AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Chayanov

form_srcid: Chayanov

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.67.26

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Chayanov

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 'Chayanov%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/12/07 18:02:07, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
That's so cute. FtK has adopted my personal weblog comment policy as her own, and I don't even get a credit for it.

No wonder she was so quick to defend Dembski's plagiarism. Doesn't she have an original thought of her own?
   
Quote
You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere.

Oh, there it is. That's one massive case of projection.

Date: 2007/12/26 21:28:34, Link
Author: Chayanov
Apparently the "A" Sal got in physics means he's a rectum.

Date: 2007/12/29 00:17:57, Link
Author: Chayanov
And yet she swiped the comment policy on your blog for her own. She must value at least some of your words.  :)

Date: 2007/12/29 00:46:00, Link
Author: Chayanov
The only real difference between "intelligent design" and "creation science" is that they are spelled differently.

Date: 2007/12/29 15:22:14, Link
Author: Chayanov
I was on the debate team in high school and college, and we never had rules like these:

 
Quote
2. Companies specializing in book design will be asked to bid on all computer aspects of assembling a full-color book with an index. The editor and each side of the debate will vote to select the book’s designer. Before the book is published, the publisher will pay the editor and the book’s designer. If the book is never published, neither the editor nor book’s designer will be paid.


 
Quote
4. The editor will:

a. Make whatever rulings will help accomplish the debate’s purpose.

b. Resolve all procedural disagreements raised by either side.

c. After consulting with each side, select the style manual to be followed and provide formatting and layout guidance to the book designer.

d. Collect a color photograph of each participant and a biographical sketch of 100–200 words.

e. Direct each side, if needed, to address the more important unanswered points made by the other side, to include new issues raised during the last submission.

f. Terminate the debate if, in his or her opinion, one side is not participating adequately.

g. Organize and edit the final written product.

h. Write the book’s preface, including a description of these agreements and whether or not both sides followed them.

i. List for the publisher all artwork the book will include, along with costs and copyright owners. The authors, operating within a budget established by the editor, are responsible for obtaining this information. The eventual publisher will purchase all artwork, design the cover, and obtain an ISBN number.


Yeah, it's a "debate" all right.

Date: 2007/12/29 22:30:38, Link
Author: Chayanov
Clearly one of his many "outs" from having to actually engage in discourse regarding his "theory."

"Dr. Brown, I'm not sure why you contradict yourself here and here..."

"You don't understand my theory! God... Noah... the continents..."

"Yes, about this whole God and Noah thing..."

"You don't get to bring up religion! This debate is over!"

Date: 2007/12/30 22:57:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Where do atheists get their morals from? Seriously? What's next -- why do atheists hate god so much?

Since the Bible condones incest, pedophilia, and killing children, where do Christians get their morals from?

Date: 2007/12/31 06:48:38, Link
Author: Chayanov
Not only that, but you're also not allowed to bring up religion!

Date: 2007/12/31 11:42:17, Link
Author: Chayanov
The "new covenant" is what allows Christians to pick and choose what they want to follow from the OT. Something reasonable like, "Don't punch your neighbor in the back of his head and steal his stuff" is okay. On the other hand, "Eat a ham-and-cheese sandwich and you'll go to hell" can be dismissed. The only reason they keep the OT around at all is because they need it as proof of legitimacy for Jesus being their "king of the Jews".

Date: 2007/12/31 12:23:08, Link
Author: Chayanov
Why is FtK running in here all frantic now about PZ's post? She was one of the first people to comment on it last night.

Oh right. It's a red herring to get the conversation here even more off topic.

Date: 2008/01/06 18:03:24, Link
Author: Chayanov
Maybe it was Marks who told Sal that the "lab" was being shut down just to get rid of him, and Sal doesn't actually know that Marks merely switched servers.

Date: 2008/01/16 00:33:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 15 2008,22:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2008,19:38)
Via Dr. PZ

   
Quote (Mike Chucklehead @ January 15, 2008, MSNBC's Morning Joe)
   "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Holee Crap.  Can you imagine that guy's finger on the nuclear button?

"Vote for Huckabee. He'll make the Rapture happen!"

Date: 2008/01/16 12:17:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Gah! If anything "Teh Fall" annoys me even more than "Godidit" as a non-answer. The universe and everything in it worked absolutely perfectly, then two people eat a piece of fruit and completely overturn physics, biology, chemistry, etc. etc. etc. Why is this supposed design imperfect? Teh Fall. Why is there disease? Teh Fall. Why doesn't God do anything about it? Teh Fall. It's the ultimate science-stopper.

Date: 2008/01/23 17:02:55, Link
Author: Chayanov
If "Darwinism" is responsible for the Nazis, then Christianity is responsible for slavery and genocide in the Americas (Both supported by Biblical scripture). Time for all those churches to start paying out reparations.

Or at least drop that ridiculous "Darwinism leads to Nazism" non-argument.

Date: 2008/01/30 22:02:08, Link
Author: Chayanov
The Bible practically insists upon accepting incest as a basic premise of being a good God-follower. You'd think Sal and FtK wouldn't have such a problem with it, since they love everything else that God does. For them, God causing the friends of Noah's family to drown should be just as acceptable as God forcing Noah's grandchildren and great-grandchildren to have sex with each other.

Date: 2008/01/31 16:49:58, Link
Author: Chayanov
That "debate" was awesome. I wish every encounter with a cdesign proponentsist went so well that even their own supporters turned on them at the end of it. Those UD comments are hilarious too. They weren't so impressed by PZ as they were completely disappointed by Simmons. Even DaveScot should have appreciated the plug for Scientific American -- "Your source for info about whale fossils!"

Date: 2008/01/31 18:46:20, Link
Author: Chayanov
What ever happened with Dr. Dr. D's super-secret list of confirmed ID predictions? Gone the way of the leprechaun and pink unicorn?

Date: 2008/02/02 15:40:35, Link
Author: Chayanov
Vox Day's (presumably honest) admission that the only thing keeping him from stealing and killing is Jesus saying don't do it was more than enough of his writings for me. IIRC Day has also admitted the reverse -- that if Jesus said go kill babies, he would do it.

Why listen to crazy people? I don't stop and talk to the guy on the corner who yells at the traffic light, either.

Date: 2008/02/02 19:41:49, Link
Author: Chayanov
Nobody's stopping you. This isn't Uncommon Descent.

Date: 2008/02/02 20:14:58, Link
Author: Chayanov
First you say:

Quote
I’ve seen evolutionists claim many things that are simply not accurate, whether knowingly or not.


Without a shred of evidence. Then you follow that up with:

Quote
...the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens trio are horrendous bigots, and their goal is one of complete intolerance of anything that looks to them to be religious...they want religion eradicated.


Again with no evidence. And most people here are far more familiar with what Dawkins et al. have to say about religion than you apparently are. But please, continue on with your unsupported opinions, just like Simmons did.

Date: 2008/02/02 20:37:31, Link
Author: Chayanov
Of course it's a different post about the debate. What's more, that post and the first five comments are dated January 30. PZ didn't do the debate until the next day!

Date: 2008/02/02 20:40:50, Link
Author: Chayanov
Forgot to add that the disappeared post and all comments were from January 31, the day of the debate.

Date: 2008/02/02 23:46:08, Link
Author: Chayanov
It's a stall tactic. She'll probably never finishing reading the book.

Date: 2008/02/03 12:31:53, Link
Author: Chayanov
That's a really good question. Perhaps a comparative approach could find examples of these within "competing" religions of the time, and determine what is culturally significant about those particulars. The "born of a virgin" was a relatively common trope and I can think of about half a dozen religions and mystery cults that employed it, but the others would be interesting to track down, too.

Date: 2008/02/03 16:06:42, Link
Author: Chayanov
Ironic? No. Projection? Yes.

Date: 2008/02/03 17:06:11, Link
Author: Chayanov
And never mind that many marriages end precisely because of abuse (I'm not suggesting this one way or the other for Dawkins). But the FtKs of the world would much rather the domestic abuse continue, for the sake of maintaining the illusion of "holy matrimony" than for the abused to break that "sacred bond" by getting themselves and the kids out as soon as possible.

Date: 2008/02/03 17:18:00, Link
Author: Chayanov
Really good, but you should randomly throw one "fuck" in there, scream censorship, and end with a complete non sequitur.

Date: 2008/02/03 23:40:36, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I'd ask that you allow me to raise my children to honor their Maker, and you can tell your children whatever the hell you like.  If it was mandated that I were not allowed to share my own beliefs and insights with my child simply because they didn't fall in line with your beliefs or Dawkins beliefs or someone in higher government's beliefs, then I would choose not to have children at all.  I suppose that's another way for scientists to rid the world of over population.  Take away our rights to parent our children the way we see fit, and most people are going to think twice about raising children with big brother breathing down their necks.


Good thing you live in Kansas. You need all that straw to set up your arguments. And you wonder why people think you're nuts?

Date: 2008/02/04 00:00:12, Link
Author: Chayanov
But she's got bigger issues, like how Richard Dawkins is forcing the United States government to tell her how she should raise her kids, and Vox Day is the only one who can save her. Nope, no craziness there.

Date: 2008/02/04 16:47:58, Link
Author: Chayanov
That's okay. Somebody has to work the drive-thru window.

Date: 2008/02/04 17:32:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 04 2008,17:25)
The domain was registered in February, 2005.

So, it's been like that, or worse (nothing) for three years.

On second thought, nothing might be better, at least more accurate, than what they have now.

Indeed. "Coming soon" suggests they will actually have something to add in the near future, when everyone knows they don't.

Date: 2008/02/05 15:19:55, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Ignorance which could have been cured by typing in researchblogging.org


Luskin's reading comprehension skill is only matched by his keen legal prowess.

Date: 2008/02/06 12:27:07, Link
Author: Chayanov
Why not pyre review and just have a good old-fashioned book burning?

Date: 2008/02/07 14:48:05, Link
Author: Chayanov
How nice of Luskin to decide to re-write all the laws of the United States. Did he fall on his head recently? We all knew he was a pathological liar, but lately he just seems stupid.

Date: 2008/02/07 17:43:28, Link
Author: Chayanov
Stellar astronomer? I thought he was a privileged planet astronomer.

Date: 2008/02/10 15:33:40, Link
Author: Chayanov
Every grad program loves to hear how their students have mastered high school algebra. Sal's professors must be so proud of him.

Date: 2008/02/10 18:04:18, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
It's a shame were going to have exchange insults in public, but I suppose there really is no better place to act like children than this particular playpen.


God forbid you ever actually rise above such behavior. Your hypocritical nature is showing again ("But they started it! Wah!"). Must you always retaliate against people for perceived slights against you? While you're out driving, if someone cuts you off, do you speed up and pass them so you can cut them off? If someone steals your parking spot, do you key their car? If you think someone has insulted you, are you morally bound to insult them back? So much for turning the other cheek. Nice example you're setting for your kids, there.

Date: 2008/02/10 18:07:02, Link
Author: Chayanov
When it comes to creationists, it's extremely difficult to distinguish between parody and reality.

Date: 2008/02/10 18:34:08, Link
Author: Chayanov
Shorter ftk:

"You're mean! Now I'm mean! Wah!"

Date: 2008/02/10 18:37:02, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 10 2008,18:33)
OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The no personal responsibility card!  It's all OUR fault that Ftk's behavior is dubious.  I like that.  My behavior is all because of me; I guess IDiots just aren't that strong.


It's like how her hero Vox Day admitted he would be killing babies, but Jesus said not to. Creationists have no backbone and no brain. It's the stick up their butts that keeps them upright.

Date: 2008/02/10 23:06:29, Link
Author: Chayanov
"Fry, why must you analyze everything with your relentless logic?"

Date: 2008/02/10 23:16:57, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Brannigan's law is like Brannigan's love: hard and fast.

Date: 2008/02/10 23:21:56, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What do I call it, Kif?

*Groan* Sexlexia.

Date: 2008/02/10 23:25:06, Link
Author: Chayanov
Far better for them to fear their parents having sex with them or killing them, just because the Big Sky Daddy said so.

But at least they didn't evolve from monkeys!

Date: 2008/02/10 23:26:55, Link
Author: Chayanov
For that matter, why would wearing wool and linen together send you to hell? How does god feel about white after Labor Day?

Date: 2008/02/11 00:07:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
Yeah, she's done nothing in the past that could possibly allow anyone to draw conclusions about her, with the possible exception of her posts here, on her own blog, at UD, ERV's blog, Pharyngula, Young Cosmos, etc.

Date: 2008/02/11 00:15:36, Link
Author: Chayanov
But in ftk's relativistic world, she imagined that Scott could have said it, therefore it really isn't a lie. Just like how the earth is simultaneously billions and thousands of years old. Everything's true, so long as you believe it could be true!

Date: 2008/02/11 10:07:07, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
The DI has made this a culture war, recruiting unwitting and ignorant folks in a crusade for the renewal of science and culture. The fact is that the religious aspects of this struggle are almost exclusively due to the efforts of a band of fundamentalist American Christians, AND that most Christians on the planet do not think that acknowledgment of scientific facts is a threat to their deity.


Among other classes, I also teach Religions of the World, and just last week in discussion I was reminded that there are people out there who do think that science and religion are the same thing (but fortunately some of them are willing to listen to the reasons why they aren't the same). The old "we should bring prayer back into the schools" canard came up, and when I asked them if they really wanted their kids getting religious instruction from their biology teacher, a few of them did stop to think about the implications.

The creationists have made this a war, but fortunately it's not going entirely in their favor.

Date: 2008/02/11 17:10:13, Link
Author: Chayanov
Awesome post, Kristine!

Date: 2008/02/11 17:15:50, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
To a person like myself, Dembski, Casey, or any one else who understands what ID is actually about...


Seriously? You're kidding, right? Dembski and others have started admitting it's all about religion, which comes as a surprise to nobody. School boards have begun to reframe ID as old fashioned creationism again. For you to suggest that you're one of the few people who actually gets what ID is about is nothing short of laughable.

Date: 2008/02/11 18:08:12, Link
Author: Chayanov
I think some people are going to go expecting to see Ben Stein in a comedy pseudo-documentary (like "Best in Show"). I'm unsure as to whether they'll be disappointed or not.

Date: 2008/02/11 19:37:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I'm saying that the central tenants [sic] of the faith are the life, death and resurrection of Christ.  If one rejects that, I don't see the point of calling oneself a Christian.

My guess is ftk has never heard of the Jesus Seminar. Or perhaps none of the contributors are really Christians, since she seems to consider herself an arbiter of what Christianity is.

Date: 2008/02/11 22:18:16, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 11 2008,22:11)
Does FtK think her posts vanish into thin air after someone's read them?

She's probably really missing that edit button right now.

Date: 2008/02/12 15:17:27, Link
Author: Chayanov
That translator could be useful:

Quote
Bring in your priests and have them teach a course in smurfy if it'll help stomp out smurfy questions smurfing from those who are sympathetic to Intelligent smurf. Gag...the smurfy of these folks is smurfy off the charts....

Date: 2008/02/12 15:51:06, Link
Author: Chayanov
I suppose nobody will be surprised when the bodies start turning up. Maybe he's already planning for his insanity plea.

Date: 2008/02/12 23:02:30, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
In other news, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.


War is Peace!

Love is Hate!

ID is Religion!

Date: 2008/02/12 23:08:50, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Let this be a lesson to you, children: Do NOT question "authority"!


Especially religious authority?

Date: 2008/02/12 23:22:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Except that she thinks creationism is a revolutionary idea.

Date: 2008/02/12 23:27:20, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 12 2008,22:24)
Grandma Tard has a post on teh harder mathematicalics.  

Brace yourselves.

Huh? Is she saying that God designed us to understand math, which he also designed? Plus Fred Flintstone?

Date: 2008/02/13 13:14:00, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I'm done with the lot of you.

What? Again? How many times does this make it now? I'm guessing the Bathroom Wall will always be there for you.

Date: 2008/02/13 13:27:47, Link
Author: Chayanov
Nothing seems to annoy the creationists more. We mock them but we don't stop them from being creationists. They can't bear the ridicule and their cries of persecution sound hollow. All they can do is storm off in a huff six or seven times a day.

Date: 2008/02/13 16:38:11, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
They don’t even seem to worry about what people think of their nonsense.


That's true. I don't care what people think about what I do and do not believe. Unlike creationists, who are so terrified someone might ridicule their beliefs that they seek to suppress dissenting opinions.

Date: 2008/02/13 17:13:08, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it’s nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate...

P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I’d shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.


But at least he didn't cross the bounds into religion, no sir.

Date: 2008/02/14 11:20:47, Link
Author: Chayanov
That's quite the list, Carlsonjok. So for a month there, she was storming out every week, never to return. And she wonders why everyone laughs at her.

Date: 2008/02/14 12:38:24, Link
Author: Chayanov
Dembski's post really doesn't come across as anything other than petulant and jealous. I'm with Kristine -- nobody wants to back a loser, Bill.

 
Quote
But the Free Press is not stupid. Dawkins is a lively and vigorous writer, his book will sell, and they’ll probably make money even with that advance. Best-selling authors with a sales track record like Dawkins can get pretty big advances from savvy publishers.

Ouch!

Date: 2008/02/14 12:57:23, Link
Author: Chayanov
The comments are definitely not going Dembski's way. How long before this thread gets disappeared/buried?

Date: 2008/02/14 17:31:47, Link
Author: Chayanov
Every time she starts acting all put upon, that she's this sweet flower who's been turned into something hateful because of all those atheists, but she's so nice elsewhere, I remember this:
Quote
You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere.

And how she had to make the effort to go to ERV's blog to state that opinion (which is an opinion, and not a fact, as she tried to insinuate). She's the one who's filled with hate, she's the hypocrite, and her protestations of innocence are contradicted by her very words and actions.

Date: 2008/02/14 18:00:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Wow. ID predicts most organs should not be vestigial. ID predicts that cells are engineered. He actually submitted that list? Yikes!

Date: 2008/02/26 16:15:22, Link
Author: Chayanov
"And how dare you call them professional liars! Sure, they get paid to tell lies and they've built their entire careers on telling those lies, but it's just not nice to call them that!"

Tim left it up to another poster to add the "And by using such bad words you're turning people off and hurting the cause!"

It's quite the collection of concern trolling over there.

Date: 2008/02/28 17:32:40, Link
Author: Chayanov
It's really something, to watch the Religious Right transferring their fear of Communism over to "Darwinism." Didn't you know that both Hitler and Stalin were Darwinists? Did you know that it was a Darwinist who ran over your puppy when you were a child? That it's the Darwinists who are trying to take Christmas away from you? It's like the 1950s, but without the catchy slogans. "Do you now or have you ever accepted natural selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change?" Stein just can't resist bringing up Marx whenever he talks about Darwin, as if the two sat down together to figure out how to bring about the destruction of civilization. There weren't Communists hiding under our beds and there aren't Darwinists lurking in our closets.

Date: 2008/02/28 17:38:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Ben loves God, and that's nice, and these people do, too - but they don't like God very much! He's still your Old Man, right?


That's probably why we're seeing the abandonment of Intelligent Design in favor of old-fashioned Creationism at the grassroots level. To the layperson, ID is still academic eggheads talking down to them, only now they're talking down about both religion and science. This public doesn't understand or care about the science, and they don't need or appreciate Dembski, Behe, or Wells telling them about religion.

Date: 2008/02/28 18:19:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
You know, I was going to add a joke about who might be hiding in our closets, but left it up to someone else to make the comment. Thanks! :)

Date: 2008/02/28 18:32:23, Link
Author: Chayanov
Considering what's in my closet that you could have commented on, I should consider myself lucky...

Date: 2008/02/29 19:12:46, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
What I meant to communicate is that one of the reasons I think ID is so controversial is that it doesn't just represent an evidential challenge to evolutionary biology, it also represents a philosophical challenge to our current definition of science.


Darn those scientists. If they'd just admit that God did it, astrology tells the future, and prayer trumps penicillin then we'd all get along.

Date: 2008/03/11 12:49:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
It's so obvious that the producers don't care how the film does, just so long as it has the strongest opening weekend ever. They can't hide the movie forever -- it has to be released eventually. And as soon as the film hits the screen, an outporing of negative reviews will ensue, but by then they'll have had their opening numbers to crow over. As has been constantly noted, if they really believed they had an important message to deliver, wouldn't they want to ensure the sustainability of that message? Why is it so important for them to say, "Expelled opened at #3 in the box office, even though it dropped off the charts the following week"?

Date: 2008/03/13 22:53:48, Link
Author: Chayanov
At the Mall of America on March 20? That's tempting.

Date: 2008/04/17 21:30:12, Link
Author: Chayanov
Long ago I ceased to be surprised by their lies. The only thing that would shock me now would be an instance of them telling the truth, but that doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

Date: 2008/04/17 21:32:43, Link
Author: Chayanov
I thought maybe this would be a pool to bet on whether or not Expelled was actually going to open tomorrow.

Whatever the Expelled people report on how the movie is doing is guaranteed to be a lie.

Date: 2008/04/20 22:47:21, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 20 2008,19:00)
But something is missing. We know Ftk went to see this turd - but where is our breathless, utterly credulous, swallow it whole (Sternberg and Gonzalez and Nazis and Hitler and Stalin and the whole mess, whole) Monster drink driven cheerleading review? Good Grief! FTK!! Materialists think lightning struck a mud puddle!! You've been blogging about this like a madwoman for weeks!! Get to work!!

As soon as she can find a review she agrees with she'll link to it and then we'll know her opinion of the film.

Date: 2008/05/08 14:47:23, Link
Author: Chayanov
I suppose it keeps him from standing on street corners, waving crumpled pieces of paper at passers-by.

Date: 2008/06/06 11:56:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
That wasn't even a notpology. This isn't church. You don't get rewarded for going through the motions.

Date: 2008/06/10 14:22:41, Link
Author: Chayanov
I'm still reeling from his statement that "viruses are mutated minerals."

Date: 2008/06/10 16:21:27, Link
Author: Chayanov
It must really suck to have nothing more to brag about than how you did on an IQ test once. Way to be a never-was, VD.

Date: 2008/06/12 14:30:33, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I ain't got no science degree.  All I know is that the empirical evidence to make these claims just isn't there.


And of course in creationist fantasyland this is considered a well-reasoned assertion.

Date: 2008/06/12 16:08:38, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote

It's like FTK is trying to get into heaven by saying "See, God! There's no limit to the stupid shit I was willing to believe to make You happy!"


To which God replies, "Even I think Walt Brown is nuts."

Date: 2008/06/15 12:36:12, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 15 2008,07:14)
By popular demand and via the kindness of Jasper, the Walt Brown thread from KCFS is now available in the archives here.

If you'd like to get all the pages for your local reading in one operation, click "Save As" on this link.

The first page is mildly amusing. Outdated references from the first half of the 20th century (because clearly there was no new work on genetics between 1953 and 2005). Quote mining, including quote mining Darwin. "It's all about God, but this isn't about religion," in the very first post. Best of all, it's pretty obvious that after 3 years of people trying to help educate her, ftk hasn't learned a thing (and in fact, may have lost knowledge, judging by the quality of her posts in 2005 compared to 2008).

Date: 2008/06/16 01:44:42, Link
Author: Chayanov
He doesn't have to believe it. He's got poorly educated fanatics hanging on his words who are more than willing to waste their lives promoting it for him. All he has to do is sit back and enjoy the fawning.

Date: 2008/06/20 14:07:58, Link
Author: Chayanov
No fun for me. I just finished submitting final grades for my Human Origins summer course and now it's time to work on dissertation. *sigh*

Date: 2008/06/20 16:57:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (J-Dog @ June 20 2008,14:21)
Quote (Chayanov @ June 20 2008,14:07)
No fun for me. I just finished submitting final grades for my Human Origins summer course and now it's time to work on dissertation. *sigh*

Ha!  No problem!  Just tell them it's an ID Dissertation, and submit a blank report - then scream persecution when you don't get the PhD and/or Tenure.  

Pictures of Mary in Grilled Cheese Sandwiches - extra.

That would be funny if it wasn't true.

Date: 2008/06/22 14:35:40, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (blipey @ June 22 2008,10:14)
Ftk has reached the limits (and I'm talking the very, very edge) of her ability to be interesting (read: funny).  That comment of hers is almost word for word what every one of her posts is.

Her vocabulary doesn't grow.  The range of details she talks about doesn't expand.  The responses to varied questions remain adamantly unvaried.  I'm almost ready to say her biggest crime against the kids is not science stupidity, but terminal dullness.

That's the problem with the ftks out there. They all become predictable and boring very quickly. They're intellectually and creatively stagnant. Nothing new, ever. Same old arguments, year after year. No personal growth, no development. In 20 years, her comments will be exactly the same as they are now. And she actually seems to prefer it that way. Sad.

Date: 2008/06/24 17:23:40, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
The stunt backfired completely and led to one of the best pwns of Schlafly to date.


In looking at the talk pages at Conservapedia, Schlafly manages to pwn himself on an almost daily basis.

Date: 2008/06/24 17:28:01, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (J-Dog @ June 24 2008,15:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2008,15:43)
I must admit, UD has been poor entertainment of late.

Are you suggesting an Open Puppet Call to spark things up?

I've been considering doing that for a while, but the mere thought of spending any amount of time at UD makes me feel nauseous.

Date: 2008/06/24 23:01:09, Link
Author: Chayanov
More sour grapes from Dembski. He just gets so jealous when real scientists get noticed for the real research they do.

Date: 2008/06/24 23:06:13, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (tmtoulouse @ June 24 2008,22:02)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 24 2008,21:56)
You'd think Andrew Schlafly would have developed a better way of dealing with humiliation by now.

Schlafly is unable to feel humiliation because he is unable to see error in his way. Schlafly honestly feels that this letter is a complete vindication for him, proves everything he has said from the start and that the only people who can't see that are evil Liberals.

Really, check out his "Liberal X" articles to see the mindset he brings to the floor.

I noticed that, too. Not only is he incapable of recognizing his own flaws, he appears to view them as strengths. And every time somebody puts forth a criticism he can't rebut, he simply throws out "Liberal" as a response. It's only clever when Stephen Colbert does it.

Date: 2008/06/25 11:44:26, Link
Author: Chayanov
That was fantastic!

Date: 2008/06/25 13:16:50, Link
Author: Chayanov
They seem to think homosexuality is a simple Mendelian recessive trait. Straight people are HH (where H is Heterosexual) and gay people are hh (where h is homosexual). Therefore, straight couples can only have straight children and gay couples would only be capable of having gay children. Even if this was true, then using Arden's example, you could have couples of straight (HH) and closeted gay (hh) individuals, so all of their children would be Hh (and thus carriers for homosexuality). A couple where both were Hh would therefore result in the chance result of some children being hh, and so homosexuality would still exist within the population.

Okay, so this hypothetical is complete and total nonsense, but it sounds good enough that I could probably peddle it among the creationists and they'd agree with it.

Date: 2008/06/25 14:46:12, Link
Author: Chayanov
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote
But how many of these people would have the common courtesy to give Dave a reacharound?


Dembski, maybe? And afterward, who's the big spoon and who gets to be the little spoon?

Date: 2008/06/25 15:12:03, Link
Author: Chayanov
If Kerry was a Good Ol' Boy instead of a Yankee librul, I'm sure Dave would have a Texas-sized man crush on him, too.

Date: 2008/06/25 18:06:02, Link
Author: Chayanov
But his mom thinks he's smart.

Date: 2008/06/26 10:55:24, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
If you assert things, you'll get asked for sources. You've got teh bibul and Walt brown. I suspect the other students will ask for you to be removed...


Students today have very little patience for the antics of their classmates. In my Human Origins class this summer I had a student who apparently had no unspoken thoughts. Nothing weirdly religious, just almost always off-topic and irrelevant. The other students quickly grew to hate her, complained to me about her, and I would hear them muttering snide comments whenever she spoke. I imagine that would be ftk's experience in the classroom as well.

Date: 2008/06/26 16:36:05, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 26 2008,16:34)
Quote
Hi

I would like to know why my last two comments have not been allowed to appear on your blog.

The courtesy of a reply is requested.

Gene


That's the nastiest, most offensive thing I've ever seen in print.

You can really see the atheism come through in his words.

Date: 2008/06/26 19:41:14, Link
Author: Chayanov
I feel for you. I had a similar experience when I was getting my master's degree and I had to go cold-turkey away from the message boards and newsgroups. Fortunately I really did learn my lesson and when I got back into it a few years later, it was pretty much just to mock them and it didn't bother me so much that "someone on the internet was wrong."

I learned that I could read something really maddening, but if I didn't respond to it right away, then I could just let it go. I'll save the education for my students and not waste my time on those who really aren't interested in it. I'd rather laugh than lecture, anyway.

Date: 2008/06/26 23:11:55, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (blipey @ June 26 2008,23:09)
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!!!!!!  I thought we were discussing science here!

WTF is going on?  I try to learn something and come to AtBC to edify myself and WTF!

I see a whole bunch of atheist bastards doing their damnedest to keep a poor, defenseless avenger of children from helping me to more clearly understand the world.  I have nothing but contempt for the lot of you; atheists!  Reading this thread has made so angry that I'm going to have to splice a few more sentences together with semicolons; like this; you are dogmatic, anti-science, Darwinists who hate puppies, and cause comma-splice, semi-colon train wreck sentences.

Also, I'm going to Reasonable Kansans to discuss the real science with real sciency types.  Atheists who eat baby kittens.

I want to discuss science.

'~"^#%SCIENCE PROFESSORS%#^"~'!!!

Date: 2008/06/27 22:55:35, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
My personal opinion is that God gave us, as part of being created in His image, the ultimate ability to restore paradise.


And how, exactly, is that going to come about, Dave? Not through religion. Supposedly God himself sent his proxy to set everything right 2000 years ago and we can all see how well that worked out.

Surely not through science, Dave? Science, which is dominated by those atheistic, Darwinist science professors?

Date: 2008/06/27 22:57:55, Link
Author: Chayanov
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Nothing like spicy Jamaican cock flavor.




Okay, send it to the BW.

Date: 2008/06/28 21:46:21, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Given the many recent discoveries that challenge Darwinism and materialism, a thirteen-part TV series on the real arguments for and against design is needed.


Okay, so 13 episodes on the real arguments against design. As soon as they have a real argument for design, they can do the second season.

Date: 2008/06/30 02:19:00, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Since the price of oil and other natural resources is in the news, it occurred to me that the wonderful usefulness of petroleum, gold, copper, aluminum, iron, titanium and all the others is quite a happy coincidence. Why should these wonderful resources be laying just beneath the surface for us to use on this particular planet? It hardly seems we could have evolved into beings who would find these things useful to ourselves, since we had to become highly intelligent beings to make anything useful of them in the first place.


Monkeys don't find gold useful, but we do, therefore God.

I think he's stretching it to include himself among those "highly intelligent beings."

Date: 2008/06/30 11:59:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Add a banana to yout milk for a perfectly designed shake.


Isn't it amazing how the glass is perfectly designed to hold the shake? Therefore, God!

Date: 2008/06/30 15:03:27, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Kristine @ June 30 2008,14:46)
Geez, stick a fork in intelligent design. It's done. :)

I hear Ben's working on another crockumentary. *yawn*


"Ignored: Why Nobody Takes Me Seriously"

Date: 2008/06/30 17:05:43, Link
Author: Chayanov
Needs more misspelled words and a lot more caps. Random font and color changes wouldn't hurt, either.

Date: 2008/06/30 17:07:01, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Somethings don't go together.  NASCAR and Ballay...


What a crushing example. I'm convinced.

Date: 2008/06/30 22:38:59, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 30 2008,21:52)
I just noticed that lcd's grammar and spelling improved a lot during his time here. Funny, that.

You noticed that, too?

Date: 2008/07/01 12:33:43, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 01 2008,11:27)
What's truly sad about that is there are anthropologists whose work focuses entirely on the study of cultural discovery and use of foods and spices.  There are multiple volumes written on the subject.

Hey, IDiots,  read a book!!!  :angry:

They could start with Marvin Harris' Good to Eat. Even a UDer could read and understand it.

Date: 2008/07/01 12:40:06, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 01 2008,10:39)
I feel the alphabet theory of word construction is wrong and it is immoral to teach it since the bible tells us that God Gave Us Teh Word.

It's also immoral to learn other languages, because God created different languages at Babel so that different groups of people wouldn't be able to communicate with each other.

Date: 2008/07/01 14:48:34, Link
Author: Chayanov
I liked lcd better when it was badly written screeds about Hovind. Went from that to "I really want to discuss the science with you all" to "I'm very busy writing posts about how I don't have time to answer any of your questions" to "I know you are, but what am I" to "Stop persecuting me!" to even more childish insults. I find hypocritical proselytizing very boring. How long untill we start getting quotes from Scripture?

Date: 2008/07/01 14:50:06, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,14:49)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 01 2008,14:48)
How long untill we start getting quotes from Scripture?

Reminds me of FTK at 10x speed. What next, the flounce out?

Yeah, at least ftk would draw it out over several days. This is all taking place in a matter of hours.

Date: 2008/07/01 15:36:06, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,15:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 01 2008,12:55)
 
Quote (Chayanov @ July 01 2008,14:48)
I liked lcd better when it was badly written screeds about Hovind. Went from that to "I really want to discuss the science with you all" to "I'm very busy writing posts about how I don't have time to answer any of your questions" to "I know you are, but what am I" to "Stop persecuting me!" to even more childish insults. I find hypocritical proselytizing very boring. How long untill we start getting quotes from Scripture?

Has he promised to pray for us yet?

Natch!

Seriously, do the churches have some sort of game plan they hand out to prospective martyrs who are going to face off against the evil Darwinists?

"Here, be sure you say and do everything on this list, and we guarantee you'll crush them until they're weeping for Jesus. You won't look stupid at all, trust us."

Date: 2008/07/01 15:56:55, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 01 2008,15:39)
If someone like PZ wrote the list, that would explain a lot.

I know, it's like they're being set up to fail. As if this will be the first time we've ever heard statements like "Evolution is religion," or "[Insert name of dictator] was a Darwinist" or "ID isn't religion -- my pastor told me so."

Date: 2008/07/01 16:08:33, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 01 2008,16:06)
I would be glad to respond to a real creationist, but LCD was so obviously a phony trolling for reactions that I could not be bothered.

True, but the "real" creationists make the exact same arguments. The only difference with a troll is intent.

Date: 2008/07/07 17:00:17, Link
Author: Chayanov
"We know it has a purpose because it was designed. We know it was designed because it has a purpose."

Date: 2008/07/09 13:28:20, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I think we'd all be ecstatic with one honest answer.


Dembski will write a best-seller first.

Date: 2008/07/09 13:31:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Hell, I can sit right here at my desk and pull up any kind of perverted, sadistic, god hating thing imaginable.


"Why, just look at all this filth. And when I enter my credit card number, there's no limit to the amount of perversion I can download to my computer!"

Date: 2008/07/09 13:43:56, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 09 2008,13:41)
Quote (Nerull @ July 09 2008,14:35)
Tell your friends to stop lying.

Not gonna happen as long as they can keep bilking the Ftks of the world for their money.

It's the perfect codependent relationship.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:03:44, Link
Author: Chayanov
Oh no! Teh Fall!

Date: 2008/07/09 14:10:00, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Actually there were no disease causing bacteria.  Yes, there was bacteria, but it was the fall that caused some of them to degenerate and give us what we see today.

Again, there was no death before the fall.  Our sins to God are the cause of all the pain and suffering we see today.


At least it's all about the science...

Date: 2008/07/09 14:14:34, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 09 2008,14:10)
Quote (lcd @ July 09 2008,15:08)
Actually there were no disease causing bacteria.

Why don't we just start right there with something simple.

Show me some evidence for this.

It's a problem, isn't it? Everything had to be created before Teh Fall, including bacteria, but nobody was supposed to get sick and die until after Teh Fall. So what was the designed purpose for all this bacteria? Or was it all front-loaded because God knew he was going to trick Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and that bacteria would serve a purpose afterward?

This is why ID has been called bad theology.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:18:06, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Did they evolve new features after the fall and will they degenerate as soon as they no longer pose a threat, or will they keep evolving until they take us out?


Well, see, they had fangs and claws and venom, but, see, they never used them. Why God made poisonous insects is a complete mystery, so let's put that in the ol' navel and gaze for a while. Ooohhhh....

Date: 2008/07/09 14:20:23, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,14:19)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,14:18)
Quote
Did they evolve new features after the fall and will they degenerate as soon as they no longer pose a threat, or will they keep evolving until they take us out?


Well, see, they had fangs and claws and venom, but, see, they never used them. Why God made poisonous insects is a complete mystery, so let's put that in the ol' navel and gaze for a while. Ooohhhh....

Elementary, my dear Watson.  They were all retrofitted after teh fall.

That sure was nice of God to do.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:24:03, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 09 2008,14:22)
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,20:16)
It doesn't matter if you do or not.  It makes as much sense as stating that a blob is capable of evolving into everything we observe in nature today.  Why should anyone take that seriously?

God or a lucky blob....make your choice.

This is a false dichotomy and you've brought it up in various forms before.

Evolution is a mechanism that has been observed, studied and documented. The same cannot be said for miracles.

I've looked through all my texts on evolution and can't find a single reference to a "lucky blob".

Why, could this be an example of a strawman? I do believe it is!

Date: 2008/07/09 14:26:10, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
There are plenty of religious creation myths around. Why pick yours?


Dancing Shiva makes every bit as much sense.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:35:46, Link
Author: Chayanov
Hmmph. Clearly you simply edited out the "Edited by..." on all his posts.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:38:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
God or a lucky blob....make your choice.



Quote
Keep religion out of the discussion folks.


*ahem*

Date: 2008/07/09 14:43:23, Link
Author: Chayanov
It's only when you point out what a crappy designer God is that they suddenly say the identity of the designer is unimportant.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:52:31, Link
Author: Chayanov
Actually, "God" is a cultural construction that theists keep wanting to insert into science.

Date: 2008/07/09 14:53:26, Link
Author: Chayanov
However, God is certainly entirely irrelevant to the world.

I think I need an edit button now. :)

Date: 2008/07/09 14:57:38, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
ID is awesome in this regard....it doesn't bring religion into the equation at all.


Now that is sig worthy.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:02:55, Link
Author: Chayanov
And I seem to remember reading this somewhere as a governing goal in some sort of document...

Quote
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Date: 2008/07/09 15:07:45, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 09 2008,15:05)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,12:57)
   
Quote
ID is awesome in this regard....it doesn't bring religion into the equation at all.


Now that is sig worthy.

Nah, she says dumbass stuff like that every 2-3 weeks. After a while you get numbed to it.

After a while you even get bored with wondering whether she really believes it or if she's knows it's nonsense.

My initial impression a year or so ago was common troll. Since then I haven't seen any evidence to change that opinion.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:09:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Wolfhound @ July 09 2008,15:08)
Quote (Wolfhound @ July 09 2008,15:06)
With regard to the conspiracy to take over the government, shall we post the Wedge Document?

Whoops!  I see that Chayanov already did it.   :)

GMTA :)

Date: 2008/07/09 15:11:02, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
So, will ID be looking into multiple designers?  It would answer why some designs are "good" while others are pure crap.


Nah, they'll be sticking with their own 2000 year old science textbook.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:28:20, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (argystokes @ July 09 2008,15:25)
Quote
Read Brown's book.  It ='s creation science.

Read Dembski's no free lunch.  It ='s ID


OK. But is Of Pandas and People a creation science book or an ID book?

It's a cdesign proponentist book -- in other words, a transitional.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:29:33, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
And, how would that differ from the four horsemen's plan to use science to erradicate religion?


I'd say "Evidence please," but we all know how that would turn out.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:33:38, Link
Author: Chayanov
My guess is she's claiming Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris have a master plan to end all religion.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:36:17, Link
Author: Chayanov
Maybe she needs more horsemen. How about the eleventy-one horsemen of the apocalypse?

Date: 2008/07/09 15:44:46, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
More like the eleventy-one science professors of the apocalypse.


That ought to give her nightmares.

"We're in your schools, teaching your children!"

Date: 2008/07/09 15:51:22, Link
Author: Chayanov
i can haz loldawkinz?

Date: 2008/07/09 16:09:18, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
XY - the resident creationist stripper and antagonizer.  Thanks.


More fail. But totally on par for her understanding of science and biology.

Date: 2008/07/09 16:16:13, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Because she said so.
   
Quote

'When I call it ID,' Ftk said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Date: 2008/07/09 16:38:42, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Nerull @ July 09 2008,16:30)
If the universe is old, I can point to a nebula and tell you where it came from and how it relates to the rest of the universe. If the creationists are correct, this is impossible. Everything is there because god put it there, and for no other reason. We have no reason to assume a planetary nebula is produced when a star blows off its outer layers, because the universe hasn't been around long enough for a star to blow off its outer layers - it's just there for the cosmetic value, and no conclusions can ever be drawn from that.

As science, it's nonexistent and as theology it's moronic. God placed everything in the Universe for us to look at, even the stuff we can't see unaided, because he knew one day we'd invent telescopes so that we could see it.

Does anyone out there seriously believe that?

Date: 2008/07/09 16:45:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
The use of this ploy is merely to confuse the public as most of them have never cracked open the book Of Pandas and People.  No doubt after listening to folks like yourselves, they're expecting to walk into religious curriculum that covers Noah, his wife, sons & daughters and a worldwide flood.  ID don't go there, folks.  It only postulates whether one can detect design in nature.  Most advocates of the theory also support teaching the controversial issues surrounding the ToE.  That's just good science....doesn't have a darn thing to do with shoving religion into the science class.

 
Quote
'When I call it ID,' Ftk said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Date: 2008/07/09 19:30:11, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
ID = design detection


And then what (he asks, not really expecting an answer)?

Date: 2008/07/09 19:40:26, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Methinks the problem is more mundane: there's nothing at Creation Science about this new discovery yet.  So let's wait for a week.  Or maybe the famed scientist Luskin will post something.


Or the post will get buried in the thread, where it can be conveniently ignored.

Date: 2008/07/10 12:29:01, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"


It seems the Altenberg 16 thinks you're a nutcase. I guess they don't believe you either.

Date: 2008/07/10 16:09:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote
"I hate Dembski so little that I should be delighted to order masses for the repose of his soul."


Would that have been better?

Date: 2008/07/10 16:14:11, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Kristine @ July 10 2008,15:32)
Whoa.
   
Quote
Not so fast, replies the seminary's leadership. The real issue, administrators say, is whether Enns violated the oath he took when he joined the faculty 14 years ago.

The oath requires all faculty members to pledge they will not "inculcate, teach or insinuate anything" contrary to the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, the core creed of the Presbyterian faith.

That lengthy creed begins by proclaiming the "infallible truth" and "entire perfection" of Holy Scripture, whose sole author is God.

Westminster was created in 1929 after Princeton Theological Seminary, the flagship of Presbyterian scholarship in the United States, took a liberal turn. Westminster (whose teachers are all male) adopted the faculty oath in 1936.

"Our main concern is maintaining the historic theological integrity of the institution," board chair John H. White said in an interview Friday.

Is any scientist  or science professor required to take an oath swearing to the infallible truth" and "entire perfection" of "Darwinism"? Anyone? :O

 
Quote
At issue is Enns' 2005 book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, written mainly for young Christians and Bible students wrestling with abundant modern scholarship showing apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

Instead of rationalizing and explaining away the evidence of human storytelling in Scripture, Inspiration and Incarnation begins by urging readers to understand the Bible in the same way they perceive Jesus.

"Christ is both God and human," Enns declares in the introduction. "So is the Bible."


Darn kids just don't take religion on faith anymore.

Date: 2008/07/11 18:00:35, Link
Author: Chayanov
You know, all the ones that were created by the flood, except for those that weren't.

Date: 2008/07/11 22:21:24, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 11 2008,20:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 11 2008,21:48)
On further reflection, I am equally disapproving that PZ has incited others to comitt crimainal acts.

This will not go well.

Dr. GH, I've been a little self-involved today with my total pwning of the entrance exam.

Could you elaborate on the criminal acts for me briefly?

ETA: Yeah, I'm arrogant today.  :)

Apparently committing the felony (or is it a misdemeanor) of removing a communion wafer from a Catholic church.

Oh wait, that's not illegal, is it? Especially since PZ never suggested breaking into a church and stealing one. Accepting one from a priest and then leaving the church with the cracker intact was the heinous "crime" that started all this brouhaha to begin with. But it's still not illegal.

Date: 2008/07/11 22:47:38, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (1of63 @ July 11 2008,22:37)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,21:22)
Wow.oh.wow.  I just read some more of them.  He's posted endless emails from Catholics.  Honestly, the whole episode makes me feel like crying...for both sides really.

Really?  I think it's great,  all these humble, compassionate, caring Christians turning the other cheek to Myers' needling, showing how superior their God-given morals make them.

Like hell!

They fornicate, lie, cheat, steal, use violence and kill just like the rest of humanity.  The only difference is they think that bullshitting about a belief in God somehow makes it okay.

And all it takes is a cracker to flush them out of the woodwork.

If an uneaten communion wafer gets them that bent out of shape, imagine how they'd react to a priest raping an altar boy.

Boggles the mind.

Date: 2008/07/11 23:09:46, Link
Author: Chayanov
Not eating a communion wafer isn't wrong.

Being critical of the violent thugs who went after the guy for not eating it isn't wrong.

Being a violent thug who would threaten someone's life over something so inconsequential is very wrong.

That you would equate all three of these things says a lot about your lack of character.

Date: 2008/07/13 13:21:29, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Louis @ July 13 2008,12:43)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 13 2008,18:26)
Turn off those irony meters:

   
Quote
Dembski:  Neither my wife nor I regret going. It was an education. Our kids are resilient. But the ride home raised a question. We found ourselves avoiding talking about the event until the children fell asleep. Then, as they drifted off in the early morning, we talked in hushed tones about how easily religion can be abused, in this case to exploit our family. What do we tell our children? I'm still working on that one.


Or like how some people want to undermine the entire foundations of science education by pushing "Goddidit" in lieu of the scientific method?  Yeah Bill, we're still working on that one too.  :angry:

But you must know how to conjugate the verb "To abuse religion"?

I/we never abuse religion.
You are abusing my religion.
He/she/it/they are vile abusers of religion and heretics that deserve nothing but persecution and condemnation.

My irony meters have been off and buried in a bunker since FTK pitched up claiming we're close minded and biased....

Louis

Exactly. In Dr. Dr. D's mind, he's truly doing God's work. It's the faith healer who's abusing religion and making it look bad. Nothing will ever convince him otherwise.

Date: 2008/07/13 19:11:28, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,16:22)
Quote (rhmc @ July 13 2008,14:15)
i fail to see how making fun of catholics and their closely held beliefs is any worse (or any better) than making fun of IDiots and their closely held beliefs.

perhaps the joke was taken a bit further than necessary but quite honestly, a lot of religious beliefs are held up to ridicule on many threads in this forum.

I think it is fine and dandy to ridicule people for believing absurd things. It is rude, and generally unnecessary, but it is certainly First Amendment protected speech.

In the case of ID and creationism in general, they are trying to inflict their beliefs on the public, and use legal tricks to do it. That is a violation of the Constitution.

In other words, it's bigotry when you don't agree with it. When you do, it's perfectly reasonable free speech. Gotcha. I'm done here, too. There are enough irrational, unreasonable people out there as it is.

Date: 2008/07/13 19:50:53, Link
Author: Chayanov
Most quotemines from "Origin of Species" -- Sal Cordova

Date: 2008/07/15 21:13:11, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 15 2008,20:26)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 15 2008,20:13)
I get to watch.

Gary, do you like to watch train wrecks too?

This is going to be a little bit slower, but it will be a train wreck nonetheless.

As if ftk is really going to actively participate in this discussion.

It's not a wreck if the train never leaves the station.

Date: 2008/07/15 23:29:18, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (blipey @ July 15 2008,23:20)
Ftk:  
Quote
Is this link that is dated 2007 fairly accurate?  I’m just curious if those 13,000 fossils represents approx. 1,400 individuals.  


What a load of crap!  Nice find, Ftk!  Fourteen hundred individuals is practically nothing!  Nothing at all!  It's just as you said, Ftk, barely a coffin full!  Wow, can't understand what the hell scientists are supposed to learn from 1,400 individuals.  Hell, I study 1,400 things before breakfast everyday.

It does rather lead to the question, "If 1400 individuals are insufficient for studying hominin evolution, then how many would be required?"

Followed by, "And how did you arrive at that figure?"

Not that I expect an answer. If we had complete skeletons for 14,000 or 14 million individuals, the creobots would still insist that was nothing more than a pathetic level of detail.

Date: 2008/07/16 15:30:33, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
11) Come back anyway.


12) Start again at 1, as if all previous exchanges had never occurred.

Date: 2008/07/16 17:14:36, Link
Author: Chayanov
An alligator gar. Your point being...?

Oh right, never mind.

Date: 2008/07/16 17:22:00, Link
Author: Chayanov
Didn't you know? Looking at small photographs taken from several feet away is far superior to working with the actual specimens.

That ftk thinks posting photographs is a substitute for some kind of argument is just more of the sloppy, lazy thinking characteristic of creationists.

Date: 2008/07/16 17:48:22, Link
Author: Chayanov
And how about the wrist bones?

Date: 2008/07/17 18:23:45, Link
Author: Chayanov
I came in shortly before 666, and I'm glad I'll get to see 1000 and page 1 of the new thread.

Date: 2008/07/17 18:24:29, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 17 2008,18:17)
Is "being laughed at" now equivalent to being "expelled"?

"They laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Ben Stein?"

Date: 2008/07/18 11:39:08, Link
Author: Chayanov
First the Altenberg 16 were going to put all us Darwinists in our place.

Quote
We see an upheavel occuring again as ID is breaking it's way into the scientific community and evolutionists are coming to the realization that their theory is inadequate in explaining our existence.  

Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"


But now it seems they're also part of the conspiracy.

Quote
Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.


And in other news, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Date: 2008/07/18 18:10:51, Link
Author: Chayanov
I'm reminded of another birthday greeting:

Quote
There are rare times and places, in the illustrious history of science, when outbursts of genius supply human civilization with the supreme wonders of human greatness. It is the contemplation of these that raises the mass of humanity to levels not unworthy of what, in less enlightened ages, we would have regarded as the divine image and which we now, rightly, regard as the pinnacle of evolutionary development. Such moments of supreme scientific achievement are to be found in the works of Archimedes, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein. However, never before–or since–has scientific genius burst in such profusion on the human scene, as in the 19th century when Charles Darwin propounded his theory of evolution and taught the creatures of evolution to understand that they are products of evolution. If an award were to be given for the single best idea anyone ever had, it would go to Darwin, ahead of everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. Natural selection is the greatest, simplest, most elegant logical construct ever to dawn across our curiosity about the workings of natural life. It is inarguable, and it explains everything. Every human good that we enjoy today is, directly or indirectly, a legacy from what Charles Darwin wrought and what Richard Dawkins has preserved.


Happy birthday, Dr. Dr. D. Fortunately you don't have to cope with the pressures of fame like Richard Dawkins does.

Date: 2008/07/19 12:29:10, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (afarensis @ July 19 2008,11:14)
Um, Hello? FTK? Are you there? It's been a couple days since I asked you the following questions:

Quote
So, FTK, what specific morphology indicates, to you, that Tiktaalik is a fish rather than an transitional tetrapod. Better yet, what morphology would Tiktaalik have to have to be considered, by you, as a transitional tetrapod? What specific features do you see in the australopithecine mandible rule it out as a transitional between, say, Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis or between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis?


An so far, other than to make several attempts to change the subject, you have studiously avoided answering them. Can I assume that you actually didn't know what you were talking about and that you were just spouting off about stuff you know nothing about?  :O

Even as we speak she's frantically scouring Google, looking for pictures that will provide a crushing rebuttal to your points.

That, or spouting off on more subjects she knows nothing about -- which appears to be all of them.

Date: 2008/07/21 13:21:19, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Sand piled into the shape of a person washing a car on the other hand is a machine which uses thousands of interacting  parts to carry out a specific task, and uses abstract codes and instructions for assembling a protein (or another car).


To the cdesign proponentist all that matters is that something looks like something else in some superficial way. For DaveScot a pile of sand that looks like a car must be every bit as complex as an actual car. Never mind that you couldn't use key-shaped sand to drive it away.

Over on the Unreasonable Kansans thread, because the head of Tiktaalik kind of sort of looks like the head of an alligator gar, to ftk this means they're both nothing more than fish. Never mind what other interesting features have been found on Tiktaalik -- it's still a fish "kind" to the creobot mind.

This is the "science" of ID: comparing photos to see what things look like other things.

Date: 2008/07/22 00:07:22, Link
Author: Chayanov
So much nonsense to wade through. You could lay the skeleton of the world's tallest man next to the skeleton for the world's shortest adult male, next to the skeleton for an adult male Paranthropus boisei, and it would be easy to see that one of these things is not like the others.

I notice there were a lot of photos displaying the range of variation in modern Homo sapiens, a photo of early Homo skulls (for which there is legitimate controversy, but not of the sort you're peddling), but strangely, no photographs showing, say, an Australopithecus africanus skull next to that of a Neanderthal. Wonder why? Too many obvious differences to be accounted for?

You could never display a skull for an anatomically modern human next to that of Sahelanthropus tchadensis and triumphantly say, "See! They're the same kind!" People would laugh at you more than they do now.

Date: 2008/07/22 00:16:10, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Chayanov @ July 22 2008,00:07)
So much nonsense to wade through. You could lay the skeleton of the world's tallest man next to the skeleton for the world's shortest adult male, next to the skeleton for an adult male Paranthropus boisei, and it would be easy to see that one of these things is not like the others.

I notice there were a lot of photos displaying the range of variation in modern Homo sapiens, a photo of early Homo skulls (for which there is legitimate controversy, but not of the sort you're peddling), but strangely, no photographs showing, say, an Australopithecus africanus skull next to that of a Neanderthal. Wonder why? Too many obvious differences to be accounted for?

You could never display a skull for an anatomically modern human next to that of Sahelanthropus tchadensis and triumphantly say, "See! They're the same kind!" People would laugh at you more than they do now.

For that matter, add the skull of an adult male chimpanzee to the mix. You've got this notion of either an ape or a human, but what if there are a mix of traits -- say, the pelvis shows it walked upright like a human, but it has longer arms in proportion to the legs like an ape? I know, more questions that are pointless to ask.

In my Human Origins class I love to lay all the skulls out on the table (I have a half-dozen casts so far) and point out the differences and similarities, and how the morphology of those skulls have changed over time. Even to pick up a mandible and ask what you can learn about that individual just by looking at the teeth. And then to have the students pick up the skulls and turn them around and look them over -- far more entertaining and instructional than looking at random photographs.

Date: 2008/07/22 21:32:26, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 22 2008,21:07)
Quote (Argon @ July 22 2008,21:02)
You can explain to Schlafly in a dozen different ways how Zachary Blount isolated Cit- clones before running the 'replay experiments' but it just doesn't sink in. Now Andy is going to send a letter to PNAS detailing the 'flaws' in Lenski's paper.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS

Sweet!

OMG that's hysterical.

Quote
Author:

   Andrew Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

Author Affiliations:

   www.conservapedia.com


I'm sure PNAS will really give a crap.

Date: 2008/07/22 23:29:33, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ July 22 2008,22:58)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2008,18:33)
Crown of thorns needed, isle nine:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-293024

That is SO funny.  Does FTK always have this persecution complex?  And this tendency to not read ANYTHING of what folks write to her?  Does she really believe the nonsense she wrote there?

Yes.

Yes. Her reading comprehension skills have been shown numerous times to be decidedly sub-par.

Probably yes. She'll latch on to concepts and phrases and then parrot them repeatedly. She should be thankful that you allowed her to trot out the "Dawkins and the Darwin police are going to take children away from their Christian parents" yet again.

Date: 2008/07/23 01:44:46, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,23:54)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 22 2008,23:29)
     
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ July 22 2008,22:58)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2008,18:33)
Crown of thorns needed, isle nine:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-293024

That is SO funny.  Does FTK always have this persecution complex?  And this tendency to not read ANYTHING of what folks write to her?  Does she really believe the nonsense she wrote there?

Yes.

Yes. Her reading comprehension skills have been shown numerous times to be decidedly sub-par.

Probably yes. She'll latch on to concepts and phrases and then parrot them repeatedly. She should be thankful that you allowed her to trot out the "Dawkins and the Darwin police are going to take children away from their Christian parents" yet again.

Yo, Chayanov, Assassinator and I were wondering if you would explain to us what it is about this jawbone that renders it a "transitional".

I'm listening to Bill's audio links at the moment...so far, the dude seems to indicate that he's not sure what the heck he's found.  But, I'm not done listening YET!

Strange, I didn't see where you answered any of my questions. Still, it doesn't matter. Afarensis has already answered your question. Since it didn't play into your strawman caricature definition of transitional you apparently chose to ignore it.

Train yourself to stop thinking in terms of Biblical "kinds" and you might get it.

Date: 2008/07/23 13:27:35, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Quack @ July 23 2008,03:05)
Quote
The "dude" might not be sure what he's found but you are right? Whatever it is it's not a transitional fossil as they don't exist, right?


Please, Ftk, please don't let us down, I am dying to read your reply. You know, don't you?

Too many tough questions floating around. It's about time for ftk to do some serious misdirection, throw around a few insults, and then flounce out for several days.

Date: 2008/07/23 16:25:57, Link
Author: Chayanov
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (dvunkannon @ July 23 2008,16:12)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 23 2008,16:37)
 
Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,09:32)
I'll jump in on lcd's side. These laws are for a nation that no longer exists, ancient Israel. It logically ceased to exist with the onset of Christ's public ministry (the Kingdom was, as it were, at hand) and literally ceased to exist in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and ransacked the temple. These laws do not apply to Christians--as is made most clear by the fact that Jesus broke or ignored his share.

As Christians, we are under Jesus' law (c.f., Matt. 5, the Sermon on the Mount) not under the civil laws for a nation of which we are not citizens.

So doesn't that really kind of imply that Christians can/should disregard the Old Testament, or at least the bits that Jesus didn't specifically refer to?

I actually think that would be a good thing -- I'd like Christianity more if they threw out the OT, Paul, and Revelations.

(Even the Catholics had serious misgivings about Revelations -- given how many hillbillies it's made crazy, I think their concerns were well founded.)


Sorry for continuing to hijack this thread, but the ability of Christians to misunderstand Judaism to justify their reading of their own texts always bugs the crap out of me - speaking as an ex-fundamentalist Christian and convert to Orthodox Judaism.

DHeddle - where in the Gospels do you see Jesus break any law? As you say, his positions (rhetorical, not legal) were much stricter than almost any other Jewish group, including Essenes. What happened to "not one jot or tittle (yod or seraph) of this Law will pass away"? Christian anti-nomianism starts with Paul, not Jesus.

If you want to talk about executing children for disobeying their parents, please do it in the context of the religious and legal tradition that knows WTF is being talked about.

That always bugs me, too. Christians point to Jesus' sermon on the mount as to why they can selectively pick and choose from what they want to follow from the OT, but right there in Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus says he's not there to break or change the laws and everyone had better still obey them.

There are other places in the NT where it can be interpreted otherwise, but this isn't one of them.

Date: 2008/07/23 22:27:32, Link
Author: Chayanov
Hopefully the children she's been so busy misrepresenting evolution to in church will one day take a good class where it's properly presented, probably not in high school but maybe in college, and they'll find out they were lied to, blatantly and often, and so ftk will have done more to harm her cause than any of us could ever do.

Date: 2008/07/23 22:35:28, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
What I want others reading this blog to observe is the complete baselessness of your original assertion regarding "common design." To make this observation, all they need do is follow this thread and observe your utter non-responsiveness to these direct and on-point challenges to your original blog post. It will be apparent that you've offered no response because you have no response. And I am completely confident that any reader truly attempting to understand these issues will observe the complete emptiness of your original argument simply by reading your posts.


Exactly. Why tie ourselves in knots trying to explain complicated, technical details to someone who has admitted that she'll never, ever, under any circumstances accept that explanation might be valid? I really doubt anyone is lurking here expecting to get a well-grounded science education, so all they're going to see is a desperate attention-seeker who claims to be about the science, even while she's rejecting it, and stubbornly refuses to listen to those people who are trying to explain things to her.

She's ignorant and knows it, she knows she's making it all up as she goes, but the mistake she constantly makes is believing that everyone else works that way, too.

Date: 2008/07/24 02:10:45, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (stevestory @ July 24 2008,02:01)
 
Quote
The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent) invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones.


The inimitable Hitch.

On the contrary, the Grand IDiot first made sure that salamanders had eyes so they could find caves to live in, then took those eyes away because they weren't going to need them anymore.

Any that find their way out are undoubtedly front-loaded to get their eyes back.

Date: 2008/07/28 14:21:17, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Yes, I will concede that ID and IC are Creationist ideas.  What I do wish for is more science from them to prove Darwin wrong and that God is indeed the First, and I might add, only Creator.


As has been explained ad nauseum, this is precisely why ID isn't science: you've already concluded that Darwin is wrong and God is the creator of everything, and now you want to find some sort of evidence you can shoehorn in to support your foregone conclusion. Religion fits that description, but not science.

I won't even comment on a belief system that requires science to confirm one's faith.

Date: 2008/07/28 14:57:55, Link
Author: Chayanov
Code Sample
However, unlike Lönnig you should make sure that the address of your publishing house is different from your private address.


How about a "suite" at The UPS Store?

Date: 2008/07/28 23:49:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)
Quote
What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so".


I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'?

Because their pastor told them so.

Date: 2008/07/29 16:39:27, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
... it can be the college professor who knows that something isn't right but have a vested interest in keeping their mouths shut.


That's flimsy even by strawman standards. You won't support this assertion, of course, because you can't. You're just firing random shots and hoping to see what sticks.

I wish you and ftk could sit in on my Human Origins class. I think you would be very surprised at how I teach evolution. One common complaint the students make is how many times qualifiers get used ("The evidence suggests..." for example). They want me to say, "This is how it is," and I have to remind them that science doesn't work that way. I point out where the gaps are in our knowledge of the past, and I explain some of the reasons for those gaps (the difficult process of fossilization being one of those). I list the pros and cons of various hypotheses, for example why hominins became bipedal.

I developed the curriculum for this class, I selected the textbook, I assign the topics. Nobody is standing behind me telling me what I should teach or how I should present it. My only vested interest is in teaching students how to learn, how to approach a topic critically, and to undo the damage caused by people like you who got at them when they were younger.

Keep your beliefs at the door. In class, we're all about the evidence.

Date: 2008/07/29 18:15:17, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word.


Thanks but I already know the love of real people. I don't have to make up imaginary friends to love me. As for the bolded part, I already got out of one abusive relationship. I don't need another one.

Date: 2008/07/30 21:16:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 30 2008,19:18)
erm, his day job is being a human calculator.

yet granny dumbfuck calls him a scientist.  In the same way that Leonard Nimoy was a scientist, because he played one on TV.

I'm sure there are other mathematicians out there who would like to pretend that they're scientists, too...

Date: 2008/08/07 07:46:49, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I found it rather interesting that Prager, with little specific knowledge of biology, medicine, or theories of evolution, could so quickly figure out that belief in the power of random events to turn bacteria into bipeds finds no practical employment in science & technology


I'm getting rather tired of those silly phrases, like "bacteria into bipeds" and "molecule to man", trying to make evolution look foolish. We should have our own cutesy sayings, like "dirt into dude" or "bone to babe". Maybe "magic to man"? Unlike the creotards' phrases, these aren't even strawmen, but accurate descriptions of what they believe.

Date: 2008/08/07 12:21:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 07 2008,11:26)
Quote (Chayanov @ Aug. 07 2008,08:46)
Quote
I found it rather interesting that Prager, with little specific knowledge of biology, medicine, or theories of evolution, could so quickly figure out that belief in the power of random events to turn bacteria into bipeds finds no practical employment in science & technology


I'm getting rather tired of those silly phrases, like "bacteria into bipeds" and "molecule to man", trying to make evolution look foolish. We should have our own cutesy sayings, like "dirt into dude" or "bone to babe". Maybe "magic to man"? Unlike the creotards' phrases, these aren't even strawmen, but accurate descriptions of what they believe.

"bone to babe" is going to set off the mental nanny filter of soooo many UDers it would be dangerous. I'm willing to bet that not enough bone to babe is the problem of a large segment of the posters there.

Yeah, that occurred to me after I posted it. Maybe it's time I asked for an edit button.

How about "humus to human"?

Date: 2008/08/07 12:31:10, Link
Author: Chayanov
If it's called faith, then why are you seeking scientific evidence to support it? Seriously. If you can back it up with proof, it's no longer faith, it's certainty. If you're expecting a Bible with citations and a bibliography full of scientific references at the back, it's never going to happen.

Date: 2008/08/11 12:37:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
But I am asking questions of BOTH SIDES and not taking, "Because I said so", for an answer.


What evidence do you have that the Earth is only 6000 years old, other than someone telling you so?

What reasons do you have to reject the evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, other than someone telling you so?

Date: 2008/08/11 12:43:30, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,12:32)
To any UD proponent.  Is this true?  Did Dr. Dembski actually misuse someone else's work for his own profit?

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but the weight of evidence is stacking up against him.  I'm really asking for some help here.  I want to know that people who are leading the charge to show that there is alternatives to Evolution are not themselves doing the very thing they accuse others of doing.


Ed

You're still missing the point. ID needs to stand or fall on its own merits (or lack thereof) as an alternative to evolution. Dembski is a petty, bitter, jealous liar, but that has nothing to do with whether or not ID is true, any more than Darwin's character has to do with the truth of evolution. It's all about the evidence for or against the theory, not the person proposing or promoting it.


ETA clarification -- because I can. :)

Date: 2008/08/11 12:47:44, Link
Author: Chayanov
It's not exactly flouncing out, but the effect is the same.

Date: 2008/09/19 17:17:35, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 19 2008,17:07)
What distinguishes a primitive molecule from one that's not primitive?

For that matter, we are all made out of molecules (DNA is frequently referred to as a molecule -- or do the creationists dispute that, too?). On the other hand, as near as I can tell, I'm not made out of magically enhanced dirt.

Date: 2008/09/19 17:19:45, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Tom Ames @ Sep. 19 2008,16:43)
I'd like you to notice that I took a great deal of care in responding sincerely and respectfully to your question, and that I assumed that you were looking for an actual answer.

That was your first mistake...

Date: 2008/09/24 20:23:56, Link
Author: Chayanov
Wow. Just wow. What an epic fail on ftk's part.

Quote
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.


Followed by a pie chart showing the percentage of followers of the major world religions to prove her point. Clearly in her mind, all theists (and Buddhists) believe in design. No idea how she reconciles theistic evolutionists or others, like the Raelians, who deny belief in gods but do believe humans were designed by extra-terrestrials. And yet she continues to insist it has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Quote
I'm most certainly *not* saying that that large percentage of people who acknowledge that there is a designing force responsible for our origins all adhere specifically to creationism or my version of religious beliefs.


And yet she assumes she speaks for all theists (and Buddhists) by insisting that they all believe in design, just like she does.

Quote
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.


So now she assumes all these theists (and Buddhists) just don't understand ID* the way she does. If only they knew it's not about religion.

And as Albatrossity pointed out, even if ftk was right, that 84% of the world's population accepted design**, that still doesn't mean it's a more valid worldview.

*How many equivocations on ID and design has she made just in the last few posts?

**Which they clearly all don't. If she actually knew anything about religion she'd understand this. Oh, right. It's not about religion, even though she's the one who posted the pie chart. What does she think it's a chart of?

Date: 2008/09/24 20:28:25, Link
Author: Chayanov
ERV uses foul language, so she can be ignored? Sheesh. One would think ftk was such a delicate flower, despite using phrases like "circle jerk" and calling people pussies (strikethroughs really don't soften the word).

H - Y - P - * - C - R - * - T - E

Can I buy a vowel, Pat?

Date: 2008/09/24 22:04:57, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Please note there is clearly no reference to gods in that sentence.  A higher power can mean virtually anything from aliens to a variety of non-natural explanations for life.


Or even gods. Funny how you left out that possibility in favor of aliens. So why did you post a graph about religion instead of a graph showing how many people believe in aliens? You're just flat-out dishonest.

Date: 2008/09/24 23:25:12, Link
Author: Chayanov
So non-material space aliens are supposed to be a better explanation than the theory of evolution? I can't imagine why that idea hasn't caught on, even though apparently 84% of the world's population believes it.

Date: 2008/10/06 11:49:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
She's posted like 10 times this morning screaming about blipey, but we're supposed to believe that he's the disruptive one? Sheesh.

Date: 2008/11/06 21:22:45, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
McCain never got the enthusiastic volunteer support that Obama did - maybe there is something to McCain's moderate stances not energizing the core enough.


Maybe less time spent mocking community organizers at the RNC would have helped the campaign.

Date: 2008/11/09 13:29:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Ummm thanks?

I must be getting old. My birthday suit is full of wrinkles.

Date: 2008/11/14 21:44:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
That's why I prefer to think that an all powerful being used pure will to assemble the first cell or cells. Just like how people assemble automobiles.


Exactly. Because God made all molecules want to seek stability. And then God had to make molecules unstable in order to create life. And then God had to make stupid people who would believe stuff like that.

Date: 2008/11/17 23:27:30, Link
Author: Chayanov
So the difference between the old rules and the new ones would be... what?

Date: 2008/11/21 16:28:56, Link
Author: Chayanov
All these mental contortions the theists go through to compare DNA, cells, life itself to software, computers, and machines. Yet then they accuse the atheists of being mechanistic and wanting to take away the specialness of humanity. Go figure.

Date: 2008/12/08 10:22:21, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (khan @ Dec. 08 2008,09:53)
 
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 08 2008,00:37)
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.

Does he consider light-years to be a time measurement?

No, that's just how far behind he is.

Date: 2008/12/08 15:51:39, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
The book huge. The book old.

I can see a pattern here!


The book stupid. No read.

Date: 2008/12/08 21:16:09, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
The claim I am making - that life and its systems are so intricately organized they could not have been built by natural forces, but had to be built by the Hypnotoad - can be easily falsified: all you have to do is show how natural forces (or something that is not the Hypnotoad) could have built a living thing or one of life's systems and you've falsified my claim.


There. A competing hypothesis that is every bit as feasible as Daniel's.

Date: 2008/12/09 14:03:27, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 09 2008,11:52)
Quote
Asked whether the Bible was literally true, Bush replied: "Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it."

"The important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" he said.

According to my sources, we are all of us the sons of God.

Even the women?   :)

Date: 2008/12/14 14:26:02, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 14 2008,12:45)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 14 2008,10:49)
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."

I recall that this was notoriously the tack that C.S. Lewis took in trying to reconcile his devastation at the death of Joy Gresham with his commitment to belief in his god's goodness.  His god was teaching him a lesson by killing her with bone cancer.:

A Grief Observed

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.

Date: 2008/12/14 17:14:54, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 14 2008,16:53)
I'm shocked, shocked I say!!!!

Well, not that shocked.

Date: 2009/01/03 12:03:20, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Let’s call the evident flatness of a table top or a farmer’s field microflatearthism. Isn’t it then just a simple extrapolation (and also self-evident to anyone who isn’t a moron) that macroflatearthism must also trivially be the case?

Why, yes, I think it is! In fact, the whole bogus distinction between microflatearthism and macroflatearthism is just something invented by the roundtards and spheridiots!


Once again, a creationist fails at analogy. A field may look flat, but if you put all those supposedly flat pieces together, you get a rounded form -- just like how microevolutionary changes add up over time. The tabletop analogy is just stupid. Now who's the moron? Oh yeah, the creationist.

Date: 2009/01/08 17:52:46, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 08 2009,17:18)

Who edits the Editor-in-Chief, or can't we ask?


Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Date: 2009/02/13 23:37:27, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Bottom line, if our common ancestor is not Adam and Eve then there is no sin, nor inherited sin nature in man, nor any need for redemption by Christ's blood.


Finally, something I agree with.

Date: 2009/02/13 23:48:29, Link
Author: Chayanov
Seriously, I admittedly never understand this about Christians. Half the time they're whipping themselves for being inherently bad, and the other half they're enslaving themselves to the memory of a guy who had a bad weekend 2000 years ago. Let it go already and live your own life for a change.

Date: 2009/02/28 18:00:03, Link
Author: Chayanov
This is probably off-topic, and isn't really a question. I just had to vent about how irritating it is when theists complain that Dawkins takes a superficial approach to critiquing religion that doesn't take into account really complex religious traditions like Buddhism or neo-paganism, that atheists who dare to criticize religion are "fundamentalist" and "militant", and when they insinuate that Dawkins is the atheist pope whom all atheists are required to worship.

Okay, I feel a little better now.

Date: 2009/03/11 17:51:59, Link
Author: Chayanov
D O'L:
Quote

In the meantime, attacks on anyone’s character are entirely beside the point.


D O'L, 17 comments later:
Quote

Darwin was a total racist. That is pure and simple. And disgusting.

Date: 2009/03/12 02:26:28, Link
Author: Chayanov
On the one hand...
Quote
Since ID is not a religious program, but a scientific one, I fail to see why an ID proponent needs comment what a religious organization does or doesn’t do.


Then again...
Quote
And we are in the New Testament now, in which there is no such things as even the Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ. The point is that any Christian who regarded racism as true did it IN SPITE of Christianity–not in accord with it.


All science so far!

Date: 2009/03/12 12:02:46, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,11:07)
Clive, I'm sorry you are an idiot, I'm sure its not your fault, its just the way you were brought up.

Maybe he was designed to be that way?

Date: 2009/03/12 12:36:33, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,11:00)
mmm, fact is if we look at different groups of people around the globe we can probably find that some of them appear to be better designed than others, in fact we can probably construct some argument to suggest that we (whom ever we happen to be) are one of the optimal designs whilst the 'others' (the people we don't like) are less optimal, less well designed.

Given the refusal of IDiots to talk about the designer we can't tell if we were all designed equal - cue an IDiot slave fancier "The white male is, by gods design, superior to all others whilst the Negro is clearly designed to serve" and we know this because (insert some biblical justification for slavery here)

All science so far.

I was going to write a post mocking the idea of "social IDism" where successful people were designed to be successful and those who fail were designed to be failures, but then I remembered prosperity theology already exists.

Date: 2009/03/12 13:25:01, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious.

You just can't educate people who are so willfully and stubbornly ignorant, much less engage them in any sort of meaningful dialogue (although I suppose you could spend time mocking them). How many times has this error been pointed out and corrected over the years?

Date: 2009/03/12 15:39:20, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2009,15:15)
 
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 12 2009,13:04)
Clive's understanding of evolution is depicted on the left:


Clive would be the plank at the bottom.

I assume you mean below the cactus?

Date: 2009/03/23 11:49:11, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 23 2009,11:30)
Please don't get me wrong, Peter, but the phrase 'dog bites man' minds to spring.

But it would be fun to ask if Mr Thorsland would approve of teaching all that Newtonian 'theory' in his God-fearing school if he knew the Trinity-denying alchemical idealogy that goes with it.

Or if he'd be willing to give the Raelians equal time in the classroom.

Date: 2009/04/06 12:07:24, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I’m studying physics partly because it is very applicable to modern finance.


So stocks go down because of gravity? No wonder I don't understand anything about finance.

Date: 2009/04/07 17:02:48, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 07 2009,15:03)
Lotto definitely latches. When's the last time you saw losing numbers printed in the newspaper? Can you prove that any losing numbers were generated in 1986?

Actually, once I did see that. The newspaper printed incorrect winning numbers and issued a correction the next day.

I ended up not winning $3 off of that.

Date: 2009/07/29 15:40:19, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 29 2009,12:51)
Eh, New York, Philly, Chicago, they're all having lower-than-usual temps, but that is part and parcel of an El Nino year and how it affects midwest to east-continental weather.

On July 9, NOAA said "El Nino is back, amigos."  and that they expect it to continue developing and last through the winter of 2009-10. Couple that with some volcanic activity and voila.

I shouldn't have said June in Chicago "wasn't all that unusual" ...it didn't get over 70F  for 12 days in June...and that hasn't happened since '69. Eh.

See: http://www.ohio.com/news/51746677.html


Meanwhile, Seattle is close to a record high today and Austin has had 100+ temperatures for most of the last two months. You'd think Dr.Dr.D would know about the Texas heatwave.

Date: 2009/07/29 15:42:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Joseph: I have been to Africa.

I have met African tribes.

I have had the opportunity to interbreed.

Yet I did not.

That must mean we are different species.


Translation: He couldn't get any.

Date: 2009/07/30 16:24:17, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 30 2009,15:14)
I think I might have one of Joe's relatives here at KSU. I just got this message from a student.
 
Quote
I'm going to be in your class next fall, and I saw that on Varney's website it states we need the book "Biology: Concepts and Appliances." I was just wondering if we're going to actually use this book next semester, or whether we can get away with not buying it.

He's not at all curious about biological appliances?

Date: 2009/08/06 17:10:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 06 2009,16:09)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 06 2009,13:57)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 06 2009,15:34)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 06 2009,16:22)
Wouldn't Front Loading counteract Genetic Entropy?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I would have expected Front Loading to be killed by Genetic Entropy, kind of like Godzilla vs Mothra.

I disagree.  God The Disembodied Telic Designer Entity is omniscient.  So he would have front-loaded The Fall genetic entropy into Adam and Eve the original genome.

God did whatever creationists need God to have did to support their current argument.  If they need God to have did something contradictory in some other debate, or at a different point of the same debate, well, God did that too.  God can do that.  He's God.

Of course, that argument makes more sense than anything the creationists have ever said.

Date: 2009/08/09 23:43:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Bill Dembski, bless his heart, doesn't appear to have a working sense of humor.


Dembski's sense of humor is that of a mean-spirited child, who, when he inevitably gets in trouble, mutters "I was only kidding." I'm sure he thinks he's hilarious.

That a man who's pushing 50 should act that way is just sad.

Date: 2009/08/12 17:02:51, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 12 2009,13:26)
Why WmAD's encouragement of trolling is bad pedagogy, via Joel

   
Quote
Dembski wants students to actively engage anti-ID people by posting on anti-ID blogs. They [the critics] see this as trolling, rather than what it is; forcing a student out of the classroom and out of theory and putting what he has learned into practice (oh the horror!). So apparently forcing the student to engage the opposition (which, from an anti-ID point of view, opens the door to “convert” someone, for lack of a better term) is wrong? No wonder there is so much intellectual inbreeding occurring in American universities.
(emphasis added)

Opposition?  Surely Dembski's role is to educate, so that the students can make an informed decision on the issues.  To view one side as opposition suggests he's engaged in indoctrination.

Yeah, I though the IDiots were supposed to be so concerned about making sure teachers presented both sides to students and let them decide for themselves. Or does that only apply to 9th graders?

Date: 2009/08/13 16:55:16, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 13 2009,14:27)
It looks like we will have Kevin Miller to kick around some more. He's scriptwriting a film trying to make heroic the life of exceptional loon and religious antievolutionist Kent Hovind.

   
Quote

Resurrection Pictures was founded in 2006 as the first—and possibly the only—501©(3) non-profit, tax-exempt ministry with a mission to produce and distribute Christian-themed entertainment for movie theaters worldwide.  This Christian film ministry is shaping the future of the faith-based film industry by investing in the work of others who share a vision to create high-quality, culturally relevant entertainment options that share the Gospel message.  In September 2009, Resurrection Pictures is partnering in the release of "The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry"—a heartwarming coming-of-age story about three 12-year-old boys who are shown how to apply Scripture to daily struggles—and is a 2009 Silver Sponsor of the 168 Hour Film Project & Festival.  Creation, Resurrection Pictures’ first original film project— a humorous and tearful story of a high school biology teacher’s struggle to expose the lie of evolution, based on the life of creation evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind and written by Kevin Miller the writer of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is scheduled for production in 2010.


Uh, Kevin, it hasn't been produced yet, so you could actually work to correct the errors we know you've written in so far. After all, we know your idea of "research". We'll give you a hand, I'm sure. Just post excerpts and after we get done laughing, we'll explain why going with your draft would continue your reputation as a laughingstock.

First hint: Calling Kent Hovind "Dr." isn't doing yourself any favors. Have you read Hovind's "dissertation" as distributed by Patriot University? I have.

It's not a very long read, either. It even has some correctly spelled words and everything.

Date: 2009/08/20 13:51:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 20 2009,13:41)
Notice that Dembski makes it about Dawkins in his blog.

 
Quote
William Dembski: P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

And this is the big roll-out for his peer-reviewed paper.

Not understanding how evolution works, and then lying about it. Wow, it really is about ID.

Date: 2009/08/27 21:30:53, Link
Author: Chayanov
Isn't it possible Dembski left Baylor after his unfortunate love affair with his dean ended? Of course, I’m not saying that this is what happened. But something like this could easily have happened.

Date: 2009/08/31 16:22:36, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 31 2009,16:09)
Why?

CS Lewis is Muslim
I've been sitting on this idea for a little bit; when I work with Muslim kids I often explain to them that The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is not a Christian allegory, so much as it is a Muslim one, specifically a Shi'ah Muslim allegory. Let me walk you through my ill-thought thinking.

First, we know Lewis was opposed to a live-action version of the Chronicles, calling the representation of Aslan “blasphemy,” strong words from a religious person. The presence of an anti-iconic can be felt in such a statement.

Second, we know that the lion is named Aslan, from Persian for the word for “lion.” (Haroon, shame on you for not picking that up in your linguistic analysis.) Now, one of the other Persian words for “lion” is sher (pronounced like “share”), and one of the names for the first Shi'ah Imam, Ali ibn Abi Talib, is sher-e khuda, The Lion of God (asadullah in Arabic). Most Persian speaking places have large Shi'ah populations, and of course Iran is mostly Shi'ah. So this is our first clue that Lewis is writing a Shi'ah Muslim allegory.

Now, the obvious question is what about Aslan's death and resurrection, does that not scream the death and resurrection of Jesus? Possibly. Remember that while Jesus' death was witnessed by many, his resurrection was seen by few. In the case of Aslan, the reverse seems to be true; his death was seen by few, but his re-appearance was seen by many. Along the lines of symbolic reading, imagine if you will that it is not Aslan that re-appears, but the essence of Aslan. This essence is like the nur-e khuda (Light of God) present in the Imams. One physical form may pass, but the light is made apparent in a new form (mazhar). From a perspective of continual guidance, nothing has changed. To call on Ali is to call on all the Imams. Aslan is a warrior, guide, and leader; Jesus was not a lion, but lamb (not in a pejorative sense), who taught a deep spiritual message. The war that Jesus fought was not in the way that Aslan fights his war; Aslan's battles are the battles of Imam Ali, the Lion of God. His re-appearance is the appearance of the next Imam, the re-appearance of the nur.

So, I submit to you that Lewis was writing a Shi'ah Muslim allegory in his work, not a Christian one.


from here:

http://www.islamicate.com/2005/12/cs_lewis_is_mus.html

Intriguing. Another possibility is Lewis drew from Muslim imagery because he really wanted Jesus to be a warrior Messiah instead of a peaceful one. Christianity has long been conflicted by the disconnect between Jesus as a messenger of peace and the desire Christians have to go around smiting in God's name, hence their fatwa envy. In that case, Aslan is what Lewis wanted Jesus to be, instead of what he was taught Jesus was.

Although you're probably right. My reply was even more ill-thought out.  ;)

Date: 2009/09/02 22:22:43, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 02 2009,22:06)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,22:57)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 02 2009,18:32)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 02 2009,17:08)
Clive
                   
Quote
Of course, but the velocity is something in particular, not just generic “velocity” or all “velocities”. It is a particular, so it is not exhaustive, so it is not a tautology. So, your question to Barry is a non sequitur, for the “active information” involved is not a tautology.

What? Go read it in context. It won't make a difference.

I like Clive's previous analogy better:
                 
Quote
" to give any positive number, is to say that it is more than zero. That’s not a tautology, for the positive number isn’t all positive numbers, it is a specific number, a specific amount. "


Shorter Clive:
"If I say that 5 is a (A) positive number  (B) greater than zero, that's not tautological"


Apparently,  even if 5 as (A) belongs to (B) by definition, and the converse is also true, by definition.

Here's the kicker, Clive: ALL POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF "A" BELONG TO "B" (and vice-versa).

clive,baby he he he he be some kind of craaaazy transcendental mathematician

yo axe him do he think axioms be all tautological and shit

fo real, clive,baby be all "that sh1t 6e what g0d be tr1pp1n on y0 they be hi5 numbah5 too h0w you crunk you cn c0unt wit d3m and sh1t"

When he denies his tautology thrice before the cock crows, it'll be a notology.

It's like he learned a new word and wants to use it as much as possible. Maybe it came up on his "word of the day" calendar.

Date: 2009/09/16 01:40:23, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Do you see this, people?  DO you?  
This is a direct head-on CRASH

That's for sure.

Date: 2009/09/16 16:32:12, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 16 2009,14:21)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 16 2009,14:09)
Wow.  For once Denyse makes a genuinely thoughtful post, in Clive's thread on Norman Borlaug:
       
Quote

Or maybe more than a billion, Clive?

Many people who live in technologically advanced societies do not realize how much violence against women in many poor societies is driven by food shortages. Including female infanticide, dowry burns, widow burnings, etc.

When anyone, male or female, can get a paying job and buy lots of food, prejudice against females tends to wane. It just doesn’t matter that much whether your family added a boy or a girl, because either sex can get a job in a technologically advanced society.

Maybe not the same job, but a job that buys food. So … ?

"So ... ?"? 

Then it all goes pear-shaped:
 
Quote

Of course, we then get issues around obesity, but that’s choice, not desperation.

Investor tip: Invest in health clubs in nations where health gurus are screaming about excess fatness.


WTF?

but...

If only science could cure her fat-headedness...:)

Sorry, she's a terminal case.

Date: 2009/09/20 14:09:13, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
FLOYD CLAIM 3 - Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image.  Yet evolution denies this.

REALITY 3 – Another absurd claim. Evolution makes no such claim. Again, misrepresenting a few quotes is unconvincing. Are you are implying that God is a hominid, Floyd? Pathetic. Only a biblical literalist would confuse the physical with the spiritual.

Claim 3 really is unbelievably stupid. Taken literally it assumes that God is an actual, physical person because we're actual, physical people. Never mind, as you pointed out, that there are other, equally valid possibilities for being "made in God's image". If literally true, then Christianity is also incompatible with rocket science, since we've sent telescopes, probes, and even people into space, and nobody has seen God on his heavenly throne or St. Peter at the pearly gates.

And fundagelicals like FL really do see it as being literally true, with their fantasies of having barbecues and going RVing with Jesus after they die. So are Mir and the Hubble telescope also incompatible with Christianity?

(Rhetorical question. If anything, FL will equivocate on what it means to be made in God's image.)

Although I find the idea of God as a hominin to be rather amusing. Homo erectus was around a lot longer than Homo sapiens (so far). Maybe God is still using Acheulian tools?

Date: 2009/09/20 17:59:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 20 2009,15:18)
dan the mereological reductionists and the presuppositionalists make queer but apropos bedfellows.  i love it so!

i'm still laughing about going RVing with jesus!!!!  it would probably look something like this


http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2009/09/12/the-prize/

The Christians have it all wrong. It's really Mary, mother of Dog:

http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2009/09/04/nativity/





(This post should probably be moved, since it contributes nothing to the debate. Then again, there is no actual debate going on, either.)

Date: 2009/09/21 02:29:51, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
C: Well no – that would be difficult. But tell me who do you think did it? How? And why?

I don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
 
Quote
H: Ah that is for future enquiry. The important thing is we have overwhelming evidence of murder.

Although the identity of the murderer is irrelevant.

Date: 2009/09/22 17:27:49, Link
Author: Chayanov
So FL really does believe in God the Magic Hominid.

Why is this "debate" going on, again?

Date: 2009/09/22 17:40:43, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,17:29)
So, tell us, FL, if there was a global flood 4000 years ago as described in the Bible, why is there no evidence of it?  How were the Pyramids built if they were constructed at a time where the population was 8?  Why do all of the ancient cities of Mesopotamia, or any other civilization from 4000 years ago, show no sign of being obliterated by a global flood?

Maybe that was the first insurance claim, and the reason why most homeowners' policies don't cover flood insurance.

Date: 2009/09/23 16:56:21, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
For Floyd to say, as the irrelevant person that he is, that the pope has to address *Floyd's* PERSONAL points...is beyond stupid.

That's really the part that baffles me. At least two Popes, in the past, have asserted that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. Because these Popes have not specifically addressed, point by point, a completely arbitrary list FL made a few days ago, that means they're wrong. Their own reasons FL dismisses (without even knowing what they are) as irrelevant.

FL likewise dismisses all Christians who accept evolution, again because none of them have, at any time in the past, addressed his completely arbitrary list that he made up a few days ago.*

I'd be shocked, except that this is completely typical behavior from him.


*Edited to add: Except for those here who are Christians and have addressed his points, who FL has also dismissed out of hand.

Date: 2009/09/25 13:47:57, Link
Author: Chayanov
I'm especially fond of the chapter entitled "Life Comes from Nothing and the Bible is Stupid." Maybe FL could provide us all with a summary of a book he's obviously never read.

Date: 2009/10/02 00:03:14, Link
Author: Chayanov
So, is FL supposed to be an example of that sophisticated theology that theists keep claiming atheists are never able to address?

Date: 2009/10/02 02:25:20, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,00:21)
     
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,00:03)
So, is FL supposed to be an example of that sophisticated theology that theists keep claiming atheists are never able to address?

I don't think so, given as how FL apparently gives more weight to the opinions of atheists than theists concerning matters of his faith, which he then foists onto other theists in order to browbeat them into thinking exactly like he does.

After all, theists like FL do more to advance atheism than any number of atheists could do by themselves.

Date: 2009/10/02 12:12:44, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quit saying "Big Five Incompatibilities" over and over as if you've made some kind of slam-dunk argument.

#3 has already been demonstrated to be a complete loser argument unless you believe that God is literally a magical hominid. Which then raises all sorts of other problems.

Date: 2009/10/02 14:49:47, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
WE have rationality, asthetics, abstract thought, superior intelligence, we're capable of conceptualizing way past three dimensions, capable of actual union and communion with God, and so many many other things, because every human is created in the Image of God.

So, since you're not arguing rationally or intelligently at all, does that make it God's fault for screwing up his image in you?

Date: 2009/10/02 14:57:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.


So first you say God isn't a physical being, but "spirit".

Then you say that being created in God's image means both "spirit" and body.

Which brings us back to "God the Magical Hominid".

Date: 2009/10/02 15:07:07, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,15:01)
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,21:57)
Quote
But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.


So first you say God isn't a physical being, but "spirit".

Then you say that being created in God's image means both "spirit" and body.

Which brings us back to "God the Magical Hominid".

I'm starting to see in FL's posts the desperate cry of someone trully wishing he was special.

His last few posts do kind of have that he's-trying-more-to-convince-himself-than-us vibe to them.

Date: 2009/10/02 15:41:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
But that is false.  That is not what the Bible's image-of-God claim entails.  The image-of-God thing is NOT talking about God having a belly button or a double chin or an Adam's apple or some ovaries.  "God is Spirit", the bible says.  

Instead, the image-of-God changes everything for US, for us humans.  WE are fundamentally & permanently different from ALL animals and all other Earth life because WE are created in the Image of God.  The Image Of God affects every part of us:  spirit, mind, AND body.

Thinking about this some more (yes, I know I've already put more thought into it than FL has).

If God is not a literal physical being, but "spirit" (whatever that is), and the image of God is a "spiritual" image, then there is no incompatibility because ToE has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about "spirit".

That's why FL has to equivocate at the last minute and stick "body" back in there, in a desperate attempt to hold on to his #3. So the "God the Magical Hominid" counter still holds true.

Date: 2009/10/02 15:48:18, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,15:45)
Quote
FL has to equivocate at the last minute and stick "body" back in there, in a desperate attempt to hold on to his #3. So the "God the Magical Hominid" counter still holds true.

And oddly, the Nature quote that he tried to use falsely, was also arguing against this "god as hominid" stupidity...yet Floyd Lee says it's counter to HIS view....

I think Floyd Lee is confused at the least and dishonest to the extreme in all likelihood -- given the evidence in this thread.

Holding on to his "Big Five" at all costs seems to be more important to him than his actual beliefs.

Date: 2009/10/05 17:32:40, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 05 2009,15:26)
I remember that this whole thing started when FL talked about how great debate was, how he loved the give and take of ideas, that those who DON'T debate give the impression that they CAN'T respond to questions.

So what happened?  FL has refused to debate.  Deadman started off with a long list of official church statements concerning the compatibility of evolution and Christianity.  FL didn't respond at all.  No give and take of ideas.  FL did respond, once, to the three point argument concerning the pope.  He responded with a transparent logical fallacy.  That fallacy was pointed out to him on several occasions, and he has never even attempted to defend his analysis.

FL repeats to the point of nausia his "four or five incompatibilities that no one could possibly overcome" and ignores the fact that they have been overcome by Christians from Augustine to Benedict.  When someone points out why his 4 or 5 are not incompatibilities at all, he changes the subject.

In this case FL doesn't merely give the impression that he can't answer questions, he PROVES that he can't answer questions.

I think this has been a good illustration of the futility in attempting to engage with creationists. We don't have a debate here. It's not even a dialogue. Instead it's pages of the evasions, lies, willful ignorance, and smug, condescending proselytizing of someone whose own faith is clearly very shallow and insecure.

Date: 2009/10/05 22:01:22, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 05 2009,18:45)
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 05 2009,17:32)
I think this has been a good illustration of the futility in attempting to engage with creationists. We don't have a debate here. It's not even a dialogue. Instead it's pages of the evasions, lies, willful ignorance, and smug, condescending proselytizing of someone whose own faith is clearly very shallow and insecure.

And that's just Heddle.

Hey, you said it, not me.

Date: 2009/10/05 23:09:26, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2009,22:29)
Quote
This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.

Funny, I could have sworn that the pope had been mentioned several times on this thread.

Henry

Yes, but see, the Pope didn't come here and post a point-by-point rebuttal of FL's assertions. Therefore, in FL's mind, the Pope hasn't actually addressed any of them, regardless of anything he's already said on these topics.

Date: 2009/10/08 11:54:15, Link
Author: Chayanov
FL: "The Bible is the only true word of God."

AtBC: "How do you know that?"

FL: "The Bible says so."

Stick a fork in FL. He's done.

Date: 2009/10/13 13:47:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 13 2009,13:15)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,11:03)
 
Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.

Oh, sure. He responds to that.

Of course. Such comments are part of his missionary work.

Date: 2009/10/17 01:47:16, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
In the past, American Constitutional safeguards on free speech seemed to me sufficient to allow ID to win the day provided it could prove its case. Of that I’m no longer so sure (not that it can’t prove its case, but of the Constitutional safeguards).


Remember Dover, Dr.Dr.WAD? The big opportunity for ID to prove its case? You know, the one you ran away from?

Although, as I recall, your speech wasn't free. It had a price tag on it, and you didn't even speak.

Date: 2009/11/02 22:35:33, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 02 2009,18:22)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,17:42)
the Mosaic dietary laws, ceremonial laws, etc, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ...

One of the things that really kills me about religious folks is that they can say things like that and apparently believe that it actually makes sense.

It doesn't make sense at all. What does "fulfilled" mean here? How do you "fulfill" dietary dictates by simply ignoring them? When did JC discuss these laws, and how did he justify ignoring/fulfilling them?

Just reading that sentence a few times shows me how totally useless it would be to try to discuss anything with someone who could say that and not comprehend that it makes no sense at all!

Well, there's Matthew 5:17-18:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Oh wait. That actually argues the opposite. I don't know where they get it from.

Date: 2009/11/02 23:04:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2009,23:00)
À la carte Christianity.

It's like a buffet of dogma.

"I'll have the hating gays and oppression of women, but pass on not eating pork and don't mix fabrics."

Date: 2009/11/04 12:16:10, Link
Author: Chayanov
Look at our own planet. It's not even designed for us, since the vast majority of it is uninhabitable without taking special precautions, being underwater and all. We can't even drink most of that water since it's too salty for us. We also can't live in volcanoes, or under the ice sheets, or at the tops of the highest mountains. If this planet is designed for life, it's designed for bacteria, and humans are part of the means for giving bacteria a place to live. All worship the Great Bacterium God!

Date: 2009/11/04 12:20:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,12:09)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,11:58)
You have to have a transparent atmosphere in the visible part of the spectrum —and that permits astronomy.

Do you think it is possible that the "visible part of the spectrum" is so-named because we (the wonderful entities focusing on how wonderful it is that we are here in this wonderful situation) have photoreceptors that work with the light that makes it through our atmosphere?

Do you think it is possible that organisms on other planets with other atmospheres admitting other wavelengths might have photoreceptors that work at those wavelengths?

Sheesh.

Wait, you mean if we could see different wavelengths then we would have a completely different definition of "visible"? But then that means the fine-tuning argument isn't an argument at all.

Date: 2009/11/04 15:49:25, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
I don't have a hair-trigger reaction that Gonzalez and Richards must be wrong; thanks for that vote of confidence. I do have an ability to look at the arguments, and find them remarkably unconvincing. Their use of these unconvincing arguments to advance a theological agenda does nothing to convince me further.


Well, gee, if you were just open-minded enough you'd accept their baseless assertions and speculation on the face of it. There's certainly no room for discussion or debate on this topic whatsoever, since everyone else is in perfect agreement with it. What kind of scientist are you?

Date: 2009/11/05 02:05:09, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2009,01:12)
Universe full of rocks: Dreary bummer.
Eternal torture for those not following the orders of Floyd's "loving" god: Not dreary bummer.

Not a bummer for FL, at any rate. Which rather says something about him.

Date: 2009/11/05 13:58:58, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Not only is our atmosphere transparent, but we also enjoy dark nights. Several happy coincidences, from having a planet that rotates on its axis, to our location in the galaxy, to the age of the cosmos, conspire to make this possible.

Before our ancestors learned how to control fire those dark nights would have been terrifying, as people huddled together for protection against large predators with much better night vision. How was that a privileged position?

Date: 2009/11/06 13:12:31, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Look, I am a Catholic Christian and am busy and don’t know how the world is going to end.


So O'Leary has no interest or curiosity in either the past or the future. Blogging is probably a good place for her, where she can always live in the moment of the latest story, and never be concerned with what was or might be.

Date: 2009/11/25 12:01:32, Link
Author: Chayanov
It shows how religious belief can infantalize adults. They're like small children who don't understand that their parents must work to put a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, and food on the table. Even as adults who should know better, they still think their invisible parent will always be protecting them and providing for them.

Date: 2009/11/27 13:49:35, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 27 2009,13:32)
Dembski posts an adaptation of "a close colleague's email" describing an article which in turn describes some of the source code leaked from CRU, and draws a conclusion which is suitably tentative and provisional:
   
Quote

This is unquestionably the biggest fraud in the history of science

This verdict is based on an article describing "hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files". The article's author acknowledges that "IDL is not a native language of mine" but he's found comments in some of the files which warn that some data manipulation is approximate or should only be used within certain stated date ranges. So there is source code and it's got comments in which warn of its limitations. It's the smokingest gun ever! Really; the article's author describes it as "maybe the most important strike in human history".

On the other hand, DrDrWAD does know something about being a fraud.

Date: 2009/11/28 23:37:19, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
This clearly reflects that, in her innocence, she is confused of the fact that after her deliberate assurance in her decision for her love for this man, and her decision to impregnate herself with the child of this American, she is confused.

This is my new favorite sentence.

Date: 2009/12/01 15:39:18, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 01 2009,13:59)
 
Quote
Allowing penetrating UV rays without an attenuating filter indicates that if the eye evolved with the help of the sun it must have done so under controlled and specified condition/s. Looks like the probabilities of it happening by chance just keep mounting up.

So what does suboptimal design say about the Designer?

Not to mention the fine-tuning argument.

Date: 2009/12/02 21:36:11, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 02 2009,20:24)
 
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 03 2009,02:04)
From "Is backwards or forwards time travel really possible?"
     
Quote
2
Gods iPod:
Yes. And I can prove it from the Bible alone :)

     
Quote
5
Gods iPod:
Denise, I’d love to share my theory here, but since I am fairly certain that I am the only person that has ever seen this in the Word, at least among the living and posting thoughts online, I am keeping it to myself for a future book.

I know, sounds like a cop-out crackpot*. I would be open to sharing it with you privately.

For those that missed my first post. I believe there is a crystal clear example of time travel in the Bible. So clear that when I explain it to you you’ll slap yourself for not having seen it before. I have shown it to about a dozen people, and the reaction is the same each time**, and no one needs to be “convinced” It’s just obvious.

Time travel is possible because there's an example of it in the bible. ALL SCIENCE SO FAR. And he is the only one who has ever seen it although "it's just obvious" and "crystal clear". Right.


* fixed that for him

** they very carefully back away?

Could it be that using historical markers from within the text that 2 gospels have Jesus being born in two different places and quite a few years apart.

That a pretty good piece of time travel. Not to mention that the resurrection gospels has Jesus, the women and the apostles doing all kinds of different things at the same time.

Multiverse?

Date: 2009/12/10 15:08:56, Link
Author: Chayanov
Irreducible complexity? Seriously? Next you'll be asking, "What good is half a wing?" Try using an argument that hasn't already been demolished a thousand times already.

Oh, right. There aren't any.

Date: 2009/12/11 15:05:45, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?

No, it means you made a category error.

Date: 2009/12/21 17:02:36, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
What reason is there to think the distinction is just the reproductive system? Kangaroos seem quite distinct from anything else, afaik.


Wasn't there a Loony Tunes where a baby kangaroo was mistaken for a giant mouse? Maybe Robert's getting his ideas from old cartoons.

Date: 2009/12/21 17:16:51, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (khan @ Dec. 21 2009,17:04)
 
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 21 2009,18:02)
   
Quote
What reason is there to think the distinction is just the reproductive system? Kangaroos seem quite distinct from anything else, afaik.


Wasn't there a Loony Tunes where a baby kangaroo was mistaken for a giant mouse? Maybe Robert's getting his ideas from old cartoons.

Yes, involved Sylvester the Cat & his nephew.

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

ETA link

And on "The Beverly Hillbillies" Granny thought a kangaroo was a giant jackrabbit. So which is it? Are kangaroos mice or rabbits?

Date: 2009/12/22 15:57:12, Link
Author: Chayanov
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

Even the "good" reviews there are rather back-handed.

Godawful color scheme. It looks like it was designed about 15 years ago and languished on a shelf somewhere. There's a joystick right under your thumb -- unless you use a mouse left-handed, then the joystick is right under your pinky finger. I can't even imagine how awkward that monstrosity would be to use.

Date: 2009/12/23 09:18:37, Link
Author: Chayanov
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.

Date: 2009/12/23 10:39:04, Link
Author: Chayanov
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.

Of course, the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

Date: 2009/12/23 16:18:22, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
Now that Chay's specific point has been critically examined in light of the clear biblical text and its context, and visibiy refuted on both counts...

By whom? Certainly not by you.

Date: 2009/12/23 16:22:21, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.


I don't see the word "could" in there, either. And he doesn't give a specific date -- nobody claimed he did. But he does say to them that it will happen in their lifetime. And how would you know what his intent was? Where's the passage where Paul tells his friends about how he put one over on the yokels? Just admit you're making it all up as you go.

Date: 2009/12/23 16:37:24, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 23 2009,10:46)
That's easy. Just read the text. I consider it just another piece of BS but at face value, it is addressed to people alive at the time it was spoken or written. Some of them even will still be alive when the unbelievable events promised shall happen.

But with 2k years hindsight we know that not only are they all dead and gone a long time now, the events did not take place, and won't ever happen.

Since we now [B]know[B] that what was promised did not come true, the promise was a lie back then, and will forever remain a lie.

Jonas Gardell, author of  "Om Gud" (About God) and  "Om Jesus" (about Jesus) is honorary doctor at the Theological Faculty at Lunds University, Sweden.

He doesn't call it a lie but is otherwise of the same opinion: The events promised in 1 Thess 4:13-17 did not happen.

Well, it turns out your "expert" was wrong. Because he wasn't there, and FL was, and Paul told FL afterwards how hard it was to continue with Jesus' ministry and about all the rhetorical tricks necessary to keep the flock moving along. So there.

Date: 2009/12/23 16:46:35, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
The clear text meaning in any translation was the expectation that it would occur within the current generation.

I've seen the apologetics to this as well and it is only achieved by giving certain words meanings that are shared nowhere else in the Bible.
I think it is convincing to somebody who is desperate to hang on to a literal interpretation of the Bible but to the rest of us it is just funny.


I think it's funny how FL can spin his tortured interpretation of that text and then claim that the passage has been critically examined. As if he had the faintest notion of how to critically examine anything.

Date: 2009/12/23 19:15:52, Link
Author: Chayanov
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.

Date: 2010/02/11 10:28:21, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.

In the immortal words of Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Date: 2010/02/11 11:58:09, Link
Author: Chayanov
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:38)
Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 11 2010,10:28)
Quote
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.

In the immortal words of Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Ah, we have a scholar of history here I suppose. Can you provide some kind of evidence for your powerful rebuttal? :)

Cheers,
Ut

You're the one who said Catholics started universities. Why don't you back up your statements with some actual evidence, instead of equivocating and throwing out strawmen?

 

 

 

=====