like em.

PS: This isn't a school, they're not teaching here.

Date: 2008/07/30 16:36:12, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2008,11:18)
The day that music died:

Please listen to the mp3. Imagine the creobots getting down to it at the Disco Institute Christmas disco. Don't have any fluid in your mouth / close to monitors, etc.

PS - Bob, your boyfriend's back.

Best part:
I know there’s more to life
It’s evident despite
Go see the stars at night
There in plain sight

They just discovered a 'hip' and new way to say "Who cares about evidence?" and "Isn't it óbvious??". And I thought ID was dying, then this comes along, brilliant. And they still want to look like science, this isn't just shooting yourself in the foot, this is aiming a bazooka at your own head.

PS: I suggest that someone (*cough* Lou, Wesley *cough*) moves the LCD discussion to a seperate, dedicated thread. It's too good to put it on the BW ;)

Date: 2008/07/30 16:58:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 30 2008,11:26)
don't you still like to watch Muhammad Ali fights?  I do.  I like to play 200 year old fiddle tunes.  No surprises, just an honest admiration of the delivery.  

Of course it would be exciting indeed to see some new material.  Its unlikely.  In the meantime, the church rolls on (and the women have paint on their face).

Please dear sir, do not compare


Please, you're hurting my cultural feelings.

Date: 2008/07/30 18:15:54, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Zachriel @ July 30 2008,17:41)
On the eyespots of butterflies and moths thread.

Eric Anderson: At present, it seems like we have just a bunch of stories about how creature A is camouflaged to avoid predators, and thus ensure survival, while creature B is not camouflaged to warn predators, and thus ensure survival. In either case, these are primarily stories, with so many exceptions on either end and such a tenuous link between the trait and the developmental adaptationist path that it strains credulity.

Actually, we have what's commonly called 'data'.

* Paper moths that are conspicuous are attacked less frequently.
* Many toxic organisms are conspicuous.
* Predators avoid toxicity by avoiding conspicuous prey.
* Consequently, being conspicuous is an evolutionary advantage for toxic prey.
* When there are predators in the environment, then it's an evolutionary advantage for non-toxic prey to be either camouflaged or to look like toxic prey.

Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. — Dr. Strangelove

It doesn't do much good for prey to be toxic unless it's easily identified by predators to act as a deterrent.

the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret!  — Dr. Strangelove

Nice little personal anecdote about something similar.
A couple of years ago my grandparents got a pond, with a pretty collection of carp's or something like that, black and orange and mixed pretty equally divided. We also know that we've got great blue heron's over here who are notorious of emptying ponds (yet my grandparents have barely done anything to keep them away). Today I visited my grandma again, and I noticed that the color-frequency is drasticly different then when they started with the pond. There are barely any pure orange carps anymore, I only counted 1, maybe 3 mixed one's and the rest was pure black (wich were hard to count since I could barely see them). The ratio was, I think, 3 blacks for every none-black (including the baby fish) while at the beginning of the pond it was far more fifty-fifty.
Ofcourse it isn't rock-solid science, but it's really fun to watch things like that actually happen infront of your eyes.

Date: 2008/07/31 07:07:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (dhogaza @ July 31 2008,05:40)
I find it amusing there is only an English version of conservapedia.

Actually, you'll only find American there.  The fact that Wikipedia allows the use of English is one of the signs of its liberal bias.

(I am not making this up).

You mean people like this:

Date: 2008/07/31 09:56:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
You could actually do some research to how far scientists are with explaining that yourself, start here:
or something among the 611.000 results found on Google Scholar when you search for "eye evolution":

Date: 2008/07/31 17:50:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
You're forgetting the halo and the wings on that photo Richard ;)
Anyway, good stuff, especially because it keeps amazing me how things like that can still thrive...

Date: 2008/08/01 06:45:58, Link
Author: Assassinator
I really liked the following part in bFast's post concerning the origin of life:
am saying that if scientist can create life in a lab, if they limit themselves to an environment that is likely to have existed in the primordial earth, and if they limit themselves to injecting the amount of information that chance alone would realistically achieve (especially if they inject no information at all), then science would have established that self-generating life is a reasonable possibility. This would falsify the ID based hypothesis that self-generating life is not possible.

Wow, gimme some of thát, a quick shot of information makes getting my Bachelor a lót easier.

PS: Yay, my first real contribution in the UD threads.

Date: 2008/08/01 07:23:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 01 2008,07:03)
Hmm. Given that a whole planet full of chemicals sitting there doing chemically things for quite a few million years probably contains quite a bit of "information" and a lot of opportunity for chance, I'd say cramming all that into a test tube in a laboratory would be quite a formidable task.

I'm more amazed by the fact that according to bFast, apperantly, they managed to A: set a definition of "information" B: find out that it's a real object and not an abstract term and C: then actually distill this out of...whatever and all without getting Nobel Prize's or even getting noticed by science.
O wait, there are no publications or anything that actually shows they can actually do that!

What a suprise! bFast has such a vivid imagination.

Date: 2008/08/04 06:36:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 04 2008,06:05)
2) F2XL is sharp enough to wish he/she could read the whole article, but then says, "...the conclusion they came to is a little disturbing… though it depends on what your prior philosophical commitments are on the origin of life as we know it today."  Origin of life?  WTF?

I see something similair every day, but it's rather the other way around. I'm discussing with a bloke about evolution and ID, and to support his arguments against evolution he keeps quoting articles who are about the origin of life and not evolution. Although according to him, the arguments can also be applied on evolution because they apply on the origin of every "new organisation". That argument made me go "Huh?" because he didn't define new.
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Aug. 04 2008,06:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 04 2008,06:05)

6) PaV returns with "However, this mechanism presupposes that duplicated genes have no function, and are therefore free to neutrally evolve–something which is now being questioned since psuedogenes have been found to be involved in gene regulation."  Actually, PaV, duplicated genes have exactly the same function as the gene they were copied from.  But if they get zapped by a mutation, the organism doesn't miss them because the original gene is still there, doing it's thing.

That was the point where I had to stop reading go play WoW. If one cannot understand the basics of gene duplication, one sure as hell shouldn't be commenting on anything gene-related.

[offtopic] :O Another WoW player! US or EU and the name of your main, I just nééd to check the Armory now.[/offtopic]
But that isn't just about knowing how genes work, that's just common sense.

Date: 2008/08/04 06:38:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
Sorry, delete this.

Date: 2008/08/04 09:45:34, Link
Author: Assassinator
I have found a very unlikely source of tard: Pundkit Kitchen from ICHC. The tard in case is someone named Evil Pundit. Although it's politics, this quote is still nice, thick and squishy tard:
Bush took the tough decisions that were necessary, and had been avoided by his predecessor. He ended the Iraq War (which had been going since 1991), and worked to install democracy in two countries that had been suffering under tyranny. He took the first steps in the battle against resurgent Islamic expansionism.

Yea, he ended the war....had a hard time keeping my beverage from my computerscreen when I read that.

Date: 2008/08/05 17:04:59, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2008,16:50)

*leans forward*

Blues is rubbish.

Genre                    Crapness index
Blues                     .83
Country                  .91
Country 2*              .97
old R&B                  .21
New R&B                .72
Rap                        .68
Disco                      .13
Funk                       .31
Techno                    .43
Balearic                   .37

let me know if you'd like your personal genre rated. I know all the scores, through divine revelation.

* Country 2 is Country - Patsy Cline's "Crazy".

No jazz between that? My my, a friend of mine showed me this jazz guitarist, Bill Frisell. Wish I had guitar skills like that, I already fail at Guitar Hero... And it's not even Dragonforce-ish guitar skills, this totally different, amazing.

Date: 2008/08/05 17:16:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2008,17:07)
Jazz              0.53
Acid Jazz        0.25

Agreed about the acid jazz, I'm a huge bebop fan myself. And to keep this a bit more ontopic, there is 1 song in partical from Sonny Rollins (although I should have to look up the title) wich has a great (I think) guitar solo in it.
Edit: it's Without a song although I don't really like this version.

Date: 2008/08/06 07:03:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 05 2008,23:40)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 05 2008,19:16)
somebody wake me up when you get a fiddler in here.

Here's a start.

Well slap me in the face and call me a donkeydick, that's one awesome tune!


Woops, I missread your reaction about the jazz rating, and actually I do NOT agree with that! I second Ra-Úl. Blasphemy, giving jazz a .53!

Date: 2008/08/07 13:21:46, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,12:51)
well i know it is hilarious to consider, but I'm serious.  What's up with that?

it's like some kinda gay locker room over there.  not that it isn't here sometimes... dammit Arden you are making us look bad.  

i thought about it for about five seconds (all that it deserves, probably) and it occurred to me that perhaps you could blame it on the lack of women participating in science in general, for whatever reasons.

or perhaps the fairer sex sees this as the bullshit that it is, and is thus not interested in paying lip servce to an uber-yanged cultural renaissance.  

i dunno.  but if you are trying to pick up chicks I suggest UD is the wrong place to be.

Is it just me, or is the female part of humanity kind of under-represented on teh intertubez in general?

Date: 2008/08/09 05:08:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 08 2008,11:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2008,08:57)
Brace for "Obama is not an American" assclownery...

Looking at the bright side, Tim LaHaye, another breed of  ass-hat says Obama can't be "The Anti-Christ" because he IS American, and his Bible Tells Him that the anti-christ is not American.   So,  you pays your money, you makes your choice

- Which Asshat do you believe today?

Damn it must be tough being a Believer!  Maybe every Bible should come with a "How To Juggle For Dummies" book, so they can handle all the contradictory ideas.

O dear

Doom is on it's way!!!

Date: 2008/08/09 05:30:46, Link
Author: Assassinator
I can't stay behind then, I'll have to show some Dutch pride. Hell yea.

Date: 2008/08/10 06:12:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 09 2008,19:26)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 09 2008,08:45)
Densye shows off her reasoning abilities in a new post at UD wondering about the next generation of ID textbooks.        
Warwick U sociologist Steve Fuller, author of Dissent over Descent, and I have been corresponding about how scientists who are sympathetic to intelligent design can make a bigger impact, and what the next generation of
ID textbooks should look like.

But real evidence for think-poof is gonna be hard to find, and those "textbook" authors need to feed their families somehow, so I imagine that the next generation will be the same as the current generation. Vaporware.

In the Densey post at her blog, it gets funnier.

U.K. Sociologist Steve Fuller (University of Warwick), pictured below:

"My fantasy ID textbook would actually treat biology as a branch of engineering – I.E. GOD'S ENGINEERING" (my emphasis)

Move along now -- nothing to see here. All science, all the time, yep. Move along.

Note also that Densey ends with this plea:
"Darwinbot alert!: Get busy, Darwinbots, and oppose this idea. Your opposition helps sales."

Religion and money ...yeah.

Great motives for your vapid programme. Lacking,  y'know, actual *science,* (as Fuller repeatedly points out, to Densey's consternation) then the best thing ID can hope for is "framing" the debate, and propaganda. Excellent thinking.


I wonder if she actually saw the word "fantasy" there.

Date: 2008/08/11 09:13:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
I don't think I can really answer your question, but I do want to correct a mistake you made there. It's not so that it did not need the enzym, or that enzym 1.0 didn't work properly. It's that, for example, enzym 2.0 works better in a given enviroment and/or situation then 1.0, wich means that in that ecological niché the organism with enzym 2.0 is much more succesfull. Things aren't broken, for example the first humanoids weren't faulty, broken or not-yet-finished Homo Sapiens, they were well adapted for the enviroment they lived in only to be superseded because another species was better adapted, and they lost the battle for there specific ecological niché.

PS: If I made any mistakes, can someone who has more expertise on these topics please correct them?

Date: 2008/08/11 09:39:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 11 2008,09:18)
Adding on to that, the word "better" is relative to the current environment, which changes all the time.

Also, it is possible to be "as good as". Sexual selection allows populations to drift apart for purely cosmetic reasons. Some chicks just prefer guys with redder feathers, for arbitrary reasons.

There are other forms of drift as well.

Aaa yes, ofcourse. I thank you for your wisdom :)

Date: 2008/08/11 13:16:44, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,09:50)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 11 2008,09:44)
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,08:58)
Thanks for all your replies.  I still have to ask this question.

Science is looking for evidence correct?  So if there is no direct evidence, how do we actually know what happened?  For IC systems, if these incremental steps can produce something that is needed, I take it that one or more of the following occurred:

1:  The organism didn't need the function before hand.

2:  The first "organ" or "enzyme" was version 1.0 and didn't work as well as the later versions are currently doing.

3:  The new function replaced a now kaput and no longer available way the function was produced.

Am I missing anything?

Of all the types of eye in the world, which one is the "best"?


Trick question.

I understand that the eye of a Cephalopod doesn't have a blind spot where as our mammalian eyes do.  That comes from the blood vessels in the Cephalopod being able to supply blood under the light receptive areas in their eyes.

Ours are fed through the top.  An interesting design feature to be sure.

Indeed a trick question, like I explained before (with the help of midwifetoad), all the eyes out there are good in there ecological niché. There is no such thing as the best eye out there. Don't forget as well, that a simple eye patch was considered "high tech" a long long time ago.

PS: Shouldn't this little conversation be moved to the lcd thread?

Date: 2008/08/12 14:10:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 12 2008,07:28)
I think that might be attributed to "common sense" in which the person looks at all those thousands of pounds of metal on the ground and declares that the plane can't possibly fly in the face of Bernoulli's principle.  It's denial of a sort between what a person knows versus how they perceive the world.  A similar situation occurred early in the days of quantum theory in which many people, some very smart people, said the world can't possibly work that way!  In both these examples no higher power is required to succumb to the denial.  God is just an excuse or a crutch as it may very well be in the ID case.  This is not a justification just a layman's attempt at over-analysis, parlor room psychology.

Wich shows that common sense fails a lot of times ;)

Date: 2008/08/12 18:32:54, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 12 2008,06:08)
Giberson is correct.  Science doesn't explain everything. i.e. the whys and wherefores of life.

I would first ask myself the question if there even IS a "why" and "wherefor" answer. I'm not making the assumption that an answer to that question even exists. I do not see a shred of evidence that supports that assumption, that there is a "Why?" and "What for/purpose?" answer. Hence, I do not feel like I should look for an answer to that question, since I'm skeptical about the assumption that the question is answerable.
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 12 2008,17:32)
Very moving. She is, in effect, cherishing the fact that jebus blew her friends up instead of her.  Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

That is indeed something that keeps amazing me. When I see people thanking God about surving some disaster or not getting hurt, my very first reaction is "And what about the people who díd die/got hurt, hmm?". Something else is that, for example in medical reality series, you see patients thanking God for letting them survive. That just doesn't amaze me, that makes me slightly angry: the doctors used every shred of expertise they gained to save you, and whó are you praising?? I really do not understand.

Date: 2008/08/14 19:20:10, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Aug. 14 2008,17:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 14 2008,16:53)
Kinda on-topic.

Check out this nugget:

That guy is an ass clown.  Read the last paragraph again.

He seems to have a very limited undersatanding of history, and completely ignored the naughty bits caused by Christianity.

There must be a stupid gene or something that guys like this carry.

That guy goes beyond stupid. He has lost any touch with reality, or so it seems. Almost made me vomit, that's one helluva thick vein o' tard.

Date: 2008/08/15 07:10:20, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 14 2008,20:12)
Quote (Assassinator @ Aug. 14 2008,19:20)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Aug. 14 2008,17:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 14 2008,16:53)
Kinda on-topic.

Check out this nugget:

That guy is an ass clown.  Read the last paragraph again.

He seems to have a very limited undersatanding of history, and completely ignored the naughty bits caused by Christianity.

There must be a stupid gene or something that guys like this carry.

That guy goes beyond stupid. He has lost any touch with reality, or so it seems. Almost made me vomit, that's one helluva thick vein o' tard.

Feel free to add your $0.02. At least the posts go through straight away...

Meeh, I've engaged in so many discussions like this over the past 2 years, I'm totally done with responding. Hence why I'm still hoping for some new, refreshing and creative tard.

Date: 2008/08/15 18:23:37, Link
Author: Assassinator
Watching The Situation Room on CNN at the minute, apperantly they're going to broadcast something about it in a few minutes. Really, and you thought CNN could sink no longer with those UFO folks at Larry King a while ago.

Date: 2008/08/15 19:00:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
Armed guard?? What the hell, do they think there is some kind of government conspiracy who want to cover up Big Foot. Or just the eeeeevil scientists with there massive armies of....calculators and....bunsen burners!!!

Date: 2008/08/16 18:11:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,17:55)
Did you even read what I said?

Not only did I read what you said, I went and read up on "Garden of Eden" patterns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just blowing you off. This interface between chaos theory and life is a subject that I have grappled with often.

In fact, it is safe to say that my understanding of it is still a "work in progress".

What continues to drive me on is an unshakable belief that a natural explanation will be found, that will fall squarely within the realm of science.

Debunking darwinism does not mean accepting religious creationism. All it means is that Darwin was wrong and we've got to keep looking for scientific explanations.

Yet, what do you understand about biology (all fields of biology ofcourse) and evolutional theory in general? Don't you also know that science has progressed for 150 years now?

Date: 2008/08/18 07:24:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 18 2008,04:31)
She is doing nothing of the sort Jim. Most Christians think like this i.e. they are thankful that they were "spared". I'm sure there will be many similar type statements and sentiments on the 10th anniversary of  9/11. Surely you don't think Jim, that those who survived that one are cherishing the fact that so many of their friends were lost   ??????

What he wanted to say, is that while she is thanking for not dying in the blast, the sáme blast killed lots of other people. It's kinda selfish to thank an apperantly all-mighty and all-good being for surving something that killed lots of other people. Afterall, that being wasn't apperantly as good for the one's who díd die.
Even though I wasn't "cured" I still have God to thank for a lot of things.

I alwayse wonder: what? I hear that often, that people have enough to thank for, but I never hear exactly what.

Date: 2008/08/18 08:46:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
My symptoms were very similar to cancer. I feared the worst when I began to pass blood. Although my diagnosis wasn't great (IBD), I was relieved that cancer was ruled out. But I still have a lot things to be thankful for. Like the work of Professor Bryan Brooke:

I think you missunderstood me there ;) I ment God, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus or any other mythological, transcendant being, and not real persons. Ofcourse I definatly agree with you about Bryan Brooke, people like him are the persons who deserve the praise.

PS: I'm very glad for you, and indeed also thankfull for Prof. Brooke for helping you and millions of others.

Date: 2008/08/18 09:15:05, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2008,08:50)
I always wonder: what? I hear that often, that people have enough to thank for, but I never hear exactly what.

I think this may reflect the story that if all the troubles of the world were put in a bucket and you could draw out anyone's, you would -- after reflection -- choose your own.


I ofcourse mean the thanking of mythological, transcedent beings, not actual persons. Heck, I've got plenty to thank for regarding people. For example, I definatly have to thank my study councelor for helping me choose a Bachelor that would really suit me. I couldn've done it without him.

Date: 2008/08/19 05:29:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
Dawkins has the nasty tendency to generalise religion. It's true that certain interpretations of religions, like literal interpretations of christianity. But, at least from my p.o.v, it seems like Dawkins thinks that's all there is, that only such literal interpretations exist. Ofcourse it's 100% true that such literal interpretations of any religion are incompatible with evolution and maybe science in general, but those aren't the only interpretations possible.
And because Dawkins attacks any religion like it's all just literal and orthodox, I'm not a big fan of him.
At least we've agreed on something assassinator.

I thought we were just misreading eachother for the most part ;)

Date: 2008/08/19 05:52:31, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 19 2008,05:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 19 2008,06:22)
No mention of Haekel at all.  Also no mention of Behe or Dembski, irreducible complexity or complex specified information.  There doesn't seem to be a dedicated chapter on frauds, or anything in the way of passing mention.  Walt Brown was also glaring in his absence from the index, in case anyone's interested.

Upon further reflection, that was really a cheap shot for me to take.  There's no reason to expect that Behe or Dembski would be mentioned in the text book.

After all, it's about Biology.

Since this is the Bathroom Wall anyway, I've got a little question: how is the 8th edition compared to the 7th? Lots of new information Since I've got that one (leftover from my single year of Bio-Informatics, it's a much too awesome book to ever sell on the Dutch version of Ebay for a few euro's). I've looked up some of the new features, but ofcourse I'de like to know first hand how they improve and add to the book ;) I don't want to miss out too much.

PS: By the way, in that year of Bio-Informatics, we didn't spend a single lesson on scientific method. I was shocked, even more when some of my classmates asked me why the hell it would matter...
PPS: Never saw any of those drawings as well.

Date: 2008/08/19 08:03:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 19 2008,06:15)
Quote (Assassinator @ Aug. 19 2008,06:52)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 19 2008,05:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 19 2008,06:22)
No mention of Haekel at all.  Also no mention of Behe or Dembski, irreducible complexity or complex specified information.  There doesn't seem to be a dedicated chapter on frauds, or anything in the way of passing mention.  Walt Brown was also glaring in his absence from the index, in case anyone's interested.

Upon further reflection, that was really a cheap shot for me to take.  There's no reason to expect that Behe or Dembski would be mentioned in the text book.

After all, it's about Biology.

Since this is the Bathroom Wall anyway, I've got a little question: how is the 8th edition compared to the 7th? Lots of new information Since I've got that one (leftover from my single year of Bio-Informatics, it's a much too awesome book to ever sell on the Dutch version of Ebay for a few euro's). I've looked up some of the new features, but ofcourse I'de like to know first hand how they improve and add to the book ;) I don't want to miss out too much.

PS: By the way, in that year of Bio-Informatics, we didn't spend a single lesson on scientific method. I was shocked, even more when some of my classmates asked me why the hell it would matter...
PPS: Never saw any of those drawings as well.

I don't have a seventh to compare, Assassinator, but they've added five co-authors, and in the front of the book is two pages discussing the changes they've made to the book, unit by unit.

If I can find a few minutes later today, I'll try to remember to either scan you those two pages or transcribe them.

Yeah, I can see that I won't be parting with this book either.  It'll have a permanent home on my Science book case.

It did indeed sound like quite a change, hope I'm not missing out on tóó much :P
Anyway, every bit of effort is greatly appreciated *bows*

Date: 2008/08/19 10:12:06, Link
Author: Assassinator
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 19 2008,10:05)
neither of those are even close comparisons, for example, is it possible to rape your wife willingly?  As to the executions, I was not aware of that but I'll give it a look.

Still that doesn't change the fact that these "war crimes" are committed on our own troops purposely, has anyone ever died as a result of that?  How can they be so horrible?

And Louis, someone else raised the topic, I'm just interested in their reasoning here.

Ofcourse they're comitted purposly, is torture ever comitted without purpose?? And why would it only be important if people would die? You don't die (neccesarly) from an arm amputation, just to raise an example.
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture means:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Is that the case with waterboarding? Yes. And when I last checked, the USA is part of the UN ánd signed and ratified the agreement. However, they did not sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
wich bassicly means they can't be checked or inspected.

Date: 2008/08/19 18:41:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 19 2008,11:07)
From Malta Today
Far from becoming extinct 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs actually co-existed with early humans, and even helped in the construction of the pyramids.
This is the word of Vince Fenech, Evangelist pastor and director of a fully licensed, State-approved Creationist institution which admits children aged between four and 18.
“Of course the ‘dinoceros’ existed (as Fenech pronounces the word). It is mentioned in the Book of Job. They were used to help build the pyramids,” he says, adding that this latter observation is only “his personal belief”, and that it does not form part of the school’s curriculum.

Cue Fred Flintstone driving the the dino-crane...

You gotta be f*cking shitting me...

Is he serious? He can't be serious... That's just amazing, world-class tard. And it's in the EU, never imagined stuff like that existed outside the US of A ;)
The best part of the whole article:
contradicting himself totally in less than five minutes

*snicker* Cliché, but I learned to appreciate that (abandoning worthless dreams: it really does help).

Date: 2008/08/19 18:54:12, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 19 2008,14:41)
Quote (Assassinator @ Aug. 19 2008,09:03)
It did indeed sound like quite a change, hope I'm not missing out on tóó much :p
Anyway, every bit of effort is greatly appreciated *bows*

New to the Eighth Edition

Nice big legible images at my Flickr account, just for yous guys:

Aaa damn, I ám missing out on much :( Thanks for the effort Lou.
Even though I quitted Bio-Informatics, and moving to something completely un-scientific (journalism), I still feel that ol' love for biology. Damn you math...damn you programming...damn you all!!

Date: 2008/08/20 15:14:03, Link
Author: Assassinator
The only prayer I never really understood, was the prayer before diner. Why thanking an mythological and transcendant being?? The farmer who grew the food deserves the thanks, the supermarket personal who make sure it's available to you, and ofcourse the person earning the money in your house so you can buy the food. Why not thanking the right sources?
As for the other moments, I kinda understand why people do it. Some people simply need to support themselfs, humans are emotionally pretty weak creatures.

Date: 2008/08/20 15:21:48, Link
Author: Assassinator
I wonder if those people are willing to ignore the times when divine intervention does not kick in. If divine intervention does indeed exist, it's pretty random.

Date: 2008/08/21 13:03:09, Link
Author: Assassinator
Nice thread Lou, the course sounds really good. As you might now I spent 1 year doing a Bio-Informatics Bachelor, ofcourse with a biology class. But what shocked me is that we spend almost no time on the scientific method, how science works etc. How can you ever properly work with science if you don't know the basics?
Anyway, I'de love to do a similair biology course some day, but I don't think I can do that here in the Netherlands. I wonder how that works at your place Lou, how can someone at your age and no proper biology history (wich would be the case with me) end up in a university biology class. What kind of biology course is it anyway? Can you get a Master with it, or is it just for 1 year?
I bet it works very different over there in the US.

Date: 2008/08/21 13:51:44, Link
Author: Assassinator
Aaa, I thought you were just doing a loose biology course for 'shits & giggles'. But you're actually wanting to become a biology teacher, I wish you good luck with that ;) My mom (snicker) did something similair, but she got a much lower degree for a primaire school teacher assistant. I'm still very proud of her, that she managed to do that while also having to run a family.

I don't think I'll ever do something similair, but I still would like to experience biology in a true educational setting. I hope that's possible, first I'll have to focus myself on my Journalism Bachelor. There are still some scientific opportunities with that, I can alwayse dive into science journalism. In the meantime I'll just follow this thread about your educational adventures.

Date: 2008/08/21 13:56:31, Link
Author: Assassinator

Date: 2008/08/21 19:30:45, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 21 2008,14:43)
Hey, and his first "Har Har This Is You", at that! Welcome to the club!

I stand in awe that I am granted this honor, with my first "HAR HAR" no less. I bow before you all *bows*

Date: 2008/08/22 17:56:14, Link
Author: Assassinator
I actually had something like that back in my early high-school years. The only difference was that the uber cute/hot biology teacher was really short, and I already was friggin huge. That switch of positions also gives an...interesting perspective, from my point of view ;)

Date: 2008/08/26 17:42:09, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (SoonerintheBluegrass @ Aug. 26 2008,16:14)
A friend e-mailed me that article, and while it is infuriating, I would buy David Campbell several rounds of his drink of choice on principle alone.  And the last line of the article actually gave me cause for hope.

Well worth a read, to those who haven't.

A good read indeed, and don't forget about the video in that link. When you see that teacher read those student But, I like to add something to what the Florida Department of Education sad: not just teach evolution, but properly teach evolution. I had evolution education in high-school, but it really came short and I noticed a lot of over-simplification wich can easely (and it did) lead to missconceptions about evolution.

Date: 2008/08/26 18:02:02, Link
Author: Assassinator
On the other news today:
Still no sight of Ftk, wich does not come as any suprise for anyone.
Also, Assassinator really fails at grammar and sentence structure. He has given out an official apology for this recently.

Date: 2008/08/27 14:41:34, Link
Author: Assassinator
Even though I live in the middle of the Dutch Bible Belt, it was far from that bad here. Although my evolution education failed, I could see that my teacher knew a lot more about the subject but didn't have the time to explain it more thoroughly. When I asked if I could do my final school project (some large project you have to do here if you want to get your high-school diploma) about the history of intelligent design or evolution vs ID, she snickered and told me that if I wanted to do my project about biology I did have to do actual science ;) I ended up doing it about the late-Republican Roman Army.

Date: 2008/09/03 06:13:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 02 2008,07:50)
I've been eyeing up Lou's textbook; would all agree it's a pretty good choice for an autodidact self-learner?

I won't say per definition. I've been discussing with someone over ID and evolution for about a year now. The guy also has read Biology from Campbell and calls himself an auto-didact, but if you see him talk about evolution and all the subjects around it... Imo, you should always keep some experts on the field around to clearify things. Especially with things like biology and evolution, which include so many other subjects (nuclear physics for example) and the sometimes necessary backgrounds, it's incredibly difficult to teach yourself. But still, I can recommend Campbell. It helped me understand a lot of stuff about various subjects.

PS: I'de like to thank Lou for this 'blog'. Because of this, I can make better notes during class and see the value of typing them over. It will really help me getting my Bachelor ;)

Date: 2008/09/03 14:39:32, Link
Author: Assassinator
Maybe some of you guys can help me identifying an odd bug I've seen at work (supermarket) this evening.
It was black, a bit shorter then an inch, it's head looked like 1 from an ant and it had a pretty long abdomen wich it could curl up like a scorpion's tail. It made me think of an earwig, but it was bigger, black, I didn't really see a pincher on the back of it's tail and I've never seen an earwig curl it's tail up like that.
Anyone knows what I'm talking about?

Date: 2008/09/04 06:02:00, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 03 2008,22:50)
what flavour was it?

More to the point, did it taste like chicken? (or early semiaquatic vertebrates, whichever.)


Doesn't everything exotic ;)

But yes JohnW, that´s exactly the bug I saw. Thanks a lot.

Date: 2008/09/06 19:19:51, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 06 2008,17:16)
i don't see much rational thought from either 'side' of this circus.  a pox on all their houses.

I never got the American polarised politics anyway. That 2-party system (well technically speaking, it's not) only seems to evoke loads of bile and pure hate and not a fruitfull discussion on how to make your country a better place to live.
When I watch American politics, it looks like almost like an educated "yo momma" battle instead of "My plans are better then yours, and here's why." All the attention goes to the next grand speech from Obama, or the next add from McCain. But where are the discussions about the issues? Where are the economists discussing with eachother instead of the same old chatter about crap that in the end won't matter anyway. I'm still waiting for the facts, thát's usefull.

Date: 2008/09/07 07:49:16, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 06 2008,21:25)
assassinator do you have a better plan?  say the world was your oyster, how ought we live?

i've often wondered what the axioms are that people work from that results in the conclusion that 'democracy is the best form of government' etc etc.  how do you get from 'I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired' to 'We need a stronger national defense system' or 'Everyone has equal rights' etc.  Methinks there is a scam afoot but I'm not sure where it originated.

I don't ;) But I assume presidential candidates have. Afterall, they're not running for president for nothing. The only thing I'm really asking for, is more focus on the product and less focus on the advertisements. I still find it odd why there is so much focus on advertisement in American politics.

Date: 2008/09/07 14:40:28, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 07 2008,13:28)
So to my mind, you have a system designed for a set of circumstances that haven't existed since the introduction of the steam train and the popular press.

you know amadan, you sound like you hate freedom.

how's that lou?  am i getting it yet?

show me how voting helps and i'll consider your point.  

voting = praying.


It's true that the individual vote in a country the size of the US or even Holland does not really count. You only stand strong as a group, you're (mostly) worthless as an individual. And that only gets worse when the size of a society gets bigger. Voting only has an impact when you do it as a group.
But I wonder what you would want then? What would work for a society of USA-ish size. Or do you think we shouldn't live in USA sized groups anymore?

Date: 2008/09/25 05:34:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
I just have to share this cool Article from It really suits the kind of discussion wich is being held here, and ofcourse how the subject itself actually is. I bet that most of you know this stuff already, but always pens it down so good ;)

Date: 2008/10/01 13:14:13, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 01 2008,13:04)
I would like to add that if Americans want their country to be seen as the world's leader they have to be prepared to see others' points of view and to make compromises, unless they are willing and able to impose their opinions on everyone else.

Well compromises aren't everything :P In Dutch politics, the goal is no longer to solve problems, but to "improve the situation". Wich is why barely anything changes over here. Compromises are important, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Date: 2008/10/01 17:00:18, Link
Author: Assassinator
A while ago Erasmus sad that voting was similair to praying. 5 Minutes ago I came across this:
Where ONE vote has made the difference:
In 1776, English was chosen over German as the language for America by ONE vote.
In 1800, After an Electoral College tie, the House of Representatives voted Thomas Jefferson the 3rd President of the United States by ONE vote.
In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was saved from impeachment by ONE vote.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became President of the United States over Samuel Tilden by ONE vote.
In 1923, Hitler won the leadership of the German Nazi Party by ONE vote.
In 1948, Lyndon B. Johnson, the 36th President, became a U.S. Senator by ONE vote.
California, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Washington all became states by ONE vote.


Date: 2008/10/01 17:22:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (khan @ Oct. 01 2008,17:08)
Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 01 2008,18:00)
A while ago Erasmus sad that voting was similair to praying. 5 Minutes ago I came across this:
Where ONE vote has made the difference:
In 1776, English was chosen over German as the language for America by ONE vote.
In 1800, After an Electoral College tie, the House of Representatives voted Thomas Jefferson the 3rd President of the United States by ONE vote.
In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was saved from impeachment by ONE vote.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became President of the United States over Samuel Tilden by ONE vote.
In 1923, Hitler won the leadership of the German Nazi Party by ONE vote.
In 1948, Lyndon B. Johnson, the 36th President, became a U.S. Senator by ONE vote.
California, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Washington all became states by ONE vote.


Maybe, maybe not:

Makes it indeed a lot less interesting. The link still gives a true one-vote example (apperantly), but that's still meager and not so dramatic. Falling into an internet hype hurts ;)

Date: 2008/10/03 05:28:42, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2008,23:18)
lol....even when I do know more than 'squat", you twist every word I say.

Been fun, blipster...never change.  Night luv.

It's simple Ftk: you say that Palin kicked Biden's ass, some of us would like to know with what Palin kicked Biden's ass.

About the change thing:
I wonder why people are focussed on that mantra so much. I see people calling McCain "brave" because he broke with his party 10% of the time, while Obama apperantly didn't do that. But isn't the only thing that matters if the change is actually good? For example: wanting rape to be legalised is certainly change, but not really good hmm?

Beats me. In a kind of perverse way (that and I don't live in the USA) I almost hope McCain wins this one, just so Obama is not saddled with the utter mess that the current government has brought about. Almost hope so anyway.

So he can make it worse?

There were things Biden didn't accomplish in this debate, but many of them were things that no politician accomplishes in their debates (by plan): specific details of policy (health care, education, etc).

Indeed, but as a politician you really have to watch out with things like that. If you bring up the details, people are going to hold you on that, and if you break them for whatever reasons (for example, there is a 700 billion dollar gap), you're f*cked. That's bad for politicians, but good for the people. Afterall, they then know exactly what they get if that person gets elected. But for a politician it's better to keep things vague. Although giving a certain amount of details is good for politicians as well. For example, the McCain camp keeps saying that Obama would raise the burden for middle-class family's although the Obama camp keeps saying the opposite. Now if either one of them would actually have evidence for what they're saying, they can easily debunk there counterpart.

Edit: wow, this post is a mess. Excuse et moi folks.

Date: 2008/10/04 13:56:58, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Oct. 04 2008,13:28)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2008,19:29)
Reports suggest that McCain is shifting his advertising to 100% negative ads against Obama. We'll see if the fear-mongering and division tactics of Rove can pull it off. My guess is no.

I say no as well, but I fear that they will come close enough that the loss will not repudiate the tactics.  Only a blow out, of say a 60% win by popular vote, by Obama and a clean sweep of the electoral college (ok a 75% take of the EC, I can still dream) will show the American public can see past negative identity politics.

Worst is though, is that the Obama seems to 'take the bait' and going the negative route as well (although not 100%). If Obama really is going to take the bait, I think he's in for a rough time since I don't think that those fragile (fragile as in, easy to loose) voters, like Independents, will like that. I don't think he'll win that easily IF he's going to win. I doubt the public is over the identity politics.

Edited for obvious, easy-to-eliminate-by-proofreading mistakes.

Date: 2008/10/04 17:30:36, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 04 2008,17:25)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,13:39)
...keeping yourself "Smoking hot in a 'naughty librarian' sort of way" ...

There's nothing "librarian" or "smoking" about ignorance or illiteracy.

I can't ignore the fact that she's kinda milf-y though ;)

Date: 2008/10/05 05:09:54, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,01:49)
There's only 30 days left. Not enough time. So McCain has really one shot at winning: racism. Not overt, but indirect.  What the psychologists call Aversive Racism. He's already shot whatever integrity and honesty he may once have had, so why not?

They apperantly have another trick up there sleeve, namely Obama's connection to William Ayers wich Palin now brought up. How rediculous, at the time of the bombings Obama was just out of the shitting-his-own-pants phase! Ayers is a university professor now, they met a few times because they, and I quote CNN, " both worked with a non-profit group trying to raise funds for a school improvement project and a charitable foundation." I already saw some true hardcore/crazy Republicans coming with this, I never imagined that the campaign would go this low. Although...we're talking about Palin here ;) I think McCain is starting to think twice about this choice, or at least he should.

Date: 2008/10/05 06:10:00, Link
Author: Assassinator
[quote=stevestory,Oct. 04 2008,16:57]as fark says:

Gangs of "religious Police" roam the street stoning immodestly dressed women and torching stores with internet capabale devices. Is this A) Taliban-controlled Afghanistan b) Saudi Arabia or C) Israel

(Yea, it's a spoiler, ain't I baaaad!)

Date: 2008/10/06 07:57:04, Link
Author: Assassinator
Could you be so kind and also show wich comments from blipey you did not show.

Date: 2008/10/06 08:57:05, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,08:42)
Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 06 2008,07:57)
Could you be so kind and also show wich comments from blipey you did not show.

How can I do that?  I deleted them.  It's his tone that I simply can't abide by anymore.  He pisses everyone off and deteriorates every single post he's on.  I have to go through and delete all kinds of crap when he gets on a roll.  Other posters get put off with him, and they start swinging so I have to delete their comments as well.

I WANT HIM GONE, AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO GET HIM TO LEAVE. I'm willing to make a deal here.  I've had it.

So I should just trust you when you say he's all those things you call him? It would be nice if there would be actual evidence wich supports your claims, try to gather some.

Date: 2008/10/06 16:52:56, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,09:13)
Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 06 2008,08:57)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,08:42)
Quote (Assassinator @ Oct. 06 2008,07:57)
Could you be so kind and also show wich comments from blipey you did not show.

How can I do that?  I deleted them.  It's his tone that I simply can't abide by anymore.  He pisses everyone off and deteriorates every single post he's on.  I have to go through and delete all kinds of crap when he gets on a roll.  Other posters get put off with him, and they start swinging so I have to delete their comments as well.

I WANT HIM GONE, AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO GET HIM TO LEAVE. I'm willing to make a deal here.  I've had it.

So I should just trust you when you say he's all those things you call him? It would be nice if there would be actual evidence wich supports your claims, try to gather some.

Sigh....of course it would be too much to ask that you trust a "creationist".  

Look, I just want to know what it would take to get blipey off my blog.  I'll await his response.

You being a creationist has nothing to do with it. You make a claim, support it. Creationist or not.

O and by the way, this post from OM isn't violent or anything against you. It's right down on the subjects. So, will you adress this? That would show you would actually care about the subjects and care about answers. Are you? Now is your time to show it.

Date: 2008/10/06 17:59:00, Link
Author: Assassinator
O hell I was just watching CNN, and those little parts of the VP came by showing Palin blinking while talking. I wonder if it's a twitch (I'm f*cked I'm f*cked I'm f*cked!!!) or some kind of....tactic (they will like me if I flirt!). Whatever it is, it's friggin' disturbing. And I though Hillary was scary.

Date: 2008/10/13 17:08:27, Link
Author: Assassinator
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

Wow I'm a bit like Ghandi :p But more libertarian.
I agree with Louis btw (and I'm curious on how your graph looks like), some questions are hard to answer because they're formulated so limited. I never found myself so left-ish (maybe it's just youghtfull idealism ;)) since I'm not that much for a heavely regulated economy. I don't pay a lot of attention to brands/labels. I'm just interested in solving problems, and whereither the solution is "left" or "right"; I don't care.

Edited for easy-to-spot-by-proofreading-mistakes.

Date: 2008/10/13 17:52:58, Link
Author: Assassinator
Nothing (new) to see here, just move along folks ;)
I don't think it can ever get juicy with those AiG guys anymore. But I still hold hope, so I'll keep this topic in my sights.

Date: 2008/10/13 17:55:57, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 13 2008,17:28)
OK, I did the question thingy

Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

I should not be "libertarian." Libertarian means "all power to corrporate greed."

I prefer anarchist v. facist.

Well according to that test, you've got libertarian left and right. The right seems to be the "all power to corporate greed" side, they call the left side "voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved". Can't say I really disagree with that.

Date: 2008/10/23 12:43:32, Link
Author: Assassinator
And for something completly different, next time you see someone making the watchmaker's argument, just show them this:

From here. I love webcomics.

Date: 2008/11/03 03:27:20, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Spottedwind @ Oct. 31 2008,09:29)
What does '...God "is" consciousness...' mean and why can he just state that?

I think it has something to do with the "soul". According to certain theïsts, consciousness is the soul, and the soul is the "breath of God" recieved at conception (wich is why they're so anti-abortion). Hence, conciousness/the soul is a part of God or something like that. Makes my head spin as well, how do they come up with that? Has nothing to do with science ofcourse, this "new development" is just creation science as usual.

Date: 2008/11/05 04:15:29, Link
Author: Assassinator
I tried to do an election marathon last night. Since it's GMT+1 here, it was veeeeery late. I broke down at 3:00. Damn you America...
Glad to see Obama becoming president when I woke up like half an hour ago. But I immediatly thought: Obama's f*cked now. Loooooots of people will be dissapointed during his presidency, you can be sure of that. I think he simply cannot live up to it. And that's not even Obama's fault, that's simply how the system works. And if Palin runs in 2012...God forbid.

Date: 2008/11/07 09:37:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 05 2008,15:09)
The graciousness of McCain's concession actually kind of startled me, too. Almost made me feel sorry for the guy.* I think he wanted to close out his career on a more upbeat note than being the asshole who spent 3 months calling Obama a socialist terrorist. His audience wasn't all on board, tho. They booed very loudly the first couple times he mentioned Obama's name.

I don't think Caribou Barbie has made any kind of statement, tho. Alaska just re-elected senator Stevens even though he's now a convicted felon facing possible jail time. So of course they're talking about Palin running for his seat after the Senate kicks him out next month.


A while ago I watched a documentary unrelated with the elections, Why We Fight, wich featured McCain. It made me ponder about him, and I looked some stuff up about it. My conclusion was simple: is this the guy who was running for president?? Before the election, he seemed to be (to me at least) as a decent, skeptical and overal good guy, certainly not a Repub-drone. But during the campaign, he looked more like a Karl Rove puppet. Seemed like he was done with that roll as well, when I saw some fragments from his speech. He looked genuinenly pissed off at those booing and shouting supporters. Simply put, the "old" McCain wasn't the McCain I saw during the election. A shame tbh. How he could ever live with becoming like that, and doing all those things Wheels summed up, is a mystery to me.

It's obvious that electing Obama doesn't say much about the state of racism in America:
1: Only about 50% of the total population voted.
2: From that 50%, about 52% voted for Obama.
That still leaves tens of millions of people not supporting Obama, and I don't even count "positive racism" ("I voted for him because he's black.") wich is, imo, bad as well.

PS: I don't have the exact numers, if anyone can correct me: thanks.

Date: 2008/12/10 16:09:15, Link
Author: Assassinator
No idea where to put this, but NEWS FLASH!
Seems that the creotards are trying to get a foothold on my hometurf. Apperantly some group of christians is planning to spread anti-science/creationist (what's the difference) material with some big action on the 12th of february (gee what a suprise; Darwin's birthday) next year. Now a group of scientists and organisations is selling stickers saying "NO Creationism, YES to Darwin" based on popular stickers to block unwanted advertisement and stuff. For the one's who can read Dutch, although I doubt that's a lot of people but what the heck, this is there blog. All the scientists and organisations who support the anti-anti-science coördination, the lot. A sign for future things to come here on the other side of pond? Who knows.
I think won't get any stickers but wait for the creationist pamphlets on purpous, so I can let you guys know how advanced the anti-evolution argument is here in mainland Europe ;)

Date: 2008/12/10 17:04:30, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 10 2008,16:55)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Dec. 10 2008,16:22)
This from Andrew Snelling on the AiG website today:

Therefore, it was concluded that the measured 14C is in situ radiocarbon intrinsic to the ammonites and wood when they were buried and fossilized, so that they are very young, not 112–120 million years old. Furthermore, because the earth’s stronger magnetic field in the recent past reduced the atmospheric 14C production rate, and because the recent Genesis Flood removed so much carbon from the biosphere and buried it, the measured apparent radiocarbon ages are still much higher than the true ages of the fossil ammonites and wood. So their true ages are consistent with their burial during the Genesis Flood only, about 4,300 years ago, when the ocean waters washed sediments and ammonites onto this continental land.

Same ol' same ol' for the Cretos - use an inappropriate dating method on an inappropriate and almost certainly contaminated specimen, get completely bogus results, scream bloody murder that this overturns the other millions of pieces of positive evidence science has collected over the last 150+ years.

:D  :D  :D

Snelling is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

I just wanted to say: "I've read that on loads of times." followed by a link to the article. But it seems that the archive isn't working. Anyone else having problems?

Date: 2008/12/14 08:06:24, Link
Author: Assassinator
Interesting indeed, since I never knew so much about Dover. Now I do ;) It's a pretty good summary of what ID claimed and did etc in a simple fashion so everyone can understand it. I'm not that impressed by his faith-talk though. Simply a god-of-the-gaps interpretation, only literal interpretations clash with science.

Date: 2008/12/20 11:46:23, Link
Author: Assassinator
Having the same problem for a while now. In a different topic from about a week ago, Wesley sad that the host was doing a data move or something like that, and that a couple of hours later everything would be back to normal. Apperantly that's not the case. I don't hope that the archive was lost in that move, there was truly a crápload of usefull articles on that. Although in most discussions, when I linked something from talkorigins, it was swept away just because it was from talkorigins (apperantly an atheïst lair full anti-religious propaganda, according to some I spoke with).

Date: 2008/12/27 16:32:01, Link
Author: Assassinator
@ Daniel:

I would like to add to the following quote from Bill:
Recall that the problem with supernatural causation is that any observation can be reconciled with it. Because any observation can be reconciled with it, it is incapable of making testable predictions.

This is the case because we know zero about the designer. This problem can only be solved when we have actual candidates for being the designer, candidates from wich we know the capabilities and limitations. This is exactly how real world design detection (in archeology) works.

Date: 2009/01/04 18:09:43, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (bystander @ Jan. 03 2009,14:39)
[quote=Chayanov,Jan. 04 2009,05:03]
For evolution looking to the horizon is examining the fossil record, which seems to confirm evolution.

But then again I've seen IDists say that there is no proof that (macro, as usual) evolution is even possible, so the fossil record is meaningless. At least, according to them.

Date: 2009/01/06 06:40:53, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 05 2009,21:15)
Chili from scratch tonight (i.e., no chili block, no mix):

1 1/2 lbs dried pinto beans, soaked for about 6-7 hours
1 1/4 lbs organic range-fed hamburger
1 medium yellow onion, shredded
crushed garlic (lots)

Start boiling the dried pintos. They smell great while boiling, so don't put anything in them right away.

Fry hamburger (in olive oil) in one pan til brown; sautee onion and garlic in another pan. When both are done, add the onion/garlic to the hamburger. Then add the spices to that, in the pan: 2-3 tablespoons Grandma's chili power, coriander, lots of cumin, some white chili powder (very hot), and some Indian green chili paste (very very hot). Sautee this all together, then dump into the pot of boiling beans.

You will note: no tomatoes. They give me acid reflux, so I purposely left them out.  Usually I make chili with canned beans and a chili block, so this is kind of an experiment for me, tho it's not too different from how I used to make chili 20 years ago in college.

Last I checked, the 'broth' was good (quite spice-hot), but the pintos weren't soft yet. We'll see how it turns out.

Corn bread on the side.

Why hamburgers and no ground meat? That's what we usually use, seems easier to process for the end product. We never make chili like that though, e.a never truly from scratch. Looks really good, we barely make anything from scratch from home, we should do it more often. It just takes so much time :(

Date: 2009/01/07 06:58:07, Link
Author: Assassinator
I'm finally going to read some books again (that means not buying the monthly computergame, a well yay for variation), namely the Discworld series recommended by a friend. Problem is, I have no idea where to start! There are 37 books, and according to this reading guide there are 4 big storylines and 2 small one's. Wich storyline would you guys recommend to start with, for whatever reason.

Date: 2009/01/21 17:08:33, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Lowell @ Jan. 20 2009,16:29)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 20 2009,16:19)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 20 2009,14:50)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 20 2009,12:42)
yeah, and someone please point me to the part where it says the oath has to be taken over the bible, please...

It doesn't.  One of the past Presidents put his hand on a law book, NOT a bible.

John Q Adams, I believe.

Yup, that's what this article in Time says.

I would lurve to see that happen again in my lifetime.

Ooo Bush sworn in on a Freemason's Bible? I smell a conspiracy!
Aaaaaanyway, not to spoil anyone's mood, but Obama's speech gave me some kind of "been there, done that" feeling. Still happy with it's content ofcourse. Now the réal interesting stuff will happen, all the election stuff was just mild foreplay ;)

Date: 2009/01/21 17:17:40, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 21 2009,16:31)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 20 2009,19:38)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 20 2009,17:32)
So it's either evolution or God.

Which god, Daniel?

The real one - obviously.

Aaa I always knew it was Thor! Thanks for clearing that up. Waaaaait or do you mean Ma'at? Or Tui Delai Gau?

Date: 2009/01/22 18:08:05, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 22 2009,17:42)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2009,08:12)
I had thought that your comment above was an "evolution couldn't do this" sort of thing. If that wasn't the notion, whatever was the point certainly was not clear.

Wes, the Life Sciences report on phototaxis behavior is what I was
commenting on and agreeing to when I answered your post.

Yes, my remarks to which you specifically refer with ‘comment above’
did indeed imply that, IMO, chance couldn’t save a snowball in hell, much
less create a seed for growing a live one.

Have a good night.


That's exactly why you must not forget, that biochemistry is not dice-rolling ;) The modern evolutionairy theory is múch more then just chance.

Date: 2009/01/22 18:28:17, Link
Author: Assassinator
On a completely different matter, wel kinda about that real god-thingy Daniel brought up. A while ago, there was a story in the news here about a Protestant preacher (or minister, whatever you call it) who's... an atheist. The church wasn't, obviously, happy about it, but I find it a very interesting story. He wrote a book called 'Beleiving in a god who doesn't exist.' Definatly a nice line to think about hmm?
Yea just liked to share that with you guys ;)

Date: 2009/02/05 11:47:09, Link
Author: Assassinator
Quote (tmac1238 @ Feb. 05 2009,11:34)

1.  Kent Hovind did not drain the US treasury because he didn't file taxes.

Ofcourse he didn't, he ain't the only taxpayer. But that doesn't mean that what he did isn't a criminal offence.

2.  Most of America doesn't know Kent Hovind's name.  That's because he didn't cause America any trouble.  That is a vast field of tinfoil hats who should have realized that everyday they go to bed, Kent Hovinds should be jumping over them.

That doesn't mean that Hovind is not spreading lies and bullshit about certain scientific things.

3.  I still couldn't find my chimpanzee at a pet store evolved half way between himself and me.  Twill be very difficult to provide for the lurking propagandist the impetus to show us theirs.

And this shows that you do not know how evolution and evolutional theory works. Go grab a biology textbook, but because I'm a nice guy I'll explain it briefly: we did not evolve from chimpansees, chimpansees and humans just share a common ancestor: a certain primate species diverged in several other primate species, for example chimpansees and humans. Ofcourse you won't find any of those ancestors in pet shops, because they're extinct. You can however, find them in musea.

I love the internet.  I can be entertained by this comedian at my desk at 9:20 in the morning.  Back in the old days, you used to have to sit on a bus after the pubs closed.

Pfff, this guy is nothing, heck even hereoisreal is crazier, although a lot more friendly and funnier.

Date: 2009/02/21 05:19:39, Link
Author: Assassinator
Damn me, haven't posted for ages and I totally missed this one! O well, better late then never: congrats with your little snotling Louis! May he make a fine church burner ;)