AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Dr. Jammer

form_srcid: Dr. Jammer

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.226.46.21

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Dr. Jammer

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 'Dr. Jammer%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2012/02/10 14:05:56, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Robert E. Collins' posts oozed dishonesty, so I have no problem with his banning. He's also chubby with an oddly-shaped head, both of which I consider to be ban-worthy offenses.

I'm a little disappointed that Liz has been banned, though. She's an unreasonable ideologue, without question. The way she (and every other Darwinist there, including Larry Moron) ran from Upright Biped's overwhelming argument for design was shameful, no doubt.

Still, I thought she was an overall positive for the board, who, despite living in a fantasyland, was generally polite. Hopefully either her ban was accidental, or the administrators come to their senses and allow her to stick around.

We'll see.

Date: 2012/02/10 14:17:27, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Let me also add that I applaud the double-standards of U.D.

Let's face reality here, ladies, gentlemen, and chubby guys with oddly-shaped heads: Darwinists are vitriolic monsters who have no problem with squashing dissenters. Take away Darwin skeptics livelihoods? They'd have it no other way.

My harsh-but-reasonable opinion is that these sorts of people don't deserve fair treatment until proven otherwise.

I think Liz was civil enough to warrant fair treatment, which I why I'm disappointed she was removed.

The rest of you? Trash that was kicked to the curb. I guess that would make this board the local dump. That seems about right.  :p

Date: 2012/02/10 15:25:34, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,15:23)
 
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:17)
Let's face reality here, ladies, gentlemen, and chubby guys with oddly-shaped heads: Darwinists are vitriolic monsters who have no problem with squashing dissenters.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's a "bad thing" from the perspective of a rational, civil human being who believes in scientific progress. Someone like me, for example.

Obviously, none of the above applies to you, nor most of the members here. To all of you, so-called "blind watchmaker" evolution (whatever the accepted term for it is nowadays) is a religion. It is your creation story, and, thus, you take challenges to it very personally. That explains the emotional, often vulgar responses to?and hostile treatment of?dissenters.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that there are many similarities between the Islamic extremist and the dogmatic Darwinist. They're convinced they're right, you're convinced you're right. You both believe the infidels should be squashed, you just go about it different ways (murder vs. institutionalized discrimination). I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).

Date: 2012/02/10 15:36:12, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,16:25)
That explains the emotional, often vulgar responses to?and hostile treatment of?dissenters.

I see the mighty em-dash is too much for this archaic, backwoods forum software to handle.

It does seem kind of fitting that a group of irreligiously-motivated people with outdated views of biology would use such an outdated forum.

Date: 2012/02/10 15:48:30, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:34)
don't mistake being laughed at for anyone giving a fuck about you sunshine

Everyone here is obsessed with the Intelligent Design revolution. You all dedicate significant portions of your life to it. It consumes each and every one of you.

If you had to choose between spending time with your families or obsessing over the I.D. scientific revolution on message boards, you'd choose the latter with nary a second's hesitation. I have a hunch that quite a few of you face that exact scenario on a regular basis.

Date: 2012/02/11 12:33:47, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 10 2012,18:25)
My gaydar nearly explodes for most of those DI senior researchers.


I'm gonna assume gaydar is your pet name for your penis, in which case, I can't say I'm really surprised. Any competent psychologist would tell you that the level of obsession you fruitcakes show for I.D. and its proponents is clearly rooted in sex.

Long story short: You're in love with William Dembski.

Date: 2012/02/11 12:53:35, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,12:12)


:D

Hehe...


All this shows me is that U.D. mods are fair-minded and polite when they're dealing with fair-minded, polite commentators.

How many people here can be described as fair-minded and polite when it comes to I.D.? The answer to that question is the answer to why you've all been banned, some of you repeatedly, at U.D.

Liz had potential, as kairosfocus made clear. Unfortunately, her nutty, unscientific worshiping of the conveniently undetectable Blind Watchmaker, combined with her association with you scum bums, finally bit her in the ass.

Date: 2012/02/11 13:46:52, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 11 2012,13:39)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,09:12)


:D

Hehe...

Yeah, that, after falsely accusing EL and everyone else who doesn't kiss his sanctimonious ass of being amoral, immoral, depraved, ignorant, unresponsive, non-serious, uncivil, lying, and lots of other negative things.

gordon mullings is the ultimate, narcissistic, chauvinistic hypocrite.

To be fair, I would say most of those adjectives accurately describe the regulars here, as well as most design-deniers across the net.

Notice I said across the net, and not design-deniers in general. Those deniers who meet with I.D. proponents, face-to-face, tend to be far more civil than those who remain online. Methinks it's much easier to be crass from the comfort of your homes/offices, as opposed to when you're within severe beating distance.

As for the discussion of morality, kairosfocus was right on the mark. Liz put up a valiant fight, but her argument for morality ultimately boiled down to argumentum ad populum.

If the members of NAMBLA (I suspect a few of you are card-carrying members) decided to start their own nation, with their own set of laws, and they all determined pedophilia to be not only legal, but moral, would that make it so? According to Liz's reasoning it would.

With no ultimate source of objective morality, morality becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. It's might-makes-right. That majority opinion becomes the might, and they decide what is right.

Even worse are the non-democracies, where might isn't represented by the majority, but by a small section of the elite. This is what we witnessed in the early 20th century with the eugenics movement, where the elite decided that it was moral to decide who could and could not reproduce. That's one of the more tame examples.

kairosfocus' point isn't that we can't reason to right and wrong. We can, in large part because morality (seems to be) an attribute inherent to most human beings, which acts as our guiding light, so to speak.

His point is that the might-makes-right mentality that arises when one denies an objective, ultimate source of morality, is often a very dangerous thing. A look through any history book will confirm that he is correct.

Date: 2012/02/11 14:04:48, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 11 2012,14:33)
Quote
Could you explain the bolded, Dr Jammer?



The reason I ask is that before I was banned at UD I had 19 posts here.  Of these, 10 were later than 2007.  Of these 10, 3 were about my account.

Of the remaining 7, one was a futurama cartoon; one was a thank you for a compliment; one was to correct the rumour that Peter Griffin had been banned at UD; one was to correct the idea that a carribean (kairosfocus) couldn't have Scottish ancestry; one was to explain why I had told kairosfocus that he had nothing to apologise for; one was to explain the difference between "polite" (as in my behaviour at UD) and "submissive" (which I was not); and one was to clarify that earlier comment.

In other words, while I have no problem in "associating with" these people you refer to as "scum bags", I have "associated" with them no more than you have, it seems.

And unlike you, I have been exactly as polite here, as I am on UD.

I think nullasalus summed it up pretty well.

I think your friendly association with the depraved circus clowns here, as limited as it may be (six posts in the past month, prior to your banning), made it seem as if you were a part of their clique.

I think Barry Arrington got a little heated, and, in the heat of the moment, took you down with the trolls. I guess you could say you were collateral damage.

I don't agree with it, but then, it's not my board. To be fair to U.D., they're far more open to critics than most anti-I.D. boards I've been to.

Here's my question: If you were unbanned, would you be willing to return to U.D.?

Date: 2012/06/13 23:46:06, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
It was apparent from his dishonest debating style that Steve Matheson was a sleazeball, so I can't say I'm shocked by the news that he was taking advantage of at least one of his students.

Also, I'm not the least bit surprised that you degenerates would overlook Matheson's deplorable actions and instead point the finger at Sal Cordova for reporting it. In fact, I predicted it, which is what brought me here: To verify that my prediction was accurate.

It was, of course.  :p

Date: 2012/06/14 00:56:55, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
I'm sure Kairosfocus would have no issues with debating any of you fine gentleman over at Uncommon Descent. After all, he's been thoroughly destroying design-deniers there for years now.

Why don't you bring the fight to him, rather than begging and pleading that he come to you?

Have you been banned at Uncommon Descent?

Date: 2012/06/14 01:15:59, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
[quote=Cubist,June 14 2012,01:03][/quote]
 
Quote (Cubist @ June 14 2012,01:03)
"Judge not, lest ye be judged" is just a sextet of irrelevant words to you, eh Dr. Jammer?


Anyone's more than welcome to judge me at anytime. They'll find that, while I'm far from a perfect human being, I'm much higher on the morality totem pole than is Steve Matheson.

 
Quote (Cubist @ June 14 2012,01:03)
And it looks like you also regard "presumption of innocence" as a foreign concept.


The presumption of innocence applies to a court of law, not to public opinion.

 
Quote (Cubist @ June 14 2012,01:03)
When atheists rush to judgement on someone who may well be wholly innocent, well, I guess that sort of thing is only to be expected of people who don't believe in God.

What's your excuse, Dr. Jammer?


That Calvin College sided with the student, and that I know of Steve Matheson's shadiness from viewing his actions in the Darwin vs. design debate, is good enough for me.

In my always-humble opinion, the onus is now on Steve Matheson to prove his innocence.

Date: 2012/06/14 01:26:37, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 14 2012,02:13)
You really don't pay attention, do you?


That was a rhetorical, taunting question; I know this board is filled with design-denying trolls who've been banned, many of them repeatedly, from Uncommon Descent. I kind of like to tease you weirdos over it. :p

With that said, no, I don't pay much attention to this stinkhole. I feel sorry for anyone who does. Thankfully, that would be very few people, according to Alexa page ranks. :D

Date: 2012/06/14 02:35:55, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:50)
i also take time out of every day to go shit.  drop what i am doing, actually.  amazing, isn't it?


Defecation is a necessity; obsessing over Intelligent Design is not, at least not for mentally healthy people.

Date: 2012/06/14 03:03:34, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,16:52)
Lol. Let's get the people who intelligently designed the comment system at UD in then, they'll fix it up a treat!


Uncommon Descent operates under the WordPress content management system, the most popular in the world, according to Wikipedia:

     
Quote (Wikipedia @ June 14 2012,03:44)
WordPress is a free and open source blogging tool and a dynamic content management system (CMS) based on PHP and MySQL. It has many features including a plug-in architecture and a template system. WordPress is used by over 14.7% of Alexa Internet's "top 1 million" websites and as of August 2011 manages 22% of all new websites. WordPress is currently the most popular CMS in use on the Internet.


While I do prefer U.D.'s previous look, I can say that there's nothing wrong with the comment system of the new layout.

Uncommon Descent has gotten with the times; Anti-Evolution.org has not. How very apropos.

As for this website's decade-old forum software: My recommendation would be to convert the data to Simple Machine Forum data using their conversion tool, then installing the far more modern, feature-rich, and aesthetically-pleasing SMF 2.0.2.

Date: 2012/06/14 03:18:17, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2012,10:48)
Jammer, are you an ID expert?  Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.

If you have some knowledge of ID, then I would appreciate answers.  I would hope that you have some knowledge of ID, since it is obvious that you have no knowledge of evolution... or tact for that matter.

But nonetheless I would like to discuss this notion that is ID.  Just let me know when you are ready.

kthks

I wouldn't say I'm an expert, no. That designation should be reserved for intellectuals such as kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, and the great (and dearly missed) DaveScot.

My guess is that your queries have been answered repeatedly, and that you refuse to accept said answers. That's how it usually goes with you guys.

Date: 2012/06/14 03:21:45, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Tom A @ Feb. 11 2012,00:12)
You all know that he doesn't have the stones to show up right?

He's so  brave among his fellow bullies on UD, but he runs when confronted outside his turf.

I'm not even sure what you mean. Why wouldn't I have "have the stones" to show up here? You people aren't deluded enough to believe that anyone actually fears anything you say, are you?

Most of you, if not all of you, have been given ample opportunity to present formidable challenges to the people of Uncommon Descent. Each and every one of you failed miserably.

Date: 2012/06/14 04:47:11, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
   
Quote
1 ForJah

This article is really foul…and I don’t mean what Matheson said, I mean how irrelevant it is to any scientific argument. I know you acknowledged this at the bottom but still leave the ad hominems for the Darwinists. The high level of intellectual discussions based on actual arguments are what drew me to this site. This is a crap article and should not have been posted.


ForJah seems confused. His first complaint is irrelevant; Sal never claimed the entry was any sort of a scientific rebuttal to Matheson (there's a recent entry for that).

His second complaint, that U.D. should be limited to scientific discussions, is nothing more than an opinion with little-to-no supporting argument.

Personally, I disagree with his opinion. I believe U.D. should be devoted to any subject relevant to I.D. in any way, including exposing the appalling behavior of those who fight against I.D.

Don't just expose their weak arguments and evidence; expose their weak moral fiber. Make it clear that I.D.'s battle isn't against science, but against a group of sleaze buckets who have corrupted science. That sounds like a winning strategy to me.


     
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
   
Quote
3 Starbuck

Uncommon Descent has hit bottom with this post.


Judging by her YouTube account (linked to in all of her U.D. comments), I'd say there's a strong possibility that Starbuck is, in fact, a degenerate (as well as Steve Matheson's kinda girl).

 
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
   
Quote
10 Timaeus

Scordova:

I’ve often enjoyed your contributions to UD on biological matters, so I write out of respect for your past entries, but I must say, this is one column that I wish you hadn’t written.

I take into account your explanation of your motives, and your sincere expressions of sympathy for Matheson’s personal situation. And I understand the frustration you feel with Matheson’s constant accusations of dishonesty against fine Christian ID people like Behe and Meyer.

Nonetheless, I think that Matheson’s (real or alleged) moral failings are not something that UD should be devoting columns to. Even if he is guilty of a form of personal dishonesty himself, and even if it is somewhat inconsistent of him to lecture others on personal dishonesty given that fact, I still think we should let the subject go. Certain wrong acts carry their own “natural punishment,” and I imagine that Matheson has suffered enough of this without us “piling on.”

I don’t take your motivation here as malicious or spiteful, but I think perhaps a certain overzealousness has overtaken your judgment. It’s not for me to tell you what to do, but I would recommend that you seriously consider removing this column from the site. As author, I believe you have the right and the power to do that.

Steve is not one of my favorite TEs — his abrasive manner of arguing puts me off. But I think it would be the high road for us not to seek the slightest rhetorical advantage over him due to his personal actions in the non-scientific sphere.


Timaeus is brilliant, and, while I disagree with him, his reasoning for disapproving of Sal's article is respectable. Notice, also, that he's not making Sal out to be a bad guy, but a well-meaning individual who simply become overzealous.

That's a sharp contrast from the degenerates here who are trying to make Sal out to be a bad guy, while deflecting from Steve Matheson's disgusting (alleged) behavior.


   
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
   
Quote
16
scordova

[...]
I came close to retracting this thread, but you know, I want to keep it. It shows that despite me, there are some really good guys here at UD. Their comments on this thread are evidence.


Sal's a wonderful human being. Had the roles been reversed, had Sal been exposed for comitting highly dubious behavior, I have no doubt that Darwinists, including Steve Matheson, would've picked his ones dry.

   
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,02:46)
I'm sure you'll now proceed to tell ForJah, Starbuck, and Timaeus that they're degenerates, too.


ForJah: You're confused.
Timaeus: You're brilliant. Keep up the good work.
Starbuck: You're probably a degenerate.

Happy?

Date: 2012/06/14 06:44:15, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
For those who were wondering about the health of Uncommon Descent...



The Trollocaust  was in mid-February, right on the 02/12 marker, more or less.

As we can see, the two months, post-bannings, resulted in far more unique visitors (the only traffic stat I can find), on average, than the several months prior to the banning.

So, no, the absence of trolls hasn't hurt U.D.'s traffic. If anything, it may have improved it. While Elizabeth livened the place up a little bit, in my opinion, the rest of you clearly brought it down with your stupidity and horrible arguments.

U.D. is better off without you smelly turds stinking the place up. Thank God Barry flushed you down the toilet.  :p

Date: 2012/06/16 12:43:08, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (JLT @ June 14 2012,22:52)
That's only half of what AtBC gets, according to sitemeter:



Althought that might still be the same 100 people...  ;)


That is incorrect, good sir.

The statistics you posted were for total visits and total page views.

The statistics I posted were limited to unique visitors. That is, the total number of unique I.P. addresses that visit U.D. on a monthly basis.

My I.P. is static (it doesn't change), thus, I could visit U.D. 10 times a day for the next week, and it would only count as one unique visitor, whereas, it would count as 70 visits.

According to the Site Analytics website, ATBC receives between 1K and 2.5K unique visitors in a normal month -- far fewer than Uncommon Descent.  :)





It it makes you feel any better, Talk Origins receives far more viewers than does U.D., although creationism websites (Answers In Genesis and CARM) dominate everyone else in the whole I.D. vs. Creation vs. Magic (Darwinism) debate.

Also, Evolution News & Views receives more monthly unique visitors than U.D., which is wonderful considering the high-quality articles posted there.

Date: 2012/06/20 11:10:22, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant.  :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

Date: 2012/06/21 10:48:58, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
That second article was a real eye-opener, Mr. T.

Quote (David Klinghoffer @ June 21, 2012,05:28)
She and co-author Doug Axe tested in the lab an easier case of evolutionary transition, from one similar but functionally distinct bacterial protein to another -- "evolutionary cousins" of a humbler type. This very minor revolution would require seven coordinated mutations if not more, which in a population of bacteria would need something like 10^27 years.
Quote
To put that in some perspective, remember that the universe is only about 10^10 years old. It can't have happened.

The problem of accomplishing the revolution that transforms a chimp-like ancestor into a member of the genus Homo is, of course, worlds and worlds and worlds more difficult. Dr. Gauger cites Dennis Bramble and Daniel Lieberman, writing in Nature and describing the immensity of difference in anatomical features -- the unique gifts that make their first appearance in Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.

Remember we're not talking about what are arguably called spiritual endowments -- the ability to speak, write, do math, do art, appreciate lofty moral and aesthetic ideals, and the rest that science can't even describe much less account for in evolutionary terms. We're just talking about the anatomy.

Bramble and Lieberman count 16 such revolutionary changes and Gauger points out that the transition from our last presumed common ancestor with chimps is allotted only six million years by the standard timetable. This itself produces a defeater for any Darwinian narrative of human evolution:
Quote
Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and long generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.

Gauger concludes:
Quote
Our uniquely human attributes constitute a quantum leap, not just an innovation, a leap that cannot have arisen without guidance. We are not souped-up apes.


My, oh my, how fascinating.

Date: 2012/06/21 11:56:24, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (MichaelJ @ June 19 2012,17:16)
I'd hate to be Gil. I did a quick Google and there is a pile of competing ideas on why we evolved to enjoy music.


The Darwinist must attempt to explain everythingrelated to the biological world, including human nature,  via his creation myth. That's never been in doubt.

The question is, are those explanations convincing?

To you and those like-minded, it's an easy yes. You don't even have to think about it (and probably haven't). Darwinism is true, as is every single attempt to explain every single facet of biology and human nature from a Darwinian perspective.

For the rest of us, we who aren't Darwin fundies, the explanations remain far less convincing. We require a much higher standard of evidence than do you religious folk.

Date: 2012/06/21 12:24:48, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 20 2012,03:47)

Motive mongering is a two-way street. Any of you can point out the religious convictions of I.D. proponents, and I can return the favor by pointing out the atheism of the most outspoken of Darwin defenders.

In the end, it's all a big waste of time. All that matters is the evidence, and the evidence, both from the origin of life and the revealed directiveness of biology via internal technology points OVERWHELMINGLY towards design. It is every bit as powerful as the evidence for the gravitational force, perhaps even stronger.  Relying on disingenuous games, like the Onion Test, does not change one iota of any of this, but instead reveals just how far Darwin's once-proud theory has fallen. It's the flat Earth of the 21st century.

Let's be completely honest here, although I know that's quite a challenge for most of you. Darwinism has devolved from scientific theory, to failed scientific hypothesis, to stealth atheist religion. We know of the strong correlation between those proselytizing for Darwinism and atheism. Eugenics Scott, Barbara Forrest, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, etc. -- all well-known Liars for Darwin; all militant atheists.

You people defend Darwinian evolution, not for scientific reasons, but because it's your religion. You need it to be true; your intellectual fulfillment demands it. You'll lie to yourselves, and to others, to maintain the illusion that it is. You absolutely abhor anyone who challenges that propped-up illusion, which is why we see so much vulgar filth being spewed at I.D. proponents.

Your true motivations, emotional, rather than rational, are revealed in every four-letter word you hurl.

You guys have lost. Deep down inside you know it, which further spurs on your insecure fits of vulgarity.

My advice? Quit deluded yourselves and join those of us in the 21st century, a period in which the beauty and sophistication of design has revealed itself in all its glory. It's really not all that bad. In fact, viewing biology as the artwork of an ingenious artist (engineer) is really quite intellectually stimulating.

Date: 2012/06/21 13:56:35, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Patrick @ June 21 2012,13:16)
I love how religious fundamentalists use the term "religious" as an insult.  It's like insulting a sibling with a "your mom" joke.

I'm not sure I'd qualify as a religious fundamentalist. My views are quite similar to the views of, say, Thomas Jefferson, in that they're based on logic and evidence, rather than any religious text. I am, however, somewhat aggressive with my views, so I suppose that could rise me to the level of religious in some people's eyes. Either way, my usage of the word religious is heavily influenced by Darwinists' usage of it. If I've used it in an insulting manner, it's only because you fine gentleman have turned it into an insult.

Back to my primary point, which is that, while they may cover opposite ends of the spectrum, Darwinists are every bit as motivated by their personal beliefs as they accuse so-called "IDiots" of being. Therefore, if IDiots' views are religious, then so, too, are theirs.

Darwinists: I.D. proponents are motivated by their religion (worldview), which discredits everything they say.

Me: Darwinists are motivated by their worldview (religion), which, according to the Darwinists' "logic," should discredit everything they say.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Of course, while I believe wholeheartedly that Darwinists' motivations are well beyond the realm of science, I'm also wise enough to know that these motivations don't refute their claims. Either their claims are true or they are false (to those of us who believe in the law of non-contradiction ;)), regardless of why they believe them.

Sadly, it appears most Darwinists lack this wisdom. They truly believe that shrieking out, "Religion!" at every pro-I.D. claim constitutes a valid rebuttal. Logic doesn't seem to be their strong-point. Then again, neither does science, nor honesty.  :p

Date: 2012/06/21 15:23:51, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,13:00)
Jared,

Tell me, from the bottom of your heart, this is what ID boils down to: "we are not apes," isn't it? You, guys, don't give a shit about the tree of life. At the end of the day, it's about the special creation of humans. Did I get it right?

I.D. boils down to, "we are not apes," to the same degree that Darwinism boils down to, "God does not exist."

Are there people who support I.D. because they believe it demonstrates that we're not apes, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Are there people who support Darwinian evolution because they believe it explains life without need of a God, which they find comforting? Absolutely.

Again, motive mongering is a two-way street.

Date: 2012/06/21 18:42:18, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

Date: 2012/06/22 14:32:36, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Are we still pretending that there's but a single definition of evolution, which is synonymous with Neo-Darwinism? Surely not.

The whole bait-and-switch definition game no longer works, fellas. Get some new trickery, please.

Date: 2012/06/22 14:52:19, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,20:21)
 
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

So, Jared, no comment on what moves the BioLogos people?

As I've stated previously, I'm non-religious, thus, I don't concern myself too much with the creeps at BioLogos. They're all Darwinists to me.

I have seen religious arguments made by theistic evolutionists for why they reject I.D. One is that it posits what they call a "tinkering" God, which they believe discredits/disrespects God's power, or some such nonsense. This is a favorite of Ken Miller.

Anyway, if you're concerned with what I.D. proponents think of the folks at BioLogos, there's no shortage of material at Uncommon Descent. Stephen B, nullasus, and company routinely rip them to shreds.

Thanks.

Date: 2012/06/22 15:00:10, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 21 2012,20:02)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,18:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

Any chance you might share some of that evidence with us while we're still young?

The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.

As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life. Anything else is (ir)religious assumptions masquerading as science; atheism is a cheap tuxedo.

Date: 2012/06/22 15:01:52, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
atheism in a cheap tuxedo*

Is there not an option to edit your posts? Wow. Just when I thought this place couldn't get any worse...

Date: 2012/06/22 17:02:54, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 22 2012,15:39)
     
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,14:32)
Are we still pretending that there's but a single definition of evolution, which is synonymous with Neo-Darwinism? Surely not.

The whole bait-and-switch definition game no longer works, fellas. Get some new trickery, please.

Go find every biology textbook you can and type of the definitions of evolution that you find.

Want to bet what you get?

Or, are you saying that because evolution is an observed fact AND a theory that describes the behavior of systems of reproducing organisms that we have multiple definitions of evolution?

Let me ask this, what is the one definition of ID?  Why does Behe say it mechanistic and Demsbki say that it isn't mechanistic?  Why do some people say that the designer did and does everything, while other say that the designer only designs things we aren't sure how came about?  Why do some say design only applies to life and others say it applies to everything, including the formation of the universe?

Why don't you go argue with your own side about what the real definition of ID is?

BTW: Even if you totally disprove evolution, right here, right now... it doesn't mean that ID is right.  Only positive supporting evidence can do that.  Got any?

edit to add this...

What do you make of this quote Jammer?

lastyearon goes for a Friday bannination.

       
Quote
Don’t feel too bad, Jerad. I think you are making a valiant effort to clarify things, to understand where you and UPB differ, to understand what exactly Intelligent Design means. But, you know what they say… "Never ask for clarification from a man whose soul depends on not being clear."

So, then, "every biology textbook" is in on the bait-and-switch tactic as well? I surely hope not, lest I'll be forced to write to some politicians and book publishers to see that it's rectified.

Anyway...

Evolution means that life changes over time. It doesn't answer the questions of to what extent and via what means. Those are additional questions that various branches of evolution attempt to answer; Darwinian evolution, front-loaded evolution, etc.

In saying that she's not "anti-evolution," the lovely Ms. Ftk is saying that she's not anti-life-changes-over-time (nor am I). However, that doesn't mean she's not anti-Darwinian evolution; she may or may not be (I am).

One can reject certain proposed explanations of how life evolved without rejecting the notion that it did evolve.

Likewise, a person can reject the notion that Neil Armstrong traveled to the moon on a bicycle (how) without rejecting the notion that Neil Armstrong did travel to the moon.

Life changed over time. <== Broad claim
Life changed over time via x. <== More specific claim; possible to reject without rejecting the broader claim.

Neil Armstrong traveled to the moon. <== Broad claim
Neil Armstrong traveled to the moon via x <== More specific claim; possible to reject without rejecting the broader claim.

Get it?

God, I feel like I'm trying to teach a group of mentally challenged third-graders here.

Date: 2012/06/23 17:50:38, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Jerad's really exposing the poor reasoning skills and underlying blind faith of the typical Darwinist. He repeatedly asserts that he believes "natural processes" can account for the origin of life, yet, when pressed on it, he provides no evidence for this belief. It's blind faith all the way down.

That seems to be a recurring theme with his ilk.

Date: 2012/06/23 17:54:40, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
I love watching Upright Biped and kairosfocus just annihilate the trolls who pollute U.D. It's such a joy. kairosfocus is especially brilliant. It's no wonder he's so hated here. He's like LeBron James -- so brilliant at what he does that it's almost scary.

Every single one of you who have had the balls to face kairosfocus in the debating circle  have been severely trounced. Every one of your claims have been demolished. He is a one-man, Darwinist-destroying machine.

How many of you wake up in the middle of the night with cold sweats after having nightmares of kairosfocus? Be honest. His superior intellect scares you.

Date: 2012/06/24 09:00:51, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer

Date: 2012/06/27 19:28:47, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Quote (Robin @ June 23 2012,09:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,15:00)
The argument regarding the source of the information found in life.

I.D. can explain it. Those who reject I.D. cannot.

Tsk tsk tsk...an argument isn't evidence, Jam. Care to try again? Should be pretty simple if there's mountains of it...

 
Quote
As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.


You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.

The argument for the semiotic language/information of life. Every time I've seen it used, whether by Upright Biped, kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, or otherwise, it's called Darwinists to grow red in the face and bluster about how they don't understand information, or semiotics, or they'll plead to blind faith in natural forces. "We don't know yet, but we'll get there!"

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence. Wanna falsify I.D.? Prove nature can do what you need it to. I don't think you can do it, chump. lol.

Date: 2012/06/27 19:32:01, Link
Author: Dr. Jammer
Sleazy Ken Miller is at it again.

Science and Religion at the Portsmouth Institute - Evolution News & Views

He may be the world's worst Liar for Darwin. I believe his dishonesty trumps that of Dawkins, Matzke, and even you illiterate, pockmarked basement-dwellers.

Kudos to William Dembski for calling this little bitch out on his bullshit. I eagerly await the day where Dembski slaps the yellow off of his teeth for all of his lies.

 

 

 

=====