AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Badger3k

form_srcid: Badger3k

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.195.240

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Badger3k

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 t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Badger3k%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2008/03/24 23:57:00, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (KimvdLinde @ Mar. 24 2008,20:48)
Well, I think Kevin better starts to do some repenting before the circus is going to destroy him and his career......

Nah - these people live on persecution and marytrdom, even if it arises from their own duplicity and stupidity.  It's their method of validation, like cutting - the pain and blood is a good thing!

Date: 2008/05/05 23:09:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 05 2008,22:27)
Clearly, the conservative christian creationists never expected to get rich off of "Expelled" because those who bankrolled the film are rich already.  It was a donation.

Not a donation, an offering.  Kinda like indulgences.

Date: 2008/05/14 22:37:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 14 2008,11:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 14 2008,10:46)
 
Quote (Quidam @ May 14 2008,11:15)
Of the things one can legitimately criticize DoL for, that sentence is not one.

ihateu

You did that on purpose, to grate on healing nerves.  I'll spend the rest of the day banging my head on the wall.

Or just lay back and focus on the thought of O'Leary's dangling participles.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Gah!  My Brain!

I need to wash my brain.

Curse you!

Date: 2008/07/03 21:12:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (bystander @ July 03 2008,17:37)
Quote (lcd @ July 04 2008,04:55)
Okay all you Nazi Evolutionists*

(* is this better Lou?)

Don't bait those that are trying to just get me mad.

Check

Okay, I need to deliver up a "Theory of Information".

So I say that there is Information in DNA.  I am also saying that this Information can be destroyed but idea that useful info can come about over random processes is not possible.

Now what type of Information is there in DNA?  I doubt that the analogy that it is a Document while easy to understand is a very accurate statement.  After all we really haven't mapped out the human DNA yet, right?  So it will be tough to accually see what's going on.

But we can still do this:

1:  My Theory is that DNA has Information that can be destroyed.

2:  IT also includes that DNA has Information that is front loaded in the DNA.  These parts become active when other parts become de-activated.

3:  The prediction that I will state for now, yes I'll do more but I have to learn the terminology better and I'll have to do more studying, is that when you change DNA the function it controls is lost.

As I said, more later but the family is home.

Happy 4th everyone.

This is where the Dembskis of the world are actually evil. For people like lcd it is not a matter of learning new stuff, it is a matter of unlearning the wrong things. Saying "Information cannot be created" doesn't make sense at any level and Dembski and co are still trying to find a definition of information for which this is true.

Whats wrong with the following:

1. A mutation happens which changes DNA
2. The mutation gives an advantage to an individual.
3. The individual survives to have more offspring.
4. The mutation gets fixed in the population

I know that for the experts I've left out a lot of detail but lcd needs to show why this is wrong.

Why do I think of Anne Elk (or is it Ann) ("This is my theory...").

Given that, to many creationists, there can be no beneficial mutations by definition, most of what you suggest is just not possible.  If it is beneficial, it is either front-loaded, or else the signature of Teh Designer Which Is Not G-O-D.

Date: 2008/07/12 19:53:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,19:40)
Quote (keiths @ July 12 2008,14:05)
The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me.
<snip>
Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked.  To them I would point out the following:

1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not.  Get used to it.  If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.

2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo.  They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain.

Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?

Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?

Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer.  You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.

You get arrested.  It is as simple as that.  If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members.

How is accepting a cracker then sitting down disrupting a religious observance.  In the original, the priest and other fanatics caused the disruption.  The priest gave the wafer to the kid, it is not their property anymore.  I'd like to see that one go to court.

I've never seen anyone react violently to something like that, so I doubt that fanatical attacks is considered predictable.  Considering that most states have reasonable force laws or definitions for crimes, physically restraining someone for not eating a wafer does not seem to me to constitute, in any sense, reasonable force - since no force seems justified.

If the priest and others want to be offended, then so be it.  That gives them no right for assault.

Your birthday party is a nice strawman, since that is not the same.  Consider that the family gives you a piece of that cake, and you do not eat it, but instead decide to take it home.

Does the family have the right to stop you, to physically try to restrain you and force you to give back the cupcake, to demand for an apology, to ask for police protection for the cupcakes so they make sure that everyone eats theirs at the party?

Priorities.  They need to get some.

Date: 2008/07/12 22:47:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,21:59)
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 12 2008,19:03)
If you still don't see the difference between burning a cross and walking away with a wafer there's really nothing I can say. What is the implied threat of the wafer scenario?

As for intent, one of the two is intended to terrorize, the other to be an asshole and possibly make some kind of point.

And what's up with the "I have seen things on the streets" shit? No amount of street cred can save a tortured analogy.

The Catholics seem to feel they are being terrorized.  You either think they have no real emotional response, or that because you have a superior grasp of reality their emotional response is unjustified.

Or maybe they have no right to have an emotional response just because ___?

I think you have it.

The catholics think that they are being terrorized.

Fear.  They are fearful that their beliefs will be exposed for the ridiculous garbage they are.

Really, I hope that none of them feel like they are being terrorized.  Because if they are, they need to really get their heads out of their posteriors and join the real world.  People around the world are actually being terrorized, threatened, and assaulted, and those people have legitimate issues.  These nutcases don't.  I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition, and I never really could buy that type of fear and, to use their own words, idolatry, that is reflected by these people's actions.

Do they really think that their god is small enough to be held hostage in a piece of mass-produced wafer, like some of the emailers to PZ have said?

Date: 2008/07/14 21:50:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (stevestory @ July 14 2008,21:33)
If ftk goes around for years spreading Casey's tiktaalik garbage, like she's gone around for years spreading walt's garbage, Casey will have been effective in a certain way. He won't have accomplished anything scientific, of course, but he will have been an effective propagandist.

Isn't that the whole goal of him and his religion?  To propagandize everyone and force them to follow his insanity, thereby making him sane.  I can see Luskin, feverishly typing his insanity, cackling with maniacal glee, muttering about how "everyone will see...they laughed at me...I'll show them..."

It's sad.

Date: 2008/07/15 19:57:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reed @ July 15 2008,19:53)
Quote (afarensis @ July 15 2008,17:27)
The choice of where to dig is predicated on evolutionary theory and on previous finds.

One might compare that to where ID predicts you will find particular fossils.

Uh... someone help me out here...  :p

Well, first we need to open our Bibles to Genesis...

Oh, wait.  I keep forgetting that ID isn't religious.  

Maybe we can look for dinosaurs where they got off the ark?

Oh wait...

Damn. :p

Date: 2008/08/02 15:51:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 01 2008,10:27)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Aug. 01 2008,04:21)
I read his book, The Irrational Atheist. It wasn't as bad as some people were saying it was. But I do recommend that you skip the first chapter and focus on the stuff after it.

I believe Reciprocating Bill read it as well.  I can't remember what thread he put his review on--I think it was the Unreasonable Kansans thread, but it could have been the Ftk research thread.

IIRC, he seemed to think it missed the boat quite often: not actually making the case against each atheist's argument.  At least the bits he quoted seemed to have much better sentence structure and meaningful content than Denise O'Leary.  It's something, anyway.

You seem to have liked it somewhat better.  Perhaps I'll have  a go at it when I'm on the road this fall.

You can get it for free from his site (there's a link somewhere) in pdf format.  I have it but have not read it.  

There was a blogger who took the time to read it and dissect it, and that may be in wherever the older post is, but Austin Cline has a lot of Vox, including a bit on his book (http://atheism.about.com/sitesearch.htm?terms=vox&SUName=atheism&TopNode=99).

I think it was Evangelical Realism (link to the old blog, but posts continue if I read correctly - http://realevang.wordpress.com/) - look for TIA tuesday.

Date: 2008/08/03 20:54:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Steverino @ Aug. 03 2008,08:41)
I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies

Now, I would have thought Tunnels and Trolls myself :)

Date: 2008/09/04 10:55:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,11:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 07 2008,10:10)
Wowsers! Today we have a post "The useless women"
and a poll to crash:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/08/presidential-vote.html


Vox finds a woman thrown onto electric train tracks, burned and with a possible collar bone fracture, "amusing"

     
Quote
Third, given how I suspect the situation developed, it's a cogent illustration of the impotence of female reliance upon the law. I suspect we're going to be seeing more and more of this behavior as it becomes eminently clear to younger men that the law is becoming ever more hostile to their sex. One can just picture the woman imperiously making her righteous demand of the two young thugs in the full confidence that the law is not only on her side, but protecting her, then finding herself sailing through the air as her position and her misplaced confidence are met with a speedy and forceful rebuttal.




   
Quote
Oink! Oink!, by Leo Reynolds

I have a confession to make.  I like...the John Norman "Gor" books.  I like them because of his hideous run-on style, some quirky humor, and the taken-from-history sci-fi/fantasy setting.  When he gets into psychology and male-female relationships, I admit my mind shuts down, my eyes glaze over, and I have to skip past.  Too many readings of "a man is a lion, a woman is a flower" and horribly funny stereotypes where women say they want to be men...but that's what Teddy thinks is true.

Sad, and scary.  Sociopaths usually are.

Date: 2008/09/04 10:58:59, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,10:21)
Now we're bashing that evil technology thing, which isn't as good as religion, obviously. Stan points out most of the posters would be dead because life expectancy was low before if was helped along by medicine, sanitation, etc.

But that's a BIG LIE© Big Science.

It turns out life expectancy was low... because of slavery - source, Vox Day's terrible book.

I guess that someone is pointing out that in ancient times, people lived 900 years - just look at Adam and Noah! ?

Maybe someone can point out that there is evidence that life span and health was greater in ancient times, well, greater until the advent of farming, when life expectancy and health dropped.  Then it kept on down until science came along and progress was made.  His whole Biblical view was right down there in the low-and-dirty lifespan.

Someone needs to get Teddy a working brain.

Date: 2008/09/10 23:44:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 10 2008,15:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 10 2008,19:39)
[SNIP]

Attacks on Palin, even if some turn out to be justified, have negative utility for Democrats.

Well I agree entirely.

Focus on the issues, rise above the personality politics, it is where the Republicans (and conservatives in general) are weakest. Playing to the mob might get you elected (if you are lucky, it's failed before), but it never keeps you there.

Louis

Funny - it's worked the last eight years.  All you have to do is get to power.  Don't commit any crimes on camera and make sure you stall any investigation - that's the secret of success.  

That and signing statements saying you are above the law (and maybe now and then a shotgun to the face).

Date: 2008/09/11 23:49:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 11 2008,10:00)
Quote
DaveScot: Cosmological Evolution: Spatial Relativity and the Speed of Life

Robert B. Sheldon (a) and Richard B. Hoover (b)
(a) USRA/NSSTC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville, AL, USA;
(b) NASA/MSFC/NSSTC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville, AL, USA

Wow. And Sheldon is a physicist. But let's start with his understanding of orthodox evolutionary theory.

 
Quote
Sheldon & Hoover: Now when Darwin suggested that random mutations combined with natural selection would provide a chaotic explanation for apparent design and order in biology, he was making a mathematical statement about longrange correlations

Darwin didn't "suggest" random mutation. This is a much later development. Darwin suggested the source of variation was non-random and Larmarckian.

 
Quote
Sheldon & Hoover: That is, the appearance of progress is driven by random, local processes, much as frost flowers form on a window, without any information beyond a local, undirected interaction (e.g., diffusion-limited growth).

The "appearance of progress" is not thought to be random, but highly non-random due to natural selection. For instance, many terrestrial plants grow towards the sky. There's a reason for that.

 
Quote
Sheldon & Hoover: Neo-Darwinists argue that the order, which is visible in living things, is much like that of a crystal, a long-range spatial order slowly, and randomly, accumulated over time.

No. Accumulation is not random. Adaptation occurs when variations are *selected* by environmental conditions.

 
Quote
Sheldon & Hoover: if we ignore long-range order, and plug in a simple mathematical model of evolution as the accumulation of random mutation steps, the diffusion of information (or progress) has no "arrow of time", no "progress rectifer", no "success ratchet" that accepts only progress and rejects regress.

If organisms compete with one another, they can create a ratchet-effect—without any long-range ordering. This is called the Red Queen Effect, "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."



 
Quote
Sheldon & Hoover: That is, rather than finding many organisms spanning the reptilian to amphibian transition, or the mammalian to marsupial transition, we find non-Gaussian distributed clusters of species.

This is sort of a zeroth-order approximation. It's as if Sheldon thinks life evolves randomly on a perfectly flat environmental landscape. The environment is not only highly non-random and changing, but includes other organisms.

Darwin discusses one mechanism of clustering and divergence in Origin of Species. If two closely related species are in competition, either one will be forced to extinction, or they will tend to diverge. The Red Queen Effect is another.

 
Quote
Sheldon & Hoover: That is,
with lifecycles shorter than a bacteria, with a multiplication factor of 200, with replication errors much higher than a bacterium, natural selection should be brutal and swift for these phages, making them ruthlessly effient. Yet despite this evolutionary pressure, phages have enormous DNA variation, even containing DNA that has no useful purpose to the virus {44}.

Reading the cite, the authors suggest that these genes *do* have a function for the virus saying, " Are these genes that have been accidentally acquired from the host and confer no fitness benefit on the phage, or do they indicate important features of how the phage interacts with its host? ... during infection a common phage strategy is to switch off host gene expression, which could impair photosynthesis and thereby deplete the energy required for viral replication. The provision of a viral D1 protein would permit the repair cycle to continue until the cell lysed to release the phage progeny."

 
Quote
Sheldon & Hoover: Therefore the thesis of this paper, is that the punctuated equilibria observed by Eldredge is not due to some long-range modulation of the point-mutation rate caused by geographically isolated communities, but rather by the sporadic transport of new genes through cometary transport.

Okay, so now we know what they're getting at. It would be easier to take their speculations seriously if they at least expressed some basic understanding of orthodox evolutionary theory.

Wait a minute - species do not change due to natural processes, but because they are infected from space?  Seriously?  ???

Date: 2008/09/13 00:40:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 11 2008,22:11)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 11 2008,21:35)
And, Obama says he's visited 57 states with one left to go...lol.

And that was a joke that you weren't bright enough to comprehend.

Tell me, what sort of mother gets on a plane after her water has broken? One who is concerned about the health of her special-needs child?

Do you realize that Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, and that she explicitly rejected it in her interview?

Yeah - that "deer in the headlights" look, her confused blathering...c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s.

Date: 2008/09/24 10:35:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,09:36)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2008,08:41)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 24 2008,07:34)
Yes, Arden....THE GRAND MAJORITY.  I'm not talking about my specific religious beliefs.  I said that the grand majority of people realize that design is overwhelming apparent.  That has nothing to do with what religious beliefs they hold.  It means that they realize that there is more involved in the origin of life other than purely naturalistic processes.

FtK

I must have missed it in the pie chart you provided.  Where does it tell us that the grand majority believe in "design"??? Or about their theory of "origins"?  Do you need a reminder about Buddhism?


No, I most certainly do not...I probably know more about their philosophy of life than you do.READ...

I didn't say that any of them currently support "design" via Dembski et. al.  I said they most certainly believe that there is more to consider in regard to our origins than purely naturalistic causes.  I believe if they clearly understood ID, they would consider it a worthwhile avenue to be explored since ID from the scientific standpoint has absolutely no connection with a specific flavor of religious belief.  It allows us to discuss that supposed "illusion" of design without the religious baggage.

Sorry - posting a link to a thread at a conservative christian site that believes in YHVH does not make you knowledgeable of buddhism.  Perhaps you'd like to explain the concept of "no self" or the meaning of "life is suffering".  Perhaps you can explain, as another asked (sorry, saw the question but missed the name) asked as to what deity it is that Buddhists worship?  In all my readings and explorations into eastern religions, and my focus on zen, I've yet to discover that.  

In fact, why not quote what the Buddha is reputed to have said when asked about origins and deities?

Ignorance is an excuse.  Willful ignorance is a "sin".

Date: 2008/09/24 10:38:42, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (ERV @ Sep. 24 2008,10:08)
So Im an HIV-1 and cancer researcher, and Im 'below' Walt Brown, Michael Behe, etc.

But everyone at AtBC wont debate Walt Brown, Behe, et all because they are 'below us', even though we have offered to debate them.

You make so much sense.

That makes about as much sense as saying that Behe et al are so much better behaved than you.  Considering what we know of his behavior, you come out far far ahead in that department.

Date: 2008/10/14 10:44:12, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 14 2008,10:19)
[quote=Dr.GH,Oct. 14 2008,10:20] David and Moses are figments of the imagination?

Moses - definitely.

David - quite probably.

Does that help?

Date: 2008/10/16 00:47:12, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 15 2008,23:16)
Quote (celdd @ Oct. 15 2008,20:55)
If you served in the Army, according to McCain, you can teach.  And that the army teachers would be an improvement to the teachers we have now.  

Well, Lynndie England probably needs a job. Solves her problems in one stroke.

When I was a kid, the stereotype was that gym teachers were all retired military types. I think they were required to get some kind of credential, tho.

I got received my teaching certification after graduate courses, two state tests, and a year as a teacher of record in a classroom, and my course was shorter (if more intense) than some alternative certification programs.  The idea that anyone can teach is a joke.  As ex-Army, while the Army taught many things, including some instruction (for adults who were a captive audience and under disciplinary actions more severe than any school) - they don't work on kids of any age.  Of course, since some Repubs think that the "naked human pyramid" was like college stunts or cheerleading, maybe Ms England could teach gym class.  Can't wait for the lawsuits on that one.....

There are troops-to-teacher programs (for example: http://www.esc13.net/troops/).  While the current standards for promotion (in the military) require advanced education, in the Tx program, the standard is:
"You will need to complete a Bachelor's degree in order to become a teacher.  You may wish to complete the degree and teacher certification together in a college of education at a Texas university or college.  Or you may choose to complete a degree and then achieve the certification later through a university post-baccalaureate or masters program or through an alternative certification program."

Date: 2008/10/29 09:50:03, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 29 2008,03:34)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 29 2008,05:41)
I'm going to predict that Atlantis will rise from the depths and we will enter the golden age predicted by all the prophets and foretold in the Bible Code (before they fucked up the syntax and eliminated the second stanza when they botched the canon).

Of course since these events will be undetectable without being right with the Lord the unrighteous will perceive these events as one of the two sides winning, it doesn't matter which, since in reality we will be governed by benevolent reptilian overlords who are here to maximize the amount of television waves emanated from the planet.

and now i realize i just saw this simpson's episode.  like half an hour ago.

Pssstt 'Ras', you missed the "inevitable overthrow of THEM*" and the "righteous end to THEIR odious tyranny".

Louis

*Where "THEM" is defined as anyone not like "US**".

** "US" is defined as people who are opposed to "THEM".

No, no, no...We defeated Them long ago when they crawled out of their ant-hills.  I saw the documentary.

Date: 2008/10/30 00:03:53, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 29 2008,22:25)
Come to think of it, wealthy retiree Steve would just pay some migrant farm workers to do it. There can't be more that what, 20 Phelps monkeys? For a few hundred bucks you could surround them with dozens of people holding randomly-worded protest signs and yelling gibberish slogans.

Nah - they might think they were speaking in tongues and really supporting them.

Date: 2008/10/30 00:07:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 29 2008,22:16)
that press release doesn't say why the angry Phelps monkeys are protesting that funeral. Did the cheerleaders know a gay guy, or something?

They don't need a reason.  After they decided to transfer their property away from themselves (to save it from being sold to pay their court-ordered payments - not sure if that worked or if they are still delinquent), they have to be desperate for anything, and this might work to get them another five minutes of free hate speech on tv.

As for my last post, I'm sure that there are many non-active marines and others (including some bikers I know about) who would be happy to have a talk with the Phelps inbred clan.  I'm surprised nothing has happened yet.

Date: 2008/11/06 09:40:29, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 06 2008,00:37)
Reading about all the changes at UD - The Bible predicts all of this!  Read the signs!  This the End of Tard!  We're all going to be Ruptured!

I thought it was Raptarded.

Date: 2008/11/13 10:32:24, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 13 2008,09:59)
Thanks to PZ for this!

A WIN AN EXPELLED DVD!*


WIN EXPELLED DVD!


* Second Prize of course is TWO Expelled DVD's...

I signed up for it - when do the missionaries come to my house?

Date: 2008/11/18 23:55:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 18 2008,23:25)
Since UD recently got so boring I really appreciate their addition of Google ads. Without, I would have never come across the treasure of  DNA activation:                
Quote
What exactly is DNA Activation?

Most people know that DNA is the 'blueprint of life' and is located in every cell of the body. In addition to each chromosome's 2 strand double helix of DNA, there are an additional 10 etheric strands of DNA available to each human, which have been dormant since the beginning of recorded history. Each additional strand possesses attributes that permit the individual to perform greater human accomplishments. Scientists acknowledge that we currently only use 3% of our current 2 strand DNA. Thus we live in a society where people are sick, unhappy, stressed out, create wars, have difficulty experiencing love, and are totally disconnected with the universe.
             
Quote
This is the Original Divine Blueprint, what man USED to be. It has been written that Jesus had 12 strands of DNA activated.
             
Quote
The Earth distortions in history have actually created a planetary DNA distortion that has made every living organism’s DNA on the planet to falsely appear as Base-4, with only 4 chemicals. Humans are supposed to have 12 chemical nucleotide bases. This would allow us to have 144 physical chemical chromosomes as well, whereas now we only have 46. Also the original Angelic Human DNA Template which most people on the planet have, called the Diamond Sun DNA Template, is 12 strands, allowing for 12 dimensions of consciousness, and is built for transmutation from carbon to silica based body, and eventually pre-matter liquid light. This body is not meant to “die”. It is because of the DNA distortions in ancient history (25,500 B.C) that have blocked people from bringing light into their field and naturally evolving through DNA activation. Most people on the planet only have 3 strands active, which only allows 3 dimensions of consciousness and thus they are stuck in 3D.
   
Quote
First of all, it is important to know who you are working with and what type of DNA template THEY have. I was guided to do this work because I am an Indigo Type 1, with a 48 strand template. That means I can draw and hold much more frequency than most people that only have a 12 strand template, and then transmit this to others.
 
Quote
There are at least 2 DNA Activations required to activate as many strands of DNA that your energy body can handle at this point in your evolution, and the sessions should be done about a week apart. These sessions promote permanent, lifelong changes and are given with a gentle, loving intent. The investment in yourself for the first four sessions(Auric Clearing, Karmic Session, and 2 DNA Activations) is only $400. You can also just purchase 1 session at a time. The Auric Clearing and Karmic Sessions are $100 each, and the DNA Activation sessions are $100 each.
ETA: Actually, DNA activation would DaveScot explain his haploid Jesus hypothesis

I...am speechless.  Wow.  What semi-literate gobbledygook.  I guess it is true that you can string scientific or science-sounding words together and confuse the rubes.  "Etheric strands" and "hold much more frequency" - seriously, WTF?

Date: 2008/11/18 23:57:38, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 18 2008,23:55)
I...am speechless.  Wow.  What semi-literate gobbledygook.  I guess it is true that you can string scientific or science-sounding words together and confuse the rubes.  "Etheric strands" and "hold much more frequency" - seriously, WTF?

Damn, missed saying this, and since I can't edit, have to repost.

Is this Jenny "Mercury-Indigo-Mother-Warrior" (aka "Idiot") McCarthy, or another person with their head up their woo?

(couldn't go to the link now, but had to comment on that mind-blowing stupidity).

Date: 2008/11/21 01:07:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 20 2008,22:26)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 20 2008,22:37)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 20 2008,18:48)
It would appear the Republican war on the planet will continue to the very bitter end:

From CNN

     
Quote

(SNIP)
Then, last month, the head of the endangered species program corralled 15 experts in Washington to sort through 200,000 comments in 32 hours.
(SNIP)

Assuming that each comment was seen by just one expert and they were working for the entire 32 hours, with no breaks and no chats with neighbours, that means each comment was assessed in under 9 seconds. Did they have Superman on the job?

Perhaps they hired Michael Behe, who of course can dismiss the comments with a wave of his hand, knowing what they all say without reading them.

ETA: Which might add a new word to the language. They've been Behed.

I was going to say "the Flash", but I think yours is probably the correct one.  However, I think it has more to do with Bush appointees (the "experts" that is - maybe they did a Palin and have expertise since they once saw an animal?) and disciples having reading deficiencies, so they couldn't read the comments.  However, I hear they made some beautiful paper airplanes from the printouts, before they shredded them and deleted all emails.  Everything else was classified by Cheney, who then shot the messenger in the face.

Date: 2008/11/21 01:09:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 20 2008,21:18)
Besides, what are these "limitations" of methodological naturalism? That phrase is just a fancy way of saying base your conclusions on the evidence. On what else would you suggest researchers base their conclusions, if not evidence?

Henry

Dude, they are supposed to use their Faith and Religion.  Evidence can lie, but your Faith can never mislead you...  :p

Date: 2008/11/25 00:09:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reed @ Nov. 24 2008,23:54)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 24 2008,13:08)
Don't play dumb.  If you see a neatly stacked, perfectly square pile of bricks, do you not immediately know that it is beyond the capabilities of nature to stack them in such a way?

Ooops.

Doesn't work for some reason.  Try this:
http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....tural_f

Date: 2008/12/05 01:25:30, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 05 2008,00:08)
Quote
...Our son was refused prayer twice because he didn't look the part, and he was told to wait still longer for a prayer that would never have been offered. And even those who looked the part seemed to look no better after Bentley's prayer -- the exodus from the arena of people bound in wheelchairs was poignant.
I read an account of a televised healing service a few years ago, written by a skeptic.  One thing that's always stuck in my mind - all the hopeless wheel-chair bound cases with serious disorders that were never going to be cured by anything were stuck in the back of the room, far from the lights and tv cameras.

There was an interesting Infidel Guy show a while back (I got it free through iTunes podcast) with two guys who went and helped at one of those mass "healings".  Really disgusting what they do to those poor deluded and desperate people.  I did hear another one (maybe from Point of Inquiry?), and, although I haven't read it, James Randi has his "The Faith Healers" book.

Date: 2008/12/07 11:01:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Nerull @ Dec. 06 2008,14:11)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 06 2008,14:19)
Noted Scholar notedscholar is sometimes on PT and UD.  he also has the blog 'science and math defeated' and the odds are is that he is a sock on a whole new level.  fractally Poe or something.

 
Quote
The Hardest to Kill is the First to Die: The Singularity of Paleontology
By notedscholar
Have any of you ever noticed how absolutely implausible it is that the Dinsosaurs actually became extinct? Now, please note this: I am not saying that they did not become extinct. I cannot after all prove a negative - it would require searching all four corners of the Earth and below the Earth (we’ve already got above the Earth covered!). But consider the following:

Go outside. Find a bug and step on it. If you succeed, then you can be fairly certain that, barring extraordinary numbers, that particular species of bug could plausibly become extinct. Now go into a forest and find a large adult bear. Try and step on it.

If you succeed, you will have demonstrated at least the logical possibility of the C-T Extinction Event. However, you will likely fail. By the transitive property, if you can’t extinctify bears, and dinosaurs are harder to extinctify than bears, then you likewise can’t extinctify dinosaurs. QUED, my friends. … Or is it?

Clearly that conclusion is also hopelessly implausible! What, then, are we to do? According to influential logician L. Gamut, two implausible propositions, call them p and q, cannot stand each other for very long. Some kind of reflective equilibrium must be reached, al carte both R. Dahl and G. Habermas. Now I have no idea what to do about this. It could be that the implausible simply happened. But we are compounding implausibilities! The extinction of dinosaurs requires the negation of the force of all kinds of apriori evidence to the contrary.

Discussion: Which theory of Dinosaur Extinction do you favor? Post in the comments! If you’re not familiar with the subject, you can quickly explore the going theories here.


Wow.  What?

I'm sure there are several bear species which would be quite relieved to learn they cannot go extinct. Especially the ones which already are.

I wonder who was large enough to step on those bears and extincitify them?  

That quote makes the stupid more than just burn.  It also itches and leaves a skin rash that requires topical cream.

Maybe we need to start a charity "books for IDiots", but that would do no good.  They either wouldn't read it, wouldn't understand (or be unwilling to admit they understand it and continue to spout pious nonsense) or they would burn them as sinful.

Wait a minute?  Did he actually refer to that idiot apologist Gary Habermas?  Seriously?  Or is there some other G Habermas - one who might actually have some sort of science degree?

Date: 2008/12/07 18:41:44, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 07 2008,16:57)
I've already refuted this once - all it takes to empirically falsify the "God theory" is to show how one complex biological system originated naturally.  Of course, you conveniently don't remember that.  

So, what are we left with then?  We have a choice between a theory that explains everything and can be easily falsified, or one that explains nothing and cannot be falsified.

I vote for the former.

Nonsense.  How do we know that this "god"-thing didn't use a method that appears natural?  Thus, even a supposed "falisification" of this particular god-theory isn't a falsification.  About the best that could be said is that one particular god-theory out of thousands might be falisified.  

Of course, that all assumes that there is evidence for a god-theory, since all this argument is is a false dichotomy.  If, somehow, biological evolution through natural selection and other mechanisms somehow was falsified (and it can be), it would not make any particular god-theory a winner by default.  Positive evidence is needed.  We still have yet to see any presented, just a lot of "nuh-huh" arguments from incredulity.  

That said, I'm sure all this has been said before, and I'm sure it will be conveniently ignored or written off.  Always the same.  I do have to ask others, since I haven't gone back to try to pick out the whole argument, but has Daniel gotten the "if evolution is false then my particular version of god created the universe" argument out of the way, or is this still part of the argument?  It gets confusing.

Date: 2008/12/07 21:04:39, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2008,19:17)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 07 2008,19:41)
...has Daniel gotten the "if evolution is false then my particular version of god created the universe" argument out of the way, or is this still part of the argument?

Nope, that's pretty much the entirety of his argument to date.

That is what I thought, but wasn't sure.

Sheesh!  ???

Date: 2008/12/08 00:30:03, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 07 2008,23:37)
Nobody delivers the tard like Gil Dodgen:
Quote
14

GilDodgen

12/07/2008

11:59 pm
One thing is transparently obvious: DNA information encoding is only a small part of what is going on in biological systems. I suspect that living systems are encoded with a highly sophisticated, multi-parallel — indeed, multi-dimensional-parallel, essentially holographic — information system that is light-years ahead of our understanding of information encoding with digital, sequential-processing algorithms.

There is no way this kind of technology can be explained by random changes and natural selection. It is far beyond our trivial understanding, and is obviously the product of an intelligence far beyond what we can even imagine.

I think it was invented by pan-dimensional beings who appear on Earth as mice.

Or something.  You know, either this is a cool idea for a science fiction story, perhaps where people are ripped apart as aliens come to Earth to hack into the hard drive, killing people (or making them superhuman). . . or he has been smoking something that would get most people arrested.

Date: 2008/12/10 00:07:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 09 2008,22:24)
Quote

?And by the power of speech you differentiated man from animal?


So parrots are human? ;)

Henry

Not just parrots.  We have interesting studies done on cetacens, primates, and quite a few other mammals and birds, that indicate that they possess a wider array of "language" than previously thought.  Of course, in many cases, these are more vocalizations than "language" as we think of it, but in many cases, these are learned behaviors.

It's too bad that Bronze-Age people didn't have the understanding to see the amazing reality that existed around them, instead retreating to their imaginations.

Date: 2008/12/10 10:26:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 10 2008,03:23)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Dec. 10 2008,00:26)
I tried posting something on the altruism thread and I didn't even get an 'awaiting moderation' message - my post just vanished.

I was trying to make the point that if you do good deeds because you believe God wants you to then it is not really altruistic as you are expecting either a reward or a lack of punishment - the only person who can be truly altruistic (according to the definition posted by a moderator on UD) is an atheist who hates everyone - if they help another person whilst also believing they will recieve no spiritual reward and gain no sense of satisfaction from the act then it is truly selfless and 'altruistic'.

Kant said something very similar.   In his view, helping someone else is morally worthy only if done wholly from a sense of duty.  Taking pleasure in someone else's happiness actually counts against you morally.

The way I understood it, this was because feeling good was a reward, and (the thought goes) that people help others to get this feeling.  Of course, I think that line of thought is BS, as most people will help someone else whatever the feeling.  A rewards is not necessarily a cause.

Naturally, if the argument is different than this one, then this does not apply.

Date: 2008/12/14 10:49:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (khan @ Dec. 13 2008,22:43)
[quote=Reed,Dec. 13 2008,23:33]Thank you, god-thingy for what ever lesson this was supposed to have taught us.

I confronted a person once (ok, I've done it more than once) about this type of thinking.  What kills me about the people who spout out drivel like this - the ones who believe it, not the ones doing it sarcastically - is that it devalues the other people incredibly.  It says, "I am so important that {God, the Universe, Whatever} will kill somebody just to teach me something.  Nevermind that this was a human being, their worth is really only what they can do for me, even in death."

Of course, a counter-argument is that the individual did have worth, but this was still part of a plan that can teach me something, but there is a difference between learning from something that had no intentionality behind it (I learned from my Mom's death through cancer the value of Hospice services, but it was not a lesson "meant" for me) and having a person die (or whatever) to expressly teach a lesson.  It's pretty bad when this argument is used about a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, who might have been able to teach the particular lesson without all the needless suffering and agony.  But then the answer is always that this being "works in mysterious ways" or "is beyond our understanding."  If so, why do you claim to know and understand so much, up to the point that your beliefs are challenged?

Feh.

(Note - this is not meant to imply that you feel this way, I just wanted to get that out and your comment was a perfect springboard.)

Date: 2008/12/14 15:44:41, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,15:15)
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 14 2008,15:26)
When God kills others and sends them to Heaven (presumably), it's because he loves them.

When God spares you from the tragedy that killed others, it's because he loves you.

What a great religion.

I've heard -- i don't know for sure, I just heard -- that there was a group of Gnostics who held that the 'god' described in the old testament was actually satan.

I am about halfway through the old testament, and I can't much disagree with them so far.

Well, there was the "demiurge" idea - that the creator of the world was evil/deranged and may have been the same as the god of the OT (different Gnostic sects seemed to have different views, from my reading).  The one thing they seemed to agree on was that the gods of the Old and New Testament are different gods.  I haven't actually read anything that connects the demiurge with the Satan (as a personal being) concept - indeed, a reading of the OT, with The Satan (a role) being a "devil's advocate" or prosecuting attorney and go-to guy for YHVH, suggests that the creator and the satan were considered two separate beings.  That doesn't mean that the some Gnostics didn't consider them the same, since people can believe all kinds of things without evidence, and the people of the time did not have access to all the information we have, and may have made a mythology based on what little they did know.

Date: 2008/12/15 21:39:00, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 15 2008,11:19)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 15 2008,11:05)
Disease is not a result of "disorganization", it is the result of intricate organization that quits working correctly or when copying errors or some other cause enters in.  

I don't know if you're capable of seeing past your biases enough to recognize this though.

Have you any actual evidence for that, or did you read it in your old book? What specific page/chapter please?

Could you tell me what specific "intriciate organization" quit working that caused HIV?

Or perhaps you could explain how Macular degeneration is explainable under your "degeneration" scheme. Did the designer forget how long he make humans live?
       
Quote
I don't know if you're capable of seeing past your biases enough to recognize this though.


Pot, Kettle? The only way you are going to get people to overcome their "bias" is by providing some actual evidence. You know, that thing that generally convinces people to change their minds when presented with it.

And why did the designer not create a copying scheme that could work without errors? Too hard for it was it? I guess you've identified one attribute of the designer then.

EDIT: Aging: Approximately 10% of patients 66 to 74 years of age will have findings of macular degeneration. The prevalence increases to 30% in patients 75 to 85 years of age.

So Daniel, your god is pritty crap as some basic stuff huh?

Actually, if you look at the supposed lifespans of human beings, at least those that are in the bible, you can see that humans (after the "Fall") lived from 100-900+ years old.  I was going to say that this makes for poor vision, as in the story of Jacob stealing the inheritance of Isaac that rightfully went to Esau, but then I see that it is essential for Isaac to have lost his eyesight.  So, to achieve this, the designer-who-shall-be-nameless-except-we-know-who-it-is-wink-wink gave humans macular degeneration to accomplish this.  See, we're all victims of this plot to give Jacob power/etc.  

If I say that I have predicted this, does this mean that I have a theory too?

Date: 2008/12/15 22:54:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 15 2008,22:13)
HA

YOUR THEORY PREDICTS DANIELS THYRIA YOU WIN HALF HIS WIVES AND ALL OF HIS TENTS

CAN I HAZ BUKKITZ?

Date: 2008/12/17 23:23:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 17 2008,19:50)
What a stupid stupid troll.  This is fucking hilarious.

 
Quote
If you can show how anything evolved, my claim is toast.


your claims have NEVER BEEN TOAST nor bread either.  GFY

they are rolled up socks with shit wiped all over them.

which you can't tell from apple butter.

cecal valves, dumb fuck.  oh you want a play by play?  Go ask Jesus for the manual.  Then Jump.


NEED SOME CREAM CHEEZ ASSHOLE?

You know, if you look closely, I think you can see Jebus in that there cowpat.

Date: 2008/12/18 23:32:09, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 18 2008,18:26)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 18 2008,01:29)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 18 2008,01:18)
[Snip utter wank]

That reminds me, I owe you an abiogenesis synopsis.  I wrote this awhile ago, but you hadn't been showing up here for a bit, so it's just been sitting there.  This was written to the best of my understanding and may contain errors (which I'm sure you'll be more than happy to point out):

Essentially the abiogenesis camp is divided into two main camps (there are several smaller 'fringe' camps, but I will only talk about the two main camps for now).  

The "genes first" camp, posits that replicating molecules (The RNA World) came first.  Under the right catalytic conditions and with the right batch of chemicals, nucleosides (a simpler form of nucleotides – minus the phosphate group) can form and eventually join into long random self-replicating chains. These chains compete with each other for resources and eventually, through successful competition, evolve into chains that are capable of storing genetic information.  Some of the problems with this approach include the great difficulty in explaining: A) the formation of nucleosides (which are large complex molecules), B) the transition from nucleosides to nucleotides, and C) something called “enantiomeric cross-inhibition”, under which (if I understand it correctly) the processes necessary for the replication of oligonucleotides also inhibit the growth of the same.  To combat some of these difficulties, the genes first camp has pointed to simpler forms of replicating molecules that can be shown to link up and form chains under the right conditions.

The other camp, the "metabolism first" camp, posits that simple catalytic molecules such as iron-sulfite were A) isolated, B) exposed to persistent energy sources, C) organized, D) networked, and E) began growing and reproducing.  Through competition over resources, these molecules eventually synthesized the basic building blocks of life.  The problems with this approach include difficulties in accounting for A) the formation of cell walls,  B) the transition to information carriers, and C) the necessity to eventually incorporate all the elements (and difficulties) of the RNA World at some point into this process.  To combat these problems, the metabolism first camp has posited simple cell wall type structures and simple potential information carriers.

On an interesting side note, the “metabolism first” camp is particularly brutal in their assessment of the “genes first” hypothesis – often pointing out its numerous deficiencies with such surety you’d swear you were reading something written by a creationist! (see first reference for a good example)

References:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life
http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive....6-S.pdf
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/cheme.htm
http://ecoserver.imbb.forth.gr/microbi....fes.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrend....ype=pdf
http://scholar.google.com/scholar....=Search
http://skuld.cup.uni-muenchen.de/ac....es4.pdf
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/315/5818/1549.pdf

There you go.

Part 2.

Since I have the morning off (it's the festive company booze up this afternoon, don't ask!) I'll briefly play with a couple of the links I snipped from the previous post.

Danny, what are you doing inserting creationist tripe inbetween actual science? Tut tut. Did you think no one would notice? It's also abundantly clear where in that little list of links you have got your "information" about abiogenesis from. Scientific credibility: Ur doin it Rong!

Anyhoo, let's start at the top of your "godandscience" link:

     
Quote
Scientific Facts

Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (1) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). (2)

Solution

reject the second law of thermodynamics


(I can't reproduce the table format, so I hope the above quote represents things sufficiently accurately, I haven't changed the words or the implications by removing it from tabular format)

My one question is: Really?

Wow! As I read down the (entirely fictional and self referential) list of creationist lies/misunderstandings I find myself conflicted. The conflict I have is quite simple: I want to help, I can help, but I can't help the unhelpable and I am naturally averse to wasting my time.

Rather than drivel on endlessly about a huge range of chemical processes and reactions, let's pluck this low hanging piece of fruit right away: autocatalysis. Not only is the claim about the origins of homochirality violating SLoT false but there's a huge amount of work out there on the kinetics and thermodynamics of reactions that produce homochiral products from racemic starting points. Look up my personal favourite (because I've used it!) the Soai reaction.* Look up the kinetics work that people have done on it. Then come back and tell me if this first claim on that "godandscience" website is true.

As for the rest, let's do one at a time, like I said, I severly dislike wasting my time.

Louis

*If your objection is that the Soai reaction has nothing to do with abiogenesis then you've missed the point. No one said it did. It's an example of an autocatalytic reaction which generates homochiral products from racemic starting materials. Bill might have something to comment on regarding this specific reaction falsifying the claim that homochirality is prevented by the SLoT. ;-)

OK, now you do want to talk to me?  

Alright, I'll just tell you now that nothing I wrote in my abiogenesis summary was based on the info on that creationist page.  I had that link in the Word doc I was working on but I didn't use it.  So when I posted the summary yesterday, I was going to delete that link, but instead decided "what the hey, I'll leave it in and see if they zero in on that and ignore the rest".

Lo and behold, that's exactly what happened.

Predictable, you lot.

Gotta love this:  "I left it in to test you, and you fell into my trap! Bwhahaha!  I expect you to convert, Mr Bond!"

Fiendish plot...

Would you like a half-pony/half-monkey monster?

(sorry, had to include the link)

Date: 2008/12/19 17:44:37, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 19 2008,17:24)
Denyse O'Leary:

Quote

It's almost like education has made us stupid.


Us?

She's claiming to be educated?

Date: 2008/12/19 17:47:26, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (silverspoon @ Dec. 19 2008,16:13)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2008,12:13)
Daniel, please alert JAD to the apparent fact that Davetard has been relieved of duty as moderator of UD. I tried to post this to Davison's insane thread at ISCID, but I got this message:

 
Quote
FYI
We are not accepting new registrations at this time.

» Please use your browser's back button to return.

Contact Us | ISCID

All content © ISCID and content contributor 2001-2003

You’re a cruel cruel man Steve. Davidson & kariosfocus posting on the same thread could cause irreversible brain damage in flying squirrels who have lasers on their heads.*

*whoever it was that first said  that about lasers deserves a medal. I added it onto something I was telling my wife, she looked at me as if I had gone mad.

What is the story behind the "squirrels with lasers on their heads" - was it in response to something?  I'm sure it's less interesting than it sounds, but since we're "discussing" origins, I figure I'd ask.

Unless Dogdiddit, in which case, I guess that settles it.

Date: 2008/12/19 18:41:30, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 19 2008,18:11)
Sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads

Aah - I honestly couldn't remember that, but it's been a few years.  Thanks.

Date: 2008/12/22 17:16:15, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 22 2008,15:38)
For tech reasons I can't get to YouTube. If anybody has an MP3 of that Merry Christmas From the Family song, please let me know.

I took the youtube video and converted it into an mp3.  You can find it here: http://web.me.com/badger3k/Site/Files_and_Papers.html

Just look for the link towards the bottom (and check out the Duggar jpg I found on the web), or, if direct links work (never tried it, but I don't see why not):

Christmas mp3: Christmas mp3

Duggar jpg (I hope I didn't get it from here): Clown Car

Date: 2009/01/02 17:48:15, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Guest @ Jan. 02 2009,01:18)
From Luskin pwned, again!:

"Why we should cave in to your demands that we stop talking about Devonian tetrapods"

My point is that you should be talking ONLY about Devonian tetrapods and other transitional species (if you can find any); and you should not be talking at all about religion, god, philosophy, the history of Senegal, one wheel bicycles, or the Myth of Gilgamesh, since none of that has anything to do with science.

However, there is a caveat about science and religion. Science has no reason to be involved in religion; the exercise of science has nothing to do with religion. However, theology has to explain not only HOW things got here and HOW they developed, but it also has to explain WHY it's here at all. So, religion has to be involved in science but science does not have to be involved in religion since it is not appropriate to science to explain WHY creation is here. Just give us the HOW and don't bother with the WHY. Leave the WHY to more astute metaphysical minds.

Unfortunately, those "astute" metaphysical minds really have nothing to say.  All they can do is argue within their own proclivities (and theologies, where appropriate) and come up with something out of their ass.  We hear all the time 'I am meant to do..." or "God/Allah/YHVH/Krishna/etc wants me to...", and I'm sure that's what they believe, but let's see some evidence that that feeling is true.  There is a lot more to that argument (contradictory wishes of said god/s, some rather repulsive connotations, and more) but I won't go there.  Let this suffice, I hope.

Before you can start to ask the question "why are we here", you need to determine whether there is a need to ask "why" at all.  If we arose through a mixture of chance and selection, with no sky daddies, then the whole "why" is more or less meaningless.  All that is needed is for each individual to ask "what do I want to do with my life?"

My meaning is to try to be a moral, law-abiding, anti-pseudoscience, anti-crackpot, anti-delusional person, who has the responsibility to help high school students understand science and more.  To teach them critical thinking.  To be a decent human being, an uncle, a friend, and more.  That is my meaning - an internal meaning.  I need no external meaning imposed upon me by believers in ancient superstitions.  No one does, although most don't realize it (to be honest, I really think most don't care).

It's like asking the question, "who made the universe" - Bzzzt - thanks for playing.  Let's first determine if the universe was made, and if so, was it an actual intelligence or was it a natural force (or forces).  Once we have that, then we can see if the question is appropriate or not.

When a scientist asks "why" he (or she) is asking something like "what is the reason this is this way and not that" in a naturalistic sense.  No metaphysical circle jerk is needed, and I would hope none is wanted (but I am dubious on this wish).

Date: 2009/01/13 00:46:42, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lowell @ Jan. 12 2009,16:06)
Man, Conservapedia's Counterexamples to Evolution page is chock full of TARD.

My favorite:  
Quote
Many cases of beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, lack any plausible evolutionary explanation.


That's just brilliant. Humans find it beautiful, but there's no reason why evolution would select for things that humans find beautiful, therefore it didn't evolve. Genius!

If they can't understand the concept that humans are not the be-all and end-all, I seriously doubt they would understand pigmentation in leaves, or the fact that those bright colors of reef fish are excellent camouflage in their natural (unlit by human lights) habitats.  It's the same mindset that says that the moon is position just right so that we can have eclipses.

I'd go to the actual site, but my tard-resistant goggles are broken - I'm not sure I could take such concentrations.

Date: 2009/01/14 01:09:16, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 14 2009,00:26)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 13 2009,20:58)
 
Quote
Interestingly, he states the codes are only in the "true" bible which I assume is the King James (AV) version ?


Certainly. After all, if English was good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for anybody, right?

:D

Henry

I have to imagine a likely response would be along the lines of:

Quote
An all-knowing, all-seeing God would obviously know of all languages and all possible translations of his inspired Word. Thus each and every version would reveal the hidden messages via the bible codes to anyone with a secret decoder ring.


After all, it's much more fun that way...sure beats explicitly spelling out the most important things to know so stupid people have a clear understanding.

You've probably hit it on the head.  Of course, each version would have slightly different codes, therefore, all we need to do is try every code in existence until we find the messages that we want!  So simple a child could think it was real. :D

Date: 2009/01/15 23:34:16, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reed @ Jan. 15 2009,22:56)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,16:33)
Really?
What world do you live in?
List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Just because some great scientists are Christian, does not imply that their Christian philosophy contributed to their scientific discoveries. If you read the list, you might notice that quite the opposite is true: Their great contributions were frequently due to preferring empiricism over dogma, despite living societies steeped in dogma.

This is the kind of error that would get you an F in high school logic class. Even more embarrassing, you've had this error pointed out to you several times before. Not good for a guy who's claiming the last 200 years of biology is all wrong.

Repeating clueless garbage like this is one of the reasons people here don't take you seriously.

edit:
Clarity and speeelink, not that it will help.

It's funny, given the Flood Myth getting tossed around, along with scientists who are Christians, that the scientists who destroyed the flood mythology were Christians.  Irony?

I do like how Daniel has precognition, as he knows that scientific inquiry will never be able to solve some of these "roadblocks".  Pretty sad, since we are passing these roadblocks every day.  It's also pathetic that he has to refer to the crappy (subjective) "other ways of knowing" woo to attempt to defend his beliefs from empirical investigation.  I would be very interested to see his (objective) evidence that his (subjective) knowing is true and other people's knowledge, especially those that are in diametrical opposition to his, are false?  Or is Daniel one of those post-modern Christians who believe that everyone's ideas are true at the same time?

Date: 2009/01/15 23:42:26, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Jan. 13 2009,21:34)
Hate to burst your little bubble, ERV, but Edmondson was as much a part of the Premise team as anyone. He worked out of the Premise office, he was on the Premise payroll, "Beware the Believers" was overseen by the same producers as Expelled. I was responsible for bringing Matt Chandler onto the project as writer, and I even did the research and wrote the original scripts on which the rap was based. So if you love Edmondson, you kind of have to love the entire Premise team--including me. :)

After re-reading this again today while looking for the last post I read, I have to say, WTF?  One thing does not logically follow.  I can like, say, Tony Romo (I don't, btw), while simultaneously thinking his team is a bunch of good-for-nothing drug-using posers with delusions of adequacy.  I've watched many movies - let's take the latest crappy Star Wars - I've liked (to watch) Natalie Portman, but hated her partner in crime, the wooden kid.  It's like watching Scooby-Doo and liking Scooby, but hating Scrappy.  You get the idea.

Sorry, but liking, respect...things like that aren't like water or man-seed, you don't get to bathe in the splatter and feel like a king.  There's no splash effect on respect.  You either have it or you don't.

Damn, is there anyone I didn't offend in that?  :O
(it's been that kind of day, I guess)

Date: 2009/01/19 12:47:38, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 18 2009,20:50)
some nitwit said:

Quote
The God hypothesis asserts that God is a being sufficiently like us so as to merit consideration (more correctly that we are like him).  His logic is not foreign to us.


For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

-Isaiah 55: 8-9

Ahh, but, you see, that's the "Old" Testament - there's a new one out that makes that one null and void, except when it is useful for apologetics.

Date: 2009/01/19 18:55:28, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Jan. 19 2009,15:55)
It was a great film, as I said, left out the Davisonian counter theory.

However, it completely lived up to its title, unlike many science movies.

Well, it did live up to the "no intelligence allowed" part.  There sure was none to be found in the film, unless we use "intelligence" in the sense of "Saddam had WMDs" and "yellowcake" were good, actionable intelligence.

Date: 2009/01/22 10:18:51, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tsig @ Jan. 21 2009,13:21)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 20 2009,18:13)
Quote
It's a matter of his level of knowledge versus ours.  We can understand some of it, but we'll never understand most of it.  It's above our level.
If we can reconstruct a completely natural pathway for the origin of some intricately organized system, God is no longer required.


How big is god's penis?

Since man is made in gods image I would think you could take the size of the average male as a guideline unless you have a female god then I will investigate and get back to you.

Well, considering all the posturing and fetishizing that fundies go on about sex, and all the negative feelings towards sex, I conclude that either God is a Male Gorilla, or else is a female in permanent PMS mode (don't kill me!)

Date: 2009/01/24 10:54:31, Link
Author: Badger3k
Since we have had experiments and studies that indicate that our thoughts and actions have (at least, won't get into a free will/determinism argument) some biological/genetic influence, what does this do to the front-loading argument?  How are our thoughts and actions shaped by this front-loading, especially if you consider a god like Daniel's, which, through this god's omniscience, indicates that every action and thought in the world is already predetermined?  Doesn't that make this front-loading little more than the programming of characters in a video game?

I too am curious how Daniel's experiences trump those of every muslim, hindu, etc throughout the world, all of whom seem to have equal claim to the "my god is the designer" argument.  What objective standards can we outside observers have in trying to determine the plausibility of the claim?  Or is this the typical subjective claims of the religious in favor of their deity-of-choice?

Date: 2009/01/24 14:35:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Jan. 24 2009,12:02)
Not that I am siding with all you atheists and science fascists, but I have to admit that I've met a few designers and I've never met or even heard of one that didn't want to be identified.

What about the possibility that the Designer actually created life on Earth as some sort of bootleg or knock-off? We could be a cheap Chinese replica of the real thing!

I never had these depressing-type thoughts until I learned about evolution, and I wonder what professor Davison would think? Does the Designer have to be dead, or is He just keeping a Low Profile?

You know, that would explain a lot.  Perhaps the original spelling is "Erth" and we're just the cheap knock-off.  Seriously, that line of thought does fit with what we know of the Gnostics and the Demiurge.

Date: 2009/01/29 10:29:29, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richard Simons @ Jan. 28 2009,21:33)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 28 2009,17:55)
As for the "unsupportable nonsense" re: the front-loading of the nylonase enzyme:  The facts are that, A) the correct coding for an enzyme with the specific characteristics necessary for the degradation of nylon was actually present in the genome of the bacteria before it was needed - and, B) that coding was subsequently activated by a shift in the reading frame when it became necessary for survival.  

How is that not consistent with the concept of front-loading?

Oh, that probably is consistent with the concept of front loading.

It's the whole concept that is rickety. Do we have to go through it all again? Front loading requires that details of the environment be predicted billions of years before the fact (e.g. that a certain waste disposal pond will be present in 3,000,000,000 years time and will be just right for an organism that can digest nylon). It also requires an enormous amount of data to be stored in the original replicator, a method of preventing the information from being corrupted and some means for turning genes on and off in the correct millenium, in the correct species and in the correct geographical location. (Why did genes to make flowers only get turned on in plants, not in frogs that were front loaded with the same information at the same time?)

Once reasonable answers can be provided to these questions front loading has a small chance of being taken seriously, although it is hard to see why it is needed when the present theory serves us so well.

Actually, they only need to be front-loaded through the last 6,000 or so years.  After all, that's when the big guy created everything.  Pretty easy to front load when you only have a fraction of real time to work with.

Actually, thinking about the issue, I've come to the conclusion that if there is a god designing things, he may be all-knowing and all-powerful, but he is so incredibly stupid (omnincompetent) that he doesn't know what to do with his knowledge or power.  The celestial rainmaker could be the celestial rainman.  Can see every sparrow that falls (or every child that dies from parasites or malnutrition), but is too stupid to realize that he could do something about that, or that he should.  Makes sense, if you are superstitious.

Date: 2009/02/05 10:40:12, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,19:10)
BTW, a possible explanation as to why God's designs fall into better nested hierarchies than human's do is because God worked alone.  One designer = no one to borrow ideas from.  Plus he used evolution as a means of adaptation, (new types being "born" of saltational evolution).

So, this god is obviously not the omnipotent or omniscient god that most people think of.  Basically, my omnincompetent hypothesis still stands, then.

(Ok, so the theistic evolution model, where a god uses purely natural processes to produce life, is also a possible "explanation" - albeit one without any real explanation).  Actually, I like the idea of theistic evolution where a god just waits and life develops, but it looks nothing like humans.  I suspect that if we were octopoidal creatures, we would have had an octopus-Jesus nailed to a giant throwing star (well, maybe a sign of Chaos).  Or we could go like some have suggested and the whole focus of this god is on bacteria, and all this religion stuff is his attempt to distract us so that we do not kill too many of his children through vaccination (etc).

Date: 2009/02/05 10:49:28, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tmac1238 @ Feb. 05 2009,10:15)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 05 2009,08:30)
Quote
I can buy a chimpanzee from a pet store showing the supposed start of evolution.

tmac1238; why do you think our evolution started with, or even passed through, chimpanzees?

Why would anyone think your evolution didn't start with champanzees, but when it got to chimpanzees, it suddenly made a catastrophic leap and bypassed everything between a chimp and man at the pet store?

Is that even supposed to make sense?  If there were pet stores around 7-5 million years ago, maybe there might be a store where you could buy one, but not now (even genetic testing on the "humanzee" indicated 100% chimpanzee).  (Without reading back through Alex Jones/Richard Hoagland territory) is the half-human/half-chimp an attempt to say we found Bush in a pet store?

Date: 2009/02/05 10:59:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tmac1238 @ Feb. 05 2009,04:11)
Steady now!  Steady!  The adrenaline is moving because more victims for mental diagnoses by propagandists are here!

FOCUS AGAIN:  

1.  Kent Hovind did not drain the US treasury because he didn't file taxes.  Somebody else drained it chasing No-Fly-Zones and forgot to file taxes against Halliburton and other companies that became very rich as America was being ravaged.

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.

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.

1.  Both are criminally liable, and both should go to jail.  Whether it will happen...depends.  One does not have to ruin a country to be a criminal.  The faults of our legal system has nothing to do with releasing one criminal because another doesn't get prosecuted.  

2.  Most people didn't know his name because they weren't fundamentalist loonies.  Has nothing to do with him not being a criminal.  One of my students neighbors had to be stopped from killing his wife.  If you don't know his name, does that mean he can go free?  Hovind was a liar, and it is a shame he can't be prosecuted for lying to children, and adults who don't know enough to tell he was full of it.  I've got Hovinds paranoid delusions that passes for videos.  Haven't looked at them in great detail, but saw enough to show that he didn't just lack both oars in the water, he lacked a boat.

3.  It makes more sense now, but still shows a lack of understanding of evolution.  As (I'm reasonably sure) somebody has already corrected this, I'll just say that chimps and humans split apart, going separate ways.  Chimps would not evolve into humans unless they were subjected to the exact same pressures and mutations that our branch was.  This linear progression leading to humans is so...quaint.  It would work with a 19th century conception of evolution, but has nothing to do with reality.

Date: 2009/02/05 11:01:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2009,04:20)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,23:45)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 19 2009,22:28)
Poe?

Order of the Tinfoil Headgear.

As my kentucky christian conservative relatives warn me to move away from the newly-constructed cell tower nearby, and I think about how cell signals are radio signals, I'm tempted to warn them to cover their heads in tinfoil...but it would be too painful to watch them do that, so I don't....

I like the fact that tinfoil hats were shown to actually be better as receptors.  When that study came out, I LMAO'd.  

Of course, the US Army had every citizen installed with radio receivers in our posteriors, or haven't you heard?  :p

Date: 2009/02/06 01:22:59, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tmac1238 @ Feb. 05 2009,10:52)
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 05 2009,10:49)
Quote (tmac1238 @ Feb. 05 2009,10:15)
 
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 05 2009,08:30)
 
Quote
I can buy a chimpanzee from a pet store showing the supposed start of evolution.

tmac1238; why do you think our evolution started with, or even passed through, chimpanzees?

Why would anyone think your evolution didn't start with champanzees, but when it got to chimpanzees, it suddenly made a catastrophic leap and bypassed everything between a chimp and man at the pet store?

Is that even supposed to make sense?  If there were pet stores around 7-5 million years ago, maybe there might be a store where you could buy one, but not now (even genetic testing on the "humanzee" indicated 100% chimpanzee).  (Without reading back through Alex Jones/Richard Hoagland territory) is the half-human/half-chimp an attempt to say we found Bush in a pet store?

You mean there were no pet stores 5 to 7 million years ago so we can't buy half evolved chimpanzees, but we can buy the earlier start and buy chimps at pet stores today?

You mean America destroyed itself chasing no-fly-zones and you're going out of your mind that everything else makes no sense???

This is fun!  Hopefully the post I saw in the bathroom wall doesn't mean you scampered off.

How can we buy an "earlier start" since it disappeared (while it's descendants evolved) at least 5 million years ago.  Does the pet store have a time machine?  Is it run by Time Lords?  As for buying chimps in pet stores, I believe that is illegal based on what I know of importation laws, but I really could be mistaken on that.  Haven't bothered to check up (my roommate will not let me get any monkeys or apes - she's a vet tech and doesn't want the special requirements, or maybe cleaning up the poo flung, which is why I come to boards like this - all we have is virtual poo).

Anyway, I think you shouldn't talk about "going out of your mind".  Devote a bit of going "back into your mind", and you'll have made a start.  Actually, since you seem to repeat a lot of Alex Jones paranoid nonsense (black helicopters, etc - did you mention chemtrails, or the prison camps built in the US that we were all put into in the takeover by the New World Order back in 2000...oh, wait, that never happened, did it?).  

Really, try to maintain some sense of logic or order.  While the Joker can be fun to watch, if you like that sort of thing, replicating his thought processes is not the way to go.  Of course, you could be replicating Hovinds delusional ramblings with God, so you could be doing worse than you are.

Date: 2009/02/06 01:26:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 05 2009,10:56)
[quote=Badger3k,Feb. 05 2009,10:49][/quote]
Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

What's the difference between a hard-boiled egg?

I know you can!


KC

"Which would you rather be?  A banana"

Is it farther to New York or by train?

"Hey Camera-guy" "You can do it!"

Date: 2009/02/06 01:32:29, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 05 2009,11:23)
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.

Actually, all I need to do is catch a few of my students after they smoked before class.  I bet I can hear some of the same disjointed ramblings.  I am just to this post, but I don't think it's a bot, just some stoner whose managed to get online.  It is pretty funny, like listening to the poor guy with a shopping cart and the shabby clothes living under the train tracks to protect himself from Trolls and Space CIA Aliens, only without the human tragedy.

Hmm - could this be Hovind off his meds?  Of course, this could be Poe, but that is a bit depressing - it's more fun to think this is serious (although that is tragic in it's own right).

Date: 2009/02/06 01:54:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2009,01:44)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 05 2009,16:29)
Okay, let's shimmy back in scope, people. Look over here! *Distracts*
   
Quote
Question: Are Kent and Jo Hovind sitting in federal prisons today because they are Fundamental/ evangelical Christians and Tim Geithner, Charles Rangel, Tom Daschle, Marion Barry, Wesley Snipes are all free because they are privileged, powerful, prosperous?

Don't you mean...prosperous Darwinists, Donny Boy(s)?

I actually feel sorry for poor Jo Hovind. Living in the south I see a lot of poor women who are trying to get by who are in thrall to their idiot husbands, and suffer the consequences.

There is hope, though.  A lot of the women I see are getting smarter, but that's still just a fraction.  The influence of the Southern Baptists and their male dominance trip is still a big factor in repressing women.  Funny thing, listening to the Atheist Experience, I think they mentioned Hovind and his explanation of the Fall, which had Eve being so stupid the snake duped her, and Adam (heroically) sacrificed himself to be with her, which really makes him the bigger idiot.  

I did meet some very concerned people at the Texas Freedom Network's leadership seminar last weekend, including some very capable high school students interested in women's issues.  At least here in Texas, we are making some progress, albeit slowly.

Date: 2009/02/06 01:56:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 05 2009,22:28)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 05 2009,13:23)
HaHa!  I  just received a letter from the DI begging for money to fight the evil Darwinistas!

Are they giving you the opportunity to sponsor a DI Fellow for only $24 a month?
Will your sponsored Fellow send you research papers, works in progress reports, personalized pictures and letters relating their experiences at the DI?
Is your money going towards efforts to provide a safe environment within which your sponsored Fellow can pursue research?
Will your money help erase the stigma that comes with being a DI Fellow?

I'm not sure of that, but they will send you a "Teiko" sport's watch.  :D

(I think the DI fellow goes by "Marvin")

Date: 2009/02/06 23:47:37, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 06 2009,19:48)
Also, Science has a special issue out all about speciation. I'm reading the Red Queen paper now, with the Bacterial Challenge paper on deck.

Thanks - I'll have to look for it.  Just started reading "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley (IIRC, it's upstairs now).  Interesting book and this magazine would be an addition.

Date: 2009/02/06 23:55:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Just saw this thread on my RSS feed, and wow.  I gotta go back and read - this guy sounds like a winner.  Before I do, a question: has he yelled "Wolverines!" yet, or said that Red Dawn is the kick-assingest movie evar!!!!! ?

Date: 2009/02/25 00:54:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:07)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,02:13)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

[snip]

Louis

Congratulations Louis!

You've just joined oldman on my Troll list.

It's quite obvious that you just want to harass me and that no civil or productive discussion can be had with you.

I'll be skipping all your posts too now.

Cool!  This reminds me of a guy on another board, who kept threatening with putting people on his ignore list.  He even added the names of those he ignored to his sigline.  Pretty funny.  We all tried to get on his ignore list.  Can't recall if he ever did get to me, now that I think of it.  Damn.  Always the bridesmaid never the bride...

(Of course, I rarely blush, so maybe that is part of the reason.  Can't get that sexual-pink coloration that stimulates the sex drive, if you go for that hypothesis)

Date: 2009/02/25 01:00:21, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 24 2009,23:41)
i have it good authority that CD also invented time travel and grand theft auto 4.

Ahh - I knew there was a reason I liked that game.  

Wait - was Darwin the guy with the telephone booth who picked up "so-crates"?  I get confused with all that time travel paradox stuff.  Although, if Fry can be his own grandfather, does that prove evolution false?

:p

Date: 2009/03/08 19:54:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 07 2009,08:38)
Don't anybody worry; I am going to stand back and let science rule but I just had to get it off my chest...

I won't ask for more, but I've heard similar, even one suggestion of a Joshua/sun deity religion that was subsumed into Judiasm and perhaps Christianity.  Interesting stuff, but, as you say, the hard part is to see any of it translated into English.  You did give me some more avenues of research.  Just wanted to say thanks for that.

Now, back to the train wreck.

Date: 2009/03/09 19:33:43, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 09 2009,18:56)
oh no it won't.  i love t.a.r.d. more than you, OM!!!!  I'LL BE THE LAST

wait a minute - shouldn't you guys be saying "There can be only one"?

I can see it now...The Tardlander!

Date: 2009/03/09 19:41:45, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 09 2009,17:57)
Quote (khan @ Mar. 09 2009,15:37)
Special indeed.

Darwin first published in 1859, and ~250 years of slavery in the colonies/USA is his fault?

Presumably bad slavery didn't start until 1859.

It was like the slavery that the Israelites had.  Their slaves were completely happy and loved being slaves, so it was ok and moral.  The slaves were always happy until Darwin came along and spoiled it.  Once the slave owners got the idea that their slaves were related to apes, they started treating them like animals and forgot their Christian Love.  Damn Darwinistas!

(I've actually heard something very similar, and I'm sure everybody else here has too)

Date: 2009/03/12 20:14:12, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,19:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

Sproing!  My industrial strength Irony meter broke.

You do know that there are Hindus and Muslims who have had experiences just like that, and they have had their doubts erased by the touch of Krishna and Allah.  There are shamans in Russia who know that their spirits are real, having those same kind of experiences.  There are people who KNOW, with 100% certainty, that they have been visited by, and communicated with, aliens.  They know this from their 100% real experiences.  The same as you.

You've just admitted that it is all in your head, and in your feelings.  And, we all know, feelings are never wrong.  No one has ever been deceived by themselves into believing something because they wanted to believe it.  Seriously?  

I'd hazard a guess that most people here were, at one time, believers in some form of the Christian god.  Apparently, though, it was His will that He not communicate with any of us.  

Well, I did have a dream of a bearded man who said, "I'm not real", and who am I to doubt His word.

Date: 2009/03/13 19:59:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 13 2009,19:44)
Bwahaha, the guy does have his moments.
   
Quote
But my sagging stock portfolio isn't the real bad news. No, that comes from screenwriter John August. In a recent post, he noted that "studio development slates are being cut in half." That means half of the $400 million steaming apple pie that all of us screenwriters are scrambling to cram our faces into just fell on the floor and is now full of cat hair. And no, you wouldn't want to eat it anyway, even if you could, because they just swept it up, threw it in the garbage and then hauled it away in a truck to discourage dumpster diving.

I liked that. But now I want some apple pie.  :(  (Hobo pie?)

Why does he need money?  Didn't he rake in on the millions of dollars that Expelled made, being the oscar-winning mega-blockbuster that it was?

:D

Date: 2009/03/14 16:17:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:46)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2009,18:14)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,19:07)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

Sproing!  My industrial strength Irony meter broke.

You do know that there are Hindus and Muslims who have had experiences just like that, and they have had their doubts erased by the touch of Krishna and Allah.  There are shamans in Russia who know that their spirits are real, having those same kind of experiences.  There are people who KNOW, with 100% certainty, that they have been visited by, and communicated with, aliens.  They know this from their 100% real experiences.  The same as you.

You've just admitted that it is all in your head, and in your feelings.  And, we all know, feelings are never wrong.  No one has ever been deceived by themselves into believing something because they wanted to believe it.  Seriously?  

I'd hazard a guess that most people here were, at one time, believers in some form of the Christian god.  Apparently, though, it was His will that He not communicate with any of us.  

Well, I did have a dream of a bearded man who said, "I'm not real", and who am I to doubt His word.

There are many spirits in the world.  It's up to us to discern them.  How do you know whether the thoughts you express are your own or those of some God-hating demon living inside you?

Since there is no evidence that any such spirits or gods exist, I can be reasonably confident that my thoughts are my own.  Can you be as sure?  Can you be sure that you are not a brain in a jar, being force fed an artificial world?

Are you claiming that your god is but one of many?  

Seriously, do you really question whether your thoughts are your own?

Date: 2009/03/15 14:26:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,13:28)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 14 2009,18:54)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:36)
I can be proven wrong at any time.  

No you can't, because you will never accept that the detail is sufficient.
   
Quote
Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

No. A large part of science is about making testable predictions and then trying to disprove them yourself.

None of this depends on me.  I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.  This is why I said that the test is "to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review)".  I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.  These are the people who will tear it apart and expose its weaknesses - not me.

So, if the hypothesis (and theory, btw) has been tested and passed peer review, it is settled science and reality?

So, since the theory of evolution, and all these thousands of papers and experiments and results, published every year - all these that support evolutionary pathways and development - all the ones that have been tested and passed peer review - these are all good?

In other words, you've cut your own throat again.

Your only objection is that it is not detailed enough for you, even though you say that scientists, not you, are the judge.

SPROING!

Date: 2009/03/17 22:53:14, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,18:12)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 12 2009,19:14)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,18:04)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

Sure I will.

The caveat is that you provide evidence.

Oh you want evidence?

Why didn't you say so?

How about the fact that life is programmed via information coded into molecular structures on multiple levels - both genetic and epigenetic?

Or how about the fact that all life requires little mini-chemists running around inside cells, catalyzing chemical reactions that otherwise could not happen quickly enough to sustain life?

How about the fact that science has no explanation for how these things, or any multitude of other things, originated?

I don't expect you to view these things as evidence though.  I fully expect you to obey the thoughts that dominate your mind and soul: "there is no evidence", "there is no God", and "you're much smarter than anyone who believes in God".

The truth is that, until your eyes are opened (until you first believe), you'll never see the evidence.  

Once you believe however, the blinders fall off and the evidence for God is revealed to be everywhere you look.

Well, the whole "life is programmed" is all an assumption that presupposes a programmer.  Horrible way to start.  That's like asking "who designed the universe" - first you need to show that the universe was designed, and that it was designed by an intelligence, before the question even has any meaning.  

There are also no chemists inside cells, merely biological processes.  Drop the analogies that imply intelligence as a necessity.  If the processes did not happen quickly enough, yes, you would die.  So would have any ancient creatures that had those chemicals.  The ones that had ones that let them survive, did.  That is also pretty bad, and is evidence for nothing, really.

How about the fact that all religions have multiple explanations for the origin of all these things, but since there is no way of testing them to determine their accuracy, they are essentially meaningless and useful only as emotional sops.  

"Look around you" is not evidence.

There are no thoughts that dominate my soul, for other than a metaphor for emotions, there is no evidence that such exists.  I'll grant the mind part, even though you only have the first correct.  "There is no god" (or even "God", as the one-time, one of the many sons of El, Yahweh, wants to be known by now) is a negative statement that cannot be proven, although the lack of evidence strongly suggests that the concept, as thought up by many people today, is false.  As for "your much smarter...", well, define "smarter" in clear objective terms and we may have a measurable standard that can be used to determine such things. Anything else is either ego or fact, if backed up by evidence.

The last bit is the (pretty much) last refuge of the defeated.  "...(U)ntil you first believe...you'll never see the evidence."

How convenient that the evidence is only visible after you believe.  Pretty sad evidence, if it is not objectively visible to all, but instead relies upon the subjective beliefs and emotions of the viewer to interpret it.  Funny thing, as stated before, I have Wiccans (and Witches), Asatruar, Hindus, and even a Muslim, tell me the same thing.  I guess we're back to your belief in spirits, but that just leaves the fact that, using that "logic", then it is possible that you are the sad victim of an evil spirit, deluded into believing in a false idol, while you ignore the real gods.  

Sad, really.

Date: 2009/03/18 10:05:32, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 18 2009,09:48)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 18 2009,09:03)
hey bait breath aren't we trying to get denial to talk about something substantive, not "Dude Look At Yer Hand"

I vote for Duh Flud.  And Nothing Else.  We need to get to the bottom of this happy horseshit, pronto, and Denial wants nothing more than tangential distractions about his opinions.  We have already determined that his opinions about this are worthless.  

But he has yet to share much of his opinion regarding the age of the earth and Duh Phlud.  That promises to be much more entertaining than his ideological pre-commitment to creation.

I don't expect him to talk about anything substantial nor deep.

I'd be happy to hear his take on Noah's canoe and the flood but me thinks he's out of his depth in a puddle.

Speaking of puddles, that will be his answer for the universe - just look at how well designed the universe is for human life (even though it isn't).  Like the old Douglas Adams bit with the puddle.

Date: 2009/03/18 10:08:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,10:05)
C&S?


[guilty pleasure] I always liked Traveller. [/guilty pleasure]

C&S red book?

Traveller, The Fantasy Trip, Runequest (Chaosium), Empire of the Petal Throne, Rolemaster, Champions/Hero System, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Bushido, Aftermath...the list goes on and on.  

I am a geek.

But Vox Day is still a loser.

Date: 2009/03/18 23:40:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,10:19)
I'm pretty sure the secret success of Ebay is me buying all the things I wanted as a kid but didn't have later in life...

;)

computer based RPG games seem to be getting there, but I don't subscribe to any as they'd take time I don't have.

I've just got my PS3 turned on to continue Fallout 3.  That is uber-kewl, especially when I blow some super-mutant up and have his head splatter apart in slow motion.

Yeah, I'm sick.

(But, yeah, I spent quite a bit to buy the boxed Runequest and Troll Pack, just for the memories, but maybe I'll get a game up too.  I still have my first edition champions books, a lot of my old D&D, and many of the games I mentioned.)

Date: 2009/03/19 00:20:30, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 18 2009,22:20)
Anybody here ever play Diplomacy?

Now there is an intense game.

I'd forgotten about that one.  Hadn't played that one in longer than all of my students have been alive (but not all added together, that is).

I grew up on Panzer Leader, Starship Troopers, that Minarian Legends game...got to look that up, if I could remember the name...

Never did play Cosmic Encounter, but I heard that could be a bit on the intense side.

Date: 2009/03/19 09:50:26, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,09:35)
VD sticks it to science, and he can, because of his IQ.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/if-you-hand-us-hammer.html

Ok, now I'm bleeding out my ears.  And not just from El Primo Tard, the prophet Teddy.  The commenters are similarly idiots.  Of course, we got the anti-vax, and the "why trust science when it changes all the time" - what else is there for morons to feed on.  

I forgot that, like a bunch of others, that Vox is supposed to be highly intelligent - didn't he claim Mensa membership?  If so, I'm not surprised - most of the people who go around claiming to be in Mensa are really disconnected from reality and really egotistical and arrogantly proclaim their own superiority.  Is this common, or is it the vocal minority that gets all the attention and most Mensa members are ok?

Date: 2009/03/19 22:50:33, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2009,19:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 19 2009,19:21)
I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.

ALL HAIL CTHULHU!

When HE comes, I'll be eaten/completely destroyed first before ANY of you!

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

Yeah, I got that going for me!

Infidel!!!!!!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

So there.  You've got one more chance to get it correct.  Damn youngsters.  Can't even be bothered to learn an Elder Tongue any more...

In my day...(drifts off to sleep of fishy things)

Date: 2009/03/21 10:04:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 21 2009,08:27)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2009,22:50)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2009,19:29)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 19 2009,19:21)
I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.
ALL HAIL CTHULHU!

When HE comes, I'll be eaten/completely destroyed first before ANY of you!

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

Yeah, I got that going for me!
Infidel!!!!!!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

So there.  You've got one more chance to get it correct.  Damn youngsters.  Can't even be bothered to learn an Elder Tongue any more...

In my day...(drifts off to sleep of fishy things)

Expect a call from Nyarlathotep when you least expect it.

Blasphemer, your soul will rot in the orbit of Azathoth listening to the cacophony of the insane music playing Micheal Bolton's greatest hits for all eternity!

Michael Bolton!

Michael - freaking - Bolton!!!!!

No wonder he's insane.

Date: 2009/03/21 10:15:33, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 21 2009,08:46)
It's refreshing to see this thread find its level. "I believe the universe is designed because it is self-evident. You don't because you don't want to."

IOW, "I believe it because I believe it. You don't because you don't"

And that's good enough for Daniel.

For me, I find the "self-evident, you know it when you see it" line to be the best.  I look up at a cloud and see a bunny rabbit, so I know it has to be designed, but I don't know if that is just meant to entertain me, or if it is telling me to worship Hopper, the God of Rabbits (Far May He Leap).

How come it all boils down to "you'll know it when you see/hear/feel it"?  

I do like the first review of "The Design Matrix" (isn't Mike Gene a DI-Fellow?).  Any book that uses the Face on Mars to attempt to show design has CRACKPOT written all over it, in letters bigger and bolder than that.  

Daniel - do you believe that the Face on Mars is real?

Date: 2009/03/21 10:19:30, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 21 2009,09:38)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 21 2009,08:31)
Gordon Mullings identity is a closely guarded secret... except for when it isn't:

Hits on Google for '"gordon mullings" intelligent design':

http://www.google.com/search?....refox-a

Gordon Mullings using his own name in the clear:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archive....ty.html

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/seancarroll/111734619508715840/

One cannot be a public figure and expect anonymity, too. The cat is out of the bag, and pretense otherwise is ludicrous. Mr. Mullings can get himself a spam filter like the rest of us.

When I fist started at UD DaveScot and co were desperate to uncover my identity and implied I was being deceitful by refusing to comply.  I didn't object to them trying to find out, and wouldn't if they had found out but I also reserve the right to remain anonymous on forums like these.  If Gordon wanted to remain anonymous he should have chosen an identity that wasn't so obvious and easy to track back to him - all it took was 5 minutes on Google.

"When I fiststarted at UD"

Hmm...that does seem to be the appropriate choice of words for what goes on there... :D

Date: 2009/03/21 14:08:37, Link
Author: Badger3k
I responded.  There are some rational people, and the usual bunch of creationist loons.

Date: 2009/03/21 19:04:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 21 2009,16:06)
An [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/origin-of-life-researchers-claim-life-could-have-existed-44-billion-years-ago-before-earth

-cooled/]example[/URL] of O'Leary Logic:
Quote
Mojzsis argues that the Late Heavy Bombardment of Earth by asteroids “pruned, rather than frustrated, life.”
Quote
That conclusion is reasonable, says Kevin Zahnle of NASA’s Ames Research Center in California.

It certainly is, if you are looking for an argument that God created the first life on Earth. I wonder if either he or New Scientist have thought this one out...

How is a bombardment of the Earth, causing devastation that pruned life down (duh!) and aided the species that survived (by creating new environments to expand into, new niches, etc, etc) - how do you go from that to the idea that gods create life?

I know I've failed Tard Logic 101 - or is this a higher level course?

Date: 2009/03/22 10:03:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 22 2009,08:22)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 21 2009,08:15)
I do like the first review of "The Design Matrix" (isn't Mike Gene a DI-Fellow?).  Any book that uses the Face on Mars to attempt to show design has CRACKPOT written all over it, in letters bigger and bolder than that.  

Daniel - do you believe that the Face on Mars is real?

The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.

In life we find things like the ATP-synthase enzyme which utilizes proton flow, (across the mitochondria membrane), to turn an ATP synthesizing "vane pump" (which grabs ADP, makes one revolution and spits out ATP), thus combining two necessary and useful functions into one multi-protein unit.  This is no Face on Mars, this is design of the highest quality.

Then again I doubt you're really interested.

I'm interested in reality, but you have consistently failed to show that your assumptions are reality.  If you want to state that this enzyme is designed, you need to show evidence, not say "I can't see how it could have evolved."

But, then, you know all this.  You just refuse to accept it.

Date: 2009/03/26 01:26:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
This whole "face on Mars" BS reminded me of the SETI analogy that IDiots like to misuse, which was refuted by Seth Shostak (here), and commented on through the  Neurologica and Skepticblog.

I also found the hilarious Creation Wiki.

Date: 2009/03/26 10:02:23, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2009,09:57)
On the next thread, he's telling me why evolution didn't happen.

All I can think of is to borrow a phrase from 2001 (if memory serves):

"It's full of idiots."

Date: 2009/03/26 23:11:37, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 26 2009,10:44)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 26 2009,08:08)
scordova:
Quote
Joseph,

I understand you are a retired airline pilot.

Wha?

The day an airline puts someone like Joe behind the controls is the day I start taking the train.

Maybe he worked for that Tibetan airline that sacrificed the goat to fix their mechanical problems....or maybe he was the technician?

Date: 2009/03/27 09:48:12, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 27 2009,08:00)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2009,07:49)
Apparently "twinking" is a term in games like WoW.  Who knew?  Hail Wikipedia!  
Quote
A twink is somebody who, within the confines and restrictions that a game provides, attempts to maximize the effectiveness of his character in one or more categories. The process is called twinking and a character made in this fashion is considered "twinked" or "twinked out".
The traditional meaning has dibs, though.

In gaming, we call that "munchkinning out".

It's a property of the species Rulus Lawyerus and as I think about it, really does explain a lot about IDists.

The traditional use of a young, gay man may be why some WoW gamers screwed up "tweaking" a character and assumed it was "twinking".

Sad.

Didn't know about the chicken thing.  I wonder if that is related to the older use as well...
:O

Date: 2009/03/27 09:55:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 27 2009,07:48)
looks like he is riding the New Scientist tard train now.

joe is too dumb to talk to.  i really enjoy when you guys play with him.  i don't have the patience.  i would however like to see him and KF fight to the death with ball point pens.

I can hear the Star Trek fight music now....

On the other hand, has anybody tried to figure the CSI of Soylent Cakes?

Date: 2009/03/28 10:04:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 28 2009,08:58)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 27 2009,10:20)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 27 2009,12:06)
                     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,16:44)
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer) ...

With absolutely no knowledge of the designer(s) and no evidence except for the artifact in question, how would you justify such an inference?

Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation). That is a reasonable hypothesis, not a conclusion.

The discovery of such an object on Mars would trigger a search for additional evidence of the creation of an artifact by means and for purposes similar to those deployed by human beings.

The search may not yield further evidence, in which case our conclusion may be "we don't know the origins of this object." The hypothesis would remain reasonable, but unconfirmed.

The inference to a causal story then is the key to the design inference.  As soon as your mind's eye "saw" a detailed face on Mars, you were able to supply an inferred designer and an inferred causal history based on what you know about humans, (and in spite of the fact that there is currently no evidence of any civilization on Mars).  This was not a 'well thought out application of the scientific method', this was a guess, a hunch, a belief.  Your mind told you it was possible - "Man exists on earth... surely it's reasonable that an intelligent race could have existed on Mars" - and you ran with it.  So long as your mind was able to supply a reasonable causal history, you were able to look at an object of sufficient organizational complexity and instantly recognize design.[/QUOTE]

The problem, Daniel, is that you confuse "belief" with "evidence".  Reciprocating Bill brings up the point that we would use the guess that it could be designed and go further, looking for evidence to confirm or disconfirm that.  We don't stop at "It looks designed, so it must be."

Using your bizarro logic, since I saw a bunny and a pirate (on a pony!) in the clouds yesterday, I can infer that they were put up in the sky specifically for me, telling me....well, I don't know, but it must be important.

Do you expect us to believe that you have never heard of optical illusions, or  pareidolia?

You never stop at your guesses...well, we don't, but you show a distressing failure of critical thought and stop at whatever answer satisfies your preconceived notions and religious beliefs.

Your last sentence that I quoted should read:

So long as your mind was able to supply a possible causal history, you were able to look at an object of any complexity and make a guess that it may have been designed, but you'd need evidence to see if your off-the-cuff hypothesis was real or just an artifact of human perception and thought.  Only an idiot assumes design just because they think it is possible.

Date: 2009/03/28 10:12:34, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 28 2009,10:04)
Gil begs to differ
 
Quote
I’m afraid that no number will ever suffice. The old guard will have to die off before reason and evidence prevail, at least in the academy, public education, and the mainstream media, where suppression of dissent and hostility toward challenges to Darwinian dogma are nearly universal.

Whatever Gil. Whatever.

Now, if only they had reason or evidence, instead of emotion, lies, misquotes, and religious fervor.....

(How come I hear "When you wish upon a star" - followed by "Rock me sexy Jesus"?)

Date: 2009/03/29 00:59:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 28 2009,18:19)
Some good jerrytard (I especially like how seriously he takes Haldane's joke about giving his life for two brothers or eight cousins):
Quote
John,

You have to understand that all the Darwinists or anti ID people who come here and probably any where cannot defend Darwinism. So they never try. There has been sort of a UD Challenge to anyone who could be the first to provide a coherent defense of Darwinism.

No one has stepped up to the plate. So your statements asking for a dialogue will go unanswered since a dialogue requires two or more and the anti ID people never come forward. They are experts at deflection, nit picking, sniping from afar and changing the subject.

Sorry to see you go. I have just read Allen’s long description of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and so far what Allen has written represents nothing ID can’t live with. I like what he has written but it just seems like genetics and micro evolution. Nothing controversial.

I doubt Haldane’s observation about brothers and cousins. I can’t imagine a Darwinist dying for anything in this world. They are generally atheists and after dying, well there just isn’t anything there for them so why would they. They will become an extinct species because someone once said to me that if you are not willing to die for something then you will be eliminated by those who are willing.

Come back when you can.

How can you defend something that exists only in the minds of creotards?

Date: 2009/03/30 10:19:41, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2009,03:14)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 29 2009,18:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 29 2009,02:30)
   
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 24 2009,12:49)
[URL=http://www.examiner.com/x-2398-Boston-Top-News-Examiner~y2009m3d24-Alaskas-Mt-Redoubt-erupts-fourt-times-Bobby-Jin








dal-said-volcano-monitoring-is-wasteful#comments]Ha ha ha, I crack myself up sometimes[/URL].
       
Quote
Well, I'm sure that Jindal is convinced now that volcano "watching" is "wasteful." The volcano still erupted, didn't it? Scientists didn't stop the eruption, did they? Because scientists don't know anything, and we should funnel more funds toward faith-based initiatives that can actually do something, like exorcisms. ;)

But do you want to be that it's true? :)


Sacrificing virgins used to work.

I find sacrificing virginity is a little less messy, a lot more fun, and equally effective, when it comes to preventing volcanic eruptions.

To be honest, I think you're wrong here. Sacrificing virginity is messy in many ways. Quickly chucking the nearest virgin into the volcano to appease it is the very definition of a hygienic and speedy resolution to god appeasement.

It should be reinstated, especially for really ugly virgins.

Louis

If we do that, then there won't be too many commenters at UD, and we'd all get bored.

Won't somebody think of the children?

Date: 2009/03/31 00:34:07, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 30 2009,23:12)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 31 2009,01:00)
Quote
When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.

He's just trying to whip evolution theory. :p

Have you ever looked at a Flagelum Man, I mean really looked?

I've never seen Flagelum Man, but I did see Particle Man

(hope that worked)

Date: 2009/04/01 23:14:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 01 2009,09:36)
Warning and Official Policy Notice:

The Dembski site has entered the critical tard mass stage

All TardMiners are now required to wear protective suits guarding against exposure to high and low-energy tardon emission.


Srsly...Richard friggin' Owen?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Re. the FRT V. PT controversy:
There's nothing that gives the satisfaction of a job well-done as deep-puppet tardwrangling. BUT... free-range tard with it's sudden explosions of frantic headless-chicken surprises -- well, that's just a phenomenon of nature that can only be seen to be appreciated.

What whip?  I see a bacterial butt-propeller!

Date: 2009/04/02 01:12:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
I find it really, really hard to believe that Daniel still can't get the idea that we want reality as it is, not as we would like to "infer".  You can infer all the design you want, but without evidence, this designer exists as much as Princess Pouty-Poof who shapes the clouds for my pleasure.

Sorry, Daniel, we like to live in a world that exists outside our heads, and outside our fears.

If we see any kind of face on Mars, most people might infer a designer.  We, and I think I can say this for most of us here, would first ask "is there actually a face there" before we ask "what caused this face to be there", finally going to, if there is evidence for it, "what kind of creature might have made this face".  You want to jump over the first whole lot of steps and go immediately to the last.  Sorry, that's not justified outside of grade school playgrounds and Churches.

Date: 2009/04/04 00:01:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 21 2009,17:42)
No, just give him my name. According to KairoFocus, that's the same thing. :p

Ben Stein is Expelled again! I guess that's what happens when you're Ben Stein and trolling for dollars, not Richard Dawkins waiving your honorarium and speaking for free.

He charged a Cancellation Fee?

I guess this is that "charity" that the religious folks like Ben love to brag about so much.

Has anyone told Kevin?  Maybe we should be nicer to him, or he'll stop posting and charge us a fee as well?

Date: 2009/04/09 22:00:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 09 2009,11:43)
we've more or less tolerated your stupidity, patiently, for 26 pages.  we need the pay off.  the money shot.  air tight, hon.  pay up now.

Not sure if I have my url correct, so this may not work:



If that doesn't work, I got that from here: here's teh money shot by sophia232

Date: 2009/04/09 22:03:52, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ April 09 2009,22:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 09 2009,11:43)
we've more or less tolerated your stupidity, patiently, for 26 pages.  we need the pay off.  the money shot.  air tight, hon.  pay up now.

Not sure if I have my url correct, so this may not work:



If that doesn't work, I got that from here: here's teh money shot by sophia232

One more try:



If this doesn't work, I give up.

Date: 2009/04/09 22:17:19, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ April 09 2009,22:03)
Quote (Badger3k @ April 09 2009,22:00)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 09 2009,11:43)
we've more or less tolerated your stupidity, patiently, for 26 pages.  we need the pay off.  the money shot.  air tight, hon.  pay up now.

Not sure if I have my url correct, so this may not work:



If that doesn't work, I got that from here: here's teh money shot by sophia232

One more try:



If this doesn't work, I give up.

Ok, so I lied.  One Last Time (just like Daniel, eh?)

If this doesn't work, I'll retire and hang my head in shame.  Maybe I'll forget how to program the vcr.

The Picture - can't figure out how to post it directly since my hard drive crashed

what's a vcr......

Date: 2009/04/15 02:16:32, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 15 2009,00:55)
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 14 2009,17:00)
Bob: I did a bit of poking about after reading Shi Huang's papers: he has a blog http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/ that is ...unusual in content; He posted up his last journal article rejection letters.

He's going to make an interesting case study, I think.

Thanks.  As lowell said, paydirt!  His response to the rejection letter shows that he truly belongs at UD.  Just the first paragraph is enough to show this:
   
Quote
Thank you for reading my paper and offer your opinions. I explain here why these opinions may have merit from your point of view, which is the current Darwinian view, but have zero value from the point of view of genuine science, which is to explain facts with whatever theory that works the best.

Apparently the late John Maddox would describe this sort of person as "one of our regular correspondents".

Holeeeee Cow.  I went there and saw this little bit.

Quote
I reread a part of Darwin’s book on the topic of natural selection to see if he ever said that natural selection is not random. I did not find it. But I was astonished to find that his logical lapses could ever got printed for all to see.


It goes on a bit more about how natural selection and human breeding (by which he means humans selectively breeding animals, not eugenics).  

The link is here

It is tardelicious.  I just have to quote his ending bit:
Quote
The above is what Darwin wrote on natural selection in two separate places in his famous book. It astonishes me to see that he can equate human breeding with natural selection, without acknowledging any difference between the two. It does not follow at all logically that if human breeding can do amazing things, then natural selection over longer time can do even more amazing things. The unspoken assumption here is that time is the only variable. But it is not. Intention/intelligence/mind is the other key variable. If humans want to breed a drought resistant crop, they would not allow the crop experience cycles of drought and flood. But natural selection can do no such things. The natural cycles of drought and flood would never produce a drought resistant breed no matter how much time it is allowed to work its magical Darwinian power.

You cannot find a better proof for the kind of logical ability, or should we say illogical, that Darwin had. When he cannot do simple high school mathematics, what can you expect? What is truly amazing is this kind of logical lapses have been viewed as ‘science’ for 150 years


Words fail

Date: 2009/04/16 01:32:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 15 2009,23:44)
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 15 2009,23:17)
I translate Gil's response as "I'm afraid to embarrass myself in front of my brilliant dad, so I won't studiously avoid mentioning my commitment to pseudoscience."

Correction: "will studiously avoid."

He's a good pianist, yes.  And those album covers!

You misspelled "pianist".  It has an "e" in it, and lacks the "t".

(we are talking about Gil here, right?)

Date: 2009/04/20 23:32:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
I just have to add that I saw copies of "Expelled" in the 2/$10 bin at my local HEB (a super-HEB - grocery store - which is more like wal-mart, selling more than food).  So, on the one hand, they are out for a wider audience.  On the other.... :p

(and this is in the middle of Texas, right by Fort Hood).

Date: 2009/04/23 10:35:42, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ April 23 2009,02:59)
Poor Daniel. Happiness lies at the end of the rainbow.

Robert B. Lauglin:
 
Quote

 We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or magician – a discoverer and exploiter of preexisting physical principles or a worker of miracles – but we shouldn’t.   The former is theory, the latter is antitheory.
  Since collective instability is emergent, it is reasonable to ask at what scale collective principles of organization begin to matter in life. The question turns out to be impossible to answer crisply because emergence at intermediate scales are inherently ill-defined.

There is considerable circumstantial evidence that both stable and unstable emergence occur already at the scale of individual proteins.

The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.


Daniel, we cannot help you unless you state your problem. What is the problem?

Actually, the first step is to admit there is a problem.  With his projection...I don't think he'll admit he has a problem.

Date: 2009/04/23 10:39:53, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 23 2009,06:51)
JAD gets tough!
Message 500:    
Quote
I have guns, knives, machetes and blunt instruments with all of which I am quite familiar. I agree Fox is obsessed with me. It is hard not to reach that conclusion. isn’t it? Thanks for the advice. By presenting your message Fox would be a number one suspect should anything happen to me!

You'd better watch out, Alan Fox, JAD's on to you!

I think his "blunt instrument" has three speeds, but you need to go to his basement for him to use it.  The safeword is "Dembski."

Seriously, this sounds just like some of my high school kids posturing.  I'm sure that his weapon cache will grow with each telling.  I'm sure he'll be threatening with his minigun and suitcase nuke soon.

Date: 2009/04/24 22:41:00, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 24 2009,17:41)
Under the heading of Deja Vu All Over Again, the DI posted a brain fart by our favorite Heeeeeeere's Johnny Wells in response to something Coyne wrote.

What does Johnny-boy raise as a devastating rebuttal to Coyne's remarks?

Some cutting-edge research fresh out of the Biologic Institute?

No.

Results of research Wells has done at his lab in Frog Fur, Florida?

Nope.

A revolutionary computer simulation from the Marks & Dembski Centir for Intelligent Design, Tire and Hair Care Emporium in Waco, Texas?

Uh, not quite.

OK, whatever Wells did PLEASE let it not be the tired old Cambrian Explosion and Haeckel and Jaeckel!  Please, pleasepleasepleaseplease!

Ding! Correct answer.  Yes, Wells trotted out for almost as many times as Apple has downloaded apps from iTunes the Good Old Cambrian Explosion.

Srsly.

It's like Wells is playing the Sands and there's nobody in the audience.  Take my Cambrian Explosion ... please!

There's a Cambrian Explosion App?  Damn, I guess they do have an App for everything...

Hmm - a creationist bingo app?  There could be gold in them thar hills!

Date: 2009/04/25 12:53:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lowell @ April 25 2009,12:13)
For Christ's sake Daniel, "settled science" does not equal "final answer." Quit conflating terms!

Even if a scientific principle is considered "settled" to the point where it can be relied upon without retesting it at every turn, that does not mean that it is a "final answer" beyond being revised or discarded in the future.

A scientific theory is provisional, even if we have great confidence in it because it has worked so well in the past.

What is so hard to get about that?

It doesn't fit his preconceptions or the idea that his religious beliefs provide a "final answer", so everything else must do so as well.  This type of projection seems really common to his ilk.  Like the idea that "Evolutionists" worship Darwin and call themselves Darwinists.

Date: 2009/04/25 12:54:39, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2009,11:41)
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 25 2009,11:27)
Kairosfocus complains and, Oh, the irony, it burns:

     
Quote
Distractive (& too often toxic) talking points, --insistently reiterated ad nauseum-- are simply not good enough. (my emphases: DM)

GEM of TKI (here)

More complaints from El Gordo on the same thread.
 
Quote
[Contrast this to the tone and substance of remarks -- with a lot of personalities including violation of privacy, slanderous equation of design thought and biblical Creationism, gleeful batting into the air of accusations against me in Caribbean media that had to be corrected, etc -- made over many weeks at Anti Evo; a site with which If i recall correctly, you seem to be at least somewhat associated as a participant. I won't even bother to link what was said at that site about a respectable Grandmother, Mrs O'Leary, at the same site -- there is utterly no excuse whatsoever for reprobate and utterly disgracefully uncivil behaviour like that.

"respectable grandmother"?

Kinda like the crazy cat lady, or the old woman who covers her house in layers of plastic, are respected pillars of the community and icons of rational thought.

Date: 2009/04/25 23:19:34, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ April 25 2009,22:31)
Quote (Lowell @ April 25 2009,16:30)
What is Gordon complaining about here?
 
Quote
longstanding patterns of Anti Evo [which have included privacy violation and gleeful citation of unsubstantiated criticisms in the media that the newspaper in question had to allow a correction of].

I suspect the "privacy violation" is the fact that everybody knows his real name (which is his own fault, as I recall, and wouldn't be a "privacy violation" in any case).

But what's the newspaper criticism stuff about? It sounds like I may have missed something funny.

He's referring to an article in the Jamaica Gleaner that criticizes him and other fundamentalists and includes this nifty and quite accurate characterization:
Quote
But Gordon Mullings, well-meaning but with a surfeit of zeal over knowledge...

You can imagine how our KF fumed over that one.

I have to wonder at the cherry-picking for this (from the article)
Quote
The fact is that despite the fact that the Bible does place - from Old to New Testament - a strong emphasis on individual liberty, if secular society did not place as strong an emphasis on pluralism and democracy, there are Christians, not just on the fringe, who would seek to establish their version of God's rule on the rest of us


Did he miss out the rules for slaves, how to enslave them (etc), or all the submission to God (to the point of sacrificing the first borns - including your kids)?  Hardly surprising, but still it'd be nice if they'd at least admit that you can read whatever you want to, since the books were written by different people in different circumstances for different people and reasons.

Date: 2009/04/26 12:20:25, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (khan @ April 26 2009,11:18)
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 26 2009,09:57)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 26 2009,07:51)
Fun with BIG numbers!

   
Quote
William Dembski: Public Service: Visualizing a Trillion

Trillions are much in the news lately regarding the economy. Such large numbers also come up in the small probability arguments inherent in design inferences (small probabilities are reciprocals of large numbers).



And that is only about one hundredth of the number of bacteria in the average human gut, or one hundred billionth of the number of bacteria in humanity's collective gut, which is only a fraction of the number of symbiotes in the guts of termites or cows.

Would I be right in thinking that wMad took these pictures from off the web somewhere without attribution?

It does look familiar.

This was going around  the net and emails a short time ago.  The pagetutor link, IIRC, in the images link given, was the one where I saw it at.

Date: 2009/04/27 10:17:10, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (khan @ April 26 2009,16:49)
Quote (dhogaza @ April 26 2009,17:38)
Guess which Expelled "victim" of "Darwinist authoritarianism" is seeking additional martyrdom by becoming a vocal climate science denialist?

Serious fucking stupid.

Wading through the stupid, I liked this (note the ironic name of the poster)
Quote
Just Want Truth... (21:37:20) :
“None of the major climate changes in the last 1000 years can be explained by co2….. The sun is driving climate change. Co2 is irrelevant.”

–Piers Corbyn
-solar physisist
-WeatherAction.com
-’The SuperWeatherman’


He does have a Physics degree, but he also takes bets on the weather as his business.  He sounds like a real winner.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

Date: 2009/04/28 23:57:00, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Skullboy @ April 28 2009,23:23)
That same thread keeps on giving.
VD:
   
Quote
Look at it this way. X=designer and Y=design. We know Y exists, so it is equal to at least 1. Dawkins states that X MUST be greater than Y. I contradict and state that X may or may not be greater than Y. We don't have a value for X, but we do know that if there is no designer, then X=0, obviously. However, we know that 0 is not greater than 1, therefore Dawkins has to be incorrect.


Never argue with a Sicilian when death is on the line!

WTF?  Start out with "We know that Y exists" - since when?  We have the appearance of design, but they still need to try to show that "Y = 1"

Not only that, but the writer has no clue as to what the argument is.  Completely clueless.  :O

Date: 2009/05/02 11:35:33, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,11:04)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
   
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

No, your wish is that life requires your particular idea of god.  Since all testable claims for gods have not panned out, the evidence leans on the side of "God requires Life (to imagine it)."

Date: 2009/05/02 11:38:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (olegt @ May 02 2009,10:14)
I found this amusing:
 
Quote
Given the paradox of Maxwell’s Demon,63 which indicates the ability of an information source to decrease entropy over time, the Law of Conservation of Information might actually prove more basic than the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The title of Leo Szilard’s celebrated 1929 paper on Maxwell’s Demon is worth recalling here: “On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings.”64 The information source that for Szilard reverses entropy is intelligent. Likewise, the LCI Regress, as noted in the last bullet point, suggests that intelligence is ultimately the source of the information that accounts for successful search.


For one thing, it's an instance of quote mining.  In the article Szillard stresses that a Maxwell demon need not be an intelligent being:  
Quote
As long as we allow intelligent beings to perform the intervention, a direct test is not possible.  But we can try to describe simple nonliving devices that effect such couplings and see if indeed entropy is generated and in what quantity.  Having already recognized that the only important factor is a certain characteristic type of coupling, a "measurement", we need not construct any complicated models which imitate the intervention of living beings in detail.  We can be satisfied with the construction of this particular type of coupling which is accompanied by memory.  (p. 130)

As we have seen in this example, a simple inanimate device can achieve the same essential result as would be achieved by intelligent beings.  We have the examined the "biological phenomena" of a nonliving device and have seen that it generates exactly the quantity of entropy which is required by thermodynamics.  (p. 132)

And if Billy and Gloppy insist on an intelligent demon, they should take into account the entropy he produces.  A human body dumps about 100 watts of heat into the colder atmosphere, which is an irreversible process.  A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the amount of entropy generated every second is of order 1021 bits.  The demon will have to work pretty hard to offset that entropy increase.  To do so, he must perform calculations at a rate exceeding 1016 terabytes per second.  For comparison, the world's internet traffic is about 160 terabytes per second.  So unless their intelligent agent is a spirit without a body, his entropy will overwhelm his information input by multiple orders of magnitude.

And LCI supplanting the second law of thermodynamics?  That's delusions of grandeur.

Hey, give them a break.  At least they kept the paper to within the last hundred years.  That's an improvement over many others they refer to.

Date: 2009/05/07 10:40:45, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,10:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 07 2009,10:08)
I <3 Tom English.  

"<3" ?

Is that teh interwebs symbol for "offer my bottom to"?

It could also be "I wear a birthday hat and show my boobies to."

Date: 2009/05/08 22:42:33, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (rhmc @ May 08 2009,20:37)
so no flood data and no bottleneck data.

sigh.

ya'll done broke another one.

I'm sure he's posting somewhere else describing his huge victory to the gullible masses.

Date: 2009/05/08 22:54:12, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (olegt @ May 08 2009,19:59)
StephenB reveals his proof of a personal Creator.  Enjoy.  
Quote
An impersonal law cannot be responsible for the universe or the laws that regulate it. It must be a personal creator.

1: Premise: For all impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed, none can begin in time.

2. Therefore: All effects that have always existed could not have begun to exist

3. Therefore: All impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed could not have begun in time.

4: Therefore, no effect can begin to exist if its impersonal, unchanging cause always was.

5: Therefore: No impersonal, unchanging cause can begin to exist if its effect always was.

6: Therefore, no impersonal, unchanging cause can exist without its effect.

7: Therefore, no effect can exist without its impersonal, unchanging cause.

8: Therefore, the impersonal, unchanging law cannot cause the universe to begin to exist.

9: The universe began to exist.

10: Therefore, a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist.

I tried to work that out one at a time, but..... ;)

Seriously, I'm not the greatest in logical arguments - I'm still learning how to do it correctly, even if I can figure out most of the common creationist/theist arguments (even such stupidity such as used by Plantiga), but...WTF?

If nothing else, how does he switch from cause and effect to law?  Is this the common misunderstanding that laws do not cause anything, they merely describe what we have discovered?

Date: 2009/05/09 12:56:53, Link
Author: Badger3k
Just yesterday I was in our attendance office when a student walked out of one of our assistant principals' offices, yelling about how he was leaving, and he didn't care about going to alternative, and all that.  We see the same with Daniel, who, after losing everything, still proclaims that he has won, that he has stumped everyone with his brilliance.

I do notice his claims about the face on Mars, and how we all assumed a designer like us, when that is false (I started before that) and misleading (most others accepted the idea that the face was not natural and a designer was needed, looking at how we could tell that), but why should Daniel stop lying now.  Or maybe he's just so far gone that he actually can't tell.  Not sure which is sadder.

Date: 2009/05/09 13:26:18, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 09 2009,12:49)
Responses to StephenB here and following (scroll past the kairosfocus).

Oh my non-existent deity -
(post 288), StephenB, responding to David Kellogg:
Quote
—David: “I give up. You have proven the existence of a personal God in 10 easy steps. If everybody had your 10 steps memorized nobody would doubt anything. Philosophy is easy!”

Philosophy is not easy, which is why the argument requires ten steps. It a lot harder to build and argument that it is to say, “I am not convinced, show me more.”



:O

Date: 2009/05/12 01:11:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 11 2009,20:31)
Question for the group:

Does Daniel's departure count as a flounce out?

a) yes

b)  
Quote
I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.


c)  
Quote
I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.


d) all of the above

Please show your work...

I don't have to show my work - you have to disprove all of my work, which is immune to examination, and anyway, it changes depending on my arguments.  So there.

With a bad knee, I can't flounce, but I'll give it a try if I have to.  :)

Date: 2009/05/13 23:11:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 13 2009,21:04)
As far as my reading was concerned, this was the kicker ( in addition to the other homoerotic implications I've already listed) :
     
Quote
There was an erotic aura around The Dawk, almost palpable. http://telicthoughts.com/behe/#comment-222423


But chunkdz also says, in this thread: " There is nothing even mildly erotic about my story."

Yet, there it is. So, what of the use of the word "erotic?"  

 
Quote
e·rot·ic  
1. arousing or satisfying sexual desire: an erotic dance.  
2. of, pertaining to, or treating of sexual love; amatory: an erotic novel.
 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erotic
 




He also refers to it as an "epic love story" about "man-love" ...while simultaneously claiming it's as unepic as " "thanks for the awesome barbecue."

Lies piling on lies. Tsk.

Well, Larry Craig also just had a wide stance...

Date: 2009/05/13 23:22:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,21:29)
Yes, fame has an erotic allure to it. One might say fame and fortune have an "erotic aura" about them. It's a literary device, moron. What if I had said "The Dawk had an intoxicating aura around him"? Would you then insist that I was suggesting that Nick was an alcoholic?

Fame and fortune are erotic and intoxicating for the opposite sex.  Sorry - I've seen Dawkins speaking, and if the lines were shorter would have met him too, but there was nothing erotic or intoxicating about him.  Sorry.  I've been to a lot of concerts and even gotten close to some of the musicians, and the only erotic ones were the females (and then only if they were attractive).  I just saw Springsteen a short time ago, my second concert, and he has fame and fortune, and sorry, I can't say it was either of your "literary devices."  You write like a cheap romance novel, or slash fiction (from the little I've heard of it).

Maybe you need to rethink your own sexuality.

Date: 2009/05/14 22:56:24, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote
the way you imagine that your victories in the culture war have ignited my fury


Are we sure that he didn't mean "furry" - maybe in his next offering, Dawkins can be wearing a squirrel suit, and whoever the guy is can be dressed as a catgirl (are there even cat-boys?).  Just keeps getting better.

Date: 2009/05/14 23:31:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 14 2009,23:11)
Quote (Badger3k @ May 14 2009,23:56)
 
Quote
the way you imagine that your victories in the culture war have ignited my fury


Are we sure that he didn't mean "furry" - maybe in his next offering, Dawkins can be wearing a squirrel suit, and whoever the guy is can be dressed as a catgirl (are there even cat-boys?).  Just keeps getting better.

erm maybe he prefers badgers?

can't post that hilarious picture


here is a disturbing exchange about christian furries that is a must read.  i guess.

Great!  Now I can't sleep for fear of getting...er....badgered!

Gotta post it Badgers!

Date: 2009/05/14 23:41:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 14 2009,23:33)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 14 2009,23:20)
 
Quote
i bet he plays electric bass, shittily, in a bill gaither cover band


i changed my mind.  that's too old school.

drunkchz seems like a child of the eighties or sumtin

how about Stryper

I dunno. Chunk seems like a rasslin' type. Sweaty mens, hands sliding over tight singlets, ocular teabagging **.

That sort of thing.



**Sadly, I lost the .gif I used for GoP. I'll have to check my dvd's

I keep meaning to put a link up for General JC Christian, Patriot (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/) to get his opinion of the marvelous writin' skillz of Chunky, but this comment about wrestling brings this to mind:

Trading Emails with Hi-Caliber
Quote
Thanks Mr. Caliber. We'd probably want to have a song about gladiators too, because I'm thinking I'd want to call it "God's Gladiators." Maybe it could be like a theme album about a Christian gladiator who loves the Lord and fights the urges to pat his robertson and engage in acts of sodomy with the same gusto he brings to battling Goths in the arena. I can even picture the cover. It'd be a statue in the ancient style of the Romans. You know, one of those naked warrior things. But it would be you, holding a sword and wearing a gladiator helmet and nothing else. And we'd cover you with flour to make you look like a statue. I'm not really into nakedness, but this would be like art. No skin would be shown because of the flour. We'd have to really work it in though, especially on your little gladiator. It'd have to look like marble.

I have the sword and gladiator helmet. I'm a collector. I bet I have the most extensive collection of gladiator movies anywhere. I like to put on my gladiator costumes and watch them. You should come sometime. We'd drink root beer, eat Frito pie and pork rinds, watch gladiator movies, and wrestle. That'd be fun.


Just don't tell Cletus!

Date: 2009/05/14 23:43:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 14 2009,23:33)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 14 2009,23:20)
 
Quote
i bet he plays electric bass, shittily, in a bill gaither cover band


i changed my mind.  that's too old school.

drunkchz seems like a child of the eighties or sumtin

how about Stryper

I dunno. Chunk seems like a rasslin' type. Sweaty mens, hands sliding over tight singlets, ocular teabagging **.

That sort of thing.



**Sadly, I lost the .gif I used for GoP. I'll have to check my dvd's

What about

Date: 2009/05/14 23:45:45, Link
Author: Badger3k
Shoot - replied to the wrong one.  Loses a bit in the translation, but the original Santo (Samson) the "Silver-Mask Man" (as in MST3ks wonderful Samson vs the Vampire Women).

Date: 2009/05/20 01:01:02, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 20 2009,00:20)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ May 19 2009,22:39)
For chemists out there. Is the following true:

The fact that they did the experiment in strict order and purified in between was to increase the probability of the reaction occurring.
Now they only had a beaker and a short period of time, but if you had an ocean and millions of years you would not need to be as careful.

Now I know that this is only one possible path but could the probability of the reaction occurring be calculated.

Better yet, think of sea water carried deep underground by plate tectonics and then circulating within the earth, being heated and cooled as it passes hot spots, dissolving all sorts of chemicals from the rocks it's squeezing through and the surfaces of those rocks being full of sites that act as catalysts by holding atoms in place long enough for them to join together.

Then reflect on the fact that living microbes have been found in abundance thousands of meters below the surface and that the microbes down there appear to be more ancient than surface life and the warm tidal pool or ocean looks less and less necessary to create life.

Or, as Dr. Dr. D. would say, "Who PUT those rocks there?"

Aah, you don't even need to ask about the rocks.  Have you ever seen a rockoduck?  

Intercourse the penguin!  I run rings around your logic!

:p

Date: 2009/05/20 01:13:59, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 20 2009,00:53)
SpitfireIXA shoots himself down
Quote
41

SpitfireIXA

05/19/2009

9:41 pm

Diffaxial at 36:

Quote
Describe a prediction regarding human evolution offered by ID, and describe the empirical adjudication of the accuracy of that prediction.


Prediction one: Vestigial Organs.

Darwinism says that there should be such useless organs in the human body, ID says little or none. ID won.

This error by Darwinism had negative consequences such as routine removal of “useless” tonsils and adenoids, lobotomies.

More importantly, Darwinism imposed a “show-stopper” on the study of these “useless” organs.

Lobotomies?  Are brains vestigial organs?

Do you really need to ask that?

Date: 2009/05/23 18:56:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (jeannot @ May 23 2009,17:36)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ May 23 2009,16:34)
Quote
“The Ultimate Proof of Creation” will show readers how to identify and refute the most common errors in evolutionary reasoning. ...

... which will definitely constitue the "Ultimate proof of creation".  ???

I'm glad they can spot logical fallacies.... :O

Date: 2009/05/27 23:10:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (dmso74 @ May 27 2009,22:57)
Quote (BWE @ May 27 2009,18:38)
   
Quote
To the editor:

In his article “On the Origin of the Immune System” (Science, May 1, 2009) John Travis makes the same mistake as did the judge in the 2005 Dover trial — badly confusing the notions of intelligent design, common descent, and evolution. Citing the courtroom theatrics of the lawyers who piled a stack of textbooks and articles in front of me, Travis quotes me as remarking “They’re wonderful articles. ... They simply just don’t address the question I pose.” Unfortunately, Travis seems uninterested in what that question might be. Instead he cheers, “Score one for evolution.”

Although some news reporters, lawyers, and parents are confused on the topic, “intelligent design” is not the opposite of “evolution.”

from the amazon letters.

Behe is now officially the cranky old man writing angry letters to the editor from his basement. I hope they're written on a manual typewriter..

Well, pipe bombs are intelligently designed...

Actually, if he's the cranky old man, does that mean there's a Grampa Tard in addition to Granny Tard?

Date: 2009/06/01 10:10:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (J-Dog @ June 01 2009,10:01)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 01 2009,09:36)
 
Quote (keiths @ June 01 2009,09:23)
Gil reveals the self-hatred that is at the root of his faith:
   
Quote
3

GilDodgen
05/31/2009
8:05 pm

Bill,

As you know, I am a former militant atheist. When confronted with the evidence, I could no longer muster enough faith to remain an atheist.

The evidence of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the information-processing systems of living things was only the beginning. This alone should have been enough, but there was much more.

A few years after my first daughter was born, after a long and very painful infertility ordeal , I looked in her eyes and was repulsed by myself — indeed, nauseated — by the darkness and nihilism I knew would be the legacy I would leave her. I somehow knew that she was a great gift from God.

Thus began a reexamination of myself. Contrary to conventional, contemporary, secular thinking, I’m not okay, you’re not okay, and not one of us is okay. We all have a great capacity for creativity, compassion, and altruism, but also a dark side that would compel us to perform unspeakable acts of cruelty and degeneracy, given the right circumstances.  History has demonstrated this over and over again, and every attempt to create utopia on earth through human effort has resulted in the exact opposite.

Therefore, the Judeo-Christian characterization of the human condition makes perfect, logical sense to me: made in God’s image but in a fallen state. And, therefore, the only solution would seem to be a changed human heart, one individual at a time.

gil has a baby jesus butt plug that he just can't bear to part with

bolding by me to highlight the WTF Stylings of Gil Dodge'em

Holy Shit!  That boys got prtoblems - and I don't think Dembski and his Merry Band Of Sycophants are the ones to cure him...

Talk about logical falacies!  Denyse has got nuthin on the Man With The Frills That Chill! :)

added in edit ps: WTFR is that "long and painful infertilty ordeal?????  Uh Gil - If it's painful, I think your doing it wrong!!!!!~!

Well, he didn't say that it was painful for him....

Date: 2009/06/01 10:11:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ June 01 2009,10:10)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 01 2009,10:01)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 01 2009,09:36)
 
Quote (keiths @ June 01 2009,09:23)
Gil reveals the self-hatred that is at the root of his faith:
   
Quote
3

GilDodgen
05/31/2009
8:05 pm

Bill,

As you know, I am a former militant atheist. When confronted with the evidence, I could no longer muster enough faith to remain an atheist.

The evidence of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the information-processing systems of living things was only the beginning. This alone should have been enough, but there was much more.

A few years after my first daughter was born, after a long and very painful infertility ordeal , I looked in her eyes and was repulsed by myself — indeed, nauseated — by the darkness and nihilism I knew would be the legacy I would leave her. I somehow knew that she was a great gift from God.

Thus began a reexamination of myself. Contrary to conventional, contemporary, secular thinking, I’m not okay, you’re not okay, and not one of us is okay. We all have a great capacity for creativity, compassion, and altruism, but also a dark side that would compel us to perform unspeakable acts of cruelty and degeneracy, given the right circumstances.  History has demonstrated this over and over again, and every attempt to create utopia on earth through human effort has resulted in the exact opposite.

Therefore, the Judeo-Christian characterization of the human condition makes perfect, logical sense to me: made in God’s image but in a fallen state. And, therefore, the only solution would seem to be a changed human heart, one individual at a time.

gil has a baby jesus butt plug that he just can't bear to part with

bolding by me to highlight the WTF Stylings of Gil Dodge'em

Holy Shit!  That boys got prtoblems - and I don't think Dembski and his Merry Band Of Sycophants are the ones to cure him...

Talk about logical falacies!  Denyse has got nuthin on the Man With The Frills That Chill! :)

added in edit ps: WTFR is that "long and painful infertilty ordeal?????  Uh Gil - If it's painful, I think your doing it wrong!!!!!~!

Well, he didn't say that it was painful for him....

Shoot - didn't make that clear enough.  Not physical pain, just the pain of having sex with him multiple times.  That would be painful for any woman.

Date: 2009/06/03 09:54:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 03 2009,09:36)
Quote (blipey @ June 03 2009,09:35)
Wow.  They seem like nice guys.  How again is Vox qualified to lecture the British electorate?

He's read the bible.

And he's in MENSA.  Can't forget that.  And he carries a sword in his picture - surely that means something in a somewhat monarchy.

Date: 2009/06/06 10:52:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ June 05 2009,14:40)
SalTard mangles Gödel, divergent series, and the uncountably infinite, and in the process tries lamely to inject faith and free will into the discussion:
Quote
For the reader’s benefit, the Banach-Tarkski paradox is likened to creation ex-nihilo. Using ones mind and imagination, one create something out of nothing mathematically.

To illustrate using the Grandi Series

0 = 0 + 0 + 0 ……

0 = [1 -1] + [ 1-1] ….

but using the rules of association

0 = 1 + [-1 + 1] + [-1 + 1] ….

0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0

0 = 1

Yikes!!!!!!!

See:
Grandi Series

Another example, consider the real numbers between 0 and 2. For every real number between 0 and 2 we can map to every real number between 0 and 1.

That is let

f(x) = x/2

where x is a number between 0 and 2.

But this is like black magic! Intuitively we would think there as twice as many points in the interval between 0 and 2 as there are between 0 and 1, but that is not the case!

Do these counter-intuitive results imply we have a logically inconsistent system? Is it possible our axiomatic systems which we can build ordinary arithmetic are self-contradictory? We accept by faith they are not.

Godel showed we can create statements from our axiomatic systems which say:

1. A is true
2. or not-A is true

But we know from logic, this is deeply disturbing when we have systems were there is a free will choice of choosing A and not-A and coming up with perfectly valid arguments. There is free will in mathematics after all.


No, Sal, we don't accept consistency on faith.  And what Gödel showed was that any complete formal system of arithmetic is necessarily inconsistent, while any consistent system is necessarily incomplete. Not being total idiots, we (the rest of us, anyway) opt for consistency over completeness.

And if it were true that the ability to create inconsistent systems is a hallmark of free will, then the entire philosophical debate over free will would have ended long ago.

I'm not a math-guy anyway, but I'm learning.  I can see, from the link, how he gets the "1+(-1+1)" but, but didn't he mangle the sum?  If I understand it correctly, the Sum of the numbers (well, a partial sum, since it is an infinite series and has no end, but we can extrapolate) is either 0 or 1.  Stating the equation as "0=" is incorrect.  It should be S= 0 or 1, depending on the arrangement of the numbers.

Is that about right?  Anybody comment on whether I understand this or not?

Date: 2009/06/28 19:58:15, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2009,18:20)
Moon Landing Denialism?

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009....es.html

Why am I not surprised?

Date: 2009/07/02 20:47:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 02 2009,19:17)
Quote (didymos @ July 02 2009,18:56)
Quote (Maya @ July 02 2009,16:53)
Wow, all it takes is one picture to stop all the guys here from posting.

Someone should post that at UD.

Yeah, srsly, Deadman.  That sock's hypnotic gaze is totally freaking me out, man. :p


Can't....stop...staring...
It has some kind of sockshual power over me. I think I'm in love.

My bad knee hurts no more!

Sockshual Healing?

Date: 2009/07/08 17:46:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 08 2009,17:23)
DATCG tells us more about his family than I think we should know:
Quote
In regards to Eugenics, please read Darwin’s own descendents use of Eugenics and Darwin’s beliefs. See: Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin.


Should somebody tell DATCG that cousins are not descendants in most families?  :O

Maybe he lives here in the South.  I hear familial marriage is a requirement in some states.

Date: 2009/07/08 20:23:18, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 08 2009,18:59)
Quote (Badger3k @ July 08 2009,18:46)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 08 2009,17:23)
DATCG tells us more about his family than I think we should know:  
Quote
In regards to Eugenics, please read Darwin’s own descendents use of Eugenics and Darwin’s beliefs. See: Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin.


Should somebody tell DATCG that cousins are not descendants in most families?  :O

Maybe he lives here in the South.  I hear familial marriage is a requirement in some states.

yeah in your moms state.

i think DATCG might be deep cover.

that or truly stupid.

Illinois?  (well, her ex-state, she's dead now)

Now if you said my adopted state (Texas)....you probably have a point.  Just look at Cynthia Dunbar - she has to be the product of a human and box turtle (just ask Cornyn).  Hell, we have to claim the ex-president Humanzee as well as High Priest Perry.  Gak!

As for the rest - it's too bad there can't be some kind of signal so we'd know if they were socks or not, but I guess that would take some (ok, maybe all) of the fun out of it.

Date: 2009/07/09 07:45:10, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 08 2009,21:27)
yeah badger anyone would be doing well to disassociate themselves with texas.  a shame really, great landscape full of tards.

like about everywhere really.  i just went to pennsylvania recently and was surprised at how stupid the drunk rednecks were.  thought i was back home but i wasn't.  makes me wish there really was a culture war but there ain't.  takes two to tango and this bunch is tilting at reflections

I'm not so sure I want to totally disassociate myself with the state.  At least I can say with (some form of) pride that we do grow 'em bigger in Texas - including Tards!  Why, the herds of Tard today stretch for miles and miles from the Tard Ranch.  If it wasn't for the heat, I'm sure the DI would move down here to join the masses!

Date: 2009/07/09 07:49:12, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (djmullen @ July 09 2009,01:18)
didymos:
 
Quote
I'd love to do a full compare and contrast between the two once "Hitler's Ethic" is out, but $68 is a ridiculous price to pay for Weikart.

I can only see three reasons for a book to be priced that high.

1: It might cost that much to produce the book.  Examples would be "coffee table" books, large format books full of color illustrations.  "Hitler's Ethic" doesn't appear to be one of those.

2: Because the publishers realize they've got a turkey on their hands and don't expect to sell many copies, so they price it high in order to make back their fixed costs.  "Hitler's Ethic" may very well be one of these.

3: Because any one who wants to refute the book will have to buy a copy first and few people have $68.88 to throw away on a piece of crap book.  This cuts way back on criticism.

I'd say it's either number 2 or 3.

Hey now, I think $68 is pretty cheap for a human being, but only for purchase.  As a rental...it depends on how long, and in what condition I have to give him back.

Other than that, I have a new measure (I hope) - I don't think I have a bacon number that is measureable, but I once saw Richard Dawkins on tour, who has met Ken Miller, who knows John Kwok - I have a Kwokfactor of 3!  (Or is that a bad thing?)

Date: 2009/07/09 18:57:07, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2009,18:51)
Casey Luskin:

 
Quote

If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today.


Casey, perhaps you ought to have a word with fellow IDC advocate Forrest Mims on whether publication of recordings taken without permission are a bad thing or not.

Wasn't Luskin a lawyer, or am I thinking of someone else?  Of course, the legality of taping a conversation varies from state to state (and by country too), so his threat is probably empty.  I am also not sure if the legality only applies towards admissibility as evidence or if the taping itself is considered illegal.

Date: 2009/07/09 21:30:31, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 09 2009,21:21)
Joe G.:
 
Quote
191
Joseph
07/09/2009
6:45 pm
sparc,

Calm down.

I just had major knee surgery last Tuesday and I am still in recovery mode...trying to formulate ideas when I am living on pain-killers isn’t going to happen.

Joe, I'm not sure quite how to break this to you.

He never said anything about GOOD ideas, did he?  :D

Date: 2009/07/13 20:12:00, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ July 13 2009,19:22)
Another pile of stupid from Denyse.  After quoting a Wall Street Journal article on quantum entanglement and quantum encryption, she writes:
Quote
We live in a mysterious world, where uncertainty is better for security than certainty - but at the quantum level only. The person who left his keys stuck in the front door all night is one dumb bunny and can be grateful that most thieves wouldn’t expect to get so lucky, which is why he was the first person to discover the problem in the morning.

One thing that is not particularly useful just now is blind, dogmatic certainty, and I have heard that from too many scientists on panels and podiums recently.

I believe that axe has been ground to a nub, Denyse.

Sproing!  Damn Irony Meter exploded on that comment - "Blind, dogmati certainty" ?

All she left out is the Bannination process, and she'd have a perfect description of UD.

PS - Before my hard drive crashed, I had an image or smile of something like an irony meter exploding.  I thought I got it from here.  If anybody has something like that, can you please post it.  Love to use it, since it happens so much.

Date: 2009/07/15 15:01:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Looking through all the Kwok-posts on the Intersection blog, I was wondering if we could get Chunky to write a tale of Kwok and Miller.  I think it'd be a best seller. :O

Date: 2009/07/18 10:38:11, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JLT @ July 18 2009,09:48)
And then we have this:

Only aquatic animals have voluntary breathing, without which talking is impossible. Only aquatic animals cry salt tears, and use what started out as aquatic osmosis-glands for sweating on land, which is proof we didn’t start on the savannah (since we’d be baboons), but only got there later.

I may be going out on a limb, but I am assuming that animals that can snort or make other vocalizations are doing so "voluntarily" (which can be hard to prove, depending on how you define it), so....what about all those aquatic howler monkeys, mountain goats and camels, to name three.  Does he think "ships of the desert" refers to the camels trans-oceanic voyages?

Date: 2009/07/19 11:01:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
[quote=didymos,July 19 2009,09:59]
Quote (didymos @ July 18 2009,23:37)
...and I think we all can sense that Denyse is full of it.

That's all that needs to be said.

Date: 2009/09/12 13:47:14, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 12 2009,13:39)
Someone mentioned a while back that GAB of TALKY makes a kind of sense when one hypothesizes that words are magickal to him.

I've seen that among a handful of religious fanatics, but not to quite the same degree as in Gordon Mullings.

 
Quote
"Far away across the field,
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees,
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
(apologies to Roger Waters)


In Mullings' case, the words don't have to be soft, or make a valid point, or even sense. There just has to be lots of them, arranged in magickal patterns that can be repeated ad nauseam to placate the angry gods and comfort the believers.

When I look at his posts that way, they do make a kind of sense.

Maybe he's actually speaking in tongues, and it is our pattern seeking brains that try to make sense of it.

Date: 2009/10/03 13:32:46, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,12:40)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,11:03)
Quote
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.


Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.

Explain to us why you don't think that God is a necessary requirement for explaining the science of how water flows downhill, yet, think that God, or more precisely, GODPOOFEDIT is the only explanation necessary, under pain of eternal torment at the hands of God, for explaining the origin and diversity of life?

I think a better analogy might be that since evolution is an ongoing process, a comparable non-biological function might be the weather.  I know YHVH was supposed to have been a sky or mountain god, but is He behind every cloud that forms, every breeze that blows, etc...

Date: 2009/10/03 15:55:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2009,14:00)
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009....ii.html

Quote
cshizzle: 10/3/09 11:08 AM:
At the conclusion of this discourse with Luke on why you are a Christian, would you be interested in going into a full blown debate with him about evolution?


No, let someone else take the next crack. I'm really not interested in debating evolution with anyone who doesn't have a PhD in biology. The average individual can't be expected to have any idea what I'm talking about, as we've seen already.

Well, he has part of that right, but not for the reasons he thinks.  I read a bit of the first posting of the letter/exchange with Vox and Luke, and the lack of empathy, humanity, and even basic logical thought among the Voxtards is simply incredible.  At least some of them are just naked in their belief that they are right because they are right.  I'd say it was surprising, but having seen Teddy and his echo chamber or tard, it would take a lot to surprise me about him.

Date: 2009/10/04 21:29:34, Link
Author: Badger3k
Rich - is that you commenting on this thread (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3660)?

I love the strength of the arguments - you had a believer in Plantiga's BS.  There's the guy who thinks that religion exists, and this proves...god?...I'm not sure.  People believe that Kunoiki footpads, and coffee enemas, work.  And that since a belief in gods is old, then atheists (a "new" theory) have to prove that they are wrong, completely ignoring the fact that these religions have yet to prove that they are right in the first place.  I think he's also the evolution denier, but as one of Teddy's drones, I'm sure there is a lot of denialism going on.  Then you have the postmodernist.  Nice collection.

Date: 2009/10/08 11:14:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 08 2009,10:28)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 08 2009,09:12][/quote]
Quote
Quote
I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.

Sure, Dale, I'd be shocked if that kind of thing took place.  I think anyone with a working knowledge of John 3:16 would be visibly surprised.


Hmmmm...not really. Anyone with a real working knowledge of John 3:16 would realize they are just words on a page of paper that have no more or less significance that what one can find in any newspaper, paperback, encyclopedia, and comic book.

By the same token, we can point to the Koran, which contradicts John 3:16.  Or the Book of Mormon, the Rig Veda, etc, etc - why should we give any one credence over any other?  They all seem to have the same "evidence" for being true as each other, so they each seem to have the same probability of being true (I'd personally rate it as a fraction of a percent, but hey...).  Floyd pointing to his texts as reason to believe he is right is laughable to someone who does not already believe.

Date: 2009/10/08 23:13:51, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,13:54)
Quote
Doesn't matter, Floyd. The parrot is dead. Learn to accept that and move on, working through your stages of loss and grief.



According to the Kübler-Ross model, the five stages of grief are:

1-Denial
2-Anger
3-Bargaining
4-Depression
5-Acceptance

So far, Yodel Elf has only shown signs of (1), with a hypocritical form of (3). He surely* needs to move on...

 
Quote
Understood, but can you at least let me know if you have any success getting that Christian clergyman on board with his perspective?  
He would be the only Christian in this forum, in all the pages of this thread, to actually step up to the plate in terms of offering specific reconciliations with which to negate the Big Five.  

(If he chooses to offer them, that is.)

FloydLee


I've come to the conclusion that losing my and this poor priest's time to answer your blatant sillyness is beyond the scope of logic. Sorry there Yodel Elf, but it would be useless. As for christians on this forum, they have adressed your main claim "evolution and christianism are incompatible" with compelling clarity. If YOU are not able to assimilate their views and answers, it is entirely YOUR problem...







*My name is NOT Shirley!

Aargh!  From what I have heard, and this is apparently from Kubler-Ross herself, is that not every individual will go through all the stages, or even perhaps in that order.  I heard that from a lecture somewhere, and even wikipedia has it
Quote
Kübler-Ross claimed these steps do not necessarily come in the order noted above, nor are all steps experienced by all patients, though she stated a person will always experience at least two. Often, people will experience several stages in a "roller coaster" effect - switching between two or more stages, returning to one or more several times before working through it.[1]

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Santrock, J.W. (2007). A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development. New York: McGraw-Hill


I don't have her book so I can't verify this, but it fits what I heard.  So we may not even see all the stages.  This may be it.

...

Shirley :)

Date: 2009/10/08 23:17:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Damn - the Aargh! was in response to the idea that Kubler-Ross was a set pattern, which was not what you said (I don't think you even implied it), nor was it an attempt to sound like a pirate to prevent global warming.

...

yarr!

Date: 2009/10/18 12:48:28, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 18 2009,11:55)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 18 2009,08:56)
Quote
pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility


What???  Now you tell me!!

I am sure that we got infallibility along with the secret handshake, and keys to the universe.

BTW, Has anybody seen my keys around? I know I had them at the last EAC human sacrifice and drinking contest.

Didn't you drop them - I think they "fossilized" and were found by someone...

Date: 2009/10/20 22:56:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 20 2009,21:49)
Quote
Get your tickets today! Remember, it's October 23-24, 2009, the ROCKIN' RAGNAROK OF RECKONING!

Two men enter, one man leaves...

Henry

Ah, hell, there ya' go - Rich is gonna get exited again.  Jest the thought of two men entering...

Who has the banana?

Date: 2009/10/21 10:40:39, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 21 2009,10:14)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,11:04)
the fact is that human sin has created a fallen world in which animals, sharing in the Curse, are liable to be killed when God is forced to execute His judgment on humanity (think of all the dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits living in Sodom and Gomorrah when the titanic Blast struck those cities).

It seems pretty clear that God doesn't give two shits about the animals if He's punishing them for the sins of man.

YHWH doesn't care about anybody.  He punishes the innocent all the time, both of the human variety of animal and others.  Killings the (most probably mythical) David's son as punishment for David's transgressions?  No problem for the ultimate bully, which is what YHWH is.  The defense - God has the power, he created everything, he can do what he wants.  

It's all about power and fear, and his followers try to emulate that.  Even Floyd's ignoring all the questions has biblical basis - you dare question God?  You have no right, and He owes no answers.  Same for Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/22 10:16:38, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 21 2009,15:00)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
.

Quote
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
Yeah as Evolution, the science, really doesn't deal with "man's indomitable spirit" the Philosophy.  My dear sir, you confuse philosophical constructs with scientific evidence.
Quote
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.

Wait a minute - "Ground the dignity of the person?"

This from a religion that considers everybody evil and worthy of eternal torture unless they worship their torturer?  Where is the dignity in that?

Date: 2009/10/29 10:50:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 28 2009,22:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 28 2009,21:52)
but can he bench press more than you can CM?

mmmm probly not but who knows

who careth?

An interesting question.  But once more irrelevant to Floyd's "argument".   :p

As if the rest of his hysterical attempt at apologetics (hint Floyd, apologetics and biblical scholarship are on opposite sides).  Using CARM et al for biblical disputes is like using AIG for evolution.  

So far, I haven't seen where Floyd tells how Moses wrote about his own death and his burial location that exists "to this day" - was Moses a time traveller?

Date: 2009/10/29 11:02:52, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,10:51)
and answer the question in my sig line, pathetic little man

I admit that watching his tap dancing on the Titanic is funny, I think if we want to push one point, every single poster here will have to ask the same question, over and over, and not answer any other point.  It'd be hard, I'm sure, but it can be done.

I'm sure you can't find the answers at an apologetics website, but why don't you answer the question?

Date: 2009/11/05 06:56:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 05 2009,05:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,05:30)
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.

Interesting analogy.  How come I don't see much of Sherlock at the crime scene?  It seems the majority of geologists for quite some time have not been YECs.  They are the ones out in the field and in the lab doing research, trying to answer the questions.  What have these YEC geologists been doing?  Could you point me to any actual research?  It would seem that the bulk of the scientists doing the real science would disagree with you.  Why is that?

Well, I can see how YEC is Sherlock Holmes - a fictional character written by someone who believes in fairies (ie-magical beings who are not real).

Date: 2009/11/05 07:01:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 05 2009,04:40)
Quote
And anyway, if the universe was designed for human type life then why are all the other planets in the solar system unsuitable for human life? Sure, they may be outside of the "goldilocks" zone but I'd expect a designer capable of creating the universe to be able to get around such small details.

We know we are not allowed (according to types like FL) to ask questions about the mind of God; it is unfathomable, i.e. irrational. So whether chopping down an entire forest to make a matchstick or creating a vast universe when he needs only a tiny solar system, that's just the way he works, 'in mysterious ways'.

'You' can explain anything, i.e. nothing by using the Bible as 'your' vademecum.

I have another question too: Why did he go to all that trouble, creating so much misery when he could have created his heaven right away, with all of us pre-installed ready to play the harp and sing His praise? That's his goal, isn't it? What a roundabout way of doing things. But fully in accord with what to expect from the psychopathic tyrant  of the OT.

Ooh - ooh!  I know.  Free will.  It is so important for some reason for us to choose to enslave ourselves to this tyrant who needs our love, like an abusive husband, that we have to have free will and not be in heaven immediately.  If we were in heaven (which lacks free will, according to most Christians), then we wouldn't be choosing to be tortured forever.

How's that?

Date: 2009/11/05 07:04:54, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 05 2009,05:43)
Enjoy JoeG while you can.  He's decided that Hydrogen Peroxide will prevent Swine Flu:  
Quote
Swine Flu (H1N1) Vs. H2O2
OK flu season is here.

I am not going to get a flu vaccine but will rely on the science that says that the virus cannot live in an oxygenated environment.

However this means that I have to try to get back on track with my H2O2 intake.

I need to drink it 3 times a day however I have only been drinking it in the morning.

Now my wife is against this because she thinks that I will get the flu and pass it onto them. However the rest of my family are getting the vaccine(s), so they should be covered.

I have already been adding H2O2 to all the humidifiers in the house. This protocol has seemed to help keep us healthy- it only takes 2 oz of 35% food grade H2O2 per gallon of distilled water to keep your air clean from viruses.


Stay tuned...
posted by Joe G @ 7:26 AM

Link

P.S. If I were a right-wing screwball, I could also say that JoeG also has a drinking problem.

At least we know his family is at least partially sane.  What a crock o'shite.  Is his drinking problem alcohol, or is he actually drinking hydrogen peroxide?  I just did a google search on this and wasn't surprised at the amount of woo.

I guess if you believe in magical sky daddies, you might as well believe any BS.

Date: 2009/11/05 16:56:23, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 05 2009,09:36)
Yet one more string to add to that talented bow.  Author, consitutional consultant, and now ... textbook editor.  Can anyone say "Jack of all trades ... "
 
Quote

3
O'Leary
11/05/2009
8:59 am

As a sometime textbook editor with an excellent reputation, I would say that we must be clear, who are the final users? The students.

"Jackass of all tirades"?

Date: 2009/11/05 16:58:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 05 2009,16:56)
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 05 2009,09:36)
Yet one more string to add to that talented bow.  Author, consitutional consultant, and now ... textbook editor.  Can anyone say "Jack of all trades ... "
 
Quote

3
O'Leary
11/05/2009
8:59 am

As a sometime textbook editor with an excellent reputation, I would say that we must be clear, who are the final users? The students.

"Jackass of all tirades"?

Damn - should have read down before I posted.  I should have known I'd be beaten to such an obvious choice for her.

Date: 2009/11/05 17:43:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 05 2009,17:18)
Hypothetically, what if octopuses had built a civilization on the sea floor but never acquired the hobby of looking at the night sky? (After all, they'd need instruments for observations that we can make by eyeball.) What would that do to the observability/habitability correlation?

To me that sounds like something that could happen on an Earth-like planet, even if it didn't on this one.

Henry

Being able to see into space is only "privileged" if you consider astronomy and space exploration to be of value.  It has nothing to do with life or anything else.  But the argument seems to be that it's not the habitability issue, but rather "oh, it's so amazing that we can see the stars, so everything must have been done to allow that" - without assuming things like the octipoids would say "oh, how incredible it is that we can explore the deepest depths of the world-ocean, so everything must have been set up to allow us to do that."

Date: 2009/11/06 09:43:02, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 06 2009,08:29)
O'Leary's curiosity-stunting manifesto made me sorrowful. I apologise if what follows is emotional, but I must vent...

 
Quote
Given that Darwinism is the creation story of atheism, one question it all raises for me – and this was raised by a relative a decade ago – why is Darwinism even public business? Who cares why the tyrannosaur died? Whether Neanderthal man was polygamous? Like, these questions are interesting, but how did they get to be the stuff of public business – school agency hearings and such?

Public business should be about roads, sewers, water mains and culverts, and bringing people off the highway to the Emerg when their cars crash up in a blizzard, and quickly sending shelter buses for people evacuated from a serious fire.


Yes, who cares why the tyrannosaur died or how Neanderthals lived; these are only questions which we ask because people are curious and like to know stuff about the universe in which they live. Let's restrict public business to the immediately concrete necessities of everyday life like roads and putting out fires and pulling people from snowdrifts. Let's not spend anything to ask questions and answer them simply for curiosity's sake; let's close down public funding of things which don't produce doctors and engineers - all you university-dwelling archeologists who've only found stuff out about dead people, and those philosophers and historians and anthropologists and classicists and linguists and theologists and artists and those funding-hog astronomers who've only ever built telescopes to look into the sky and sent rockets to distant planets to find out useless stuff like how many moons Jupiter has or how many stars are in our galaxy. That all just takes away money from public drainage schemes and how how did they get to be the stuff of public business?

 
Quote
The whole elite culture racket of telling teachers what they can or can’t say about “evolution” (= Darwinism = atheism, of course) could be shut down with no loss of science potential.


You say it, sister! People don't need to be told about evolution... and while we're at it let's not bother telling them about this “heliocentrism” stuff because people can get through life quite happily without knowing what orbits around what, and why insist on the culture racket of telling teachers what they can or can't say about gravity and “relativity” and explaining to their students why the moon doesn't fall down out of the sky - people know perfectly well that rocks fall to the ground but the moon won't and it's not as if knowledge of a heliocentric solar system orbiting the galactic centre has ever put a roof over anyone's head.

 
Quote
It’s quite likely that nearly half of Americans doubted “evolution” (= Darwinism) when they put a man on the moon. Most Canadians were probably not supporters of Darwinism when we built the Canadarm on the Space Shuttle.


Firstly, as a couple minutes with Google and such arcane search terms as Canada "acceptance of evolution" might have told her, it's quite likely that most Canadians probably were "supporters of Darwinism" when they built the Canadarm:
Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view regarding the origin and development of human beings on earth?  "Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years": 59%

Secondly, why does O'Leary seem happy for the Canadian taxpayers to have funded the Canadarm anyway? It's not like the Canadarm's ever helped anyone when their cars crash up in a blizzard. That's public money being spent on something which will never mend a road or install a sewer.

By her logic, why should anyone care to discuss ancient myths that have no observable effect on the real world, just what the crazy adherents actually physically do in the name of these superstitions?

Does this mean we can remove religion from the public square and put into into private like a hobby?

Date: 2009/11/10 20:29:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 10 2009,19:34)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 10 2009,20:26)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 10 2009,20:15)
 
Quote (REC @ Nov. 10 2009,14:12)
Is "sorting laundry" a strange Canadian euphemism?

And how does one "have problems" doing it?

She must have intended "snorting laundry." That's always a problem.

ahhh, not necessarily...i've inhaled the fragrance from several pairs of pa....

never mind.

I hope they were not Ms O'Leary's....

Gak  - I just threw up in my mouth!  On top of a head cold!  Damn you people....why did I come here?

Date: 2009/11/13 10:36:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 11 2009,14:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2009,14:05)
NOT.A. P A R O D Y

This is what Vox has been working on:

http://warmouse.com/

Needs more buttons.

WTF???!!!

After Vox added a button for whining, one for screeching, and one for The Usual Stupid, what's he need all those other buttons for?

Who cares.  This is a mouse for a man with penis issues.  If you're a teeny weenie guy, the more buttons the merrier.  The fact that they don't do anything doesn't matter.

Date: 2009/11/13 22:35:42, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 13 2009,10:36)
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 11 2009,14:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2009,14:05)
NOT.A. P A R O D Y

This is what Vox has been working on:

http://warmouse.com/

Needs more buttons.

WTF???!!!

After Vox added a button for whining, one for screeching, and one for The Usual Stupid, what's he need all those other buttons for?

Who cares.  This is a mouse for a man with penis issues.  If you're a teeny weenie guy, the more buttons the merrier.  The fact that they don't do anything doesn't matter.

After much thinking about it - this is also the mouse for a man who does his wanking to the internet.  Just program a button, for, say "sweater" or "frilly shirt", and who knows how many hours of fun you could have.  Never have to take your hand off your mouse.

Date: 2009/11/16 23:22:34, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 16 2009,21:06)
Something that's bound to be used by YECs, soon:

Oregon State University (2009, November 15). Ancient penguin DNA raises doubts about accuracy of genetic dating techniques.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110135411.htm

Subramanian, Santek and Denver, D. et al.  (2009) High mitogenomic evolutionary rates and time dependency. Trends in Genetics, Volume 25, Issue 11, 482-486, 15 October 2009.
http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(09)00178-4

Quote
Abstract:Using entire modern and ancient mitochondrial genomes of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) that are up to 44000 years old, we show that the rates of evolution of the mitochondrial genome are two to six times greater than those estimated from phylogenetic comparisons. Although the rate of evolution at constrained sites, including nonsynonymous positions and RNAs, varies more than twofold with time (between shallow and deep nodes), the rate of evolution at synonymous sites remains the same. The time-independent neutral evolutionary rates reported here would be useful for the study of recent evolutionary events.

Cool - I've always been curious about molecular clocks.  Different genes mutating at different rates.  I wonder what this will cause - other than give Ham and Hovind woodies, that is.

Will Billy D use this to point to a designer as well?

Date: 2009/11/16 23:39:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 16 2009,22:19)
Wow, holy shit.  Just read his Rationalwiki page lol.

He was posting at the "Intersection" - Site of Chris Mooney and Sheryl K-something (not going to mutilate trying to spell her name).  Kwok tossed lots of love their way, and for a long time got away with saying anything he wanted.  Amusing, in a way, but ultimately too boring to stay and watch.  Haven't gone there in a long time, so I can't say if he still squats there (him and his famous high school and all his famous friends...)

Date: 2009/11/18 10:30:11, Link
Author: Badger3k
If the animals in Australia were transformed into marsupials, where are the marsupial humans?  I have yet to read the thread, but did he answer that?  Are there a secret race of marsupial humans living in Australia right now?  Do the Reptoids hide them?

Date: 2009/11/18 22:52:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 18 2009,21:10)
We dare not leave out the promiscuous Bicycles!

Or his enthusiastic cousin, Tricycles?

Date: 2009/11/20 11:04:24, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,10:40)
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?

From what he has said, that would be correct, as long as we are not talking about humans, since we are special.  Why his god decided that the ape was a good shape to copy from I'll never know, since the upright posture causes so many problems for us.  Maybe his god is an idiot?  Does his god talk like him - maybe that explains so much....

Date: 2009/11/20 18:30:32, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 20 2009,15:09)
They have had 200 hundred years - Creationists have yet to get out of their armchairs.

All that walkin' is SINFUL!!!!!  Jebus didn't give us an ass for us to not use sittin' in our armchairs. He also gave us a brain so that we could devote it to worshipping him 24/7, with no thought for anything else.

How's that?  ???

Date: 2009/11/24 00:07:09, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 23 2009,16:32)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 23 2009,16:22)
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 20 2009,11:04)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,10:40)
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?

From what he has said, that would be correct, as long as we are not talking about humans, since we are special.  Why his god decided that the ape was a good shape to copy from I'll never know, since the upright posture causes so many problems for us.  Maybe his god is an idiot?  Does his god talk like him - maybe that explains so much....

Yes all cat shaped creatures are the same creature. marsupial, credontal (sp), or our kittys.
The ape body in fact is excellent. Gynastics shows how useful.
Perhaps any minor problems is just a post fall development and not the original creation.

Well,well.

Byers redux.

But (against all reason) even less coherent than in previous appearances.

According to our Robert B, a wolf could become a marsupial wolf in its own lifetime.

He insists.

I still want to see Marsupial Humans.

Date: 2009/11/24 09:59:29, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 24 2009,09:18)
Speaking of wingnuts...is it just me, or does Ken Ham have a weird aura about him?  He just gives me the heebie-jeebies.  Every time I see a picture of him I get the feeling he's going to touch me inappropriately.


That's who that is?!

Eek - he does have a face that says "I will molest your children and eat your brains."

Of course, that is basically what he does anyway.

Date: 2009/11/24 23:44:37, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 24 2009,17:55)
I've been trying to get a new chew-toy over at PZ's , but no luck so far: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ous.php

He's single-mindedly obsessively focused on PZ. I think it's a one-sided bromance.

I haven't bothered with the stupid registration, so I can't comment, but I must have swallowed a ton of flies with my jaw stuck to the floor.  That guy is a complete idiot.  He belongs at UD.  Maybe he'll go that way?

Date: 2009/11/24 23:47:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2009,21:38)
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 24 2009,20:47)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 24 2009,17:55)
I've been trying to get a new chew-toy over at PZ's , but no luck so far: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ous.php

He's single-mindedly obsessively focused on PZ. I think it's a one-sided bromance.

Could it be?!  A Kwok sock!

It seems our boy Johnny may have taken up the Noble Art of Sockery.  Let's go down the list of things to look out for when attempting to identify the wild Kwok:

1.  Shameless name-dropping.  [check]

2.  Unwarranted self-importance.  [check]

3.  Hatred of PZ Myers.  [check]

4.  Mindless, mechanical responses that seemingly have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  [check]

5.  Says things in two paragraphs that could be expressed in a simple sentence.  [check check]

Could be Vox Day!

He has the prima-donna arrogance, the refusal to let evidence get in the way of his ideas, utter disdain for humanity, perhaps suicidal in nature...hmmm, I don't think even Teddy has that much disdain for himself and humanity.  Hell, the moron couldn't see the huge flaws in his "logic" - not even to the point of seeing how he declared he wasn't a primate.

...

Maybe he's marsupial?

Robert?

Date: 2009/11/24 23:50:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 24 2009,20:47)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 24 2009,17:55)
I've been trying to get a new chew-toy over at PZ's , but no luck so far: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ous.php

He's single-mindedly obsessively focused on PZ. I think it's a one-sided bromance.

Could it be?!  A Kwok sock!

It seems our boy Johnny may have taken up the Noble Art of Sockery.  Let's go down the list of things to look out for when attempting to identify the wild Kwok:

1.  Shameless name-dropping.  [check]

2.  Unwarranted self-importance.  [check]

3.  Hatred of PZ Myers.  [check]

4.  Mindless, mechanical responses that seemingly have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  [check]

5.  Says things in two paragraphs that could be expressed in a simple sentence.  [check check]

I was reading him on the Consciousness post (with the Facilitated Crap), and missed any mention of high school or famous friends.  Was it on another thread?  I can't see Kwok going that long without mentioning his high school - I doubt he could go under cover.

Of course, he apparently has a lot of poor-quality photos on Flickr, and we know Kwok needed a new camera....

Date: 2009/11/26 10:01:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
I know that, while not in Austin, I don't get a lot of TARD directly here in TX, but other than denialists and idiots, are the hacked emails really something people are bothered about?  I haven't heard anything except scientists (esp climate scientists) response to it.  It has made a bit of noise at both Real Climate (here and here) and scienceblogs:

This island of doubt: here, here

Deltoid: here, related, more, more

Is the concern that this is not getting to the major "mainstream" media?  I don't waste my time with that, so I can't tell.  Of course, this is the media that is credulously broadcasting that Facilitated Communications bullshit (so I hear), so why should we expect them to get anything right?

Date: 2009/11/26 10:02:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 26 2009,10:01)
I know that, while not in Austin, I don't get a lot of TARD directly here in TX, but other than denialists and idiots, are the hacked emails really something people are bothered about?  I haven't heard anything except scientists (esp climate scientists) response to it.  It has made a bit of noise at both Real Climate (here and here) and scienceblogs:

This island of doubt: here, here

Deltoid: here, related, more, more

Is the concern that this is not getting to the major "mainstream" media?  I don't waste my time with that, so I can't tell.  Of course, this is the media that is credulously broadcasting that Facilitated Communications bullshit (so I hear), so why should we expect them to get anything right?

Since I can't edit - sorry to get it a bit away from the TARDfest at UD, but I wanted to put this out there for info.

Date: 2009/11/27 20:32:38, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 27 2009,16:54)
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 27 2009,16:41)
   
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 27 2009,16:29)
So can anyone give a brief outline of what's actually going on with the whole "Climategate" scandal?  All I can find on the topic are ridiculously biased Washington Times opinion pieces.  From what I currently understand it has something to do with an unused variable in the so-called fudged data?

I know almost nothing of climate models or predictions, so it would be great if somebody posted some no-bull sources.

But I have learned from UncommonDescent that this makes you perfectly qualified to speak on the subject with authority. It's really all so much easier than you might think. Those who know almost nothing of climate models or predictions, or the type and relevance of the data being processed by software, or the transforms the software is applying to the data or the language in which that software is written can get to the bottom of the puzzle by simply reading the comments in a handful of the source code files.

PS: like RDK, I would also appreciate a beginner's synopsis of the "climate smoking gungate" story.

I checked a few pages back and apparently I hadn't noticed that Badger posted a very good collection of Scienceblogs articles on the subject:

 
Quote (Badger @ Nov. 27 2009,16:41)
I know that, while not in Austin, I don't get a lot of TARD directly here in TX, but other than denialists and idiots, are the hacked emails really something people are bothered about?  I haven't heard anything except scientists (esp climate scientists) response to it.  It has made a bit of noise at both Real Climate (here and here) and scienceblogs:

This island of doubt: here, here

Deltoid: here, related, more, more

Is the concern that this is not getting to the major "mainstream" media?  I don't waste my time with that, so I can't tell.  Of course, this is the media that is credulously broadcasting that Facilitated Communications bullshit (so I hear), so why should we expect them to get anything right?


Props to Badger.

Thanks!  

They have some interesting quotes today on Deltoid - Drudge linked somewhere thinking it was a denialist piece, then deleted the link (where have we heard that before?) - the comments would fit right in with the UD thread.

But Realclimate is good (it's the first place I go for climate material, but the scienceblogs pages can make it more accessible for newcomers) - which reminds me, there were some rather funny comments from a "Girma" a bit back on a thread I participated in (for a bit - I couldn't let his idiocy on gravity go unchallenged) - it makes interesting reading (here), with this comment (from here):
Quote
When the moon pulls the top surface of the ocean, a vacuum is created under the ocean where the surface is pulled up, and this vacuum sucks water from all around it. It is similar to the low-pressure system that we see on land. The only difference is you replace air with water.


I don't think we directed him to UD, but he may be there already, for all I know.

Date: 2009/11/28 09:47:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 28 2009,09:38)
Vjtorley is exhibit A in the case that religion rots the brain of people that would otherwise be classified as very intelligent.

 
Quote
Scoff if you will, but I have read that mammals and birds – the only two classes of creatures generally considered to be sentient – differ from other animals in one important respect: they are capable of visually tracking moving objects.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ic-all-the-way-down-the-grand-human-evolutionary-discontinuity-and-probabilistic-resources

/#comment-341393]WTF???[/URL]

That's why reptiles are notoriously bad hunters - they have to wait until the prey is extremely still.  A bit of movement and the target is invisible.  They showed that in the documentary...umm...Jurassic Park, I think it was called.  Maybe that's why Dino always ran into Fred - he was moving and he just didn't see him?

Date: 2009/11/30 23:37:18, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 30 2009,17:44)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 30 2009,16:35)
 
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 30 2009,08:15)
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/william-dembskis-interview-on-new-book-the-end-of-christianity-finding-a-good-god-in-an-ev






il-world/#comment-341511]Right.[/URL]

And if that wasn't enough, here's a juicy one from [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/william-dembskis-interview-on-new-book-the-end-of-christianity-finding-a-good-god-in-an-ev






il-world/#comment-341523]vjtorley:[/URL]:

         
Quote
I have one question though, relating to animal suffering, which the book does not appear to address: has Dr. Dembski ever expressed an opinion regarding the possibility of some sort of afterlife for animals? The reason why I ask this if there is no afterlife for them, then we have a wrong (the suffering of innocent animals) that is never righted in the grand scheme of things.


I thought animals didn't matter, seeing as how humans are not animals and are a separate "kind" altogether?  

To a literalist, every single word in the Bible must be true (except the hard parts they ignore). There is a Genesis exception of animals that are "clean" and those that are not. The "Clean" animals are suitable for sacrifice because they are ensouled, or "nepish." So, if you are "nepish" you get an afterlife.

Nepish?  Sounds dirty.

I think I might throw my sock back on and engage in a healthy conversation with the IDiots using this newfound information.  For example, how does one tell the difference between ensouled animals and non-souled animals today?  I did a quick search and, strangely, the Bible was uncharacteristically vague on the topic, sometimes even contradicting itself:

 
Quote

Deuteronomy 14:19
   And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.


 
Quote

Leviticus 11:21-23
   Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.


I'm eager about the abomination listed in the above passage (flying creeping things which have four feet).  Anybody know of such a creature?  And sorry, Robert Byers doesn't count.

Edit: moar sources:

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/clean/animals.html

So, locusts have four feet?  And "legs above their feet" - what the hell does that even mean?  They don't walk upside-down?  They have feet that are attached to legs that stick out sideways and do not go above their feet (they swim with legs like pontoons?) - WTF?

Are there animals with feet but no legs?  What if they have no feet - can we eat amputees?  

What does "...the locust after his kind" mean - locusts can only eat other locusts, or you have to be a locust to eat one?

Date: 2009/12/03 02:22:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,01:54)
If your ideas can't take scrunity then they don't deserve hugh positiob .

Oh Noes!!!

Who's "Hugh Positiob?"  Is he that deposed Nigerian prince I keep getting emails about, or is he the one who'll make my woody become a Manly Beam!  (not that it needs that...)

Bobby, please edit before you hit the post button.  Try the "preview post" and reread it, and take your meds if you have to.

Date: 2009/12/03 02:24:15, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 03 2009,02:22)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 03 2009,01:54)
If your ideas can't take scrunity then they don't deserve hugh positiob .

Oh Noes!!!

Who's "Hugh Positiob?"  Is he that deposed Nigerian prince I keep getting emails about, or is he the one who'll make my woody become a Manly Beam!  (not that it needs that...)

Bobby, please edit before you hit the post button.  Try the "preview post" and reread it, and take your meds if you have to.

Even "hugh position" makes no sense, and "if your ideas can't take scrutiny then they don't deserve high position" doesn't make much sense, and is grammatically incorrect.  

Hugs position?

Date: 2009/12/04 20:39:23, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 04 2009,14:21)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 04 2009,13:02)
Is there a law against viewpoint discrimination?

Yes, it is called the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  The essence of the issue is that, if any governmental agency makes it's facilities available for use to one organization, it must do so for all organizations.  Denying use of those facilities to an organization because it espouses unpopular views would count as viewpoint discrimination.  

The classic case, in my mind, was that the city of Skokie, IL (which has a large Jewish population) was forced to issue a parade permit to the Ku Klux Klan because it had issued such permits to other, less objectionable organizations.

This does raise an interesting question.  I had always assumed that by using space in science centers (done twice at the Sam Noble Museum here in Oklahoma and now at the CSC) the DI was just seeking to piggyback off these museums good names without actually doing any real science to warrant their own good name. I am wondering now if they were fishing around hoping someone would deny them use of their facilities specifically to go after a viewpoint discrimination lawsuit.  Sounds like a job for Ed Brayton.

The pictures up there, but it was the American Nazi Party, if memory serves. Yeah, it made a big fuss, and I read about it every day, or just about, back when I was in school.  High School, if I remember correctly.

Date: 2009/12/06 11:09:21, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Which is the point of a lot of the scientist/atheist books on the subject (like Stenger) - we can disprove the actions of certain god concepts (or certain gods if you want to call it that), but there are some kinds that are immune to all investigation.  However, if you have a god who leaves no evidence, how is that different than no god at all?  Without positive evidence for such a being, why should we take such an idea seriously?  

That's the way I see it, at least.  When Inquiry is asking about this god of his (it does seem he has a specific one in mind), I'd second the call for "what evidence do you have that would ask us to consider such a being?"  As a thought experiment it's fine, but if you want to consider it as a scientific question, let's see the evidence.

Date: 2009/12/06 11:10:43, Link
Author: Badger3k
JLT - pretty much agreeing with you, just expanding on the topic.  Eventually I'll get an edit button, but I've got a ways to go.

Date: 2009/12/06 11:11:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 06 2009,07:19)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 06 2009,08:06)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 05 2009,19:13)
Nakashima was hoping to be depicted in comics as character something closer to Will Eisner's Spirit. ...


I'm not usually into hero worshipping, but today is St Nicholas' day.

Joseph _was_ on Nakashima's bucket list!

So....Joseph can haz buckitz?

Date: 2009/12/06 19:24:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats?  Nah.  I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

Date: 2009/12/07 13:08:52, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 07 2009,00:14)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,18:24)
 
Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
   
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats?  Nah.  I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

Jesus Loves Inquiry and so does Badger3000:


My hat is off to you, sir.

Date: 2009/12/07 13:13:03, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2009,12:07)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Translation:  No one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat.

Crocoducks!!!!111!!

Any odds on the "goo to you by way of the zoo" ?

Date: 2009/12/08 10:40:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 08 2009,10:24)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 08 2009,10:06)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 08 2009,08:22)
 
Quote
As for the "comrades lobbying" mentioned above: Could it be that the dimwit is speculating about a Marxist affiliation?

jerry proves me wrong:
   
Quote
Obama got into Harvard through his Black Muslim connections.

http://tinyurl.com/yzqwu6h

No he doesn't. Don't you know that all Black Muslims are Marxist Devil Worshiping Atheist Church Burning Ebola Spreading Baby Eating Fascists on a daily basis? Most are even uppity Feminists.

He just elaborated, that's all.

By the way, welcome to the club.

And clearly Harvard Law School is a breeding ground for such type.

It could have been worse.  He could have been a male cheerleader!

Date: 2009/12/09 20:10:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 09 2009,13:21)
What about the South American marsupials, Byers? How do you explain the oldest marsupial fossils are from South America, and the next oldest are not from Australia, but Antarctica?  And they're not piled up in a single generation either.

You do know everyone's laughing at you, right?

They laughed at Galileo (sp?, ah who cares! need more CAPS!)  They laughed at EINSTEIN!!!!!  They laughed at GROUCHO MARX - oh, wait, his name is Marx so he must be a commie!  They laughed at....what was my point?  Why are my pants wet?  Where's my medication?  Who are you people?

Sorry - must have channeled a creationist there for a moment.

Date: 2009/12/09 20:14:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 09 2009,09:22)
[quote=JLT,Dec. 07 2009,18:30][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 07 2009,19:23)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
     
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

     
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

If all plants are the same kind, then, I'm afraid, marsupials, wolfs, dinosaurs, octopi, and probably sponges all belong to one kind, too.


Too limiting. Clearly everything is one "kind" except humans. We are another "kind", though as the bible shows we are, at least in God's eyes, anything but kind. And God is clearly still another "kind" and got a bit kinder as over the course of the bible...

It quite clearly says "mankind" not "man-and-ape-kind" - so the words themselves give away the truth.  Just like wolves and marsupial wolves - they have the same name so they must be the same.  Mankind and apekind are separate kinds.  Simple, really (in more ways than one).

Date: 2009/12/09 20:21:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 09 2009,16:21)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 09 2009,15:54)
Quick - call O'Leary, Catholic extraordinaire and expert in all questions dogmatic!

If I ever call O'Leary, it will be to ask her if her refrigerator is running, or perhaps if she has Prince Albert in a can...

"Do you have ten-pound balls?"

On second thought, I am afraid of what her answer might be.

Date: 2009/12/09 20:25:50, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (KCdgw @ Dec. 09 2009,12:47)
When the tardometer just rockets off the scale:

angryoldwhatthefrak:

 
Quote
 
Quote
KC wrote:
Polar bears aren't just pretty faces. They are the primary predator of the seal in the Arctic, for example. Removing them could negatively effect fish populations in the area, and other species dependent on the fish in the food web.

If they're predators, there will be more seals. Sounds like more seals for us, especially for the oppressed indigenuous Aleuts. I'm still not seeing a downside to their demise.
Besides, what should the population level of polar bears be? My guess is the only answer we'll hear from the likes of environmentalists/Gaia-worshippers is "more".
Whatever happened to "adapt or die"? Other species adapt – that's how we got where we are. If polar bears can't adapt, then maybe they don't need to be around any longer. And any ecosystem that needs them so much that it can't adjust to their absence should also perish.

E..cuze...eee... "snap"

Sorry, I said Excuse me - I had to pick my jaw off the floor.  Holy cow named Moses!  Does that TARD realize that we are part of the ecosystem that deserves to die?  

Wow...just...wow....

Date: 2009/12/10 10:18:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2009,08:04)
Robert you do realize that people named the marsupial wolf and the marsupial cat right?  They aren't really wolves and cats, right?  

When I go to her concert, I want to see Kylie's pouch.

Second!  Take pictures! I'll pay!

(oh - pouch....hmm....ok, it's still on!)  :p

Date: 2009/12/11 10:28:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Slightly off "topic", I guess, but I just read this from Dr Dino (via Jesus General):
Quote
In the mid 1500's, Galileo, under penalty of death by the Catholic church, had to recant his awful heresy of teaching that the moon was not smooth. He had dared to suggest that the doctrines of Aristotle as taught by the church could be wrong! He wrote a second book to say that he was wrong and that the moon was perfectly smooth...We face the same thing today. The faulty teaching of evolution is hindering scientific progress.


Is he saying that the Church was right - the moon is smooth, and Galileo was wrong?  Among everything else, is he a geocentrist (or is it heliocentrism denialist)?   I'm not even sure how to read that.  Anyone know of any home lobotomy kits so I can gain this ability to read and understand this stuff?

Date: 2009/12/11 18:53:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
I'd like to add that Inquiry explain why he seemed to cut-and-paste what looks like Behe's book, down to the lame "all the machines in the cell had to evolve from things with the same function" idea.  Mutations happen, and many gene duplications (and mutations) can cause new functions to appear (as one example in general).  The idea that what exists now must have either (a) always existed, or (b) evolved in one go-round to something like it's present state is really a creationist one.  Evolution works on everything living, and new functions (and other things) arrive all the time.

Date: 2009/12/11 19:00:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 10 2009,00:15)
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 09 2009,03:01)
Quote
I would insist that the differences are few and the sameness of marsupial wolves etc are fantastic. In fact so much that they have to invoke a concept of special convergent evolution.

You are making a colossal error by just looking at overall external appearance. Those animals are so very different in lots of details internally and genetically that nobody in his right mind consider them the same animal. They are absolutely incapable of interbreeding.

Is it enough for you if two cars to have similar exterior, then they are the same model? They have for wheels and you have to look closely to see that one is a Chevrolet the other is a Ford, doesn't matter to you?

Doesn't matter if one have a small four cylinder diesel engine, manual gearing et cetera, and the other a six-cylinder gasoline engine, automatic gearing and all sorts of bells and whistles?

ETA typo fix.

You make my case.
The sameness is so important that even evolution must come up with a explanation. They call it convergent evolution. it means unrelated creatures came to look the same because they lived in the same kind of niches.

The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye  requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence.

The marsupial body is only different in reproductive details and a few things in the skull.
Otherwise marsupial cats, dogs, bears, mice, tapirs etc are so close to their placental namesakes that it stretches credibility to not see they are the same kinds.

This is so, well, drug-trippy, that I had to go back to it (while skimming to find the newest responses).

"The external is what it is because of thousands of points of twists and turns of the anatomy. To have such sameness to the eye  requires fantastic biological realities of physical attributes.
Evolution itself must insist selection was very important on bodies from point a to point b to bring such convergence."

The external is the way it is because of genes and the effects of the environment (including other creatures) on said genes.  Anatomy is the end result (more or less).  To have such sameness (which really isn't there in marsupial wof/wolf comparisons) merely indicates that selective pressures were similar.  And why not?  A forest is a forest, just the finer details are different - and while they make all the difference for the final product, the large details can play a major role for the gross characteristics.

Eyes, however, come in many different forms, but follow basic the same basic principles due to physics and the limits of what our biology is capable of.  In energy-limited environments (that means our bodies too) there is a limit on what can develop and what can survive.  Mutations too severe probably account for some fraction of the millions (or billions, rather) or spontaneous abortions that happen every year.

Do a little research on the variety of eyes - it's fascinating.

Date: 2009/12/11 19:03:02, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 11 2009,15:52)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 11 2009,00:44)
 
Well its on the merits of the case and not your judgement of my abilities.

Your "case" consists entirely of saying "I think they look the same and I think this is important". This is a level of argument that would warrant an F in a high school science assignment, never mind overturning the last 200+ years of actual science.

Now, that's not completely fair.  His case also has "they are named similarly, so they are related."  Got to give him credit where credit is due.

Date: 2009/12/11 22:59:34, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,18:53)
I'd like to add that Inquiry explain why he seemed to cut-and-paste what looks like Behe's book, down to the lame "all the machines in the cell had to evolve from things with the same function" idea.  Mutations happen, and many gene duplications (and mutations) can cause new functions to appear (as one example in general).  The idea that what exists now must have either (a) always existed, or (b) evolved in one go-round to something like it's present state is really a creationist one.  Evolution works on everything living, and new functions (and other things) arrive all the time.

Behe or Dembski?  Did I confuse the two?

Date: 2009/12/11 23:07:32, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 11 2009,21:30)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,19:03)
   
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 11 2009,15:52)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 11 2009,00:44)
 
Well its on the merits of the case and not your judgement of my abilities.

Your "case" consists entirely of saying "I think they look the same and I think this is important". This is a level of argument that would warrant an F in a high school science assignment, never mind overturning the last 200+ years of actual science.

Now, that's not completely fair.  His case also has "they are named similarly, so they are related."  Got to give him credit where credit is due.

So would Robert say that horse flies belong in horse "kind" or fly "kind"?  Are sea cucumbers part of cucumber "kind"?  Inquiring minds want to know...

What about the Aardwolf (wiki)?  Are they related to the two previously mentioned?  Since they are native to Eastern and Southern Africa, are they the original?  Did they speciate into Wolves and Thylacines?  Or did they branch off from the "dog" kind (or vice versa)?

Damn, no wonder they go to clown christian college Liberty University Diploma Mill - they have a lot to learn dogmatically memorize.

Yeah!  I learned how to strike through text!  I can haz cookie? Or maybe...bukkitz?

Date: 2009/12/11 23:14:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 11 2009,21:52)
ERASMUS !!!!1111!

Clive Hayden:

 
Quote
Water runs downhill because it is bewitched


http://tinyurl.com/ybwhagb

Holy Feth!  Damn, I wasn't prepared for that.  I usually don't waste my time (and give them a hit) going to read, but I had to for that.  Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish!  Fetid Dingo's Kidneys!  Gah.  I forgot my Tardhelmet and my head nearly imploded.

WTF

that's all

WTF

Date: 2009/12/12 10:55:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 12 2009,10:38)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2009,09:41)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 12 2009,10:25)
   
Quote (Freddie @ Dec. 12 2009,09:12)
KF Sighting!  With the obligatory, but somewhat strangely worded PS ...
       
Quote
33
kairosfocus
12/12/2009
8:43 am

PS: Been busy off-line and elsewhere, to those who inquired. (Some of it for not so happy reasons.) Cooking up some evil stuff. (have a look here at the functionally specific complexity of cellular metabolic reactions as a system. Compare to say the chemical reaction flows pathway of a petrochemicals plant. Then factor in our favourite 1,000 bit threshold and see where that gets ya.

But how would that compare to, say, an FBI plant? :p He's back! Good ole KF is back! :) (I hope his not happy was not too not happy.)

I wonder who bonded him out?

I'm imagining he was getting surgery to correct a congenital cranio-rectal inversion...

Want to bet that the surgery failed?

Date: 2009/12/15 10:10:21, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (George @ Dec. 15 2009,07:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,03:05)
These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists...

You would do well to heed your own advice.  No, it's not about words.  It's about data.
 
Quote
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.

(All bolding mine.)

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  
Concepts are not evidence.  Evidence is data.  Where are your data?  Where is your analysis?  Have you numerically compared the characteristics of Tasmanian wolves, living and fossil canids, and fossil marsupials to come up with an objective evaluation of similarities?  Have you been able to trace these similarities through the fossil record?

Until you do, no one will listen to you.  Except to make fun of you.

I agree - his knowledge of genetics (and evo-devo, and biology, history, geology...etc) would make a grade-school student laugh at him.  Hmm - what does that say about creationists?  Actually, how  many creationists would agree with him?

I add my voice to the calls for him to present his evidence.  To paraphrase a famous man, Robert - "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means." (sorry, it's been a long time)

Date: 2009/12/15 10:17:53, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 15 2009,10:10)
Quote (George @ Dec. 15 2009,07:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,03:05)
These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists...

You would do well to heed your own advice.  No, it's not about words.  It's about data.
 
Quote
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.

(All bolding mine.)

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  
Concepts are not evidence.  Evidence is data.  Where are your data?  Where is your analysis?  Have you numerically compared the characteristics of Tasmanian wolves, living and fossil canids, and fossil marsupials to come up with an objective evaluation of similarities?  Have you been able to trace these similarities through the fossil record?

Until you do, no one will listen to you.  Except to make fun of you.

I agree - his knowledge of genetics (and evo-devo, and biology, history, geology...etc) would make a grade-school student laugh at him.  Hmm - what does that say about creationists?  Actually, how  many creationists would agree with him?

I add my voice to the calls for him to present his evidence.  To paraphrase a famous man, Robert - "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means." (sorry, it's been a long time)

How's that for Epic Fail?  I read the top part, thought "this will be the one I use to quote" and completely fail to read the quote that I was going to use.  Gah!  If it's any consolation, everybody is probably thinking the same thing.  Can I blame just waking up a short time ago?

Date: 2009/12/15 23:26:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 15 2009,17:55)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 15 2009,16:02)
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,16:56)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.

It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just fractally wrong, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.

Are cane toads becoming marsupial?

Licking toads might be an explanation for Robert's assertions.

It depends on what (or where) the toads are licking.... :O

Date: 2009/12/15 23:57:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.

What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"?


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

2) Of course "God did it" is not a scientific answer. Do you expect scientific answers to non-science questions? Can science tell you if the person you love really understands you? Can science to tell you it is an act of compassion to feed the hungry? Not all questions are scientific questions. Some questions are historical, or emotional, or testimonial, etc. The origin of life may very well not be a scientific question. If life was started by a supernatural cause then all the looking in the world will never turn up a natural one (which is basically where we stand now).

3) I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver, a Mind who instilled order in the universe and who also gave us the rational capacity to understand that order, to analyze it, and to control/use/maintain it. I believe this because of rigorous philosophical examination, not as a simple whim. For more on this topic I suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, and others.

Quote
Hey, you know what would be great fun at parties? Line up a nice transitional series of fossils, then bring the creobots in one at a time and have them point to where they draw the micro/macro this species/that species line. We could start one end with an extant species, at the other end another extant species, and gradually meeting at the common ancestor in the middle.


That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved.


You could use the alleged evolution of the horse and then explain how the toes kept evolving forwards and then backwards until it ended in one giant toe with a huge nail. Of course, that would be a case of animal LOOSING complexity rather than gaining it so that doesn't really explain how animals have evolved from "lower" forms to "higher" more complex forms.

By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION. In fact, can anyone here tell me what takes place genetically when dogs are bred to exhibit specific traits? Are those traits created through breeding or are all the unwanted traits simply eliminated? Does a doberman have more genetic potential than say a mutt?

1)  Actually, "I don't know" is an answer.  It may not be a satisfying one, but it gives the limit of current knowledge (at least of the speaker).  To be honest, knowledge of ignorance is knowledge as well - just not the best kind.  There is so much we are ignorant of that in some areas we are only just discovering what we don't know, but scientists are steadily filling the void.  The best answer, short of actual knowledge is "I don't know, but I will try to find out."  This is the step that creationists jump over, going straight to "I will make shit up."

2) you spelled "non-science" when you meant "nonsense" - just fixing that for you.  Considering advances in neurology and the scientific study of ethics, perhaps some day those questions can be answered (albeit not to some people's satisfaction) - we can look for chemicals and effects in the brain that might indicate "understanding" - if our knowledge progresses that far, or we can look for other cues (body language, etc).  I doubt it's as reliable as asking a person, but we can design a study that does just that.  But trying to define "really understands you" in a meaningful way would be the difficult part, but it can probably be done.  However, the problem you have is that we are actually making progress into the mechanisms by which life may have risen, but if you want to postulate a "supernatural" (whatever that means) cause that started it all, but left no proof...well, why bother with it at all?  If it leaves no proof, then we cannot detect it, and if we can't detect it, then how can we distinguish it from nothing at all?  Waste of time.

3) Gak.  Judge Dread uses a Lawgiver.  The Orangutan on the ape planet was a Lawgiver.  Non-existent mental constructs that appease people's egos and fears...not so much.  We've come a long way since those people (except Geisler, who appears to be another in the long line of apologist hacks - from a quick review that I did, he seems to repeat the same tired and debunked arguments that others of his ilk do).  "yawn"

It's amazing that the hole is perfectly shaped for the puddle.  Must be Intelligently Designed.

Goody - genetic information.  Please define what you mean by information.  This should be interesting.  

You may want to scan the board and look for this topic, since it really comes up with the IDiots who have no understanding of it, and you want to be sure not to make the same mistakes they are making.  (You might also want to avoid the inane "ALL CAPS" - they do not add emphasis, but make you look a bit of a noob, and it's "losing" complexity (although even that claim may or may not hold water depending on how you define "complexity."  You may also want to drop the idea of lower/higher completely and just stick with the terms "simpler" and "more complex" (in the popular usage of the terms) - or say "unicellular to multicellular" - since evolution is not on any direct arrow, as things evolve they can indeed lose features and become "less complex" (common usage).  Nothing in evolutionary theory that says they shouldn't.

You might also want to look a little bit more into genetics before making such insipid claims about dogs.  Dogs that exhibit certain traits (that arise through mutation) are selected for those traits, and bred with similar animals so that the trait solidifies (more or less, this is pretty simplistic).  The traits are not created by the breeding, although they are refined.  And, no, all unwanted traits are not simply eliminated, since there are atavisms occasionally  and the inbreeding that produces some breeds can have negative consequences - physical and mental.  I have no idea what you mean with "genetic potential" - are you assuming some sort of Ideal that dogs must go towards, or are you referring to the potential for genes to mutate, or what?

Damn, that's a lot to write.  Any critiques from anyone else reading - did I screw anything up?

Date: 2009/12/16 00:13:42, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 15 2009,15:48)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 15 2009,13:42)
Clivebaby doesn't need no steenkin' evidence:
   
Quote
Mustela Nivalis,
   
Quote
That’s a very strong claim. Do you have any objective, empirical evidence to back it up?

Do you have any objective, empirical evidence that Mung should back it up with objective and empirical evidence? Objective and empirical evidence is not the only reasons we have for asking questions or giving answers, and your question of what is so bad about atheism is just one of these types of questions that doesn’t need empirical evidence to be asked, and shouldn’t demand any to be answered. I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical, so it shouldn’t demand as an answer something that it cannot produce for the grounds of its own existence. You asked the question of what is so bad about atheism, and one of the things that is so bad about it is a confused philosophical position that requires empirical evidence for everything except for itself. It confuses physics and metaphysics because it is so steeped in materialism, it forgets to turn the qualifications that it demands back on itself and doesn’t see the self-referential incoherence that results. This is one of the most obvious things that is wrong with it, it demands grounds for all other claims what it cannot give as grounds for its own claim. Saying that atheism is a false view of reality need not have any empirical evidence, just as the question “what’s wrong with being an atheist?” never had any empirical evidence to begin with.

I have two questions:

1)  Did Clivebaby get a fresh shipment of mushrooms recently?
2)  Why do I have this horrid compulsion to click on his name when I see it in Recent Comments?

Shorter clivebaby:  Atheism is bad because it's bad because it's bad because it's bad... obviously.

Well, technically, anyone can pull something from their ass and say whatever they want, so he can say that "atheism is a false view of reality" all he wants.  Of course, his reality includes the invisible man impregnating young Jewish girls out of wedlock, as well as talking snakes, asses, and burning bushes.  Not a healthy "reality" by any means.  

When I first read his last line, it seemed to me that he was saying that there is no empirical evidence that there is anything wrong with atheism that would make you ask "what is wrong with it?"  Obviously I misread it, but given the incoherent rant previous to that, maybe that's excusable.

Date: 2009/12/16 00:16:12, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (socle @ Dec. 15 2009,17:40)

Somehow, that last bit might apply to claims for their gods "origins" (as well as other attributes)....

Date: 2009/12/17 17:13:28, Link
Author: Badger3k
I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.

Date: 2009/12/17 17:18:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 17 2009,16:48)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 17 2009,14:52)
I note that the richer people get, the fewer children they have. I find that more attractive than other decompression scenarios.

The only problem being that it takes too many poor people to make a sufficiently high number of people to make a difference. I won't attempt parsing that statement.

It's like a pyramid - the really, really rich live off the blood, sweat, and tears of the much larger group of consecutively poorer people (who will have lots of children to keep the pyramid up).  But...what goes up must come down. :p

Date: 2009/12/19 10:29:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 17 2009,17:13)
I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.

Again this is about mechanism. Marsupials were in great diversity in south America actually. i just speculate it was because the rapid colonization from the Ark demanded a steady but mobile reproduction. the whole point of marsupialism is to get the fetus out of the womb and get another growing. Speed was everything. then later it just stays in that shift. There is no need today for speed and so its slowed down but the proceadure is the same.
This is speculation and not conclusion based on the anatomical bodies of fossil and living marsupials in the literature.
Plus biblical boundaries leading the way.

While looking for a note on marsupial reproduction, I ran into this (http://www.nwcreation.net/marsupials.html) - is this yours (if so, it seems much better written than you write here) or did someone else have this idea?

Anyway, the point I was going to get is that even while the baby is growing in the pouch, to the best of my knowledge marsupials don't get pregnant again.  I know you claim this is because they don't need it that way now (got evidence?), but you completely ignored why the placentals did not need this uber-fast reproduction, since they had to repopulate a much larger proportion of the planet.  Why did they not need to do this?  

Plus, since I can't find the marsupial reproduction passage in the bible, perhaps you can point out chapter and verse on these "biblical boundaries."

Date: 2009/12/19 10:31:43, Link
Author: Badger3k
Not sure who "Chris Ashcroft" is, but I did recognize that idiot woodmorappe's name. (from the site I linked to above)

Date: 2009/12/19 10:33:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 19 2009,04:29)
Awww, [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/uncommon-descent-contest/uncommon-descent-contest-question-13-the-large-hadron-collider-is-back-up-and-running-but-

why-winners-announced/#comments]poor Denyse gets called on her Euro-phobia[/URL], and the only evidence she can muster for the Dutch carrying out "involuntary euthanasia" is a 10 year old article on the website of a pro-life group.

She ends with
Quote
Anyway, I am out of here; I have other fish to fry.

and closes the comments.

Lame.  That's, what, a...4 maybe, on the Flounce-o-meter?  Or do I need to recalibrate?

Date: 2009/12/19 15:25:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 19 2009,10:51)
Robert's correct.

I've been to ARKansas which is in the south of America and it's full o' possums.  Chock.  Full.

Can't hardly take a step without getting your foot stuck in a pouch.

Noah was obviously talking about possum when, in the little known Biblical passage, he said to his wife, "Ham, nothin', dem's good eatin'!"

Maybe that's the original meaning of "clean" and "unclean" - clean animals had pouches, while unclean didn't - but as the placentals took over (for whatever reason known only to YHVH) they had to change the definition.  I do think I remember our Sunday school lesson that had that "Them's good eatin' " line, but maybe I'm confused.

Date: 2009/12/22 13:16:43, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2009,13:08)
http://warmouse.com/

Quote
The features of the WarMouse Meta include:

18 programmable mouse buttons with double-click functionality
High-resolution laser sensor with adjustable resolution from 100 to 5,600 DPI/CPI
Five assignable button modes: Key, Keypress, Macro, Mouse, and Mouse-Key Combo
Analog Xbox 360-style joystick with five analog and digital modes
Clickable scroll wheel
512k of flash memory
63 on-mouse application modes with hardware, software, and autoswitching capability
1024-character macro support
Meta Modeware for creating, managing, and customizing game and application modes
Import and export of custom modes in XML format
Optional audio notification of mode switching with customizable wave files
Taskbar display of active application mode
PDF export of application mode button assignments
Graphical pop-up map of application mode button assignments
25 default modes for popular games and applications, including Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird, Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, OpenOffice.org Writer, Calc, and Impress, 3D Studio Max, Autodesk AutoCAD, Adobe Photoshop, the Gnu Image Manipulation Program, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

Obviously, to get the full use of this mouse, you have to be a member of Mensa.

I do agree with the last comment I read - "Needs more cowbell."

Date: 2009/12/23 10:56:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (ppb @ Dec. 23 2009,09:57)
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 23 2009,10:18)
Well, gee, in that verse you quoted Paul said Jesus will come back in his lifetime, and since Paul's dead and Jesus didn't come back, I don't see where the "out" is.

Oh yeah. And there's no evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus ever actually existed.

No, that whole "Paul is dead" thing is just a rumor.

I heard he died in strawberry fields.  You sure it's a lie - if you read the bible backwards, it clearly says "I killed Paul"

Date: 2009/12/23 10:57:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 23 2009,10:56)
Quote (ppb @ Dec. 23 2009,09:57)
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 23 2009,10:18)
Well, gee, in that verse you quoted Paul said Jesus will come back in his lifetime, and since Paul's dead and Jesus didn't come back, I don't see where the "out" is.

Oh yeah. And there's no evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus ever actually existed.

No, that whole "Paul is dead" thing is just a rumor.

I heard he died in strawberry fields.  You sure it's a lie - if you read the bible backwards, it clearly says "I killed Paul"

There should be a question mark at the end of that, dammitall!

Date: 2009/12/23 21:17:15, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 23 2009,19:15)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 23 2009,18:11)
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 23 2009,15:37)
 
Quote
Of course, the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

John Lennon's famous declaration, of course.

Btw, this is the same John Lennon who privately asked for spiritual help from the late evangelist Oral Roberts.  

Rev. Roberts sent a private reply to Lennon.  The media apparently never found out about this.  Would you like to know exactly what that reply was, and would you lke to find out what happened to Lennon afterwards?  

If so, please check this out:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/januaryweb-only/001-22.0.html

Floyd Lee

So he dabbled in Christianity like everything else.  Jesus had some good ideas.  So did Buddha. So did K'ung Fu-tzu.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69569

He could also imagine no religion. Unlike FL.

Considering what a low-life scum, fraudulent huckster, and all-around piece of shit that Oral Roberts was, I'm not sure anyone should use him as a "positive" for Christianity (or anything else).

Date: 2009/12/24 11:07:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 24 2009,06:49)
Quote
The clear text meaning in any translation was the expectation that it would occur within the current generation.

We also have Mark 9:1:
     
Quote
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

It takes an inhuman effort to reconcile all the conflicting words of the Bible.
Floyd is desperate; he "knows" the truth but have hell of a job convincing himself as well as anyone else. I am afraid he is lost. His intellectual house of cards is a Damocles sword demanding a perpetual struggle for peace of mind.

Without studying to origins of the Bible, the who, when and why of the different, often contradictory texts, sorting out the more or less obvious forgeries, editions, cut-and-paste jobs, additions, deletions. What has been left out and why? Why just the four gospels; there were many others?

Don't remember, may have been Tertullian who felt the need of explaining: "There are no more, no less that four gospels because of the four corners of the Earth and the four principal winds." Convincing?
...
Both Pagan and Gnostic sources also deserve to be studied.

I'm surprised he hasn't used the "Wandering Jew" apologetic - that was the origin of that myth, so that the medieval apologists could say that there was one who heard and was made immortal so that the "prophecy" could be fulfilled.

Date: 2009/12/27 17:34:42, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.

Teabagging is socialist?   :p

Date: 2009/12/27 18:41:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 27 2009,18:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2009,22:36)
Quote (steve_h @ Dec. 27 2009,13:22)
* Automatically add a word count to mullins' posts.

My computer only has 4 gigs, will this be an issue?

If you are worried about RAM usage (I'm assuming the 4GB is a reference to RAM, though that is nearly 60 times the hard drive space I had in my first computer that had a hard drive. Not to mention 4+ BILLION times the RAM of my first computer proper), having ample swap space is necessary anyway.

By my calculations he will approach a googolplex characters per post sometime in 2011.

Sure it's not sometime December, in...2012?

Date: 2009/12/27 18:42:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 27 2009,18:41)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 27 2009,18:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2009,22:36)
 
Quote (steve_h @ Dec. 27 2009,13:22)
* Automatically add a word count to mullins' posts.

My computer only has 4 gigs, will this be an issue?

If you are worried about RAM usage (I'm assuming the 4GB is a reference to RAM, though that is nearly 60 times the hard drive space I had in my first computer that had a hard drive. Not to mention 4+ BILLION times the RAM of my first computer proper), having ample swap space is necessary anyway.

By my calculations he will approach a googolplex characters per post sometime in 2011.

Sure it's not sometime December, in...2012?

Oh, for an edit button.  Hit "add reply" before I thought of this.  If his word count is high enough, will he cause the Singularity?

Date: 2009/12/29 14:49:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Rrr @ Dec. 29 2009,13:28)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 28 2009,16:25)
   
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 28 2009,16:51)
   
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 27 2009,17:34)
     
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 27 2009,17:24)
that's some good reading, Kristine.  I especially like the point about Glen Beck lamenting that people no longer recognize symbolism, while he himself is using a socialist, union symbol for his grassroots movement.

Teabagging is socialist?   :p

Only if it's rooibos?

That was obscure.

Apologies if this was not a query, but permit me to endeavour to explain, if I may.

AFAIK, Rooibos is a hot stimulating drink prepared like tea from the twigs of a "red bush" (instead of fermented leaves of the camelia tree) and also enjoyed in a like manner, primarily in southern Africa.

Ergo, a red tea bag. QED, etc.

It will all get clearer after a cuppa, luv.

Red Tea Bag sounds like a club in Moscow.

Date: 2009/12/30 11:19:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Dec. 30 2009,10:31)
Yikes.  Posted on Christmas day and titled "A Christmas Story"
   
Quote
Jen thought when she left the house that she was just going for a joy ride, but that's not what her "friends" had in mind. Once they had Jen back at their apartment they tied her to a bed, abused her, filmed the whole thing, and when she resisted they beat her until she submitted.

 
Quote
Finally her abductors sold her to a street gang in exchange for drugs. Bound and gagged, she was raped repeatedly and beaten savagely.

Amazingly, this is not written by chunkyD.  The story ends with "And that's why Christians celebrate Christmas."  Some weird, sick, twisted shit.

If it was Chunky, there would have to be some love-relationship between Michael and the Thug, something like "Their eyes met across the gun...they could feel the heat of desire...Darwin is evil..." - something like that, anyway.  Either that, or maybe "Jen" is actually a transexual   (or if, Bobby Byers is around, she can be marsupial).

However, the "allegory" fails on multiple levels.  Trying to liken Michael to Jesus is better for an Easter story.  The message would have to be something like "Jen celebrates her father's birthday since if he wasn't born he could not have died saving her" (nevermind the fact that she wouldn't exist, but hey, it's a story) - a distinctly selfish attitude to me.  It also fails in that her Father actually died and ceased to exist, rather than, say, surviving in a coma, and when he comes out of it is made President-For-Life with the power to consign all criminals to the most vile and vicious torture, especially such criminals as those who refuse to worship him but are otherwise normal hard-working people (say, Jen's best friend Michelle, who has her skin peeled off and is dipped in salt every day, merely for not bowing to her father as he passed by).

Date: 2009/12/30 13:06:20, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed

Why is that?

     
Quote
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.

And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
     
Quote
Today there is no need.

Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

     
Quote
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.


Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

     
Quote
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.


Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
     
Quote
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.

Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
     
Quote
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.

Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!

The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.

Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site Learn Genetics - University of Utah has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

Genetics Home Reference lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)

Date: 2009/12/30 19:14:39, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

You'd get the same answer as the last time - these "differences" are just minor and unimportant compared to the way they look, and all the other similarities.  He even called the differences between placental and marsupial reproduction "minor" (IIRC).  To him, Thylacines are more like placental wolves than other marsupials.

Would you question the bibble?

Date: 2009/12/31 18:58:38, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 31 2009,18:18)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 31 2009,18:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2009,11:29)
http://periodictable.com/

Cool, good for teachers?

Tres Cool  But they left off Unobtanium, an element crucial to many perpetual motion machines.

Happy New Decadium, AtBC!

Also Warp Drives, which I mentioned on Facebook just this morning. :)

Floating mountains too, from what I hear.

Date: 2010/01/01 15:31:37, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 01 2010,14:28)
Just thought I'd post the reviewing a review link and the review link.

Holy cow the Tard is strong!  Trying to read through the blather hurts my brain - where are two bricks!

I did find the quote mining of Richard Dawkins (from Expelled, no less) by the last commenter to be funny, and his misunderstanding of the Miller-Urey experiments (complex molecules are oxidized in Oxygen, therefore the RNA world is false [d'ya want to bet whether he understands the atmospheric content of the early Earth?  Bueller?].)  All it needed was the "therefore Jebus"

How do you guys do it?

Date: 2010/01/02 02:30:50, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:00)
Quote (damitall @ Dec. 30 2009,18:26)
About this "need for speed" business...

Isn't it a rather serious design fault to depend on the marsupial pouchy method, if the need is so great?

Rabbits don't do it that way. Pigs don't do it that way. Cats and dogs don't do it that way.

Seems to me that the ability to drop a good big litter of squirming young is a much better way to populate a territory rapidly.

But I realise that Bubba Byers is for some reason fixated on marsupials, so multiple pregnancies will be abhorrent to him

It seems the marsupial thing was to increase production on the fly.
The thing about it to me is that they can have one in the pouch, one growing in the womb, and one stored awaiting its turn.
I would also speculate it was even a faster production back then, post flood centuries, and now only a picture of the great worldwide explosion in reproduction is kept.
Everything everywhere rapidly refilled the earth.
Marsupials are telling a old tale.

Anyways mechanism is secondary to what i see as powerful evidence that marsupials were wrongly classified as different from their same shaped namesakes.
A marsupial lion is after all just a lion. ETC.

To save time, I wont quote the last post you responded to of mine, but please, learn some genetics.  Pig ignorant is not the way to go.  There's so much wrong in what you wrote, I'm not sure where to begin, and will have to come back to it if I want a laugh, but I can't let the reading comprehension problem slip by.  Do you even read what you write, or read what others write - or both?

What part of "dogs and cats have litters therefore they can reproduce much faster than marsupials" is hard to understand.  Hell, look at Octo-mom, or the spawner-on-heels Duggers woman.  She can out reproduce marsupials without a sweat.  Sheesh.

Date: 2010/01/02 02:36:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.

Again - read for comprehension FAIL.

What part of "why do marsupial wolves share more traits (in both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves" translates into "(m)arsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves.  They share few points with "marsupials" ?"

The two say the opposite thing.  How can he make your case for you when he says the opposite?  Is English your third language, and you can't speak your first two?  "More traits" does not equal "very few" in any usage of the language.

So far, all you repeat is "it looks like it to me, so I know better than those who actually study the animals."  Argument from ignorance is not a way to go either.

Date: 2010/01/02 10:53:02, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 02 2010,09:05)
Diprotodon



From wiki...
Diprotodon was the largest known marsupial that ever lived. It, along with many other members of a group of unusual species collectively called the Australian megafauna, existed from 1.6 million years ago until about 40,000 years ago (through most of the Pleistocene epoch). Diprotodon spp. fossils have been found in many places across Australia, including complete skulls and skeletons, as well as hair and foot impressions. More than one female skeleton has been found with a baby lying in her pouch.

Diprotodon is just Yogi Bear corrupted by the Fall.  Everyone knows that!

Date: 2010/01/04 13:05:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,04:13)
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 02 2010,01:56)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,01:52)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,13:06)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
         
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
           
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed

Why is that?

         
Quote
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.

And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
         
Quote
Today there is no need.

Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

         
Quote
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.


Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

         
Quote
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.


Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
         
Quote
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.

Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
         
Quote
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.

Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!

The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.

Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site Learn Genetics - University of Utah has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

Genetics Home Reference lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)

I'm saying the evidence of life and fossil life insists upon marsupials being just placentals with pouches etc.
so the genetics is a minor detail to deal with.
There is no reason to corral genetics to modern observations or processes modern research deals with. I say genetics etc did need to act quickly and so it did. innate triggers is my speculation on how. I see no problem with genetic diversity being a very easy thing to occur and not this clumbsy mutation thing they now push.
The variety in dog breeds alone shows the great potential for variety.
I see no reason not to speculate this variety can be triggered by need and not just happenchance being selected on.
Anyways my point and essay is that the anatomical evidence is king in how to classify biological relationships.
so the genetics needs reform.

Bobby, where does the variation of dog breeds come from if there is no such thing as "mutation"?

I didn't say there isn't a minor thing of mutations happening.
I just see it as a special case in what is actually going on or used to go on in genes actions in living organisms.
I say there is innate triggers that change genes to adapt a creature , like a dog, to its niche in a post flood world. Modern mutations/artificial selection is just a memory of this ability. In fact perhaps these mutations are not really mutations or problems in genes but just showing how slippery genes are and its  a healthy thing.
Yet again this is about mechanism and my case is on anatomy.
Genes simply must surrender to this conclusion.

"This is about mechanism and my case is on anatomy" - yet you have no mechanism.  Your basing your beliefs on your bible and superficial similarities, not actual similarities or differences.  You give no mechanism.  In fact...

"Genes simply must surrender to this conclusion." is so far wrong and backwards it's hysterical.  See, you have to look at the evidence before you can come to a conclusion, not make the evidence fit a predetermined conclusion.  The former is how scientists work, the latter is how you and other pseudoscientists work.  How do you get the anatomy if the genes aren't there.  

The similarities in creatures are usually superficial in convergent evolution.  If you do look deeper than you are looking, you'll find some similarities but a lot more differences, both at the gross (anatomical) level but also at the genetic level.  Two creatures may look the same, but the genes that determine that may be completely different.  That's one way we can determine relatedness, or lack thereof.

Date: 2010/01/04 13:11:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,04:26)
Quote (Reed @ Jan. 02 2010,05:07)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 01 2010,23:45)

     
Quote (Johnw @ ,)

"My crowd" (whatever that is) says Australia had no desert 4,000 years ago?  Source, please.
Its always said by researchers that Australia was covered by flora and only later did it dry out in the middle. Its a common point they bring up.

Real scientists (and other vaguely educated people) know Australia is just a bit older than 4000 years.

If you don't take their word for something obvious like that, it's hard to see why you'd accept anything else they say!
   
Quote
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials"

If you wanted to actually make a case for this, you'd have to come up with some quantifiable method of comparing these "points", and demonstrate that this gave better results than existing phylogenetic methods.

edit: typooos!

The case for me is made by present ideas about convergent evolution. They mean by convergent that the sameness of a marsupial wolf and our wolf is so profoundly alike in anatomy that it must be from selection/mutation in like niches between these yet unrelated creatures.
EVOLUTION is invoked for the sameness of bodies here!. Its not superficial but from time and genes and selection inside and out of the two kinds of "dogs".
The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it.

The problem is they are not "profoundly" alike - they are similar, but the differences exceed the similarities, as, I believe, has been shown here.  You just don't want to accept that, so you have to torture the facts to fit your conclusion.  Last I knew, lying was still supposed to be a sin, despite what Luther is rumored to have said (IIRC).

Also - WTF does "The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it." mean?  What thousands of points involving twists and turns of bone to bring about an eye?  You do realize that there are multiple forms of eyes, with differences between them in genes and structure (hint - an octopus and human eye are wildly difference, despite their appearance).  I can't recall off hand, but I think the number of different eyes is something like 7-10 at a minimum (ie - eyes evolved that many times for difference lineages).  Maybe someone here can fix that for me so that we have the facts correct?

Date: 2010/01/04 13:11:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2010,13:01)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 04 2010,15:41)
Quote
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.

Robert, yes - that is what you say.

But do you really think saying is enough? If we shall believe anything you say, you'd be obliged to believe anything we say say too. Or are you trying to say you are much smarter than us?

Come on Robert, tell us how you know there is an innate trigger to creatures. How did you find out?

Can you name one other person in this world that knows about and agrees with you about the triggers?

Where are the triggers, what do they look like, what are they made of, how do they function?

Do you think anything becomes true simply because you say it?

You have so much in common with God, are you certain you are not God?

He's gone off half cocked.

Does that mean it's nothing to crow about?

Date: 2010/01/04 15:14:24, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 04 2010,14:13)
Robert,
 
Quote
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.

Why then is it that it is not insects, but bacteria that fills the Earth?

If insects have to fill the Earth, since there are no arctic flies, does that mean they failed?  What about earthworms - how fast do they move, Robert?  Were they carried by the insects that flew?  What about water bugs?

I'm reminded of Xanth, I think, which had an insect that flew at supersonic speeds (at least I think it was Xanth, the discworld has the light-speed cheetah/puma/whatever) - did post-Flood earthworms fly or burrow at the speed of sound?

Date: 2010/01/05 19:03:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 05 2010,15:47)
I was just thinking about our absent friend, Stevestory.  Despite having been absent for quite a while, Steve is still the most prolific poster with 7968 posts.  But we have two other commenters who are starting to catch up to Steve. Richardthughes has 6741 posts and adds 4.67 per day.  Arden Chatfield has 6633 posts and adds 4.58 per day.  At those rates, I estimate that Richie will surpass Steve on September 25 of this year and Chatterbox will pass Steve a month later, on October 24.

I figure we ought to make this interesting. I'd like to open a betting pool for who can correctly predict who will be the first to surpass Stevestory AND closest to predicting on what day they will do it.  50% of the collected proceeds will go to the betting pool winner and the remainder will be go towards awards for our two contenders. We will buy a life for the first prize winner and (to make it interesting) a copy of "The Spatula Brain" by Denyse O'Leary for the runner-up.

I'd play, but if I won I'm not sure what I'd do with a life.  My own isn't much, but I like it.  Can I specify whose life?

I'm sure buying Densey's book will be an incentive to win and not end up as the runner up, but make a big incentive - everyone who loses gets Densey's book - there will be a hideous wailing and gnashing of the teeth!

Or is that too cruel?

Date: 2010/01/07 14:19:21, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 07 2010,09:42)
So WTF is a "biblical boundary"???

You guys/gals do know nothing is going to change this clown's mind, right? He's hermetically sealed.

Good excersize, though... I guess.

Of course we do.  He says he has proved his case when he's done no such thing, and says that everything is the way he sees it because he says it is.  Bubble Boy wasn't sealed in that tight, but this conversation (one-sided that it is) has a kind of curious (or sick) fascination.  Trying to comprehend such willful, nay worshipful, ignorance is astounding.  Do we have a pic of Bobby?  A photoshop of his head on popeye sounds about right "it is 'cuz it is, toot toot!"

And here I thought to sign up and post a link to the creotards on the Pharyngula thread on weiland to get some more amusement.  Not sure it's needed.

Date: 2010/01/07 16:23:24, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reed @ Jan. 07 2010,14:33)
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 07 2010,06:48)
This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution.

Better yet, his version requires evolution to happen thousands or millions of times faster than it actually did. If you can go from canid to marsupial in a few thousand years (or less, since the claim is that it helped them spread quickly from the ark ) then going from something like a ape to a human in a few million years should be no problem at all.

No matter how many times they do it (and they do it a lot for being so dead set against evolution! ), YECs appealing to impossibly fast evolution to argue against evolution always makes me snicker.

     
Quote (fnxtr @ ,)
Good excersize, though... I guess.

Hardly, he just repeats his "OMG it's true 'cause I say so" over and over. But hey, it's cheap entertainment :)

Well, to be honest, he seems to think that there are no major differences between marsupials and placentals, so there is no real need for a lot of changes.  He probably also thinks that the different "kinds" just all became marsupial together since that was his god's plan, as told in his holy book (it's appendix 3: Australia, subsection 2a - marsupials)

Date: 2010/01/11 20:26:25, Link
Author: Badger3k
Don't really know you, but I've read your posts, and since you're a human being - that's enough to wish you the best.  Hope your on your feet and back to what passes for normal soon. May all your clots be homeopathic ones (too tiny to do anything, that is).

Is this where I sacrifice someone to Cthulhu now?  I keep forgetting.

Date: 2010/01/11 20:30:28, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (REC @ Jan. 11 2010,14:16)
Man alive, it is TARDy over there this week-and it is only Monday.
On track for a Friday meltdown?

I think the TARDis has cracked open, exposing the Eye of TARD, or something - we're traveling through time with it.

Or is it the TARDularity? ???

Date: 2010/01/11 20:31:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 11 2010,20:00)
Collin does nested hierarchies:  
Quote
Zachriel said: “You are mistaken. Cars do not form a singular, objective nested hierarchy across most traits. They do not reproduce themselves. And we observe they are manufactured by a peculiar species of biped.”

I don’t know what you mean by ’singular’ and ‘objective’ but automobiles certainly do form nested hierarchies.

For example:
A tacoma is a toyota, but not all toyotas are tacomas. Toyotas are automobiles, but not automobiles are toyotas.


Hey, Collin, nest this:  
Quote
The Geo/Chevrolet Prizm (Chevrolet Prizm starting 1998) was a United States-market entry-level compact car from model years 1989 through 2002. Like the 1985–1988 Chevrolet Nova it replaced, the Prizm was a rebadged version of the Toyota Sprinter, an upmarket version of the Toyota Corolla sold in Japan. All Prizms were built at NUMMI (New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc), a joint venture plant between Toyota and General Motors in Fremont, California.

Maybe cars are like Bacteria and have lateral transfer?

Date: 2010/01/12 13:16:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Brian Switek has a post on the "marsupial lion" (Thylacoleo) here - pay attention to the skull and foot (the hind foot reconstruction).  Robert, you can look at that, and read what it says, and claim that lions and the Thylacoleo are similar?

Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.  The skulls are nothing alike, and the hind feet show that the entire structure and method of walking is different.  Throw in the reproduction method (will all attendant physiological differences - hormones and such, plus anatomy), and there is no comparison.  Only someone completely blinded and slavishly dogmatic to their dogma would claim otherwise.  Sadly, we know what you will say.

Date: 2010/01/14 00:06:52, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 13 2010,22:49)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 13 2010,22:30)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 13 2010,21:54)
Gil shows off his crown of thorns:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-345336

   
Quote
My father named me after Gilbert Newton Lewis, the great chemist with whom my father worked during WWII on the Manhattan Project.
I get the impression that Gil thinks he would be nothing without his father. WWII, Manhattan Project. Compare this to throwing some cargo out of a plane. Even if one describes it is precision air dropping it appears negligeable compared to the atom bomb. Poor guy.

His father wasn't sufficient. Now Gil is referring to Newton.  
Quote

48
GilDodgen
01/13/2010
11:36 pm

P.S.: A thought about my namesake, Gilbert Newton Lewis. Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians of all time, and he was a devout believer who “saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.” C.S. Lewis was an atheist into his middle years, as was I, but became arguably one of the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th century. I owe a great debt of gratitude to both Newton and Lewis for opening my eyes in so many ways.

What a strange coincidence of names.
Everything in life must have some meaning.

ETA: Since it won't appear at UD: I've asked Gil if he were implying front-loading.

I thought it was a mix of Gilbert (from revenge of the nerds), Olivia Newton-John, and Sherri Lewis.  We have a socially maladapted person (although Gilbert, and his friend Louis were both intelligent and respected science), well, ok, an 80's pop icon - I got nothin', and someone how uses sock puppets.

Coincidence?

Date: 2010/01/14 19:34:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tsig @ Jan. 14 2010,15:05)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 13 2010,16:32)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2010,14:45)
quote]
Go have a look.

Excellent Catch and Link!

Load of fun to be had there!  to give you a small sample, here's a quote from the website on an upcoming important meeting: (My bolding, in case any IDCists want to sign up)
   
Quote
Frontiers in Creation Research
Pittsburgh, August 7-8, 2008. The 2008 meeting of the BSG will be held in conjunction with the Creation Geology Group at the Radisson Greentree in Pittsburgh.


I also looked at the titles of the papers from the site:

Another actual sample - I swear I am NOT making this up -      
Quote
The Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a Snake
Kennard


oldman - How in the name of The Holy Designer did you dig this up?

I love this part:

"Evil is not invading
on the back of one greater than humans, but rather a
subordinate snake of the creation is choosing evil in
rebellion against humans, the miniature sovereign.
That is, there is no pre-existing evil, rather free-will
snake choice to rebel becomes evil in the choice to
rebel. So the humans and a snake choose to rebel in
the same event, and God places them under the oracle
of curse in response to their rebellious free choice."

Snakes have free will.  

I could have told him that. tsig=talking snake in the grass.

Holy Talking Snake, Batman!  Wow.  I'm not sure I'm cleared for that level of Tard, but...<shakes head>

I did like the fact that humans are "miniature sovereigns" - kinda like a mini-me of god?  And the creotards say we believe that man is god?  Do I see projection?

Snakes not only have free will, but the intelligence to know what they are doing, and the emotions that got them to rebel, not to mention the whole talking and flying bit (IIRC - didn't the snake fly or am I confusing that with Nehushtan (sp?) the winged snake god that may appear later in Genesis with Moses)?

Does this guy think that snakes can think?  That's crazy.
Spiders, on the other hand... :angry:

Date: 2010/01/14 19:47:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 14 2010,19:44)
Quote
Collin: you have two kinds of events only: actions of agents who intend it and those that are random, by chance.

The movement of Mars is random. Diamonds are random arrangements of atoms. Rivers flow randomly uphill or downhill.

Wait a minute - is he saying that I have to will my heart to beat - or that I make a conscious decision and change my body?  Hmm - I wonder if the makers of Extenz now about that?

non-edit note:  :angry:  - what my last post should have looked like.  Didn't have emoticons turned on for some reason.

Date: 2010/01/15 10:31:19, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (snorkild @ Jan. 15 2010,05:56)
I see a dead CG kangaroo on that picture.

What is Rubberts non-marsupial version of a kangaroo?
A hare? A rabbit? a pogo stick?

The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive Nova site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy, boggles the mind.  

From the first page
Quote
One of Australia's most fantastic beasts, the extinct Thylacoleo carnifex, or "meat-cutting marsupial lion," possessed a host of physical traits unseen in any single creature alive today. These included features especially suited to a carnivorous hunter, including retractable, catlike claws, a kangaroo's tail, and jaw muscles that delivered a bite stronger than a lion's. Altogether, says paleontologist Rod Wells, Thylacoleo resembled something designed by committee. In this interactive, learn more about the marsupial lion's singular anatomy and what it reveals of the animal's predatory life in Pleistocene Australia.—Rima Chaddha


Well, Robert, how does that jibe?  Do lions possess these features, and look as if they were designed by a committee?  Do other felines?  Did YHVH subcontract out the marsupials, and a committee of angels design them, or was your god having a bad day?  

I was going to do more, but I think I'll just stick with a note to Robert - the paper that Laelaps blogged about focused on the foot because that was the new find, and that was a question they were researching.  They found the hind foot was different from felines, which implies that the legs were different as well (different ways of walking require different ankle joints, etc).  The authors probably felt they did not need to describe the entire creature in detail, any more than someone writing about the foot of a lion would need to write out the entire anatomy & physiology - because it is already known and available for those interested.  Why waste the effort?

It is a standard creotard complaint (the "Well, the paper leaves out the fact that the sun is in the sky during the day, so therefore it doesn't exist for that instance" kind of thing) which mainly seeks to cloud the issue with nonsense.

Side note - via Pharyngula, there is an iPhone app with the standard creationist complaints and the refutations, available for $0.99.  Not bad, and it gave me something to read while trying to talk to one of our counselors.  Recommend it.

Date: 2010/01/15 11:25:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 15 2010,11:04)
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 15 2010,19:01)
dinosaurs bones are the tools of beezlebub

DON'T FORGET EARTHQUAKES AND VOODOO...

And non-Christians, of course.  And "Evolutionists."

Date: 2010/01/15 18:12:14, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 15 2010,17:57)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2010,14:28)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,11:31)
The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive Nova site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy anything, boggles the mind.  

I think I may have identified the source of your confusion.

But it says in the Bible* that Thylacoleo is a cat.  So that settles it.



* The Book Of Bruce

Is that Bruce  or New Bruce?  Rule Number 3?

Date: 2010/01/16 12:43:41, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 16 2010,11:01)
Quote
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.


The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?

The real question - who has the pouch, Jeff or Kurt?

Edit - thank you for the edit button!!!!  By pouch I mean one with an opening to the exterior world, not a common sack - perverts!

Date: 2010/01/16 12:50:33, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,04:25)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2010,10:31)
Quote (snorkild @ Jan. 15 2010,05:56)
I see a dead CG kangaroo on that picture.

What is Rubberts non-marsupial version of a kangaroo?
A hare? A rabbit? a pogo stick?

The very first link I got to when I went to research the anatomy of the Thylacoleo was the interactive Nova site.  How any can say that skeleton looks like a cat, if they know anything at all about anatomy, boggles the mind.  

From the first page  
Quote
One of Australia's most fantastic beasts, the extinct Thylacoleo carnifex, or "meat-cutting marsupial lion," possessed a host of physical traits unseen in any single creature alive today. These included features especially suited to a carnivorous hunter, including retractable, catlike claws, a kangaroo's tail, and jaw muscles that delivered a bite stronger than a lion's. Altogether, says paleontologist Rod Wells, Thylacoleo resembled something designed by committee. In this interactive, learn more about the marsupial lion's singular anatomy and what it reveals of the animal's predatory life in Pleistocene Australia.—Rima Chaddha


Well, Robert, how does that jibe?  Do lions possess these features, and look as if they were designed by a committee?  Do other felines?  Did YHVH subcontract out the marsupials, and a committee of angels design them, or was your god having a bad day?  

I was going to do more, but I think I'll just stick with a note to Robert - the paper that Laelaps blogged about focused on the foot because that was the new find, and that was a question they were researching.  They found the hind foot was different from felines, which implies that the legs were different as well (different ways of walking require different ankle joints, etc).  The authors probably felt they did not need to describe the entire creature in detail, any more than someone writing about the foot of a lion would need to write out the entire anatomy & physiology - because it is already known and available for those interested.  Why waste the effort?

It is a standard creotard complaint (the "Well, the paper leaves out the fact that the sun is in the sky during the day, so therefore it doesn't exist for that instance" kind of thing) which mainly seeks to cloud the issue with nonsense.

Side note - via Pharyngula, there is an iPhone app with the standard creationist complaints and the refutations, available for $0.99.  Not bad, and it gave me something to read while trying to talk to one of our counselors.  Recommend it.

The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.
The marsupial lion is a simple cat creature with a few details.
Its tail is just a common feature of marsupials. In fact the marsupial wolf has a tail as pictures show that is a little different and even let this wolf stand erect for some length of time. The tails were a common adaptation to needs in the new land.
By the way. Otherwise your saying a creature can be so affected  from its simple frame into such diversity of form from niche and YET keep a tail or teeth etc. Why should a tail or teeth be so stickly in restraining evolution. All the marsupial tails, teeth etc should be easiuly as varied as the rest of their bodies from each other!
It shows rather these details of tail, teeth were a common adaptation to a common niche influence. The area or some stress etc.

I suspect these tails were needed to allow the varied creatures to look over high vegatation. A unique problem in original Australia.

HEADDESK!!!!

Even ignoring the big arguments, when you get to such stupidity as tails being needed to look over high vegetation, a "unique problem in original Australia" - WTF?  Do you mean that over the entire world, there exists no high vegetation?  Seriously?  What do you smoke before you post - or what mental illness do you have?  Have you seen a doctor for this?  Should we alert the authorities and have the men with the rubber coats come to pay you a visit?  Have you seen any pictures of Africa - or anywhere else?

Damn, off all the times to misplace my "The Stupid It Burns" jpeg.  Just imagine it goes here.

Date: 2010/01/18 13:32:16, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 18 2010,13:27)
dum dum dum!

Nobody expects The Spanish Inkwoksition!

He's at Laden's now too.



 
Quote
You Sound Like A..., by cindy47452

Before I go and check it out, I'm betting I see the following:

1) mention of his good friend Ken Miller
2) Mendacious Intellectual Pornographers (there really needs to be a band)
3) mention of his high school
4) a lot of mentions of how good he is (at PT, what the heck did his helping the Haitians have to do with anything?)

Although, if you got Kwok to start arguing against gun control, then we can see Laden go off the deep end as well - a twofer!

Date: 2010/01/18 17:48:32, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2010,14:12)
YOU'RE PREDICTIONS ARE RONG. I DEMAD RECOMPENSE OF A CAMERA.

Sorry, I can't afford that - I'll post a picture on my facebook page, though.  kthxbai!

Date: 2010/01/19 10:55:23, Link
Author: Badger3k
Bobby needs a cluestick.  DNA is "a" atomic score - what the hell does that even mean.  You use sciencey words without any idea of what they refer to.  If you were in elementary school you'd fail.  You claim that the actual anatomy - the skulls, don't do it justice, based on what it looks like, but when given artists rendering (based on anatomy - the same technique that facial reconstruction artists use can be used on animals to give it shape) that show the Thylacoleo and lions look nothing alike, you ignore it.

What about Australia's native placentals?  here and here to start.  Why was marsupial adaptation necessary for these animals to repopulate, when it was not needed for the placentals native to Australia?  Double standards?  Does God prefer marsupials and held a grudge against the others?  Was he punishing the platypus?

With a level of ignorance such as yours, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children - who knows the damage you'd do to their minds.

Edit - I wonder if Bobby will be called to testify the next time science textbooks and standards come up in Texas.  Our creationist idiot board members would soil themselves to have you speak.

Date: 2010/01/19 11:01:18, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 16 2010,11:01)
Quote
The bodies of marsupial lion, wolves, bears, moles do look exactly like placentals.


The fact the the appearance of one thing looks kind of like another is superficial. What matters is the anatomy. For example the eye orbits of tarsiers and anthropoids looks quite similar in that they are both closed in the back (something called post-orbital closure) and was considered to be a trait that established a relationship between the two. Closer examination, however, revealed that the trait was not at all the same. Post-orbital closure in tarsiers is accomplished using different bones than in anthropoid post-orbital closure. Consequently, the superficial surface appearance was irrelevant to establishing a relationship between the two. What matters is the actual anatomy and genetics and when you look deeper than the general appearance of forms there is a great difference between marsupial and placental creatures. By your logic the fact that:


Means they are identical and hence the same person. In reality similarity of general form is not enough to establish identity.

Edit to add: or, we could compare the anatomy of a thlacoleo skull:



with that of a lion skull:



Wow, they don't look at all alike. I wonder what that means?

These skulls don't ever do justice to the real looks of creatures. This is why even dinosaurs are still speculative in what they looked like. Yet these skulls are pretty close for skulls.

Your example of the eye thing makes my case. Original conclusions on relationship were wrong . Upon further study differences established better origins. (If this case is true since I find flexibility in nature unrelated to heritage).
Superficiality does not exist in nature. Everything is powerfully made for its survival. If creatures look the same on a profound basis then they probably are the same. Details of difference can be dismissed due to other influences.
To have a series of creatures in one area look like series of other creatures elsewhere in 95% of their body and yet deny a relationship because of 5% is just poor classification ideas.

You keep asserting that they look alike in 95% (of what, you don't say) - when shown that they are anatomically different (way more than 5%), genetically different (through the anatomy - different genes make different anatomy, but I'm sure the genome project either has marsupials or will, it can be looked at online IIRC).

Ignoring the evidence and continually asserting what you want to believe (the "nuh-uh" gambit) isn't any way to argue, nor is it any way to get to the truth.  But somehow, I'm not sure how, I just don't see you wanting to do that.

Date: 2010/01/19 11:04:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 19 2010,10:53)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,02:34)
Nobody says dolphins are convergent with fish. Neither do i.

In order to claim that some forms converged you would have to accept evolution, right?
I am pretty sure that every biologist would say that dolphins, fish and also ichtyosaurs are convergent.

Good point - were Ichtyosaurs fish, or were they a trick of Satan to confuse people away from God?  Ok, we'll add the third option, that they were reptiles who adapted to water so much that they can be confused with fish by those who are ignorant about them.  Anything I missed?

Date: 2010/01/19 20:41:28, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Jkrebs @ Jan. 19 2010,09:53)
Quote
Tonight my friend Frank Turek will be interviewing me as well as other Christian apologists (such as William Lane Craig and Josh McDowell).


Notice that Dembski identifies himself as Christian apologist.  He doesn't want comments because this has nothing to do with ID. Right?

Gah - my brain hurts just thinking about the level of TARD, stupidity, ignorance, pseudo-history....must..stop...before...brain...explodes...

.
.
.
Whew, that was close.  I hope it's just written - if it's available to download and listen to while I drive, I probably would drive off the road while hitting my head on the wheel.

Date: 2010/01/21 18:21:16, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2010,17:01)
afarensis,
Quote
You keep saying that there are thousands of points of similarity between marsupial and placental wolves. Please do enlighten us and name, say, a couple hundred. Heck, 50 will do, name 50.

Well of course there are - they're both mammals, so anything shared by all mammals will be a point of similarity. :)

Henry

As I pointed out, there are native placentals in Australia as well as the marsupials.  Not sure why that is if marsupialism is a god-gift for rapid reproduction, but what the heck.  Bobby could use them as a comparison.  Hell, just compare Kangaroos and rats - they share a common link via kangaroo rats - an intermediate species, perhaps.  Maybe they are half-marsupial?  In any case, I'm betting we don't see any list of common features, unless it's like this:

1. hair
2. eyes
3. legs
4. bones
5. blood
50. They look the same!!!!!

Date: 2010/01/22 19:13:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Two days now and no more?  Did we break another one?

Next!

Do you think if we say "Ken Ham is an idiot" three times, we'll summon one of his minions?  Summon Creatard is a first level spell, if I remember my Bibles and Burrows rules. :D

Date: 2010/01/22 19:20:21, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 22 2010,12:01)
 
Quote (AdmiralAckbar @ Jan. 22 2010,08:36)
What is the obsession of Chopra-types and fundamentalists with string theory?  God, universal consciousness, fairies and unicorns hiding out in extra dimensions?  Last refuge of those looking for them?  And the crazy irony is the blind acceptance of string theory as proven fact in the same breath where they dispute evolution.

1.  It's sciency.
2.  It's difficult to understand.
3.  Most people have heard of it, without knowing much about it other than (1) and (2).
4.  Unless there are any scientists in the congregation, it can be dropped into a stream of tard and used as evidence for just about anything you like.  You'll sound really clever.
5.  Therefore Jesus.

See also: relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, dark matter...


edit - I know you referred to string theory first, but I've seen more quantum woo than anything else, thus my post.

Don't forget that you can use it in any situation.  Consciousness - It's Quantum.

Free Will - Quantum!

Mechanism for Design - Quantum!

Creation from Nothing - Quantum!  (ok, so this one may be true for some particles, if I understand the theory correctly - or has this been observed?)

God Communicating to people - Quantum!

Virgin Birth - Quantum!

See - the word Quantum (which koalas hate, IIRC  :p ) can spice up any hypothesis you like, and works great in soda and casseroles.  I do wonder what people think of when they hear Quantum, since it refers to really tiny things.  Calling a man "quantum dick" is like calling some "built like a gorilla."  Does this mean Quantum Gods are really, really, really tiny?  That might explain a lot  ;)

Date: 2010/01/25 20:33:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2010,15:58)
Would anybody care to ask O'Leary what her proposed alternative is?
 
Quote
“a problem that has proved a conundrum for the past 30 years.”

One reason I got interested in this issue is that in virtually any viable field other than Darwinian evolution, if a problem has “proved a conundrum for the past 30 years,” people would be looking at other viable solutions.

Same old. Same old.

Hmm - Christianity has not made any advances in their Intelligent Design Creationism, so, unless we count changing the name...why haven't they moved on to the alternatives?

I read the older Scientists Confront Creationism (IIRC) from the 80s, and the arguments haven't changed.  That's almost thirty years.  Is that the cut-off?

Date: 2010/01/25 20:39:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 25 2010,18:41)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2010,08:17)
 
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Jan. 25 2010,03:29)
And then, Praise the Lord, my daughter lost something in the 2nd floor bathroom, and I am going to become a grandmother!


Her virginity?

Her diaphragm?

Her coat-hanger? :O

What?!!!    

(somebody had to be crude and say it - it was either that or "hymen", and I think "virginity" covered that)

pre-posting edit - even as a joke that's a bit uncomfortable, but, what the hell, got to start somewhere, so please take it in the humorous intent.

Date: 2010/01/25 20:43:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,11:46)
In response to a comment about how orthodox economic theory treats stimulus spending:

Quote
Bradford: You made a specific reference to factories having excess capacity and then cite retailers and landlords benefiting from government profligacy at the expense of the rest of us. You have no idea as to the manufacturing set up of the book makers. This is pure BS motivated by leftist attachment to governmental activism...

You have to understand that I have little patience for your bait and switch tactics and your make believe expertise. You're banished to the land of tard containment aka da swamp.

Banned! And it's an open thread and a discussion that Bradford introduced. By the way, it's not "tard containment," but the Tard Acquisition and Repository Department.

So, does that make the abbreviation for the Tard Acquisition and Repository Department T(ard)ARD?

Otherwise how will we tell the difference (barring context, natch)?

Date: 2010/01/25 20:45:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...

But not here, one notes.

Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?

Date: 2010/01/26 13:17:59, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 26 2010,09:31)
Bilbo dances towards the exit.

 
Quote
Bilbo: And I woke up at four this morning, and went for a walk in the newly falling snow, and decided to dance a jig with God. And since then, realizing every few moments that I am alive because God is sustaining me, suddenly I lost the need to argue with anyone about anything, and all I want to do is dance with God.

Don't know if I'll be back. I hope you all learn to dance with God, too. And especially you, Professor Hitchens. It's fun.

Sounds like a movie:

Gettin' Juggy wit God!

Breakin' 3 - Divine Boogaloo!

or a euphamism:
Doin' the Horizintal Mambo with the Father - whoops, Mary dunnit!

But, we all want to know "How easy is it to flounce offstage while dancing a jig?"

Date: 2010/01/26 20:49:18, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 26 2010,17:26)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 25 2010,20:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...

But not here, one notes.

Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?

There's no way we could come up with a strong homoerotic lure than Bilbo's dancing story.

Maybe put something in about how their eyes met across the newly fallen snow, he felt a stirring in his loins, er, heart...maybe put somethign about the way god licked his lips as he sasheyed towards Bilbo...

How's that?

Date: 2010/01/28 01:09:11, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 27 2010,11:27)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 26 2010,20:49)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 26 2010,17:26)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 25 2010,20:45)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...

But not here, one notes.

Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?

There's no way we could come up with a strong homoerotic lure than Bilbo's dancing story.

Maybe put something in about how their eyes met across the newly fallen snow, he felt a stirring in his loins, er, heart...maybe put somethign about the way god licked his lips as he sasheyed towards Bilbo...

How's that?

It seems the TARD has gone to your brain.  Take a break, soldier.

I think I just need to reboot my brain.

(The sad thing is, I rarely actually go to the sites, just read the TARD here, where it's diluted.  I'm not sure my brain could take pure undiluted TARD.)

Date: 2010/01/28 02:10:52, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 28 2010,00:14)
I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it. its just a few minutes long.
One should watch it several times. It is of one of the last marsupial dogs that ever existed.
Watch with a open mind.
Watch how it walks and lays down and sits upright and scratches and chews something. Remember they say it howled at night.
I say that this creature is a doggie.
It is not a flexible possum or short kangaroo.
It is surely and clearly the first conclusion that it is exactly what its same shaped fellows in other countries are.
A canine with a pouch.
Yes a few minor differences in sloping back/mouth etc. Yet these fit fine in the great diversity of dog types in the world or even in domestic dogs.
(I believe dogs and bears are the same thing but thats beside the point)

I say likewise would a marsupial cat of looked just like our cats.
These are not superficial physical bodies and superficial motions of bodies like other creatures on earth because of convergent evolution.
It has been a great error of classification, done by very few people, to have seen marsupials as a group unrelated to placentals .
They are the same creatures as placentals, according to each type, and simply adapted a marsupial mode of reproduction under some influence and by innate triggers and a wee bit more adaptions of this and that.

This explains the migration of marsupials from a common origin off the biblical ark by showing marsupialism was a last act of a new colonizer.
This happened also in south America by either migration from the north or just adaption in South america. So these marsupials are no more related to Australian marsupials then any other placentals anywhere.

I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Pictures can say better then words sometimes.

What would you expect it to act like?  Have you ever watched any nature films - Wild America, Wild Kingdom ... Walt Disney films?  Anything?

Have you ever studied animal behavior?  Seen any similarities in even widely divergent species?  A lot of the behaviors are inherited - of course they would be similar.  There are only so many varieties of behavior that are possible, as well.  We also love to look at similarities.

Of course, if you really had an open mind you'd realize that your desire for them to be the same (a dog with a pouch) is clearly making you see what you want.  When I see that clip, and I've seen it hundreds of times, I see a pack animal that is missing it's pack.  It's a behavior that you can see in hundreds of different animals.  It's that pesky "common ancestry" - the relationships that reveal we are all related. We know marsupials are related to us, through a common ancestor millions of years ago, a fact that anatomy and genetics (as well as radiocarbon and radioactive dating, geology and paleontology) shows us.  It's only a few people who want to ignore a vast body of evidence to preserve their child-like belief in the scribblings of some very ignorant bronze and iron-age people.

Why do you persist in looking at the surface, and ignoring all the evidence presented against you.  There are questions that I and others have asked, and you have ignored them, simply repeating your assertions as if they were true.  You persist in doing that now.

We've presented skeletal evidence that completely contradicts your claim that marsupial lions look like placental felines, yet you persist in saying they would look the same.  They don't.  It's a fact.  You do know what a fact is, don't you?  A fact is not just what supports your religious beliefs, but something that often contradicts your religious beliefs, especially if what you believe is so pathetic as your descendant of the Atrahasis legend of Sumeria.  

How about native placentals in Australia?  Why did they not need to breed rapidly and so become marsupials?  Why was it only a select few?    If marsupial lions and lions are related, they should possess the same genetics, and we should be able, with genetic engineering, to activate the marsupial genes and make us a marsupial lion from an african one, right?  Any bets on whether this is really possible (hey, stop laughing back there, I can hear you)?  

Pictures can indeed "say better then (sic) words sometimes" - but intelligence, thinking, and evidence are much better all the time.  Try it for once.

However, why not try to watch a video of chimpanzees sometime, keeping a real open mind, and leave your dogma on the shelf.  You might see the thousands of similarities in their behavior with our own.  You'd see the close relationship of our two species.  Maybe pictures are worth a thousand words.

more, just because they are interesting:
bonobo tool use
NSFW - Bonobo Sex
Self-Recognition in apes

(try looking up Jane Goodall - In The Shadow of Man was one of the first books I bought with my own money, and I still have it.  Franz van der Waal - his Inner Ape, IIRC, was very good. - I'd post a link to my scientific papers I've collected, but after a hard drive crash, I've got to have my program relearn all of them, and that is taking a lot of time, and I'm not sure of the legality of posting papers I've downloaded through my school, so maybe later)

Sorry if this is disjointed, but after a long day dealing with students and parents, coming home to the same broken record...I'll just take a page from python "My Brain Hurts!"

Date: 2010/01/28 20:14:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 28 2010,19:52)
Just. Wow. From the guy that brought the world overwhelmingevidence.com:
   
Quote
“Overwhelming Scientific Evidence” yet again
William Dembski
Whenever I hear the phrase “overwhelming evidence” or “overwhelming scientific evidence,” my antennae go up and I know that someone is trying to sell me something. Last night, if you were watching the networks, you heard the following remark:

   
Quote
   I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.

I’d like to encourage people to post in the comments to this thread other examples where the phrase “overwhelming [scientific] evidence” is used to sell a bogus idea.

(my emphasis) Link
Edited: I emboldenated a second bit.

Dangnabbit!  I just about broke in my new irony meter, and ya' just had to go and break it!  Consarnit!

</yosemite sam>

All I can do is just shake my head.  I can't go there just yet, but did anyone bring up his site?  I guess if the thread is still open, then that probably answers the question with a "no" - I can't see that one being allowed to stand.

Date: 2010/01/28 20:16:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Touchstone @ Jan. 28 2010,17:49)
So... another milestone in the descent of Uncommon Descent: StephenB as "blogger" at UD.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....nitions

Ayiyi.

Joseph has new hope. He too, one day, can be an editorial contributor at the flagship blog for Intelligent Design advocacy. Joseph's a couple more cycles down on the degeneration/descent curve, but if StephenB makes the grade, now, it's just a matter of time.

This means, I think, that StephenB now has admin privileges in terms of bannination -- that's an interesting thought.

It also means that a new "tard trophy" is now a practical goal. If StephenB can be a blogger at UD, there's no reason why a sock cannot now penetrate the inner circle and achieve some kind of whole new level of sock-pwnage at UD. Maybe they have brains enough to vet guys like StephenB in person to check on what they are dealing with, but if you're gonna let StephenB in in any case, I'm not taking anything for granted with these guys.

I've not done any sockage at UD, but I think now, a sock could possibly become a major contributor at UD -- not just a commenter. A triumph of Poe's Law (or whatever the ID version of Poe's Law is).

-TS

Is that the reverse wedge strategy?  Overwhelm the ID movement until every member is a sock?  But if then, do we all take off the masks, or do we continue it so that we have something to amuse us? ???

Date: 2010/01/28 23:58:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Sorry to go back to the "look at how similar they are" bit - but now we have Chimpcam!

If we make movies, and they make movies....will chimp creationists be next?

Edit - I tried to find the clip from planet of the apes where the ape scoffs at the idea that they evolved from men, but my skillz must not be up to the task, assuming my memory is correct.  Anyone remember if it happened and what movie it was in?

Date: 2010/01/29 16:21:23, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 29 2010,05:01)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 28 2010,16:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 28 2010,08:36)
oh it howled at night huh.

Grasshopper mice howl at night too.

Q.E.D. Mouse=wolf

Therefore jebus.

But is it a vertebrate or an insect?

It's in the Insectivertebrate Kind, of course.

Date: 2010/01/29 19:42:37, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 29 2010,16:44)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 28 2010,05:06)
Sorry, but I think she's telling porkies.

Rhyming-slang is beyond these septics..

The problem with rhyming slang (to an outsider, even one not septic) is that unless you know the terms that they rhyme with, and the connotation, it's a bit useless.  If "telling porkies" rhymes with anything coherent to an outsider, I'll be damned if I can think of it easily.

"Yorkies" "dorkies" "lorakeets"?

Sounds like she's telling lies or selling stories/fibs - but the derivation is lost on me.

(I am assuming that the slang is based on a rhyme, which stands for something else - so the real meaning is twice obscured - isn't this ... cockney originally?  Damn, if you follow wikipedia and removed the actual rhyming word - the "apples and pears" example, then "porkies" isn't the rhyme)

I give up.  The teacher in me wants to know the origination of that one, please.

Edit - it would help to read the article first.  I could see a stronger link to "Porky's" - the '80s (?) teen-sex R-rated movie franchise, or "Makin' Bacon" reference to sex, or even "Porking" - but those seem too obvious.

Let me guess, I'm over analyzing since I'm bored?

Date: 2010/01/29 19:51:45, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 29 2010,19:32)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 29 2010,13:44)
 
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 29 2010,12:27)
Jehu starts the Predictions Game:
     
Quote
For some reason this reminded me of Robert Shapiro’s prediction that we would understand the origins of life in the next five years. He made that prediction in 2006. With one year left that prediction doesn’t seem any more likely now than it did then.

My turn!  My turn!
     
Quote
William Dembski in the July/August Touchstone magazine:
In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years.

Molecular biology doesn't look dead to me (although my lab does smell funny).

Psst Maya!

William Dembski, Touchstone magazine, July/Aug 2004

FTFY...

The Taliban don't look very collapsed lately, either.  Predictions are not Dr. Dr. Dembski's strong suit, apparently.

Didn't Dr Dr say that he was not going to make predicitions, or is that only for ID?

Wait - what is it the bible says about those making predictions, especially those that come untrue?  I think it involves burning, perhaps....

Date: 2010/01/29 23:32:26, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Jan. 29 2010,20:44)
porkies = pork pie = lie

I worked for a while with an Englishman on a construction crew.  Of course, most work days ended with a beer or three.  A pigs ear before heading home to the trouble-n-strife.

Thank you - now it makes sense.  Never would have thought of pork pies.

Date: 2010/01/30 00:09:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2010,23:36)
N.Wells
Quote
nothing was supposed to have died in the Garden of Eden, so the predators were initially herbivorous
I may be wrong but my latest information is that plants do live and loose their lives during the process of being digested at the latest.
On the other hand it is likely that ID theory will develop another version of the 2nd LOT to explain any inconsistencies.

Now, that's not correct.  I heard from Mike Adams that it is healthier to eat live food than dead food, implying that there is food that is not killed when eaten.  Maybe its ghost stays with you and becomes you - hmm - I did have some carroty thoughts earlier, and my dog did smell of cabbages, or skunk, rotten eggs....

Date: 2010/02/01 20:40:09, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 01 2010,04:05)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 28 2010,02:10)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 28 2010,00:14)
I saw on another forum that there is this fantastic moving picture video of the marsupial wolf. Youtube. I don't know how to get it but every poster interested or confident enough should see it. its just a few minutes long.
One should watch it several times. It is of one of the last marsupial dogs that ever existed.
Watch with a open mind.
Watch how it walks and lays down and sits upright and scratches and chews something. Remember they say it howled at night.
I say that this creature is a doggie.
It is not a flexible possum or short kangaroo.
It is surely and clearly the first conclusion that it is exactly what its same shaped fellows in other countries are.
A canine with a pouch.
Yes a few minor differences in sloping back/mouth etc. Yet these fit fine in the great diversity of dog types in the world or even in domestic dogs.
(I believe dogs and bears are the same thing but thats beside the point)

I say likewise would a marsupial cat of looked just like our cats.
These are not superficial physical bodies and superficial motions of bodies like other creatures on earth because of convergent evolution.
It has been a great error of classification, done by very few people, to have seen marsupials as a group unrelated to placentals .
They are the same creatures as placentals, according to each type, and simply adapted a marsupial mode of reproduction under some influence and by innate triggers and a wee bit more adaptions of this and that.

This explains the migration of marsupials from a common origin off the biblical ark by showing marsupialism was a last act of a new colonizer.
This happened also in south America by either migration from the north or just adaption in South america. So these marsupials are no more related to Australian marsupials then any other placentals anywhere.

I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Pictures can say better then words sometimes.

What would you expect it to act like?  Have you ever watched any nature films - Wild America, Wild Kingdom ... Walt Disney films?  Anything?

Have you ever studied animal behavior?  Seen any similarities in even widely divergent species?  A lot of the behaviors are inherited - of course they would be similar.  There are only so many varieties of behavior that are possible, as well.  We also love to look at similarities.

Of course, if you really had an open mind you'd realize that your desire for them to be the same (a dog with a pouch) is clearly making you see what you want.  When I see that clip, and I've seen it hundreds of times, I see a pack animal that is missing it's pack.  It's a behavior that you can see in hundreds of different animals.  It's that pesky "common ancestry" - the relationships that reveal we are all related. We know marsupials are related to us, through a common ancestor millions of years ago, a fact that anatomy and genetics (as well as radiocarbon and radioactive dating, geology and paleontology) shows us.  It's only a few people who want to ignore a vast body of evidence to preserve their child-like belief in the scribblings of some very ignorant bronze and iron-age people.

Why do you persist in looking at the surface, and ignoring all the evidence presented against you.  There are questions that I and others have asked, and you have ignored them, simply repeating your assertions as if they were true.  You persist in doing that now.

We've presented skeletal evidence that completely contradicts your claim that marsupial lions look like placental felines, yet you persist in saying they would look the same.  They don't.  It's a fact.  You do know what a fact is, don't you?  A fact is not just what supports your religious beliefs, but something that often contradicts your religious beliefs, especially if what you believe is so pathetic as your descendant of the Atrahasis legend of Sumeria.  

How about native placentals in Australia?  Why did they not need to breed rapidly and so become marsupials?  Why was it only a select few?    If marsupial lions and lions are related, they should possess the same genetics, and we should be able, with genetic engineering, to activate the marsupial genes and make us a marsupial lion from an african one, right?  Any bets on whether this is really possible (hey, stop laughing back there, I can hear you)?  

Pictures can indeed "say better then (sic) words sometimes" - but intelligence, thinking, and evidence are much better all the time.  Try it for once.

However, why not try to watch a video of chimpanzees sometime, keeping a real open mind, and leave your dogma on the shelf.  You might see the thousands of similarities in their behavior with our own.  You'd see the close relationship of our two species.  Maybe pictures are worth a thousand words.

more, just because they are interesting:
bonobo tool use
NSFW - Bonobo Sex
Self-Recognition in apes

(try looking up Jane Goodall - In The Shadow of Man was one of the first books I bought with my own money, and I still have it.  Franz van der Waal - his Inner Ape, IIRC, was very good. - I'd post a link to my scientific papers I've collected, but after a hard drive crash, I've got to have my program relearn all of them, and that is taking a lot of time, and I'm not sure of the legality of posting papers I've downloaded through my school, so maybe later)

Sorry if this is disjointed, but after a long day dealing with students and parents, coming home to the same broken record...I'll just take a page from python "My Brain Hurts!"

I don't mean its pack behaivor. I mean the way it moves about is a great visual for why one and myself should conclude or start a careful investigation into ,that this is a wolf like any wolf anywhere. It has to one's vision all the visual aspects of form and motion of a canine.
Not the form and motion of possums or wallabys with some difference in the snout.

Likewise in looking at this marsupial wolf one can see the thousands of points of anatomy in order to see such sameness of form that therefore calls for convergent evolution concepts to explain the remarable likeness.

The minor points of difference are so little as either to be invisable in the pictures here or easily dismissed as a product of a different area.

Yes there is more slope to the back or wider mouth but this is not to confuse one about heritage. its not niche that made this critter like a dog but niche that made it marsupial and a few other collective adaptations.

Seeing this creature with a open mind would surely suggest at least a option that clasification systems have been incompetent on these matters.
I say its a common theme in the fossil record.
They have cats galore from unrelated orders just like the case here.

I see a typical wolf of the world. I'm sure the marsupial lion would look likewise like a regular lion in form and motion

So, basically, you agree with me that chimpanzees and humans are related, right?  They look and act the same in so many ways, that there must be very few differences, right?  

What about my other questions - the ones on native placentals in Australia, perhaps?  Heck, what about all the other questions in this thread you've ignored?

Date: 2010/02/03 10:19:03, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 03 2010,07:25)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 03 2010,03:50)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 01 2010,07:17)
H'mm a land mammal (dolphin) converges on a fish shape and that is okay with you, but two land mammals converge on a similar shape - something that requires fewer changes than going from land to sea - and that is out of the question.  Consistency is not your thing is it Robert.

It makes my case.
The marsupial wolf is not just got a like shape as a regular wolf. Everything is the same from bone to flesh. Save a few differences.
Yet the sameness is the same.
The dolphin is not the same as a fish and only has a shape like a fish for a special general niche need.
I would say the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.
In fact a dolphin is only convergent on a shape for motion and not convergent inside or out because of specific niche needs for hunting or hiding.
A video of a dolphin shows a very different creature in looks and motion from a fish.
A video of a mar/wolf shows a wolf in almost every detail of looks and motion.

No, there are quite a few anatomical differences between  marsupials and wolves, just not as many as between dolphins and fish. Which is the point. If dolphins can converge on a fish shape and not be the same as fish why can't marsupials converge on a wolf shape and not be the same as wolves. You are being inconsistent.

Of course he's inconsistent - he still avoided the chimpanzee-man comparison, for instance.  Of course, we don't say convergent evolution, just evolution, but he's still denying their "sameness" all the...uhr...same.

But, when you're Lying For Jeebus, there is no such thing as being inconsistent - it's reality that is lying.

Date: 2010/02/05 18:46:07, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 05 2010,16:05)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 05 2010,15:46)
Robert, since no thylacines are around for the experiment we'll have to rely on your expertise. Please let the world know:

Would mating a wolf with a thylacine have provided offspring? Would the offspring be marsupial, placental or something in between?

Since there are reasons also to call the thylacine a tiger, maybe
mating one with a tiger might also have been possible?

Rhoooo! You crafty, crafty man!

Can't wait for the outcome of this one :D

Well, what if we mated a tiger and a wolf?  Would they make a marsupial wolf that has tiger stripes - a thylacine?

We could also do the chimp-human cross, but someone would have to be really, really drunk.  Or desperate.

Date: 2010/02/05 18:51:44, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2010,12:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2010,12:05)
Vox is now bringing his unique tard to sociology:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html

His new male hierarchy is in all his recent posts, he must be very proud.

What a loathsome POS.

I wonder which one old Teddy thinks he is....

And I can't wait to see him do one for women.  That'll be...interesting.

Date: 2010/02/07 00:58:00, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 06 2010,20:34)
Is Dave Scot lurking back??? From the latest thread by Cornelius Hunter:

Quote
1

Scot.David

02/06/2010

3:01 pm
Great ideas Dr. Hunter. The evolutionists may scream about it, but to me and all of the other design advocates, it seems eerily simlar to how the thalycine and wolf resemble each other, as if they were almost mirror images.

Damn, that moron needs to come here and see Booby-Boy getting schooled in that very subject (not that he'd ever admit that).  There are even pictures up that put paid to the lie that they are "mirror images" - unless you're blinded by faith or just need glasses.

Date: 2010/02/09 20:46:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 09 2010,17:19)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,17:30)
           
Quote
So you have no thoughts whatsoever on abiogenesis then? Not even to say telic intervention was required? What was your original purpose over at TT then? To argue against TT?


My only thought on abiogenesis is that I would like to believe life is intentional rather than accidental.

It strikes me that to ascribe the origins of life on earth, and/or the evolutionary directions taken by life over the last ~3.5 billion years either to "intent" or "accident," is a category error (or category mistake).

It is defensible to ascribe to persons and perhaps a few other higher organisms intent to engage in behaviors, which are therefore called "acts." To do so is to ascribe to them the ability to represent behavioral options prior to behaving and hence "intend" a given behavior. As a component of this ascription, we say that for them it is possible to exhibit "accidental" behaviors or results. A person may "accidently" knock the cup from the table. Or may do so intentionally.

An earthquake, however, neither behaves intentionally nor causes results "by accident." It may cause many cups to fall from many tables, but these are neither accidents nor not accidents. They are not "acts" at all. Such an ascription is simply inappropriate for a natural event such as an earthquake, and represents a category error.

It is similarly inappropriate to ascribe either intention or lack of intention ("accidents") to other natural phenomena. Hence, within a naturalistic framework, the origins of life and course of evolution are neither accidental nor non-accidental, because both ascriptions commit a category error. However these phenomena originate, it is unlikely to be by means of "actions" analogous to human actions, because the capacity for "acts" (versus mere behavior) appears rather clearly to be a culmination of long evolutionary history, not its beginning.

Interestingly, it IS possible that God created life accidently. An eternal divine entity possessed of agency may create deliberately - but as an intentional being may also enage in acts that have unintended consequences, and hence may be regarded as accidents. It is an interesting question for believers in such beings to contemplate: perhaps there is a God, but this universe and/or the life within it are accidental. Could explain a lot, because the God of the bible seems such a bungler.

Absent such a being, the universe is neither accidental nor not accidental. Ascriptions along that dimension become category errors when the processes so described are natural processes, absent agency. The only circumstance in which a universe and the life within it can be "accidental" is if there IS a God and that God created this universe. Only believers need be concerned with that possibility.

(Remember to recycle).

[Edit for fragrance]

Well said.  That also applies when people say "well who created the universe" - by putting the "who" they are automatically leaving out the more basic "what", along with the implication that "creation" carries.  Creation can refer to the result of natural process without intentionality (cold weather and water can create ice, for example), but most people think of an active agent.  Same sort of error, no?

Date: 2010/02/09 20:52:41, Link
Author: Badger3k
So Joy, if Love is the Answer (good song, by the way, even if that may not be the title, I forget, forgive my digression), does that apply between consenting adults of the same sex?  What about between species?  Between kingdoms (animal and vegetable, for example)?  

Why pick a philosophy that gives advice on how to live here and now if it includes (or you include) things about some other life for which there is no evidence?  I like a lot of Zen teachings, but when they go into metaphysical BS that has no basis in reality, I jettison that part.  There is no need to take things whole.  Even stoic philosophy had its supernatural aspect that can be ignored.  Why not do that and leave the non-evidence based crap behind?

Date: 2010/02/10 13:25:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 10 2010,10:43)
John sock Locke is having fun:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-is-revised.html

Holeeeee Feces, what a load of Tard.  If I could get to Demotivational Posters from work, I'd post the Three Stooges Triple Facepalm.  

This quote shows how ignorant Vox is of actual science (I think this is the fallacy of equivocation, correct me if I'm wrong) - this is VD (Teddy) responding to Locke:
Quote
   John Locke: 2/10/10 10:21 AM:
   The plural of anecdote is not data.

You're completely incorrect. Data is = "individual facts, statistics, or items of information". Two or more anecdotes are obviously data. You should know better than to try to use pseudo-intellectual sayings here.

(from a comment 2/10 at 10:53, I can't get a direct link)

No wonder he's ...ummm...well, what's good for the goose and all...retarded.  It does make me wonder whether Teddy qualifies under Aspergers or is his just a more general sociopathy?

Date: 2010/02/10 19:43:44, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Feb. 10 2010,13:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 10 2010,10:43)
John sock Locke is having fun:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-is-revised.html

VD:
 
Quote
Third, if you're not a Christian, don't quote Scripture. If one doesn't believe in it, one has no right to call upon it.


Hehe. Those divine copyrights sure are tricky.

Hey, does that apply to the, ahem, pious forgeries - the fake epistles of Paul, for instance?  Surely that was copyright infringement?

I wonder (somewhat, I expect I know the answer) if Vox thinks it is ok to quote scripture to a non-Christian and expect them to take it seriously?

Date: 2010/02/10 19:59:41, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,22:27)
Badger3k:
     
Quote
So Joy, if Love is the Answer (good song, by the way, even if that may not be the title, I forget, forgive my digression), does that apply between consenting adults of the same sex?  What about between species?  Between kingdoms (animal and vegetable, for example)?


Love is not just about sex. There seem to be increasing numbers of ambivigendered folks these days, and it does not appear to be a choice (for those I know) as much as it is nature. Something the haters don't want to consider, but may have to accept one of these days. Given intersex epidemics in fish and amphibians from agricultural pollution - ALL the fish examined in a surprising number of systems - it could be yet another thing we've visited upon our children through unbridled greed, apathy, and/or endless stupidity. There are enough humans in the world, it is not important on any level for anyone to be forced to reproduce, nor is it reasonable to enforce lifelong celibacy because someone else doesn't 'approve' of who a person loves. Interspecies crosses a relative power and consent line, but if you're into loufas you and Bill O'Reilly would have something in common.

     
Quote
Why pick a philosophy that gives advice on how to live here and now if it includes (or you include) things about some other life for which there is no evidence?


No evidence you would consider, obviously. But it would be a mistake to extrapolate and project your own beliefs (or lack thereof) universally. I have encountered some evidence that consciousness is separable from body and may survive death. Enough to lend hope, for what it's worth - to me. Others have no power to eliminate my experiences or to dictate what I must believe about them. So I couldn't imagine why in the world anybody'd bother to try.

     
Quote
 Why not do that and leave the non-evidence based crap behind?


Because I don't have any desire to reject what I don't consider to be "crap." You of course can believe or not believe whatever you like.

Thanks for the replies.  It's interesting to see what others believe and why.  This probably isn't the place for it, but I'd be interested to know (or see) what you consider evidence for a consciousness that survives brain death.  I've done a bit of research into it and can find nothing with anything solid behind it.  Speculative, perhaps, but nothing that would give me cause to believe in it.

Date: 2010/02/10 20:08:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Oldman+, the line you said
Quote
"It seems that you want to be an Atheist Joy but don't have the guts (boom boom) to go the whole way. Instead we get this wishy washy "I believe what I believe and nobody can make me chance my mind".
reminded me of when I was doing my own research into religions and the basis for their beliefs.  I eventually came down to deism, but I had to stop and ask what justification did I have for that belief, and all I could say is that I wanted to believe it.  That wasn't enough for me to be honest and respect evidence and truth, and I had to admit that I really was an atheist.  It was a bit of a knock, but I had to respect myself and my decision to base my beliefs on rational thinking and evidence, as opposed to just emotions.  

This whole thing is a bit funny since one of my new students found out I was an atheist, and I had to be really, really careful of what I said (I teach in a public high school).  Trying to be honest while not trying to "preach" can be difficult, but I try to be honest and instead encourage a critical examination of evidence and the students beliefs (in everything).  I try to teach critical thinking in just about everything, though it may not be appreciated now.

Sorry for the digression, just wanted to toss that out.

Date: 2010/02/10 20:12:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)
Discovered rather quickly that I have little patience for scientific 'orthodoxies' and no patience at all for corporate hijackings, political smoke and mirrors, dangerous lies or premeditated 'random' murder.

Now this seriously sounds like you're in Illuminati territory.  Reptoids?  Grays?  Men in Black?  Templars?  CIA?

Why not tell us of one of these "premeditated 'random' murders" in the field of orthodox and/or corporate biophysics.  Such a tale would be fascinating.

Date: 2010/02/10 20:16:24, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,17:11)
Hey, the monkey told me she was an adult.

What was I supposed to do, card her?

Anyway, it was a long time ago and most of the charges were dropped.

Your point?

Was Glenn Back involved?  Back in '90?  

More to the point, did you keep the negatives?

Date: 2010/02/10 22:46:04, Link
Author: Badger3k


How's this?

Date: 2010/02/11 13:15:28, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2010,04:44)
Robert Byers,
Quote
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.


Tell that to the judges ruling in paternity cases! You think you could get away with that?

If DNA was proof of paternity, then that would imply that YHWH had DNA, and since that can't be the case, sic ergo waffle, therefore and thereby, ahem, per se, and suchlike, DNA can't be related to paternity and relationships.  See?  Crystal clear with your patented BibleGoggles!

Date: 2010/02/12 02:00:51, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 12 2010,00:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 09 2010,20:04)
Huh, really! From The Thylacine Museum:

 
Quote
The other method was a bipedal hop. As can be seen in the film, the animal can stand upright with its front limbs in the air, resting on its elongated back feet, and using the end of its tail as an additional support. In this posture, it takes on a very kangaroo-like appearance and sometimes hops a short distance.

They are wrong and its silly.
It would not look like a kangaroo just because its upright. it would look like the creature in these pictures standing on its hind legs a little better then other dogs.
It could not hop in any way like a kangaroo. Its absurd to see the great hopping abilities of Kan's and see connection here.
In fact the marsupial lion also could stand upright like the wolf but it had nothing to do with hopping about.
By the way.
Are you trying to say the mar/wolf once hopped and lost the ability or that it was evolving toward hopping and didn't quite make it?
or it retained some early common tail/back anatomy that just coincedently allowed it to stand upright?

What is the origin of this trait ? Whats the evolution timeline.

I say its clearly just a common adaptation that many of these marsupial creatures got to deal with particular issues in the area.
They all needed a little heads up.
But define them by it.

Dogs having webbed feet don't make them and  ducks related.

Robert, why don't you actually look at the fricken pictures, you moron.  Crap, I've known MHMR kids who possess more innate intelligence than you.  The only reason to keep you talking is to show how intellectually bankrupt you and your ilk are.  

Your very last line blew away all irony meters south of Idaho - "Dogs having webbed feet doesn't make them and ducks related", but that's the whole of your argument over marsupials.  But I'm glad you agree that the few miniscule differences between chimpanzees and humans is strong evidence for common ancestry.

I'm still trying to determine whether you are supremely ignorant and proud of it, stupid and proud of it, or just a pathological liar who just wants to tell the most outrageous lies for the hell of it.  In any case, it's not good to be any of those.

Date: 2010/02/12 02:11:18, Link
Author: Badger3k
Looking at the video, I was struck by how unlike a do it is.  I can tell that its back is different in structure - not only the bump in the middle, but the way it moves its front relative to its rear.  Is seems more like a rodent in behavior, and that's from spending most of my 42 years with dogs of one breed or another.  But then again, I'm not seeing them through Jeebus Goggles, so I must be letting my biases get in the way of objective reasoning (when the object is clearly to confirm that the myths of genesis and the rantings of a loon are true).

Date: 2010/02/12 13:49:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 12 2010,09:48)
Oh, and the accepted contraction of 'kangaroo' is 'roo', not 'kan'.

I thought you were an expert on marsupials, Robert Byers.

That name comes from the noise they make "That thing sure Can-Go-'Roooo!'"
:D

(It's Biblically-Based, dontcha' know, The Book of Bruce, I think, maybe New Bruce)

Date: 2010/02/14 22:55:26, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 14 2010,22:16)
More correctly, a pooh-stick.

That's really harsh.  Why would anyone want to kill Pooh Bear?

Tigr's in for a serious ass-whooping when Christopher Robin finds out.

Besides I always liked Shepard's pencil drawings better than the Disneyfication.

Maybe Pooh ripped out Roo's eye - that's why he has the eyepatch?  Waterboarding Roo to find out where his hunny went didn't work, so Pooh took his hunny spoon...

Date: 2010/02/15 11:54:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2010,04:31)
Robert, you say  
Quote
The confident, logical, use of documented research and conclusions of workers in these areas

Please provide references for 'documents', 'research', 'conclusions' and 'workers' in these areas.

Where are the documents?
What kind of research, where, when, by whom?
What conclusions were drawn by whom, when, and documented where?

You do know the answers, don't you? You are not pulling stuff out of your behind, are you? You made the claims, we want to read the same documents that you have read. Especially concerning the origins of the thylacine.

Fair enough? Be a good sport and let's have something more than hand-waving this time!

And, for the record, when dealing with any science - any science at all - reading the Bible is not research.

Date: 2010/02/15 12:07:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 15 2010,11:09)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 15 2010,11:02)
Quote
I'd like required instruction in evolutionary theory to include more than RM-NS plus endosymbiosis...


A lot of words follow without building on this.

And none of those words come from someone who actually knows what she is talking about.

I've looked at plenty of high school biology textbooks. With very few exceptions, there's plenty about genetic drift, bottlenecks, and other mechanisms of evolution unknown in Darwin's day. The argument that it is just "RM-NS" is a strawman. Per usual.

Furthermore, if none of that is taught in a given school district, it is not the fault of the textbook writer or the broader scientific community. It might have more to do with the general anti-intellectual attitude of the American public, a symptom which Joy exhibits in abundance.

Well, she wants a lot taught in (to paraphrase) "maybe two weeks out of a semester."

I teach high school, and I teach a lot of different subjects, but I was hired for biology.  I'll have to see if I can get a textbook and scan the pages (I teach a computer-based curriculum now so I lack the books), and see what is taught now.  

The main problem is that I live and teach in Texas, where the religious bigots  and idiots have all but crippled science, and education in general, and are even now working to rewrite history to fit their mythology.  When you have a dentist who thinks he knows more than the "experts" and has a mission from his god to "put them in their place" (to paraphrase), well, that's definitely not the fault of scientists or educators, but the morons who elected these other morons to decide what children should think, rather than what they should learn (including critical thinking and skepticism).

Date: 2010/02/15 15:42:02, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,12:26)
Badger:
 
Quote
Well, she wants a lot taught in (to paraphrase) "maybe two weeks out of a semester."


I'd rather schools devote an entire school year - or two semesters over the high school curriculum - for requisite biology. That would allow twice as much time or more for examination of evolutionary theory and its many sub-theories. Worse, I'd require some kind of science instruction from first through 12th grade every year - including early instruction in critical thinking and the nature of science reinforced in every course every year thereafter.

Science is so important to modern civilization that it really needs to enjoy more time and emphasis in the training of our young people. They've cut out so much instruction in language (no foreign language requirement many places, no spelling, no parts of speech diagramming, no penmanship, no emphasis on essay construction, etc.), math, history, geography - and whose school has requisite art, music or physical education anymore? - you'd think there would be plenty of time for science.

 
Quote
I'll have to see if I can get a textbook and scan the pages (I teach a computer-based curriculum now so I lack the books), and see what is taught now.


Hope your school is using the nifty NG text (which will be geared for your state's EOG testing requirements on the subject), the one for NC was darned good. Lots of intriguing tidbits and links to more info about those. A good way to impart what's required (not much), tease with hints of much more, and offer to brighter and more interested students easy ways to access the more.

I agree that we should have two years of biology, but the current standards are geared more towards the other end - like physics.  The new 4x4 standards simply has one credit of biology, so the most we can do is one year.  Add in the C-Scope requirements, and there isn't a lot of control we have over classrooms.  

Our textbook is the Glencoe Science (Texas Edition, so you can guess how screwed we are) - Biology, the Dynamics of Life (the orca cover).  (I assume the NG is the Natural Geographic?  If it is, then yeah, this is one - it does have a lot of stuff for further exploration). So far, on a skim, chapters 15 and 16 deal with evolution in general, and primate and human evolution in particular.  I noticed cladistics and genetic variation (mutation, etc), and a section on population genetics and selection pressures.  

Overall, it's not a bad book, and since we have ten-thousand things to teach and not enough time, it really depends on the teacher.  So far, after three years I haven't had any problems, and have had a few interesting discussions.

Date: 2010/02/15 15:47:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 15 2010,12:26)
Badger:
 
Quote
Well, she wants a lot taught in (to paraphrase) "maybe two weeks out of a semester."


I'd rather schools devote an entire school year - or two semesters over the high school curriculum - for requisite biology. That would allow twice as much time or more for examination of evolutionary theory and its many sub-theories. Worse, I'd require some kind of science instruction from first through 12th grade every year - including early instruction in critical thinking and the nature of science reinforced in every course every year thereafter.

Science is so important to modern civilization that it really needs to enjoy more time and emphasis in the training of our young people. They've cut out so much instruction in language (no foreign language requirement many places, no spelling, no parts of speech diagramming, no penmanship, no emphasis on essay construction, etc.), math, history, geography - and whose school has requisite art, music or physical education anymore? - you'd think there would be plenty of time for science.

 
Quote
I'll have to see if I can get a textbook and scan the pages (I teach a computer-based curriculum now so I lack the books), and see what is taught now.


Hope your school is using the nifty NG text (which will be geared for your state's EOG testing requirements on the subject), the one for NC was darned good. Lots of intriguing tidbits and links to more info about those. A good way to impart what's required (not much), tease with hints of much more, and offer to brighter and more interested students easy ways to access the more.

Missed some other things.  Here we're going to have four years of English (already have), four years of Social Studies (already have), and four years of both math and science (up from three).  We do teach such things as diagramming (one thing I don't mind helping them with, ironic considering how much I hated it when I was in school).  In order to pass with the minimum (what we deal with a lot in credit recovery/alternative ed), there is no foreign language requirement, but to get the recommended req you need two years of a foreign language.  

We need three courses (1.5 semesters) of PE, and while there are no music, art, or theatre requirements, they are popular electives (as are the autotech, robotics, some kind of aeronautics program - not sure exactly).  We also have dual credit courses with a local college here.  It's not all bad, but then again, we are in a city.  Smaller districts and schools may not have much of these things, so YMMV.

Date: 2010/02/15 15:49:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tsig @ Feb. 15 2010,15:45)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 14 2010,10:24)
Erasmus:
We also boast another top ranking... teenage pregnancies.

Just say No isn't working out that good.

Should have thought the girls track and field.

I thought it was "read my lips"? :O

awright, awright, that was a bit sick, considering my job, but when you deal with teenage parents every day...

nah, still inappropriate.

Date: 2010/02/16 23:29:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2010,14:05)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,11:37)
Spending your time, energy and passion in life trying to cure the incurable (control other people's minds) seems pointless to me.

In Joy's bizarre world, trying to combat ignorance is tantamount to mind control. I wish I had a nickel for every time she's used the phrase "wannabe mind tyrants".

By the way, Joy, how about answering Stephen Elliott's question?

At least she hasn't brought up "mendacious intellectual pornographers" and asked for a camera.  :p

Date: 2010/02/17 00:02:51, Link
Author: Badger3k
Ok, so can anyone explain to me who has stated that they would like to reduce the population of the planet with weaponized Ebola?  I know the Pianka non-affair was caused by a nutjob with a grudge, and the morons at DI blew it up into the manufactroversy of the day.  How is this a problem for scientists?  Some idiot quote mines or takes things out of context, or reads their own ideas into what someone else says, and that is their responsibility...how?

This seems more like the "framing" bullshite again - scientists are bad communicators because what they say gets twisted around by others, and that's all the fault of the bad scientists?  

In a similar line, where did the "scientism" strawman come from?  Seriously, is there anyone who here who actually expects    
Quote
the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us,...
Who believes this?  I've yet to meet anyone who actually thinks that science, by itself, will solve everything (hell, I don't think even the batshit insane transhumanists I've met would go that far)  
Quote
or willingly submit to a scientocracy
Why would scientists be any better at governing than anyone else, and why would they want to - in general, that is - this isn't Krypton.  How did wanting people to be educated into accepting scientific facts and understanding how we come to understand these facts (ie, basic scientific literacy that is really better in a lot of countries other than the US) morph into Mind Tyrants (shades of Mindok!)?  finally, as everyone else has piled on but I can't get a clear answer:    
Quote
when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola.
- only if you buy into the overhyped rantings of lunatics.  That's like taking history lessons from David Barton.  It's like saying that the public has the right to get the truth about UFOs since there have been so many abductees reporting their experiences, and, heck, they even have "majestic 12" documents that could not, never, nope, nosiree Bob, be fake?  Come on, listen to Richard Hoagland - he's always on the radio (well, coast to coast am), and he's right - what are the scientists and miltary and politicians keeping from the people?!!  How can we trust the government when they can't even tell us the truth about ET!!!!!11!!

Seriously, how is it the fault of scientists if morons exist who will use anything they can to promote their beliefs?  Why should that be a barrier to trying to educate people?

(previewed my post, and luckily I wasn't drinking or I'd need a new keyboard.  <kirk voice>Richardthughes! </kirk voice>

Date: 2010/02/17 00:13:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 16 2010,18:47)
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 16 2010,21:49)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 16 2010,15:43)
LMAO.  In response to Allen's consternation that Sal proffers up another out-of-context quote mine:
     
Quote
124
efren ts
02/16/2010
4:35 pm

Allen MacNeill:

     
Quote
   Sal, it seems difficult to believe, but you have stooped even lower with comment #116.

Personally, I am holding out to see if he quotes Darwin (out of context, of course) about beating a puppy. It would be the Triple Axel of quote mines. I don’t believe one has ever been landed in competition before.

scordova's quote-mine is not even the complete sentence.

     
Quote
Darwin: I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement.

The trifecta!!

   
Quote
Why wouldn’t it be more in Darwin’s steps to do some of what he did?

   1. Get a gun and shoot birds like Darwin did just for fun

   “I do not believe that anyone could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds” –Darwin

   2. lie for the thrill of it like Darwin did as kid (and likely as an adult)

   3. beat puppies like Darwin did when he was boy

Regretably, it looks like the Darwin Day Slayer, Amy Bishop had her own ideas of how to spend Darwin Day.


I'm impressed.
If it wasn't Slimey Sal I'd think he's a Poe/troll. So, I just think he's a repulsive creep.

So, does he get the Gold, Silver, or Bronze?  It is that time of year - or are the Tardolympics later?  I always get confused.

Date: 2010/02/17 00:22:46, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2010,23:02)
Call a Waaaahmbulance:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-348019

 
Quote
134

scordova

02/16/2010

11:35 pm
But don’t expect to read about Sal mentioning this obvious contradiction to his detestable ad hominem.

But where have I said that belief in Darwinism necessarily makes someone a killer? I don’t believe that.

I object to the veneration of Darwin (a professed enemy of the Christ), especially in churches claiming Christ’s name.

This is not a scientific discussion but a cultural one.

Debra was heroic.

But I’ll be sure to point out that Amy Bishop was also on the Clergy Letter Project list lest Clergy Letter Project tries promote the fact Moriarty is on their list as well.

Cancer may be an empirical fact, but no need to venerate it in churches.

Even if natural selection, as Darwin conceives of it, is fact, no need to venerate his ideas in church any more than we’d venerate the empirical facts of disease.

The Clergy Letter Project attempts to venerate someone who has a rather low opinon of Christianity and religion.

I’m only pointing out the irony that they are trying to inspire their parishioners to appreciate science by venerating not only a suspect idea, but a rather nasty one if true.

The Christian Churches among the Clergy Letter Project could decide of course to withdraw their affiliation with Christendom, and I’ll have much less issue with them at that point.

The UU’s, I have less issue with.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.

Charles Darwin

135

scordova

02/16/2010

11:48 pm
One other thing, I take issue with the Clergy Letter Project’s insinuation that people who disagree with Darwin are somehow deficient in reconciling science and religion, when in fact someone’s scientific conscience might be the cause of the opposition for Darwinism. This is definitely the case with evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg

Now, I'm not saying that Sal sodomizes goats with rancid butter and jujubes...

Crap, what a waste of sperm he is.

And...Sternberg?  Seriously?  I guess when that's pretty much all you have after 150 years, and have no morals or integrity or appreciation for honesty, you stick with what little pathetic scraps you have.

Damn.  Been trying to get a Gollum image with him saying "Sternberg" or something, but I can't find a good image and my graphic skills (and programs) are non-existent.  Well, maybe that will give you the picture.

Date: 2010/02/17 01:50:53, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,01:06)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,15:32)
                     
Quote
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow-Culture-War with, think.

I have been lurking and reading consistently at AtBC for about 5 years, masochistically visit the tard that is TT, and I am aware of Joy's predilections...but I can go back and read her paragraph a bit differently after her explanation above. Editing to add two hyphens and a comma at the end of the bolded line in her quote changes its meaning a little for me.

I'm guessing what Joy is trying to say is this:

While SHE does not necessarily believe the Pianka accusations emanating from the ID side, she thinks the general public DOES believe the "weaponized Ebola" bullshit by Mims/Dembski. Joy thinks the "very bad PR problem" of science is a failure to expose the bullshit effectively in the public mind, resulting in a growing distrust of science as portrayed by its opponents.

Dembski and his ilk demonize scientists by preying (praying?) on the public's ignorance of science. They build on small collective fears — atomic bomb in the hands of Power — through falsehood and foment hysteria in a completely different area.

(It amazes me how Climategate has increased public distrust to new levels under the threat of what from science?...the inconvenience of getting up off our lazy asses and paying more attention to what we are doing to our environment? Seems God's chosen caretakers would warm up to the idea of minding the Earth...guess not.)

Anyway, I think Joy contends that such manufactured alienation is far enough along, there is no way the public is going to suddenly trust science or scientists. I don't disagree with that contention.

However, having said all that, I am not convinced whether Joy is uncomfortable with the disgusting behavior of Dembski and the rest of denialist crowd or not...


ETA: BTW, I have a real problem with Joy's "Science...as an amoral servant of Power". That's just more demonizing.

I can see what you are saying - that scientists have not been effective countering the BS that idiots are saying about them (and science in general).  That's a common complaint.  The only cure for that is education, and unfortunately that requires countering the BS that the creotards and other maggots want to foist off on the public.  

I'd be a bit more skeptical about some of the claims - I would seriously doubt that any vast quantity of people know who Pianka is or what was said about him.  I'd wager that it is mostly the morons at UD/TT who keep the lies going among their own little inbred group.  America has an unfortunate history of anti-intellectualism and the belief that the mythical "common man" is somehow better than those who might actually have a little knowledge about something, especially when such knowledge threatens their comfortable safety bubble that their religions makes for them.  Add in a political party that preys on manufactured fears and who oppose public education (preferring private indoctrination), and another political party that seems too scared to actually do anything, with both parties doing their level best to suck as much money out of corporations as they can while squatting on the people who elected them...well, not the best situation in the world, right?

A pox on all their houses!  :angry:

Date: 2010/02/17 10:20:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Damn, that is way too stupid to address.  Bobby, forget your meds?  You can't even be consistent from one post to the next.  Hell, I'm not even sure you're consistent within a post.  You claim that others have done research (thereby saying you haven't, by implication, which is what we asked about), yet provide no evidence for the first (while plenty for the latter).  You say that you want the individual members of the public to decide, but say that the issue is not "in the eyes of the beholder", which it is if we want to rely on what a person sees.

Seriously, when all of anatomy & physiology, genetics, geology, physics - to name a few - indicate that wolves are not related to thylacines, and which you deny, it surely is in the eye of the beholder (or to alter Joy's favorite phrase "eye tyrant"?).  First marsupialism is not a major change to a creature.  Now the jaws are nothing alike, but you claim that this is evidence that supports your laughable claims - if you weren't so deluded I'd give you props for brass balls, but in your case it's not chutzpah, it's brain-dead ignoramity.

When are you going to respond to my Chimpanzee challenge - I showed far more evidence than you in video format that showed clear relationships between them and human beings.  I assume by your continued silence that you do in fact agree, no?

Date: 2010/02/17 18:59:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 17 2010,10:47)
Quote (Bjarne @ Feb. 17 2010,03:23)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,10:52)
iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE.

It is. Right next to the cone of cold and the ray of disintegration.

I just keep thinking of "lower the cone of silence" from Get Smart.

More like the Cone of Idiocy.

Date: 2010/02/17 23:52:10, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (REC @ Feb. 17 2010,22:40)
Sal's second cannibalism reference is super-slimed too.  The paper is actually a nice demonstration of human evolution.  The hypothesis is that people bearing an allele protective against the prion disease Kuru went from being a minor part of the population to the majority when it broke out.  The genetic data is overwhelmingly supportive.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/361/21/2056

If there is no evolution, I wonder why the designer 'front-loaded' part of the population to be better cannibals?

"It was their density"

Date: 2010/02/18 10:05:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 18 2010,07:57)
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 18 2010,06:20)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

Thank you.  I didn't want to come across as the geek who hasn't read enough philosophy, but I've never heard a coherent definition of "free will."

I am concerned also.  

Does this mean that we are about to be inundated by IDiots writing books about No Free Will, to go along with all the words wasted about No Free Lunch proving ID?  

Then do we "change over time" to No Free Willy?

We already have a "No Free Willy" - or, more often, "No Free Billy"

Date: 2010/02/18 10:30:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth! Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc? If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level. I truly need to hear some cogent answers.

Part of the answer may be that there are no "lower primitive life forms" - even what we commonly call "lower" or "simpler" (such as bacteria) have evolved for the same length of time as fish, mammals, etc.  I'm not sure what you mean by "evidence of molecular evolution" though - what molecules do you have in mind?

If we started out with primitive forms of RNA, for example, it had to happen early for life to evolve at all, and as life evolved, more "advanced" forms of the RNA could arise through the various natural means.  The forms that were superior would, over time, replace the less fit forms, and they would disappear (except perhaps in extremophiles - at least this is one hypothesis I have heard, and some are looking into it).

We obviously can't look at fossil traces and determine the molecular make-up of organisms, and if the genes themselves have mutated beyond what they originally were, then we might not have evidence we can look at.  The only hope would be to find creatures that have conserved the more primitive forms.  

Anyone else?

Date: 2010/02/18 13:26:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Mark Frank @ Feb. 18 2010,13:20)
If you haven't done it already read Daniel Dennett on free will - particularly Freedom Evolves. He is a compatabilist and I think he is pretty much right.  We choose according to our desires which is quite compatible with our desires causing our choices.

But who chooses our desires?  

I do have Dennett on my list to read, but after trying to slog through Consciousness (Understood? - I forget) - it was way beyond my present understanding, and I kept getting caught by 'qualia' and the like.  Still have it, and mean to go back once I can follow the evidence and arguments better.

My problem is that every definition of Free Will that I have heard tends to be inadequate in one way or another, and the usefulness of the term is debatable for me.  I don't think we have what most people think of as free will, but I do agree that we have apparent free will, and (have to?) act as if we did.  I'm not sure it matters, although the debates can be fun.

Date: 2010/02/20 00:38:38, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (jswilkins @ Feb. 19 2010,20:40)
Isn't ilk a kind of ruminant that one may only hunt in a specific season?

"Be vewy vewy qwiet. I'm ilk hunting..."

My Grandmother was bitten by an Ilk once, or was it a Moot?

Date: 2010/02/20 00:41:54, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (jswilkins @ Feb. 19 2010,21:47)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 20 2010,11:50)
Quote (jswilkins @ Feb. 19 2010,18:40)
Isn't ilk a kind of ruminant that one may only hunt in a specific season?

"Be vewy vewy qwiet. I'm ilk hunting..."

You're thinking of "wilks". (Although aren't these a kind of mollusk?)

No, I think they are "winks", diminutive "winkle". As in "She gave us all a winkle, so we made her President".

I thought Winkles were a cross-breed of Tinkles and Twinkies?

Nah, that's a Twinkle.

Of course, it is suspicious that a discussion of "wilks" gets sidetracked by an individual named jsWILKins - hmm!!!!  I smell Illuminati!

Date: 2010/02/20 11:00:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 20 2010,04:19)
I believe Robert has made it clear that phylogeny is irrelevant, DNA is just another of those minor details we need not bother with.

I believe I've tried that route but he just ignore it. It looks as there is no thinking intellect at the other end, it seems more like some funny computer program making up replies.

Computers can make poetry, Rob's prose replies look very similar.

Even anatomy and physiology are irrelevant once you get beyond "it looks similar if I squint hard enough."

Date: 2010/02/20 11:07:00, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 20 2010,09:53)
Course Title: PHILO 4483; Christian Faith and Science

COURSE TEXTS
Required
[F-V] Antony Flew and Roy Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007).

[BW] Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002).

[JL] John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2007).

[FC] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006).

[WmD] William A. Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2009).

[B-O] Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case of the Existence of the Soul (New York: HarperOne, 2007).

Assignments:
(4) 3,000-word record of interactions with contrary websites, totaling at least 10 posts and giving URLs for posts — 10 percent positive. Due by last class meeting. This is where you get to mix it up with people on the other side of the debate over faith and science. It will open your eyes.

I can see! I can SEE! I thought the Biblical Rx was mud and spit.

Holy Carp!  Seriously - that awful book ghost-written and basically signed off by Flew, Collins, Dembski, and O'leary?  How can one mind contain such stupidity.  I'd expect the good Dr Dr's classroom to be painted with the exploded brains of his students.

Given how Densey writes, I would really hate to look at her book.  I may have to go try to find it, preferably for free.  I wonder if my library could order it?

Date: 2010/02/20 17:07:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2010,11:16)
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 20 2010,11:07)
Given how Densey writes, I would really hate to look at her book.  I may have to go try to find it, preferably for free.  I wonder if my library could order it?

I got a copy of the book for free and read it so that I could post a review on Amazon. Then I sent the book to Reciprocating Bill and he read it and posted a review on Amazon. His review is the top-rated 1-star review, and mine is #2.

Read those to see if you really need to waste time and neurons on her drivel.

Ok - thanks to both you and Dr GH

Date: 2010/02/23 00:35:44, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2010,23:46)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 22 2010,23:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 22 2010,22:22)
off topic, but the RichardDawkins.net forum is shutting down.  If there's any posts you want on that forum, get them within the next 30 days.

Where did you hear that?  A quick glance at the web site and its forum didn't show anything about it.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=110313

Well, the present forum is closing down, and there will be a new one that sounds a bit different from what they describe.  The implication that I got was that the whole Richarddawkins.net was closing, but it's just the forum in preparation for the new website.

Date: 2010/02/23 00:48:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 22 2010,23:47)
Trying to cut-and-paste his way to the 3000 word mark, I'm guessing.

Well, with his last post, he's a bit closer.  Always amusing how creotards think they know how "Darwinism" works - of course, since they made up that word, they can say anything the like about it.  Now, if he had started claiming that he understands how Darwinian evolution works, he might be closer to reality.

I also laugh at the "unfounded believe [sic] in Atheism" - I got my lack of belief in a deity after researching multiple religions, looking at philosophy, theology (what a waste), archaeology, history, higher criticism (of the bible), biology, paleontology, physics...a whole lot of stuff, using skepticism and critical thinking and a commitment to believing in things for which there is evidence (no matter what I might want to believe, or what I "felt" about my discoveries).

But since I'm trying to get a couple of students ready for graduation, I'll just sit back and let the rest of you play with the chew toy.  Got no popcorn, so maybe I'll have a bacon narwhal.

edited the quote to what he wrote.  I'll also wait for the scientists here to come by.  Obviously, he knows none if he thinks scientists don't use insults or act like human beings.

Date: 2010/02/24 13:46:37, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 24 2010,12:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,12:45)
Great, then why can't you find some data that supoorts your position?

One of my favorite examples of evolution is the mammalian inner ear.  It's development from the bones in the jaws of reptiles is supported by transitional fossils as well as evidence from embryology.

Now, where is that research by baraminologists?

Them be tricks o' the Devil!  There are no transitional fossils.  Every preacher who is a real expert will tell you that, and they get their info from God, who is never wrong.  There - I run rings around your evidence.  Intercourse the Penguin!

Date: 2010/02/24 23:22:24, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,22:59)
Sadly, I think he's spent.

Is that why my monitor is blurry?  I didn't know you could send that over the internets, even if it is a series of tubes.

Date: 2010/02/25 09:50:23, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 25 2010,08:33)
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 25 2010,09:19)
 
Quote
"that fucking COX2-inhibitor"


   
Quote
"that fucking COX2-inhibitor"


   
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,03:30)
Unfortunately I don't know precisely how the generators work, I have enough to worry about making the damn things/getting them to work etc. Usually they're referred to as "that fucking COX2-inhibitor" or something similar. ;-)

Louis

Marketing gold, my friend.  Marketing gold...

"Ask your doctor about that fucking COX2-inhibitor"

A "fucking COX2 inhibitor" sounds like a mother-in-law with two daughters.

Date: 2010/02/26 01:01:54, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Acipenser @ Feb. 26 2010,00:52)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 26 2010,00:09)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 22 2010,19:54)
Babysteps. We have gone from :

   
Quote
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.


To this:

   
Quote
Anyways you make a point about many points that are alike between marsupials.


Now if we can only get specific details on this:

   
Quote
If you break it up into hundreds of points then likewise thousands or more points are similar between marsupials and placentals.

I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same. While a marsupial wolf with other marsupials is only 1-5% the same.
It all comes down to how one groups biological life.
Its been a error of the past to ignore the great likeness between same shaped creatures and instead focus on minor, relative, points for classification.
I'm confident in the future modern biology will agree with this biblical creationist.
Stay tuned folks.


I'm still waiting for his evidence that marsupial wolves and placental wolves are related - I won't even ask for his 90-95% range.  Any evidence, not just assertions, not just saying "look at the videos (but only if you agree with me)".  Come on Bobby!  Let's see some actual evidence - data we can look at objectively.  Morphology, physiology, genetics...what have you got?  

You still ignore the chimpanzee-human comparisons that "anyone can see if they watch the videos" (to paraphrase).  I wonder why that is?

edit - although, after reading the tardgasm thread (and others), I kinda feel lost without hearing something about butts.  It just doesn't feel right without an "asshole" for some reason.

Date: 2010/02/26 13:26:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 26 2010,12:29)
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 25 2010,23:01)
I'm still waiting for his evidence that marsupial wolves and placental wolves are related - I won't even ask for his 90-95% range.  

But, dude, they're like nearly identical, what with them both having all that carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and, um, like, carbon and you know....like that.  And stuff. Air?  They got that, right?

Did you ever really, I mean, really, looked at a thylacine paw?  It's HUGE!  Dude....  And a Wolf paw?  Dude!  Now I got the munchies...do Thylacines like get the munchies too?  Wow.  The colors....

Date: 2010/02/27 13:46:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 27 2010,13:14)
Uh oh. Ras is now the same age that Jeebus was. We all know what that means.

He'll become the basis for the ID movement?

Date: 2010/03/03 00:00:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,23:41)
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.

why?

Why not?  It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.

It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.

He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind".

Have you ever seen Yogi Bear and Scooby Doo?  They're like - 95% similar.  That says it all.  Besides, I'm sure Booby has the evidence, but he can't provide it to us godless heathens, and if we only would convert, why then his god would make us see that he was correct all along.  Or else make us drink the kool-aid and wait for the space aliens.  After a while, they all look alike to me.  Which one was Booby again?

And what about those Chimpanzee videos?

Date: 2010/03/04 18:38:31, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,15:58)
http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

Quote
Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). ...

I saw that elsewhere, but I can't find the one marked "God" or, "The Fall" - where does that fit into the model?

Date: 2010/03/04 19:02:41, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2010,18:49)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 04 2010,19:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2010,15:58)
http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

 
Quote
Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). ...

I saw that elsewhere, but I can't find the one marked "God" or, "The Fall" - where does that fit into the model?

In the gaps, as usual.

But, I gets my pants at the gaps, so does that mean that God is in my jeans?  Like a priest? :D

Date: 2010/03/05 09:32:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 05 2010,01:27)
Sorry about the Wind from the North, there.

- a sane Canadian.

Bobby is a poster child for what a lack of education and critical thinking can lead to - as well as a blind, slavish devotion to a particular dogma.

Date: 2010/03/05 09:37:02, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Skullboy @ Mar. 05 2010,02:36)
Quote
Vox Day: By the time I was five, I was fairly convinced that most people were idiots. I probably lost the conventional faith in credentials when my kindergarten teacher asked me about my triceratops-shaped name tag.  The problem was that it was actually in the shape of an allosaurus. How could anyone with even half a brain possibly confuse the two?  

Is he making fun of himself here? Is this a Poe? I'm lost. I mean, all this talk about IQ and how he's so remarkable that he can barely relate to people of normal intelligence...is this for real or is he just some elaborate con? It just seems so high school. Isn't this guy in his forties?

Considering he's confusing "knowledge" with "intelligence" - and apparently still does, from his example (he hasn't learned anything since then?) - I'd say that it wasn't even a high school level.  Middle School tops, maybe, and I'd say that is pushing it.

Date: 2010/03/05 13:14:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.

With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!

Sounds like some kind of Bible-Based Lamarckism, which makes sense if you go by how to get spotted goats (IIRC) - just have them mate (or is it live?) near spotted sticks, and Bam!  DNA changes to match, and you have spotted goats.

Completely reverses cause and effect, but then, just about everything else he says is completely back-asswards.  If I go bald later in life, does that mean that my genetic code has changed to look as if I never had hair at all?  I was trying to think what this would do for his argument that thylacines and wolves are related, then realized that it doesn't matter - genetics is not part of his argument, any more than any evidence other than his beliefs.

Date: 2010/03/05 13:17:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 05 2010,11:38)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 04 2010,15:01)
Denyse's toes weigh in on global warming:
 
Quote
Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.

Given that to really understand global warming one needs to know the quantum theory of black body radiation, absorption and emission, fluid dynamics, numerical integration of differential equations, what are these students going to accomplish with their "theenking" ?  Yes, you can have students learn, but not by presenting good stuff and crap to students lacking the tools they need to identify why the crap is crap.

Denyse, why don't you bone up on these prerequisites, then see whether there is a second alternative with any merit?

<insert obligatory "bone" joke here>

For Densy to do that means she would have to (a) read, and (b) understand what she reads.  I doubt she wants to, or is even capable of, doing either.  But I am in favor of "teaching the controversy" over her religious beliefs.  When do we start, Denyse?

Date: 2010/03/05 13:21:07, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 05 2010,10:58)
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 05 2010,07:36)
 
Quote
... I’d recommend the Ronald Reagan $20,000 bill as the appropriate way to go. $200 or $2,000 would be too common for the task. But a $20,000 bill would make sure that the people encountering the Reagan bill were truly among those who Reagan’s policies were intended to benefit most.

How about the 3 dollar bill.

How about the $20,000 promissory note from the game of "Life"?

The bill needs to be an actual bill - telling these idiots what they owe the people of America, for letting his idiotic policies and "legacy" screw so many people.  Well, we'd also have to have a law to enforce collection...

Date: 2010/03/05 13:21:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (RDK @ Mar. 05 2010,13:20)
Bubba's still goin at it, eh?

However I do admire him for his ability to type up entire paragraphs without actually saying jack shit.

He's like a Weeble - he may wobble, but he won't fall down!

Date: 2010/03/06 13:41:36, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

They don't have to.   It's so obviously the default position, that anything else has to be proven.  They need to proof, just faith.

Date: 2010/03/06 21:38:30, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Mar. 06 2010,21:12)
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 06 2010,08:59)

Gee, Denyse, are there any other objects of belief to which we could apply that criteria?

I see hypocrites.  They don't know they're hypocrites.


You're simply mistaken here, Maya. God did write a book. It's called the Bible. And obviously Denyse hears God's voice inside her head. God phones her all the time, I bet. Therefore the analogy stands.

So when she said her toes were talking, she really means her god?  He's inside her toes?  Ewwwww

Date: 2010/03/07 10:07:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 06 2010,22:01)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 06 2010,21:38)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Mar. 06 2010,21:12)
 
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 06 2010,08:59)

Gee, Denyse, are there any other objects of belief to which we could apply that criteria?

I see hypocrites.  They don't know they're hypocrites.


You're simply mistaken here, Maya. God did write a book. It's called the Bible. And obviously Denyse hears God's voice inside her head. God phones her all the time, I bet. Therefore the analogy stands.

So when she said her toes were talking, she really means her god?  He's inside her toes?  Ewwwww

That makes sense actually. Think about it Jesus died and came back from the dead just like Denyse's toenails (more or less)! Denyse's toenails died for your sins!

Maybe we can sell pieces of the True Toenails at UD.  I got me some clippers...

Date: 2010/03/09 12:01:14, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 09 2010,09:22)
Are you familiar with the processes called copulation and fertilization? You know about sperm and the double helix?

I think we all hope that he isn't.

Date: 2010/03/10 10:40:07, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 09 2010,15:54)
Some crackerjack commentary:

Quote
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands to earn a living for their families. God is still all about the family being one man and one women, in marriage. Parenthood, specificially motherhood is a high noble honor that is spat upon in this country. In the workplace I see good men underpaid and discounted. Even the pink hand of gayness is exulted. But I will love God and love His version of living b/c its the only one worth living.


Thankyou, lindapolver999.

IF ANY WOMANDS IS READING THIS, WHY ARE THEY NOT IN THE KITCHEN AND WHY CAN THEY READ? WHAT A WASITE.

ALSO, LOUIS' PINK HAND GETS MENTIONED!

I assume that "londapolver" is the commenter, and it sure sounds like that is a woman's name.  How dare she learn how to read!  And speaking up before men...verboten according to some passages in the bible.  Of course, maybe some man wrote it for her, which would excuse her complete misunderstanding of marriage in the bible, which was one man, many women - even if some were concubines or slaves.

Date: 2010/03/10 13:52:00, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 10 2010,13:32)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 10 2010,12:27)
TARD!

   
Quote
chunkdz: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.

You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.

Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.

I think he's right -- "TARD" is a slur against people with mental disabilities.
It's just not the same (set of) disabilities he's referring to...

Damn - beaten to it!

Of course, that does imply that there is mentality there to begin with, and I'm not sure that assumption is justified for all of them.

Date: 2010/03/10 16:54:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 10 2010,14:31)
This is the guy who demands civility.  

Chunkdz at the Panda's Thumb.
 
Quote
William Dembski

This just in from a colleague:

I encourage you to take a look at the Panda’s Thumb and follow the entire thread devoted to the optimality of the genetic code. It is simply priceless. Someone styling himself Chunkdz dominates the discussion and by virtue of a very considerable gift for profane abuse, succeeds in doing what I never thought possible, and that is reducing the entire PT crowd to sputtering, dim-witted incoherence. You must link to it.

Here is the link.

Maybe Dembski is looking for a staring role in Chunkys next fantasy epic.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:44:42, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.

With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!

Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.

Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?

No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.

Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?

And, how are proteins produced in cells?

I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms?  Is DNA a new elementary particle?   Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?  

Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.  

Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings.  I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't.  We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes.  I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn.

Date: 2010/03/11 10:25:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,10:09)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:55)
How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Joe G claims that the EF can detect ghosts:
 
Quote
Next we have the “Ghost Hunters” on the SciFi channel. They use the EF- as in first they try to explain phenomenon X via all other non-agency explanations. Only after those attempts have failed, and a pattern is met, do they say the place is haunted.

Yet he can't give us an example of the EF detecting design in biology despite the fact they can do it on TV.

Har har har.

Using moronic plumbers who have no clue as to what they are doing as evidence of EF?  Those idiots just start out with the assumption there is a ghost, then look for anything they can twist to conform to their fantasies.  If ghosts are real, those guys wouldn't know one if it bit them on the ass.  All they end up doing is making assertions and scaring themselves, and feeling superior to anyone who isn't in their clique.

Oh, wait, that is like IDiots.

Date: 2010/03/12 02:27:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Seals are from the "dog kind"?  We don't know much about DNA?

I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did.  Just keep piling it on.  Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force?  Would our minds?

But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings?  Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection?  Why so silent on that?  Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links?

Date: 2010/03/12 13:23:33, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2010,12:31)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27)
Seals are from the "dog kind"?  We don't know much about DNA?

I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did.  Just keep piling it on.  Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force?  Would our minds?

But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings?  Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection?  Why so silent on that?  Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links?

Don't let it get to you, Badger.  At this point in the thread, it's time to accept that Robert doesn't know anything, isn't interested in knowing anything and is probably incapable of knowing anything if he tried.  Instead of trying to educate him, I just sit back and enjoy the likes of this:
Quote
Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past.

I don't have a fucking clue what that means, and I suspect Robert doesn't either.  But as stream-of-consciousness brain droppings from the Poet Laureate of Tard, it has a certain je ne sais quoi, doesn't it?

Believe me, it's not getting to me, except  for the jaw-dropping absurdities I read.  It's been a hoot, to use an old expression.  I just want to keep the chimp thing alive, even if I know he'll never, ever address it, just like he's avoided everything else that people have posted.  

Writing back to him makes me feel like I'm poking a dead body with a stick.  I'd probably get more sense from the corpse.

Date: 2010/03/13 15:33:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 13 2010,14:53)
Quote
Joe G: So how the fuck can a piece of granite be baseball-sized?

Mystery solved! Granite baseball.


Click pic for larger image

Silly man - that's obviously a baserockball, probably used by Fred Flintstone when he roamed with the dinosaurs after the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.  Which proves ID, of course!

Date: 2010/03/15 13:21:56, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 15 2010,11:58)
Robert, when you're done with dogs, perhaps we can move on to the "bear kind".  Do polar bears, koalas and beargrass all descend from the same pair of Ark passengers?

And waterbears.  I'm particularly interested in your views on waterbears.

Seals are water-bears, dontcha' know.  You betcha!

Date: 2010/03/19 01:02:38, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 18 2010,22:20)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2010,12:11)
I'm not sure I'm following the debate on postmodernism correctly, but it's a fact that PCA tends toward fundamentalism and PC-USA tends toward liberalism in doctrine and politics.

This should make it perfectly clear.


There's no way out.

Presbyterians check in, but they don't check out...

Date: 2010/03/19 20:16:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2010,13:38)
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/mailvox-book-for-suckers.html

Enjoy!

Wow - I love it when Teddy comes on and tries to puff up his chest and brag about how majestic he is.  Is he cruising?  Anyone who goes by the initials "VD" should know better than to do that.  :D

Date: 2010/03/19 20:28:46, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 19 2010,18:00)
"instinct" is a hardwired behavior. The rules of the behavior can be very simple. Step 1, pick up object, Step 2, carry to a location, Step 3, repeat, Step 4 (triggered by a big pile of objects) pat down the center. This more or less is "building a nest."

Experiments have shown that "instinct" is merely to steps, but the sequence is learned. The most well known example was when Konrad Lorenz raised mouse pups without any exposure to another mouse. They could do each of the instinctual behaviors- but not in the correct order.

The reduction of instinctual behaviors to smaller and smaller units allows greater and greater adaptability, and requires more and more learning. Humans are rather at the extreme end of the distribution, but only that. We know that many other critters are capable of learning, and are in social groups that facilitate teaching.

We've seen this teaching/learning behavior in the wild - dolphins, chimps, birds...maybe more.  I have one paper where a rodent was taught to get food by using a rake with it's paws.  Totally fantastic stuff, and it makes me wonder really what exactly "intelligence" is - since more and more animals are exhibiting (or we are noticing, rather) more "intelligent" behavior, perhaps it is not what we always thought it was.  The idea of "intelligence" really being the control/overriding of instinct seems more realistic than the more traditional one.  I'll have to look up that Lorenz stuff - I've read a bit but have not really looked at his work in depth.

Date: 2010/03/19 20:32:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 19 2010,04:11)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2010,01:02)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 18 2010,22:20)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2010,12:11)
I'm not sure I'm following the debate on postmodernism correctly, but it's a fact that PCA tends toward fundamentalism and PC-USA tends toward liberalism in doctrine and politics.

This should make it perfectly clear.


There's no way out.

Presbyterians check in, but they don't check out...

They can check out but they can never leave.

Hmmm....

Perhaps they are Comfortably Numb?

But, did you realize - did you realize - that the world is totally Fugazi?

Date: 2010/03/19 20:36:59, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 19 2010,20:08)
Quote (khan @ Mar. 18 2010,20:01)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 18 2010,19:54)
Does the patience return once the fatigue of college wears off?

Just wonderin'.

Yes it does, Lou.

Hang in there.

I guess the more appropriate question would be "Does the fatigue of college wear off?" :)

More like wash off, but maybe that was just my experience...

Date: 2010/03/21 21:02:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 21 2010,17:51)
Called it:  
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 19 2010,16:48)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2010,11:33)
   
Quote
Sculptors don’t “fashion” anything; they only throw out marble chips. How can this not be obvious?


The analogy is better if you think of topiary rather than marble.

Better still, since sculpting and topiary both involve actual design, which I expect the UD crew to pounce on:

Erosion doesn't "fashion" anything; it only throws out stuff.  How can this not be obvious?



Clivebaby is one predictable tard:  
Quote

pelagius,
 
Quote
I’m demonstrating the absurdity of GilDodgen’s statement:
 
Quote
Natural selection does not “fashion” anything; it only throws stuff out. How can this not be obvious?

…by applying his logic to marble sculpture and showing that it leads to the absurd claim that the sculptor isn’t “fashioning” anything:
Sculptors don’t “fashion” anything; they only throw out marble chips. How can this not be obvious?

Surely you’re joking. A sculptor has in mind a fashion, and that is what he is doing, adding a face by subtracting the chips (addition by subtraction in essence); if he arbitrarily cut away pieces with nothing in mind, we wouldn’t call him a sculptor.

What do you call those who tend to work in smaller media - bone, smaller stones, etc - who chip/cut/carve away until the "soul" of the material "speaks" and something comes out?  In other words, the really popular method of just carving until a shape is picked out and fixed - the sculptor/carver/etc has nothing in mind when beginning the task, but something eventually comes.

Of course, that also leaves out a lot of modern art as well.

Date: 2010/03/25 19:10:07, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 24 2010,20:43)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,21:07)
Umm, there is this from Ankel-Simons Primate Anatomy:

 
Quote
This condition is especially demanding in those primates in which the inner diameter of the female pelvis and the circumference of the fullterm newborn offspring are critically close to each other - for example, in some macaques, in some New World Monkeys (Namely Saimiri and Cebus)..., and in Homo sapiens. In such primates the infant may be unable to pass through the canal during labor and both mother and infant may die because of this. Only humans are able to remedy this critical situation by means of surgical interference (cesarean section). This crucial "bottleneck" situation exists in other nonhuman primates that combine single births, highly developed brains, and newborns that are relatively large in correlation to the sacroiliac articulation.
(All bolding and emphasis in the above quote were added by me.)

So, there you have it, a number of female primates feel pain during childbirth for exactly the same reason human females do - it is caused by a trade off between locomotion, birth, and resting posture. Apparently no intervention by god(s) is needed.

I think it must be part of that "Intelligent" Design we keep hearing about.

ETA:   OK, I jest, but here is a perfect example of real science explaining a particular phenomenon (painful and dangerous childbirth) by looking at the data from anatomy, physiology, etc.  Creation "Science" gives us a story about Eve being naughty and all her female descendants having to pay the consequences.

Which is more evidence based?

It's not even "Eve being naughty" - by their own mythology, the tree was the one that gave "knowledge of good and evil" - so how was she to know that eating the tree was wrong if they lacked the ability to distinguish right and wrong?  It was a set up, and if there were a good lawyer handy, they'd have gotten her off on entrapment.

Date: 2010/03/25 19:17:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (snorkild @ Mar. 24 2010,18:03)
Is cdanner one of the disciples from UD?

Is the course requirement #4 fulfilled if he produces 10 posts of bitching and moaning, or is some minimum of factual content expected?

He sure seems to be in love with that lying, dishonest, cowardly blowhard Dr Dr D., that's for sure.  Would "apostle" be too strong?  I don't think there is any content requirement for the posts, so the "concern troll is concerned" style of posting is just as good as the whining ones.  Perhaps someday (maybe in a later post I haven't read yet) he will actually drop the pearl-clutching, get over the vapors, and actually present some evidence (I mean the real thing, not the "Dr D wrote a pop-culture book about it once, want to read it?"

Date: 2010/03/25 19:47:53, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 25 2010,08:27)
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
I wonder why? Could it be that, after hearing the man speak, and looking into his eyes, and turning my preconceived notions in his direction, that he makes perfect sense?

Perhaps you should get a job at an airport, and look into the eyes of potential travelers. As you are so good at determining truthiness from a simple look in the eyes you'll be perfect for the task of spotting terrorists.

Well, it worked for Bush the Younger and Putin, wasn't it.  He sure turned out to be so peaceful and nice...

Date: 2010/03/25 20:44:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,16:53)
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength:

       
Quote
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm


Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. Or don't.

The writer is a bit skewed to my mind.  Bite strength and pressure is simply the force that the animal can put into its jaws snapping together.  The rest - what the subject is doing, does the animal twist its head, etc - are irrelevant to bite strength or pressure, but relevant to the damage it does.  When you set a standard for measurement, you go with the basics and forget all the added claptrap - its only good for the kirk vs picard style debates.  In my opinion.

I've seen it done for crocs and a few other critters, and it is just a device that the animal snaps down on.  Nothing extraneous.  

Again, never done it, but that's how I've seen it always done on tv.  Even when they calculated it for prehistoric animals, they used a simple bite with no bells or whistles.  It may not be the maximum that a creature could do (if you added in extra bits) but it gives a standard.

Date: 2010/03/26 20:03:24, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 26 2010,18:31)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 26 2010,22:27)
Quote (qetzal @ Mar. 26 2010,17:06)
 
Quote (lkeithlu @ Mar. 26 2010,16:25)
Ooooohhh you bad guys are in trubble now. They are meeting in their secret lair, planning to inflict the ultimate smackdown on all of you with their super-secret-ID-mechanistic-dot-connecting-dr-dr-dr-theory. You should be shaking in your boots. Just you wait.

More fart-noise videos? Dolls with nooses around their necks?

More likely it will just be a few more minions sent over here to get extra credit in the philosophy class that isn't...

All Science So Far, indeed.

But thus far they've done absolutely nothing. I cannot believe even such as Dembski would give them any credit at all.

Louis

Isn't doing nothing but whining the essence of ID?  Surely that is worth some credit for the purity of effort alone.

Date: 2010/03/26 20:07:42, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 26 2010,18:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 26 2010,15:57)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 26 2010,14:25)
Bill didn't win. again.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/religio....eligion

From that thread nullasalus shows how he can read minds:
       
Quote
But I also realize that atheists are perpetually freaked out by the organization, and struggle to cope with (and rationalize) the fact that people can be scientists, intellectuals, and still religious.

Speaking an an atheist, I'm perpetually freaked out by furrys. Not by the fact that scientists and intellectuals can be religious.

Can I rationalize furrys? No.

A merkin made of pubic hair. I hadn't thought of that.

That comment alone makes me sort-of glad my school filter stops the pictures.  But I may be more scared of what picture my mind is trying to create.  Furrys, trellis, pubic hair merkin...ewwww.

Date: 2010/03/27 02:57:25, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 26 2010,21:46)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 26 2010,21:07)
That comment alone makes me sort-of glad my school filter stops the pictures.  But I may be more scared of what picture my mind is trying to create.  Furrys, trellis, pubic hair merkin...ewwww.

Don't forget the first grade girl honking her dad's fake penis. And big brother's eager wee wee.

I agree - furrys are into animals other than people, but now that I can see it...should we just call "To Catch a Predator", or maybe CPS.  Although if the picture was taken in some parts of Southern USA, then that would be legal.  And encouraged.

Isn't it Biblical too?

Date: 2010/03/27 15:34:52, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (khan @ Mar. 27 2010,15:01)
Happy Trip Around the Sun!

Well, Thanks - that's about the way I look at it.  I haven't really bothered with birthdays for most years, and usually don't tell people about it until after the fact, if I mention it at all, but I was surprised to see this.

Appreciate the good will, though - I'll need it later if I play Battlefield 2 as well as I did this afternoon, tho.

Date: 2010/03/27 18:21:26, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2010,16:23)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 27 2010,15:50)
And on it goes. To get an indication of just how unique these properties are, try the example in the inset.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/102/
[/quote]
Numerology - sweet!

Perhaps this is just a prelude to BA's next scientific breakthrough - Phrenology.  And if he's reading this, I would be proud, humble, yet happy to give him some extra bumps on his noggin.  

If I can through the glutius maximus surrounding it.

Was it Behe or Dembski who was pushing the "bible code" numerology BS?  Maybe BA is just taking after his idols?

Date: 2010/03/28 01:31:45, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 27 2010,22:10)
I baked you a caek:



but I burroweded it.  :p

Happy birthday!

Badger! Badger! Badger!

Mushroom!  Mushroom!

Snaaaaaake!


(...great, now I have that song taking turns with "Narwhal" in my head)

Thanks y'all. (edit - thanks for the caek 'n stuff, not the songs in my head.)

Date: 2010/03/28 01:35:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 27 2010,23:25)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 25 2010,21:44)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,16:53)
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic. That You Tube guy must have been mauled by a lion while on a safari.

"Lions are so overrated (mutter)....why I never...(mutter mutter)"  ;)

Was the measurement in psi's? The video didn't make it clear. This source supports your claims, although he's a little more skeptical about measuring bite strength:

         
Quote
There is no accurate way to determine the pressure of a dog's bite. Although there have been studies to attempt to answer this question, the PSI (pounds per square inch) tends to vary greatly depending on who you talk to. In many cases the number seems to have been completely made up, or pulled from a source (i.e. newspaper) that has invented some ridiculously high number. I have heard: 1000 PSI, 1800 PSI, 2000 PSI, and "10 times the strength of Rottweiler jaws". None of this is based in reality.

In real life a dog's bite strength is determined by a wide variety of factors. While these include the dog's size and individual jaw strength, the severity of a bite is primarily determined by the dog's intent (i.e. aggression, fear, warning snap, playful nip), the victim's behavior (twisting or yanking the body part being bitten can increase the damage), the dog's training, and so on. Scientific experiments indicate that trained bite dogs (including pits) can bite at a little over 300 PSI maximum.

Interestingly, recent attempts to measure a dog's jaw strength have indicated that pit bulls have much lower bite pressure than some other breeds, putting lie to the idea that pit bulls have more bite power than any other breed. For more details, check out http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm


Now wait for the Tasmanian devil nut-huggers to show up. Or don't.

The writer is a bit skewed to my mind.  Bite strength and pressure is simply the force that the animal can put into its jaws snapping together.  The rest - what the subject is doing, does the animal twist its head, etc - are irrelevant to bite strength or pressure, but relevant to the damage it does.  When you set a standard for measurement, you go with the basics and forget all the added claptrap - its only good for the kirk vs picard style debates.  In my opinion.

I've seen it done for crocs and a few other critters, and it is just a device that the animal snaps down on.  Nothing extraneous.  

Again, never done it, but that's how I've seen it always done on tv.  Even when they calculated it for prehistoric animals, they used a simple bite with no bells or whistles.  It may not be the maximum that a creature could do (if you added in extra bits) but it gives a standard.

Agree. Its just the force developed by the muscles, the leverage multiplier, and the size of the bite area (which is very small).


And fear.
Fear and surprise.

...But not a ruthless, or is it fanatical, devotion to the pope?

Date: 2010/03/28 11:20:05, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2010,09:38)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 28 2010,08:02)
Bornagain77 discovers that nylon-eating bacteria are not more fit when there is no nylon to eat.

 
Quote
bornagain77: once you remove the nylon from the environment the “parent” bacteria will ALWAYS be more fit for survival and the “improved” nylon bacteria will ALWAYS eventually die away.

Nylon, nylon-eating bacteria. No nylon, no nylon-eating bacteria. Like you could almost run a controlled experiment or something.

And further along in that same thread, batshit77, who is a YEC, argues that bacterial metabolism prepared the earth for the coming of mankind.
 
Quote
To put it mildly, this minimization of poisonous elements, and “explosion” of useful minerals, is strong evidence for Intelligently Designed terra-forming of the earth that “just so happens” to be of great benefit to modern man

Somebody should ask him how long it took for the "terraforming" to occur...

Why would his god need bacteria to terraform a planet that was intelligently designed for man anyway?  Doesn't sound like it was a good job to me.  But ... space aliens might need bacteria - it's one of the ideas for terraforming Mars or other planets.

Date: 2010/03/28 11:21:29, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 28 2010,04:13)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 27 2010,21:42)
But isn't lye soap what the Clampetts use?

Did you ever see Elly Mae lying down in the straw?

Did you compare Elly May Clampett with O'Leary? :O

Date: 2010/03/28 22:19:39, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 28 2010,21:37)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 28 2010,20:13)
What was the last thing Paul said to Judas?

"Hey, Judas, don't make it bad."






Srsly.  I read that somewhere.

"Let it out, and let it in."

Oh, wait. That was Mary Magdaline. Or least that's what some old pope once said.

I thought that was the altar boys?  :O

What!  Too soon?

Date: 2010/03/29 19:21:16, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (qetzal @ Mar. 29 2010,18:23)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 29 2010,17:29)
On the positive side, I wasn't aware C.S.Lewis was the creator of the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" trilemma.  At least I learned something new.

Not surprisingly, Lewis is guilty of a false trichotomy. A more complete version would be Bart Ehrman's tetralemma:

"Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend"

No Lemming?  He could have been an intelligent space lemming in disguise.  About as plausible as Collins' answer.

Date: 2010/03/30 02:35:46, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 29 2010,23:48)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?

Hey! At the aardvark triple point, we have, simultaneously, liquid aardvark, solid aardvark, and a snootful of aardvark gas.
Barkeep - gimme a pint of that there aardvark!

I'll pass on the "snootful of aardvark gas" - if it's anything like dog gas (esp when he is behind me), its got to be quite rank.

Although, Liquid Aardvark may be the new Metal Gear character, but mums the word....

(actually, wet aardvark is pretty bad too- just ask Cerebus)

Date: 2010/03/31 20:30:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 31 2010,18:20)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

How? What do you use as a meter and what units are they/is it measured in?

Iambic pentameter-  measured in Shakespeares.

Date: 2010/03/31 20:32:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,18:20)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 31 2010,21:00)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2010,09:19)
Anyway, you're right. I am the incarnation of evil. Hey, it's something to do at weekends.

I am so stealing that phrase for my band if you don't mind.

I expect royalties in the form of beer tributes.

Louis

Before or after they have been drunk?  And do we need to worship at the porcelain altar?

Date: 2010/04/01 19:38:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 01 2010,06:52)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2010,07:33)
Joe @ TT:
 
Quote
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.

Link.

ROFL.

I want my prehensile tail, dammit!   :angry:

Well, it's not a tail...but it is prehensile!  It's "Mr Elephant"... and it's all thanks to one of those late-night infomercials...

and ID.
;)

Date: 2010/04/01 22:57:30, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Zachriel @ April 01 2010,20:14)
Quote
Zachriel: Nor do we have to have knowledge of molecular genetics to know about inheritance or show that certain traits are heritable.

ID guy: You can't show something is heritable without that knowledge.

So much for Mendelian Inheritance.

It's hard to believe, but ID guy doesn't even know about the birds and the bees. Yes, ID guy, when birds reproduce they make little baby birds, not bees. When sunflowers reproduce, they make more sunflowers.

Ask "ID Guy" if hail is water...

Date: 2010/04/03 12:06:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,10:17)
Hi Jim,

Thank you for your response.  I'm not one to pass up an opportunity to link to Monty Python, so here.

I would agree most "new" philosophical concepts are just a rehash of an old idea with a "catchy name".

Philosophical concepts inherently revolve around the obvious fact that we don't know the Truth. This includes Gould's NOMA.

Of course I will prattle on no matter what.  The whole idea is to explore and question.  Anytime I'm in a business meeting where everyone agrees, it is a sure sign something is wrong.

When Francis Collins dismissed the idea a belief in God is wish fulfillment, my reaction was to think about how much easier it is to have an answer, ANY answer as compared to the "vortex of wildly-spinning logic".

Yes, a metaphysical belief in things like God, Logic or even NOMA is convenient wish fulfillment to not go insane.

So if we all agree with you, then you are wrong?

I completely agree with your ideas.

Next person?

Date: 2010/04/03 12:10:23, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 03 2010,11:39)
Uncommonly Denyse has disappeared one of her own hairballs from both UD and her own blog. I saw it earlier, and wanted to come back to it once I had recovered. But it was a fart in the wind.

Fortunately, Larry Moran sniffed it.

As Larry recounted, Denyse was responding to the idea that Lenski’s long-term experiment with E. coli has led to bacteria that have "changed shape, changed size, changed metabolism and changed food source. Sayeth Denyse:
   
Quote
So the claim is, “changed shape, changed size, changed metabolism and changed food source. How much more MACRO do you expect an organism to evolve?”

Hmmmm. Kittens do this all the time.

Change size? You bet. Goes from a couple of ounces to five lbs in half a year.

Change shape? Sure. The average newborn kitten is just a little bag of mewing metabolism, blind and probably deaf, whose only real talent is using its sense of smell to get control of a teat.

Changed metabolism? Sort of. Kittens must be weaned onto something other than cat milk after about six or seven weeks. I am not a vet, but surely some changes in metabolism accompany this transition.

Changed food source? Yes! From mom cat to local rodents, birds, frogs, and eggs that can be cracked by being pushed off the branch or table. Or, if the cat is under human management, a science-based diet for growing felines. Or otherwise, scavenging a local dumpster. Or whatever an obligate carnivore* like the cat can stomach.

Okay, so where are we now? We have explained how a kitten gets transformed into … a cat.

And this is “evolution”?

OMFG.

No Denyse, it isn't.

If those same kittens grew into a creature standing 5' at the shoulder, had gained two legs so they have six, became vegetarians...that might be a better analogy.

But....Coffee!

Date: 2010/04/06 20:42:50, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 06 2010,17:12)
Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,13:49)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 06 2010,15:43)
 
Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,14:46)
These are the foundation stones of ID (I guess), so please show how they are useful by giving detailed examples.

Thanks.

I think 'stones' may be too strong a word.

The foundation of ID is soiled toilet paper that's been floating for two weeks.

I was thinking that they had to have really "sizey" stones to advance ID....

More like rocks in their heads.

Kidney stones come to mind, or else big brass ones for claiming to know better than what actual facts and evidence shows.

Date: 2010/04/07 19:57:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 07 2010,16:03)
Quote
I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.


I think I'd actually pay to see that!

Only from the front (or rather, just a facial...I mean, shot in the face...I mean, of the face...)

Actually, considering the amount of words Joe spends on bottoms, perhaps the test has been conducted.  I hesitate to try google....

Date: 2010/04/07 20:09:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (didymos @ April 07 2010,16:40)
Ooooh, lookie: the DI attack gerbil makes an appearance at UD.  Casey Luskin is a spokestard:  
Quote

The quality of some of the objections to ID on this thread are as saddening as the quality of some of Josh Rosenau’s objections to ID when we presented our respective papers at St. Thomas University last November.

Much like the mistake that Clive Hayden highlights here, Josh also tried to make hay out of the fact that a monograph by ID proponent Paul Nelson hasn’t been published yet, but Josh completely ignored publication of many important ID scientific books and papers by William Dembski (The Design of Life, The Design Inference, No Free Lunch), Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution), Stephen Meyer (Signature in the Cell), Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution)–and many others in recent years. (Indeed Paul Nelson was a co-author of “Explore Evolution,” but Josh failed to mention this as well.)

Similarly, Josh charged that Bill Dembski has been “reduced to rewriting and analyzing programs originally written in 1980’s.” I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it was telling that Josh’s presentation failed to acknowledge that Dembski now works with the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, has submitted multiple research papers for publication, and had recently published a peer-reviewed article on evolutionary algorithms. (Dembski has since published 3 more papers since Josh’s presentation.) But somehow Josh failed to note Dembski’s research productivity.

Taking a similar approach, Josh’s partner from the NCSE Peter Hess said in his presentation that ID “does not yet have a working research program.” (A tired objection which we all know is false — I blogged about this here.)

In any case, this all seems to be not just using “glass half-empty” thinking about ID. It’s more like “take the glass, pour out all the water, then step on the glass, and then mock the lack of water” attacks on ID.

But having spent enough time watching the NCSE’s approach over the years, you sadly come to expect these kinds of misrepresentations. Needless to say, we were ready to rebut these misrepresentations and the many students I interacted with at the conference were not persuaded by NCSE’s arguments.


Rawr! You tell 'em Casey!  DI Attack Gerbil Whine Attack GO!

I was trying to count the distortions, outright lies, and fallacies, but gave up.

I can see Luskin in one of those hamster balls, running around in his plastic shell, insulated from the world.

Date: 2010/04/08 10:22:15, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (FrankH @ April 08 2010,09:53)
It seems that the UD crowd has sunk to that lowest of low forms of argument, "We're failing so yes we must attack the messenger!"

But who is the "expert" on their side that should also be tuned out?

Why...everyone!  Just listen to them - they are all experts.

Date: 2010/04/08 23:22:10, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (afarensis @ April 08 2010,22:05)
Probably because you don't understand the material you are dealing with. As I have, repeatedly said, pain in child birth occurs in primates with babies that have large brains - squirrel monkeys and macaques spring to mind - relative to the above morphology. In the case of humans the trade of is between bipedalism, brain size, and pelvic size. In the two mentioned primates the trade off is between brain size, pelvic size, and sitting posture (which is very similar to bipedalism, the key factor being the ability to be upright). Regardless, the primates still feel pain in trying to deliver large brained babies.

Bobby's mom felt no pain at all...

Date: 2010/04/11 02:23:28, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 11 2010,00:11)
H' B'Day

Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy!

Date: 2010/04/13 19:53:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 13 2010,18:20)
I know this is more futile than resisting the Borg, but here goes.  One.  More.  Time.

Flaming Moron, er, Lunatic wrote:

Quote
Dembski never said that "ID is religious."



Dembski wrote, undisputed by Fl-Lu:

Quote
“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”


Let me parse this for you -

ID = Intelligent design
is = is
religious = just the Logos theology of John's Gospel
. = restated in the idiom of information theory.

Substituting yields:  ID is religious.

I'm right, FL, right?

Look at all the other quotes provided.  Even if Floyd thinks he's shot down the Logos one, there are the rest.  

But, he probably thinks that since we pointed that out, that reflects our lifelong hatred of Christianity and Jeebus.

Date: 2010/04/13 19:55:10, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ April 13 2010,18:09)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:49)
 
Quote
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

   
Quote
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”


You know, these are two of the most profound statements I've ever read from anybody outside of the Bible writers.  It explains exactly why you evolutionists viscerally hate ID so very much.  

Be honest:  You've spent your lives nurturing a passion for science (which is a good thing), and ALSO nurtuing a passion for naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism, (and in the case of Christian evolutionists, for syncretism), which is not good.

And now here comes Dembski saying that there's something fundamentally wrong with leaving Jesus Christ out of your concept of science in the first place.  Jesus Christ is no agnostic, no atheist, no syncretist, no materialist, and if you let HIM into your concept of what science is, then all those sewer-stenched idol gods (previously listed) got to git OUT and stay out.

And THAT's why there's this palpable visceral extreme hatred and suspicion of all things ID.  ID poses no threat to science, but those religious setups you guys have currently got going, are clear targets for belief-shifts and elimination.

FL

(Shrug) Okay, let's invite Jesus Christ into the lab.

How does E=mc2 differ from E=mc2+JC?

I think we need Jesus in the lab.  Dissecting a zombie would teach us so much about life...

Which brings up a title for a movie - The Jesus Plague - people start rising from the dead...and they're pissed!

Date: 2010/04/13 22:34:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,20:58)
Quote
"naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism" are "sewer-stenched idol gods"???

Honestly?  Yes.  Straight down the line.  

Baal-Mart Blue-Light Specials, every last blasted one of 'em.   Hopefully you haven't been shopping their clearance racks??

FL

Floyd, you do know that Ba'al is Canaanite for "Lord" as well as a personal name.  Kind of like..."God".  Given that both Yahweh and Ba'al (and El) were Canaanite deities, you might want to rethink your analogy.

You won't, but that's par for the course.

Date: 2010/04/15 10:43:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (FloydLee @ April 15 2010,09:51)
Quote
Are you seriously suggesting that the descriptions of chemical evolution in high-school biology textbooks are not mechanistic? Is it your assertion that such textbook descriptions do not reference physical or "natural" causes?

Here's an example:
 
Quote
Miller & Levine, Biology Prentice-Hall (1993), pp.342-348:

"From the jumbled mixture of ... in Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved."

And you guys are still in "somehow" mode, btw, wrt your chemical evolution OOL hypothesis.  
Another example:  many problems and Not-Known Mechanisms associated with the "RNA World hypothesis", but that hypothesis that is presented to science kids (with no mention of problems or blankspots) within Glencoe's latest high school edition of "Biology-The Dynamics of Life."  

That's your OOL life from-nonlife mechanism, effectively:  "Somehow."

So, you DO accept hypotheses as scientific WITHOUT having or knowing of any mechanism.  

And I notice that this item remained unanswered:
 
Quote
So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science?

So I'm just saying, rational and scientific consistency demands you treat the ID hypothesis the same way.

FloydLee

I wonder why the question asked was never answered.  You go off on a tangent about a description (not, as others said, a hypothesis), which has nothing to do with chemical processes being mechanistic.  

Even if your description was accurate, what does that have to do with chemical processes that are either within or without a living organism?  What is the difference?  

Also, what is the "ID hypothesis"?  What are it's predictions, how is it testable and how is it falsifiable?  Can you do JoeG/IDGuy one better and actually calculate (and show your work) the CSI of anything?

Date: 2010/04/16 01:37:19, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (bjray @ April 16 2010,00:57)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
 
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

Hello my fellow acquaintances. My has it been a while. I could continue to give my rationale for it, but it's of no consequence.

So where were we...I think it was something along the lines of people expressing their honest feelings about Dembski and also wanting proof for how to calculate CSI for things.

Well, unfortunately, I can offer you no good advice on how to calculate such readings of an object using his CSI theory (if you will). Thing is, I have not in my spare time (the little there is), nor as a part of class, actually read his work on CSI.

At any rate, I've been reading more material, etc. I think I have more questions now than before. But what I've read from your response are things about Dembski and things about how Behe and other ID'ers offer no "real" theories worth looking into.

Well, I think that ID'ers, evolutionists, old earth, young earth, all have some interesting points worth taking into consideration (some more than others, yes). What I'm interested in is going back to Darwin and his thought of evolution. For instance, what was his purpose in thinking up his theory of evolution (and survival of the fittest)? I think he was trying to make sense of the world (in essence a "theological" framework). Maybe I have not read as much as I should, but it appears that he did not have much to say about things like how the earth was created using his theory of evolution, etc. Rather, it seems to me that he was instead, trying to put the pieces of science together based on his findings of fossils, etc spread around the globe.

What I am getting at/what I am working out in my head is how can evolutionary proponents praise the man for starting something that he (Charles Darwin) never intended for his "theory" to do? Now, I obviously cannot tell his intentions, but it he was not even so sure about everything he said!

Another thing I'm working on trying to understand from my evolutionary friends is their rationale for recent developments in molecular biology. My best friend has a Ph.D in molecular biology for Cornell U. and he too wonders similar things.

For example (and back to Behe and his irreducible complexity), we know (today) that the cell has plenty of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Such that without one of the pieces, it would fail to operate as it was designed. It's just what has been discovered, that's all.

I know know, I'm jumping around. It's just the way I think sometimes.

Cubist, I think your post here is a little too reductionistic (if you will). My opinion on it is that ID'ers are not merely trying to provide answers to question like someone, somewhere, did something...but are also attempting to show the stepping stones of how to get to those answers. For example: the thought that maybe intelligent design is a feasible option with supporting evidence. (you may say, what supporting evidence...but I would submit that they have provided it, people just don't accept it as "good" evidence, or what they think is "evidence.")

All right, good to be back.

p.s. "I think" many people miss the two words at the top left of this picture...

Wow - very confused is what I would say.  For instance - what does Darwin's purpose for putting together the theory of evolution matter for anything?  Just curiosity?  What does "how can evolutionary proponents praise the man for starting something something that he...never intended for his "theory" to do" even mean?  Despite the scare quotes, evolutionary theory is a real one - it's been tested, verified, supported - all the stuff real science requires.  Your use of scare quotes tells me you are not well informed.  People "praise Darwin" - if you will - because he was the one who first formulated what would become the cornerstone of modern biology.  A very noteworthy accomplishment.

If a man named Yeshua ben Yoseph (if I've written the Hebrew down correctly - it's been a while since I tried it) existed and was a messianic prophet (to borrow Bart Ehrmans hypothesis), why would you praise him for starting something that became far more than he ever intended?  But I bet you do.  Why?

I'd like to know this name of this best friend at Cornell who is an ID advocate - if that is the intent.  The wording you use is pretty much mush.  What the hell is "their rationale for recent developments in molecular biology"?  Are you asking about the motivations of scientists?  Their philosophical or religious beliefs?  Questions about their curiosity?  It sounds a lot like "Dude, did you ever look at your hand?  I mean, really look at it?" to me.

Finally, since I need to stop, if you think that we "know that the cell has plenty of irreducibly complex systems", then you really haven't been paying attention.  Too much of Behe, not enough actual science.  Try a biology class instead of philosophy, and try real scientists, not hacks whose ideas have been torn to shreds by people who work in the fields he's trying to pervert.  

The "argument" (such as it is) of "it would fail to operate as it was designed" is (I believe) question begging, or circular reasoning.  The implication is that the system was designed and has a purpose - which implies intelligence - most systems have functions, not purposes.  The "design hypothesis" has to show, with evidence, not just handwaving and god-of-the-gaps and arguments from ignorance, that there is design.  Then you can make the claim that things fail to operate as they were designed.  You can wish all you want that the "evidence" provided by the IDiots is good, but it fails every test and at every point.  Pretty piss-poor (or feces-rich) "evidence" to me.  Science is based on evidence that stands up to everything, not fold like Troy Aikman before a tackle (I've never seen a quarterback collapse so fast when rushed, sorry Cowboy fans, if there are any reading).

Date: 2010/04/16 10:22:10, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 16 2010,03:02)
Quote
For example (and back to Behe and his irreducible complexity), we know (today) that the cell has plenty of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level

In fact "evolution" predicts IC structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
   
Quote
"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74)

I don't expect the actual facts to matter however. Surprise me!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

   
Quote
. Only two basic steps are needed to gradually evolve an irreducibly complex system from a functioning precursor:

Add a part.
Make it necessary.
It's that simple. After these two steps, removing the part will kill the function, yet the system was produced directly and gradually from a simpler, functional precursor. And this is exactly what Behe alleges is impossible.


H. J. Muller predicted and discussed M. J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" structures in two different papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939. This prediction was made long before the genetic material was known or anyone had seen the structure of a "molecular machine".

   
Quote
"... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..."

 
Quote
... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary."


So if you are wondering why Behe's IC has not made any impact on the scientific community it's because he was ~50 years too late and it already had an explanation that does not require any sort of intelligent designer other then evolution.

 
Quote
Such that without one of the pieces, it would fail to operate as it was designed.


Which is not a problem for evolution as evolution "designed" it in the first place.

Oldman,

I thought one of the parts of an IC structure is that it couldn't have originated from simpler structures (or other structures).  Thus I didn't think there were any IC structures.  Is my understanding wrong, then?

edit - ok, I did go to the wikipedia page, and didn't see that as part of the definition, so I presume that I was wrong.

Date: 2010/04/17 11:22:45, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 17 2010,09:58)
1) If no one knows how to calculate CSI... does that mean there's no freaking point?  People blather on about it, but no one... no one can calculate it... including Dembski.  So what's the point?

2) Remember most religious students can't understand that some things (namely science) can exist without dogma.  Unfortunately, most high school science courses reinforce that with repetitive memorization of facts.

I dare any student of Demsbki... or Dembski himself to come on this board and present a testable, falsifiable ID-based hypothesis and a single experiment done by a 'creation scientist' that supports their hypothesis.

Would you like a list of things that ID must do to be considered science.  I have one and to date, not a single question has been answered.

If you keep ignoring these things, then we're going to have to assume that ID has no basis for science and is, instead, a socio-political movement to force the indoctrination of all students into a Judeo-Christian faith... which of course, is true and why ID hasn't won a court case... ever.

There is a point - they can use sciencey sounding words to soothe the fears of the faithful and attract the gullible, and line their pockets.

Date: 2010/04/20 23:41:03, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (keiths @ April 20 2010,13:15)
Quote (Steviepinhead @ April 20 2010,09:45)
For me, Pferd really expresses an essense of horsiness, if not, y'know, THE essence of horsiness.

For me, it's 'carlsonjok'.

I saw the essence of horsiness in Tijuana once.  I think it's on the internet too.  Hopefully it cleans up easily...

Date: 2010/04/20 23:48:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 20 2010,14:52)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 20 2010,13:27)
Thanks guys. The bounus will be if Dembski has related this to ID as indicated by Jack.

According to Amazon's "search this book" Dembski does exactly that in" The Design Revolution":


   
Quote
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design - IT WUZ ANGELS

Shouldn't this be reposted to the FL thread, so Floyd can deny that Dembski says ID is religious?

Date: 2010/04/22 03:25:52, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ April 22 2010,00:28)
Oh, crap, he's infested this thread too.

Go away Bobby. Give us at least one venue where you don't spout your ignorant vomit.

OK? Pretty please?

Awww - I want to hear how marsupialism affected language.

Date: 2010/04/23 00:58:16, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (bjray @ April 22 2010,23:41)
Quote (Badger3k @ April 16 2010,01:37)
[quote=Wow - very confused is what I would say.  For instance - what does Darwin's purpose for putting together the theory of evolution matter for anything?  Just curiosity?  What does "how can evolutionary proponents praise the man for starting something something that he...never intended for his "theory" to do" even mean?  Despite the scare quotes, evolutionary theory is a real one - it's been tested, verified, supported - all the stuff real science requires.  Your use of scare quotes tells me you are not well informed.  People "praise Darwin" - if you will - because he was the one who first formulated what would become the cornerstone of modern biology.  A very noteworthy accomplishment.

If a man named Yeshua ben Yoseph (if I've written the Hebrew down correctly - it's been a while since I tried it) existed and was a messianic prophet (to borrow Bart Ehrmans hypothesis), why would you praise him for starting something that became far more than he ever intended?  But I bet you do.  Why?

I'd like to know this name of this best friend at Cornell who is an ID advocate - if that is the intent.  The wording you use is pretty much mush.  What the hell is "their rationale for recent developments in molecular biology"?  Are you asking about the motivations of scientists?  Their philosophical or religious beliefs?  Questions about their curiosity?  It sounds a lot like "Dude, did you ever look at your hand?  I mean, really look at it?" to me.

Finally, since I need to stop, if you think that we "know that the cell has plenty of irreducibly complex systems", then you really haven't been paying attention.  Too much of Behe, not enough actual science.  Try a biology class instead of philosophy, and try real scientists, not hacks whose ideas have been torn to shreds by people who work in the fields he's trying to pervert.  

The "argument" (such as it is) of "it would fail to operate as it was designed" is (I believe) question begging, or circular reasoning.  The implication is that the system was designed and has a purpose - which implies intelligence - most systems have functions, not purposes.  The "design hypothesis" has to show, with evidence, not just handwaving and god-of-the-gaps and arguments from ignorance, that there is design.  Then you can make the claim that things fail to operate as they were designed.  You can wish all you want that the "evidence" provided by the IDiots is good, but it fails every test and at every point.  Pretty piss-poor (or feces-rich) "evidence" to me.  Science is based on evidence that stands up to everything, not fold like Troy Aikman before a tackle (I've never seen a quarterback collapse so fast when rushed, sorry Cowboy fans, if there are any reading).
[/quote]
So after reading your post, I think I smiled the most.

Here's the deal. I like to ask questions and get responses because quite frankly I'm not an expert in any of the areas mentioned thus far in this discussion. However, it does not mean that I do not have an idea of what I am talking about.

I like what sledgehammer said when he noted that no one praises Darwin on his theory regarding creation because his theory was not about that.

But you are proving exactly what I am trying to understand about your perspective. Let me explain further.

You use harsh language about how ID'ers show poor evidence, ID'ers cannot stand up to real biology, ID'ers promote god-of-the-gaps arguments, ID'ers..you know what you say. But you, yourself, said that "science is based on evidence that stands up to everything." Are you telling me that evolution has passed this test? I'm not telling you that God's actions in science/creation (what have you) can be fully explained. (Ie: now you accuse me of OH "god-of-the-gaps" right there...) It would seem to me that evolution does not stand to every "evidence" it provides. Furthermore, evolution has attempted to attribute cause to creation, of which Darwin never intended to do (as noted by Sledgehammer). One cannot provide evidence for some "big bang" or "primordial soup" or whatever the new story is this time around. So I submit to you that evolution also fails in many areas.

It just so happens that at present I'm in a philosophy course. I've taken the biology (albeit, my degree does not have that major listed). All I'm saying is that evolution does not do all that you say and praise it for. A few that I always pondered were: the "gene for everything" idea, explanation of morality, explanation for self-preservation, failure to explain gene similarities among humans, failure to explain how pure randomness can account for "social insects" ie: ants, bees. My measly list could go on.

So I'll end this post with a question based on some of the further posts I've read. Is it simply that because Creationists attribute what might be a scientifically explainable event to an Intelligent Designer the primary issue? Or, is it t because Creationists do not use evolution to help explain their work? Or, is it that Creationists use a "get out of jail free" by attributing God to various things that science can explain? I desire to know what the underlying issue is. I've heard from Elsberry in some of my initial posts. Thank you for that.

Btw, I will comment that I did read that the Dover case "proved" along with some other work that IC has already been proved that it COULD happen through natural causes. (ok, interesting stuff, I'll look more into that. Thanks.) This is not something earth-shattering to me. Matter a fact, I already knew that evolutionary proponents had written material attempting to explain their side. It's interesting stuff.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit - the facts do matter. :)

Ah, so many more to comment on. I'll do another tomorrow.

Oh, but one more - Albatrosity (nice name btw). Ok, I hear everyone. Don't get hung up on Darwin. His intentions are of no consequence. And I agree with your third point. Science is an ever-changing field of study. I'd like to point out though that the only thing I know of that is immutable is God. I don't think my science is or what have you. (if that's what you were trying to point out..)

Lastly, my whole point of bringing up Darwin's intentions were simply my attempt to understand the basis for his life's work.

Thanks for all your responses.

So far, it stills shows me that you have a piss-poor understanding of evolution, science, and probably life in general.  Evolution has stood up to all tests that are scientific, and everything we know about biology, and everything we learn, gives further support (as well as modifications to the theory as we learn more).  

Your next bit (sorry, I can't figure out how to quote like I think I used to) about "evolution has attempted to attribute cause to creation" shows (as I said) a piss-poor understanding of evolution.  Evolution is, basically, descent with modification.  That's it.  The origin of life is a related (it is chemistry and biology, after all) but separate area of research.  Your misguided belief that evolution attributes cause, whatever that means, to "creation" (since as a materialist I have no evidence of a creator, I try to avoid using metaphors/popular phrases in discussions like this).  The idea of "creation" implies a creator, which is a separate issue for which there is also no evidence in the scientific sense, just wishes and feelings.

One can indeed provide evidence for the big bang, and all you need to do is crack open google and do a little research into cosmic microwave background radiation, for a start.  I've found astronomycast to be a very informative podcast.  Try it for a bit.  A very common creationist and/or ignorant (in the sense of lack of knowledge) claim is that evolution deals with the big bang or the origin of the universe.  It doesn't.  When we talk of stellar evolution and the like, it's a completely different sense and completely unrelated to the theory of evolution in biology (well, except for the idea of change, but that's pretty much it).

The "primordial soup"/RNA world/etc areas of abiogenesis are interesting and have varying degrees of evidence and scientific support.  That involves (as I said) chemistry, but also physics and geology.  Robert Hazen's book "Genesis - the scientific quest for life's origins" is a good place to start, but I think OgreMkV posted a few links in the Floyd Lee thread here on the site today dealing with this subject.  Search for it, and you'll find links to stories and papers that provide evidence.

Your ideas that you ponder are a bit of a hodgepodge, and a philosophy course is the wrong path to take to discover the actual facts.  Try to take some biology courses.  Look into such books as Marc Hauser's "Moral Minds" for a speculative (although there is evidence) look at the possible origins of morality as an evolved trait.  The arguments for that are not that hard to grasp, and there are both biological and psychological/anthropological studies that give support to the idea.  For such things as "pure randomness" - start with the actual theory and the varies meanings of terms, through the scientific realm, instead of relying on preachers and incredibly poor teachers with religious agendas.  Ignorance is curable, and it helps to ponder if you know the real facts.  I can ponder about the Incredible Hulk all I want, but I also know he doesn't exist, so any pondering does not reflect reality.

Your "end this post" bit doesn't address the various other aspects - that Creationists (including the IDCreationists) ignore factual evidence in favor of an ancient dogma, often misrepresenting or outright lying about, well, pretty much everything.  They claim to want to do science without actually doing any.  They want their mythology to be taught as science, when it isn't, especially when they ignore the thousands of other mythologies taught by their compatriots across the world.  They often (and they aren't alone in this) fail to use any kind of skepticism and critical thinking into claims that are easily amenable to investigation.  They settle for a story they were often taught to believe as kids, while ignoring the wonders of the real world.  As some creationists believe, we are made from mud and were cursed for something we never did by a being that knew it was going to happen.  Using science, we can see, as Carl Sagan put it, that we are star-stuff.  They want to stifle that sense of wonder with their pre-packaged answers.  The combination of dishonesty, manipulation, willful ignorance...just some of the reasons Creationists get no respect.

(all the quote mining, censorship, etc that are exposed here and elsewhere do not help matters either).

Btw - do you have a coherent definition of "God" or even "spiritual"?  I've yet to hear one that doesn't break down on examination.  What are your definitions, if you don't mind.  Given that we have TAKS testing coming up and I'm getting problems from my boss, I may not have much time to comment, but this is the most I've written in a long time and it's intellectually stimulating to get back into the trenches (even if it is online).

Date: 2010/04/23 19:25:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tsig @ April 22 2010,17:26)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2010,10:53)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:46)
 
Quote
Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious."

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages.  You guys aren't even listening.  Not even paying attention.  Repeating the same refuted claim.  

U gotta be kidding.   Honestly.

Self declared victory! Then why are you still here?

Dembski thinks that:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"

Okay.

Well you see that was with his religious hat on when he puts on his science hat and says ID is science you have to believe that too.

When does he take off the Dunce cap?

Date: 2010/04/23 19:33:01, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JLT @ April 23 2010,13:31)
StephenBS:
   
Quote
There are many other ethical practices that a Christian could execute that would normally be out of range for an atheist, including the act of loving his enemies, refraining from lust, fulfilling his moral obligation to worship the Creator, and pursuing his final end.

The problem is not in identifying the moral obligations that atheists cannot fulfill but rather in finding atheists who will acknowledge them as moral obligations.

Why would that be, do you think? A conundrum.

Why would I not "refrain from lust"?  (ok, in action, but thoughts...if they are of age and attractive, a healthy imagination is...healthy.  We've seen what repression does to people (and societies).

And does "pursuing his final end" mean suicide?

Date: 2010/04/28 14:50:08, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Louis @ April 26 2010,09:45)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,14:38)
Although I think everyone is getting their hopes up a bit too much regarding Bj, I will propose this:

Ask him a single question, a relevant one that he won't escape, and wait for him to answer. Not n^5 questions, just one everyone agrees on.

Ignore whatever other drivell he's trying to insert here.

Then we'll all know if he's being honest or not...

Seconded.

Louis

And here I was finally back and thinking of piling on too, but I'm ok with this.

I haven't read past this post, but my bet is that we'll see the Paluxey (sp?) "human" tracks or the Piltdown Man next.  Or maybe "Noah's Ark"  :D

Date: 2010/04/28 20:40:15, Link
Author: Badger3k
I forgot - I think Talk Origins was mentioned, but did anyone link to the Index to Creationist Claims site?  It might help if BJray (and others) check there first before spouting the same old tired "arguments".  If they are not there, then post.  If they are, read and learn, please.

Date: 2010/04/29 18:23:16, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reed @ April 28 2010,21:14)
Quote (Badger3k @ April 28 2010,18:40)
I forgot - I think Talk Origins was mentioned, but did anyone link to the Index to Creationist Claims site?  It might help if BJray (and others) check there first before spouting the same old tired "arguments".  If they are not there, then post.  If they are, read and learn, please.

Yes. No positive results were noted, but additional trials may be warranted.

They always tell us to reteach if the first attempt doesn't take...

Date: 2010/04/30 19:16:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 30 2010,15:20)
One of the unanticipated joys of being a department head is the sporadic arrival of screamingly hilarious scientific "papers" that arrive in the mailbox. Papers announcing cures for cancer, theories of everything, and other non-peer-reviewed manuscripts are a regular occurrence for me these days.

Today's mail brought something that could have been written by the love child of AFDave and Denyse O'Leary, if that love child had been raised on another planet and with some horizontal gene transfer from Bobby Byers and FL. I've put a PDF version of it here; enjoy it in lieu of the regular Friday meltdown. I particularly love the fact that the writer claims to have a BA in Biology from Brown University. Maybe Ken Miller knows him!

Holy crap, warn a guy first!  My roommate nearly died of shock, and if I hadn't started to read with my eyelashes, I'd be dead, or believe in ID.   Or think that O'Leary makes sense.

Anyway, you owe me a new camera.  Send it through the intertubes.  I'll have my ear to the wire until I hear it.  Unless....do sin proteins wait in the ear as well?  I didn't get that far!

Date: 2010/05/06 00:15:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 05 2010,21:32)
Quote (Jkrebs @ May 05 2010,22:20)
Stephen finally adds some explanation to his assertion that life isn't "present in the cause" and therefore couldn't emerge naturally.  Here, for the record, is his reasoning:

     
Quote
   Life was certainly present “as” a cause in the sense that the first cause is life itself, [the uncaused cause (God)] and, to be sure, that same uncaused cause could, if He chose, program “into” a secondary cause a potential for life built into matter that could later unfold into actual life. On the other hand, that secondary cause, as a process, cannot, on its own, be the sole cause for the life that unfolds because the first cause had to once establish and must continually sustain that same process. Processes, conditions, and laws cannot be their own cause, as I have pointed out many times. Further, the primary cause, [the conceiver and sustaining force] is always nobler than the secondary cause and its derivative effects [the proposed process out of which life is said to “emerge.”] Further still, the first cause cannot itself be an impersonal process, condition, or law, because it must, through an act of the will, choose to create.

   So, if some groups want to corrupt science and hypothesize that the life “emerged” from the material process ALONE, without reference to the logically necessary program and sustaining power required for its development and final maturation, or to even deny that it is a maturation process at all, as Darwinists [and some TEs] do, such an initiative cannot be a rational scientific enterprise because it denies and even forbids the application of the law of causality [life can only come from life], [processes unfold according to a plan], [plans cannot create themselves]. If they try to take it one step further, as Darwinists [and some TEs] do, and restrict science to their one irrational hypothesis, forbidding any investigation into the program that informs the ways in which matter [allegedly] achieved its end, or the power that sustains the program, or any design patterns imbedded in the mix, or any possibility that information was front loaded, that is intellectual tyranny. Oh yes, and did I forget to say that it is also irrational.


Everybody get that?

I would add, cause was certainly present as life, in the sense the life is the first cause, the program as it were, as I have pointed out many times, the unfolding cause of derivative effects, and life, as all effects are present in their causes, and effects, and secondary and tertiary causes must, and always have, the law of causality it, and more, and objective, and rationality as the foundation of reason, and every rational being agrees, every rational person applies the law of causality, and of wet roads, and walls, and right reason, first cause, and uncaused cause, and a cause uncaused. As I have pointed out many times, and logically necessary parts and wholes, and logical contingency, not real contingency, rationality, and empiricism can't be their own cause, and Darwinists know this, but cannot admit it to themselves. I said. I think I said that. I said that.

"This is my theory, which is mine....Anne Elk" (IIRC)

Date: 2010/05/07 19:22:19, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 07 2010,13:22)
Good guesses on bjray.  I'd say you nailed the most likely scenarios.

There's still the one possibility that could go toward bj's credit.  If you were defending the ID faith against the godless haters for Dembski's class, would you dare be caught thinking, even if you were doing it?

I'd say there's virtually no chance of that at all.  You'd fail the class if you didn't repeat the hackneyed IDiot apologetics, which you'd do even if you thought the church-burners were making sense.

Thus I think there's a slim chance that bj is not as hopeless as he(?) seems.  Ancient platitudes are simply all that are allowed in Dembski's assignments, I'll wager.

Glen Davidson

Interesting point - his posts get reviewed for content, so he has to post the same empty arguments.  Maybe he'll come back in another guise where he may be able to talk freely?

Yeah, probably not.  Still, interesting possibility.

Date: 2010/05/07 19:26:21, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (someotherguy @ May 07 2010,14:26)
Quote (Jkrebs @ May 07 2010,12:47)
What I don't get is how people like Phaedros don't get that we don't get it, and that there is no reason that we should.  Standing back from a different, unbelieving point of view, it just doesn't make sense that this is the way their omni-everything deity has chosen to relate to the world.

Having grown up immersed in evangelical culture, I think that there are actually quite a lot of people who do get that we don't "get it."  But many of them actually take pride in this--as if the strangeness of their belief was somehow evidence of its truth.  There's actually a biblical passage about this (from Paul, I believe), but I'm too lazy to look it up.

I think it might have been Origien (sp?) - one of the Church Fathers - who argued that Christianity was true because it was beyond belief, or something like that.  It does fit with the same mindset of cults and conspiracy theory advocates - the fact that they all believe this same thing shows that they are in the know, and everyone else is a poor deluded wretch.

Date: 2010/05/09 00:49:13, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (didymos @ May 08 2010,22:10)
That Barry's a sharp one, he is:
Quote

kairosfocus: Never think you are just beating the air. Your arguments are devastating. The materialists rarely answer them because they are unusually unanswerable. Your friends do not answer them, because after you have spoken, little else need be said. You are strong ally and a daunting opponent. Thank you for your posts.


That's funny.

I think any silence he hears is caused by (a) tldr and/or (b) people falling asleep trying to read his tomes.  I suppose it could be said that his arguments are unanswerable since he is usually so wrong that he's not even in the ballpark - how can you answer meaningless drivel in a meaningful way?

Date: 2010/05/13 20:33:45, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 12 2010,11:13)
Vox preaches to the choir at WhirledNutsDully.

Shorter Vox - Mexicans are trying to take over the parts of the country that used to be Mexico and need to be expelled (along with expelling Arabs from Detroit and Somalis from Minneapolis). Otherwise white Americans will migrate back from Phoenix to Peoria.

Or sump'n like that. Read the whole thing; it's a marvelous insight into the Douchepocalypse world view.

Jesus' General wrote up a nice reply (can't link from work), and he wanted to know what Mr Farrah would do when Vox deported him.  The Joseph Farrah/biker from the village people comparison was almost worth it by itself.

Date: 2010/05/13 20:36:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Quack @ May 12 2010,08:40)
I have a problem with "I believe God did all this" - isn't that just what Dembski and Behe says, the 'designer did it', wholesale, including bacterial flagellum, cytochrome C and the blood clotting chain? What's left to do science about - emergence, random mutations, natural selection, chaos, chance, autocatalysis?

I admit I don't know anything about TE, but if it encompasses the belief that God manipulate molecules - either by magic or by growing pseudopods,  what's left for science?

OTOH; I find it all right if people adopt a belief in a divine spirit pervading the universe; the universe is awesome!

All it is is setting the boundaries of where the magic starts at different places.  TE puts it further back than where the IDiots put it.  And both of them usually put it further back than your basic literal (YE) creationist - although there are those in the ID camp, as we all know.

Date: 2010/05/17 10:22:49, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 17 2010,08:41)
Quote (J-Dog @ May 17 2010,08:05)

That is some truly beautiful crazed stuff, including a "Tree Of Crazy" that Ken Ham would just die for:


Who the hell is Lord Monboddo? Or "Starlin", who killed 50 million people?

And where can I get me some of that "Promiscuiy"?

Starlin - That must be Jim Starlin (wiki here) - I liked his work, but never knew the deaths were real!  I always thought Thanos was fictional.  Of course, if you believe in ID, then maybe you'd think he was as real as your god too.

Date: 2010/07/09 08:39:26, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 08 2010,12:14)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 07 2010,19:50)
has anyone following the chris mooney suckfest with sockpuppetry worked out whether "bilbo" might be the same cunt that has been using that name at UD and TT or whatever.  just wondering.  carry on with rich's gay romper room

Now Kw*k has gotten involved over at Greg Laden's blog, and is threatening to demand cameras.  If only GoP would jump in with some pictures of wrestlers, we'd have the best internet drama ever.

I just went to Laden's latest post on the debacle, where he seems to be saying that Chris had no responsibility for anything, except admitting that he had an anti-"new atheist" bias.  Since it was a blog, he had no need to fact check his huge story beyond seeing that the name was the name of a real person.  Then Greg decides to leave up a huge DM post becuase he says he is now not supposed to moderate his blog for some reason.  All I can say (to both this and the PepsiCo blog fiasco and drama queen explosion) is WTF?

Date: 2010/07/09 08:42:58, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 09 2010,03:14)
Obviously, The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" strategy has created wrong ideas at BioLogos - or has it:
 
Quote
Thomas Cudworth at 16:
Dr. Falk, this paragraph is filled with falsehoods about the ID position, and it mingles editorial statements about ID with a description of ID in such a way that the boundary between description and criticism is blurred. ...
Will you undertake, *within the next month*, to remove this false and misleading description of ID, and replace it with a definition of ID as ID is understood by its proponents? And to separate that definition clearly, in a distinct paragraph, from any editorial comments Biologos wishes to make about ID? ...

And at 18 Darrel Falk is happy to oblige:  
Quote
Thomas,
Please feel free to suggest alternative wording and send it to me at [EMAIL=info@biologos.org.]info@biologos.org.[/EMAIL] Please write a definition that you think pretty much defines ID. ...

Cudworth is a chicken at 19:  
Quote
I am not the person to ask for the official definition of intelligent design. ... The best way to proceed, I would suggest, would be to write to Casey Luskin and John West at the Discovery Institute, telling them that you would like a definition of “intelligent design” that currently finds wide favor among ID proponents, one which you could use on your “Leading Figures” page ...


Darrel Falk at 18:  
Quote
Johnny B: I asked to be removed as an ISCID Fellow after Michael Behe wrote the Afterword to the second edition of Darwin’s Black Box and in the aftermath of the Dover trial. I did not see that the ID movement leaders were taking scientific data seriously. I was also disappointed that in my six years as an ISCID Fellow I had never been asked to review a paper or contribute to discussion in the manner the Bill Dembski had told me I would be able to do.

Should I get some popcorn?
http://tinyurl.com/335gcf6

Kewl - does this qualify as a TARDfight?  I need some Cheetos!

Date: 2010/07/09 11:16:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robin @ July 09 2010,10:09)
[quote=khan,July 09 2010,09:27][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ July 09 2010,10:23)
Just curious, but what has this warvarmint...thing...have to do with Vox Day?

I think he invented it.


Ahhh...I thought it might be something like that, but I couldn't find a reference to him on the sites. Thanks!

Ok...as you were...continue the flogging!

This was the first post on this thread that I found mentioning this: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y159827

(sorry, for some reason I can't format it)

Date: 2010/07/14 10:32:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (KCdgw @ July 14 2010,09:40)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 14 2010,08:03)
Quote (KCdgw @ July 14 2010,05:50)
Did anyone else see StephenB trying to hide a bong after he wrote that?

I think he stashed it behind the cardboard pyramid he sits in to write his posts.

I bet his mom just hates going down into the basement.

It puts the ID in the post, or else it gets the hose again?

:D

Date: 2010/08/24 00:52:17, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (dnmlthr @ Aug. 23 2010,20:57)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 24 2010,02:50)
 
Quote
Consider me your mortal enemy


That's funny! Who really talks like that!  It's like Professor Emeritus = 12 year old boy, or a character from Lord Of The Rings!

Or a Bond villain. Notice how he got more and more unhinged as the thread went on, basically oscillating between triumphant sneering and white hot rage.

The part where he mistook a sarcastic remark as genuine support was just sad.

I'm not sure if he would work for a Bond villain - probably more of Doc Savage maybe.  

Or the Tick.  

Yeah, I'd go with the Tick.

I really have avoided reading too much of him, but that thread was amazing.  Science isn't about discussion, it's about finding out the Truth?  WTF?

Date: 2010/08/24 09:50:41, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 24 2010,08:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2010,18:57)
Did.not.end.well.
 
Quote
John A. Davison says:
...

Consider me your mortal enemy.
jadavison.wordpress.com


I'm surprised he didn't post, you'll rue the day!

Also needs the "Bwah-ha-ha" evil laugh, maybe with some hand-wringing at the same time.

Date: 2010/08/28 19:35:46, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 27 2010,18:44)
As many of you know, earlier in the year, our much beloved opposite Barry Arrington threw his hat into the ring for the Colorado Board of Education. I have been keeping my Google-fu working to determine how BarryA's candidacy was progressing. I was surprised to find no mention of him in the results of the recent Republican Primary in Colorado.  I was confused until an article came up recently offering some speculation that his candidacy was stillborn for lack of interest. Given that his opponent for GOP love was an actual educator, it is probably no wonder that culture warrior Arrington didn't get very far.

But, wait!!!! That's not all!1!!11!!  

We get an interesting glimpse into Barry's second job as the treasurer of MichelePAC, the political action committee of everyone's favorite Republican, Michele Bachmann.  It seems BarryA had a problem spelling her name.

Linky dinky

One cannot help wonder how that mutation/duplication event happened.  Was it random or intelligently designed?  Zachriel, did you install Word Mutagenation on Barry's PC?

I'd heard that it had been misspelled, but I didn't think I'd actually "know" the perp.  Small world, or is it just that there are only so many crackpots out there that some overlap is expected?

Date: 2010/08/28 19:39:43, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 28 2010,04:02)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 27 2010,06:56)
Dembski's former boss, Albert Mohler, declares evolution and Christianity to be incompatible.

Comments are open over there.

So the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary now presumes to speak for the whole of Christianity?  I am sure that all the other denominations will be grateful that Mohler has relieved them of that tiresome burden.

I was raised to believe that humility was a Christian virtue.  Mohler appears to belong to that section of the Southern Baptist community who have abandoned that requirement, perhaps as being doctrinally unsound - or just inconvenient.

We were always told that humility was a virtue as well, but in practice it either was forgotten completely, or else there was a load of false humility - ranging from the "I'm so pitiful aren't I awesome" bit to the "I thank Jesus that I am so awesome - it's not me, it's Him, but aren't I awesome" bit.  

Not to say there wasn't justified pride, but that's not what I was highlighting.

Date: 2010/08/28 19:42:46, Link
Author: Badger3k
For some fantastic Pizza - "Lou Malnati's" gives you some real, good, Chicago Style pizza (http://www.loumalnatis.com/).  Luckily there is a resteraunt here in Texas that makes the same kind (Rosati's).  Only an hour away from me, but it's near where I work.  Good memories from childhood.

edited to remove a "T" from Rosati's

Date: 2010/09/04 00:09:26, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (socle @ Sep. 03 2010,22:08)
*sniff*
   
Quote

Note to readers

Because I am writing a book, I probably will not be blogging much before December, but expect to see me then, if not before. I did post some new material today. For stories on the intelligent design controversy, go to Uncommon Descent - Denyse


Until December...


WTF is that picture?  Tell me that isn't Densey?  The taller one on the left, that is.

Non-existent God I hope not.  The images in my head were bad enough without having a real face...

edit - of course, if that is someone here, or a relative...sorry, it surprised me...err...

Date: 2010/09/12 20:20:43, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2010,19:23)
Over the past 20 years, gays killed broadway!

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/mailvox-decline-of-broadway.html

Thank goodness it wasn't TV or new media!

I liked the "homo-esoteric" bit.  I learn something new every day!

I also like the way he admits there are other factors, although he doesn't name them.  I wonder if the fact that prices are a bit...uh...high has anything to do with it?  I took a quick look and found out that two tickets to Wicked range from $67 to $300.  Given the economy, maybe that might be a factor?  I rarely go to movies because the prices are outrageous, so what do the non-rich do when confronted by prices like that?  Especially when later on the show will probably be on tv or dvd?

I also liked how he points to the increase in the population of the US, but how does that matter to Broadway?  From what I can tell of the site, it seems to indicate the physical Broadway, in NYC.  How does an increase in, say, the middle of Texas, lead to more people who can see a Broadway show?  I've never been to NY, and probably never will.  Surely Teddy Beale, Super-Genius, has considered that into his Deep Thoughts?

;)

Date: 2010/09/13 10:54:06, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2010,10:06)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 13 2010,10:03)
Cornelius points out another great design:

 
Quote
Carbon Dioxide Sensors
Cornelius Hunter

Did you ever wonder how mosquitoes find you so quickly? Next time you might try not breathing because they are attracted to the carbon dioxide you exhale. And how do insects detect carbon dioxide? Studies have found two different neuron cell proteins (neural receptors) that seem to do the job. And they do the job exquisitely.


Thank Int_ll_g_nt D_s_gn_r!

All glory to his creation!

Everybody knows that this happens because of the Fall...er, not that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian god, nope, but it is because of the Fall (which is a complete non-sectarian concept).

Date: 2010/09/16 01:01:39, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 15 2010,07:20)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 14 2010,21:38)
New GilDodgen Post:  E2


Splitter!



Unified Tard-Field Theory renders everything just different flavors of equivocation (a.k.a. tardicles). The only reason you haven't heard of it yet is because of so-called peer-review.

-
Edited to add image.

Wasn't that on that tv show - Tardicles, the Legendary Journeys?

Date: 2010/09/19 14:57:53, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 19 2010,12:31)
Not being familiar with the America  education and academic systems, whilst I am sure the following, (especially the claim to be a Ph D) is mostly BS, I don't suppose anything obviously made-up screams out at anyone that they might like to share?

Me:
 
Quote
Rich

What did you study?

Rich: (a Biologos commenter with a rather overblown style)
 
Quote
Alan Fox:

I’ve already answered your question in part on other threads, but I’ll repeat and expand:

I did just about every science and math course imaginable in high school, while reading tons of popular science.  I was superb in chemistry and math, won a science scholarship, and studied chemistry, physics, biology, calculus, algebra, and probability theory. I wearied of the narrow and technical nature of science education, and went on to study philosophy, religion, intellectual history, and history of science, ending up with a Ph.D. in the area of religion and science specifically.  I have academic publications, books and articles, not in Christian venues but in mainstream secular ones.  Also I’ve taught several academic subjects, including great texts of science, e.g., Galileo.  The ID-Darwinism debate instantly reminded me of the ancient debates between Socratics and Epicureans (though the ancient Epicureans were civilized, unlike modern Darwinists), and for 5 years now I’ve been studying the historical, philosophical and theological aspects of ID and evolution, in particular the concepts of chance, necessity, and design, while boning up on the relevant science.


Me:
 
Quote
 
Quote
...a Ph.D. in the area of religion and science specifically.


Specifically in the area of “Science-and-Religion”, do you mean? Was your doctorate from a recognised academic institution?


Rich:
 
Quote
I don’t understand the difficulty.  Non-recognized academic institutions don’t have licenses to grant Ph.D.s.  Yes, it was a doctorate from a recognized academic institution.  What else would I have meant?

Yes, science-and-religion hyphenated.  Again, what else could I have meant?  Ph.D.s are specialized.  You can’t do science and religion as two separate subjects at the Ph.D. level.  What you can do is particular aspects of the interconnections between science and religion.  That’s what I worked on—under supervisors that had been trained at Oxford, Columbia, Yale, etc.

As that other poster stated, there is a lot of hyperbole in this.  It sounds like he's padding a resume.  He studied every science course in high school (which was what?  Three, four courses perhaps?  In some states and schools that is all there is).  Doesn't say he passed, does it?

Studied in college - all those could have been courses, especially could have been the basic courses - or could even have been just books he's read.  I can say I've studied Higher Criticism, and I've never had a credited course (I've read a bit, listen to a lot of podcasts and have taken some courses in mp3 - no credit or homework involved).  He doesn't say what grades he achieved, or even if he finished the course (or even the book or section, say probability theory within a basic intro-level college biology course).

If he's taught, and published, let's see what he has done.  Post a link to the publications.  A lot of people have access to them and can judge for themselves.  I doubt this poster will do that, but you can always ask (or even ask that he send an email)

Date: 2010/09/25 13:18:25, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 25 2010,09:17)
Sheldon's reply to Aleta (on his blog, not at UD) makes absolutely no sense, but he refers her to this other guy, Sheldon's advisor at seminary, so I went there, and found this gem, explaining why 2+2=4:

Quote
Yes, non-Christians can do mathematics, but only because God enables them to do so. Only because the Christian God exists and sustains them and teaches them are they able to do mathematics, and to act as if God didn't exist.


Well, it's hard to argue with that.

What breathtaking arrogance.

So God teaches nonbelievers to act as if God doesn't exist?

Date: 2010/09/26 16:47:57, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 26 2010,15:18)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 24 2010,06:47)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 24 2010,06:31)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2010,09:04)
Gordon Mullings proves the power of prayer:
   
Quote
I will leave most details to others, just first noting on one of your red herring tracks that there are millions who will testify to you on experience that prayer works. In fact, that I am alive, have enough breath to post, and have enough back to sit up are ALL answers to prayer, in astonishingly and obviously miraculous ways.

"In a dangerous world there will always be more people around whose prayers for their own safety have been answered than those whose prayers have not."

Nicholas Humphrey's Law of the Efficacy of Prayer

Especially when the ones who didn't get their prayers answered are dead.

Depends on which way they're praying.

Or who is praying for what.  If there is someone praying for life, and there is someone praying for death, who gets priority if they are in direct opposition?

Date: 2010/09/29 09:43:22, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 28 2010,21:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 28 2010,11:11)
I can sympathize with agnostics, but atheists?  IMHO, the only reason one is an atheist is because of personal issues which can vary immensely from person to person.

For this atheist, it's the same personal issues that lead me to not believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis.

No - no - no!

It can't be an thorough investigation of religion and religious claims, nor a critical look at the (lack of) evidence for any of the gods claimed, and the negative evidence against such claims.  It has to be a personal reason - you hate God, you have father issues - something, even if you aren't aware of it.  So, you must also have Lake Monster issues, hate Bigfoot, and I'm not sure about the UFOs - maybe anal probes are too much?

That's the "theory" at least.  But I can say I hate their god as much as I hate Santa Claus, another imaginary being.  No, I take that back - I hate Santa more...bastard never did bring me that porsche for Christmas...

Date: 2010/09/30 00:27:32, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 29 2010,18:15)
Oooh, now you're in for it!
Quote
You called me an expletive. You called me Dick, meaning the male reproductive organ. You switched from Richard abruptly for effect and it was without question done with malicious intent. My knick name is not Dick. I have only been called that name derisively perhaps ten times in my life, and never in the last fifteen years. I will not retaliate by returning more of the same to you in this column, but you can be certain that I will I not take this act lightly.

This surely deserves some sort of award, which means henceforth you should refer to him as "Prize Dick".

His "knick name"?  Either he is not a native speaker of English, or he just likes basketball.  Nicknames like his should not be abused.  He shouldn't swallow that insult!  I can see his red-headed anger, and he's gonna spew!

If he's sick, can he be "Spotted Dick"?

Date: 2010/09/30 00:33:35, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Reed @ Sep. 29 2010,22:57)
Quote (Badger3k @ Sep. 29 2010,07:43)
It has to be a personal reason - you hate God, you have father issues - something, even if you aren't aware of it.  So, you must also have Lake Monster issues, hate Bigfoot, and I'm not sure about the UFOs - maybe anal probes are too much?

I suppose it's also personal issues that prevent FTK from believing in Zeus, Shiva, Loki, and Tezcatlipoca.

Nah - see, she actually has found the one, true god - or rather, she was born into it probably.  That way she is spared the personal problems the rest of the world suffers from.  That's true - what personal problems do the rest of the world have?  Do those who still worship other gods after being exposed to whatever missionary happens to come upon them have personal problems with the Christian god that prevent them from converting?

Date: 2010/09/30 00:38:52, Link
Author: Badger3k
Sort of related to that last post, I had an idea for a book/story/comic - or even just a graphic organizer - Christ comes back on his camel..er, white horse...for the Rapture and finds out he's a bit late to the party.  Ragnarok has started, the Jotuns are fighting with the Jewish Messiah (who isn't Jesus), and the Mahdi (sp?) has returned and wants Jesus to help him with the Islamic second coming...I'm sure there are more end-of-the-world myths out there.  Aliens in the Mothership?  Like Terry Pratchetts Pyramids, what if all those tales came true at once?

edit - maybe have a neurotic shrink treating the traumatized savior?  Woody Allen?  

Then I had the idea of putting them side by side or in some other format.  Maybe by continent/region, or something.  Might be an interesting project, if someone hasn't done it already.  And if someone hasn't, anyone has my blessing to take the idea and run with it (just mention my name in the credits).

Date: 2010/10/01 00:35:54, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 27 2010,14:08)
[quote=Wolfhound,Sep. 27 2010,01:10][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2010,18:55)
 
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.

http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/2007/09/vox-day-and-me-part-12.html

 
Quote
So after all of this build up, then, we're back to the original question: what is Vox Day really like?

Short.

Well, that would explain why he hates women so much.


Short guys generally hate women?

They probably have a bigger penis than Teddy.  

Have you seen his latest blame-the-victim post?

Gay Rights Killed Clementi.

It wasn't the roommate that caused his suicide, it was gay rights.

Gah - I actually read part of that crap.  Holy shit, he's even more fucked up than I thought.  Colleges are too tolerant, and Clementi couldn't stand the thought of people seeing him submit to his "evil desires".  

Teddy, stick to broken mice, and leave the deep thinking to those with actual working brains.  Please.

Date: 2010/10/02 03:25:04, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 02 2010,00:18)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2010,21:48)
Quote
10. The "higher," more complex animals must have been produced immediately by God, and God alone.

Giraffes?

Henry

No, I think he means alpacas and bighorn sheep.

Oh, and yaks.

Yaks?  Oh, you mean Bigfoots (or is it Bigfeet?).

Date: 2010/10/02 10:41:48, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 02 2010,08:09)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 02 2010,03:25)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 02 2010,00:18)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2010,21:48)
   
Quote
10. The "higher," more complex animals must have been produced immediately by God, and God alone.

Giraffes?

Henry

No, I think he means alpacas and bighorn sheep.

Oh, and yaks.

Yaks?  Oh, you mean Bigfoots (or is it Bigfeet?).

If we are in Yak country then it's probably Yeti.  Go to the back of the Cryptozoology class.

rossum

But the hair they found was in Canada, so ... maybe it was a Yeti visiting its relatives in Canada?  Or it wasn't confused with a Yak, but a Bison - the match wasn't conclusive.

Edit - besides, Yaks have been brought into the States for a variety of purposes, and it's not inconceivable that some are roaming free.  A search reveals some information (Here) -
Quote
Yaks were imported to Canada in the 1940s. North America has only about 1,500 yaks. Originally raised at 14,000-feet elevations in Tibet, yaks are well suited for mountains and cold climates. Most American herders live in high elevations in Colorado, Montana, Idaho and Washington.

Date: 2010/10/02 13:35:40, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 02 2010,12:58)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 02 2010,10:41)
Or it wasn't confused with a Yak, but a Bison - the match wasn't conclusive.

It's hard to confuse a Yak with a Bison.  The Bison was a huge strategic bomber, the Myasishchev M-4



It would be hard to confuse them with the smaller fighters and trainers designed by Yakovlev


 
Quote
Edit - besides, Yaks have been brought into the States for a variety of purposes, and it's not inconceivable that some are roaming free.


This much is true.  The Yak-52 can certainly be found flying free in the US.


But I can't see where they got the hair from - those Yaks and Bison are bald.

Or do they shave....?

Is it Yak Shaving Day?  Or does this give new meaning to "landing strip"?

Date: 2010/10/03 13:28:32, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 03 2010,12:12)
Quote
(3) Humanity originated in a single geographical region.

I'd think they'd want predictions that distinguish it from evolution, which also predicts that a species will start in a geographic range (relative to the mobility of the ancestral species, of course).

Quote
(4) Human beings are descended from a single couple.

A single couple? I'd think they'd want it to be a married couple. :)

Quote
(5) Pain in childbirth increased markedly in the hominid line, shortly after the appearance of the first human beings.

Again, I'd think they'd want predictions that differ from those of science, and that increase in pain of childbirth probably arose at the same time that legs evolved for walking erect.

Quote
(6) At the same point in time, human beings developed sweat glands all over their bodies.

What's that got to do with anything? As a side question, are sweat glands unique to humans, or even just rare among mammals?

Henry

I find it interesting that the "hominid line" starts with "human beings" - are the implications then that the hominid line starts with Homo sapiens, or that human beings includes the entire Homo line.  The first is consistent with creationism, and the second is clearly not.  I'm not sure that anyone actually would go that far, although I may be thinking of the "anatomically modern human beings" definition of Homo sapiens.

Date: 2010/10/06 23:41:47, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 06 2010,13:27)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 05 2010,11:27)
I found this comment insightfull in the 'Courtier's responce' aftermath thread at Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog:

https://www.blogger.com/comment....1437274


Another gem from that discussion:

Dymara (in response to lee_merrill):

     
Quote
Your argument is literally that since two grandiose projects haven't borne any fruit, the only possible conclusion  is that a magical invisible sky fairy must exist and be shaping events in order to prevent said grandiose schemes from fruition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If efforts to rebuild Babylon had resulted in workers being flung back by an unknown force while a booming voice announced "You shall not cross me, mortals," and subsequent attempts met with the same supernatural intervention, then you'd have a case. However, a grandiose plan failing when the money behind it dries up and the key parties lose interest is an entirely mundane occurrence, and does not justify any such conclusion. Saying that the effects of divine intervention are indistinguishable from mundane chance is equivalent to saying that no divine intervention has ever occurred.
-  (emphasis in original)

I love it so!

lee_merrill?  Lee?  From IIDB and Freethought/rationalism?  The one who, IIRC, believes in prophecy, and that Tyre sank into the sea?  Sadly, the posts I was looking for seem to be just archived (or gone) - they were 4+ years ago I think, back when I was far more active than I am now.  

Wow.

edit - Yep, that's him.  First comment by him has his "just rebuild babylon" bit.  Nevermind that parts were rebuilt, that it was inhabited - nope, none of that mattered.  Damn, now I wish I could find those posts - the amount of goalpost moving and equivocation was astounding, at least if you haven't been around UD and the like.  I think I need to see the Picard-Riker Double Facepalm again.

Double edit - after reading more to the Dymara quote, I see he hasn't changed his tune.  Same "I will renounce my faith" bit, same equivocation on arabs pitching tents (now, now - I know what you are thinking...).  I remember the discussion on how many people are needed to satisfy his "community" bit (not that he ever explained where that came from, IIRC).  

Ah, old times...

Date: 2010/10/08 23:19:27, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 08 2010,16:39)
jpg564:
Quote

I visited Sequoia National Park earlier this year. I was struck by acouple facts presented at the visitor’s center. Sequoias live about as long as they have existed: about 2500 years. Also, the wood does not decay due to the high tannin levels; bugs and fungus can’t digest it. So unless it burns up, a fallen sequoia remains where it fell indefinitely. We essentially can view the entire history of this species. So the question is, what did they evolve from? There are only distinct other species of trees (Sugar Pines, Douglas Fir, etc) but no transitional forms. Did random mutation cause sequoia to sprout from another species?


Collin:
Quote

jpg564,

That is one of the simplest strong arguments against evolution that I’ve ever seen.


Oh, it's simple alright, just not in the way you mean, Collin.

But - if they live 2500 years or so, that's only a few lifetimes since the planet was created.  That's not counting the Flood, of course... :D

Date: 2010/10/11 19:02:55, Link
Author: Badger3k
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 11 2010,16:35)