AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Faid

form_srcid: Faid

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.224.230.51

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Faid

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/03/02 02:01:34, Link
Author: Faid
Lemme take a wild guess here...


...Money?

...Political agendas?

... A shot at fame?

Date: 2006/03/03 02:34:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote

You can't be serious.  I've had to re-register here four times because some moderator removed posting privileges from older registrations.  I had to create a throw-away email address at hotmail to get registration confirmation because dodgeit.com was disallowed on the last go-round.  And finally I can't even read this site, to say nothing of posting comments here, unless I use an anonymous proxy because all my permanent IPs have been banned.


Um, if you mean the problems with accessing the forums these last few days, that happened to many of us. It's fixed now.
So, don't worry, it wasn't an evilutionist conspiracy to keep you from posting your overwhelming "too easy- who's next" arguments. They're still inside the woodwork, Dave.

Date: 2006/03/05 13:40:02, Link
Author: Faid
Those comments take a really long time to appear, though, and others made later by Sewell supporters appear before them. It's almost as if there is some sort of debate on whether they should appear, first: I mean, Dave can't have actually spent four hours to read my comments... Maybe we're seeing a change of tolerance in the making?

Date: 2006/03/05 14:01:32, Link
Author: Faid
I think that idea might prove too expensive in the long run. Or at least it would seem that way to the financial recourses of the ID movement. It's true that constant long-term funding is already in effect, but it would be the first time it would be presented as essential for its future planning. And all the fundie funders who were promised fast results via PR and legal actions, will finally start to realise that the whole ID promoting scheme is a money pit.

Date: 2006/03/06 04:34:18, Link
Author: Faid
Haha oh man ,Dave is just precious. Someone should tell him that the reason heat entropy and information entropy are same in definition and behave the same way, it's because the first, according to modern physics, is an application of the second. That is why they follow the same laws, and why life on earth violates neither for the same reasons.

A really interesting sidenote:

Shannon, who first described information entropy, was at first reluctant to use that term, however applicable, since he was afraid he would be accused of "borrowing" terms of a field of knowledge that seemed entirely irrelevant at the time.
He discussed this with von Neumann, and it is said that he told him:
"Go ahead and use it: Since nobody really knows what entropy is, you'll always have the advantage in a debate".


If only the old geezer knew...  :p

Date: 2006/03/06 05:34:11, Link
Author: Faid
Um... in reference to Sewell:

Quote ( DaveScott the Magnificent @ Ruler of the Universe)
The man’s obviously a genius. Could be the problem with all the Sewell detractors is that it takes a genius to know one…  


OK, correct me if I'm wrong but... did he just call himself a genius?

What is it with these guys and illusions of grandeur?

Date: 2006/03/06 08:43:11, Link
Author: Faid
This afternoon (I live in Greece, btw, so we're GMT+2 here) I posted the following reply to Dave's comment in the Sewell thread:

Quote
Dave, your dye example is interesting in its way, but I fail to see why heating the dyed water to clear the dye would be more inneficient (and pointless) than making cold water pass through a filter to heat it up. It seems like you're mixing the analogies a bit.

Unless you mean that applying a filter implies an intelligent factor, in which case I have a question:

On my bathroom mirror there's a bottle of aftershave; one of those "cool" new ones that have two different coloured fluids, like oil above water (what can I say, I'm a consumer geek).
Anyway, if I shake the bottle really hard before I use it, the two layers diffuse and merge in a homogenous fluid. 15-20 minutes later, as I'm wearing my tie, I notice that the two layers are separated and distinct again.

Now, can you tell me what exactly is the "intelligent agent" that "induced" order back into that system?


Well, it's been almost 4 hours, lots of other people have posted, Davescott is around (since he edits all over the place) and my post still hasn't appeared. Hmmm.

Date: 2006/03/06 09:20:47, Link
Author: Faid
Now that I read Dave's arguments again, I think I know what he's trying to say. He thinks the "Unbake a Cake" argument refers to order and information, not in thermodynamics especially. That's why he speaks of "neatly measured amounts".
(The argument is in fact a thermodyamic one: it means you cannot get the igredients that baked the cake back, without 1. failing to retrieve an amount and 2. spending more energy than what was spent to merge them).
In terms of order, the argument is bogus to begin with. For Dave to have his neat little piles of flour and sugar and milk and proudly set them up on the table before even baking the cake, sugarcanes and wheat have to sprout and grow to be harvested, cows have to be born and raised to be milked.
Thank goodness that such quantities of order can, in fact, appear, because life (like intelligence) can decrease entropy without breaking any laws: Otherwise Dave would have to go on a serious diet.

Date: 2006/03/06 10:31:40, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 06 2006,15:40)
Quote

Thank goodness that such quantities of order can, in fact, appear, because life (like intelligence) can decrease entropy without breaking any laws: Otherwise Dave would have to go on a serious diet.


Why would anybody think that living systems or intelligence can decrease entropy? Entropy decrease is not something needed for living systems or evolutionary changes in those systems, and a good thing, too, since we don't see such happening.

Well, maybe I should have said "increase order locally" to avoid any misunderstanding with the tedious open-closed system ID semantics. I thought it was obvious though.

Date: 2006/03/06 12:48:04, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 06 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
Quote

can decrease entropy without breaking any laws


Quote

Well, maybe I should have said "increase order locally" to avoid any misunderstanding with the tedious open-closed system ID semantics. I thought it was obvious though.


The terms "open", "closed", and "isolated" are not "ID semantics". They are simply part of thermodynamics.

Yes, anything that indicates that what appears to be an entropy decrease is offset by a larger entropy increase elsewhere is a good thing. Being obvious is good, too.

Well, let me put it this way: I hoped that from my post it was obvious that I was referring to a local decrease of entropy in an open system, so that I would  avoid any phrase-picking from any Iders that might say "oh, so you agree entropy has to decrease, you didn't say nothin' about open or closed" or something misleading like that. That's what I was trying to say before, without much success. But I suppose you're right and we should always keep our guard up: The little quote-mining gnomes can be anywhere.

Date: 2006/03/07 14:55:48, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 07 2006,17:33)
Valerie sez:

"Individual photons do not have a blackbody temperature."

DaveStalin sez:

"I’ve had it with your crap, Valerie. This stuff is not hard to learn but you make no attempt, thinking you know it all already. Single photon calorimeter developed by NASA. Don’t bother commenting on UD for the next week. -ds"

Now, does the single photon calorimeter article Dave references claim athat individual photons have a blackbody temperature?  Does it in any way refute Valerie's obviously sound understanding of thermodynamics?

Oh man! I think you're overestimating Dave's argumentative logic a bit:

Apparently, he googled up 'photon temperature kelvin' and picked up the first result without reading it.

I'm completely serious: try it out!



Um, question:

In both the 2nd Law threads over at UD, all my posts (well except the one with the aftershave example I posted here too, Dave didn't like it for some reason) appeared at once, a good average 12 hours since having posted them.

Since they appeared in order of time posted, they were 'buried' by all the other posts that were made after mine but came up first.
It was difficult even for me to find them; some regular visitor in the thread who would have casually scrolled down to the end would certainly have missed them.

So I was wondering: Does this unnatural delay in appearing happen with other people's posts too? Because I think it might be a way DaveScott found to insure that "undesirable" posts will not be read by most, without having to go on a banning frenzy to do it...

Date: 2006/03/08 05:02:45, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 08 2006,09:30)
I'll never understand how an adult human being can write the part about how christians such as himself are intellectually honest, because they can without worry follow where any scientific theory goes, since science can never disprove or prove god; and atheists are dishonest, since they a priori must reject any science which implies the existence of god. (if you're confused by my paraphrasing, go read the original)

Whoa... that actually made me kinda dizzy. It can't be right: Steve must be exaggerating. I'll just go read the original...

...

...UGH

*thud*

Date: 2006/03/08 05:22:47, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 08 2006,00:29)
Faid: "Apparently, he googled up 'photon temperature kelvin' and picked up the first result without reading it."

Well, I'm not surprised at all.  Clearly DaveSnot either read without understanding that his reference made him look foolish (again?  Lord forbid!!!;), or hadn't read it at all.

Thanks for the Google search, though, that's funny (as in "DaveSnot's idiocy is further revealed, which is ALWAYS hilarious!")

You know, I'm pretty sure he never read it. It was enough for him that the article contained the three terms together: After all, I don't believe he thinks that high of his followers to suppose some of them might actually try to read and critically address (heh) his link. As for the others, there's always the 'ban' button.

This whole thing was just a scam to get rid of Valerie, who was systematically making him look like a fool without giving him any excuses to ban her.
That guy is just too obvious.

Date: 2006/03/08 09:05:58, Link
Author: Faid
To (mis)quote Borges:

A basic rule of slander is the Total Reverse of Terms: According to that, a person (or an idea) should be accused for what is obviously the exact opposite of its main quality.
Thus, a doctor must be blamed for deliberately causing infection and death, a tailor for promoting nudity, an executioner for unnecessarily prolonging life, an ant for being too lazy and a tiger too compassionate.
That is what makes slander more efficient- you can fight against lies, but how can you fight against absurdity?

Date: 2006/03/08 10:05:48, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm. Interesting, thordaddy. So, you seem to say that all the evidence for common descent actually speak against common descent; only if we had some evidence against common descent we could succesfully establish common descent.


...


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh man, You just made my week.

Date: 2006/03/08 16:26:03, Link
Author: Faid
If there is something Dembski is good at, it's finding complex and intricate ways to be wrong.
Check out this logical fallacy: Since some professor of biology in the 1920's didn't get his facts straight about the latest of his time in Physics, supporters of evolution today must be totally without credibility.

It's like, from 'poisoning the well' to 'guilt by association' via 'post hoc'.

As DaveScott would say: "The man's obviously a genious".

Date: 2006/03/09 00:57:01, Link
Author: Faid
Steve, that was hilarious.  :D


Another method DS is fond of is simply ignoring your submissions and not putting them up, however polite or calm they are. (At least that's what he does to me; I'm still waiting for my post on the ether thread to show up, and it was the first one).
I suppose he expects you to get flustrated eventually and submit an angry (or at least emotionally charged) post, and then he'll put that up and ban you on terms of language.

Dembski posted here bringing two new books to our attention. I simply posted a long quote from the link he provided himself, showing how both books are actually against ID (it's the end of the article he links to).
I don't have much hope of seeing it appear soon.

Date: 2006/03/10 02:45:41, Link
Author: Faid
When Dave wastes his time posting here and trying to pass as sensible and polite (he never makes it past a couple of posts), his pack of hounds over at UD (well pack of yapping poodles, actually) is always on the alert:

Quote
*From Dembski's 'Darwinists believe in the ether' thread*

3.
The ether wasn’t absurd at all - it was a resaonable hypothesis at the time, given the then known properties of electromagnetic waves. Now, quantum mechanics and relativity ARE absurd - and so is the idea that some invisable, unknown intelligent agent designed something like the bacterial flaggellum. Unfortunately for us, the universe doesn’t always accomodate our own definations of absurdity…

Comment by jimbo — March 9, 2006 @ 11:23 am

4.
Uh Dave? Dave?
We have an intruder.
Dave?

Comment by Red Reader — March 9, 2006 @ 2:07 pm


:D

Date: 2006/03/10 13:51:38, Link
Author: Faid
Unfortunately, for many people, that is the first rule for debating on the internets, religious apologetics or no: Act like a God. Never, ever back out from a statement you made, even the most trivial one, even if you were intoxicated and sleep-deprived at the time and the subject was confusing and irrelevant to your points to begin with.
If others insist of you to back it up, lie, confuse and mislead posting irrelevant links to look like you have a clue what you're talking about and, of course, mock and insult them, but NEVER admit to even the possibility of being wrong.
I'm beginning to think this is the only kind of 'science' ol' Dave ever studied.

Date: 2006/03/10 16:01:09, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 10 2006,08:45)
Quote
*From Dembski's 'Darwinists believe in the ether' thread*

3.
The ether wasn’t absurd at all - it was a resaonable hypothesis at the time, given the then known properties of electromagnetic waves. Now, quantum mechanics and relativity ARE absurd - and so is the idea that some invisable, unknown intelligent agent designed something like the bacterial flaggellum. Unfortunately for us, the universe doesn’t always accomodate our own definations of absurdity…

Comment by jimbo — March 9, 2006 @ 11:23 am

4.
Uh Dave? Dave?
We have an intruder.
Dave?

Comment by Red Reader — March 9, 2006 @ 2:07 pm


:D

As a small update, it seems that Dave has put his poodles on a leash:
Checking back on the 'ether' thread, I noticed Red Reader's "Intruder! Intruder!" post had been cast into oblivion.
I wonder if Master Dave rubbed poor RR's nose in it first...

Date: 2006/03/10 22:40:31, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Caledonian @ Mar. 10 2006,23:37)
Y'know why?  Because this strategy works.  People (on the Internet, at least) fall for the oldest fallacies in the book.  In my judgment, people on the Internet are a much more representative sample than you'd experience in even a high school debate tournament.

This is why we're "losing" this war.  Those who pander to the lowest common denominator will always win popularity contests.

Well, let's just be glad that we live in a society where the principles of Science and the rules of education are not defined by popularity contests on the internets...

...N-not yet at least.

Date: 2006/03/11 10:17:34, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (egbooth @ Mar. 11 2006,15:55)
Quote
Didn’t your momma teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right? Give me her phone number. I want to call her up and tell her what a stupid child she had. -ds

Wait wait- somewhere in those 'yo momma' jokes and childish attemps at an insult, did Dave actually admit that he was wrong?

Oh man I hope he doesn't read this and realize what he did- the poor guy will have a seisure.

Date: 2006/03/11 10:40:14, Link
Author: Faid
Also, pay some extra attention to this part:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....l_unity

(not that I'm expecting you to do so)

Date: 2006/03/11 13:29:13, Link
Author: Faid
Some have, ol' one-eyes, some have. Whole nations once sacrificed horses and drank calva in honor of your username, more or less: would you say that those were delusional? or were they sane, they had a point, and we should be searching the ocean to find scientific evidence for the Great Wyrm? Or the root of Hyggdrasil or whatever it was called?
However, you do understand that applying validity to a theory because of its popularity is not how science works, right? 'x people believe in this' is not empirical evidence.

Date: 2006/03/12 01:03:41, Link
Author: Faid
Comment from the last thread over at UD:

Quote
A fully automated (mechanistic) view of the universe could be termed “seamless”. In systems design, a seamless system is one which has no “Man in the Loop”.

For example, NORAD has considered going to a fully-automated system, in which the launch capability of the US would be placed under the direct computer control, in order to react quickly enough to an attack.

Obviously a risky proposition. If we as designers consider seamless systems to be dangerous with the potential highly unproductive (even self-destructive) outcomes, how can we entertain the notion that the universe runs exactly along these lines?

Darwinist systems are goal oriented with “survival of the fittest” being the goal. If this is the accepted best strategy, then obviously, any defense system should be designed along these lines.

So let’s hear from the Neo-Darwinists: do your beliefs extend to defense policies? What would be the outcome of a world containing Neo-Darwinist defense systems?

I claim there has always been a “Man in the Loop”, and always will be. Seamless (fully automated or mechanistic) systems are for amusement parks and astronauts.


I have to say that ID "arguments" have developed (evolved?) an amazing built-in defense mechanism over the years:
By trying to figure out what they say and where the heck they're getting at, you get such a migraine that it's impossible to argue.

Date: 2006/03/12 02:15:13, Link
Author: Faid
*Sigh*

Quote
Faid opines,

However, you do understand that applying validity to a theory because of its popularity is not how science works, right? 'x people believe in this' is not empirical evidence.

But you are claiming this belief to be evidence of nothing?  Is this your claim?


No, I do not consider this evidence for nothing. I do not consider it evidence of any kind. How hard is that to grasp?


Quote
Again, how is "faith" acquired if NOT through the interpretation on empirical evidence?


Well, you tell me, thordad. Seems like your field, after all. How did the Norse interpret empirical evidence to believe that a giant snake circles the world, biting its tail? That Valkyries will carry their souls to Valhalla if they die in battle? What empirical observations led them to predict Ragnarok?

You see, religious faith is aquired in any other way BUT "interpretation of empirical evidence".
Unless of course, in your book, that phrase actually means "looking at the world and making up stories about it round the fire".
But that is not what science does, whether you like it or not.

Date: 2006/03/12 12:35:21, Link
Author: Faid
So, Thor, besides trying to insult us by using the word scientist in quotes (still a praise for me) and repeating your (already answered) mantra for the bajillionth time, do you have anything constructive to add? Didn't think so.

Quote
"Faith" is acquired by interpreting the empirical evidence.  Science DOES NOT allow any other process.


Wait wait- science determines how faith is aquired?
"Faith" in quotation marks?
Are we still talking about "millions of believers throughout history" here? Or are you trying to change the subject and claim you were talking about something else all along? Because you're not doing a very good job.
So, please clarify: What do you mean by "faith"?

...not that I expect a straight answer.

Date: 2006/03/12 13:43:44, Link
Author: Faid
I can't define it? Hey, I'm not the one who keeps putting quotation marks on it... What is the reason for that, anyway?

And of course, if you are going to keep referring to all those millions of people who "believed in an IDer over the centuries" as evidence, I'll just have to keep reminding you that those people believed in gods, and religious beliefs have nothing to do with "interpreting empirical evidence" or with any kind of science whatsoever (well except History of Religion etc).
That's what we've been telling you all this time, but you just don't listen, do you?

Oh and steve is right; you better make a new thread to answer. We'll answer there.

Date: 2006/03/13 00:31:37, Link
Author: Faid
And another one bites the dust:

Quote
Doug,
What about the many Christians (including Paul Nelson, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind) who accept the Genesis creation story? They are undoubtedly persons of faith, but their worldview is profoundly threatened by the abundant evidence for an old universe.

Unless you have some evidence I find acceptable that Nelson’s worldview is profoundly threatened I think you should take your comments elsewhere. -ds

Comment by woody — March 12, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

Quote
DaveScot wrote:
“Unless you have some evidence I find acceptable that Nelson’s worldview is profoundly threatened I think you should take your comments elsewhere.”

The fact that Nelson is a young-earth creationist is well known:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/ignorance.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310220173
http://www.nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf
and many others.

As a YEC, his view on the age of the earth differs from that of modern science by a factor of 450,000. To put that difference in perspective, it’s as if modern science is claiming that the moon is 250,000 miles away, but the YECs are saying “No, the moon is only half a mile away.” A huge difference.

When multiple fields of science converge on an answer that’s 5.5 orders of magnitude larger than yours, and your answer is central to your religious beliefs and to the perceived reliability of your holy book, I’d say your worldview is threatened.

Wrong answer. Go in peace but go. -ds

Comment by woody — March 12, 2006 @ 9:23 pm


Gee, I wonder what the right answer was... "Please forgive me Mr. DaveScot Sir, you're as a god unto men and I'm a tiny worm unworthy of your mercy"?

(Of course, we all know that the real right answer is "put a sock in it, Napoleon, and start behaving like a real moderator, if you got the guts).

Date: 2006/03/14 14:09:06, Link
Author: Faid
Oh man, did he actually say that the movement is "right on schedule"?
And I thought he was the smart one of the bunch...

Date: 2006/03/14 15:19:11, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
The methodological naturalist will choose a naturalistic explanation over a meta-nature explanation to be taught as the truth in science lessons even if it is not actually true.

Thus for a methodological naturalist it is perfectly reasonable possibility that in science lessons it will become necessary to teach children what is in fact not true and what is in fact known to be untrue for the sake of meeting the methodological naturalism criteria laid out by the grand assembly of the interplanetary science council.


Ah yes, that old "argument"...

1. 'Methodologicalnaturalists' deny supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.
2. But what if those explanations were true? That would make them liars.
3. Therefore, 'methodologicalnaturalists' are liars.

Funny thing... I've written a comment in a debate on UD just a while ago that addressed this exact way of thinking, saying it's just a "scientific" wrap-up of the old theological non-argument:

"You deny the existence of God, but what if God exists after all? wouldn't that make all your points invalid, and you just a stubborn denier of the truth? ...So there you have it".

...And then they walk away fast, before you have time to reboot your brain.

The only one who's walking out real fast is you, pal. -ds

Date: 2006/03/14 15:45:06, Link
Author: Faid
Well of course they are... My amazement was not because Dembski thought otherwise, but because, in that way, he actually made a referrence to the Wedge.
I mean, an actual reference. To the Wedge.
Since I don't think Dembski's lost it yet, maybe he was trying to give a shout-out to certain ears, so that certain hands will keep digging into certain pockets? Just a thought.

Date: 2006/03/15 00:09:05, Link
Author: Faid
Thordaddy, if you want to show that you're really interested in discussing and you're not just trying to be provoking and irritating, take this to the "Thordaddy post here" thread.

Oh, and while you're at it, please explain why you're putting those quotes round "faith" again kthx

Date: 2006/03/15 00:40:12, Link
Author: Faid
Well I finally made it, and without ever having to get angry or insult anyone (that was my self-appointed goal):

(From "water on Saturn's moon" thread)


Not that it matters, but my comment was this... (doesn't say anything we don't know, feel free to scroll down if you like)
Quote
"LoL! Keep moving the goal-posts! Purpose doesn’t have to be “some great cosmological plan”. A beaver’s “instinct” allowed it to create dams and lodges? That is just stupid."

Moving the goalposts? I thought we were discussing about some ultimate purpose behind the existence of the universe... Did I miss something, and we're now just talking about beavers and their ways? Either way, I explained that the "purpose" behind the building of dams by a beaver (like nests by a chicken, or anthills by ants) is none other than the creatures suvival: that is the ultimate goal of all life. That is no puzzle for science: what scientists seek to know, however, is what ways does life find to achieve this end, and how they are accomplished (and I do not understand your disapproval of instinct- do you think beavers are capable of abstract thought, or is the Intelligent Designer always whispering in their ear?). And of course, I suppose you agree that your other two examples are completely off the mark. We do not seek a purpose a comet might have for colliding with a planet: We look for the reasons
That led to the collision.

"That is your opinion. And you are welcome to it. Just don’t try to force it on me."

Nobody's trying to force anything on you- we're having a discussion, and it is you who asked for what I propose.

"True it was a given, but that was to demonstrate a valid point."

How can it be a valid point if the supernatural designer is taken as a given? In reality, the scientific method is not inconsistent because we do not know if there is a supernatural designer: we're working with what we have. That statement is just another way of phrasing the old phisosophical argument:
"You claim not to believe in God because there is no proof, but what if God turns out to exist after all? What would you say then? I bet you'd look silly"
...Which is not an argument at all.  

"There you go Phed. If you want to falsify the design inference provide evidence that supports option #1 or shut up."

I'm afraid you don't get it. It is neither my job nor yours to falsify either theory: It's the job of the theory's proponents to try and prove it. You see, there are three ways of trying to establish a theory:
1. "I propose theory A, and I will try to find evidence to support it"
2. "I propose theory B, but I won't bother producing any reliable evidence for it"
3. "None of you can definitely prove their theories, let alone disprove mine, so I can say whatever I want"
Now, which do you think is proper science, which is bad science, and which is no science at all?

"Scienec isn’t about “proof”.

From Dr. Behe:(...)"

Come on, don't quote Behe as an authority on what science is about- He claimed on the stand that astrology can be science, for crying out loud.
Science is indeed "an effort to make true statements about physical reality", But in order to do so in any meaningful way it simply has to figure out what "rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted". The whole scientific revolution of the past centuries is based on this notion that Behe finds mistaken.

"If science isn’t about finding the reality to our existence, whatever that reality is, then it is useless. Just as Mike Gene’s demonstrations states."

If you mean finding the reality of the universe around and within us, I wholeheartedly agree. If you mean finding some hidden meaning behind our existence, well, no. If that was science's true goal, it would have dissolved into philosophy ages ago- and I'll let you figure out how useful this would have been for today's world.

"The technology behind the internet is not related to the lame science you want us to believe in. "

Avoiding the issue? This is not about evolution ,or physics, or any particular field of science: It's about scientific methodology in general. *all* science follows the scientific method, not just ToE.
Now, do you seriously believe we would have the internet, or computers, or electricity for that matter, if science was not about finding *natural* mechanisms to explain natural phenomena? Think about it.

"BTW Phed- archaeology is filled with purpose- Why did people build Stonehenge? What is the purpose of the lines and figures on the Nasca Plain?"

So, now we've gone from looking for intelligent purpose in the properties of the universe to looking for intelligent purpose in intelligent actions? And it's me who's shifting the goalposts?
Even so, and although speculating on the purpose for the actions of people in ancient times can help in its cause (people are intelligent after all), search for purpose is hardly what archaeology is all about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
The real challenge in archaeology is not why Stonehenge was built (or the Nazca drawings, or the pyramids, you name it) but *who* built them and *how*. And that's where the scientific methodology is essential.
Think about it: Stonehenge seems like an impossible task for the people of that time (well it seemed, once). Should archaeology take into serious consideration the possibility that Merlin actually brought the stones floating in the air from Ireland, using his magic?
A lot of respectable authors of yore have mentioned that story, so it is backed up by authority- and it's much simpler than to imagine intricate constructions of wood and soil nobody proved without doubt they existed, and large groups of people working under the command of some geniouses that just could not exist at the time? All we have to do is accept the possibility some mythical person suspended the laws of gravity once, in an unexplained way (we won't go into that), and everything falls into place!

Once again, I'll leave it to you to figure out what we would actually know about the past now, if archaeology (and science in general) worked that way.


Quote
Comment deleted.

Phed, you’re not fitting in well here. I think it’s time for you to bother a different blog.

Thanks for all the fish. -ds

Comment by Phed — March 14, 2006 @ 5:13 pm


Should've seen it coming, but joseph was kinda getting on my nerves with his "shut up stupid" arguments...

I'll show you shut up, pal! you're outta- oh wait s**t
Um, could you like, register again for a minute?-ds

Date: 2006/03/15 09:09:04, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Note for Phed. I can see the email address you used to register at UD and knew you were Faid on ATBC since you began commenting here. Even knowing your duplicity I tried to give you a chance. You got the axe for being terminally stupid. Don’t flatter yourself or your playmates into thinking it was because your arguments were too good. Thanks for laughs though! I’m glad you found a circus where you and clowns like you can feel good about yourselves through mutual back patting.  -ds


Well Dave, since you obviously spend quite some time lurking here, lemme just grab this opportunity to say:

No s***, Sherlock.

So, in spite of my "duplicity" (obviously for you it's a crime if someone posts both in your forum and somewhere else) you decided to "give me a chance" (which obviously means "delete half my posts and make all others appear 24 hrs later")?
Tell me, did the thought I never intended to hide my identity or my views in  the first place ever run through your head? That much should be obvious, from my first post. So, why should I use a different IP address to post in your realm (like some other people I might mention have repeatedly done here)?
Is the concept of sincerity so alien to you, you can only attribute it to stupidity? Tells a lot about your character, Dave.
Speaking of stupidity, thanks for providing a link here so that your forum members can see that my post was neither insulting nor pointless, and there was no reason for it to be deleted other than that you didn't like what it said.
The point remains: During my brief stay in your lil' shack, I tried to express my dissenting views in a polite, debate-friendly, mild and unprovoking manner (often more than necessary). And that I did, in spite of various challenges from your hounds. If I got banned, it was for my views alone.
Now, I know I didn't really prove anything not known already, but a man's got to have some targets, right?  :p
As far as I'm concerned, you can go on believing the rest of the world is a maze of lies and illusions and the only reality is that little banana republic under your divine rule. I'm done trying to take any of you seriously.

Date: 2006/03/15 10:46:04, Link
Author: Faid
That's just great, Thor. Your first post in this thread was:

Quote
I think it's quite naive for "scientists" to continue to believe that only they can define science while it is clear to the rest of us ignorant folks that science is being define by judges, teacher's unions, liberal activist groups and so on and so forth.  Why not be defined by ID activists?  This is the fail-proof strategy?  

The gall in thinking that only scientists and those in the clique could define science while others are left to the sidelines, voiceless and oppressed, is so repungantly totalitarian that it is doomed to extinction in a society based on equality, tolerance and non-discrimination.

The masses will not stand for this elitists mentality that only serves to fatten the pockets and egos of those same elitists whether they be highminded scientists or low-brow liberal politicians.  What's fair is fair.

This is purely a propaganda war and the scientists need to quit thinking they can win this in the lab.  The fight is elsewhere.


Straight and to the point of the thread, I see.
After that, you post your "faith" question fourteen times, in spite of it being answered the first time, while avoiding and ignoring all calls for clarifying your position.
And now, you claim you were discussing "the post ID world" from the start.

How did that Commandment go again, Thordaddy?

Anyway, I'll be waiting in the thread made for you to explain what the word <quote>faith<unquote> means in your mind, and how exactly belief in gods comes from "interpreting empirical evidence".

Date: 2006/03/15 13:40:41, Link
Author: Faid
I'm seriously thinking of putting up a site about "information on the specified complexity in the design of Leprechauns", and see if the searchbot Dr. Dembski uses sticks it in his next post.
It might make the good doctor see it would help if he tweaked his engine's filters somewhat- or, at least, if he actually checked the results himself a little, before c/p them in his entry.

Date: 2006/03/15 14:38:42, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,20:22)
Quote
#

I have encountered critics of William Dembski claiming that his works have never been peer-reviewed, and hence lack credibility.

While I have not not been able to determine the validity of this claim, I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.

I know that Darwin was honoured, medalled, praised, granted, dedicated, and even buried in the Abbey. While these are certainly wonderful things, I would like to see a definitive list of hard peer-review credentials (or at least the 19th century equivalents)

If his works were to be (post-humously) peer-reviewed today, would ID advocates be included? Who would be considered Darwin’s peers, and what would be the likely outcome? Has anyone proposed this kind of validation?

I will stop short of outright Darwin-bashing, but really it seems his works have been held to a different standard than most.

Comment by bigtalktheory — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
Heh priceless. Where do they get these people.

:0  *tilt*

Date: 2006/03/16 01:39:19, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 16 2006,06:27)
Quote
I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.
Wich thread is that on, is it worth pointing out that Darwin and Wallace published a joint paper with the Linnean society before the publication of origin? Probably not.

You really shouldn't bother, Chris. It's also pointless to even try and explain that saying Darwin (or Newton, for that matter) weren't "peer-reviewed", in the way we use the phrase today, is like accusing Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar for never graduating from any military academy.
Perhaps worse.

Date: 2006/03/18 23:15:46, Link
Author: Faid
Publish? Hel no. He should teach!

Date: 2006/03/20 01:05:02, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Trying to converse with you is a bit like herding cats or knitting fog. It is very difficult to make any headway. What is worse, you apear to be deliberately making it so.

Unless you post your ideas, clearly I give up. Also we are on completely the wrong thread here and should move over to your own thread.


Hear hear.

Thordaddy, if you are not just another troll, and you actually have a point besides trying to show how "faith" is not faith and "evidence" is not evidence and "identical" is not identical, please make a clear and cohesive post -or just any post, really- stating your views, in your own thread (it's got your name, you can't miss it). And we'll take it from there.
Stop hijacking this one, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

Date: 2006/03/22 11:49:42, Link
Author: Faid
:08-->
Quote (tacitus @ Mar. 22 2006,15:08)
Quote
Although some other creatures, notably chimpanzees and crows, use primitive tools, no animal except us has ever joined separate components to make a tool — as in the haft and blade of an axe — and only humans have learnt to use containers such as pots and bags.

This is just so wrong it’s hard to know where to begin. Beavers select and cut down trees, trim them, haul them to the worksite, and cement them together with mud and clay to build artificial ponds and living quarters. Birds use all kinds of ingenuity to build nests. Bees construct containers of wax to store food and the ability of the food and the container to resist spoilage is enviable even by modern standards. Spiders bag their meals in handcrafted silk sachets. Dogs dig holes to store food.

It’s hard to believe the ignorant crap that finds its way into print. Did all the editors at the Times up and quit or something?

Comment by DaveScot — March 22, 2006 @ 6am

I love it when DaveScot begins with a sentence that describes the rest of his post to perfection!  Looks like another scathing post that is wrong in every way imaginable.

Wolpert states that no animal has ever built a tool from two separate components and DS goes on to give examples of tools um.. constructs built by animals using, wait for it, no tools at all.  Doh!

Oh, and spiders don't stick their prey in a pre-constructed bag, and since when was a hole in the ground the same as a bag?

Phew!  Close call there.  Looks like The Times editors are all alive and well after all.

Not if my superhuman powers of logic have anything to do with it  -ds

Oh boy, just when I thought that guy couldn't surprise me anymore...
Didn't anyone ever tell him that, before becoming Grand Masters in design recognition, engineers should show some skill in recognizing tools from materials?

Mr. Davescot, thank you for making the intarwebs an even funnier place. Keep up the good work.

Date: 2006/03/23 04:54:45, Link
Author: Faid
Dougmoran has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
I am a doctor (currently in my 3rd year training as an orthopaedic) and I support ToE. And I'm no freak exception either: I have met and discussed with more doctors than DM will ever see, and the vast majority of them have no problem accepting "evilution".
And I'm not saying they're filthy atheists, either: Most would fall under the "theistic evolutionist" category that Doug and Salvador despise.
The "MD=IDer" equation exists only in Doug's little fantasy La-La land, not in the real world.
In my hospital, I have only found one doctor who opposes ToE, and guess what: He's also a priest.

Date: 2006/03/23 05:23:03, Link
Author: Faid
Oh and about that other post by DS:
Quote
These are your schools, Steve. We’re trying to wrest control of the science curriculum from your ilk for failures of exactly this kind. You cannot call fairy stories of time and chance being able to create life and all living things “science” and then expect the same students to believe real physical science. Once they know science teachers tell fairy stories and pretend they’re as factual as gravity they lose all trust in science teachers. We can spoonfeed this stuff to you, Stevey, if you’d stop making faces and spitting it out.

In short: Somebody tried to teach evolution to this guy (and failed, obviously), but the mere effort had such an emotional impact to that poor kid that made it impossible for him to understand any science whatsoever.
Davey, if someone tried to actually spoonfeed such complete and utter BS to me, making faces would be the least I could do...

(edit: that's "her", not "him" -duh).

Date: 2006/03/23 11:07:29, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,16:38)
You seem to be fighting a losing cause?

Oh man, there goes my new irony meter too, and I just bought it...

Date: 2006/03/23 11:47:11, Link
Author: Faid
I don't think that something drastic should be done that's not already being done. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even matter if Larry is not banned right away and has time to post some gibberish before you track him down: All Larry wants now is to draw some attention to himself by pretending to be a martyr.
He probably visits other forums where he posts links to his comments here, to show how the panda's thumb is just a faschist site that bans all dissenters and deletes their comments- and he's the hero who defies them.
So, if there's anything more to be done, this is what it is (in my opinion):
Every time another incarnation of his gets banned, provide a preset link to a text explaining who he is, what his behavior here was, and his actions that led to his permanent banning (after a long period of tolerance).
If anyone prompted by Larry to come here is able to see a small summary of his stupidity, it would make his pathetic efforts for attention even more laughable.

Date: 2006/03/23 12:10:31, Link
Author: Faid
-Trolldaddy-
Quote
Science proves that AIDS is the result of homosexuality,and also that some "races" are dumber than others.

-Sane persons-
Quote
Science does no such thing, and also you are a racist bigot.

-Trolldaddy-
Quote
Denying the truth I see, and also name-calling. That proves you are not objective; I win at the Intarwebs.


Guys, stop feeding the troll already, and let it get back under whatever bridge he crawled out from. Sheesh.

Date: 2006/03/23 13:01:42, Link
Author: Faid
And the simple answer of course is that science has ruled both on claims of AIDS caused and spread by homosexuals alone, and of a supposed difference in IQ between "races".
And that rule is that both claims are complete BS.
The reason we don't hear about it is not because scientists don't try to defend their stance- they don't have to: Unlike with the whole antievolution movement, not even the fundiest fundie funder would be suicidal enough to fund a movement promoting racism.
Their PR department could try and make something with "we don't come from no stinking ape", but would lose their minds if they had to work with "white heterosexuals rule"...
So, thankfully, scientists don't have to spend that extra time  showing to those jerks how they talk out or their arse as well as the IDers.

...But you already know all that, right Trolldaddy? You're just trying to be provoking to gain some extra attention, as it slowly wanes. And it worked, too: You got mine. Good for you. Now go away.








...And no, I'm not discussing abortion with you. If you're running out of "agruments", well, tough luck: You shouldn't have come to a forum whose subject is clearly not your forte. Go find some abortion forum to do your trolling.

Date: 2006/03/23 13:34:09, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,17:56)
?

What I get is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to say that the fact ID can never be proven wrong and can only once (who knows?) be proven right makes it scientific for some reason. You seem to say that if you redefine "evidence" to mean just about anything anyone claims they perceive, redefine "empirical" to mean anything up to personal delirium, and redefine "intrepreting" to mean anything down to making stories up in your head, then ID can be considered science. And religion. Because religion would also be considered science. Or something. Then you say that we bend the rules.
Seriously, one post from that postmodernist generator above (seems quite a good one, btw) has more actual content than all your posts combined.

Date: 2006/03/23 13:42:24, Link
Author: Faid
Oh oh also: since, unlike religion, psychology can do no predictions and have nothing fundamental to say about the behavior of the mentally ill, then whaddaya say we let all those who have been deemed dangerous for themselves and others out of the mental institutions and send them to the nearest Christian colleges? Sounds a swell idea, don't it?

Date: 2006/03/25 23:56:26, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
In summary, naturalism may be true, but ID gives me reason to believe that it is not necessarily true. Unlike Oliver Wendell Holmes, I have reason to hope. This is a fairly simple distinction, and it never ceases to amaze me that so many people seem unable to grasp it.


What amazes me is what this guy is saying:
That a) ID may or may not imply a benevolent God, thus giving us room to dream, and
b) "Darwinism" simply has to be consistent with atheism and the ideas of Nietzsche(!;) and vice-versa.

On the other hand, what does not amaze me at all for some reason, is what he is implying:
That he needs miracles to believe.

Date: 2006/03/26 00:50:23, Link
Author: Faid
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/956#more-956

Wow... Did that woman fall off a horse when she was 19?

(obligatory H.L.Borges reference)

Of course, this has nothing to do with natural selection- much like Dr. Dembski's "logic" in his comment:

Quote
What is the survival and reproductive value of a perfect memory? Let me guess: the woman “AJ” described in the article below also has an uncanny ability to attract mates and has given birth to numerous offspring — all on account of her prodigious memory!


Duh. Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen different enviromental situations where a mere improval of memory would provide an advantage for natural selection. They do not (of course) involve attracting more mates to have offspring (although recognizing the healthy ones would help, too), but surviving long enough to have offspring.
Seems Dembski lacks even a fundamental concept of the theory he opposes.
Either that, or he just doesn't care anymore and posts gibberish to keep his blog going.

Date: 2006/03/26 07:54:38, Link
Author: Faid
Coming back to the medical doctors thread (which interests me personally):

Quote
“I fail to see how biology is outside the field of medical doctors. I took pre-med Human Anatomy and Physiology in college and I can assure you there was little if anything in it that wasn’t biology. Maybe some of the lab work where we learned how to use common clinical diagnostic tools wasn’t precisely biology even though it was about the metrics of biological systems. -ds”

The claim was a few posts ago that biologists weren’t trained to spot design. Is the claim now that medical doctors are?

You missed the point. It was obviously presented in a manner too subtle for you. Let me try to make it plain using small words. The point was that if biologists want to claim that they’re the only ones with the expertise to have opinions about biological evolution then by the same logic engineers should be the only ones with the expertise to have opinions about design. -ds

Comment by physicist — March 24, 2006 @ 3:19 am

(underlining mine, to show Dave what a doofus he is in case he's lurking here again)

Well, I never thought I'd say this Dave, but I wholeheartedly agree with you.
So, tell you what:
Next time some wiseass biologist shows up and starts using biological terms to describe designed systems (machines, buildings, code, you name it) and also claims that he's the actual expert (because, well, who can tell more about the biological aspects of design if not a biologist?) you can tell them all that, in eensy teensy words.
In the meantime, keep your design theories and expertise to yourselves, and away from biology.

Deal?

Date: 2006/03/27 01:10:44, Link
Author: Faid
LOL

Tiax,
Seems you struck a nerve. Ol' Dave couldn't come up with a response other than linking here.
Maybe he wanted to say just that, and you stole his thunder?

argystokes,
You should be ashamed of yourself. Editing your own comments, indeed! Get your act together, or pretty soon you're going to sink so low that you'll be deleting embarrassing threads whole, too... no wait

From the same thread, I saved this for posterity:



Guys help me out here... I'm confused. Seriously. Is he trying to be sarcastic, or is he a moron? Or both?

Date: 2006/03/27 14:34:53, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,19:59)
Dante,

The point is simple.  
[... :0  :(  ???  :angry:  :p  ;)  :(  :0  :0  :D ...]

Stephen, I think Xavier and Trolldaddy use the same generator.

Date: 2006/03/27 14:56:01, Link
Author: Faid
Well, in Xavier's defense, I don't think he's spamming around: He's just making fun of thordaddy's incoherrent posts. He's actually using a programm to generate its babble, I think: Looks like the Postmodernist Generator (can't find a link right now) but it seems better; I'd really like to know what it is.

Date: 2006/03/28 06:18:51, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I think the threats against Jones might be why DaveTard is perpetuating the "PT-burned-the-Alabama-churches" meme. You know, best defense is a good offense and all that.

Hmm. You've got a good point. Dave must be feeling he's stuck in defense too long. Heh.

Quote
It's all the more bizarre, in that we now KNOW that the arsons were done by a bunch of maladjusted nice Christian kids who probably never heard of Darwin in their lives

I know. When I read this, I thought "Dave pulled the evilutionist arsonists card again WHAT" and immediately checked UD... but it turns out he doesn't try to support it this time: he just left it hanging, as if the facts hadn't disproved it and its mere mention would validate it. Dave's dishonesty at its best.

Quote
but for DaveTard, it is politically absolutely necessary for those arsons to be the work of wicked evilutionist homo liberals, so that makes it true. His feeble minded followers want it to be true really badly, so they eagerly accept it all.

You're right. these people like to believe they've been prosecuted and opressed: it's actually essential to their worldview to believe they're "martyrs", because they think as (and are) religious apologetics.

...Oh, and before Lurkin' Dave starts babbling "yadda yadda I'm agnostic", maybe he should wonder why something as hilarious as FSMism makes him furious, while most (serious) Christians have no problem with it.
It's a parody of a religious movement, Davesy, not Christianity in general. Read the goshdarn link you provided for once.
So, relax and, in the words of another famous religious parody, always look on the bright side of life.

Date: 2006/03/28 07:30:54, Link
Author: Faid
And another sensible and polite commenter bites the dust, just for making mincemeat out of Dave's "evolution=atheism" arguments:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/960#comments
Quote
DaveScot,

Certainly Darwinian theory conflicts with some religious beliefs (young-earth creationism being the obvious example). Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller would tell you the same thing. The point is that it doesn’t require atheism. You don’t need to give up a belief in God in order to be a Darwinian.

Even the Wiesel 38’s definition of evolution is compatible with theism. They only state that the process of evolution itself is unguided and unplanned. It’s quite possible to imagine God creating the universe and then allowing it to unfold on its own.

You don’t need to give up a belief in God in order to be a Darwinian.

Of course not. All they have to do is pick a different God. Why don’t you practice that by picking a different blog. You’re just not fitting in well here. -ds

Comment by neuromonopolist — March 27, 2006 @ 1:52 pm


So, if you think that evolution does not interfere with belief in god, UD is not your blog? Noted, Dave.

Date: 2006/03/28 08:28:38, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
PS: Am I the only one who finds the idea of DaveTard being an authority of Buddhist history wildly implausible?

As implausible as Dave the "agnostic" trying to argue that Christianity is less violent than Buddhism...

Arden: You're probably right, but the title of the post went beyond that to straightforward mudslinging: "...from the church burners". GCT is right, I didn't notice that at first.
Turning to a slanderer, Dave? You're really starting to lose it...

Date: 2006/03/28 15:31:27, Link
Author: Faid
Sanctum, it's exactly the way Arden says. Nobody is seriously saying that the threats to Judge Jones were made by UD members (I mean, come on!;). The example was used precicely to show what a stupid connection Dave had made, and demonstate the obvious flaw in his reason: that "mocking the religious" in a forum discussing evolution and ID was the reason behind the arsons. IF that logic was valid, THEN we should also seriously suspect Dave as the Judge Jones caller himself; but we don't, because that kind of "logic" is seriously deranged.
Not that Dave will ever admit it, though. I mean, he's still actually calling us "church burners". Oh, he'll probably take it back eventually, but he'll do it after a few days with an "update" edit, when nobody'll be looking at that post anymore- and, like he did with Mr. Young, he'll phrase it in a way to make it seem like he's "giving way" because he's all too noble.
And so we're church burners now. I'd actually might be offended, if I hadn't learned many years ago that the insults from morons are like praise...

Date: 2006/03/28 15:49:01, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
So how do we tell the difference between a conscious dog and a conscious child?  Must it not be something outside of consciousness?  I call it a zygote.  What do you call it?


I call it a central nervous system, thorguy.

Date: 2006/03/28 23:59:07, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I can't imagine how anyone could possibly think that a freshly-fertilized but undivided human ovum could possibly be possessed of anything worthy of the name "consciousness," unless you're using the term in some novel sense that you have not yet defined.


Eric, he's using the term in the "Eternal Soul" sense, of course. Thordaddy, dont be ashamed to state your beliefs clearly: It might make your posts more coherent.

Anyway, things are simple:
Life (as in a living organism) does NOT begin at conception.
"Life comes from life", remember that principle so dear to creationists?
(and no, that does not disprove the theories of abiogenesis in the past- please don't try to derail the thread yet again at this point if you are even slightly honest).
What happens at conception (and I'm sure we both agree) is that the foundations are set for what will eventually be an independent organism- a human, in our case.
Now, we agree (science agrees) that this bunch of cells, if all goes well -and that's a big "if"- will become a human being.
But is it a human being now? Not that certain a fact.
You can argue that the human "soul" magically appears at conception, but I won't follow you there. Arguing that some supernatural, undefined and unobservable quality appears in a supernatural, undefined way in a living organism (much like ID, heh) Is not science.
I am sorry but, speaking scientifically, there's not much evidence of the zygote being "human": What distinguishes us as humans, our intelligence,
which is responsible (as in other creatures) for our self-awareness and also makes us capable of abstract thought, is entirely dependent of our central nervous system; and there is no trace of that in the bunch of cells that is the embryo the first weeks, let alone at conception.
If you think there's any scientific evidence supporting that, you're clearly mistaken. There is NO scientific controversy here. Only a moral and religious one.
(much like ID, but in the case with abortion all sides agree to the nature of the controversy -nobody tries to invoke science to prove the zygote is sentient and concious, that would be plain silly. :))
And so, there is no reason for such a debate to be held at schools (except perhaps in some moral class).
And that's as much as I'll discuss abortion with you (which even so, is clearly way off-topic). As for your other two arguments, they are both IMMENSELY inaccurate, and only prove the sort of bigotry one can find in whatever sites you dug them out of.
The whole "AIDS as a homo disease" argument is a bad joke (the reasons have been clearly pointed out to you by others already- sorry if you don't get them), and as for  that other "theory" that tries to force racism in science: the only serious attempt to do so was with one infamous essay, which was immediately discredited as statistically unsound decades ago (if it denonstrated anything, it was that black people in the US recieve less education than WEMs -duh).

And that is that. Now, do you have anything meaningful to add to this debate, or will you go on talking about abortion, trying to imply "soul" without actually saying it, and at the same time claiming you are not religious (yeah, right)? Because then I'm done here.

Date: 2006/03/29 00:51:29, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
It is interesting to read about how some Christians are so ready to distance themselves from the historical events like the Crusades or the Inquisition, and yet many modern evangelicals hold, as a virtual cornerstone of their faith, the most violent type of “inner inquisition” one could imagine: namely their unwavering conviction that anyone who doesn’t ‘accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior” is hellbound for all of eternity. I am certain that when Christ explained to his followers that what we do in our thoughts is every bit as powerful as what we do in our deeds, he meant just this sort of thing: from this perspective, how much better is it to let the “infidel” have his chunk of real estate while condemning him to an eternity of agony in your thoughts? What is more violent than that?

I don’t know about the level of violence in abstract thought not translated to action but I don’t question the level of inanity in the concept. Thoughts are not anywhere remotely near being equivalent to actions. A darned good thing too. Have you seen the Seinfeld episode “The Burning” where Elaine is going to #### and Puddy doesn’t care? If not you should and if you have you should watch it a couple more times. -ds

Comment by tinabrewer — March 28, 2006 @ 5:05 pm

(underlining mine)

Gee Dave, never thought of it that way... and here I was thinking that "hateful speech leads to hateful actions". Silly me.
:D  :D  :D  :D








...No no wait, you said "thought", not "speech", I get it now.
So, everything will be fine, as long as the fundies keep their mouth shut, right?
:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/03/29 01:18:22, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
But alas, he also outright rejects empirical evidence (originating in experience and/or observation) when he denies that "faith" represents empirical evidence for an IDer.


:D
Oh, you're hopeless.

Xavier: Thanks man! I see they've actually improved it!

Date: 2006/03/29 01:38:57, Link
Author: Faid
Heh. Dave must have looked up cognitive dissonance recently, and thought it was a cool term... :D

But the cutest part is that last paragraph where he lost track of what he was trying to say, and was all like "whatever, the genome is way too complex and evolutionists are jerks". AWWWWW

Date: 2006/03/29 01:53:45, Link
Author: Faid
I live in Greece, so my memories from fundie "arguments" are not as funny.
What I remember from 1983 is Orthodox priests and nuns outside schools, along with outraged parents, piling up the new anthropology textbooks (that briefly mentioned "Lucy" and Homo Erectus) and burning them, cursing atheist schoolteachers and politicians to He11.
And yes, I am also dead serious.  :angry:

Date: 2006/03/29 09:39:23, Link
Author: Faid
Arden, you're doing this all wrong. You don't have to provoke or insult anyone to get banned by DS.
He may be who he is, but he is gifted in the ways of the internets. He'll keep you there, moderating your comments first and picking the juicier ones to show up, thereby demonstrating what an intolerant, insulting bunch we evilutionists are. You'd actually be working for him.

You want a sure-fire banning strategy? Start having calm and polite conversations, avoiding any provokings and simply arguing.
Pretty soon your comments will start disappearing forever, and after a while you'll get an "I don't think you fit well in here" shove.
In reality, it's not flaming and mockery Dave hates on UD: On the contrary, he can put that to good use. What infuriates him is when someone simply and calmly lays all the "arguments" of him and his hounds to waste.
Try it: I give you 10 posts tops.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:49:35, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Like SteveStory saying I delete hundreds of my own comments that contain errors which is just pure fantasy. I deleted one article I wrote, the infamous one where I demanded everyone start respecting the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of common ancestry, and not a single comment of my own. I didn’t delete that article because anything in it was wrong. I deleted it because the negative emotion it stirred up threatened to destroy the community here.


Oh come on Dave. So, all those comments and threads deleted because they made you look silly never existed? Where's that thread where you complained about the trackbacks on PT that first time, for example?
We may be evil lying church-burners after all, but do you think all the people at UD have goldfish memory?

Date: 2006/03/29 10:32:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Mar. 29 2006,16:10)
Greetings:

I have been reading this thread for quite some time now, and I find it quite humorous. Not to derail Arden's current foray at UD, but I saw this quote and knew you guys would appreciate it.

Quote
DaveScot, you’re a genius and technically qualified to comment while I am not.


33% right, I'd say.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/967#comment-29307

Finally, a genious of an engineer has come to explain junk DNA and save the day!

(Oh man that guy is so pulling Dave's leg)

Hey Arden, I can't believe I missed this:

Quote
Besides, last I checked, those church fires WERE SET BY A BUNCH OF BOYS FROM NICE CHRISTIAN FAMILIES, not some wicked urban atheist evolutionists. Remember???

Maybe they were adopted.


Evilutionism is a genetic trait! W00t!

Date: 2006/03/29 10:51:28, Link
Author: Faid
Hey you guys, Fundamentalineists are a good 39% of all Dryergnomists worldwide, so that's alot of people you're insulting. Besides, Religious bigotry is a bad thing, no matter where it's aimed.
...Well except that sect of the Mother of Socks that Cannot Be Portrayed. I hate those guys.

Date: 2006/03/29 11:07:52, Link
Author: Faid
Oh and what about Desockism, that theory that says you don't even need gnomes, because after constantly spinning in the Wheel of Dryrma, the sock eventually transcends its sockiness and becomes nothing?
Boy, those guys are all holier-than-thou, claiming they're pacifists and such, but I know of many a sockfight done in their sect's name.... Sometimes even with socks stuffed with tissue-paper. The horror!

Date: 2006/03/29 15:14:03, Link
Author: Faid
:D
"Homosocksuality" must be like, getting a kick out of wearing identical pairs of socks all the time.

Date: 2006/03/29 22:59:40, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Faid opines,

(I got a real kick out of this one)

Glad I could provide some mirth for you, thor, since trying to provide some lessons in common sence bounces on the brick wall of your stubborness.
Quote
When one starts like this can anything after be taken serious?

You tell me. Your comment is:
Quote
So life doesn't begin at the beginning and life comes from life except when it came from non-life?  LOL!!

You're easily manipulative, aren't you? I knew you were going to make that derailment (and since I've said it now it's deliberate, not due to your stupidity) but I wanted to show the intentional dishonesty in your arguing. You jumped at the bait, proving my point. Thanks.
So, let's take this from the top:
"Life doesn't begin at the beginning" is totally inane, and it's your words, not mine.
"Life comes from life" is a principle valid when observing living organisms today. Do you deny it? Are you a spontaneous generation proponent?
A possible exception to that is provided with the theory of abiogenesis, that claims that the enviroment of early Earth permitted the creation of life. Besides that, from organisms to the cellular level, nothing living comes from something that wasn't alive to begin with. Plain enough for you now?
Quote
Oh wait... actually conception is the setting of the "foundations" of what will "eventually be an independent organism."  
As you state above, "[l]ife (as in living organism) does NOT begin at conception."  Conception just sets the foundations for LIFE!

Oh boy. Here we go again... So, in your mind, life=emergence of a potentially independent organism? Sorry, but no dice. ALL the cells in your body are alive, thor, whether you like it or not. Even outside your body they'll remain alive for as long as they can be sustained. You need to do some serious studying on what life is.
Quote
Wow, what a profound insight.  The question for science is when does it become a human being.  You say it's not at conception even though you readily admit this event to be the foundational setting for LIFE.
 (sigh) No I don't, thor. Read what I said above.
Once again: I am sorry but, speaking scientifically, there's not much evidence of the zygote being "human":
Quote
You beat that strawman up pretty good.  Have I made any mention of souls or supernatural qualities to bolster my debate that my life, your life or anyone's life begins at conception?
Of course you didn't- you're not that stupid. But I'd really like to know what exactly is this quality a zygote has, that provides all the characteristics that make a human human (conciousnes, self-awareness, emotions, intelligence etc) without requiring a central nervous system, glands or any organ and specified tisue whatsoever. And where it's located. And if it can be traced. I have a feeling this "strawman" is gonna get a good beating too...
Quote
But the last one's the kicker!  You're right, science has found many zygotes within the women's womb that turned out to be nonhuman.

Excuse me? do you think a zygote contains a
tiny homunculus inside, all cuddled up? You are so 14th centrury, thor. :)
I'm sure you know this already and are just trying to avoid it, but being something is much different than becoming something eventually. Would you try to walk over a bridge that wasn't built yet?
Quote
Intelligence is not distinguishable between a birthed baby and an adult dolphin.  There is little to no trace of intelligence or consciousness in a newborn baby and no child teenager or adult has ever claim self-awareness at birth.
There are plenty of traces of conciousness in a newborn baby, thor. You are a father, right? And, once again, self-awareness/=memory; We've been through that. Do try to keep up.  
Quote
You need other criteria to define human life.
Please provide some. Other than intelligence, self awareness, capability of thought process and emotional responce- all the things our CNT and hormones are responsible for. (I can feel that strawman coming)
Quote
If no one tries to prove the zygote to be conscious then how on earth can they claim it to be unconscious with any scientific validity?
By determining the features responsible for conciousness in humans, and seeing no trace of their existence  in the bunch of cells that is the early-stage embryo. Do you know of any other (scientific) way? (right this way, little "strawman"...)
Quote
I love it when the scientist proclaims the objectivity of science while interjecting his subjective values throughout his defense.
Than you get a glimpse of how people see you all the time, thor.
Quote
If you are disputing the statistical fact that homosexuals in America are a disproportionate carrier of the AIDS disease then please do.  It doesn't change the fact.  If living the homosexual lifestyle puts one at a unquestionably high risk for contracting AIDS, should a public school system teach of the normalcy of homosexuality?
Now who's "interjecting his subjective values"? The subject you wish to have taught in schools (abnormality of homosexuality) does in NO way derive from the statistical fact you mentioned (homosexuals being a high risk group). Anyone can see that, even people from those "lower IQ" races you seem to think exist. :p
Yes, homosexuals are a high-risk group for contracting AIDS. So are heterosexuals with multiple partners. and surgeons. and nurses. And those that work at rehab clinics.
Should we teach that surgeons are freaks of nature, because they have a higher chance of getting AIDS than other people? No. We should teach how AIDS is transmitted, and what we must do to prevent it. Should we teach that gays are an abomination that can give you AIDS because they're, you know, gay? Only in the Sunday School of Fundie Bigots. And in your mind.

Quote
A guy argues for the primacy of science and then makes a false assertion backed by no empirical evidence.  Too funny.   :p
And that last one made my day. Trolldaddy accusing someone else for absense of empirical evidence!  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
Keep it up lil'champ, you might learn something eventually.



...probably not.

Date: 2006/03/30 03:27:11, Link
Author: Faid
Thor, I'll be brief in my response because frankly, I think you already understand what I say pretty well, you're just trying to dodge and evade questions you know you can't answer.
Quote
So when I said that you said "life does not begin at the beginning," in what way is this different from you stating,"life (as in a living organism) does NOT begin at conception?"
Because conception does not mark the beginning of life. The sperm and ovum were alive in the first place. Period.

Quote
And when I said that you said, "life comes from life except when it came from non-life," how is this different from you stating that "life comes from life" with the possible "exception" provided by the "theory of abiogenesis?"
If that is what you meant, then you must explain why you thought it was a contradiction. Because abiogenesis describes the events that led to life on earth in the distant past. It has all to do with when life begun, but nothing to do with birth of an organism. Once again: Life does not begin at conception. It was there before that.


Quote
Actually, my conception equals the emergence of a independent organism.  Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree. The zygote is not already independent, silly. It is unable to sustain itself and grow outside the womb, and won't be for the next six to seven months at least, when it's barely able to survive being born. However, nobody argues that ability for independent survival is what makes a fetus human; I'm just trying to explain to you what happens at conception.  But this has nothing to do with whether it's human or not.
Quote
And please inform me of an emerging nonliving entity.
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? It's you that says there was no life before conception, not me.  
Quote
So only those things that are "alive" even have the potential to "emerge" (I assume you mean "emerge" to becoming self-aware).
You assume wrong. I mean to become a new fully formed individual of the species. Self-awareness, when we're talking about humans, is a good part of that, but not all. And I hope you finally understand that, yes, only a living thing might have the potential to become a new organism, but that doesn't mean that everything that does not have that potential is not  alive.
Well, a man can hope, right?
Quote
Now we can argue about which things that are "alive" that can actually "emerge," but there is no argument that you and I have "emerged" from our conception (beginning).  If you disagree and none of your individual living cells can "emerge" independently, when did you "emerge?"
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.


Quote
What's the evidence that it's not human?  I'll be intently waiting for this.  Both of us were zygotes and now we are humans.
It has no brain, no heart, no blood, no glands or secretory or circulatory system whatsoever, it lacks any kind of specified tissue that we have as organisms for the first week, and the first traces of a CNS take many weeks to develop. It simply does not possess the means by which it might produce any of the traits attributed to humans. Now, I'm eagerly waiting for your evidence that it is human -although something tells me I need to get a seat.  
Quote
Are you aware of nonhuman to human transformations?
Yes, pregnancy. :) Your point?  

Quote
The primary quality of a human zygote is that it represents the conception of a human being.  All those things you've listed that make a "human human" are meaningless without conception.  You're taking secondary traits (consciousness, intelligence, emotions) and claiming primacy while taking the primary trait (life) and making it secondary.
Aaand here we go again... Nobody's making the concept of life "secondary". We just say it was there in the first place. If you yourself valued life in general above human life, you'd be in serious trouble: You wouldn't be able to eat anything. Like I said, if you know of another way of distinguishing humans from other life forms other than those I mentioned, feel free to share them.

Quote
A new born baby displays none of the traits you claim makes a "human human" and yet you wouldn't dare say a newborn wasn't human, would you?
Yes it does display them, thor. If you are sincere and have actually kept a newborn in your arms, you just know this is true. The newborn displays emotions, shows curiosity and interacts actively with his enviroment. but the important thing is that, even if it didn't display them for some reason, it already posesses the means to display them.
Quote
You're only refuge is the existence of the alleged mechanisms for consciousness.  Yet, the mechanisms that created the mechanisms (CNS) had to be included somewhere within the zygote, no?
Mechanisms of mechanisms... interesting. I wonder what else you'll think off. Of course the genetic information for creating a human brain is inside the zygote- but that does not mean it is also expressed there, and the zygote already posesses the equivalent of a brain! Tell me, is it safe to walk across a bridge that's not built yet, because the blueprint is already printed?

Quote
I think the zygote contains all the information needed to proceed through the human life cycle including that information required for consciousness.  I don't think current science allows it to be any other way.
So? See my previous response. Oh, and that information came 50% from the sperm, and 50% from the ovum. Why do you attribute 0% importance to both? Unless you think that "something" happened when they merged, making the sum way, way, way more important than the parts... Hmm.

Quote
"Being something" may be different than "becoming something," but if that "becoming something" is ENTIRELY DEPENDANT on "being something" first then I would say that "being something" is very important indeed.
Important? Yes. We wouldn't have a bridge without a blueprint first. Same thing? Heck no.

Quote
Yes, I am a father and would love to read about these "traces" of consciousness in newborns.  Hopefully, these "traces" will include small children that haven't forgot their moment of self-awareness.
See above. Aaaand don't think I'll get tired of "reminding" you:
Self-awareness/=memory.

Quote
How about a human zygote for starters?
Um, no. Sorry. Again, see above. Or rather, see below:

Quote
You must concede that the "features responsible for consciousness" were at least existing in a more fundamental and unrecognizable form within YOUR zygote.  The question then becomes whether these fundamental "features" provided a less recognizable degree of consciousness.  It seems reasonable to me that one's degree of consciousness develops over time at least within the early stages of develop following conception.  You as a newborn may have been more conscious than when you were a zygote, but you are definitely more conscious now than you were as a newborn.
1) This "fundamental and unrecognizable form" is very well known; it's called genome. Gee thor, I wonder what else you might have been thinking of... :)
2) A gene provides no degree of its trait unless at the time it's expressed. Our brain does not exist in some platonic world of information archetypes, before being developed when the genes responsible start being expressed; it does not exist at all. Sorry to ruin your illusions.
Quote
In fact, you are claiming a self-awareness (at or around either birth or a developed CNS) and then a loss of that self-awareness only to reclaim a self-awareness that you don't recall.  Whoa!
What? I claim no such thing. Please elaborate. Oh, and of course:
Self-awareness/=memory.

Quote
When add to this that YOUR conception WAS REQUIRED for YOUR consciousness and you have no evidence of when YOUR consciousness began then it seems silly to assume that it began anywhere other than at conception.
Well, I suppose that, since my conception was necessary for me to learn how to drive, I could already shift gear like a pro at the time, and do some amazing drifts round the fallopeian tubes.
If only I had limbs, and a tiny Subaru Impreza... :D

Quote
I've said nothing of the wrong or rightness of homosexuality.  Science regularly determines normalcy and abnormality.  In fact, homosexuality was once consider abnormal by the AMA.  What scientific findings have allowed the AMA to change this designation?
Moving the goalposts, are we? What does that have to do with your AIDS example?

Quote
Homosexuality should be taught in it full scope like all other topics of importance.  That means the good, bad and ugly.  I'm simply astonished to hear these supposed rebuttals to the easily observable fact that practicing homosexuals present a very grave public health hazard that doesn't simply reside with AIDS, but all STDs.
And that is why what should be taught is how AIDS and all STDs are transmitted, and in what way one should stay safe, regardless of being a homosexual, a doctor or a regular teenager that bangs anything that moves.
Do you know how AIDS is transmitted, thordaddy? Do you know the reason that makes homosexuals a high-risk group, and doctors another? Or do you think it's something impure in the homo blood that attracts it?
Maybe you should look into this matter with a clear head.  

Quote
When you say we should teach how to "prevent it," in what way does this jive with teaching the normalcy of homosexuality?  All we should teach is that homosexuality is an abnormal (not normal) lifestyle that presents incredible risks to those that practice it including diminished life expectancy and death.
We do not, because it does not. It is not homosexuality that is responcible for the incredible risk: it's the lack of safety measures. Once again: Are surgeons freaks, because they are also a high-risk group?
Quote
Why are we teaching this statistically dangerous and deadly lifestyle to younger and younger children under the guise of a normal alternative lifestyle?
Please define what this "deadly lifestyle" is, and how science is teaching it. It's not up to science to say which lifestyle is or is not "normal". Science can only say how we can protect ourselves from STD's whether we are homosexual, heterosexual, drug addicts or medical personnel- the methods are pretty much the same, and the results equally adequate for gays and family men alike. Now, is there any more bigotry you'd like to share with us?
Oh and about that other forgotten "example" of yours- you know that science denies that "races" even exist, right?


PS. Did I say "brief"? Whoops.

Date: 2006/03/30 03:47:29, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 30 2006,08:12)
As for UD, that stands for "uncommon descent" does it not?  I have always wondered why they dont call it "Uncommon dissent", since that would be a nice play on the similarity between descent and dissent when pronounced badly, and also would suggest that this is a lone voice against the "Darwinian hegemony".  

Message to anyone reading this- feel free to steal the suggestion for your own blog, as long as you credit me with the idea.

Hey, that was my idea, too. Get in line!

(Actually, I'm pretty sure I've had that thought by seeing that title before- maybe on the url? Could be it was WD's original idea and dropped it when he realized it was incompatible with his claims for a growing ID support around the globe...)

Date: 2006/03/30 07:38:09, Link
Author: Faid
Seems like Barry the Apprentice is eager to prove that his knowledge in evolutionary biology is up to pars with that of Master Dembski.

The sad thing is that, in his case and jokes aside, he really believes the junk he posts is an actual parody of the mechanisms of evolution, and not a mere display of his ignorance.

Date: 2006/03/30 09:52:22, Link
Author: Faid
Poor Dave had to do the "update" when he found out that, in spite of his wackiness, Mr. Newmann is in fact an ID contributor. I can only imagine the look on his face...
Even so, something tells me this thread won't be around  for long. It certainly won't get many comments...

Date: 2006/03/30 10:49:35, Link
Author: Faid
Wow. The Crown Prince of Darwinian Flame Artists? What's your THACO, Ed?

Date: 2006/03/31 04:41:24, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,05:23)
Seven Popes,

Your emotional rant is quite unpersuasive.

Can you explain to me why teaching children about the normalcy of a high-risk and deadly activity is justifiable is not reprehensible?

I do find it interesting though that in the IQ debate, the scientists are trying to exclude a genetic cause in favor of environmental factors while in the homosexual debate, scientists are trying to exclude environmental factors and find a genetic cause.  

Hmm??

Thordaddy, enough with this crap already.

Define precisely this "high-risk, deadly activity" you speak of, and how exactly it relates to homosexuals and AIDS. Also explain what makes this activity a trait originating exlusively from the homosexual "lifestyle" (define that, too).

Also, tell us about this IQ "debate". Tell us which exactly scientific research has provided any evidence of intelligence "inferiority" between races, regardless of educational, financial, cultural and geographical factors. Try to exclude craniometric studies of the 1800's, if possible.

Put up or shut up.

Date: 2006/03/31 05:24:52, Link
Author: Faid
From his UD "explanation":
Quote
Actually I didn’t read the article until after I’d written both the opener and the update. I pretty much dismissed it as nonsense from the opening talking about angels. I didn’t change my opinion after reading the whole thing. It is utter nonsense not remotely connected to ID or science. I can’t imagine what Newman was thinking. Maybe it’s an early April Fool’s joke. Be that as it may, he’s still head and shoulders above Matzke based upon his past. Matzke has accomplished nothing noteworthy in his short life and deserved every bit of criticism for picking such low hanging fruit. -ds


Translation

"Well, I didn't read it at first, see, I just saw the opening and thought it was garbage. Then I read the whole thing and... Well, I still thought it was garbage... Whatever. Point is, Newman has a friggin PhD and that makes him way superior to that illiterate Matzke, who should be ashamed for picking on someone so inferior and...
No wait, how did that go again"?

Date: 2006/03/31 06:54:23, Link
Author: Faid
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mr. Salvador, thank you for your quick and decisive response to Mr. Davescot's demands for showing evolutionary research that provides testable predictions.
I believe I speak on behalf of all of us, when I nominate you for the "Darwin's Man of the Month" award.
It's the least we can do for your generous support and contribution.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/03/31 08:06:29, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I've held two newborns and I can say they looked no more conscious than Terri Schiavo.



WHAT

You're comparing your newborn child to a person in PVS?

You are a liar, thordaddy. You either lie about having children, or you lie about your children, which is worse.

Either way, I'm through wasting my time with you. Stupid of me not to do so before.

Date: 2006/03/31 15:50:55, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Exactly how is it going to matter whether the guy that fixes your car, delivers your mail, owns the gas station, know whether or not dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time?


I see... So, every comra... every person should receive only the amount of education necessary for his predestined role in society. Makes sence.

Let us know how the next five-year plan is coming along, DaveStalin.

Date: 2006/04/01 00:54:21, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Exactly how is it going to matter whether the guy that fixes your car, delivers your mail, owns the gas station, know whether or not dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time? Given your inability think through any of the nonsense you write I’m surprised that you know dinosaurs and humans didn’t live at the same time. Now go away and take both your brain cells with you. -ds

Because the child who might grow up to be a scientist, and make important contributions to our society won’t be taught science, and will instead end up to be the guy who fixes the car or delivers the mail. Sure, by the time they’ve grown up and missed their chance it won’t matter, but we’re talking about kids who still have a chance at growing up to have a job where science is important.

Excuse me for pointing out your illogic again, but ID doesn’t teach that that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. If a large number of people don’t know humans and dinosaurs didn’t live at the same time it’s the fault of CURRENT science education which DOES NOT include ID. Don’t be telling us IDers how to teach science when the Darwin apologists have failed so miserably. Three strikes you’re out. Goodbye. -ds

Comment by Tiax — March 31, 2006 @ 7:43 pm


Summary:

Tiax:
"You can't let public opinion dictate education, otherwise you'd have to teach that dinosaurs and humans lived together."

Davetard:
"And who says it matters whether people think dinosaurs and humans lived together or not?"

Tiax:
"But-but it does matter!"

Davetard:
"And who says it doesn't?"

[Tiax has probably encountered a stop error already trying to process that, but Davetard goes on]

Davetard:
"It's not ID that says that, it's you evilutionists that teach our children dinosaurs and humans lived together! You're outta here, pal!"


...I envy you, Tiax. Your exit from UD provided us with more Dave-related hilariousness than that of most others.

[edit] "hilariousness", heh. I'm just gonna leave it like that.

Date: 2006/04/01 02:28:00, Link
Author: Faid
Thordaddy is just trolling around, guys.
We've repeatedly adressed his "stated in no uncertain terms" arguments. He's repeatedly ignored us.
When backed into a corner, he starts to argue about something else entirely, responding to something else someone previously said. Then, after awhile, he posts the same drivel again.
When we asked him to stop hijacking the "post-ID" thread and make his own (we even made one for him) he ignored us. When he had no more room to back out in that thread, and had to face our questions directly, he made not one, but two new threads where he posted his same old gibberish from the beginning (I'm sorry, I meant "conception"  :p ).

My guess is he's not even a deluded fundie ID advocate: He's just your regular dishonest troll. Leave him alone. I know I should have done sooner.

Date: 2006/04/01 05:04:08, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ April 01 2006,10:49)
Basically, Dave is calling blogmate Salvador a dumbass.

I agree, Dave. Salvador is a dumbass.

Maybe he's angry with him for pointing him to evolution-inspired research with testable predictions?

Watch it, Sal... You know how trigger-happy Dave is with his Insta-Bannzor...

Date: 2006/04/01 06:24:43, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Russell @ April 01 2006,11:55)
I haven't been following the antics at UD. Could someone just summarize? Is Tiax a sensible person trying to confront the asylum inmates with sense, or is Tiax an IDer still trying to reconcile ID and reality?

I didn't follow Tiax's comments closely but, since Dave accuses him for "inability to think through any of the nonsense he writes", I say there's a good chance he was on the side of reason.

Date: 2006/04/01 09:04:27, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ April 01 2006,06:53)
Is the 2-month old OBL's son?

You know however, inanity aside, it would be interesting to speculate as to why exactly this was important to Trolldaddy...

Date: 2006/04/01 23:50:48, Link
Author: Faid
Man, there's actually one thing I envy about Dave: He must have a lot of free time on his hands.

Date: 2006/04/02 03:53:12, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ April 02 2006,06:41)
If you don't see your potential son and/or daughter as anything better than a dog, rat or fish then I suggest you get your abortion.

Coming from someone who claimed with a straight face that his actual newborn children (whose existense I seriously doubt) were no more concious than a comatose person, this is twice as hilarious.

For those who still have the patience and stamina to try and converse with trolldaddy: It's entirely possible to answer to his "arguments" by simply copy/pasting your previous comments. Saves a lot of effort.

Date: 2006/04/02 13:46:43, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm. There was something fishy about this from the beginning. Why would some whacko who says we must self-inflict genocide upon ourselves to save the spotted owl or whatever, get a long standing ovation? Did he give his lecture at a University, or at Arkham Asylum?
So I did some search, and first thing I found out is that Pianka is actually a famous and respectable scientist, and also admired by most of his students.
Now, in Davescoteian logic, that would be enough for me to accept any nonsense he might have said, but I searched on nonetheless.
So I read several comments on Pianka's views, and found the class that was the core of his lecture:
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio213/why.html

So... It seems that (surprise suprise) Pianka is not a  Eco-Nazi. He believes that the overpopulation of Earth, along with mankinds' abuse of it, has seriously damaged the ecosystem,to the point of total destruction. He thinks that this disastrous course can only be stopped by a drastic decrease of the human population. He thinks that an airborne ebola virus is an extremely likely scenario to cause this.
He does not propose that we deliberately plan this catastrophy, though. He does not say we must carefully devise, plan and execute genocide upon ourselves (he admits, in fact, our unwillingness and inability to control our population by much more, well, conventional means). He says that this disastrous pandemic is an extremely probable event, a result of the same ecologic imbalance our overpopulation has caused.
Granted, he seems to think this imminent destruction is not a bad thing: He views it as the only possible scenario in which both our species and life on Earth will survive. He does not say *we* should do this, however: He says it is going to happen.
And that is controversial, to say the least: An extremely pessimistic and cynical view- but it makes him sound more like Jurassic Park's Ian Malkolm (without the cool black suit), and less like some insane scientist, who plans to "intelligently design" some deadly strain of ebola virus and release it upon the world.
From all that I've read about this guy, I'm not sure I agree with him. I have a feeling he's more an activist than a cynic in reality, and his lectures are designed to deliberately scare people, so that he may more easily point to the problem of overpopulation (he may have a point, too: Sadly, that old Alternative 3 spoof did more to draw the public's attention to global warming than all lectures and research before that time).
But if I learned anything new (well, not new, actually) is how easily creationists resort to distortion of the facts and mudslinging to attack their opponents, even when they don't have to.
They could easily have mocked him for being an extremist, whacko scientist who thinks a global pandemic would be beneficial: But that wasn't good enough for them. Since they are on the side of good and justice by default, their enemies don't just have to be wrong, or even crazy: They must be EVIL.
So, Pianka became Dr. Doom, working on his doomsday machine in his secret underground laboratory with his lizardmen army.
Whatever, guys.

Date: 2006/04/02 14:37:40, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ April 02 2006,16:33)
Faid,

I said that my newborns looked no more conscious than Terri Schiavo.  Simply reacting to external stimuli doesn't constitute DIRECT EVIDENCE of consciousness, does it?  Do newborns do anything other than react to external stimuli?  Would you even know?

Quote
If you are sincere and have actually kept a newborn in your arms, you just know this is true. The newborn displays emotions, shows curiosity and interacts actively with his enviroment.

And:
Quote
You're comparing your newborn child to a person in PVS?

You are a liar, thordaddy. You either lie about having children, or you lie about your children, which is worse.

Date: 2006/04/02 15:07:28, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but what if the governments are planning something like this right now. I mean overpopulation is a serious problem (Mass genocide is not the answer to the problem, but the problem exists, nonetheless.) It’s not like they would announce their plans to the world. I’m sure if something like this were to be done, the “fittest” members of society would be the ones picked to be spared.

Comment by crandaddy — April 2, 2006 @ 5:12 pm


Well, Dante, seems you didn't have to wait that long...

Date: 2006/04/03 08:18:47, Link
Author: Faid
It's an Argumentum ad Copycatum: We mimic nature, therefore nature mimics us.

Date: 2006/04/03 09:23:35, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Chris: when you see a car, an airplane, a rocket, etc., do you doubt the intelligence of those who designed and produced them? When you see things in nature that is more complex than these machineries, isn’t it reasonable to say that there is intelligence behind it (as opposed to pure chance)? This is just a simple a minori ad maius argument. Unless, of course, you deny the intelligence behind man-made machines, in which case you’ve just insulted all the engineers in the world.

Comment by formlessandvoid — April 3, 2006 @


*sigh*

For an "a minori a maius" agrument to have any validity, it must refer to homologous systems.
(That's why it sucks as a theological argument, too.)
By assuming that man-made machines and life are homologous, you presuppose the very thing you're trying to prove.
Thanks for playing.

Date: 2006/04/03 09:44:04, Link
Author: Faid
Steve, if you and Arden hadn't got carried away, and wasted all that time church-burning, our plans for a global genocide wouldn't be so off-schedule.
If we don't hurry, we're gonna fall behind even further than the Wedge goals. Shape up, people!






Sanctum:
Quote
Unfortunately this situation, hardly worthy of any discussion, is showing all signs of blowing up all out of proportion.
You mean this "hardly worhty of any discussion" story that has inspired three threads full of hateful comments over at UD?
I have to say I agree.

Date: 2006/04/03 10:07:27, Link
Author: Faid
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/987
Quote
[From a colleague:] It is one thing to predict (however foolishly) that 90% of the human race will perish. It is something else to recommed that this happen on the grounds that human beings “are no better than bacteria.”

Should the job of a professor who taught that the Holocaust was an excellent thing and ought to be repeated be protected on grounds of academic freedom?

If not, then why should Dr. Pianka enjoy the right to profess his even more reprehensible teachings from a taxpayer-funded pulpit?

I'm surprised. I mean, I expected a post of this kind to show up eventually (who wouldn't, at UD?), but I thought it would be Dave who'd make it, not the good Doctor himself!
Maybe he's heard from the Department of Homeland Security, didn't like their answer, and got a bit annoyed...
Anyway, Dr. Dembski, it should be fairly obvious to a mind of your magnitude (and it probably is), but I'll point it out anyway:

The Holocaust = Crime against Humanity

Ebola pandemic = Natural disaster

Now read that again.
Seeing a potential benefit in the event of a global disaster can be far-fetched, even ludicrous.
It is still nowere near justifying and openly supporting a deliberate criminal act -not to mention one as systematically designed and executed (and as atrocious) as the Holocaust.

Date: 2006/04/03 11:51:57, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Readers, don't waste time with non-arguments like, "Well, who would decide who gets sterilized?" I already pointed out that it is a self-selection process. Anyone who wants an abortion-for-convenience can have one, for free, but they must be sterilized afterwards.

There is a catch here. You say that this will be a self-selected process for those that want an abortion for convenience- but whether each case is "for convenience" or "out of necessity" has to be decided by someone else first. And separating those two groups is not as easy as it may seem to you.
Maintaining control on the choices offered to the woman, by deciding in which category she belongs, is in my opinion a sure-fire way to let discrimination (and corruption) in through the back door.
So, nothing is gained (except perhaps another step towards a society where a woman's reproductive right is not a right at all).

Date: 2006/04/03 12:10:17, Link
Author: Faid
<edit> Also, this theory seems to me seriously flawed on the very moral grounds you're proposing.
If you consider abortion murder, how can you say to the woman "OK, we'll let you (and help you) commit murder just this once, and then we'll punish you for that by taking away your right to reproduction forever"? Where's the ethics in that?
If you don't consider it murder, what's the purpose of all this charade in the first place?

Seems to me more like a way to inflict punishment on the women who choose to have an abortion, than a serious attempt to solve the issue.

Date: 2006/04/04 01:56:56, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Spike @ April 03 2006,18:31)
Faid,

Wow! Just like I said. People who are normally quite rational get their panties in a bunch when it comes to abortion. (Me too!;)

Spike,
I don't think I get too excited over this debate. Not anymore, now that I stopped feeding the troll. However, I have one small request: Please don't get all thordaddy on me. I've had my share of that.

In my post, I simply stated two points that I thought were problematic in your "draconian" solution.
Most of your reply was questioning and attacking my beliefs (which I did not mention in my post), accusing me of loaded language for speaking about a woman's right to reproduction (when you refer to the zygote as a "little kid" whose right to life we deny), and arguing for your solution using wishful thinking.

Look, I honestly don't have the patience to explain my views anymore. It's not your fault for that, it's the troll's: I've been trying to punch through Trolldaddy's brick wall too long, and I'm tired. If you like, you can check any of my previous posts in all three threads (or is it four? I forget) where I repeatedly explain my views again and again- and you can point to any issues in them that need to be discussed, in your opinion.
(I'd just like to point, though, in case you think I haven't bothered to read your opinion -trolldaddy style :)- that I understand your basis of choosing conception as the beginning of  human life is seeing no argument that would convince you otherwise... That, however, does not necessarily make it true, and such "rational arguments" can be, and have been, produced by others. You can address or dispute them, if you like, but not deny their existence like thordad did.)

For now, let's stick to those two points I made:

For one thing, I stand corrected. You seem to say that the only necessary abortions are those made to protect the life of the mother, and all others are for "convenience" (even the ones to prevent the fetus from developing to a seriously ill child, with only a few years of torture ahead of it?). Well, I see no problem with that being enforced, in that case- But that's just it: Enforced.
Forcing the woman, who might even be the victim of others in this case, to suffer all the -sometimes disastrous- societal, financial and emotional problems of an unwanted pregnancy, or depriving her of the right to have children forever? There's just no way this draconian solution can be applied, unless under a very "draconian" regime. As for being not a law, but a societal norm, that doctors shall willingly practice (!!!!80): We live in the real world, Spike, not in a Heinlein novel.

You also claimed that you can argue against any justification for abortion as necessary for the woman using examples, but the example you seem to provide as a good one does not even mention the woman who gave birth to these kids, just those who adopted them- and therefore wanted them and could cope in the first place.
How does this address any possible problems of the biological mother? Not that there had to be any in this case, but the example is simply useless for arguing for or against them. It's just an appeal to emotion ("would you have these lovely kids aborted"?), already overused.
 
(Oh, and you challenge me to argue against it on the grounds of the women being lesbians- why should I do that? How does it relate to the problem? Are you actually asking me to create a strawman for you?)

And you completely failed to adress by second point. If this law is created under the moral concensus that abortion is murder, I cannot see how the enforcing of such a law is in accordance with its spirit.
You cannot help a person commit murder, even once, and then punish her for doing so!
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but this "law" seems to me to be more focused in wreaking vengeance upon women who decide to have an abortion, than actually preventing the loss of a human life that the zygote is supposed to be.

Date: 2006/04/04 03:41:02, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 04 2006,02:14)
Quote (thordaddy @ April 03 2006,23:19)
Stephen Elliot,

When we don't like the science (such as IQ differences) we look for other science to usurp it.  When we can't find the science (as in the gay "gene") we still make the appropriate assumptions (gayness is inborn).  The problem with science being intertwined with the bureaucracy of the US public school system or the judicial system is that science always loses out if it doesn't fit the right ideological protocol.  This is why we see no debates between science and the US public school system.

Certainly there is much controversial science to be had and yet we hear only crickets in the hallways.  Why is that?

What doe you want schools to teach about homosexuality or IQ tests?

Please try to give a clear answer (anyone willing to give odds on that happening?).

Trolldaddy can't put up, but he just won't shut up.
Betting that he'll actually point out eventually (and try to produce some evidence for) these "controversies" in science is like betting that Greece will win the next Champion's League as well (and I should know).

Date: 2006/04/04 03:50:23, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Tiax @ April 03 2006,22:01)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/570

Davescot says:

There is information on a blank CD. The arrangement of atoms, their position in time and space, IS information. Rearranging them changes the information but doesn’t add or subtract from the quantity of it. Information, like energy, can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/986

Davescot says:
The ordered deck has less information content because it can be described in a simpler fashion than a list of 52 cards. The only way to perfectly describe a random sequence of 52 cards is to list each card in order. -ds

Apparently CDs and decks of cards are different.  If you shuffle a deck, you get more information, but if you were to 'shuffle' the atoms on a CD, you just change information, and don't add any.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/697

Davescot says:
The question is whether there’s any new information required for speciation or is it just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs.

Deck chairs are also different than a deck of cards.

Hey Tiax! Welcome! I'm sure you'll have many stories to tell from your adventures in Dembskiland...

Yeah, and prepare to be re-banned, along with this here bozo -dt

Date: 2006/04/04 04:35:42, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
PZ is just jealous that another biologist, an overnight sensation no less, got a more militant reputation than Meyers’ own. Evidently Church Burning isn’t good enough anymore. Should we change their affectionate nick from Church Burners to Earth Scorchers in honor of Dr. “Doom” Pianka? -ds


Way ahead of you, Dave. I've already changed my nickname from "Church-Burnin' Faid" to "Faid, Destroyer of Worlds". Much more of a hit with the ladies.

I'll leave the "nuclear cleansing" idea to you, however. It's true, the other two connections were also your doing; but this was your puppy from the beginning, and I wouldn't want to get mixed up in a copyright dispute with you. You seem like a really intimidating guy.

OK, the red phone from the Doctor just rang, we have a go. Commencing banning on my mark: Three, two... -dt

Date: 2006/04/04 05:10:11, Link
Author: Faid
Oh crap. I tried to ever so subtlely change my nick to a cooler one, but Arden caught me...
Okay, okay guys. I'll be the Doombringer: Destroyer of Worlds is up for grabs. Better hurry though, cause I'll start using both.

PS: I think you have a point, Arden. Doesn't matter though, since the validity of their arguments will remain stuck to zero...

Date: 2006/04/04 10:05:35, Link
Author: Faid
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Dr. Dembski says some weird stuff:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/992#more-992

Basically, he's pointing to scientists saying that the possibility of the ebola virus to mutate to an airborne strain is very small, and concludes that such a scenario would imply that the virus has obtained CSI.
Now, that seemed like your average vague, untestable and meaningless argument for ID. But when I read the first comment, the concept of what he was saying (or what his followers heard) swam into focus, sort of:

If we ever discover signs of an airborne ebola strain, however isolated, weak and not easily transmittable it is, we can infer, using ID's faultless logic, that it was designed.

Think about that for a minute.

Date: 2006/04/04 13:12:05, Link
Author: Faid
I guess Dembski just wanted to show that his ski11z0rz in quote-mining are as good as those of his followers...
After the fifth post on Pianka, however, even the ID regulars are starting to feel the fishiness:

Quote
I need to wait for the transcripts to pass judgement. It seems to me that it is odd for hundreds of people to applaud the proposed murder of over 5.8 billion of their brothers. That accusation reeks of malicious manipulation, extreme paranoia, or more likely some combination of the two. It seems much more likely that it was an alrmist speach where the lefty academic says we are screwing the planet and if we don’t change our ways the planet is going to screw us. That kind of stuff I can see being enthusiastically recieved in academia even though it is tough to support with any well founded conviction. But, like I said, I will have to wait for the transcripts.

Comment by ftrp11 — April 4, 2006 @ 3:13 pm

Date: 2006/04/04 13:19:18, Link
Author: Faid
Beervolcano: It seems that, with the help of one of its founders, ID theory finally found its truly useful application in everyday life: providing support to conspiracy theories.

Date: 2006/04/04 14:28:08, Link
Author: Faid
OK, brace yourselves: Here's something nice about a UD poster for a change.

BarryA has the guts to stand on the side of truth and reason:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/990#comments
Quote
Generally speaking, under 42 U.C.S. Section 1988 any plaintiff who prevails in a suit brought to enforce a constitutional right is entitled to an award of attorneys fees as a matter of right. In other words, if a prevailing plaintiff in a constitutional case requests fees, the judge is required to award them. Repealing the offending policy at the last minute before the judge renders his decison does not usually let the government entity off the hook for fees.

Comment by BarryA — April 4, 2006 @ 6:03 pm


I suppose the truth was right in front of him (being a lawyer), but that hasn't stopped any of his fellow posters before -including Dembski. As for Davescot and the others- hah!
Pleasantly surprised by Barry. I hope Dr. Dembski forgives him for killing his post...

Date: 2006/04/04 22:54:33, Link
Author: Faid
*sigh*

Quote
Thordaddy, enough with this crap already.

Define precisely this "high-risk, deadly activity" you speak of, and how exactly it relates to homosexuals and AIDS. Also explain what makes this activity a trait originating exlusively from the homosexual "lifestyle" (define that, too).

Also, tell us about this IQ "debate". Tell us which exactly scientific research has provided any evidence of intelligence "inferiority" between races, regardless of educational, financial, cultural and geographical factors. Try to exclude craniometric studies of the 1800's, if possible.

Put up or shut up.

Date: 2006/04/05 01:05:50, Link
Author: Faid
From the "Why should Dover have to pay no fair" thread:

Quote
Huh, now this is interesting. Somehow not surprising. Why is it that the obvious always gets overlooked? Why not, if you want to know where a group or a person’s heart really is, follow the money…

Comment by carbon14atom — April 4, 2006 @ 11:13 pm


*BZZZZT* ohcrap

JEEZ GUYS STOP IT WILL YA
IRONY METERS ARE EXPENSIVE YOU KNOW
WE'RE NOT ALL RETIRED BAJILLIONAIRES LIKE DAVE
SERIOUSLY ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY ANYMORE

Date: 2006/04/05 07:22:22, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Ed Brayton in characteristic fashion dodges the real question. The new Dover school board was elected partly on a campaign promise to repeal the ID policy. Why didn’t they? Over to you, Ed.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:45 am


Oh, is that the real question, Davesy? Well, don't look at us...

Meanwhile, after EIGHT posts, the Pianka issue has moved beyond stupidity. It seems that the vultures have a plan: They found something they can work with (with a healthy dose of slander and blabber) to demonize their opponents and take their follower's mind off their continuous defeats. And they're putting all their effort towards this goal.

That's ID for you. Puuure science.

Date: 2006/04/05 08:49:04, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Update: Well, Ed responded fairly quick saying they DID repeal it on January 4th. But this was *after* the judge ordered it. Ed, as usual, deliberately or stupidly misses the point. The question is why didn’t the board repeal it on December 5th *before* Jones ruled on it. Back to you, Ed.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:45 am

Oh, so that was the real question after all...  :D

Date: 2006/04/05 11:00:23, Link
Author: Faid
Hey kids! Have fun with Dave's Logic™!

Voice of Reason:

"Rushing to repeal their policy before the Judge's ruling would have no effect on the outcome".

Davetard:

"Aah, but that's not the point! the point is, why didn't they repeal the policy like they said they would"?

Voice of Reason:

"They did, actually".

Davetard:

"You still miss the point, jackass. Point is, why didn't they rush to repeal before the Judge's ruling"?




Repeat 'till you start seeing pretty colours.

Date: 2006/04/05 22:51:56, Link
Author: Faid
Double-posted instead of editing. Sorry.

Date: 2006/04/05 22:57:02, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 06 2006,02:31)

Given the choice of saving a 2 year old. or 100 embryos (neither choice being related to you in any way) which would you choose? (BTW neither choice would endanger you).

Good luck waiting for that answer, Stephen. :)

However, it seems to me the troll has accidentally stumbled onto something: Evolution does have something to say on why we'd all be inclined to make the same (obvious) choice.
I'd choose the baby ,like everyone else (including thordaddy, of course, though he'll never admit it) and I think that, among all the obvious reasons for it (moral, social) there's also an evolutionary one: As a rule, we humans try to protect our young.
They don't have to be our children: We're more like wolves than like lions on this issue. The shape and sound of our babies instinctively triggers our affection. A petri dish does not do that.
So, even accepting trolldad's arbitrary parameter, I'm still choosing the baby. I also have my personal, moral reasons for that, of course: But, even when viewing this choice under the scope of ToE, well: My lineage will be lost, but the fact that I'd choose the baby is one of the reasons my (and everyone elses) lineage is here in the first place.


Hey troll, even with your own modification to the question, care to give an honest answer yourself?
Would you choose to save a baby, or a petri dish with your "descendants" in it?

Sorry, what was that? What? Oh, I thought you actually had something to say. My bad.

Date: 2006/04/05 23:08:03, Link
Author: Faid
Great. I doubleposted instead of editing, and now I can't seem to edit my posts at all (edit: works now). Sorry fellas.
Anyway, ignore my last sentence adressing thordaddy. I shouldn't have done it. I see he already made yet another thread, as meaningless as all the others. It's now more than obvious he's just your regular troll, please ignore him.

Date: 2006/04/05 23:27:14, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I take it back. A practical benefit occurred to me.

As long as these ebola boys are playing with fossil skeletons they aren’t communicating their dreams of exterminating the human race to innocent young minds.

I guess every cloud DOES have a silver lining.

Comment by DaveScot — April 6, 2006 @ 1:50 am

That's what you say now, Davey.
I'd like to see your face, however, when our unbeatable army of genetically-engineered Tiktaalik Zombie Lizardmen marches down your alley. MUAHAHAHAHA

Date: 2006/04/06 13:05:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Discovery of new extinct species… just for perspective there are an estimated 10+ million living species and only 1 in 10 of these have been identified. Moreover it’s estimated that living species account for only 1% of all species that ever lived. Finding rocks with imprints of heretofore unidentified ostensible transition species should be happening on a daily basis. The fact that it happens rarely and is huge news when it does happen doesn’t tend to support the generally accepted theory of evolution. Darwin was honest enough to admit this but his successors today evidently lack such candor. -ds

:D

Dave doesn't know much about fossilization now does he?

Then again, he doesn't know much about anything.

Also, it seems that he either supports or disputes common descent, whenever it suits him. Again, not surprised.

Date: 2006/04/06 18:06:53, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,18:38)
Faid opines,

Quote
But, even when viewing this choice under the scope of ToE, well: My lineage will be lost, but the fact that I'd choose the baby is one of the reasons my (and everyone elses) lineage is here in the first place.


You seem to be making the case for a "sacrificial gene."  If one has this gene mutation then his/her evolution no longer becomes primary but secondary to that of an evolutionary peer.  

Does evolution predict this?

:D
"Sacrificial gene"?
Read the post again, and try to engage some of your brain cells this time. I didn't say our instinct leads us to choose a strange baby over our baby, but a baby over a petri dish with a bunch of cells in. And I see you admit that would work for you too...
And with that, thanks for admitting that (always under your supposed logic) you'd rather save the life of one human being that's already born, than the lives of a hundred "human beings" not quite, um, human yet... Whaddaya know.
Shows how little you believe all the mumbo jumbo you've been serving us all this time, and you for the troll you are.
(I'll leave the part about how you'd let a baby die to try to save the cells of your "lineage" for others to judge).

Date: 2006/04/06 18:32:58, Link
Author: Faid
That's four D's, Dave, you counted "dodge" twice.









...Oh, was that a joke? Sorry. One can never be sure with you, being a joke by yourself and all.

Date: 2006/04/07 01:40:24, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Seven Popes @ April 06 2006,18:12)
I wonder who has more STD's and domestic violence, redneck men or Lesbians?  Should we teach the virtues of the Lesbian Lifestyle, and warn the flower of American womanhood about rednecks?

LOL!

Who said you can't know your science and have a sense of humour at the same time...

Date: 2006/04/07 07:42:15, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2006,23:36)
It's a Dodgeball joke, you foreigner.

Curse my unfamiliarity with pop culture!
Oh well, maybe burning down a church using spontaneously combusting ebola-engineered nanobots would make me feel better...

Anyway, after the Pianka story, here's a new acronym for the UD crowd:
Persistent Warmongers of Natural Disasters.


Beervolcano: I don't think Dembski pays much attention to what he posts anymore. He probably uses some filter on his search engine to come up with various seemingly relevant stories and just posts them, often without reading past the title. He just tries to maintain his presence on his blog, but he doesn't really care anymore.

Date: 2006/04/08 01:15:57, Link
Author: Faid
You know, I think an interesting scenario emerged.
Say that there is a fire in a clinic, and a baby dies.
We learn there was someone there at the time, but ignored the baby and rushed to rescue a vial containing one of his embryos instead and take it to safety, resulting to the baby's horrible death.
Everyone's appalled with that person's actions, and he's arrested and put to trial for criminal negligence (or whatever).
In court, his lawyer argues that his client is, in fact, a pro-life advocate. For him, a zygote is human the same way a baby is.
So, when faced with a choice, he simply followed his paternal instinct and tried to save his own first.

Now, I wonder what the public's response to that would be- especially among those of the religious right...

Date: 2006/04/08 06:17:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Is dwelling on Pianka really going to make us feel cleaner inside? I do NOT endorse snuff-talk of any kind, but fixating on Pianka’s alleged words is merely going to give us ulcers and high-blood pressure. Who needs that. We would feel much happier (and calmer) if we dumped this affair and went on to more fruitful activity-like looking for a Designer.

I can only speak for myself and the answer is yes, yes, a thousand times yes. -ds


I'm confused... Does Dave so vigorously agree that they should dump the Pianka affair after all (well what do you know), or that dwelling on it makes him feel cleaner inside?
Because I really don't know which is the lamest.

Date: 2006/04/08 23:34:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2006,15:55)
Quote

That is why I have specifically said "homosexuals" (gay males).

Can we get thordaddy on as an Uncommon Descent contributor too? Red Reader wants a slot, maybe thor can get one. That would the bomb.

LOL

You have my vote too, steve.
Hey thor, since the word "homosexual" excludes females in your book, does it perhaps also include heterosexuals with multiple partners- and doctors? Because if so, I might agree with you. You never know.
:D

Date: 2006/04/08 23:58:24, Link
Author: Faid
So, is that what your defense would be in the scenario I proposed?
Yeah, good luck with that, thor.

Date: 2006/04/09 00:23:25, Link
Author: Faid
Nike,

Don't bother.
Your arguments are straight and logical- unfortunately, they've been pointed out to thordaddy a dozen times at least -literally. For a dozen times he's ignored them and kept posting the same "questions" again and again -and again, and again.
That's what he does. When the answer to his "arguments" doesn't suit him, he ignores it. He answers to someone else, and after a while posts the same old stuff and claims nobody answered him.
When he's unable to avoid facing our answers, he bails out and starts another thread where he posts the same stuff all over again, trying to start a "debate" with someone who hasn't figured him out yet. He's got five threads running already for that reason.

Now, I don't know about you, but that spells T-R-O-L-L in my book.

Date: 2006/04/09 01:17:47, Link
Author: Faid
Well, I guess that the other 299 students who praise Pianka's class in that same site must be churchburnin' e-bowlah buoys, too! We have more members than we even knew!

It must be so, since the janitor's nephew caught a glimpse of Pianka in his lab one night, and he swears he's got the Innsmouth looks- and he's pretty sure he saw the ring of the Esoteric Order of Dagon on his finger.
You think it was a coincidence that Tiktaalik was discovered just now? And that they gave it that bizarre name?


<Insert unpronounceable hymns here>

Date: 2006/04/09 01:34:54, Link
Author: Faid
Oh, and speaking of wussing out:

Quote
Is dwelling on Pianka really going to make us feel cleaner inside? I do NOT endorse snuff-talk of any kind, but fixating on Pianka’s alleged words is merely going to give us ulcers and high-blood pressure. Who needs that. We would feel much happier (and calmer) if we dumped this affair and went on to more fruitful activity-like looking for a Designer.

I can only speak for myself and the answer is yes, yes, a thousand times yes. -ds

Date: 2006/04/09 02:23:39, Link
Author: Faid
Stop your gibberish, Thor. The fact that Nike doesn't know yet about your little charade with the words "life" and "human life" and their interchangeable meanings, doesn't mean that you can still bother us with it.
As for answers to your overwhelming questions, take the time and trouble to look back a couple posts in any of your trolling threads and just read them. Not that I expect you to, of course.

Date: 2006/04/09 05:43:33, Link
Author: Faid
It's possible that they were on his "favorite" list until now, and the comment appeared before he had a chance to inspect it. And then he couldn't delete it without looking like a jackass to his own crew (it's the telic thoughts blog, after all).
Better work on that comment filter a little, Dave.

Also, everyone should read this:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1018

It's so pathetically ridiculous, it's beyond any comment.
Is DS really who he says he is, or is he really some 14yo who just read his first A.Clarke novel?

Date: 2006/04/09 12:51:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,16:34)
Stephen Elliot,

You can no more differentiate between Cierra as a zygote and Cierra NOW than you can differentiate between Stephen Elliot at 9 and Stephen Elliot right NOW...Scientifically-speaking.

"Scentifically-speaking":
Quote
It has no brain, no heart, no blood, no glands or secretory or circulatory system whatsoever, it lacks any kind of specified tissue that we have as organisms for the first week, and the first traces of a CNS take many weeks to develop. It simply does not possess the means by which it might produce any of the traits attributed to humans. Now, I'm eagerly waiting for your evidence that it is human -although something tells me I need to get a seat.  


What we said, that part about actually reading the answers to your "arguments"? You really should work on that.

Date: 2006/04/09 13:20:48, Link
Author: Faid
So, when others say it's not right to defame a person based solely on hearsay, Davescot says "nah, they can't touch us, we can say anything we like, true or no".
Man, just when you think this person can't be more of a slimy jerk, it's like he looks at you and says "Oh yeah? Watch this"!

Date: 2006/04/09 14:09:38, Link
Author: Faid
And let's not forget that it's important for future doctors to know which are high-risk groups for AIDS (and HBV, and HCV etc) and, more importantly, that they are going to be in one (if they follow a surgical specialty).

Like I've (pointlessly) asked thor before, I really hope that doesn't make surgeons "abnormal" in his eyes.

Date: 2006/04/09 14:36:24, Link
Author: Faid
First:
Quote
We don’t have to refrain from voicing our opinions. Pianka is at least a limited public figure now and it will be exceedingly difficult for him to win a libel case against anyone even if our opinions are dead wrong. -ds

And then:
Quote
Give me a break. They’ve been intimidated by the potential for legal action against them. They were frightened into submission, plain and simple. -ds

...In his next gorram comment.

But this is the winner:
Quote
Here’s what I think about that. This describes a biologic weapon of mass destruction and Homeland Security would be irresponsible if they did not investigate what was meant by “we’ve got” which explicitely denotes possession by some group. Maybe Pianka misspoke or was taken out of context but given he’s a tenured biology professor at a major research university presumably with the knowledge and means to acquire and modify biological agents he needs to be checked out with a fine tooth comb. -ds


...So, if I say "What we've got here is your typical DS with his nonsense", does this mean I own Sherlock -I mean Davescot?
Heel, boy!

Date: 2006/04/09 14:47:30, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Russell @ April 09 2006,19:21)
Quote
I really hope that doesn't make surgeons "abnormal" in his eyes.
Well, surgeons actually are abnormal, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Hey just wait a minute now...












...H-how did you know?

Date: 2006/04/09 15:04:37, Link
Author: Faid
Is it possible that Dave actually believes the "space aliens" version of ID? And that's why he claims he's agnostic?

I'm now looking forward to the comments of other blog regulars to his claims...

Date: 2006/04/09 22:37:10, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm. Yes, but who did the front-loading, in Dave's mind? A natural, or a supernatural entity? I mean, it's easy to argue about "space aliens" using Behe's logic ("life on Altair 4 may not be IC, who knows, the point is it is here"), but Dembski messes with universal laws: CSI should be CSI, either here or on Cygnus X. If Dave has given this any kind of serious thought, he must see there's no way of avoiding Occam and his swingin' blade...
I still think this whole "agnostic" thing is just a front DS puts up

Date: 2006/04/11 10:34:45, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
it is, unless you consider they share a common psychological malady.

then it makes perfect sense.

ever talk with a true schizophrenic, or even seen a recorded conversation with one?

the parallels are simply too much to be a coincidence.

I'm not saying that all religious/utlra right wing zealots are schizophrenic, but there are commonalities, and similar defense mechanisms.

hmm, I'll bet a video of such a conversation exists somewhere on the net, or at least the text of such conversations.  If anybody locates one, post it here so you can see what I'm talking about; if i run into one, I'll do the same.



It's funny you should say that.. I still remember a dialogue in my book from my Psychiatry class in the University. It was a case of Altzheimer's turning into schizophrenia, and the conversation with the doctor was, more or less, like this:

"So who told you all that?"
"My father, just now." (his father had been dead for decades).
"Is your father here?"
"Oh, yes."
"Where is he?"
"He's hiding behind the flower pot."
"Isn't the flower pot too small for anyone to hide behind?"
"Look, you don't know my father. I know him, and I know what he can do, and I know what he told me."



Sound a little familiar?

Date: 2006/04/11 10:44:11, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Tiax @ April 11 2006,15:33)
He removed that sentence because removing explicit references to religion without changing substance make something not religious anymore.

LOL!

"Of Frauds and Scientists".

Date: 2006/04/11 11:08:05, Link
Author: Faid
:00-->
Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,16:00)

Quote
Lesbians are homosexual, they are also gay.


So as to clarify, homosexuals are gay males and lesbians are gay females.  They both represent gays in general.


WHAT

Oh man ,I'm so sorry I didn't pay any attention to this thread before.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/04/11 11:15:23, Link
Author: Faid
How about "go away, troll"?

Date: 2006/04/11 11:30:11, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ April 10 2006,04:17)
Faid,

That sounds more like a DEFINITION than an answer.

Are you actually bold enough to define human life?  Most of the rest of the "biologists" have found comfort in their state of ambiguity.  Imagine, a world in which we look to science for ambiguity?  Has #### froze over?

Pathetic, thor, pathetic.
You claim there's no way to differentiate a zygote from a human being, using science. I show you you're full of it.
You have no answer, and you (quite unsucessfully) try to change the issue to some philosophical debate for defining human nature, to claim there's no indisputable definition and therefore you can say whatever you like.

Save it for someone who buys it.

Date: 2006/04/11 11:59:18, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Russell @ April 11 2006,16:49)
I suspect he's phallocephalic.

:D
I'm gonna start using this word regularly from now on! Too bad we don't have one with a similar meaning in Greece...

Date: 2006/04/11 12:05:49, Link
Author: Faid
Thor, if by "common American reference" you mean "common reference by those Americans who use words without trying to find out what they mean first", then I guess you're right.
Try here for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

Date: 2006/04/11 12:26:30, Link
Author: Faid
It's a symptom of trolling.

Date: 2006/04/11 14:10:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 11 2006,19:00)
In short this thread is useless because people are having the exact same arguments on other threads.

Exactly. And that shows what thordad is.
In the beginning, I thought he might be another misled ID advocate. Later, he seemed more like an undereducated, arrogant fool who thought he could win internet debates using the oldest tricks in the book.
Now I know for sure he's just a troll.

Date: 2006/04/11 14:26:37, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 11 2006,19:19)
arden:

http://www.fing.it/

OMG! It seems the ability to use mobile phones was 'front-loaded' in fingers from the beginning!
Fingers were intelligently designed!

Sorry people, I'm switching sides now.

Date: 2006/04/12 00:17:47, Link
Author: Faid
Nonono, you don't get it. Saying a zygote does not possess any of the features necessary to be a human is not a scientific argument.
Saying it's a "unique individual, yearning for the world"- now there's science for you.


Trolldaddy, time to go bother some other forum, as your man DS would say. Quit wasting out time with your trolling.

Date: 2006/04/12 00:28:31, Link
Author: Faid
Chris, TD just wants to use his favorite "argument" without being the one to invoke Godwin's Law.
He's as easy to read as Dave's hand at poker.

Date: 2006/04/12 00:33:55, Link
Author: Faid
From last night's session:

Quote
"Pair o' Jacks, pal! Read 'em and weep!"

"Well, sorry to dissapoint you, Dave, but I have... Hey where did my hand go?"

"It got deleted, sucka. Read the table rules."

Date: 2006/04/12 07:52:58, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost, in a few words: What do you think the survey you linked shows about the homosexual "lifestyle" and how it relates to AIDS?
(Be so kind as to define this lifestyle, too)


I am eagerly waiting for your interpretation of the results.

Date: 2006/04/12 10:33:53, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Male homosexuality -> more likely to engage in promiscuous sex -> lack of concern for a sexual partner's welfare -> sociopathic behavior

This is just my hypothesis, but at least it attempts to explain the evidence, and it also accounts for the correlation between loose morality and violence evidenced in the overall community (high homicide rate during the 20's and 70's in America, etc.)


Well, since this is your hypothesis, and it does not originate from this survey (and I agree), can you tell me, in your words, what makes you think that the first correlation in your hypothesis (Male homosexuality -> more likely to engage in promiscuous sex) is valid?
Please do not use the high occurence of STDs as evidence, as this is the relation we're trying to establish- and that would be circular reasoning, worthy only of trolldaddy.
So, why do you think that a homosexual is inevitably (or even dominantly) prone to promiscuous sex and disregard for their sexual partner's safety, as well as their own? At least more than a heterosexual person would, under the same circumstances? And what evidence do you have to support this claim that homosexuals are prone to sociopathy?

Date: 2006/04/12 10:49:01, Link
Author: Faid
Flint,
Actually, I do believe that a large percent of homosexuals may engage in what Ghost describes as sociopathic behavior", although I seriously doubt that it's as large as that of sexually active teenagers, f.e. -or even young bachelor heterosexual adults, for that matter.
I just believe that the reasons for this are not related with homosexuality itself, but rather with the very act of discrimination against it.
But I'm interested in what Ghost has to say.

Date: 2006/04/12 11:20:10, Link
Author: Faid
No the reasons are different for teenagers (they mostly have to do with the feeling of invulnerability that comes with that age, in my opinion). When talking about homosexuals, it is possible that the fact they're treated as outcasts makes some among them feel and behave as such, making them reckless and with a knee-jerk reaction to any rules set in the society that makes them feel unwanted.
That, however, is not representative of homosexuals in general, and as a matter of fact it's something to be expected, to a degree, in any social group that's been discriminated against.
Unfortunately, to the minds of people like thordaddy, the exception becomes the rule.
But the main issue remains: Regarding safety from STDs, There is absolutely no difference between a reckless homosexual and a reckless heterosexual; The only issue with male homosexuals is the higher percentage of practicing anal sex, that can make them more vulnerable. But, like I've said before, that only means a homosexual should be more aware and careful; claiming that this makes them "abnormal" is like claiming that surgeons are freaks, because they have a greater chance of getting infected with STDs than other doctors.

Date: 2006/04/12 12:03:21, Link
Author: Faid
I'm sorry Ghost, but these are not just biased sites that cite studies. They are biased sites that cite studies by biased organizations (check out the "Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality", or the "Medical Institute for Sexual Health", and see for yourself). Also, they quote a 1992 biased book that in turn refers (not quotes) to two articles from journals of the 80's, claiming that they indicate this behavior. I could not find these articles, except as a reference in other biased sites. So, sorry, but it's still in your shoulders ,I fear- After all, it shouldn't be that hard to find an objective comparative study of sexual behavior in homo- and heterosexual adults... I actually believe you'll find a lot, if you look past your bookmarks.
You don't have to, however: I,m interested, as I said before, to know why you think this is so. I wanted to know more about this "common sense" bit: The reasons (obvious in your mind, I see) that homosexuals are more prone to disregard for their personal and their partners safety.
Can you elaborate?

Date: 2006/04/12 13:03:45, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Flint @ April 12 2006,17:29)
Quote
it shouldn't be that hard to find an objective comparative study of sexual behavior in homo- and heterosexual adults.

Oh yeah? I respectfully submit that "objective" in this context is indistinguishable from "agrees with my preferences."

Well, I do tend to prefer objectivity. Your point? :)

The thing is, everything can be (and usually is) interpreted subjectively. When conducting a study using the proper scientific method, though, it's important not to let our subjective opinion intefere with procuring the data -or distort them. That is bad science.
Now, I'm not saying that Ghost's studies are necessarily of that kind; I'm only saying that their origin (groups specifically created to serve and promote a particular goal) definitely calls for a sceptic approach. In that regard, studies from independent sources reaching to similar conclusions would be valuable.

Date: 2006/04/12 13:39:29, Link
Author: Faid
So, Dave is basically saying "I'm not really a jackass, I just act like one to increase traffic"?
The man's clearly a genious: Not even Bozo the Clown was that manipulative.
Keep "playing us like a fiddle", Davesy. We're thoroughly enjoying it.
As long as you keep entertaining us, you'll always have our support.

Date: 2006/04/13 11:11:18, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 12 2006,20:25)
Now, where's your evidence?

Hmm. You know, I think I can use yours, actually.

In the survey you posted, the larger percentage of homosexuals had 2 to 4 partners in one year. Since the other results seem evened out, more or less (those who had none, or one partner, were about as many as those who had more than a dozen) I can assume this is pretty close to the mean number of partners (at least I don't think it would be more than five or six, but someone more qualified can do the math)

Now let's be frank: 2 partners a year is not a lot. Four (or five, or six) might seem many, but the number's still normal for many young heterosexual singles. Perhaps there is a statistical difference (a direct comparative study would be required to show that), but it's nowere as significant as some would want you to think.

It most certainly is nowere near the outrageous, 3-digit numbers "indicated" by the studies mentioned in your previous sources. 100 sexual partners a year, fellating 106, ingesting feces (!!!!!...) of 23...

Do you think it's due to the "subjective interpretation of data" we discussed earlier, or is somebody deliberately twisting the data to make it show what they want? And who may that be?

Here's a hint.

Now for the main issues:
Well, if you say that by "common sense" you were refering only to the promisquity of homosexuals, then I stand corrected (although that's more of a "common conception" than anything else).

However, you did claim, when defining the homosexual lifestyle to me, that this promisquity in homosexuals leads to disregard of safety, and finally sociopathic behaviour-  you directly connected that with homosexuality. Do you retract that?
If you do, I completely agree with you and we have nothing to argue about; if not, you're just nitpicking.

You seem to agree with Flint that a reason for homosexuals to be more promiscuous could be the lack of the danger of a possible pregnancy (and I agree that this is something worth considering, too).
Well, besides the fact that saying "homosexuals are more active in pursuing sexual relationships because they feel safer" is a long way from calling them sociopaths, what of it? How does that differentiate a homosexual from, say, a heterosexual man with a vasectomy- or a woman with a permanent form of contraception, like tubal ligation, or even IUDs and vaginal rings, for that matter?
Why would a homosexual show more disregard for his own and his partner's safety? And, come to think of it, heterosexuals who do not fear pregnancy (and display reckless behavior, of course) would be more dangerous than gays for contracting and transmitting STDs, since they'd typically have a much larger group as sexual targets.

The issue is (and I already pointed it out): Why would a homosexual be more reckless, careless, inconciderate of his partner and himself than a heterosexual under the same conditions?


<edit> Was the Marxist remark referring to me? Well, if by "Marxists" you mean those among us that have a job and a life to look into, I have to agree with you.

Viva la Evolutión, comrades!

Date: 2006/04/13 12:17:35, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Johnnyb,

Wake me when you have some evidence of any organism that didn’t have a mother.

Even Jesus had a mom.  

Comment by DaveScot — April 13, 2006 @ 3:42 pm


Not gonna stay civil for long...

Date: 2006/04/14 03:18:01, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,April 13 2006,19:11][/quote]
Quote
It's nice to see you back!

Um, It's not like I went anywhere- I just don't have enough time to post all the time. Er, thanks, I guess?
Quote
Now, it's true that close to half lead relatively restrained lifestyles, while another quarter are roughly normal. It's the other 22 - 26 % that concern me. Keep in mind that the "13" and "30" are lower bounds; for the former we can use a median figure of 21, which is quite a large haul by non-rockstar standards. Worse yet, 10 - 13% claim AT LEAST 30 partners a year. What are the upper bounds? 50? 75? 100? Suddenly it looks a little more like Vegas.

Well, if you want to focus on the percentage that has many sexual partners, that's OK with me. I have to point out however that, as you were the first to point out, we do not have the original data available; so, saying "more than 30 = the sky's the limit = Vegas" is arbitrary to say the least.
Either way, that still proves nothing. A substantial portion of the heterosexual population also changes sexual partners frequently, and there's no saying they wouldn't be as dangerous, if they display reckless behavior. And it's the same with gays.
Quote
In an insular community like the gay community, this quickly leads to saturation.

Actually the spread of a disease in an insular community will quickly lead to saturation if the disease remains uncontrolled. Regarding homosexuals, I think the data says otherwise:
In the survey you posted, roughly one out of 45 persons suffers from infectious diseases (22% of 10%, iirc). Now, compare this with another insulated community, drug addicts, who are a high-risk group as well.
The infection rate of STDs in that group is exeedingly high, to the point of saturation, in fact. Now, what would differentiate drug addicts from homosexuals (and everybody else) in that regard?
That's right, disregard of personal safety.
Now, as for the African-American community: I have to admit I don't know much about it (not being American), so I'll take your word that the rate of STDs is high in it. But then, doesn't a high infection rate in a homophobic group demonstrate even clearly that it's not homosexuality itself, but other factors that are responsible for the increase of STDs in a community?
Quote
Having said that, what does one bad researcher have to do with the authors of the New England Journal of Medicine and CDC studies? I realise that they might be hard to find, but according to rumors, there's a whole world beyond the internet.

Oh, come on now. Should I start looking in University and hospital libraries to find out whether a vague, third-hand reference to some article is accurate? Would you?
Those people are the ones who try to quote authority to back up their arguments; shouldn't they produce the articles themselves, instead of quoting a book that refers to these articles and claims they indicate the numbers mentioned? Seriously.
Quote
Why would I do a thing like that? You asked me to outline an opinion, and I proceeded to do so. Now you're holding my cooperation against me.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate the fact that you shared it; It's just that I also asked you (and I still do) to give me the reasons for it. So, if you still believe that a homosexual is more prone to sociopathic behavior, well, why is that so?
Quote
What? Have you even read the whole thread? Here's the relevant excepts again:(...)

Um, how are your excepts relevant again? They refer to HIV+ men, not homosexuals in general.
It goes without saying that amongst HIV+ homosexuals (and all males), lack of constraint and disregard of consequences would be more prominent than in HIV-negative ones: That's how most of them got HIV, after all. The reckless behavior of this group does not show correlation with homosexuality; it simply shows they had a good reason to become HIV positive in the first place.

Date: 2006/04/15 05:59:12, Link
Author: Faid
Now, how did that go again... "Hateful speech leads to hateful actions"?

Who was the jackass moron who said that? Ima gonna insta-ban his a$$. -dt

Date: 2006/04/16 00:56:26, Link
Author: Faid
For Ghost:

Yes, it seems I missed the 6,5% mention. I tried to figure out the number looking at the data provided in 2.8: That 10,2% of the sample said they suffered from some illness, and that 20,7% of those (not 22%, as I remembered) said it was from infectious diseases (mostly HIV). That is one in 50 more or less, or 2%.

Now, that did seem small, especially for a high risk group- but I now realise the reason. In 3.5.8, it mentions that 4,5% claimed not to have a disability, although they were HIV(+). I can only assume that these people may be carriers but think of themselves as healthy because they have not developed ARC yet.

However, assuming that the actual number is way larger is completely unfounded and, IMO, based on bias.
Saying that a large number of gays does not get tested because they are reckless and don't bother is pure speculation, based on what you think gays do- would you say the same about heterosexuals? When was the last time you (or I) had a HIV test?
In reality, a group that displays  indiffference for screening would be one that is less aware of the dangers of AIDS, and heterosexuals fit that profile better.
Since you agree that about 3/4 of the sample display mild or normal sexual behavior, why is it not likely that the reason for lack of screening in a part of those is the one you'd readily assume for heteros -namely, that most of these people feel confident because they practice safety in their sexual lives?

And even if the 1 in 8 number is the actual number of HIV(+) cases (which would also assume that all those who think it's possible they have AIDS, do -and also that all those who have a partner who is a HIV carrier do so because they could care less, and not because they care enough to stay with him), It's still way off your claims for saturation and subsequent spread to heterosexual population. Again, compare this to IV drug users, where, when a STD is induced in an insulated urban community, it's rate quickly reaches 50% or more.

What this survey essentially shows is that gays are a high risk group, something nobody argues against: Nothing about promisquity, nothing about reckless behavior -which is why it was brought up in the first place.

Date: 2006/04/16 03:24:43, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm. The "logic" behind Behe's theory:

If you can't come up with any natural mechanisms (that I agree with) for producing a system, that means there aren't any, and the system is IC and therefore a product of intelligence.

Now, as for intelligence itself, it doesn't have to be IC because, you know, just because you can't come up with any natural mechanisms that will eventually produce it, well, that doesn't mean there aren't any.


Nothing complex about me reducing you to history, pal. -dt

Date: 2006/04/17 01:18:40, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost:
Two points: First, no matter how many annual partners a person has, he chooses one at a time. Maybe I'm wrong but, doesn't the chance of finding a HIV carrier remain the same (8%, in our case) every time he makes a choice? Disregarding the previous choices doesn't change the odds in any way either, since the sample is a substantial number (otherwise it wouldn't be statistically significant, anyway).
The main problem, however, is this: Your calculation implies that every contact between a HIV(-) and an HIV(+) person results in infection.
That couldn't be farther away from the truth.
Nevermind the fact that the HIV virus doesn't have a 100% transfer rate- Whatever happened to safe sex?
Are you saying that no homosexual uses protection during sex ever? Well, even if you believe that, it's not what the survey shows.
The fact is that practicing safe sex reduces the risks of being infected during intercourse to minimal numbers. And that's for gays and heterosexuals alike. It's true that some gays don't use protection often (then again, it's the same with many heterosexual males) and that's exactly where we should focus on: Educating gays -and all of us, really- to practice safe sex, not treat them like lepers because they are potentially "unclean".


PS. I know I said I wouldn't respond to the troll again, but this was too precious to let it pass:
Quote
You mean "homosexuals" can't marry people of the same sex?  I thought you were talking about an inequality in the law?  I can't marry someone of the same sex, either.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Oh man, this is just like that ancient joke...
Here it is, in case you don't know it -although I doubt there's anyone who doesn't:
(note: Italics for stupid fake Russian accent)
Quote
"USA is a free country"

"Well, so is the USSR!"

"That's BS- In the US, you can stand outside the White House in broad daylight, shout 'Ronald Reagan is an ***hole, and nobody will do anything to you!"

"Big deal- it is so in the USSR, too: You can stand outside the Kremlin in broad daylight, shout 'Ronald Reagan is an ***hole' and nobody does nothing to you!"


...OK, I didn't say it was a funny joke. But then, Trolldaddy isn't funny either; he's just a joke.

Date: 2006/04/17 01:48:30, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
My better half renewed my subscription [in SciAm] as a Valentine day gift. So now I have to read the darn thing out of respect for her. Curses.  

Comment by DaveScot — April 15, 2006 @


Um, Dave, I think your better half is trying to tell you something...

Date: 2006/04/17 23:50:29, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost,
I remain a little puzzled with your calculations... Then again, math is not my field, so it's entirely possible (even probable) I'm wrong- anyway, this is how I see it:
What we have here is not 4 independent events, and try to calculate the probability of their simultaneous occurence; we have the same event, observed 4 times subsequently.
Now, it seems to me that, whether we try to estimate the probability of 'x', or of '1-x', your method makes the results of the first measurement affect the probability of the next one, which seems kinda weird.

But like I said: It's likely that I'm simply misunderstanding this, and I apologize in advance; The real problem with your model, however, is that it's based on false assumptions. Assuming that 100% of sexual encounters with HIV carriers leads to infection is grossly inaccurate; using that assumption to base your model for the spread of the virus makes your model seriously flawed.
When you use words like major epidemic to describe your conclusion, your model must be realistic enough to describe the real data. Excluding the probability of infection during intercourse (which depends on the kind of intercourse, is small anyway -HIV is approximately 80 times less infective than HBV- and, of course, is almost negligible when safe sex is practiced) from your model does not make it simpler or more abstract: It makes it wrong.

And, of course, all this still has nothing to do with the supposed way that homosexual behavior, or lifestyle, affects the danger of HIV infection to the population. All we've established so far is that gays are, and were, a high-risk group. Nobody argues against that.

Date: 2006/04/25 23:47:46, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 26 2006,04:29)
Quote
Has anyone else noticed that (presumably philosophical naturalist) cosmologists are taking the idea of a multiverse — of which there is absolutely no evidence! — a lot more seriously since cosmic fine-tuning was discovered and widely recognized, since they need those probablistic resources to avoid the conclusion of intelligent design?
Has anyone else noticed that if you google "probabilistic resources" you only get pages associated with Dembski?. Kind of the same way that if you google "amino-peptide complex" (ie. protein) you only get pages related to oil of olay.

:D

Date: 2006/04/26 00:31:01, Link
Author: Faid
Man, this thread got all interesting while I was away...

But it seems trolldaddy remembered it too, so I'm afraid it'll be all downhill again.
Isn't anyone tired of replying to the same and the same "arguments" he makes all the time? I know I am.

Anyway, after looking through the posts again, it seems to me that the real issue debated here is not gay marriage, but tolerance of homosexuality in general. That's the only way the arguments presented against it even begin to make sense. I may be wrong, but I still have to see a convincing argument (or any argument at all, actually) that explains how legalizing gay marriage would result in any of the ill omens mentioned already (AIDS and other STD epidemics, tyrrany of the minority, increase in promisquity, crumbling of the foundations of society etc) becoming true.

As for this last topic drift to liberal bias in the media- I wouldn't know. I belong to that insignificant portion of humanity that lives outside the US, and if there's any kind of media bias in my country, it's definitely a conservative one.  :)

Date: 2006/04/26 05:48:09, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Flint @ April 26 2006,09:42)
Quote
But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date

Buried in here is the ever-underlying presumption that evolution is the morphing of some existing organism into another existing organism. In this case, afdave is complaining that gorillas haven't evolved the human ability to speak, or that chimpanzees haven't evolved human sexual cues. But humans are NOT the "evolutionary model" which gorillas and chimps have so far failed to achieve.

Creationists have difficulty with more than the slow rate of evolution (few clearly new species have evolved since humans have even existed at all; that's MUCH too short a time to see any extensive biological change). They also seem unable to comprehend that all lifeforms that have ever existed (including all those existing today) are evolving into something never seen before, entirely novel. They NEVER evolve into one another.

The reason for that is that creationists cannot escape their way of thinking, even when they "try". For them, Humans are the pinnacle of creation, sitting on the throne of life. We are perfect in structure and ability, made in the image of our, er, Designer, representing His ultimate and most priceless product. IF evolution were true, shouldn't all living things "aspire" to gain enough XPs to reach our level, so to speak?

Um, sorry about the lame RPG analogy, but I think it shows clearly how creationists must perceive the evolutionary process. In all their supposed humility, they are too arrogant to drop the notion that everything in life has rulers and servants, with themselves on the appropriate side. It's too deep inside their subconcious.

Pathetic, really.

Date: 2006/04/26 06:01:25, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
"The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe the Pyramids were created by the ancient Egyptians as tombs for their Pharaohs, using the means and knowledge available at the time... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of writers and researchers and a substantial portion of the public believes that the Pyramids were created by aliens -from Mars, Venus, the Goa 'Ould [whatever--not up on my Sci-Fi series], Alpha Centaurians, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the construction of the Pyramids has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief."


Aaaah... What an interesting world this would be, if only afdave was even remotely right...

Date: 2006/04/26 06:05:59, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,10:58)
OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ...

The logic works anyway ...

Nice try though!

So, life on Earth is a "heap", and it has a "top".

Thanks for making my point clearer, afd.

Date: 2006/04/26 06:27:30, Link
Author: Faid
Whaaa?

My idea of the "food chain order"?

Food chain? That's what you think evolution is all about- animals getting on top of the "food chain"?

Oh man, and you wanted us to explain evolution to you in 5 sentences?

Tell you what: Next time you go swimming, if you happen to see a white shark, tell him he's got your vote for public office and maybe he'll let you go.
After all, sharks in public office are quite common...

Keep it up, man, it gets better with each of your posts.

Date: 2006/04/26 07:34:11, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost can you please explain why gay marriage will destroy Western civilization thank you

Date: 2006/04/26 11:03:02, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost can you please also explain how gays refuse to be assimilated by Western culture thank you

Date: 2006/04/26 11:42:58, Link
Author: Faid
:02-->
Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,16:02)
Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that!

Oh, stop it, afd. People will think I've deliberately hired you to make my point clearer with every post you make.

Is it really that hard to realize that there is no "Throne of Life" for anyone to sit, humans, or chimps, or mosquitoes - or the worms that will devour us when we die? Do you really believe that we have a divine right -sorry, a Designer-derived right- of absolute rule over all life because we're the "best"? That all living things were meant by right to serve us, the Designer's favorite species? And you say my views have "implications"?
How many years of indoctrination does it take to develop this selective disengaging of the brain?

Date: 2006/04/26 12:16:50, Link
Author: Faid
You mean you actually have a clue of what he's trying to say there, however stupid? I don't.
Man, I can feel my brain cells burning just by trying to read and make sense out of TD's posts... :(

Date: 2006/04/26 14:11:59, Link
Author: Faid
Um, Ghost, speaking of keeping things in mind...
About, you know, that gay issue?

Date: 2006/04/27 01:01:06, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ April 27 2006,00:19)
As for your last 2 questions...  I'm not married and have never been and so the point is moot.

Oh my goodness, thor.

You have two children, and you've never even been married?

Congratulations, you just destroyed Western Civilization.

Would you like to play again (Y/N)?

Date: 2006/04/27 05:50:17, Link
Author: Faid
No.

Date: 2006/04/27 10:06:23, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=afdave,April 27 2006,11:34][/quote]
OK, so, you "don't want any criticism of your hypothesis", but you "welcome our comments"? What do you want, praise?  ???

Anyway... I'll pretend this "hypothesis" is original, and I'll also respect the fact that the next steps are yet to come (I reeeally want to see those). For now, I'd just appreciate some clarifications:

Quote
These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command

What do you mean by "speak"? Does this entity have a need to use words? What are these words exactly? In your hypothesis, I mean. Does this entity even have a mouth, and if so, why? It obviously is in no need of food or breathing. And why do you refer to it as "He"? Does it have a gender, and if yes, why?
Quote
This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."

Since your hypothesis delves into the "mind" of this entity, can you also explain the reasons it did this? For fun? Because it felt alone? Superiority complex, what? You may of course claim ignorance, but remember that your hypothesis already assumes full knowledge of the motives of this entity to create the universe- making humans. Isn't inconsistency to stop there?
Quote
Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.

How did humans disobey this entity exactly? Did it apply some rules that were broken, and how important were they, for their breaking to have such a disastrous result?
And if, like you said, this entity lived "outside time", in the past and the future alike, shouldn't it know that mankind would disobey it in the first place, when it made them, and take steps to prevent this instead of resorting to turning the whole universe into a reforming institute later on? Or did it actually know all this beforehand, and this is just an elaborate game it plays with us?
Quote
The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.

Now, since this entity knew this was going to happen anyway (being outside time and all) WHY did it let humans (as the world's "managers") to take it that far? And if leaving humans on their own was important somehow, why didn't it leave it that way instead of destroying its whole creation to restart? Something it must have already known, from the beginning of time, of course. Is this some kind of strange game for this being?
Quote
The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.  

Now, wasn't this being able to do practically anything? It did create the world, after all. If it wanted to get rid of all the bad fruit for some reason, why all the mess? Couldn't it simply zap all the bad guys to nonexistence, instead of destroying almost all its creation, and devising some copious and risky plan involving floating wood? Does your hypothesis justify, in any way, such an illogical action from an all-knowing, all- powerful being?
Quote
Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

Everything you say here is in obvious disagreement with reality itself, but, like I said, these criticisms come with the later steps in your "theory", so I'll let it pass for now. Let's focus on your hypothesis:
Quote
We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

Hmm... Is there a proposed reason for this new trick of your entity? Was it getting bored? If it wanted people to speak differently, Wouldn't it make it so from the beginning? If it punished them for something they did, then, again, being all-knowing, wouldn't it know it would come to pass from the beginning and prevent it? Why wait for something it knows will happen, just to enforce a punishment? Is this entity a sadist?
Quote
Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

Saying that ancient jews had written documents when nations like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Minoans, Chinese etc did not is a gross inaccuracy... Ok, ok. just the hypothesis now, sorry. :)
Quote
We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

Is this person the entity itself? The creator? Then, your hypothesis is suspiciously near some old Christian heresy I've heard of- Monophysitism. Anyway, why did this entity come to this world to die? What was gained? Or is this another game?


There are of course many other questions, like f.e. how many humans were first created, how many survived the flood, and how humanity came from all those.... This could go on... And frankly it's pointless. I know you can easily answer all these questions, afd. "God works in mysterious ways". "Who are we to read the Lord's mind"? "It is so because so it was written, and the writing is true because the writing says so". And you know, all those answers work well- with religious indoctrination.
But you see, when you try to twist your indoctrination to look like a scientific hypothesis, like you do now, you just can't wave all logical inconcistencies off and be done with it. You have to adress them. That's why "mysterious ways" is totally useless as a justification. So is "You'll burn in he11 heathen".



PS. Sorry, "You have my prayers" is no good either.

Date: 2006/04/27 10:49:42, Link
Author: Faid
Well, if the sheep's an adult, and it can clearly state its consent (and sign the appropriate documents), then I guess it's fine by me...


...Not if both man and sheep are male, though. That's just sick.

Date: 2006/04/27 11:46:36, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then!


Did he mean that in Genesis Time?

Date: 2006/04/27 14:00:14, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm... maybe thordaddy is like drug users, after all: He knows that the "liberal lifestyle" is destructive for the individual and society, but he's so hooked to the obvious pleasures it provides (you know, no-strings-attached sex, hot girls putting out at his mere request, lesbians making out in public, the works) that he just can't escape anymore. So, all he can do is warn everyone else over the internet to save them from his gruesome fate... It's too late for him, but there's hope for others!


Thor, I take back everything I said. Don't ever leave.  :D

Date: 2006/04/27 14:22:04, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ April 27 2006,19:10)
... but there is evidence alright, and my guess is you've probably seen alot of it already ...

But that's OK, I'll be giving it again ...

*sigh*

As strange as it may seem to you, afdave, I completely agree.
I'm sure there's not going to be a shred of "evidence" in your reasoning, that we haven't seen a bajillion times already.

But by all means, go on. Surprise me.


Oh, and I almost forgot:
Quote
I think I will be able to answer many of them without recourse to "God works in mysterious ways" type answers ...


Um, you're gonna have to answer all of them that way, Dave. This is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis, remember?

Date: 2006/04/27 23:53:42, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Tiax @ April 28 2006,01:02)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1078

Is Gil

A) Legitimately unaware of the facts
B) Willfully ignorant
C) Borderline retarded
D) A witch
E) All except A

"Predictions that predict everything predict nothing."

While, as is the case with ID, predictions that predict nothing, predict everything? I see.


...I'll go with C).

And I especially like how davesy carried the goalposts a few parsecs away, going from "evolution makes no predictions whatsoever" to "not all of evolution's predictions have come true... yet".

BTW, Tiax, how come he still lets you post? His master must really gave him the slipper...

Date: 2006/04/28 00:07:33, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thurdl01 @ April 27 2006,13:27)
So wait, this is the same DS who calls people on our side Ebola loving church burners, but the concept of blowing up the New York Times gives him no pause?

He's also the same person who took pleasure in the thought of beating PZ Myers' face to a bloody pulp (this is no hyperbole, he was quite graphic about it), a few days after he said that we're church burners because "hateful speech leads to hateful actions".

Date: 2006/04/28 01:10:15, Link
Author: Faid
Eric, care to follow me in my "chimps for public office" campaign?

Date: 2006/04/28 01:20:42, Link
Author: Faid
The... cloud is a watermellon?

The banana has five sides?

A curse upon my #&%$&# 56Kbps dialup!

Date: 2006/04/28 01:41:47, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost, I've read all the examples you provided, and I have a question:

Do you think they deserve equal representation in the media?

Don't be hasty to answer... I don't mean compared to "majority against mminority" crimes; I mean, compared to each other.

Put the racial issue aside for awhile... Do you think that one of the murders you mentioned should have equal (no more, no less) media coverage with a kid hitting another with a rolled-up newspaper and making it woozy?

If yes, you must explain the reason for it... It can't be the kid's race, of course, because THAT would be bias.

If not, then how does simply pointing to all those various examples (and deserving of different coverage, respectively) help you make your point? If you want to demonstrate a bias in the media, showing any number of supposedly neglected incidents is not enough- shouldn't you compare incidents of equal severity? Shouldn't you, for example, prove that a white kid hitting a black one with a newspaper would get more publicity than a black kid doing the same to a white one?

Mind you, I'm not saying this is true or false. Like I said, I know little about the US media- the kind of discrimination that goes on in my country (and many other countries in Europe, I think) is definitely on the conservative side. For all I know, you may be right; I'm just saying you're a long way from proving it.

Date: 2006/04/28 02:04:22, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,06:18)
Quote
Dave, there is no top of the heap.

Wow ... that's TWO people now who think there is no 'top of the heap.'  My mind just WHIRLS with fun possibilities for debating this topic ...

...Four more years?    :D



To be honest, I was a little surprised at first... I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".


...But then I remembered you're a YEC.

Whenever you're ready, head-in-the-clouds-dave: Let the fun begin!

Date: 2006/04/28 02:28:26, Link
Author: Faid
Well, in all fairness, it could have been someone impersonating dave who said that.
Not that it's something he'd have trouble saying himself, of course. He's already proved that.

Oh and, also:

Quote
I think if there are people who would judge the merits of ID lacking by virtue of Ann Coulter’s position then those are people that the ID movement can survive without in the first place.


Oh my... Did he really say that?
Why do I get the feeling that, when Master Dembski sees this, he's gonna rub Dave's nose in it and roll up the newspaper?

Date: 2006/04/28 02:56:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2006,20:31)
believing in evolution made them have a gay marriage, whereupon the scale-free network catastrophe occurred, and gave him ebola.

Man, if signatures weren't so much against my internet beliefs, I would definitely sig that.

Date: 2006/04/28 06:07:48, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I think an honest (and bold) prediction of Neo-Darwinism should be that that the current understanding of the Cambrian Explosion is flat out wrong. Now, if in 5 or 10 years we find that the Cambrian Explosion wasn’t an explosion and we discover that all these novel body types that appeared “geologically overnight” in the CE actually formed gradually over a billion years, then you have a blockbuster prediction.


:0

...MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*gasp*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*wipes tears*


...Man, no money can buy this kind of entertainment.

Date: 2006/04/28 08:45:48, Link
Author: Faid
Wait wait- is undermining incidents of police brutality concidered a liberal bias in the US now? That's new.

Ghost, what did I tell you about quoting from biased sites? Let's see...

The logic of the author's piece in regard to the first incident goes like:

"The media are liberally biased, so they should always blow events of police brutality way out of proportion, regardless of their severity. They didn't do that here, and the only possible reason for that is (one of) the officer's colour. Therefore, the media are liberally biased".

'Nuff said.

As for Haggerty's killing: Regardless of what your site says, a simple googling shows that it was far from undermined- especially considering that there was no civil uproar and riots following it. And of course, the more liberal the media, the more vocal it was.

As for your third quote: I don't know about evil, but a nut... Tell me, if you hear a cop say "we're looking for a white car with white passengers", what's the first thought that passes your mind: That he's racially discriminating against people -and cars? what? Because I think the poor guy had a description to watch out for, and that description turned out to be wrong. I could be wrong myself of course: But like I said, an actual report of the events might be welcomed as evidence... Some guys babble is not.
Either way, even if it is so, how does it relate to liberally biased media? Were the cops deluded by the media in some way? Were testimonies of witnesses that said the killer was black get suppressed by the news? I'm curious.

And the fourth quote... I really don't know what to say. I totally agree with it: I think that the belief that serial killers must be white is as unfounded and dangerous as that robbers, murderers and rapists must be black. Again, I fail to see how this proves any "liberal bias in the media", however. Are you sure you quoted the right part?

Date: 2006/04/28 09:44:01, Link
Author: Faid
afdave:

Like others have said, your logic basically consists of:

-I try to explain my wet driveway
-I propose that it rained last night.
-I examine my driveway: It is wet.
-Therefore, it rained last night.

The observations you are trying to explain cannot also be used as testable predictions. This is a scientific theory now, remember?

Even so, your hypothesis is still not in accordance with observations.
Would an all-powerful entity, that made an entire universe for one species, waste so much space and energy for nothing? If the sun is an amazing power plant created for us alone, why are there so many others (billionz and billionz of them, as that late evil atheist would say), larger and more efficient, that burn in vain?
Also, where do you see this sense of "right and wrong" in the universe outside ourselves? Where exactly are these "laws" written in the universe? in the stars? the earth? where? The only ones that have them are humans- and perhaps, in a cruder form,  some animals.
Now, I know that the "Creator God" religion accepts and cherishes that, but how is it a testable prediction for the "creator god" scientific hypothesis? (remember, no religious arguments...)


Oh, and I'm an MD in my 30's, currently a trainee in orthopaedics.

Date: 2006/04/28 10:08:58, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 28 2006,14:42)
And of course there wasn't civil unrest in the Haggerty shooting: there was no honkey to pin the tale on:
Quote
From the day he took office, Rudy Giuliani threatened the foundations of the liberal worldview—denouncing identity politics, demanding work from welfare recipients, and, above all, successfully fighting crime by fighting criminals, rather than blathering about crime’s supposed "root causes," racism and poverty. It was a godsend for his opponents that the four officers who killed Diallo were white, allowing the incident to stand as proof of alleged departmental racism, the "dark side" (in The Economist’s triumphant headline) of Giuliani’s conquest of crime. Now it was payback time.

The Clinton administration jumped in immediately, sending FBI agents and federal prosecutors to the Bronx to help the local district attorney investigate the shooting and probably to start building a federal case against the officers and the department as well. The president denounced police misconduct (implying that the Diallo officers were guilty of deliberate brutality or racism); Hillary Clinton, readying her New York Senate run, let it be known that she was consulting with local Democratic pols about the Diallo case. Both the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the Justice Department announced investigations into the NYPD as a whole and the Street Crime Unit in particular; the Justice Department inquiry could ultimately—and preposterously—lead to damaging federal monitoring of the city’s police. The state attorney general started his own duplicative inquiry into the department’s stop-and-frisk practices. One Police Plaza has become a round-the-clock paperwork-processing center for the numerous investigations.

Meanwhile, Al Sharpton and other local activists were experimenting with various protest venues. Sharpton’s fellow reverend, Calvin Butts, announced a consumer boycott, whose relevance remained inscrutable. The Reverend Al finally settled on having his followers arrested for sitting in on police headquarters. His big break came when David Dinkins and Congressman Charles Rangel joined his protest and got their picture on the front page of the New York Times in plastic handcuffs. Bingo! The civil-disobedience campaign became an overnight sensation.

A wider range of Giuliani antagonists—and a very occasional, much-cherished "celebrity," such as Susan Sarandon—started showing up to be photographed and arrested. Not one objected to the vicious anti-police and anti-Giuliani rhetoric spewed out daily by Sharpton followers, nor did any shrink from linking arms with the city’s most noisome racial troublemaker, despite his recent conviction for slander in the notorious Tawana Brawley hoax. After the announcement of almost unprecedentedly severe second-degree murder indictments of the four officers, Sharpton and a coalition of left-wing labor leaders and Democratic activists organized a march across Brooklyn Bridge on April 15 to promote a hastily devised "Ten Point Plan" for police reform.

Nice story, Ghost. So, tell me, hasn't the idea that haggerty isn't a household name (boy you even use the exact same phrases as the sites you cite) because there were no riots and civil unrest regarding it, ever run through your head?


Quote

Because the media lied about the percentage of white serial killers,


What that it's 85% ? How did it lie, exactly? and where? and how did that affect police work?

Quote
and this, combined with the usual coverups, led to inefficient police work.

So, the police chief and the investigators that made the mistakes were in fact working for the biased media? thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, and thanks for the link, since it showed that the cop was, in fact, looking for a description, and that that other guy you quoted is a nutjob.



Quote

Paley's tune.

...Huh?  ???

Date: 2006/04/29 04:24:23, Link
Author: Faid
Once again, dave: your answer (although it's not yours, you're just parroting every known attempt to explain this) is, like I said, quite adequate- for religion.
It is not, however, scientific.
In a scientific hypothesis, you cannot explain the flaws in your assumptions by making even wilder (and unsupportable) assumptions: that makes the whole hypothesis a joke. So, you may argue about a supposed "genetic perfection" that would make incest possible then (although, if I may add, Cain was born after your entity put a "curse" upon the world, furious that its children- what? Ate an apple it said not to? Sheesh) But there is simply no way to scientifically support that.
For the same reasons, I could explain how your selective reading of your inerrant book failed to see that Cain knew his wife after he fled to Nod, and also that he built a city for just him, his wife, and his son.
Then, of course, you'd check your sites and come back with the pre-cut answers: that Cain was already married, and "knew" here means "had sex" (although his wife was never mentioned before) -and also that the Hebrew word translated here as "city" actually means "small town" that could hold as little as 100 people (which makes you wonder why these people, obviously brothers of Cain, were exiled with him- and, BTW, why don't they tell us what the ancient Hebrew word translated as "knew" in the case of Cain's wife actually meant, too?)
You see, it's all pointless. Assumptions, assumptions, and then more assumptions to explain them- and, the more you make, the more impossible it is to relate them with observations of the real world.
As a logical excercise that helps you defend your religious dogma, all this works fine- and, in fact, that's how it was meant to be used.
As a scientific hypothesis, it totally sucks. Sorry.

Date: 2006/04/29 04:24:23, Link
Author: Faid
Once again, dave: your answer (although it's not yours, you're just parroting every known attempt to explain this) is, like I said, quite adequate- for religion.
It is not, however, scientific.
In a scientific hypothesis, you cannot explain the flaws in your assumptions by making even wilder (and unsupportable) assumptions: that makes the whole hypothesis a joke. So, you may argue about a supposed "genetic perfection" that would make incest possible then (although, if I may add, Cain was born after your entity put a "curse" upon the world, furious that its children- what? Ate an apple it said not to? Sheesh) But there is simply no way to scientifically support that.
For the same reasons, I could explain how your selective reading of your inerrant book failed to see that Cain knew his wife after he fled to Nod, and also that he built a city for just him, his wife, and his son.
Then, of course, you'd check your sites and come back with the pre-cut answers: that Cain was already married, and "knew" here means "had sex" (although his wife was never mentioned before) -and also that the Hebrew word translated here as "city" actually means "small town" that could hold as little as 100 people (which makes you wonder why these people, obviously brothers of Cain, were exiled with him- and, BTW, why don't they tell us what the ancient Hebrew word translated as "knew" in the case of Cain's wife actually meant, too?)
You see, it's all pointless. Assumptions, assumptions, and then more assumptions to explain them- and, the more you make, the more impossible it is to relate them with observations of the real world.
As a logical excercise that helps you defend your religious dogma, all this works fine- and, in fact, that's how it was meant to be used.
As a scientific hypothesis, it totally sucks. Sorry.

Date: 2006/04/29 04:39:50, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (hehe @ April 29 2006,08:36)
Since it would be easy for "god" to create a partner for Cain, we should assume that there's nothing morally wrong with banging one's sister (or mother, or daughter) as long as deformed children are not born  :D

Yes, it seems that, in the universal and eternal moral codes this entity has set from the dawn of time, incest is just fine, as long as no offspring is produced nowadays.

Now it's my mind that whirls with implications...

Date: 2006/04/29 04:39:50, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (hehe @ April 29 2006,08:36)
Since it would be easy for "god" to create a partner for Cain, we should assume that there's nothing morally wrong with banging one's sister (or mother, or daughter) as long as deformed children are not born  :D

Yes, it seems that, in the universal and eternal moral codes this entity has set from the dawn of time, incest is just fine, as long as no offspring is produced nowadays.

Now it's my mind that whirls with implications...

Date: 2006/04/29 05:27:21, Link
Author: Faid
Hey Dave, here's another who thinks life on Earth has no "top of the heap".

Don't be surprised: There's actually quite a few of us- especially if you look into that "intelligent, educated segment of the culture".

Date: 2006/04/29 06:23:25, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, what we've patiently explained to you is that you cannot propose a "scientific" hypothesis where the very observations you try to explain are also used as testable predictions. Your, quite lengthy, reply, basically boils down to "Nuh-huh".

Imagine if Newton had said:

-I observe that things fall down
-I propose that it's God's Omnipresent Hand that pushes them down
-I predict that, if God's Omnipresent Hand exists, it will push things down everywhere in the world
-I examine the world
-I see that things fall down
-I conclude that my testable predictions have been confirmed, and God's Omnipresent Hand exists.

Do you really think that, in that case, anyone would think of him today as anything more than a crackpot?

I'm afraid I can't put it in a plainer way. Your arguments belong in theology, not science. You may try to display some honesty yourself and admit that, before you start implying that we are not "honest" when we read the bible and fail to see how it's literally true.

At least, please try and do some reading on the scientific method, to understand what it is. That's not much to ask...

Date: 2006/04/29 06:40:57, Link
Author: Faid
Also, regarding your response to me... Here's something that might help you understand why all this you've been saying is not science:

If the "prediction" from your "hypothesis" is that "God would create a unique and mostly efficient power plant just for us", how is that verified in a Universe of billions of galaxies?

If the prediction actually is "God would create a unique, special power plant just for us... and then, create a bajillion larger, more efficient and durable ones just because they're pretty", then how on earth does this "prediction" derive from your hypothesis? (other that trying to explain what you already see, of course... :) )






...You had "mysterious ways" at the tip of your tongue just now, dint'ya?  ;)

Date: 2006/04/29 07:12:56, Link
Author: Faid
Why so jumpy alluva sudden? What happened to your thick skin?

Quote
Well Faid, as I said on another thread, there are many people coming over to the AIG position, many of them who earned PH.D's at secular universities and were also skeptics like yourself.  Maybe you should talk with them.

Maybe I should... But now I'm talking with you.
Quote
And if this does not convince you

A stand-alone Argumentum ad Verecundiam (especially a highly disputable one) never convinces me.
Quote
maybe you should set up your own "Ministry" to convince people of you and your fellow skeptics beliefs.

Indoctrination is not my thing, thanks.
Quote
Maybe you could get invitations to churches if you were convincing enough.  Rent a sports stadium and have big conferences and promote your view in a big way!  This is America ... go for it!


...

...Um, you are aware that you're babbling now, right? Relax, man. Like I said, I have no problem with you using all these arguments to defend your dogma in theological discussions. That's why they were made. Just don't try to pass it off as science. That's all I'm saying.

Date: 2006/04/29 07:12:56, Link
Author: Faid
Why so jumpy alluva sudden? What happened to your thick skin?

Quote
Well Faid, as I said on another thread, there are many people coming over to the AIG position, many of them who earned PH.D's at secular universities and were also skeptics like yourself.  Maybe you should talk with them.

Maybe I should... But now I'm talking with you.
Quote
And if this does not convince you

A stand-alone Argumentum ad Verecundiam (especially a highly disputable one) never convinces me.
Quote
maybe you should set up your own "Ministry" to convince people of you and your fellow skeptics beliefs.

Indoctrination is not my thing, thanks.
Quote
Maybe you could get invitations to churches if you were convincing enough.  Rent a sports stadium and have big conferences and promote your view in a big way!  This is America ... go for it!


...

...Um, you are aware that you're babbling now, right? Relax, man. Like I said, I have no problem with you using all these arguments to defend your dogma in theological discussions. That's why they were made. Just don't try to pass it off as science. That's all I'm saying.

Date: 2006/04/29 11:13:09, Link
Author: Faid
Thanks, Ghost- after furiously googling and quoting (and... singing?  ??? ) you finally found something remotely relevant. A student essay from a criminal justice college, but still.
Now, I can't tell how these students fared in the subsequent debate -I'm interested in how they supported this point:
Quote
As both cases had almost identical circumstances, including the race of the victims, what could the difference be between these cases?   The difference lies in the race of the police officers.   White officers beat Rodney King, while those who beat and shot Thomas Jones were both black and white.

Concidering the fact that a wave of civil unrest and riots, leading to 50+ deaths and 8000+ arrests, should make the two cases seem a little different, media-wise.
<edit: and the same goes for comparing the cases of Diallo and Busch as identical- check out the stories>

But I can assume they did alright. Now, what was demonstrated? that the media's eye gets a glint whenever racism rears its ugly head. Of course, racism sells: Living in Greece, I know that firsthand. How does that demonstrate a liberal bias, That's for you to explain.

[Tell you what: Go back to your Google search, only this time, instead of looking how many of the media stood out by referring to all the less-covered police brutality incidents, check out what kind of media (newspapers, magazines, sites) they were (and I mean actually report the incidents, not use them in retrospect to argue for biased media).
...See? Now that's liberal.]

But don't take my word for it- read the students' conclusion in the quote you yourself posted:
Quote
No less unjust, however, is the media’s extensive coverage of certain instances of brutality and not others. The media must remain true to what they are reporting about. In instances of police brutality, skewing the topics at hand serves less to objectively inform the public and more to perpetuate racism. We as a society should focus on relieving the social and racial stereotypes that minorities have to live with. This includes the racial sensationalism brought forth by the media. By not addressing the real issue, police brutality, and revealing it only in terms of racial beatings, police are able to continue to abuse their power. Police brutality remains brutal regardless of the shade of skin color the victim or the perpetrator has. The injustice lingers. Police abusing their power should always be brought to light, therefore biased accounts of the incidents should not be the media’s focus. Newspapers should not write emphasizing only those subjects they feel would bring them more profit. Profit should not be gained as a result of bloodshed.


So, what the kids say is that the media corporations should not exploit racial issues and knee-jerk reactions to racism for numbers and profit. Yep, they sure showed them liberals!

Ghost, I think your tune should be:

Slip slidin' away
Slip slidin' away
The nearer the destination
The more you're slip slidin' away





PS. One more thing, about the WP paragraph: Please, please don't post bogeys (irrelevant links). It's bad netiquette of the worst form. Besides, this is a forum for thinking people: Everyone will hit them.

Date: 2006/04/29 12:21:41, Link
Author: Faid
Thor, today I had no connection to the net for quite some time, and also we had a blackout.
I'm sure these are only the first signs; pretty soon there'll be no central heating, or electricity, or fresh water.
There's not much time left for the West: Please, please get married already.

Date: 2006/04/29 14:01:01, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Faid, don't be offended by my joke about starting your own "ministry" ... by the way, I do have your detailed questions from yesterday (?) saved and will answer them as I have time.


...Offended? *sigh* No, dave, I'm not offended. I'm sure you agree with me there's no reason to.

You can answer my questions in your own time... Proving the impossibility of Cain's wife is not among my priorities. :)
After all that we've told you, however, it's important to understand that we'll be discussing theological issues, not scientific ones.

Date: 2006/04/29 14:01:01, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Faid, don't be offended by my joke about starting your own "ministry" ... by the way, I do have your detailed questions from yesterday (?) saved and will answer them as I have time.


...Offended? *sigh* No, dave, I'm not offended. I'm sure you agree with me there's no reason to.

You can answer my questions in your own time... Proving the impossibility of Cain's wife is not among my priorities. :)
After all that we've told you, however, it's important to understand that we'll be discussing theological issues, not scientific ones.

Date: 2006/04/29 15:00:52, Link
Author: Faid
Stupid of me... I should have noticed at once that Paley snipped off, in mid-paragraph, the actual reasons the authors of the essay propose for this observed bias- and their justification:

Quote
[...]The riots, the violence, and the controversy most likely ensure the newspapers with a continued story to cover. Had the stories dealt with the issue of police brutality, a very serious issue, all of the incidents would have been covered with equal zest. Unfortunately as The Baltimore Sun points out in an editorial on July 30, 2000, “Whether you view them [the police] as the good guys or as a brutal occupation force may depend on where you live and the color of your skin.”   Likewise, whether the media views them [the victims] as good enough to be a story or as an occupational flop may depend on where they lived and the color of their skin.  The media chooses who is significant and who is forgotten based on their race and the sensationalism that their status as a victim can create.

   If the Busch and Jones stories were printed with as much fervor as the ones with racist undertones, the country would probably deal with the problem, ending a juicy bit of news. Because the issue of race is such a sensitive and controversial one, it is possible for the media to exploit it. Such manipulation may increase revenue for the newspapers; increased racial tensions may be the national hidden cost of their attempt to drive up sales. Given the number of articles written on a select few versus the lack of articles on a select racially unmotivated few, the following conclusion is unavoidable. The media creates a racial panic. And the issue of police brutality cannot be adequately voiced with the cacophonous racial noise in the background.

"Liberal" bias. Riiiiight.
 And they go on with an interesting read:  
Quote
Minorities face daily injustices to the extent that many white Americans will never really know or understand. Racial discrimination and oppression is visible in the minority faces of our prison populations due to the majority bias of the criminal justice system. Many Americans assume that the system exists to provide justice when in fact it mainly serves those that can afford to manipulate it via their esteemed status and/or expensive lawyers. Since race serves as a proxy for class, the institution we place so much faith in and assume to be just is actually nothing more than a fallacy. In his book The Rich get Richer…and the Poor get Prison, economist Jeffrey Rieman points out that lower class youths were found more likely to be referred to juvenile court, more likely to be institutionalized, and police were more likely to allow higher status families handle matters themselves without referring them to court . And if charged with a crime people with larger incomes can afford better attorneys and can post bail when needed. Paid attorneys are more likely do a better job than those who receive considerably less. Our criminal justice system assures the right to counsel, but cannot guarantee they will do the best job possible. Race and wealth are obviously two major factors attributing to the bias.

     The police contribute to the bias in ways such as racial profiling. A 1988 Harvard Law Review overview of racial studies related to the criminal justice system concluded that, “most studies...reveal what many police officers freely admit: that police use race as an independently significant, if not determinative, factor in deciding whom to follow, detain, search or arrest.”   Racial profiling gained extensive attention in recent years because it is unjust.
(Paley starts quoting again)

And you thought it would be us who wouldn't like it, right Ghost?

Date: 2006/04/29 15:44:42, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,10:12)
Faid said ...
Quote
To be honest, I was a little surprised at first... I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".

I don't know of anyone like that either.  I don't think this.  I think humans were CREATED as the "rulers" over all other non-human life.

Precisely. And that's why you can't even begin to understand how evolution works, and think it's illogical: You won't stop thinking in terms of masters and servants. That was my point from the beginning.

Date: 2006/04/29 23:39:07, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,22:02)
Thanks.  I'll check it out.

Here's a question for people with er ... more of an Evolutionary mindset ...

How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?  

I honestly have not studied this, but would like to know ... Of course I know why Western Society does, but I'm curious about other cultures ...

Sheesh.

Sure, dave. You have not studied this at all. You just thought you'd suddenly drop this genuine question that's been puzzling you all this time in the middle of an evolution debate, however irrelevant it may seem. Riiight.
Anyway, I'll bite:

Any standard google search should provide you with a multitude of sites concerning the days of the week, if you really wanted to know... Anyway, from the first page: Here's a small summary of the reasons a seven-day week originated in the  early middle-eastern civilizations and also why the weeks of other, culturally separate civilizations that measured time, like the Mayans, are completely different (although equally arbitrary).

Date: 2006/04/29 23:57:30, Link
Author: Faid
So, you already knew the answers, you just wanted to know what answers we would point you to? And why is that, if I may ask?

Anyway, I hope BBC was to your liking.

Date: 2006/04/30 00:13:07, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ April 30 2006,04:49)
Occam,

Are you qualified to make an online psychoanalysis?  LOL!

Oh-oh

I think Occam did strike a nerve after all...

Date: 2006/04/30 00:53:59, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
If someone thinks that traditional marriage is inherently valuable to our society and that there are distinct differences between male and female that need to be incentivized for the betterment of our society as a whole, is this train of thought born of hatred?


Well, thor, it's not- if you can demonstrate the reasons why, using reasoning.

Babbling about sheep and flowerpots does not help. Sorry.

So, I might break my promise and discuss with you directly, if you manage to explain, with reasonable arguments, why "distinct differences between male and female" need to be "incentivized for the betterment of our society as a whole". And, of course, why legalizing gay marriage would lead to the collapse of society.

However, seeing how you've failed to do that with every other position you took in this forum, I think I need to get a seat.


PS. I must say I really like the way you use the word "ideological" as a demeaning term, thordad.

Date: 2006/04/30 01:56:17, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ April 30 2006,05:47)
One of the reasons I am here at PT is to try and understand how people think who have a different view of life than me ... it is interesting even if I don't agree

Yes, BBC gave me some new information I had not heard before ... as I said, I'm familiar with the Jewish, Roman, Western society reasons for the 7 day week, but not other cultures ...

Sorry, I think I should explain why I was a bit snappy:
In forums like this, we often have somebody appear, say that he's new in the evolution/creation debate, and has no real opinion... Then he posts some (usually quite peculiar) question, that he says he would really like to understand and that he hopes we can help him.
Many of us patiently try to answer his question, and explain some basic consepts of evolution to him.
Then he starts to argue, and we see that he is not a sincere person at all: He is another apologetic trying to pass as some neutral inquiring individual, and he tries to catch us with our guard down and twist and manipulate our arguments to what he likes.
Now, of course I know you are not one of those: You were honest and declared your beliefs from the beginning, while they belong to the "Liars for Jesus" variety.
I just think it's important to understand why some of us might have a knee-jerk reaction to someone posting a seemingly irrelevant question out of the blue, saying they are actually looking for an answer- even if his intentions are honest.

Date: 2006/04/30 23:52:02, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
So, I might break my promise and discuss with you directly, if you manage to explain, with reasonable arguments, why "distinct differences between male and female" need to be "incentivized for the betterment of our society as a whole". And, of course, why legalizing gay marriage would lead to the collapse of society.


Quote (thordaddy @ May 01 2006,02:50)
blah blah blah incest blah blah polygamy blah blah blah sheep blah blah possums and sloths blahitty blah.



...Now why am I not surprised?

Date: 2006/05/01 02:43:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Faid-- You raise some very good points.  To answer them broadly, I have found that the difficulties clear up if I take away my 20th century presuppositions and frame of reference.  If we acknowledge the possibility that life was VERY different in the beginning, things become a lot clearer.  First, the Bible is very clear that the ante-diluvian patriarchs lived very long lives.  There are several independent lines of evidence supporting this, which I will get into in proper sequence.  Josephus tells us that the old Jewish tradition is that Adam had  33 sons and 23 daughters.  Josephus also tells us that one of Cain's descendants had 77 children by two wives.  (Antiq., Book 1, Ch. 2) Wow, those were tough women!  My hypothesis (short version) on this topic is that Adam and Eve and their near descendants were vigorous, model specimens of humanity--Ken and Barbie, if you will.  They probably had ZERO genetic defects and quite possibly were taller and stronger than modern humans. (notice that this is opposite of modern evolutionary speculation, but consistent with the evidence we see of accumulating deleterious mutations over time) If Cain was like his father, he had many children and they in turn had many more children.  My hypothesis asserts rapid population growth in the ante-diluvian world.  The Bible does not state that Enoch was Cain's firstborn. If he was not, there could have been MANY children and grandchildren BEFORE Cain and his clan moved to Nod.  Even if Enoch was his firstborn, we do no violence to the text by proposing that there could have been a 50-100 year time span between having Enoch and building the city.  Remember, 100 years was only a little over 10% of their entire lifespans.  As for why the writer use the word 'yada' (translated 'knew';) instead of 'had sex with,' I could ask this question ... when you are at dinner parties, do you say to your friends, "Well, when my wife and I first met, we had dinner, went to a movie, then went to my house and had sex."  Probably, you don't talk about your private affairs, but if you do, you probably use some polite euphemism such as "we went to my house and 'made love.'  Of course if you are like 'hehe' you might have used the term 'banged.' I know this does not answer everything yet, but if you stick with me, I think you are going to be amazed at how clear everything becomes.

It's only clear if you want to believe it is clear, dave. I have bolded every aspect of your explanation that is an unsupportable assumption (often to explain other assumptions), and also underlined the parts that seem unfounded compared to modern scientific knowledge -or even compared to the actual text. There's not much left, is it?

But like I said: That does not necessarily make them logically wrong. They can work as theological arguments, that help you defend a position of inerrancy of the bible. They CANNOT be used as scientific arguments to establish an "inerrant bible" hypothesis. I hope we agree on this.

Date: 2006/05/01 02:43:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)
Faid-- You raise some very good points.  To answer them broadly, I have found that the difficulties clear up if I take away my 20th century presuppositions and frame of reference.  If we acknowledge the possibility that life was VERY different in the beginning, things become a lot clearer.  First, the Bible is very clear that the ante-diluvian patriarchs lived very long lives.  There are several independent lines of evidence supporting this, which I will get into in proper sequence.  Josephus tells us that the old Jewish tradition is that Adam had  33 sons and 23 daughters.  Josephus also tells us that one of Cain's descendants had 77 children by two wives.  (Antiq., Book 1, Ch. 2) Wow, those were tough women!  My hypothesis (short version) on this topic is that Adam and Eve and their near descendants were vigorous, model specimens of humanity--Ken and Barbie, if you will.  They probably had ZERO genetic defects and quite possibly were taller and stronger than modern humans. (notice that this is opposite of modern evolutionary speculation, but consistent with the evidence we see of accumulating deleterious mutations over time) If Cain was like his father, he had many children and they in turn had many more children.  My hypothesis asserts rapid population growth in the ante-diluvian world.  The Bible does not state that Enoch was Cain's firstborn. If he was not, there could have been MANY children and grandchildren BEFORE Cain and his clan moved to Nod.  Even if Enoch was his firstborn, we do no violence to the text by proposing that there could have been a 50-100 year time span between having Enoch and building the city.  Remember, 100 years was only a little over 10% of their entire lifespans.  As for why the writer use the word 'yada' (translated 'knew';) instead of 'had sex with,' I could ask this question ... when you are at dinner parties, do you say to your friends, "Well, when my wife and I first met, we had dinner, went to a movie, then went to my house and had sex."  Probably, you don't talk about your private affairs, but if you do, you probably use some polite euphemism such as "we went to my house and 'made love.'  Of course if you are like 'hehe' you might have used the term 'banged.' I know this does not answer everything yet, but if you stick with me, I think you are going to be amazed at how clear everything becomes.

It's only clear if you want to believe it is clear, dave. I have bolded every aspect of your explanation that is an unsupportable assumption (often to explain other assumptions), and also underlined the parts that seem unfounded compared to modern scientific knowledge -or even compared to the actual text. There's not much left, is it?

But like I said: That does not necessarily make them logically wrong. They can work as theological arguments, that help you defend a position of inerrancy of the bible. They CANNOT be used as scientific arguments to establish an "inerrant bible" hypothesis. I hope we agree on this.

Date: 2006/05/01 03:16:03, Link
Author: Faid
Just my 2 drachmas:

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
Quote
Imagine if Newton had said:
-I observe that things fall down
-I propose that it's God's Omnipresent Hand that pushes them down
-I predict that, if God's Omnipresent Hand exists, it will push things down everywhere in the world
-I examine the world
-I see that things fall down
-I conclude that my testable predictions have been confirmed, and God's Omnipresent Hand exists. Do you really think that, in that case, anyone would think of him today as anything more than a crackpot?

Yes, I do think we would consider him a crackpot if he had reasoned this way. I am not reasoning this way.  See discussion above.


The above discussion says nothing about testable predictions, and your flawed perception of them that I was explaining in that quote -and anyway, I think the term "abductive reasoning" is used here (inventing a hypothesis (B) that explains (A) = good reason to believe (B) is true = proof that (B) is true) is way over the line of logic and into the realm of logical fallacy.

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
Quote
then how on earth does this "prediction" derive from your hypothesis? (other that trying to explain what you already see, of course...

"Trying to explain what I already see" IS THE ONLY THING I am trying to do ... I think I confused you by not being clear on the structure of my argument.  See above.

Then, can you admit that all your examples were part of your hypothesis, NOT "testable predictions", so we can move along? You still have to cover 2), though.

Date: 2006/05/01 03:41:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,06:34)
But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the amazing biological machines, etc., etc., I would adopt that belief and become an Atheist.  My problem is that so far, despite the mass of literature advocating the postion, none of it has been very convincing to me.

I believe you are being sincere to us, dave. I'm just not sure that you are being sincere to yourself when you say that.

Try to conduct an "experiment" on yourself and the way you think: You previously thought (and correct me if I'm wrong, which is quite possible) that the fact all these cultures have a seven-day week is a good argument for it's divine origin.
Now that you were pointed to all the historical evidence that show the concept of a seven day week is of human devise, has your belief in its divine roots been questioned in your mind, even in the slightest?
Can you think of any argument, or proof, empirical data, or even supernatural revelation, that would do that to any aspect of your beliefs?

Date: 2006/05/01 05:04:08, Link
Author: Faid
Sorry, Ghost. You won't slip-slide past this one so easily.

Quote
Oh, man, do I love debating liberals! This is too funny....you guys really think that I would try to distort a source that I linked to?

Well, seeing as that's what you obviously did, what we think is irrelevant, so...

But I guess it's the same logic as with those bogeys you keep posting, to make your posts seem neatly supported: You think that few people will pay enough attention to them to figure it out, and if some do and call you out, you're self-assured enough to think you can work around it. Think again.
Quote
But in case you were wondering, I neglected to quote that part because I don't care about debating side issues such as legal or financial inequities among the races -

Give me a break. Who do you think you're fooling? The part you mention here is three paragraphs down. You deliberately start snipping in the middle of a paragraph, from the exact sentence where the authors start to present their reasoning. Don't insult our intelligence.
Quote
I just want the author's data and reasoning on the topic we were like, you know, actually discussing: media bias.

Yeah, right. Only it's the reasoning of the authors you snipped out: As for the subject we're discussing, it's media liberal bias. Check the thread title, in case you forgot.
Quote
But this doesn't establish motive - it takes other evidence to do that. The point remains the same: the media considers black victims of white bias more newsworthy than the converse.

...Which is not how you presented it. You presented it as proof for liberal bias, period. My "seriously flawed" view is also the authors' view: You cannot accept their work as "well supported" and dismiss their justification as "speculations". Maybe you should take it with them: I believe they have a comments page on that site.

Or, if you were in the least bit honest, you should say something like "This, of course, points to a media bias. Now, the authors argue that the reason behind it is profit; I, however, think it shows a liberal bias because blah blah". But that would mean coming up with actual arguments instead of google trawling, right? You would have to engage your brain.

The fact remains: You were desperately seeking objective support for your liberal bias theory. You stumbled upon this student work, that demonstrated a media bias and presented its reasons for it. It is you who didn't like those reasons, so you snipped them into nonexistence, hoping you'd make us think that such a bias would only be explained as a "liberal" one.

You deliberately tampered with your source, twisting its meaning: And in the world of civilised internet debate, this is not minor misconduct (like your irrelevant links and shifting arguments and moving goalposts and failing to deliver): It's a felony.
Ghost: as far as I'm concerned, you're burned out in this thread, just like in the gay marriage one. You'll have to try real hard to make me take you seriously. Coming up with an actual argument would help: But seeing as you've got your hands full -with Tiktaalik rebuttals and... cannibals (?) and marriage scale-free networks (or is it "family" scale-free networks now? You're an open book, ghost  ;) ), I think I shouldn't hold my breath.


One more thing: Like I said in my first two posts, I entered this debate without having any real opinion. I knew (and still know, I guess) little about the US media: I had no reason not to assume a liberal bias might not exist. Paley, you could have persuaded me.
However, after visiting the sites your links led to, and reading what the wackos who post there say (like that story about the white van), and especially after your dishonest behavior, I'm pretty sure there is no liberal bias in the US media. The fact that there is a racial bias in the media, often used to divert the public's attention from cases of authority abuse and brutality in general, to more sensitive racial discrimination issues, seems more and more plausible.

And guess what: It seems that the actual liberal media agree: That's why, in most cases, they were the ones that stood out and reported all those -undermined by the mainstream media- cases of police brutality in the first place.

Congratulations, Ghost, you've converted me- to the opposite side.

Date: 2006/05/01 05:28:27, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, let me rephrase that the way it actually is:

1) I observe people say that they have been contacted by an entity

2) I propose there is an entity that wishes to contact people

3) I conclude that there is good reason that my theory is true.

Maybe this might help you finally understand.


Oh, about the previous post, my bad: I was referring to the "testable predictions" part of your hypothesis, of course.

Date: 2006/05/01 05:42:15, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 01 2006,08<!--emo&:0)
Quote
The Darwinian willingness to prevent the geological column from being rejected (or even doubted) goes against the evidence of human interaction with dinosaurs (formerly known as “dragons”).
No comment.

Dembski: What the... Davescooooooot!

Davetard: ...Yes, Dr. Dembski sir?

Dembski: Who left this in the doorway? Was it you?

Davetard: Oh no, sir, it was er, one of the boys, sir.

Dembski: Well for the love of the Designer, clean it up! What if guests arrive?
Get to it!

Davetard: Yes sir, right away sir... (delete delete)

Date: 2006/05/01 06:01:06, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, before I answer in any more of your arguments, I want to make this perfectly clear: Have we agreed that we are NOT discussing in scientific terms? Yes or no?

Date: 2006/05/01 06:39:52, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53)
hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!

Faid--  It's only unsupported HERE in this post.  I can't take the time or space right now to support it all.  But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

Besides his joking, hehe actually has a point. According to the eternal laws set by god from the beginning of time, if a man has a vasectomy, is it ok to marry his sister? I ask you in all seriousness- because that's what this theory for Cain's wife seems to imply.

As for not supporting your view here, then you haven't explained anything yet, right? Untill you do, however, think about this: If you weren't trying with all your heart to prove that the bible is inerrant, would you ever be so eager to assume that, in this paragraph:

Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

A hundred years have passed between the first and the second sentence? Why does it seem so plausible now, except that you want to believe it?

You may not wish to see it, but everything you do is reverse reasoning. You feel the bible has to be inerrant, so cain's wife must have been his sister. It must have been ok to marry his sister, so human beings must have had some kind of "genetic perfection" whatever that was. There must have been many people for him to build a city for, so that one space on a page, between "she bare Enoch" and "and he built a city" must have been 100 years long (making the book that explains the universe one of the most misleading documents ever).

Would you believe any of these wild assumptions if they were made about any other book than the bible? And yet, it is all your arguments that are like that in your hypothesis.

I only hope that some day you'll be bold enough to admit to yourself that your faith comes from your feelings, not your logic. It has nothing to do with logic.

That is not necessarily a bad thing; on the contrary. It's just that it does not help trying to use logic alone to defend it. Great philosophers have failed to do so in the past: Your faith is not science, and it cannot compete with science in its field. And it shouldn't have to.

Date: 2006/05/01 06:39:52, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,08:53)
hehe-- I do appreciate your light view of life ... I might disagree with you about God being a relativist, but gotta love your wit! Cheers!

Faid--  It's only unsupported HERE in this post.  I can't take the time or space right now to support it all.  But as I said, if you stick with me, I think you will see that alot of it IS supported very well.

Besides his joking, hehe actually has a point. According to the eternal laws set by god from the beginning of time, if a man has a vasectomy, is it ok to marry his sister? I ask you in all seriousness- because that's what this theory for Cain's wife seems to imply.

As for not supporting your view here, then you haven't explained anything yet, right? Untill you do, however, think about this: If you weren't trying with all your heart to prove that the bible is inerrant, would you ever be so eager to assume that, in this paragraph:

Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

A hundred years have passed between the first and the second sentence? Why does it seem so plausible now, except that you want to believe it?

You may not wish to see it, but everything you do is reverse reasoning. You feel the bible has to be inerrant, so cain's wife must have been his sister. It must have been ok to marry his sister, so human beings must have had some kind of "genetic perfection" whatever that was. There must have been many people for him to build a city for, so that one space on a page, between "she bare Enoch" and "and he built a city" must have been 100 years long (making the book that explains the universe one of the most misleading documents ever).

Would you believe any of these wild assumptions if they were made about any other book than the bible? And yet, it is all your arguments that are like that in your hypothesis.

I only hope that some day you'll be bold enough to admit to yourself that your faith comes from your feelings, not your logic. It has nothing to do with logic.

That is not necessarily a bad thing; on the contrary. It's just that it does not help trying to use logic alone to defend it. Great philosophers have failed to do so in the past: Your faith is not science, and it cannot compete with science in its field. And it shouldn't have to.

Date: 2006/05/01 07:06:14, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,10:23)
Here's my logic ...
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character.  It's a surprising fact because quite frankly it's WEIRD ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC:  If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4)  CONCLUSION:  There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)

Now how is this "junk" logic?

(Copy/pasting my answer from the other thread)

Dave, let me rephrase that the way it actually is:

1) I observe people say that they have been contacted by an entity

2) I propose there is an entity that wishes to contact people

3) I conclude that there is good reason that my theory is true.

Maybe this might help you finally understand.


Oh, about the previous post, my bad: I was referring to the "testable predictions" part of your hypothesis, of course.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:28:26, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,May 01 2006,12:23][/quote]
Quote
Oh m-m-my goodness! You figured out my master plan of linking to and then deliberately misrepresenting sources! How ever did you catch me?!! I mean, I thought that everyone here was completely illiterate and/or wouldn't be able to click on the blue line! But boy, were you too clever for me!  :D  :D  :D

Keep trying to wave it off, Ghost. You're only making yourself look silly. You did it, period.
Quote
First, I should stop citing the sources for my ideas. Check.....

Or maybe you should, you know, start citing sources that actually support them. Because so far, nada.
Quote
Also, I must quote every argument my source makes, even if I don't think it contributes to the debate.

You must quote the arguments your source makes, the way they make them. It's a simple concept: It's called honesty.
Leaving the part that says:
Quote
It is possible that the media has a “vested interest” in covering brutality that could be manipulated into a racially motivated crime. These sensational stories can manipulate the audience and may create increased racial tension throughout the country.[...]

...And immediately ditching the next part of the paragraph:
Quote
 [...]The riots, the violence, and the controversy most likely ensure the newspapers with a continued story to cover. Had the stories dealt with the issue of police brutality, a very serious issue, all of the incidents would have been covered with equal zest. Unfortunately as The Baltimore Sun points out in an editorial on July 30, 2000, “Whether you view them [the police] as the good guys or as a brutal occupation force may depend on where you live and the color of your skin.”   Likewise, whether the media views them [the victims] as good enough to be a story or as an occupational flop may depend on where they lived and the color of their skin.  The media chooses who is significant and who is forgotten based on their race and the sensationalism that their status as a victim can create.

  If the Busch and Jones stories were printed with as much fervor as the ones with racist undertones, the country would probably deal with the problem, ending a juicy bit of news. Because the issue of race is such a sensitive and controversial one, it is possible for the media to exploit it. Such manipulation may increase revenue for the newspapers; increased racial tensions may be the national hidden cost of their attempt to drive up sales. Given the number of articles written on a select few versus the lack of articles on a select racially unmotivated few, the following conclusion is unavoidable. The media creates a racial panic. And the issue of police brutality cannot be adequately voiced with the cacophonous racial noise in the background.

Is called twisting an argument by selective quoting, and it's a long way from the aforementioned concept.

Quote
And the legal inequities that blacks face in the court system relates to this how......?

Still playing dumb? You selectively snipped out the reasoning they gave to explain their data, making it seem like they were agreeing with you. The legal part came much later. Denying it won't help: Anyone can go back one page and see what you took out. Or, you know, they can see above.
Quote
Look, you and Eric were the ones that demanded this type of evidence. So I supplied it. Now you're whining that I didn't present the argument the way you wanted, so this makes me dishonest, so therefore you can reject the conclusions of the study.
We demanded (and still demand) evidence of liberal bias. Before I realized your selective quoting, both me and Eric pointed out how your data could be interpreted differently (unknowingly agreeing with what the authors actually argued for). I have to admit that I fell for it: In the beginning, reading your quotes only, I thought the authors were arguing for a liberal bias. You see, it was you who didn't like the conclusions of the study and rejected them, leaving only the part that would point elsewhere. "Vested interest"! I'm sure you were snickering when you decided to keep that in...
Quote
But that's not how science works.

Do you even know how science works? Or scientific reference? Say that I want to support an announcement in a medical journal, that says intramedullary nailing (A) is a dangerous method for treating fractures that should be dropped.
I have difficulty to find any bibliography to support my view, until I find another announcement that shows greater risk of infection of (A) compared to, say, external fixation of the fracture (B) (to all: sorry about the technicals).
Now, the authors argue that all the known benefits that make (A) better than (B) will be valuable if we carefully choose where and when to apply this method, and that hospitals should not be eager to use it, tempted by its higher cost.
I don't like that, so I snip it out. Or perhaps, I leave a tiny bit that says something like "it is foolish to disregard the high risks associated with (A)". Then I present my announcement, with prime mention of this work in my collected data, discussion and bibliography.
Now, do you know what will happen if (when) I'm caught? I will be publicly ridiculed in the medical community, and the authors of the original work will probably sue me.

Don't worry, I don't think anyone will sue you... I think you've got the ridicule thing pretty much covered up, though.
Quote
I'm not interested in the author's opinions on our court system, because the authors weren't studying this issue.

Here we go again... Just drop it, will you? You're not fooling anyone. We can all see everything that you snipped out; don't pretend that was just it.
Quote
And remember, these are students: I trust their counting more than their pontificating. Apparently you would rather have the navel-gazing.

Actually, when discussing a presentation, it's the data that should get more thoroughly examined- as well as their interpretation of it. I already pointed a few things that would have been a subject of debate for their interpretation. Remember that, for both interpretation and deduction of results from the data, the students would (should) have a number of specific data to point to, theirs or from other works, that are ommited or mentioned briefly in their work's summary. You seem to take the first for granted, and think the latter does not exist.
Quote
Uhhhh....check my last posts, Sherlock. That's exactly what I'm trying to do:
First, I'm talking about a multicultural bias, which isn't restricted to political liberals. Second, I plan on refuting "the media's just in it for the money" argument. For starters, if the "media's just in it for the money", then why do they suppress juicy racial details when their disclosure would only pique public interest? Why doctor scandalous documentaries in such a way to remove their impact? Or is it just the Amurican media that's just trying to make a buck? But then, why do so many newspapers hide the race of a suspect? It seems the excuses are flying:
[etc. etc.]

So even if you had a point, it's irrelevant now, since I am attempting to address the "racial conflict->extra sales" feedback loop. Maybe you should deal with my arguments instead of my character.

Why my dear Watson, it seems we might be wrong after all; let us see... hmm... Why yes, you did say that... AFTER we called you out for distorting your source. Before that: well, I guess you were too busy gloating about how you were waving our stained undies in the air with your last post, to bother doing so.

Foiled again, Moriarty.

Oh and, "arguments"? I only see a couple of more bogeys. Some guy "arguing" that the media not reporting the race of two blacks killed by an angry mob of lowlives of undetermined race is somehow evidence of liberal bias, a reporter arguing why his newspapers policy to not mention race is not PC, a link to a reporter saying what the media should stop doing to avoid bias, and finally a refusal of one channel to broadcast a political advertisement that, among other things, was racially charged... in Great Britain. That last one was a real gem, ghost.
I'd ask you how all this leads to "liberal bias" over "exploiting racial panic for profit" but I'm afraid you'll post 3 more irrelevant links for every one you'll try to explain.
Quote
Obviously you haven't been listening. But that's not an MP, that's a YP

Come again? And what about that google search, ghost? I mean, it's what you do best... Especially since you don't do anything else.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:33:52, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 01 2006,15:12)
1) There's a (small) danger that I would be pushed to the back of the adoption list

Oh and, btw, thanks for reminding me... How's the "Family as a hub in a scale-free network" model coming along?  ;)

...You realise that you'll also have to show why divorce did not destroy society, right?  ???

Date: 2006/05/01 11:42:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,12:38)
Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Let me just show you one thing here ... the plain reading of this is very clear that there was SOME time lag b/t baring Enoch and building the city ... do you see this?  Babies don't build cities.  Grown up men do.  

Dave, I'm gonna let you find out yourself what's wrong with what you just posted.

It shouldn't be that hard.

Don't feel embarrassed when you do, however: I dont believe you're a fool or anything. I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Date: 2006/05/01 11:42:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,12:38)
Quote
[...]and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Let me just show you one thing here ... the plain reading of this is very clear that there was SOME time lag b/t baring Enoch and building the city ... do you see this?  Babies don't build cities.  Grown up men do.  

Dave, I'm gonna let you find out yourself what's wrong with what you just posted.

It shouldn't be that hard.

Don't feel embarrassed when you do, however: I dont believe you're a fool or anything. I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Date: 2006/05/01 11:58:54, Link
Author: Faid
Now, I'd like to think of myself as a mild-mannered guy, who tries not to provoke dispute and ignite fights. But there are a few things where my personal opinion is so charged, I cannot always keep my temper.

The evolution/creation debate is one.

The Da Vinci Code is another.

Personally, I think that book sucked. It sucked more than a black hole on steroids; it sucked more than Coelhio's Alchemist, and that's saying a lot.

No characters, no plot to speak of, predictable twists, unbelievable situations and dialogues... That book had everything.
It's sole value is as a way to start interesting theological discussions. You know, to impress the chicks. or whatevs.

Now fire away.


(man I feel like afdave now)

Date: 2006/05/01 13:58:58, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,May 01 2006,17:02][/quote]
Quote
The only reason you were able to "prove" my "dishonesty" was by clicking on a link that I provided. So even if I was dishonest (which I dispute), I provided the opportunity to easily check my claims. So basically your complaint is: "I'm angry because you're the dishonest type who would correctly assume that I'd be too lazy to click on a blue line and read your paper!"

Heh... Tell you what, Ghost: If you agree you were dishonest, I've no trouble agreeing I was lazy. Glad we got that settled. So, let's move on indeed...
Quote
You still haven't explained the massive discrepancy in news coverage. You've basically waved your hands around the data, spinning one lazy excuse after another, asking for a piece of evidence and then arbitrarily rejecting it, and then trying to shift the debate once you find you can't support your opinion.

Oh, but we did explain it, Ghost, remember? We accepted your data and provided a reason for it- a reason much more plausible than attempting to implicate all the mainstream media in the US in an intricate conspiracy guided by... whom? And guess what, turns out that that's what the authors who came up with the data, studied it in extent (unlike you or us) and presented it thought, too.
What you refer to as hand-waving and lame excuses is actually called reasoning. You should try it sometime.
As for "trying to shift the debate once you find you can't support your opinion", what can I say? It's a good thing my irony meter is still busted from the last time I checked Davescot's posts...
Quote
By the way, where is the evidence for your point of view? All I see is spinning and whining.

Show me your lexus searches. Show me your studies. But you can't, because they don't exist. Face it, you're just jacked because you know I'm right.

Oh now I see how it goes...

GOP: -Hey everyone! Here's my compelling evidence for a liberal bias in US media, just like I promised! I win!

Everyone: -Um, not really.

GOP: -And if you look here, what can you say? How about this? Is it indisputable proof or what?

Everyone: -Er... Not really?

GOP: -If you look here, here and here however, there's no question you'll be left speechless by the amazing amount of irrefutable proof!!!!!1
(dances the jig)

Everyone: -Not really... *yawn*

GOP: -... Tell you what, wiseguys: Why don't you Marxists prove to me there is no liberal bias in the US media? Common, I'm waiting!


...Aaand that concludes our thread, ladies and gentlemen.



PS. You know, you could have still saved this. You could have honestly admitted that distorting your source was uncalled for, and started producing real arguments to support your position... You could have started by addressing what I said about the most hardcore liberal media being the ones to actually report all those police brutality incidents that mainstream media suppressed. I myself have thought of a possible reason for that already (other than the most obvious one, that suppressing those stories does not constitute liberal bias, I mean). We could have put this behind us, and have an interesting debate.
The way things turned out, however, with the only argument you were able to come up with being "well why don't you prove me wrong"  (as if it's us who made unsupportable claims first), I don't see that happening.

Date: 2006/05/01 16:47:58, Link
Author: Faid
Who's leaving, Ghost? I wouldn't miss watching your pathetic attempts to save face for the world. I'm just through taking you seriously.

Quote
So even if you agree with their unevidenced speculations, you must concede the basic point: the media cover crimes in a racially biased way

Whoo hoo we agree! Now, about that "liberal" thing...
Quote
After all, slaveowners had an economic motive as well: does that make slavery morally acceptable?

I see. That makes my argument that, when you use racial panic to make a buck, it makes racial panic morally acceptable, go down the drain, I guess. Curses!
(BTW: I like the "as well" bit-heh)
Quote
I still fail to see how this study helps your argument - the data sure as #### doesn't.

You mean the data of the work that claims a racial bias for profit do not support a racial bias for profit?  Well, like I said, maybe you should take it with the authors... But I'd be happy if you demonstrate it here. Fat chance, I know.
Quote
But that's why you tried to shift the argument in the first place.

You're right, I deserved my clobbering: I shouldn't start arguing for an *undefined* racial bias when I had promised I'd deliver proof for a liberal bias... No wait, that was you.
Quote
Man, I really broke your brain, didn't I? You're bitching because I can back my case up and you can't?
Oh, you broke my brain alright, Ghost. Just now. *tilt* :0  :D

So! you ready to support your claims using actual arguments? You can start from what I previously said about hardcore liberal media being the ones to actually report all those "suppressed by the liberal media" cases of police brutality. I can give you a few hints to help you along the way, but you'll have to do most of it yourself.

Or you can simply keep this charade up and let your immaturity shine through with each post you make. Idontcare.

Date: 2006/05/01 17:00:35, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I don't admit to what I didn't do

Then you must show that you didn't do it. But since you did it, well... You tell me.
Quote
See, this is the common liberal trick known as blah blah blah

And this is a common internet trick <edit: also a politician's one- no offense, Ghost...:)> known as labelling practices (not sure about the term in english, sorry). When you cannot defend yourself against accusations, claim this is a typical tactic the liberals/conservatives/evolutionists/christians/whatever use to smear their opponents. It's got a name, therefore it must be true, roight Ghost?
Quote
As you admitted <edit: admitted?> earlier....
Why my dear Watson, it seems we might be wrong after all; let us see... hmm... Why yes, you did say that... AFTER we called you out for distorting your source. Before that: well, I guess you were too busy gloating about how you were waving our stained undies in the air with your last post, to bother doing so.

....I'm now trying to "fix" my so-called mistake

So, you're asking me to accept your apology, although you have not apologised: Just another way of saying "Let's not dwell on that". Whatever.

Quote
2. So can you deal with my argument or not? By the way you keep bringing my character up....I guess not.

I will, once you tell me what it is, exactly. As for your character... What?
Quote
Unless you consider your lame, evidence-free posturing "reasoning".

*Even* If that were true, Not reasoning at all and google trawling is way lamer, and deep down you know it.

Date: 2006/05/01 17:30:08, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,21:29)
Oops! It was Cain, not Enoch that built the city ... good eyes Faid!  You must be a doctor or something ...

Now why again does that matter?  Are you concerned about the fact that he built a city for only 3 people.  Did I not clear that up already?  I plan on giving a lot more detail as I walk through this whole thing on the other thread.

Quote
I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Now why do you want to insult me like that?  I was starting to like you!  Naaa ... I still do ... and I bet you make reading errors once in a while yourself.

Have a good night!

That was not meant as an insult, afdave. Sorry if you saw it that way.

Think of it this way: A man is madly in love with a woman. There is plenty of evidence, however, that the woman is cheating on him. Friends see the obvious, and tell him. But he just does not listen. He disregards telltale signs and proof that, if he'd seen in any other woman, He'd label her "cheater" from a mile away. He looks, but he doesn't see.
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool -he's just in love.

Date: 2006/05/01 17:30:08, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,21:29)
Oops! It was Cain, not Enoch that built the city ... good eyes Faid!  You must be a doctor or something ...

Now why again does that matter?  Are you concerned about the fact that he built a city for only 3 people.  Did I not clear that up already?  I plan on giving a lot more detail as I walk through this whole thing on the other thread.

Quote
I just think you don't think at all, not when you're questioning your beliefs. You don't even try. And it's normal.

Now why do you want to insult me like that?  I was starting to like you!  Naaa ... I still do ... and I bet you make reading errors once in a while yourself.

Have a good night!

That was not meant as an insult, afdave. Sorry if you saw it that way.

Think of it this way: A man is madly in love with a woman. There is plenty of evidence, however, that the woman is cheating on him. Friends see the obvious, and tell him. But he just does not listen. He disregards telltale signs and proof that, if he'd seen in any other woman, He'd label her "cheater" from a mile away. He looks, but he doesn't see.
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool -he's just in love.

Date: 2006/05/02 00:36:17, Link
Author: Faid
Guys guys, stop calling thor's non-existant children names.

You're being racist against that substantial portion of our population that is imaginary.

You're existential bigots, the lot of you!







...Seriously, after all this, does anyone really think that trolldaddy is anything more than some 14 year-old (mentally, at least) who's got difficulty keeping track of his lies? I don't.

Date: 2006/05/02 03:54:38, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.

I'm really sorry you had to go through all that- it's not something I'd wish for anyone. Now, apologizing in advance for any discomfort this reminiscence might give you, can you tell me if you remember how you felt then? How you saw things? If so, are the thought processes and the feelings you have now for the inerrancy of the bible more comparable to "I examine all the evidence and conclude my girl loves me", or "I know my girl loves me, and no evidence I've seen has convinced me otherwise"?
Those two lines of thought are not identical... But I see you've already answered that. See below.
Quote
Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."

Certainly it's possible with all of us- who can delve into the minds of every man? However, looking at the big picture, there is a crucial difference. I am not emotionally charged towards one side; I have no reason to. I do not, for instance, think my immortal soul might be in danger if I do not accept the inerrancy of the bible.
Or that my moral worldview, and everything I hold sacred, will collapse if my beliefs turn out to be wrong. Making up my mind, or changing it, has no world-crumbling consequences. I'm not the spokesperson of all the powers that be; I'm just a man.

(Oh, by the way, of course I believe that all inconsistencies in the bible must be cleared without doubt before I accept it's inerrant- that's what inerrancy means, after all. "Inerrancy" is not a relative term. What would you say to someone that told you Jesus was "mostly" without sin? See? Now, you feel that way because you believe that a Savior without sin is an absolute; well, the Inerrancy of the bible is an even greater one -logically speaking, not theologically. Either it's true, or it's not.)

So, having no moral or spiritual bond towards any side, I can examine the evidence first, then accept the side they point to. But it seems you think this is not right:
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Dave, this is exactly what science must not do.
Well, that's not something anyone should ever do, I think, but let's stick to science for now... Assuming your theory is right, and then trying to come up with all the data supporting it, and disprove all other data whatever the cost, can eventually help you "prove" just about anything: From cold fusion and Lysenko's genetics to martian canals (or martian face) and hollow earth.
In fact, most (if not all) of the major blunders in the history of science had this kind of reasoning as a starting point: Most of the great breakthroughs came by people who looked at the data first and then came up with successful theories to explain them, after years of hard work- or, sometimes, after a sudden epiphany.
Do you have a reason to think that the Lord walks with you when you follow the first path, and scorns you when you follow the other?
Now, I know what you are going to say: That's the evolutionists who do that, who turn away from the facts, and if you read this book etc.
I'm sorry, there is just no easy way to say this: That's simply a lie.
It's not your lie, however: Neither is it your fault.
Like I said, I do not beleive you are a liar for jesus: I just believe that you, like many others, unfortunately, has been systematically misled by people who are.
People who try to twist reality and distort facts to promote their views- and, often, make a buck in the process; people who cannot claim ignorance for their actions, and their deliberate misleading, with their books and tapes and sites and "museums", can only be attributed to malice.
And people like you, who turn to them seeking evidence that would validate their worldview- you are their favorite prey.
I only hope that, when you start posting all your proof for a young earth, you will let us demonstrate that to you.

Date: 2006/05/02 03:54:38, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.

I'm really sorry you had to go through all that- it's not something I'd wish for anyone. Now, apologizing in advance for any discomfort this reminiscence might give you, can you tell me if you remember how you felt then? How you saw things? If so, are the thought processes and the feelings you have now for the inerrancy of the bible more comparable to "I examine all the evidence and conclude my girl loves me", or "I know my girl loves me, and no evidence I've seen has convinced me otherwise"?
Those two lines of thought are not identical... But I see you've already answered that. See below.
Quote
Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."

Certainly it's possible with all of us- who can delve into the minds of every man? However, looking at the big picture, there is a crucial difference. I am not emotionally charged towards one side; I have no reason to. I do not, for instance, think my immortal soul might be in danger if I do not accept the inerrancy of the bible.
Or that my moral worldview, and everything I hold sacred, will collapse if my beliefs turn out to be wrong. Making up my mind, or changing it, has no world-crumbling consequences. I'm not the spokesperson of all the powers that be; I'm just a man.

(Oh, by the way, of course I believe that all inconsistencies in the bible must be cleared without doubt before I accept it's inerrant- that's what inerrancy means, after all. "Inerrancy" is not a relative term. What would you say to someone that told you Jesus was "mostly" without sin? See? Now, you feel that way because you believe that a Savior without sin is an absolute; well, the Inerrancy of the bible is an even greater one -logically speaking, not theologically. Either it's true, or it's not.)

So, having no moral or spiritual bond towards any side, I can examine the evidence first, then accept the side they point to. But it seems you think this is not right:
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Dave, this is exactly what science must not do.
Well, that's not something anyone should ever do, I think, but let's stick to science for now... Assuming your theory is right, and then trying to come up with all the data supporting it, and disprove all other data whatever the cost, can eventually help you "prove" just about anything: From cold fusion and Lysenko's genetics to martian canals (or martian face) and hollow earth.
In fact, most (if not all) of the major blunders in the history of science had this kind of reasoning as a starting point: Most of the great breakthroughs came by people who looked at the data first and then came up with successful theories to explain them, after years of hard work- or, sometimes, after a sudden epiphany.
Do you have a reason to think that the Lord walks with you when you follow the first path, and scorns you when you follow the other?
Now, I know what you are going to say: That's the evolutionists who do that, who turn away from the facts, and if you read this book etc.
I'm sorry, there is just no easy way to say this: That's simply a lie.
It's not your lie, however: Neither is it your fault.
Like I said, I do not beleive you are a liar for jesus: I just believe that you, like many others, unfortunately, has been systematically misled by people who are.
People who try to twist reality and distort facts to promote their views- and, often, make a buck in the process; people who cannot claim ignorance for their actions, and their deliberate misleading, with their books and tapes and sites and "museums", can only be attributed to malice.
And people like you, who turn to them seeking evidence that would validate their worldview- you are their favorite prey.
I only hope that, when you start posting all your proof for a young earth, you will let us demonstrate that to you.

Date: 2006/05/02 10:47:01, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
OK, even though it wasn't a deliberate attempt to quote-mine, I apologise for snipping out some of the author's explanations. Whatever the intentions, I distorted the author's meaning. I'm sorry. Now, will you address my earlier points?


In deed I will, again. Here goes:

Quote
1)  Race plays a role in media crime coverage

Sadly, yes.
Quote
2)  The media create a racial panic which they then exploit financially

Seems extremely likely.
Quote
3)  Their drive to maximise profit only partly explains the discrepancy in news coverage, since the media create some of the sensationalism in the first place

Er... No? I think? I'm not sure what you mean here... I believe that both exploitation of sensationlism in racial issues and creation of it by the media is done for high audience rates and subsequent profit. As is with every other kind of "panic" the media often exploit -even blow out of proportion. That does not mean the issues behind them are not real; it means the media try to squeeze even the last dime out of them.

Quote
So even if you agree with their unevidenced speculations

neither of us know whether it's "unevidenced", since we don't have access to their data. Like I said, I also wanted to see their reasoning in comparing and examining the data in some cases that do not seem equal- as potential for media coverage is concerned- but there's no way to know.
Quote
you must concede the basic point: the media cover crimes in a racially biased way.

To that, I wholeheartedly agree. Like I did 30 posts ago.
Here is what I said when I read your source:

Quote
But I can assume they did alright. Now, what was demonstrated? that the media's eye gets a glint whenever racism rears its ugly head. Of course, racism sells: Living in Greece, I know that firsthand. How does that demonstrate a liberal bias, That's for you to explain.

[Tell you what: Go back to your Google search, only this time, instead of looking how many of the media stood out by referring to all the less-covered police brutality incidents, check out what kind of media (newspapers, magazines, sites) they were (and I mean actually report the incidents, not use them in retrospect to argue for biased media).
...See? Now that's liberal.]


So... I guess it's back to you?


PS. I edited this to prevent multiple posts and I know I'm repeating myself now, but here goes:
Quote
Well, let's take the Diallo shooting for instance. Would it have killed the media to also report the Haggerty case? If nothing else, the Haggerty story shows that Diallo-like overreactions are possible even if the suspect and cop belong to the same race.

That is unfortunately true. But, like I said, The media that reported this case more vigorously were the most liberal ones: Most of those argued that police brutality and authority abuse has no color, and attention should be drawn to that by the mainstream media, not to the race of the policemen to take advantage of the people's sensitivity in racial issues.
So, once again, how does undermining that incident by the mainstream media constitute a liberal bias?
(Oh and, btw, I couldn't find any conservative media, site or blog that did not refer to this case, not to report it, but in retrospect, to argue for a liberal bias. But it's true I was not that motivated in my search...)

Date: 2006/05/02 11:35:15, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 02 2006,15:42)
You've said this about a million times already. That doesn't make it any more relevant. Can you please stop making irrelevant rants? You know exactly why it's irrelevant. Are you purposely trying to irritate people?

Yes.

Date: 2006/05/02 11:42:45, Link
Author: Faid
Now that I think of it...

Date: 2006/05/03 12:41:07, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 03 2006,14:38)
Sigh. OK. So we all agree to treat this contention....
Quote
In news stories involving "man's inhumanity to man" (crime, brutality, savagery involving rolled up newspapers, etc.)  a majority/minority perpetrator/victim configuration generally gets more ink than the reverse - all other things being equal.

.....as an axiom. In other words, this contention is beyond dispute for the remainder of the thread. Anyone who wishes to argue against this claim must start a new thread. Eric, do you agree? Yes or no, please. Also, Faid, do you agree?

Sorry for the late reply... In the risk of complicating this even further, soryy, Ghost, no.

You see, after all that's been discussed and all I've read, I'm indeed inclined to agree that "mainstream" media (those more involved in the higher rates competition, after all) tend to overemphasise "maj-on-min" crimes, and not underemphasise "min-on-maj" crimes (which I think is a completely different thing, and those two are not mutually exclusive). Also: I think this for American media. In my country, for instance, it's the opposite that happens: Minority-on-majority crimes are overemphasised. That's not because the media here are in their majority conservative- they're not, actually: It's because it's not fear of racism that sells the most here; it's fear of foreigners. Not that a good racism story does not sell: It does, unfortunately. It's just that a "bloody Albanians" story sells better, And the public in Greece have not developed a knee-jerk response against media that use such deplorable tactics yet, specially since we lack historical events like those that marked American history.

I'll be on my rounds for the rest of the night, but I'll try to respond to any questins if I get the time...

Date: 2006/05/03 13:15:52, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 02 2006,18:53)
Just for Faid:
Quote
University of Southern California researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz published an article titled "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" last year in American Sociological Review. Stacey and Biblarz examined 21 gay-parenting studies. They concluded that there is "no notable difference between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents."
[....]
Homosexual activists have commended the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for a February statement that "a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." The academy urged its 55,000 members to support "second-parent" adoptions, in which a homosexual adopts a partner's children.

Conservative rejection of the AAP announcement was swift. British sociologist Patricia Morgan, author of Children As Trophies? (Christian Institute, 2002), told CT, "There's a tremendous bias in both the publishing and acceptance" of results that support homosexual parenting.

Morgan, who has written extensively on family development, says that four dozen studies cited by the AAP are in error because researchers failed to use control groups, used self-selected volunteers, and relied on nonrandom samples. Morgan, senior research fellow at London's Institute for the Study of Civil Society, says research supportive of gay parenting shows a tendency toward "extravagant claims" from sympathetic researchers. "Any critical evaluation or examination of the work … is apt to invoke furious reflex accusations about homophobia."

Researchers Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, coauthors of No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting (Marriage Law Project, 1991), support Morgan's findings. Lerner and Nagai evaluated 49 studies on gay parenting, finding significant mistakes in all of them.

They particularly criticized "convenience sampling," in which investigators select whoever is available, and "snowball sampling," in which homosexual activists help researchers find volunteers willing to answer questions.

"These studies prove nothing," Lerner and Nagai wrote. They say reliance on this suspect research has strongly influenced policymakers toward a positive view of gay parenting.

Morgan believes the most reliable research clearly shows that "children reared in a home with a married mother and father do far better than children in other circumstances."

She criticizes the current tendency to tout homosexual parenting despite the evidence against it. "We can't compromise where there are moral standards or empirical standards," Morgan says. "Both have been compromised at the moment."

And probably will be in the future.....

For ...me? Thanks! I don't see how this relates to anything we've discussed in this thread, though... Or is it a teaser for your model? You know, that {gay marriage = gay family, and since families = hubs in a scale-free network-of-something, tampering with the hubs---> collapse of society} thing. *wink wink*   :)

Anyway, it may surprise you, but I personally kinda agree with Patricia Morgan, author of Children As Trophies? (Christian Institute, 2002).
I do believe that we do not know yet for sure whether  chldren raised by srtictly gay foster parents are the same as those in "normal" families. So, to find out who should take precedence in adoption, more cases are needed, to form a larger statistical sample. That would make all the "convenience" and "snowball" sampling not needed to get to a valid data pool.
Now, if those studies show that children raised by homosexuals have a great danger of becoming disfunctional -greater than those of divorced parents, of single-parent families, even those raised by the state- than I have no problem with homosexual couples pushed to the end of the adoption line.

Date: 2006/05/03 14:04:59, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2006,13:41)
IDK. I do think there is significance in BarryA not being seen in 5 weeks, though. Too bad we don't have any way to contact BarryA and ask him what happened.

Barry has not been seen since more or less the time when he effectively killed Dr. Dembski's post about the new Dover board and ACLU being in cahoots:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/990#comments

Date: 2006/05/03 15:02:20, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,May 03 2006,18:38][/quote]
Quote
For example: does the national media's refusal to explicitly compare the Haggerty and Diallo cases count as an "under", an "over", or a combination of the two (which is my hunch, because in order to "sell" the Diallo case as racial bias, the media must ignore similar cases that don't fit the theory).

Hmm. The media does not have to compare the two cases, every time it mentions one or the other. Where did you get that? That's our job.  :p
What the media have to do (absolutely have to do, in order to get higher rates), is to figure out which of these two incidents they can work with better. Now, if the two events are simultaneous, one will be underemphasized as the more "juicy" one gets all the time. Otherwise, Every bit of news will get attention according to its severity and its ability to induce more sales: Much more, if the media have something to help them work their "magic" there as well.

What I think, in short: A crime is always news. No crime is underemphasised a priori because of its nature (not in societies where the media are free, at least). It is only underemphasized when the media wish to use the extra time and space to overemphasize some other bit of news that happens at the same time, and sells better. If there is no such alternative, the crime will get the attention we'd expect- probably more.

Now, remember: I said expect - not deserve. I'm not saying that the media is fair in doing so. The media might think that a white guy killing a black would work better in today's news than a black killing a white- however, they might also think that another silly comment by the prez would work better than both. I'm just saying.

Date: 2006/05/03 15:28:42, Link
Author: Faid
Well, I was actually thinking of what to vote (I'm interested in the Tiktaalk issue, and this "guts to gametes" thing has me puzzled), But then I saw this:

Quote
7) If fewer than 18 people vote (not including Steve's triple-weighted vote), I will assume that there's zero interest in the debates, and continue as I have. You've been warned.


18 people? WTF?
I'm not voting either, Ghost. This poll is silly: If you seriously wish to arbitrarily define a minimum number of people interested in your models, and fail to deliver if this is not met, then I really don't think discussing any of them with you will be of any worth. Just choose the one you think you can support, and do so: Or, say you cannot support any properly at this time and leave it at that. It's that simple.

Date: 2006/05/03 16:32:26, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,May 03 2006,20:44][/quote]
Quote
If you guys can't scrape together 18 votes, then why should I listen to everyone whine? Besides, you'd get me out of your hair for a while.

Incredible. You think that sharing your admirable ideas should be done only to a sizeable audience of your liking, otherwise we are not worthy of them: We only need to know they exist, and are compelling.
Those are some serious illusions of grandeur, Mr. Paley.
Quote
First, you guys would be three steps closer already if you'd quit making excuses and just vote.

Excuses? Excuses for what? You post this, and it's us who make excuses? Tell you what: My vote is for owning up to your promises as best you can. Is that an option in the poll? No? Then who's making excuses?
Quote
Second, I'm not saying I won't deliver if the minimum is not reached, I'm just saying I'll continue as before.

Which is... not delivering?

So, why 18 votes, Ghost? Why not 8 (as the actual debaters the models were promised to were)? Or why not 20? Or 100, for that matter? How'd you come up with the number? What does it matter? He11, you're only arguing with the same 4 people in the media thread, why not bail out from that too?
It is you who has promised all these things. Now, even if just one person was waiting for them, you should deliver; It is what everyone in this forum (even the ones that are not interested in any of your "models") would expect you to. It's the HONEST thing to do.
Saying "I'll only do it if, say, "x" people tell me they're interested" , AFTER you promised it, is... Well, you tell me what it is.
You are a debater in this forum, Ghost. Not a performer. If you can distinguish between the two, that is. Stop looking for an audience: Just deliver what you can from what you promised. Or what you "have time to", I don't care. Call it what you like. It's the only proper thing to do: Everything else is looking for a way out.

Date: 2006/05/03 17:20:43, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ May 03 2006,22:00)
You're a scientist and you don't gather ANYTHING from the empirical evidence around you?

I thought that "empirical evidence" is what we think it is, thor, so what's your problem?

Just a small trip down memory lane here... :p

Date: 2006/05/03 23:22:05, Link
Author: Faid
Man I can't believe I missed that- I blame lack of sleep and too much Plaster of Paris dust inhaled.

Quote
That was a real poor response.  You used quotes around "social evil" and that signifies a verbatim statement by myself.


...says the guy who compulsively used quotes around the word "faith" in a hundred posts, and failed to explain why everytime we asked him.


Oh and, "evolutionary aversion to homosexuality"?  :D

Date: 2006/05/04 03:40:48, Link
Author: Faid
Hi Dave,

The "vasectomy" part of the example was mine, I think. And no, it was not meant as a joke.
Think of this: You say that your all-knowing, benign entity made laws for the benefit of its children, and later changed them when new circumstances (circumstances he must have known would come to pass from the begining of time, if I may add) emerged.
Well guess what: Circumstances have changed again. It is entirely possible for a person to marry knowing that they will never have children, with much more certainty than even Sarah did. You don't like the vasectomy example? Fine, replace it with a woman who had an hysterectomy. Or whatever. And do not try to evade this by changing the subject to what human lawmakers would do: The question is clear. Since an ancient divine rule was necessarily changed for no other reason than to avoid newly emerging concequenses, wouldn't elimination of the possibilty of those consequenses mean it would apply again? If God allowed incest when offspring were not a problem, then would a person completely incapable of having offspring, who commits incest, sin in the eyes of the lord?
It's a simple question, that derives from your theory. Don't try to pass it off as a joke. It only hurts your argument.

Date: 2006/05/04 03:40:48, Link
Author: Faid
Hi Dave,

The "vasectomy" part of the example was mine, I think. And no, it was not meant as a joke.
Think of this: You say that your all-knowing, benign entity made laws for the benefit of its children, and later changed them when new circumstances (circumstances he must have known would come to pass from the begining of time, if I may add) emerged.
Well guess what: Circumstances have changed again. It is entirely possible for a person to marry knowing that they will never have children, with much more certainty than even Sarah did. You don't like the vasectomy example? Fine, replace it with a woman who had an hysterectomy. Or whatever. And do not try to evade this by changing the subject to what human lawmakers would do: The question is clear. Since an ancient divine rule was necessarily changed for no other reason than to avoid newly emerging concequenses, wouldn't elimination of the possibilty of those consequenses mean it would apply again? If God allowed incest when offspring were not a problem, then would a person completely incapable of having offspring, who commits incest, sin in the eyes of the lord?
It's a simple question, that derives from your theory. Don't try to pass it off as a joke. It only hurts your argument.

Date: 2006/05/04 05:22:59, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, head-to-head fusion is as possible as head-to-tail. We are not talking about a chimairic event of the past here: Head to head fusions are observed in other species by genetic research today, as well as in our own body cells, in many pre-neoplasmatic conditions:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract
http://www.genomics.princeton.edu/botstein/Articles/1990/kunes.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=52649
http://www.ncc.go.jp/en/nccri/annrep/2004/10gen.html (look at "Alternative Mechanisms of Gene Amplification in Human Cancers")
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2003/12_02_03.html
http://www.bx.psu.edu/miller_lab/dist/chr2.4.pdf (look at page six for the explanation)


A simple google search would have led you to all those from the first pages. And you'll notice I didn't cite any "evilutionist" sites...

Remember what I told you about those who lie to you?

Date: 2006/05/04 05:50:39, Link
Author: Faid
There you go Dave, here's a plain explanation, with a nifty pic too:

http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks....ns.html

Check "centric fusion". Now, the picture is not exactly the way the fusion was made in the human chromosome (that is more like a "Robertsonian translocation", also mentioned there but not shown), but the mechanism is pretty much the same and it may help you understand the head-to-head bit. And genetic researchers see that happening all the time. Anyone who (claims to be) a biologist, and says it's impossible, is a liar.

Date: 2006/05/04 07:23:50, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ May 04 2006,04:37)
Or, maybe you could ponder out loud why homosexuals are discriminated against and how this relates to the natural heterosexual orientation?

Hmm, Let's see...

Quote
In prehistoric days, Big Great Male Hunter was outside the cave all day, hunting the Dinosaur. The bigger the Dinosaur he slew with his man-weapons and his man-fists, The more willing would the Female Toys be to play hubba-hubba with him (which also mysteriously led to more Noisy Younglings in the cave after a few months).
Now, many tribes also had one or two Wimpy Whiny Girly-Males in the cave. Those individuals scorned Dinosaur-hunting for being a needless display of brutal force -and also bad for their complexion. Instead of hunting the Dinosaur with the males, they preferred to stay in the cave all day, and actually engage in verbal contact with the Female Toys- pursuing matters of common interest, like their feelings and Dinosaur recipes.
So, when the Big Great Male Hunter returned, the Female Toys were too preoccupied to hubba-hubba with him. Now, our friend the Big Great Male Hunter was not so bright in the attic to get the connection... but this is where our old pal, Natural Selection comes in:
The Male Hunters who instinctively loathed the Wimpy Whiny Girly-Male, and threw him out the cave early on, had more chances to get the attention of the females... And not that it mattered, but that also led to more Noisy Younglings after awhile. Younglings that seemed to look (and think) a lot like him as they grew up.
Pretty soon, Every male hunter hated the poor Wimpy Whiny Girly-Male with incredible passion...


Hope that was to your liking, thor...

Date: 2006/05/04 07:40:41, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 04 2006,09:31)
Faid:
           Later today, I'll try to move the debate forward. But as for the poll - I just couldn't decide which model to tackle first. So I says, "Why not let the posters decide. That way, I can get a sense of which topic deserves the most attention, at least according to the ones who know best".
           You know, I once read that the science fiction luminary Greg Bear, struggling with acute obesity, came up with a clever plan to lose weight: he wrote a check for $5000 payable to the American Nazi Party. He let his attorney hold the check in escrow for a year, and if Bear didn't lose a specified amount of weight within that time period, the Nazis would receive the money. With the extra motivation, Bear not only reached his target weight - he lost an additional 20 pounds. Something to think about.

Ghost, like I said, I don't have a problem with either your poll or your logic behind it. You can present whatever model or models you like, for any reason you like. It's the same.
It's that "show me 18 people interested or I present nothing" bit my problem's with. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand why.


As for Greg Bear.... Whaaaaaaa?

Date: 2006/05/04 09:39:45, Link
Author: Faid


...Aaand then Dr. Dembski woke up.

Date: 2006/05/04 10:23:44, Link
Author: Faid
:09-->
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 04 2006,14:09)
[Ooooooohhhhh.....only halfway there, I see. The Darwinists sense defeat on the horizon for whichever lost soul they vote for.]

Ahhh... The Designer bless you, Ghost, you reminded me of another author, Pratchett:

Vimes said nothing. Wonse was a gloater. You always stood a chance with gloaters. The old Patrician had never been a gloater, you could say that for him. If he wanted you dead, you never even heard about it. The thing to do with gloaters was play the game according to their rules.

So... Go on and present whatever you want, Ghost. I don't care. And if you don't want to present anything at all, don't. It's not like it's my credibility in question here...

Date: 2006/05/04 11:36:31, Link
Author: Faid
I prefer the term "Internet theatre"...

Also:

Date: 2006/05/04 23:45:33, Link
Author: Faid
What, now you want to get, not just the whole forum, but also the moderators involved in this? Seriously, Ghost. No wonder you want to argue for geocentrism... You seem to think the whole world revolves around you.

You say we would have saved time if we stopped "bitching" and started voting- well, guess what: you could have saved twice the time by stopping this silly poll business and simply choose one model to present. What it is doesn't matter- you're only going to present one, anyway. Or none, if the magic number "18" is not reached.
(BTW, where did you get that  number? We asked you before and you didn't answer. Is it Paley's Universal Threshold of Minimum Interest or something?)

So, do whatever you feel like, Ghost. Just remember: If your deck of cards comes crumbling down, don't turn around and say something like "well, I expected of you to choose the most difficult model for me to prove... the others, though, they were really compelling. Too bad you'll never see them, since you didn't vote for them..."


...At least to me. Because, remember: I never bought any of this in the first place.

Date: 2006/05/05 00:19:04, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,22:13)
Go celebrate!  Send the drink bills to me!

Dave, I will drink a whole bottle of fine Arcadian wine (and each glass to you and your family's health) if you tell me that this has made you question, even slightly, the "authority" of AIG in these issues- and that you'll try to check and cross-examine their claims before believing them from now on (even with a simple google search).
Because if you do, believe me, this was only your first surprise...

Date: 2006/05/05 00:41:36, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,01:54)
PuckSR,

Actually, I was envisioning a legal scenario in which one's age (according to the law) was an issue.

For this purpose, I was wondering if it was more in accordance with reality to say that the human being began aging at conception as opposed to birth.

I can see why the law would consider birth the "beginning" of the aging process, but that's only because it's antiquated and  unresponsive to certain scientific realities.

I'm not sure your response would have any relevance in this legal scenario?

Something tells me thor was another 9 months until he turns 21...  :p

Date: 2006/05/05 01:11:08, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
And remember, I was once given to your primitive liberal mindset.  I'm glad I'm free (truly liberal) of that stifling and nonthinking ideology.

You know, in all my travels across the wild internet seas, I don't remember ever meeting an extremely loud and raving fundie who didn't claim he was an atheist liberal once.
What happened, guys? The whole country obviously was 100% liberal a couple decaces ago. I mean, who voted for Reagan? Aliens?????
;)

Date: 2006/05/05 02:13:51, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
"Are ND's really such poor marketers of their ideas that only 20% of the public is buying their story?"

As surprising as it may seem to you, Dave, the answer is yes. And there's nothing wrong with that.
You see, "ND's" Do not try to market their ideas. Maybe that hurts their image, but they cannot do otherwise: Their cause is to discover truth, not sell their "truth" to the public (which is exactly what the other side -ID/Creos- does). That's why all their funding goes to research, not PR departments.
But maybe this "marketing" of ideas seems normal to you... In which case, tell me: If you learned that a car company puts all their money in advertising and publicity, to show how cool their cars are, and NOTHING in research to make them better and safer -in fact, they don't have an R&D department at all- would you buy a car from them? Or would you ignore them, regardless of what other people think?

(Oh I understand the alalogy is a bit flawed- ID does not even have a car to sell  :) )

Quote
It's meaningless for explaining the ORIGIN of immune system.  I'm sure its quite meaningful at explaining HOW THE IMMUNE SYSTEM WORKS.

Um Dave, I dunno what AIG says, but the research presented in the trial was about the evolution of the immune system.
If they were to present all the research done over the whole field of immunology over the last years, they'd probably need one of these:


...Now, what would ID?Creos need to present their research in the field?
Well, probably come up with some first, I guess.  :)




PS. the question mark in "ID?Creos" was supposed to be a slash, but I like it better that way. "ID? Nah, Creos".  :D

Date: 2006/05/05 02:43:57, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,05:50)
I was thinking about turning 35 in 2008?

You also thought you were beginning to lose the Sceptre of Trolldom to the competition, and craving for attention you decided to strike back with another pointless thread. Typical.

Date: 2006/05/05 03:22:24, Link
Author: Faid
I gotta go print me a shirt that says "Liberal Atheists have more fun" for the summer...

Date: 2006/05/05 03:38:37, Link
Author: Faid
Well, we could go on to argue whether God thinks it's a sin to marry unless you can have children... But I must say this takes our train of thought too far from this thread's subject. My point, as you may have guessed, is another:
Quote
I'm curious what you are driving at ... are you considering doing this?  Are you concerned that you would somehow "fall out of Grace" under the Catholic conception of this term if you did?  Do you know someone who is?  Like hehe? :-) Or are just trying to investigate if you think God is consistent?

 :)  Respectively: No, no, no, and yes.

Well ,not if god is consistent himself, but if all those people who insist that their view represents the one, absolute, literal and indisputable Truth™ are consistent with reality. See how many assumptions we have made so far, each to explain the other? Now, all these work (sort of) if you're already firm on your beliefs, and try to find possible ways to justify them- they do not work, however, when you are looking for the truth; and that is what science is supposed to do.

Date: 2006/05/05 03:38:37, Link
Author: Faid
Well, we could go on to argue whether God thinks it's a sin to marry unless you can have children... But I must say this takes our train of thought too far from this thread's subject. My point, as you may have guessed, is another:
Quote
I'm curious what you are driving at ... are you considering doing this?  Are you concerned that you would somehow "fall out of Grace" under the Catholic conception of this term if you did?  Do you know someone who is?  Like hehe? :-) Or are just trying to investigate if you think God is consistent?

 :)  Respectively: No, no, no, and yes.

Well ,not if god is consistent himself, but if all those people who insist that their view represents the one, absolute, literal and indisputable Truth™ are consistent with reality. See how many assumptions we have made so far, each to explain the other? Now, all these work (sort of) if you're already firm on your beliefs, and try to find possible ways to justify them- they do not work, however, when you are looking for the truth; and that is what science is supposed to do.

Date: 2006/05/05 04:31:48, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 05 2006,08:59)
Quote
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. (p. 43)
Thank you Richard Dawkins.  Case closed.  It's been great debating all of you.

Dave,
Before we discuss this, it's important (I think) to clear out something:

Quote-mining is frowned upon in this forum. It's a clear indicator of the deceiving tecniques the people you believe in use.
Now, I think you probably quoted that straight from the AIG site, so I don't blame you. You can retract it, of course, or, better yet: Look what Dawkins actually wrote, and see for yourself who has been LYING to you.

Check it out- Chapter three.


<edit: Whoops- sorry, improvius.>

Date: 2006/05/05 05:00:20, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm. I think thordaddy did, at some point... But then, thor is so absurd, even Godwin can't touch him.


Dave, About your talkorigins link: Did you stop reading after the part you quoted? Because if you kept on, you'd see how he goes on to explain how his arguments are not based in the "multiple universe" theory.

Uniess you quoted that from AIG too, I guess.

Date: 2006/05/05 05:13:52, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, you settled nothing.

After you say "just kidding", you admit this is an attempt to convince us:
Quote
I know you are not yet convinced, but I hope this is at least a good start for you.  I'm pretty sure you don't want me to repeat the Denton and Behe stuff which is why I quoted one of your own

When you knew, in fact, that this misquote does not support "design" in any way, and in fact simply argues against random assembly of life in its present complexity, ie: the "tornado in a junkyard" example(which is something none of us believes, anyway).

I mean seriously, Dave.  :angry:

Date: 2006/05/05 06:25:41, Link
Author: Faid
It's only you who sees the paradox here, Dave. If, in your mind, "not made by pure chance" = "designed by god" that is only your inability to understand that evolution is NOT a purely random process- far from it. THAT is what Dawkins says, and you should KNOW that before you served his butchered words to us as admittance of design. And you should know that this would NOT "convince" us, even in the slightest.

As for your other arguments: The anthropic principle is examined thoroughly in the very talkorigins page you quoted; again, did you read past the quote? Because if you did, you'd see that the author does not use multiple universes as the sole support for his arguments.
As for your "biological machines" argument, this has been demonstrated repeatedly to be based on loaded terms: Labelling living things "machines" to argue that they are designed, presupposes that they are designed.
It's a "dog=table" argument, basically, interwined with speculations of a cause: With the same logic, we should argue that those round volcanic rocks were the marbles of giants, because they look like big stone marbles. Now, the reasons those rocks are round are pretty much the same (as far as the fundamental laws of physics are concerned) with the reasons marbles are made round- but that is no proof that they are, in fact, marbles -as I'm sure you agree.

Date: 2006/05/05 12:31:43, Link
Author: Faid
####, And I thought this was about something serious, like the legal drinking age...

Come on thor, anybody can be president... I mean, look at the news!

Date: 2006/05/05 12:36:31, Link
Author: Faid
ok, censoring "damn" is just silly.

<whoops>

Date: 2006/05/05 12:57:10, Link
Author: Faid
17 doctors? 17? I can get 20 doctors who believe in evolution from my hospital alone, first thing Monday. And that's without really trying...

Date: 2006/05/05 13:04:32, Link
Author: Faid
Not just the law... It's tradition, thordaddy. You know, that thing that, if you mess with, society collapses?

Date: 2006/05/05 13:28:44, Link
Author: Faid
I suppose that the problem with MDs (more of a nessesary evil, really) is overspecialization. We are supposed to know all there is to know on a pretty narrowed down field of medicine, according to our specialty; gaps in knowledge of general science are bound to appear, and they're easily filled with any pseudoscience we find appealing.
You'd be surprised to know how many doctors actually believe in astrology and signs, for instance... (well ok, not many, but much more than the percentage I'd find acceptable, which is zero).

Date: 2006/05/05 13:35:15, Link
Author: Faid
Thor, if you actually think about such things, you have way too much free time on your hands.

Date: 2006/05/06 02:40:19, Link
Author: Faid
Great... After asking his opponents to explain their arguments to him again and again and again, thordeaf now asks them to also explain each other's arguments.

If we try to exhaust the possibilities of that, I'm sure this thread will break the page barrier in no time...

Date: 2006/05/06 04:03:32, Link
Author: Faid
Woo hoo! Davescot recognizes our artistic talent!

Don't worry Davesy... Just keep working your magic and we promise not to let you down ever. You can count on us making a fool out of you anytime.

Oh, and I really like the way you directly compared Judge Jones to Hitler and, when someone called you out on that, tried to invoke Godwin's law on them. Reeeally classy.

Date: 2006/05/06 12:03:27, Link
Author: Faid
Oh boy where to begin?
Oh well, most of what you said has been covered by others... Just a few pointers:

First of all, please drop the Dawkins issue. If you are actually trying to make a point, it does not help you, and only makes us irritated. Like I said in my previous post (and you obviously missed it), there is no "paradox" here. Dawkins does not admit the plausibility of design; he refers to the improbability of emergence of life in it's present complexity. Those two things are connected only in your mind, that disregards evolution and thinks they were created in the first place. However, everyone agrees with what Dawkins says (well, except those medieval physiologists that believed in spontaneous generation of flies and worms and rats- and those were also good christians, you know), and that is because evolution is not a purely random process. Maybe I should say that again: Evolution is not a purely random process.
I can't say whether you understand it or not, but, to use your old catchy example: Dawkins does not try to show that, although it walks and quacks like a duck, it's not- he shows that it neither walks nor quacks like a duck. Because it's not one.  :) I dunno if you laughed and theatrically tossed his book away after reading the part you quoted, but I think maybe you should have spent some more time on it... Maybe then you'd know what I mean.

About Behe: Do you even begin to understand that, what you quoted is the very testimony that made him look like a fool in court? Probably not... OK, from the beginning:
All that literature was about the evolution of the immune system. Period. Now, what Behe says in his IC theory is this: That a system is irreducibly complex when there is no possible evolutionary pathway to produce it. Not that there is "not enough evidence", or that "nothing's proved". That any attempt to come up with a scnario of origin fails a priori, because it is a scientific and logical impossibility.
Well, that is what all the literature presented was about.  :p  Research that shouldn't exist. When faced with it, Behe said he didn't believe in it (although he never read it- after all, it wasn't supposed to exist)- and, when pressed, he completely forgot the "principle" of his theory and started to demand ridiculous amounts of evidence that, if they were to be demanded all the time, all of genetics and biology would be rendered useless- "unfruitful", if you like.
It's like my favorite Pyramids example:

-The pyramids had to be made by aliens- saying that the egyptians made them, with the means of the time, is just impossible. I mean, look at them! Can YOU think of a way to make them?

-Well, they could have used this and this and that method, in fact the findings show...

-Look, don't bother me with all that. If you wanna prove it, you'll have to show beyond doubt exactly how many the workers were, how many hours they worked a day, how much they ate and drank each day, and also how tall they were and how much they weighed... Oh, and their names. All of them.

-...

-Hah! So, you see, My "Alien" theory remains the only possible scenario!


Dave, what Behe involuntarily demonstrated in court is that his "theory" actually says: "A system is irreducibly complex when you cannot convince me that it's not, and you can't convince me because, well, because".
Dishonesty at its best- and IDers still wonder why they lost...

About the "biological machines" thing: Actually, It is your answer, the one I was expecting, that refutes your claims. You say that there are many differences between my rocks example and biological systems. That is true, of course, but there are also major, fundamental differences between living organisms and actual machines: Differences your logic dismisses, to focus on the apparent simillarities- simillarities you try to distinguish and interpret that way in the first place. That is why your logic is loaded, and that is why it is essentialy as flawed as my "volcanic rocks=marbles" example. You want your rocks to be marbles; everything will be examined under that perception.

As for quoting the part I mentioned, about the talkorigins article, I'm once again wondering: Did you actually read this past the part you quoted? Or did you quote it from somewhere else? Anyway, here you go:
Quote
Note that my thesis does not require more than one universe to exist, although some cosmological theories propose this. Even if ours is the only universe, and that universe happened by chance, we have no basis to conclude that a universe without some form of life was so unlikely as to have required a miracle.

It's the argument from probability, Dave. One paragraph down.

Date: 2006/05/06 13:15:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (k.e @ May 06 2006,13:47)
Smaaaoooking indeed

Now why do I think that, like he did with stevestory's image, Dave won't show this over at UD? :D

Date: 2006/05/07 01:00:31, Link
Author: Faid
Wel, someone has to explain to dave how Godwin's law works...

Date: 2006/05/07 02:12:21, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ May 07 2006,05:27)
You guys are either disingenuous or clueless?

Oh-oh...



I guess we need one of these:

http://xtronics.com/pd/pd687.htm

Date: 2006/05/07 03:10:40, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, when you talk to this doctor, don't forget to also remind him of this: Although the process of gnetic coding and codons and transcription and 5'-3' orientation can be unknown or forgotten to an MD (heck, I hardly remembered any of it), arguing against centric fusions and Robertsonian translocations as an impossibility can not be attributed to ignorance. It's standard textbook genetics, and highschool material, for crying out loud. Anyone who disregards that is either lying, or too ignorant to discuss genetics in the first place. Or both.
Quote
May the God who you may not believe in bless you anyway!

Funny... You reminded me of something H.L.Borges wrote in a story of his, about a medieval Arab philosopher and poet, who was also fascinated by mathematics:

[...]A sudden discomfort -or a premonition- makes him stop reading. He gets up, marks the page his eyes will never again see, and makes amends with God, that God that might exist, and whose Grace he begged for, through the intricate pages of his algebra. He dies the same day, around sunset.

Now why am I quoting this? As a reminder: That, for many people, the way of finding "god" (a god, their god, any god) is, not by trying to verify their beliefs at all costs, but by actually looking for the truth. They may succeed or fail; but for them, that is the only path available. Give this some thought.

Date: 2006/05/07 11:50:01, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, let's see what this doctor says:
Quote
The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!

So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right. So, how hard is it to check any textbook in genetics and see that this "impossibility" happens all the time, with little consequense save a drop in fertility? He is arguing about genetics, after all, and he knows what the other side says. What would be the first thing you'd do in his place?
There's no way around it... He's either both arrogant and clueless enough to think he can argue against fundamental knowledge in genetics with no prior information, by making stuff up, or he knows he's wrong, and he's lying. You can decide yourself which is worse.

Date: 2006/05/07 12:57:29, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 07 2006,10:48)
Quote
Actually, I think we're doing pretty well over at UD.


So I see.

Quote
We just await Dembski's response...


Best of luck with that. :D

Guys, remember to save your posts: There is high probability of a massive deleting event, first thing Monday.

Date: 2006/05/07 13:44:43, Link
Author: Faid
Well maybe the good doctor hasn't been paying much attention to his blog this weekend I'm just saying

And since Dave hasn't got a clue 'bout what's been discussed, he's just letting the posts hang there till he gets the word

or you know whatever

Date: 2006/05/07 23:36:34, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 07 2006,21:14)
Quote
So, he says that "head to head" fusion is a biochemical impossibility. Right.

No.  He does not say that.  His mistake is this ...
Quote
Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!

Excuse me?

Can you explain to me where the difference in context lies?
This guy says that there could not have been a "head-to-head" fusion, because that would mean the genes would be read backwards and that makes "no biochemical sense".
Is this true or false? Does he accept the fusion event as possible, yes or no? You already know the answers.
Don't play with words, Dave. We're not children.

Date: 2006/05/07 23:52:04, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,04:42)
Dr. Wieland's problem was that he thought there could be a 'backwards' way to join the chromosomes.  

Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes. In spite of the fact that what he refers to as 'backwards way' is common genetic knowledge.
I said that this displays either voluntary ignorance, or deliberate deceit.
Can you think of another possibility?


Oh and, yes, I remembered little about genetic coding, it's true (although I did kind of remember something about fusions, and a lot came back to me). But then, I'm not the one writing an article trying to dispute elementary stuff in genetics...

Date: 2006/05/08 03:39:42, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,06:17)
Quote
Dave, Wieland says there couldn't be a "backwards" way to join the chromosomes.


???? I cannot find where he says this.

Here is what he says ...

Quote
Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!


He is talking about READING the Chromosome backwards, not JOINING it backwards.

???  ???  ???  ???
Dave, what exactly are you trying to argue about here?
Wieland says that the proposed evolutionary pathway recieves a "blow", because that requires a "head-to-head" fusion, and if you have a head to head fusion, then the 'sentence' would be "read backwards", and that "makes no biochemical sense".

I mean, seriously, what is the meaning you make out of that? does he say that "head-to-head" fusions are possible, or not?

Again, please don't play with words.

Date: 2006/05/11 11:35:53, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, I'm sorry to say that, with every new post you make, you move away from the "sincerely ignorant" group that I had originally placed you, and closer to the "liars for jesus" one. It's sad- but not entirely unexpected.
I will forget the fact that you essentially wrote the very same "arguments" you made in the beginning, only sticking a "well I don't buy it" below... After all, that only demonstrates your known eagerness to close your eyes to reality, in order to defend your views.
I have little time right now, however, so I'm just gonna stick to the part where you're referring to me:
Quote
Now I don't want to get into other funky ideas like parallel universes as Faid tried to get me to do.  My point is made by noting simply that T.O. agrees that Yes, in fact, OUR universe is fine tuned for life.

Just what are you babbling about? I didn't try to get you to do anything: I just pointed you to the article you quote, three paragraphs down after your quote, the point you systematically ignore: The argument from probability.
Now, that says nothing about parallel universes, as I'm sure you know- if you even bothered to check, that is. In fact that's exactly what it does not say:
For the third time,
Quote
Note that my thesis does not require more than one universe to exist, although some cosmological theories propose this. Even if ours is the only universe, and that universe happened by chance, we have no basis to conclude that a universe without some form of life was so unlikely as to have required a miracle.

Where are the "parallel universes", Dave? Do you think that you can keep people's attention away from what I said and mislead them by hand-waving? You can't. You're not preaching to the choir in these forums; you need new tricks.
Try to get rid of the little thordaddy inside you, and maybe these discussions will help you learn something.

Date: 2006/05/11 14:29:34, Link
Author: Faid
Nah, you guys are overanalyzing Dave. It's just that he's still quite proud of his post, and wants people to see it, so he directs them here. The rest is gibberish to sound like he's joking.

Date: 2006/05/12 02:16:26, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Church Burnin’ Sheet Wearin’ Ebola Boys

Yeah, that’s the ticket!


Boy, he's really proud of his post...

Like some brat that made a frog explode or something...

...Nah, he's not mature enough for that yet. He'd probably lose a couple fingers trying.

Date: 2006/05/12 03:44:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (thordaddy @ May 12 2006,05:27)
Chris Hyland,

Doesn't this just put the lie to a homophobic society that makes life unbearable for homosexuals?  Wouldn't such a society have a negative effect on the children raised by gays?  But no, this discriminatory and intolerant society has no effect on the children of gay families?  

Again, basic commonsense leads one to change original assumptions.  If you're going to stand by your "observations" then you must stand by the notion that our society is so homosexual-friendly as to not have any effect on the emotional health of children in gay families?

This seems like lies built upon lies to serve a larger agenda?

Translation:

Since we hate gays, we give their children psycological problems.

Therefore, those darnn gays shouldn't have children.

Date: 2006/05/12 08:05:34, Link
Author: Faid
Um... Ghost, after reading your arguments for a possible motive for all this proposed liberal bias, I must say I have a problem. See, I'm having difficulty finding an example among those you mentioned (the undermined crimes) where the perpetrator was an immigrant. As a matter of fact, I'm having difficulty in finding anyone who wasn't an African American. Can you help me here?

Also, another thing, about your "Truman Capote" argument for denying a  commercial potential to the supposed undermining of the Wichita Massacre...

Now, I know you just quoted the AmRen site (you're too smart to propose an argument like that, it's just you're also too bored to bother coming up with your own)- but I really want to know: Do you actually believe that the only difference between the two events, as far as public sensation and media potential are concerned, is the murderers' race? I'd really like a straight answer.

Date: 2006/05/12 09:57:35, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2006,12:50)
I think everybody knows by now that Paley had no such model of heterosexual marriages as hubs on a scale free network. He was just trying to impress with references to an unusual scientific topic, and he got called on it.

Oh but, see, we can't call him on that. No siree, not while there aren't 18 votes on his poll.
See, unless the well-known A-DUMMIE threshold (Arbitrarily-Defined, Universal Minimum Margin of Internet Expectancy) is reached, he can say whatever he likes without being expected to back it up.

...It's a really old Internet rule Paley just made up.

Date: 2006/05/12 10:56:07, Link
Author: Faid
Well, I dunno about your factors, Ghost, but I only need to name one: 1959.

As for Whine-ona: Not unsuprisingly, here's what I wrote one page ago:
Quote
Now, remember: I said expect - not deserve. I'm not saying that the media is fair in doing so. The media might think that a white guy killing a black would work better in today's news than a black killing a white- however, they might also think that another silly comment by the prez would work better than both. I'm just saying.

You see, the media weren't bored enough to bother with news of a famous actor arrested for shoplifting; they drooled over it. That's why even we heard all about Winona's doings here in Greece, from our media (and nothing about Wichita, of course): That's what was deemed prime news. It's sad, it's pathetic, it's infuriating, and it's true.

Anyway, about your examples... How do they demonstrate protection of immigrants again?

Date: 2006/05/12 15:31:24, Link
Author: Faid
-Sigh-

And you're calling us confused?

Dave, that gene is a pseudogene. Pseudogenes are just part of what is commonly referred to as junk DNA, and noone says that they never had any coding function. In the case of this gene, we know it's function: We have identified the gene (in it's active form) in the rat,verified it's existense in many organisms, and it's corrupted form in primates and guinea pigs:

+AND+267[VOL]+AND+842[PAGE]&doptcmdl=Abstract]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez.....bstract

<edit: I can't seem to link to the article... Anyway, googling "Nishikimi et al, J Biol Chem 267" will do it.>

Which this gene is, and what it does (coding for a specific protein), is not a wild assumption; it is a FACT. A wild (and completely unsupportable) assumption is what you say: that the gene in question has some other imaginary, undefined purpose in its broken form, that we have not understood yet (or the mechanism by which it is produced), and it just happens to look identical to a broken GULO gene- and that's about as unscientific as you can get.
And what arguments do you provide for this? Analogies with language. Sheesh.
Dave, Language is arbitrary. Words are arbitrary.
"Barking" and "Barfing" look alike only because we made them that way in English, not because there's some magical connection between the two actions they represent, so that one can become the other with a change of a letter in the word (well, unless you believe in Kabbalah, that is :p).
Genetics is not arbitrary. Change (or rather, destroy) a key element in the complicated biochemical process of transcription, and it's not another intriguing result that suddenly pops up: You know what happens? That's right, nothing. Everything else is just wishful thinking on your part. Wishful dreaming, rather.
Dave, noone expects you to become a rocket scientist. We just think that it's necessary, since you also like to refer to yourself as an "amateur scientist", to have at least some knowledge of the fundamentals of the sciences (yes, whole sciences) you're arguing against.

Is that too much to ask?


You can start here, if you really came to learn something in these forums:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psa.ball.html
Answer key

I won't even adress your other "arguments" (about losing the PR fight, ToE's boat sinking etc). They were blown to smithereens the first time you posted them; it gets tedious after a while.

Date: 2006/05/13 05:03:18, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (argystokes @ May 12 2006,21:36)
I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model.

So how's about it, Dave?  Shall we do some science?

Also, argystokes, at the risk of making dave's assumptions more complicated than they already are...
...We won't be looking for just one "pseudo-GLO" gene.
We must look for many genes, some only slightly different, some a lot more, each (apparently) responsible for different, not identified functions, whose only common characteristic is, well, this uncanny resemblance with a GLO gene that's broken in some way.
Not that this changes anything in your proposed search; It's just that, when we examine animals that have a functioning GLO gene (and there are a LOT), we'd have to explain why they also 'happen' to lack all those 'other' genes... according to dave's "theory", at least.

Date: 2006/05/13 05:22:13, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
So I think the following possibilities exist ...
(1) Pseudo-GLO is NOT "broken GLO" and is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.

Not our scenario, though. GLO gene is a unitary one. Scurvy, remember? Next...
 
Quote
(2) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because the gene "broke" in the ape-like ancestor, then this "broken gene" was copied throughout the evolutionary path to humans.  If this is true, however, you would still need to explain how the gene broke independently in the guinea pig ancestor, but wound up in modern guinea pigs looking "36% similar" to modern human pseudo-GLO.  You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)

The gene is a basic one for survival of all life: It's needed for animals of all kinds, and has developed very early in the course of life on the planet. Under that perspective, 36% is too little a resemblance. Especially when compared to the minimal differences between primates. As for being closer to guinea pigs than pro-simians... what part of "broke independently" (which you yourself wrote) didn't you get?
Please, please read the links we provided before trying to make stuff up.
<edit: Oh, I see that you're not: You're just parroting AiG- they try to make stuff up.>
 
Quote
(3) Pseudo-GLO IS "broken GLO" and is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C ... this is because all animals were designed with a functional gene, but now some have independently lost function because of mutations.
Well, well... 3 sounds about right, if you replace the ridiculous "designed" with the more accurate "evolved"...  :p
...And, since there is no more evolutionary pressure in an already broken gene, and it continues to accumulate mutations over time, what do the minimal differences of the broken genes between humans and primates tell us? Take the test I linked you to, and I'll let you figure that out yourself.
Any more questions?

Date: 2006/05/13 06:44:44, Link
Author: Faid
I dunno... I think that, if Dave had even bothered to look at the links we provided for him form the start of this thread, he'd seen that the major deletions in the broken guinea pig gene occur in different locations than in the human one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....=240400

And he could have compared it with the differences in the broken genes of primates, seen here:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psb.st.pdf

And reach to an intelligent conclusion.

...That is, if he had bothered.

Date: 2006/05/13 07:04:50, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
It appears Kevin hates and fears religious fundamentalists of all stripes and considers them murderous fanatics. Note how he equates suicide bombers with those who kill abortion doctors saying only killing themselves afterward is what separates the two. Kevin Padian is one sick puppy with an irrational hatred of religious fundamentalists.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:56 am

Well, if what you wrote wasn't a blatant lie, Davesy, then I guess Mr. Padian would have been your kind of guy... He is refering to Islamic fundies, after all.
:D

Date: 2006/05/13 07:27:28, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Russell @ May 13 2006,11:59)
Yes. But where is that 36% number coming from? Does dave, in fact, have the whole article? Or is he taking someone else's word for it?

What do you think?  ;)

Date: 2006/05/13 07:48:26, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 13 2006,12:26)
Dumbo's Man

Woo hoo I started a trend!  :)  *pride*

Quote
I've noticed that when little DT gets going on a swiftboating he often shifts focus after a few days when people point out his idiocy.

Yeah, and then he waits for a while until people sort of forget about it, and casually brings it up again as an indisputable fact...
A sinister method indeed, worthy of a higher-IQ genius.
I'm sure he's been googling "Padian Pianka" furiously these days, trying to find something he can use to implicate the two...  ;)

Date: 2006/05/13 09:38:28, Link
Author: Faid
So, I read the AiG site, and I must say it's just precious.
I realized this: The magic "36%" comes from the 47 point substitutions (of 126 overall) that the human gene shares with the guinea pigs.
That's right, just the substitutions. Suprised? I'm not.
Now, they seem to be aware of the concept of point mutation hotspots, but they try to work around it (?) with this piece of blabber:
   
Quote
It has long been known that mutations are quite non-random in occurrence, but the variety and complexity of mutational hotspots has seldom been appreciated. Rogozin et al.36 have recently summarized our current knowledge of experimentally induced mutations. Many nucleotide motifs other than the earlier-discussed CG doublet can serve as mutational hotspots. It is now known that the sequence content tens of bases away from a given motif can influence the degree of its hotspot behaviour. Moreover, the propensity of nucleotide motifs to be mutational hotspots varies from gene to gene and from one region of the genome to another. Moreover, the foregoing considerations do not even touch the higher-level features of gene or chromatin structure as causes of mutational hotspot behaviour.37 The large relative number of parallel mutations in the guinea pig and primate GULO pseudogenes cannot be said to be unprecedented. Experimental evidence has already demonstrated that nucleotide substitutions (as well as indels, for that matter) can, unexpectedly, occur in a very strongly concerted manner.38

Can anyone make sense of it? How does all this argue against hotspots in a given gene? It seems like they're copy/pasting various phrases from different sources, trying to look like they're actually arguing about something. Or, if they seriously think the hotspot concept works for them, how do they explain the much larger simillarity of the broken gene among primates? Oh that's right, they don't.
But maybe I'm wrong, I dunno... The main issue is this: They don't say anything about deletions. At all. For AiG, entire deletions corresponding to exons might as well not exist. And that's in spite of the fact they receive prime mention in their source. They mention something about the exons remaining in humans, but not in relation to guinea pigs, and they forget about it afterwards.
Gee, I wonder why:
Quote
Since deletions are not likely to occur independently at the same site and are highly unlikely to be “undone” by later mutations, finding the same deletion in two different individuals or two different species is highly suggestive ofcommon ancestry. (This is in agreement with what is observed in “tracing”certain deletion mutations in human pedigrees.)


Hey Dave, guess who's been lying to you again?

Date: 2006/05/13 11:59:30, Link
Author: Faid
...Huh?

Ghost, first you disregard local media coverage in demonstrating your proposed bias, and then you use it to somehow argue against the factor of public interest in covering a crime (as if you don't know that local news of all kinds are more interesting to the public by sheer proximity)?

Also, always according to your "model", can you tell me which secret commitee evaluates this kind of crimes, the minute after they happen, defines where they can be "covered up" and where they can not, and gives the signal to the appropriate media to adjust their coverage?
The High Order of Media Illuminati, perhaps?

Your arguments are getting less rational by the minute, Ghost.

Anyway, about my previous question... How are your examples so far showing a media "protection" of immigrants? I only see African Americans under the scope. I could be wrong, though.

Date: 2006/05/13 12:40:47, Link
Author: Faid
Well, AiG nutjobs aside, I think noone needs any kind of education to participate in a scientific discussion.
Seriously.
On the contrary, I think that uneducated people should be encouraged to participate in such debates. They should be able to state their views; the worst (and most likely) they can turn out to be is, well, wrong.
The important thing, however, is that they have to be prepared to accept the fact that they might be wrong, if (when) it is demonstrated to them. It's the only way they'll eventually learn something.
And we all know on which side AiG denizens usually are...

Date: 2006/05/13 14:06:51, Link
Author: Faid
From Dave's 'update':
Quote
There is no comparison but Kevin Padian in his mindless rage against fundamentalists sees no difference. If you ask me it’s people like Kevin Padian who are a danger to society not fundamentalist Christians. If Padian can’t tell the difference between a mass murdering suicide bomber indiscriminately blowing up crowds of people and a gunman carefully selecting a single target for murder then Padian simply isn’t playing with a full deck and one has to hope he never decides to murder anyone because he isn’t able to distinguish between killing a crowd of strangers and a single person against whom he holds a grudge.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:56 am

So... If someone thinks that people who kill one person they hate, are as evil as people who kill many persons they hate, then that someone is obviously prone to homicide himself, somehow. I see.

...Dave, I think you should take two of the yellow pills tonight.

Date: 2006/05/13 15:39:58, Link
Author: Faid
Agree with what, Dave? that 36% of the point mutations in the two broken genes are the same? Sure, we agree. Now, will you read our answers, and the links we gave you?

Date: 2006/05/13 16:37:51, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,20:58)
That's what I've been trying to say ... Dr. Max's article on T.O. uses this as evidence of common descent for apes and humans.  My point has been all along that this assertion is not warranted with just this little bit of knowledge that we have.

*sigh*

Dave, for the love of the Designer Who Must Not Be Named, read the links. See for yourself this "little knowledge" science has on the subject. See who's withholding the truth from you.

Date: 2006/05/13 17:16:58, Link
Author: Faid
Ooh ooh it's the infamous SETI argument, oh noes we nevers expected it...

Well what can you do, I guess we should all confess with Dave now...

Or, maybe, you know, explain to him that the people at the SETI project are not making metaphors on purpose when they talk about products of intelligence: They mean the real thing. They are looking for actual intelligent design, not "Intelligent Design". The reason they are looking for things that people build is, well, that they are looking for "people" who build things.
Somewhat like the genetic research company discussed at UD, they're for the real deal, not for loaded metaphors to apply to natural phenomena.

Dave, during tomorrow's confession, remember to also mention this little (and extremely old and worn-out) bit of trickery you tried to pull here.

Date: 2006/05/13 17:36:59, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm... Dunno about Max, but I can analyse Woodmorappe's "feasibility of the Ark" crap, if you like...

Why do you ask? Got anything to share?

Date: 2006/05/14 02:33:37, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
You cannot dodge this one ...



oooh boy, we're reeally scared now... The zombie SETI argument has come back to haunt us- to the hills, people!

...Not really.

Dave, I hope you remembered to add your stubborness and arrogance in your confession today, because seriously, I dunno which is worse- and more responsible for your total lack of understanding.

Once again: SETI does not look for "Intelligent Design" in the universe. They look for designs of intelligence. They explain that clearly in their link; too bad you didn't bother to check.
You might say that they don't look for "bat ear radars" and "eye cameras": they look for radars and cameras. Their products, at least. They are not searching for complexity (which is your "argument" for ID), they're searching for simplicity out of place -like a trail of smoke over the ocean. They're looking for things that stand out of their enviroment, not fit perfectly in it.
When they say "things people build" they mean j u s t   t h a t (there, was that right?  :p ). What do you think is artificial, dave? A cactus in the desert, or a steel upright pipe? And which is more complex? Hmm.
And it's us that are flustrated, right? :D

I know of course all this is pointless by now... I have figured out there's no way to penetrate your wall of stubborness; I just want to point out that, mixing that with arrogant remarks and lame attempts at mockery, does not help your "cause" here- and only makes you look silly (yes, silly even for a young-earther).

Just FYI.

Date: 2006/05/14 03:10:09, Link
Author: Faid
No.

Dave, read the links.

See the actual kind of differences present between human and guinea pig GULO genes (not just the ones AiG mentions, which are but a small part) and compare them to the minimal differences between primates.

This is the fifth (I think?) time I'm asking you to... You have repeatedly claimed that you read the links we provide: Are you going to make a liar out of yourself?

Date: 2006/05/14 03:17:20, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,06:48)
Quote
There it is.  They [AIG] don't do science, they do apologetics.  They don't do any scientific research for themselves--the best you can say is that they are armchair critics.


Armchair critics ... er, yes ... sort of like you, right?

It's funny that Evos think that Creos should "do their own research."  That would be like me saying   "PT and TO people shouldn't quote researchers like Nikimishi and Inai ... they should do their own research!!"

Pretty silly argument, now, isn't it?

Yeah, I thought so ... you can take it back if you like ... I won't embarrass you by quoting you further.

Dave, we're referring to AiG and all their proclaimed experts, like Woodmorappe, not you. You reply by referring to us.
And AiG does not quote scientific research that supports Genesis (because there isn't any, and they cannot come up with any), so they take existing scientific research and try to twist and distort its data to their liking. They're liars, dave.

I'll give you a chance to retract what you said, before you embarrass yourself even further.

Date: 2006/05/14 05:43:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 14 2006,08:40)
Face it, Faid.  You lost one point.

Talk Origins supported my position on this one.

Shake it off! ... it's only ONE point you lost.  It's a new day tomorrow.

I also have lost one point here at PT ... and I admitted it ... you can too.  It's not that bad.  It's not like this disproves your whole theory or anything.

Face it, Dave. You have no arguments and no logic behind your assumptions, and you try to make up for that with word-playing, hand-waving, and lame mockery. Oh, and spades of denial.

It's ok to admit that you haven't the slightest clue of what I just explained, and you were unable to answer me; We already realize that's due to the fact that you don't want to, not because you can't. But if you're desperately trying to get a "point" for yourself, try to win it like we did: With arguments and evidence.

Instead, saying "H e y   w h a t   d o e s   i t   s a y   h e r e   y e a h   t h a t s   r i g h t   " i n t e l l i g e n t   d e s i g n "   W o o   h o o   T. O.   s u p p o r t s   I D   I   w i n   w h a t s   t h a t   I   c a n t   h e a r   y o u   l a   l a   l a" Only makes you look ridiculous and childish.

Seriously, can't you do better than that?  :(  *disappointment*

Date: 2006/05/14 09:15:56, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Russell @ May 14 2006,13:21)
...and if that does turn out to be the case, what is the more likely explanation for AiG's mistake: incompetence, or dishonesty?

Well, since we've seen that they've already withheld information regarding deletions, and made it look like the 36% simillarity in substitutions alone is the overall simillarity in the two genes... Need you ask?  ;)

I admit I hadn't thought of that: Point mutations (not deletions though- I think) can also accumulate in species with an active form of the gene, as long as the gene remains functional after them. So, a significant number of those could have happened after rats and guinea pigs diverged. That would make the number of simillar subtitutions attributed to other reasons (like mutational hotspots) much less.
Not that this affects the fact that the remarkable resemblance (including specific deletions etc.) of the broken gene in primates suggests common descent from a gene broken in a single species, of course: This evidence is way strong the way it stands. It just helps to clear out the AiG smokescreens easier.

...You know, it's a good thing creationists like Dave drop by from time to time and try to "enlighten" us: It helps us refresh things we had forgotten, learn things we didn't know, have constructive debates (such as this) we'd normally not have, and in the end appreciate science even more.

Date: 2006/05/14 10:12:44, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (jeannot @ May 14 2006,14:46)
The apparent convergence of 36% could be significantly reduced, only if several substitutions accumulated in the rat lineage only, which is not likely since the active GLO is subject to purifying selection.

I know, that's why I'm speaking of substitutions that do not affect the gene's function. Now, I think such are possible to occur (although much, much less than all the kinds of mutations that accumulate in broken genes, of course)... Otherwise, the GULO gene should be 100% identical in all animals that can make their own vit. C- And I think that is not the case? Or is it? Does anyone have a relevant source?

Did I mention that this is fun?  :)

Date: 2006/05/14 10:26:20, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ May 14 2006,15:18)
I wonder why AFDave isn't hear setting you all straight about your convergences and your BLASTs and what have you.

From what I hear, he's busy posting over at his newfound haven at UD right now.

But I'm sure he'll be back...

Date: 2006/05/14 12:24:06, Link
Author: Faid
Whoa there... Is Davescot the poster really arguing about how fuzzy the boundaries between species actually are?

Davescot the UD moderator would have put him on the "list" immediately...

Oh boy, this guy deserves all the credit he gets as an entertainer... :D

Date: 2006/05/14 12:34:54, Link
Author: Faid
Nah, Davescot's been put on a leash: Young earthers are quite welcome at UD these days. I'm sure that Dave will find it quite a hospitable place, now that the Immanuel Velikovsky of Information Theory has given up all pretense, and DS is biting his lip trying to constrain himself...

Date: 2006/05/14 12:57:13, Link
Author: Faid
Hey thor, if Cooley's anemia kills you, how come there's still Cooley's anemia?

Take some time off your trolling and give this a little thought.

Date: 2006/05/14 15:44:59, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (beervolcano @ May 14 2006,20:07)
Actually I was thinking along the lines that accepting both BB coupled with an anthropic principle, like in The Privileged Planet, as well as a prescribed, front-loaded, version of evolution, it more easily squares with the notion of a God. By thinking along these lines, you can welcome most scientific data, while still allowing yourself to be pointed "seductively toward design" and therefore God.

Well, yeah... But that would make his views practically indistinguishable from ToE (except in a vague, almost philosophical level, I guess). In effect, he would have no scientific grounds in which he could dispute and attack "evilutionists"... And since, as we all know, these guys are all bleeding heart liberal marxist pinkos as well (just ask Paley), that simply would not do.

Date: 2006/05/14 16:05:46, Link
Author: Faid
I think he said he's working on a Physics project or something... I'm not sure, however, whether it's one of his models or, you know, real science.

Date: 2006/05/15 01:43:32, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
“Dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden, and Noah’s Ark? Give me a break,” said Kevin Padian, curator at the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley and president of National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group that supports teaching evolution. “For them, ‘The Flintstones’ is a documentary.”

Here Padian clearly and flippantly states that
somewhere near half of the U.S. population who believe in the biblical account of creation think a popular cartoon show, The Flintstones, is based upon fact. This is bigotry. There’s no getting around it. Padian is a bigot who mocks anyone that takes the bible literally.


Comment by DaveScot — May 15, 2006 @ 6:03 am

Well, I guess that, under that logic, I'm a bigot too; against Davescotian Bull####ists.
Does that sect have some kind of mass anywhere, so I can, you know, stand outside and shout hideous slurs at them- like "cartoon believers"?
:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/05/15 03:53:23, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
No, Faid that is close, but not exactly what they said ... they did not say "things people build."  Talk Origins said "things that look like what people build."  


(Here we go again...)

...Yes, Dave, because that's what they're looking for.
A cactus in the desert does not look artificial. A steel upright pipe, however, does. No matter how less "complex" it is. Look, I don't think I can find a plainer example. Either you get it, or you don't.
We both know that you're trying to create a confusion in terms, by preassuming that the way you use the term "intelligent design" is the right one, and the only possible. And we both know this isn't true.
Dave, if you like to think a cactus is also artificial, then it's your right; but don't try to enforce your way on thinking on everybody else, and say that' since they're looking for steel pipes, they should also look for cactuses.  :p
SETI is not looking for loaded naive metaphors; they're looking for the real thing. Period.

Keep looking for that "point" you so desperately want, Dave: You're a long way from earning it, but who knows? You may have a good chance to get it, if you start to use real arguments.

(And this is no irony: I actually mean it. Starting to actually use argumentative logic and reasonable points to defend your position, instead of jumping from issue to issue in 4 threads, picking phrases and quotemining and hand-waving or ignoring counter-arguments, is the only way you'll keep yourself from becoming a bore for all, eventually. IMO, of course.)

Date: 2006/05/15 04:12:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
It makes perfect sense to me that a Creator designed everything perfectly, but then "cursed it" as a result of man's choice to not obey God.

You are aware, of course, that God, being all-knowing and "out of time", already knew all that when he was making the world and man in all their perfection, right? And yet he went on to impose that pointless command (not to eat a fruit, a fruit that suppoesdly did something they already could do, A fruit that had no reason to be there in the first place than to "test" them for something God knew they'd do all along when he made them), And then "cursed" them, and all their unborn children who did not even exist yet, for eternirty? And all this because he loves us?
Doesn't this look like some kind of twisted game?

That was the first question I asked you, and you never answered...


Anyway, all this is NOT science, and we both know it, so nevermind.

Date: 2006/05/15 04:47:04, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 15 2006,08:58)
[o]r it's some sort of good cop/bad cop shtick -- Dumbo looks good by apologizing, but DM lets you know where they really stand.

Yup, that's where my money is.  ;)

Date: 2006/05/15 05:05:28, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
In any case, I should not have engaged in ad hominems against Kevin Padian and apologize to him for doing so. Perhaps this incident will help persuade both sides in this debate to stay on topic and focus on the issues.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 12:23 am

...Issues like the ACLU in cahoots with the Dover board to grab taxpayer's money, church burnings, The notorious supervillain Dr. Pianka and, of course, Mr. SNIP SNIP from SNIP SNIP University.

Gotcha, Bill.

Date: 2006/05/15 05:26:33, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Padian was clearly using humour to make a point - namely, “To believe that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark is as ridiculous as believing that The Flintstone’s is a documentary”. The fact you disagree with his point (and didn’t find his attempt at humour amusing) doesn’t make his remark “bigoted”. If that’s how low the bar is now to be set on “bigotry”, then heaven help freedom of expression and vigorous debate.

If that’s what you think maybe you shouldn’t read my comment as a *serious* assertion that Padian is a bigot. -ds

Comment by John H — May 15, 2006 @ 8:26 am

Whoops, looks like Dr.Dembski pulled the slipper... Dumbo's Man seems to say now that he was joking all along...

...Are you guys sure we don't have to pay for all this? I don't wanna see any kind of "Dumbo&Co entertainment fees" charged in my account somehow...

Date: 2006/05/15 06:59:18, Link
Author: Faid
oookay... It's hard to make sense with Dave, so help me here...

Quote
“Perhaps this incident will help persuade both sides in this debate to stay on topic and focus on the issues” is precisely what TinaBrewer, myself and others had been arguing for. Once I found out for myself, from a Christian colleague, that Padian had not done what was claimed, I made it known here. I only wish it had been taken seriously then. I don’t relish having to post *my* apologies on other sites when I offered one to be posted here, but I have made my decision about leaving this forum and don’t wish to belabor the subject. JP

Padilla, if your “retraction” had been written with a civil tongue I would have let it through. Instead, if you’d bothered to look, I deleted your original comment agreeing with Dembski that Padian made a racist remark. Don’t worry about making a decision to leave this forum. I made that decision for you when you wrote the original nastygram. -ds

So... is Dumbo's Man actually saying that he banned JPadilla because of his original comment, where he agreed with Dembsk?
Following that logic, shouldn't he also ban almost every other commenter, including Dembski and himself?

If that's what he's saying (and seeing how he went from "Padian, you bigotted bigot" to "heh, just kidding" in no time), I won't be surprised at all if, in a few days, he'll say he was the only one DEFENDING Padian from mudslinging...
:O

Date: 2006/05/15 07:17:40, Link
Author: Faid
...Whoooops!
Quote
bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. It appears to me that Padian is strongly partial to people who believe in Darwinian evolution and is intolerant of creationist beliefs. Am I wrong? Does he tolerate differing views? If he does tolerate them then what exactly is it that NCSE is doing if not trying to censor creationist beliefs in science education? -ds

(Bolds, italics, and underlining all mine)

Feast on it, guys, cuz it sure aint gonna stay up for long...

Date: 2006/05/15 08:38:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 15 2006,11:49)
I was not referring to you.  What I said was ...    
Quote
That would be like me saying "PT and TO people shouldn't quote researchers like Nikimishi and Inai ... they should do their own research!!"

Dave, Dave... You did not call TO or PT "armchair scientists". It was us you called that way.

And how could you, after all? The majority of people who post at TO and PT are all scientists in relative fields, most with substantial work of their own to display.
(That often leads to hilarious results: More than once, some creo troll has popped up at PT trying to prove that this or that work by an established researcher does not support the conclusion evos want... and then the authors themselves turn up and show him how he's full of it.)
And when they refer to the work of others in the field of evolution, they present their results; they don't tamper with the data, witholding some, twisting and distorting the rest, trying to show how the results are disputable or different. That's what AiG does. That's all AiG can do.
 
Quote
You have not shown me one lie they have told.  You have shown me that Dr. Wieland was uninformed about transcription direction being unimportant.  And I agreed with you. But you have not shown me that they lie.

Well, Dave, what can I say? If you think that the reason Dr.Wieland didn't even bother to look in a genetics textbook (to see that what he argued against was common everyday knowledge in genetics), was an "understandable mistake", or that Mr. Woodmorappe somehow forgot to mention the deletions in the two genes, and so accidentaly made it look like the substitutions alone (36% of which were similar) were the entire differences between the two genes, then there's nothing I can do. I can't show you how you're being misled if you don't want to even think about it.
 
Quote
Or am I to understand that human and ape GLO is 100% IDENTICAL?  Can someone confirm this for me?

Hmm... That's funny. You've never said anything about this before and now, out of the blue, you ask for it as "proof" for common descent four times... No, make that five. Could it be that, after all we said, you realized that they are not identical? Who said they were? The hominidae diverged from other primates millions of years ago, and a number of mutations has accumulated independently. I never said the two broken genes are 100% identical, dave, and you can look it up if you like: I said that the differences between them are minimal. Almost identical to our nearest primate relatives, somewhat more different with the more distant ones, but minimal enough to demonstrate their common descent from a single breaking event in the past.

Don't believe me? Fine. Read the link. Come on, Dave, I'm not even going to bother posting it again, after the six times that I've asked you to. Look it up, Read the lesson, take the test, and see the answers.
I'm not even going to ask you again: If you don't address them, I'll infer that you don't want to, and I'll regard this part of the discussion ended- with you two "points" back in your scoring system.
Quote
Well ... at least I am contributing entertainment value to everyone if nothing else ... think of me a side show at the carnival that you didn't have to pay for!

Oh come on dave... I don't mean this in an ironic way... I actually think your presence here is constructive for all. In our debate against you, we dust off basic knowledge we should remember, but had half-forgotten because we never had to use it (being, you know, basic). Also, we learn a lot of new things by reading each other's arguments and exchange knowledge in different fields than our own.

Now, if only you were willing to learn as well...  ???

Date: 2006/05/15 09:00:59, Link
Author: Faid
Puck... Don't make things for dave more complicated than they already are.

Date: 2006/05/15 09:12:13, Link
Author: Faid
Well, I thought that Dave got carried away and forgot that prime rule: "Teach the Controversy"=/=Creationism.

But, after seeing the way the Doctor's blog is heading, I guess that doesn't amount to much now...

Date: 2006/05/15 10:18:46, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Or Monty Python - I never got that show either.


Paley, it's a good thing you're not looking for an argument, because this isn't an argument.

Date: 2006/05/15 10:22:04, Link
Author: Faid
*ahem*

...I said, "that's not an argument".

Date: 2006/05/15 10:44:27, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 15 2006,15:26)
no, no.

Paley wanted abuse.  that's next door, IIRC.

I was hoping for something along the lines of "yes it is/no it isn't" to keep this thread from sinking, but I must say this is better.  :)


Family guy... Is that the cartoon with the baby genious or something?

Date: 2006/05/16 01:04:08, Link
Author: Faid
Welcome Moorit! I'm a noob here myself, but I think anyone into computers, archaeology, astronomy and Monty Python fits perfectly in these forums!
BTW, if you see most of the arguments for ID presented around here lately, I'm sure you'll appreciate the insightfulness of MP's "Anne Elk" sketch...  ;)

Date: 2006/05/16 01:22:39, Link
Author: Faid
From the Haldane thread, some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets:

Quote
Bringing up Haldane’s dilemma reminds me of another evolutionary conundrum I’ve often wondered about: why did the Passenger Pigeon go extinct? Here we had a bird that was once considered the most common bird in the world, with vast flocks that blotted out the sun. Europeans started to hunt it with modern weapons, putting it under huge evolutionary pressure, and within 300 years it was totally extinct. One can understand birds like the Dodo, which were limited to small island populations, wouldn’t have the ability to adapt in time to avoid extinction, but if a species made up of billions of members, reproducing every few years, that ranged over a continent couldn’t succesfully evolve enough iover a few centuries to avoid extinction, why are we convinced that other species can magically adapt to abrupt changes it their environments through evolutionary transformation?

Comment by jimbo — May 15, 2006 @ 11:37 pm


...I still can't believe I'm not paying for this.

Date: 2006/05/16 03:15:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 16 2006,07:24)
Quote
some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets
No ones wondering that, they're wondering why the feathers didn't evolve in to super-hard-bullet-proof scales.

Oops, I stand corrected. Sorry, Jimbo!

Well, I guess I understand the difference between ID and creos now... IDers always think in scientifically feasible terms.

:p

Date: 2006/05/16 03:41:15, Link
Author: Faid
Evolution in action:

Date: 2006/05/16 09:43:20, Link
Author: Faid
Oh come on, Ghost, it's a well known fact that you cannot explain, using reason, why something is funny.

As a matter of fact, if you keep trying to, it stops being funny.

Remember: Irrationality in MP is always part of the joke.
And that's not a bad thing; actually, you have to be quite a reasonable person to fully appreciate the humorous potential of absurdity.
That is all.

Date: 2006/05/16 10:40:36, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Third, your reference to Godwin’s Law is misplaced. I did not compare Haeckel to the Nazis (or anyone else for that matter). I merely mentioned the historical fact that much of Nazi racism was based upon his work.

Barry knows Law alright, but he knows jack squat about Godwin's Law.
Direct comparisons are not necessary. You don't have to say "Haeckel was a Nazi" for Godwin to drop by and say hello: When Nazis are mentioned in relation to one side, in a debate whose subject is not directly relevant (such as the biological and ethnological accuracy of Haeckel's views), then their mention is a blatant appeal to emotion, and therefore sufficient to invoke Godwin's Law with glory and trumpets.

Sorry Barry, you lose.




BTW, does anyone else think that Dave and Barry's casual little exchange ("Hey barry, long time no see" / "Yeah I know, been busy") was, oh I dunno, a little staged?

Date: 2006/05/16 11:12:38, Link
Author: Faid
Well, Moorit, you can try the kind and gentle approach, but it won't help. Most of us tried it, and simply got banned a couple days later.


Re: 100 pages: And the winner is...

Date: 2006/05/16 12:24:39, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
(Note for Faid:  I know you are trying very hard to get me to see that the AIG people are a bunch of liars, so I'll tell you what I'll do.  I'll agree with you that they are all a bunch of liars and we all know what a liar I am--I've been told this many times here--and I would add that the Talk Origins people are probably liars as well, and probably many of you are also liars, and of course, the President is a liar and all Republicans are liars.  So why don't we just agree that we are ALL a bunch of liars, then we can agree on something and get on with arguing.  What do you think?  :-)


Dave, liar is as liar does: People are deemed dishonest by careful evaluation of their words and actions, not by public consensus.
But right now, I could care less about AiG and what you think of them. Just about the only thing I want you to do is what I've asked you seven times already: Go back, read the links we posted, see how identical the broken parts of GULO between humans and other primates are, see how the slight differences diverge more with species of primates more distant to human...
Come on Dave, it's not an evilutionist site, it's the University of Indiana, for crying out loud.
If you still refuse to address them, I'll have no choice but to infer that:
a) either you're in some OCD state, where you think that checking the link is like "giving in to temptation", expressing doubt in the eyes of you-know-who, or
b) You have already checked the links, but don't want to address them- and that is dishonesty.
Either way, you lose.

 
Quote
Baloney.


You sure been reading a lot of this Woodmorappe dude, haven't you?  :p

Date: 2006/05/16 13:26:27, Link
Author: Faid
Well Dave, this "free will" conversation can, like Cain's wife, go on indefinitely: About what exactly free will is, if it includes or needs "knowledge of good and evil", if this last thing is good or bad, how god's omniscience plays into his commpassionate father games, etc.
However, it does not have to: It's theology, not science. But wait, I see you disagree:
Quote
It should be science.  Theology was once known as the Queen of Sciences, and it should be reinstated as such.


Well, that's just great. After 4 threads and countless posts, the person who came here boasting that he could provide us with a "scientific theory of divine creation", using scientifisc terms and methods, now says he can do it, but first we must accept Theology as the most basic science.

Dave, call me back when you have something of interest to add in these forums. Until then, thanks for playing.

Date: 2006/05/18 03:46:49, Link
Author: Faid
Well Dave, I'm glad my last remark got you worked up enough to finally do what you should have done all that time: Check the links we provide.
Although I don't think it did you any good... You copy-pasted it alright, but as for actually reading it (let alone addressing it), well...
First, an irrelevant and unwarranted assumption (that that specific deletion was that broke the gene) you think is important- much like the 100% simillarity demand you made earlier- to establish common descent, then the usual beating about the bush, failing to address what the lesson demonstrates and we repeatedly explained you: the overall striking resemblance between the broken parts of the GULO gene among primates, that clearly point to a single breaking event in the past.
Oh, and a nice display of argument shifting: First you claim that the pseudogene might not be broken, but have an as yet unknown function. When we show to you how this is not possible, you start claiming that the gene broke independently in primates like in guinea pigs: And when we show you how this is an illogical assumption, you start claiming it's not broken again, as if it was never refuted.

But... I see that others have had the patience to explain all this to you, in detail, all over again. Not that that will stop you from ignoring the explanations again, I s'pose.

Dave, you pretty much lost my attention when you admitted that you're here as an apologetic (and complimented us for "figuring it out"!)- it was then that I fully realized the obvious: You are not here to have a scientific discussion; you don't even know (or care) what science is: For you, the idea of these debates is like something out of the chick tracts you give your children to read. You as the calm voice of Faith and Righteousness, your opponent a screaming blabbering caricature, and everyone around gaping in awe as the Truth™ is finally revealed to them through your overwhelming words (with god's help of course, we're not arrogant, no sir, arrogance is a sin). Every notion, every argument, every word that does not fit into this pattern is immediately filtered out; you disregard it as irrelevant, or simply ignore it. Like all the evidence for an old earth you are about to deny out of existence, it just cannot be.

Now, of course, is the time for your textbook comeback: "It's not me, it's you evilutionists that do this, because so and so"... Nevermind, Dave. We both know that it's you who tries to interpret every part of reality according to his beliefs. You will never admit it (on this forum, at least), but you are fully aware of that little soothing voice inside your head that keeps whispering "don't think, believe". And you accept it as a good thing. Just remember that we know about it, too. So, if prosyletizin' is your thing, like you admitted, go find an audience more "worthy" of it- and leave us poor sinners alone. We are beyond your "salvation".
If you persist on remaining, however, please feel free to use my post as quoting material, to be able to answer again while avoiding to address all the explanations given to you so far. Consider this a parting gift on my behalf.
As a matter of fact, here's some more:

What was this thread about again? Oh right, humans and chimps... Well, dave, you may be happy to know that it seems there are many facts about the human-primate divergence that us Nazi evilutionists havent gotten straighten outen yet. That's what this new study from MIT might suggest. Emphasis on "might", though, because the data and conclusions are already disputed (and I mean actual scientific dispute, not creo mumbo-jumbo), but there's a chance scientists have got a few things wrong here...


...Just not wrong in the way you'd like.

Date: 2006/05/18 04:15:46, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 16 2006,14:45)
OK, I don't have time to say much, but let me just clear up a misunderstanding:

1) My use of the word "liberal" is a bit misleading. I should probably switch to "leftist". Well, "Pinko" has a better ring.

Ghost, that makes even less sense. Liberals are not the ones who think "it's all about the individual", but "leftist pinkos" are? Do you live on Earth Prime, Ghost?
Quote
2) Contrary to Flint's opinion, there's some evidence that most black criminals [edit: actually, a plurality] target whites.

So... We've gone from "liberal bias in the media" to "multicultural bias in the media" to "pro-immigrant bias in the media" to "black criminals target more whites". Ok, how does that apply as an argument to anything but demonstrate the social and financial gap between the two groups (or, you know, as plain old racial "where the white women at" prejudice)?

Or are you saying these are all underreported hate crimes? If that's it, and since you asked for data, here's some that's more relevant.

And how does all this fit in your immigration model again?

Date: 2006/05/18 04:32:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Exactly.  So Faid was making an assumption when he told me that the deletion in his article is the cause of broken GULO.


afdave, please point me to the post in which I claimed that that particular C deletion was the cause of the loss of the gene's function.

Otherwise, please retract your claim and all assumptions derived from it.

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2006/05/18 05:08:44, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, let me save you another 12 pages of pointless arguing by presenting you with a 4-sentence display of your morality hypothesis:

Everything we consider moral is because God set it so in our souls.

Everything we consider immoral is because God set it so in our souls.

Everything we consider immoral  that was once moral is because those people in the past were sinners.

Everything we consider moral that was once immoral is because people today are sinners.

Fair enough?
And guess what? We agree. Everyone will tell you that this is as good as evidence for the existence of God as those previous three assump... evidence you gave. Now, can you move along? Not that I care, I'm just trying to save the forum some bandwidth.

BTW, I have a small request at the Ape thread. Can you do it please?

Date: 2006/05/18 05:32:45, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:50)
Quote
How is PR a requirement for starting research?
PR raises money for doing research.

 
Quote
afdave, please point me to the post in which I claimed that that particular C deletion was the cause for the loss of the gene's function.

Otherwise, please retract your claim and all assumptions derived from it.

You probably told me five times to go look at your link which supposedly proves Dr. Max's assertions.  I did so, as you asked me to.  What else am I to conclude from that article?

If you really don't believe what I thought you believe, fine.  I'll retract my statement.

I'm sorry... What part of what we told you a dozen times, that the extraordinary simillarity between the broken parts of the gene in humans and primates can only be explained by common descent (and not independent breaking, as in guinea pigs) did you misunderstand as "we have found the specific deletion that caused the gene to lose function"? I'm curious.

...Actually, no I'm not. Forget it. It doesn't take a genius to understand that you're not even paying attention to what we say. You're probably reading all the data and research we provide wearing your best "poor deluded sinners" condescending smile, and then you skim through it, trying to find a juicy bit you can answer to with a complex and sciency-looking version of "I don't get it, and I don't care".

Whatever, Dave.

Date: 2006/05/18 08:49:19, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ May 18 2006,11:57)
Quote

There's some kind of bizzare arrogance to think that you, having thought about a matter for half an hour or so, can work it all out better than someone who's been studying something all of their lives.  

Perhaps the funniest explanation of this was given by DougMoron over at Uncommonly Dense. It went something like, "Atheists are necessarily Intellectually Dishonest, because they have to ignore any evidence which may prove god. Therefore the only people who can be truly objective are christians like myself, who can consider all possibilities without fear, since no evidence can prove or disprove god."

Yes, you read that right. And yes, Davetard banned people who pointed out the fatal, and obvious, contradiction.

...And he also deleted most comments that pointed to and explained that contradiction- so at the end, Delusional Doug must have been certain he had left everyone speechless with his unparallel reasoning.

That's a common theme at UD- but it's not really a bad thing: You see, after some time of mutual compliments and back-patting, the posters there feel confident enough to come here, or at PT, to give us a good showing to... And then we have fun handing their a$$ to them and watching them run back to their safe little haven, with a big question mark over their head.
Priceless.

Date: 2006/05/18 09:19:42, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (normdoering @ May 18 2006,12:17)
It would seem, Dave, that you've never read Richard Dawkins.

How could he? He got to the part he quoted, and then figured out it was ok to finally do the obligatory "loud laughter + throw book away" ritual he had to perform, to maintain face in his circle.

Date: 2006/05/18 09:32:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 18 2006,14:03)
And I could not care less about what Peter says. He wasn't there.

:O



Calm down, Carol. Don't lose your head.
Remember:
[squeaky voice]
There can be only one.
[/squeaky voice]

Date: 2006/05/18 09:42:35, Link
Author: Faid
*sigh*
I suppose you're right. I guess I'm still giving him too much credit... what can you do.

Date: 2006/05/18 10:02:59, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (guthrie @ May 18 2006,11:11)
I finished Foucoults Pendulum last week, still feeling the after effects.  Its the ideal antidote to Browns drivel.  I think I spotted some of the intellectual jokes, name dropping etc, but also distrubringly enough, I have heard of a lot of the groups and history mentioned in the story.

Foucault's Pendulum has everything but the kitchen sink in: I think some priest even calls to Cthulhu at some point.  It's a religious conspiracy fan's Bible.

Baudolino, however, was like Foucault's Pendulum in the middle ages: Felt like yesterday's soup to me. Still well-written, though; I guess that's what makes a writer.

Date: 2006/05/19 01:45:40, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm... First, let's get this straight:
     
Quote
and cited a source that demonstrates how the media selectively amplify majority-on-minority crime, even though they have other commercial formulae available

That site demonstrated nothing: It uses the story of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood to show how media today can do the same. IMO, that is simply absurd. We can talk about it if you like, but you'll have to try real hard, if you want to convince me (and everyone else) that public sensitivity towards news of cold-blooded murder today is the same as it was in 1959.

Now, about your FBI "hoax":
     
Quote
Or didn't you read my earlier objections to the federal hate crime data? I guess not, so here it is once again:

Oh boy. Ghost, if you're not just yanking our chains, and you really believe that the politicians, the media and the FBI are all part of some elaborate conspiracy to hide the facts from the people, with only a few heroes like Front Page Magazine daring to reveal it, well... I don't really think we have much to talk about.
But let's look at the claims fpm makes:
     
Quote
we must remember that the total population of nonHispanic whites is about 6 times larger than the total population of nonHispanic blacks. When we factor this population disparity into the equation, we find that the "average" black is actually about 50 percent likelier than his or her white counterpart to commit what is classified as a racially motivated hate crime. Because this fact so radically contradicts most Americans’ prevailing worldview, one would think it might be big news deemed worthy of discussion by activists and academics alike. But in fact these are among the most underpublicized numbers in all of criminal justice.
You know, when I wrote my previous post, I thought for a moment to add "And please don't point me to the pathetic 13% / 20% argument they use", but I thought better. Worse, rather, as it now seems.
Ghost, The percentage of hate crime offenders would respond to that of the offender's race, only if all races in a society have nothing to separate them but their skin. And we both know that isn't true.
Why would a (comparatively) larger analogy of hate crimes among blacks show a natural hatred for whites, any more than a (comparatively) larger analogy of black people in crime offenders in general (as your previous figures suggest) would show a natural predisposition of black people to a life of crime? (Although I am quite sure that's what that racist site believes in both cases, but whatever.) The same educational, social and financial reasons that turn a person to crime, also make it easier for any potential prejudice they have to be turned to actions.
But the amazing thing is that these guys think this is such devastating information, it must be on the news all the time. Everytime a black person commits a hate crime, we should have analysers with tables and presentations and debates showing us what an unusual event this is in the big picture, and what we can make out of it about blacks in general, right?
Do you hear the whistle, Ghost? It's the Clue Train, coming your way: THAT is what bias really is.
     
Quote
Another vital fact to consider is that FBI hatecrime statistics list "Hispanics" as a category of victims (of crimes motivated by ethnicity or national origin), but not as a category of offenders. Instead, Hispanic offenders are lumped together with whites. In other words, the current hatecrime classification system allows for Hispanics to be counted as victims of hate crimes, but never as perpetrators of such crimes. This, of course, artificially inflates the share of hate crimes committed by "whites."

OK, things here are much plainer: They are lying.
Hispanics are treated as a separate category only when "crimes against ethnicity" are evaluated in the entire sample. In crimes against race, they are "lumped together with whites" both as offenders and as victims. Look it up. And that's the way it should be, because guess what: They are the same race as        
Quote
"whites."
Also: Those wiseguys try to create a confusion and make it seem that hispanics are not included in the anti-white hate crimes, and the entire 20% is against good-old Anglo-Saxon salt of the earth.
Congrats on your source, Ghost.
I won't even comment on their last assertion that they're more qualified to recognize a hate crime than the police who investigated it- instead, let's look at what that other site (and you, by quoting it) say about your "big gun" story:
     
Quote
Some residents in the Wichita area say the murders would have been prosecuted as "hate crimes" had the skin color of the gunmen and their victims been reversed.

"Some residents say". Oh man, I wonder how those commie policemen and inspectors and DAs managed to hide that crucial information pointing to a hate crime... especially since they already had to hide that other piece of overwhelming evidence that AmRen bravely revealed, that one of the murderers wore an FUBU shirt.
:D
Another interesting thing about the Wichita case... Your source, Michelle Malkin, said this:
     
Quote
But with the exception of local Kansas newspapers, the Associated Press, The Washington Times, Fox News, Court TV and conservative Internet sites, the Carr trial made almost no news.

Which are all conservative, so they don't count (although you previously claimed that "faux news" would take part in your proposed bias). Especially AP: Just ask this guy. And, oh, there's also Chicago Tribune. Mrs. Malkin must have missed that. Also, uh, USA Today. And oops, seems that Washington Post had something to say after all. Oh, and MSNBC, I see...
On the other hand, it was impossible (for me, at least) to find a "conserative internet site" that presented this news as actual news, not as an excuse to argue for a liberal bias.
Ghost, maybe it's time you started to question the validity of your favorite sources.

Date: 2006/05/19 02:11:43, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 18 2006,20:07)
Hmm. Maybe it's Carol's business, but just not ours?

Well, she did imply that she was there at the time, so some sort of involvement might be assumed...

Date: 2006/05/19 02:24:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Faid @ May 01 2006,08:41)
Try to conduct an "experiment" on yourself and the way you think: You previously thought (and correct me if I'm wrong, which is quite possible) that the fact all these cultures have a seven-day week is a good argument for it's divine origin.
Now that you were pointed to all the historical evidence that show the concept of a seven day week is of human devise, has your belief in its divine roots been questioned in your mind, even in the slightest?
Can you think of any argument, or proof, empirical data, or even supernatural revelation, that would do that to any aspect of your beliefs?

Quote
I'm not sure which is the older tradition ... the planet thing or the 'God made the world in seven days' thing.  Nice item for study some time though.


Well, it seems my old question was finally answered. Thanks Dave.

Date: 2006/05/19 02:29:22, Link
Author: Faid
Magnetic Lasso?
Gaussian Blur?
Marching Ants?


...Sorry, been using a lot of Photoshop these days.

Date: 2006/05/19 04:17:47, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm.

Quote
Main article: History of Portuguese
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.


...Oh, what do I care. Fine Dave, Wikipedia is wrong (won't be the first time) and you're right (that, however)...
So, how 'bout proving that "young earth" story now?

incorygible:   :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/05/19 05:41:01, Link
Author: Faid
Um... Dave...

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

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/Portuguese.html

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

...There doesn't seem to be much dispute over this issue.
Unless you know something the rest of the world does not.

BTW, I think that challenging people on their views in internet debates with money bets is kinda lame.
Even Dembski just wagered a bottle of scotch (not that he ever delivered).
Just FYI  :(

Date: 2006/05/19 11:40:06, Link
Author: Faid
In all the links I posted above (and they're much more than the inexact and flawed Wikipedia) there's not a single mention of French influence in Portuguese save the occasional borrowing of a word or two. They all say the same thing: That it originates from vulgar latin, and evolved (hah!;) parallel to Spanish. In fact, the last link claims that it's far closer to Latin (along with Italian, of course) than most other Romance languages.
Dave, if you have different data and evidence, why not share it? We're actually curious about this.
Unless you're still after our money, and looking to raise the stakes...  ???


<edit: even some sites for tourists say the same thing!!!1>

Date: 2006/05/19 12:23:30, Link
Author: Faid
OK, Dave-bashing aside, now I'm really curious.
The only French influence I can find is supposed to occur in the 18th century, creating the difference in syntax between Portugal and the colonies:

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

???

Date: 2006/05/21 02:34:38, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish <wife> + French <knights> = Portuguese <language.>

(edits mine)

:O

Yeah, 1+2=3 alright... More like "Dog = 4 legs = table".
Dave, please.

OK, I'm having kind of a deja vu by doing this but, since I don't have time to play "Make fun of Dave" today, it will have to do for now:

Dave, check my links.

:p

Date: 2006/05/21 07:20:32, Link
Author: Faid
Here it is again Dave.

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/Portuguese.html

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

Date: 2006/05/21 07:25:14, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,08:35)
(What links, Faid?)

Here we go again Dave.

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/Portuguese.html

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

Also posted in the "prove evolution" thread, in case you miss them here.
And I, um, removed the accursed wiki link...

Date: 2006/05/21 08:20:41, Link
Author: Faid
I can never let a Chick mention pass without pointing to this.

Date: 2006/05/21 13:13:21, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Hitler was a pagan atheist.

:O  ???  :p  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/05/21 14:30:09, Link
Author: Faid
Ooh ooh a Hitler quote fight! Can I play too?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

Date: 2006/05/22 00:31:47, Link
Author: Faid
On a (kinda) related note: Does anyone know where I can find an awesome short story by Connie Willis I once read, Why the World Didn't End Last Tuesday?

It's about- well, about just that, I guess, and it deals with like issues, only about the end of the world rather than it's beginning.

Date: 2006/05/22 04:00:47, Link
Author: Faid
afdave,

Reality check: You have "dismantled" jack squat- except your last shreds of credibility.
Your previous post was an amazing dislay of your inability (or should I say unwillingness?) to even begin to understand anything we patiently (well, for the most part) tried to explain you in all these pages.
Also, this part
 
Quote
Dr. Max was saying that his argument was that the 'error was identical,' but his argument was really just that 'apes and humans both have broken GULO
Which shows that you seem to know darnn well what we're talking about, but still refuse to admit it and choose to distort it, demonstrates clearly how hopeless a debate with you is. So, I'll let others who may be more patient explain to you, for the umpteenth time, why it's not which mutation broke the gene, but the remarkable simillarities in the accumulated mutations in the broken part between humans and primates that matter- not that you'll understand it this time, of course.
 
Quote
I will be quite happy to do so the moment that Faid and others give me their step by step argument that AIG is lying, because they made their assertion first.
Dave, I have done just that. I don't even remember how many times I explained to you, in simple English (as far as I could), why arguing against something that is common textbook knowledge in genetics ("head to head" fusions) shows that the person is either carelessly making stuff up, or simply distorting them, which both qualify as a lie in my book. But, since you're so eager to protect your apologetic friends, I'll give you this: I'll say that this guy is either a liar, or a total ignoramus in genetics and, at the same time, an arrogant jerk who thinks he can argue about something he knows absolutely nothing about by simply pulling "arguments" out of his ####. Take your pick.

Now, feel free to explain your assertions...

Date: 2006/05/22 04:49:56, Link
Author: Faid
So, in a nutshell, Dave tells us that:

a) All humans know what's moral and what's not, because of a Universal Moral Law, derived from an Eternal Source of Pure Good, and

b) When this Eternal Source of Pure Good tells us we should do something blatantly against the Universal Moral Law, well, it's OK, because we humans can't really know what's moral and what's not... Only the Source can.


...Did you hear that muffled cry? It was poor Mr. C.S.Lewis going down the pipes, as Davey flushed the toilet.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:24:04, Link
Author: Faid
[deja vu]

Hey Dave, did you check my links yet? You must have, since you asked for them...

So, I take it you saw how everyone agrees that:
-Portuguese has it's origins directly in Vulgar Latin
-Is, in fact, the closest language to Latin after Italian
-It was formed gradually (as Galician-Portuguese) during the early Middle Ages and on to the Arab occupation, separately -and spoken in a different location- than Castillian (that would lead to Spanish)
-Galician-Portuguese (not Spanish, and certainly NOT
French) became the official Language of the newfound kingdom
-Galician and Portuguese later diverged, and Portuguese began to resemble more its modern form
-The FIRST substantial French influence to the language came in the 18th century, leading to al the differences between, say, Portuguese and Brazilian.


Well, now that you've read all that (and I'm sure you have) I suppose you can start proving why all these people are totally wrong, and the European history of Languages has to be rewritten, right?

[/deja vu]

Date: 2006/05/22 05:42:09, Link
Author: Faid
And certainly not responsible for the creation of the language from Spanish...

Date: 2006/05/22 08:54:40, Link
Author: Faid
Did you check the new, improved version of davetardness?
 
Quote
To everyone who’s pointed out that the ACLU story is a fabrication according to snopes.com - that’s hardly the point. The pictures of Marines praying are real. The fighting and dying to protect the interests of the United States is real. The request to pray for them is real. So I removed the fake names, noted the ACLU statement is rumor, and quoted a very real former Marine Sergeant’s sentiments instead. If anyone has a problem with that they can KMA. Google that.

HOO RAH! Semper Fi!


In case anyone wonders, Davetard's "note" was "A rumored spokesman for the ACLU".

So, the "corrected" meaning of this post now becomes "Pray for our Military, fighting and giving their lives for freedom- oh, and screw the ACLU. Just because".

Way to go, dave.  :angry:

Date: 2006/05/22 09:15:44, Link
Author: Faid
As of now, "google that!" is my new favorite daveism.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:44:29, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=afdave,May 22 2006,10:24][/quote]
 
Quote
You guys cannot get your story straight.  You say it's the similarities in the broken part, Jeannot says "you can't consider the loss of function alone as a valid evidence for common descent, because hundreds of mutations can break a gene."

Oh boy why do I even bother...

Dave, my tiny inadequate brain, deluded by Darwinism, Methodologicalnaturalismismsm, Atheism and, probably, Marxism-Leninism, simply cannot grasp the contradiction you find so obvious here. Care to enlighten me?
 
Quote
Great.  And I'll back off my "liar" claim for the T.O folks.  I will content myself to think they are just ignorant.

Sure, dave. As soon as you also demonstrate why.
Quote
I focused heavily on the GULO issue because several people kept throwing it in my face in several different threads.  I simply took the challenge ...

And won!

Now let's see how intellectually honest all of you are ...
:O

...Because, as we all saw, you just showed how intellectually honest you are.

Date: 2006/05/22 11:02:41, Link
Author: Faid
Oh  my, it's so obvious that the Franz Mesmer of Information Theory wants to bury Dave's thread...

Date: 2006/05/22 14:46:52, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (dhogaza @ May 22 2006,18:28)
Taciturnus proves the mind is not merely material!
 
Quote
For example, if our minds are purely material, how is it that we can both think of the same number, “2" for instance? The matter that makes up your head and the matter that makes up my head are not the same matter, and if thinking “2" is nothing more than a rearrangement of matter in our respective brains, then “2" cannot be identical for us since the arrangement of matter will not be exactly identical in both our brains; and even if it was, it isn’t the same matter. Yet we clearly CAN think of the same number “2", therefore our minds cannot be merely material.

I knew my old trusty ZX Spectrum had a soul...

May you rest in peace, Speccy.

Date: 2006/05/22 14:52:21, Link
Author: Faid
Also: It sounds somewhat like Borges' Argumentum Ornithologicum...

...Of course, Horge Luis was being a little sarcastic.

Date: 2006/05/23 01:26:25, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, here's yet another nifty link- and from this site, not some stinkin' Wiki page:

http://libro.uca.edu/payne1/spainport1.htm

Quote
Particularism in the Portugalense was reinforced by the mountain barriers and watershed--the region of Tras-os-Montes--that separated it from Leon to the northeast. Save for the Douro, none of the rivers that flowed through the Portugalense originated east of the mountains. There was distinct geographic separation and orientation toward the southwest and the Atlantic. Greater geographic and cultural continuity existed toward the north, for it appears that in addition to the climatic and agrarian similarities, a separate western dialect of vernacular Latin had been spoken in that part of the peninsula since late Roman times. This formed the basis for the modern language of Galician-Portuguese.

Quote
Linguistically unified, the Portuguese people were socially and culturally more homogeneous than the population of Castile and Aragon. The small kingdom contained no ethnic subgroup of any importance save for a very slight Jewish population, and by the [121] middle of the thirteenth century had become the first nation-state in Europe.

(All bolds mine)

Interesting stuff, eh Dave?

I've got to thank you, however. Once again, you provide us with interesting knowledge (in linguistics and history, this time) and fruitful research... simply by taking a stand on the opposite side. Good job!

Date: 2006/05/23 07:34:37, Link
Author: Faid
Deja vu  from the ape thread again... Dave stops posting, and we start debating the issues with each other. You know what that means...
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/4900/dumbski17nt.png


...^Yup.

Date: 2006/05/23 09:05:23, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,08:02)
"thousands of French knights" coming in, the intermarriage with French nobility, the conquest of Lisbon, and the subsequent adoption of the dialect of Lisbon as Standard Portuguese.  Now, if all that is unconvincing to you, then I can't help you.

Oh man... I did some further reading, and it's amazing how many things Dave is simply pulling out of his ass at this point:

Which was really the dialect spoken in Lisbon (and the mother tongue of the majority) during the time of its Portugese conquest, Dave?

Which was really the official Portuguese
language after Latin, Dave? When did it become official, and by who?


If anyone's (still) interested, you can find the answers here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon#Moorish_Rule

http://libro.uca.edu/payne1/spainport1.htm

(Chapter 6- where you can also see who the "thousands of French Knights" were, and how much they really influenced Portugal culturally and linguistically...)

In short, Dave's "medieval encyclopedia" is probably some book about Templars and the Holy Grail.

Dave's "logic" here is the same as with evolution. He has an opinion he just has to prove, because he knows it's right, and tries to overemphasize details, undermine serious issues and ignore or deny (or hide) crucial facts to make reality twist according to his views.

One thing though... Dave, lying for Jesus is deplorable, but at least it's understandable in a way- "aim justifies the means" and all that.
In an issue such as this, who are you lying for, Dave?

Date: 2006/05/23 10:28:17, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
which Faid told me had been dropped, but here it is again.

Hey Dave, since you posted the link to TalkOrigins again, how about taking the big step this time and actually looking three paragraphs down, like I've told you to a dozen times, instead of putting words into my mouth? You think I forgot your little gognitive dissonance on this issue, or do you think that bailing out of a debate where things are not looking favorably, and bringing it up again when noone remembers it, claiming you have won, helps your case?
Anyway, for the nth time, this is what you would see, if you had the guts to look:
 
Quote
Note that my thesis does not require more than one universe to exist, although some cosmological theories propose this. Even if ours is the only universe, and that universe happened by chance, we have no basis to conclude that a universe without some form of life was so unlikely as to have required a miracle.


As for the Portuguese language issue... Your stubborness is only matched by your cowardice. Did you read the links you yourself asked me to provide? Maybe then you'll understand why you're actually claiming that the sky actually is yellow with green dots...

Dave, I was actually hoping for more from you at first. You seemed like a straightforward, honest guy, however deluded.
Unfortunately, your overall performance on this forum so far has made me change my mind. I now think you might be the most dishonest (with yourself first , but also with others) young-earther to ever come here (with the possible exception of Cordova).
And with the Portuguese thing, where I'm sure you have realized by now how devastatingly WRONG you were, you demonstrated that it's not, in fact, the belief in your God you're trying to protect with your tricks and denial and pretense: It's your own inflated ego.

So, I'll let others who are more qualified and more patient to utterly lay your ludicrous YEC "arguments" to waste.

I'm actually really sorry for you. You probably don't believe it, but I am. Maybe you should pray for enlightment and deliverance from arrogance to your version of a deity: I'm just sad I can't help you.

Date: 2006/05/23 11:56:13, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 23 2006,15:46)
 
Quote
"First" as in its alternative meaning of "never in a million years?"

Actually, I'm making some nice progress. I've hit a little snag, and would like to work out a few kinks in private. I wouldn't have put up the "Vote" thread if I didn't have anything............

It seems that Faid has given up on me. Oh well, more time for the model.

Well, I have to admit it's getting kinda boring.
You claimed to have kicked my ass by pointing me to pages that say nothing different than what I have said (that, when racial bias is analyzed, hispanic victims are also "lumped up" with white ones -as they should be).
You say that you don't want the rate of hate crimes "inverted" (when, in fact, it is not inverted at all, the racial hate crimes against blacks are three times more, and you just want the media to focus on the silly proposed 13%-20% difference -unless you agree with the racist "argument" proposed by your sources, that white-on-black hate crimes don't count when the offender is Hispanic).
You say that the Wichita murders were a hate crime because they were brutal and sadistic (which obviously also implies racism- but only when blacks do it to whites), because the victims were all white (because the racist offenders did not even try to storm a house that had mixed racial company), and because the police just didn't look enough, which I suppose is your version of "the investigators didn't ask the right questions" argument AmRen uses ("Are you sure they called you a #$^% $%&*%*$, or was it a #$^% white $%&*%*$? Really, really sure"?).
You take your "Big gun" story from "underreported" to "not reported properly" at a blink of an eye, and claim that newspapers like Washington Post were intimidated by those heroes at FPM and AmRen, that dared to post the story right away -although for entirely different reasons- and were then forced to post it, too (and that is beyond any comment).
But the greatest absurdity is your initial claim, the one you admitted: That there is a huge conspiracy involving politicians, media, the Police, Judges and the FBI to suppress certain crimes. And your "soft" bias just doesn't stand: For policemen, reporters and DAs alike to immediately evaluate and filter out each crime, decide how and where it should be covered, and give the proper orders to avoid any misconduct, then either all those have to be connected in a Hive Mind, or there has to be some almighty Order, all-knowing and swiftly acting, that pulls the strings from above... I wonder which you find more plausible.
Anyway, you're gonna have to explain how all this happens. And why. After all, you practically dropped your "immigration" argument; And the only thing the examples from all the sources you posted even try to imply, is a "pro-black" bias.
Don't waste time from your geocentricism model,though; Something tells me it's going to be way more interesting than all this.  :)

Date: 2006/05/23 12:17:42, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,16:43)
Faid--  The sky is Royal Blue.  

There.  Is that better?  You won!

I'm glad you are leaving my thread.  I would rather have people respond to me who care about representing ToE well (that is honestly).  I've had several.  I'll probably have a few more.

You had me too, Dave, but you lost me.
And you calling me dishonest is the clearest case of projection you have demonstrated so far. I have never ignored your arguments, refuse to address them, repeat questions you have already answered, deliberately distort your answer's meaning, or bail out from one thread to claim victory in our confortation in another. Let alone put words in your mouth.
YOU have done all this, Dave.

But don't worry, I'll stick around; I'll just enjoy the show, without taking you seriously anymore.

PS. And it's blue, dave. The sky is blue.

Date: 2006/05/24 01:54:17, Link
Author: Faid
Amazing.

What Kevin Anderson, PhD, says, is that the point mutation that makes a bacterium resistant to, say, rifabin, is a loss of function after all, because it is due to "loss of affinity" of RNA polymerase to rifampin.

And why is that amazing, you may ask?

Because, if another point mutation in the same place caused rifampin to act in an individual bacterium, Mr. Anderson would probably once again claim it resulted in loss of function- this time, the enzyme's "biochemical protection" from rifampin.

Starting to get the pattern, Dave?

Let me think of a simpler example...

If a mutation causes a  kitten to be born without hair, which "function" was lost exactly?

If a mutation causes a human baby to be born covered with hair, which "function" was lost exactly?

Or is it that nothing was exactly "lost" in either case, but rather, something was modified?

Work on that a little.

Date: 2006/05/24 02:27:48, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (BWE @ May 24 2006,02:35)
Skeptic,

You've just hit the nail on the head. Your statements are exactly in line. Here you are, an expert, and here these guys are, obviously NOT experts like you, and when you try to point out the obvious flaws in their holy evolution god, they snarl and hiss and show their claws and claim to be able to educate you, you the expert, if you'd just stop pointing out the darn flaws in their holy see of darwinian literature. Now, I'm not a scientist like you but I can see the level of merit in your argument. And like you, I'd just like to get them to open their minds and figure out a way to handle guys like you. If they had an effective way of communicating with guys like you then maybe something could happen.
???

Don't bother, BWE. He's already gone.

Don't worry though, I know we owe you for not letting you work at Dave. If he comes back, he's all yours.  :)

Date: 2006/05/24 03:32:37, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost, I agree this is getting us nowhere. I cannot disprove, say, that the police didn't look for a racial motive, no more than you can prove it; and I cannot convince you that picking victims was done with robbery in mind, rather than racial hatred- also, no point in mentioning the fact that one of the murderer's girlfriend was white, since I agree it can be interpreted either way... As for crime statistics, you may think that the media inverts the rate (in all crimes, not hate crimes) making whites look more prone to crime than blacks, but believe me, that's not how the image comes to us in Europe. But I can't prove it to you. It's all pointless. You can connect the dots any way you like: It's your personal opinion, and that's not debated here.

Just two points:

First, you seem to find it absurd that anti-Jewish hate crimes are more than anti-white ones. I didn't understand that, untill I realized what you think.

Ghost: When racial hate crimes are evaluated, say, anti-white, it's not by evaluating hate crimes against persons who are white; it's by evaluating hate crimes against persons for being white.
So, all anti-Jewish hate crimes are not also anti-white; A Jewish person can be the target of an anti-religious bias (for being Jewish), an anti-white bias (for being white) or even both, perhaps (cases of multiple bias). The incident ends at the proper category everytime.
And it's the same with Hispanics and ethnicity (instead of religion). Like Jewish victims are singled out only when evaluating religion (not race), so Hispanic victims are singled out only when evaluating ethnicity (not race).

One more thing: If you explain the collective response of the media by fear of being politically incorrect, well, that just doesn't add up with your proposed model for cover-up. If reporters were afraid to tell the truth, then, when someone else did, they'd still be afraid. It's not like the general concensus changed because someone was careless (or unafraid) and reported the news... So, they'd still cower back, afraid for their job, not suddenly remember they're reporters and jump at the news too. If the media (and the police, and the law) actively try to keep a story from coming out, and then give up when they fail for some reason, that's not a sign of a PC fear; it's a sign of conspiracy. I'm just saying.

Date: 2006/05/24 04:14:42, Link
Author: Faid
Looks designed to me.

Date: 2006/05/24 08:09:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Faid, I actually thought that you guys might have something with the bacteria thing, but since I have read this article by Dr. Anderson, I cannot think of a single thing left where you could possibly say that an organism gains a new function.  I bet if I really scrutinized Norm's nylon-eating bacteria, I would also find LOSS of function, not gain, whaddya want to bet?  Don't worry, I'm not going to research it personally ... I'll leave it to CRS.

And this responds to my post... How, exactly? Oh yes, the way you always do: "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA"...

Doesn't matter. I gotta go and plug some holes in our sinking ship: But, before I go, and since we've got this little thing going on, guess what I'll do first:

Novel genes

New information in genes

Thaaaat's right, Dave... Read the links.

Date: 2006/05/24 08:38:47, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I had a whole roomful of doctors tell me they knew a better treatment for Diabetes than mine when a friend was diagnosed with it.  I warned my friend that they didn't know what they were talking about, but he went with them anyway.  $2,000 in insulin and dietologists and a year and half later the 'experts' finished their treatment to replace my $00.02 system (involving prayer and holy water).  Almost immediately, the calls started coming in from my friend saying that his life was saved... No wait that doesn't work does it



Anyway, you gotta watch scientists with degrees sometimes. Like, sometimes, dude, OK?

Date: 2006/05/24 08:50:35, Link
Author: Faid
Hey Dave, since you think highly of Geologists, why not pick one at random and ask him for his opinion on your Young Earth hypothesis and oil formation?

Date: 2006/05/24 09:03:48, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2006,13:53)
Quote (Faid @ May 24 2006,13:50)
Hey Dave, since you think highly of Geologists, why not pick one at random and ask him for his opinion on your Young Earth hypothesis and oil formation?

Or perhaps he could check this out:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Wow.

Hey Dave, since we both know you never read my links, how about reading someone else's?

Date: 2006/05/24 10:10:43, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, I have lost all hope for you.

It's not your total inability to understand the broken GULO issue. I expected that.

It's not your perfect denial of the indisputable fact that Portuguese already existed as a separate language long before your supposed "mixing" of French and Spanish to produce it. I expected that, too.

It's not even that, after pointing you, for the tenth time, to the part in TO that says we don't need alternate universes, you reply by saying "See what I have to say about alternate universes". I expected no less.

Oh no. The fatal blow was this:
Quote
Look, I don't agree with Dan Brown either, but I recognize that the man is brilliant and talented.


All.

Hope.

Lost.

Date: 2006/05/24 13:48:06, Link
Author: Faid
"Another win", dave? Man you're a joke.

Um, if I'm not mistaken, right after you posted Anderson's baloney (hey, this word is fun), I tried (for the last time) to give you something as incentive to think, like how CRI and Co. use their little word play to lead you in. You then responded like this:
     
Quote
Faid, I actually thought that you guys might have something with the bacteria thing, but since I have read this article by Dr. Anderson, I cannot think of a single thing left where you could possibly say that an organism gains a new function

So what are you asking for now?

But hey, if you find the time from all your humble christian gloating, browse through the 200+ links I showed you, to see how you and Mr. Anderson once again argue against something that is common and well-established knowledge in Genetics. Just, you know, FYI.

Date: 2006/05/24 22:24:25, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Interesting - religion subverted science to the point that it was considered magic. Gallileo was put on trial for his support of the Copernicusian Model. Bruno was burnt alive for it.

Um, Fractatious, maybe Ghost isn't the best person to use this argument to...

:p

Date: 2006/05/24 23:14:04, Link
Author: Faid
BWE,
keep your creationist paws off sceptic.
The man is NOT a creo: He clearly stated that in the beginning. He's not of your ignorant kind (with its tell-tale incomprehensible writing): He has studied Biochemistry. He's a scientist, for crying out loud, just a deluded one.
The reason he uses creationist terms like "Darwinism" and creo arguments like the fossil record does not show he's on your side: It just shows how your indoctrination has reached far into the scientific community. And that's why we get more and more respectable scientists in relevant fields submit to the ID propaganda every day.
Sceptic still has a chance to escape their faith. He just has to learn a few truths. After all, that is what is here for; and he's come to the rite place.
Leave him alone, and take your deluded teachings elsewhere. People more educated in these issues -like Thordaddy- would be more willing to discuss with you; but leave the cubs alone.
:angry:

Date: 2006/05/25 00:06:09, Link
Author: Faid
Oh come on, Drew, that's too easy.

That kind of bacteria, like, LOST its alternative reading frame, which totally led to a reduced alternative-reading-framing function.

Like, duh.

Date: 2006/05/25 05:32:08, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 25 2006,10:10)
Faid,

Look up "Loki points" on talkorigins.org. You owe BWE some.

(Hey, I know I owe him, that's what I'm trying to make up for!;))

Date: 2006/05/25 06:27:21, Link
Author: Faid
IT'S GOT A TITLE, THEREFORE IT'S TRUE:

DAVE'S LATEST IN SCIENCE-SMASHING ARGUMENTS

(1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example) (Can you please show me where it says "macroevolution" in your snippings, Dave?)
(2) Here go read these links that disprove what you say, Dave (I've never read them because you have to pay for all the articles, but you go read 'em, Dave) (They're called abstracts, Dave. They're free, Dave. They're more than enough to show you how far everything you say is from contemporary knowledge in genetics, Dave.)
(3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria?  (Team member shoots down argument for Dave) (Are you talking about me, Dave? Please please pretty please tell me you were talking about me, Dave... :D  :D  :D )
(4) Dr. Anderson is just making his own definition of evolution (yeah, because it's really hard to nail down evolutionists on what their definition is and what is proper terminology) (Maybe you should read the first pages of your "Prove evolution to me" thread again, Dave... Unless by "proper" you mean "A strawman I can beat up")

So, Dave, how about answering my question? If another point mutation makes the bacterium sensitive to rifampin again, according to Mr. Anderson, which function will be lost?

BTW, I like the way you honestly, sincerely and Christianly snipped sceptic's assumptions... Don't worry though, I have a hunch he's much more up your alley than you think.  :p

Date: 2006/05/25 07:09:46, Link
Author: Faid
Oh and, "Disease-resistant bacteria"? WTF?

dave, do you even try to understand what you are arguing against?

Date: 2006/05/25 08:13:24, Link
Author: Faid
Hey Dave, if 1,4% is insignificant now, then maybe it's safe to consider humans and chimps IDENTICAL? Whaddaya say?

Your attempts to argue in scientific terms become more pathetic all the time.

As for your favorite language example- I've explained it before, but here it is again:

"My dog was running around and barking all over my deck."

"o skylos moy etrehe gyro gyro kai gabgize pano sto katastroma mou".

Quite different, eh? Well guess what, they say the same thing.

The fact that words with totally different meanings can be almost identical (or the other way round) means absolutely nothing, dave. The origins of language (all languages) is arbitrary. Unlike DNA coding, there is no (metaphysical?) connection between the word itself and what it represents. Unless you believe in Kabbalah, of course...

Did you even think of the implications for evolution, if your language-based gene model were true? A single point mutation could create a flagellum out of whatever, a fully formed flipper or wing out of a limb, and yes, even a dog out of a cat.

Hey, Dave, I think that evolution is not as easy as you think it is. Maybe you should read a little Denton...  :D

Date: 2006/05/25 08:26:52, Link
Author: Faid
k.e.:

Oh man the Chewbacca Defense is like the best defense ever

Date: 2006/05/25 08:50:22, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:52)
Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it?

I submit to you that if you don't think evolutionists think that antibiotic resistant bacteria lend support to macroevolutionary theory (which some people pretend they don't know what we're talking about with this term), then you are simply lying.  It's plain as day in the popular literature which in turn is based on information from scientists like you.

The good news for me and all creationists is that most of the general public does think that resistant bacteria not only lends support to ToE, but is a very strong support.

It will be quite fun for us disseminating the news to the public that it most certainly does not.  Oh, and by the way, General Public, I have the firm statements from evolutionary biologists at PT that it does not.

One more leg of the shaky table is removed !!

I love it!

Starting to lose your thick skin, dave? Don't worry, it's not like it's the first time we've caught you arguing against something you know nothing about: we're used to that by now.
Quote
I love it!


...P-Professor Davidson???????

Date: 2006/05/25 08:58:05, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stephenWells @ May 25 2006,13:52)
Quote (Faid @ May 25 2006,13:13)
"My dog was running around and barking all over my deck."

"o skylos moy etrehe gyro gyro kai gabgize pano sto katastroma mou".

Errr... Greek? Would have got it sooner except the latin orthography...

Yup, it's my mommy tongue... I didn't count on dave's compy being able to display Greek characters, though, hence the Greeklish.

Date: 2006/05/25 09:35:40, Link
Author: Faid
Hee hee hee.

It seems that even UDers are fed up with Dave's anti-ACLU delirium.

Let's see now if his gargantuan ego allows him to STFU... Any bets?

Date: 2006/05/25 10:01:11, Link
Author: Faid
I bet he's gonna have the kids repeat it out loud, like Ken Ham's "WHERE YOU THEEEEEEEERE?"

:angry:

Date: 2006/05/25 10:16:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stephenWells @ May 25 2006,14:08)
Note to Dave: No, Russian is not a mixture of French and Greek :)

Actually, dave should argue that, with all the Bavarian princes and nobles coming to Greece with King Otto after the end of Ottoman rule, well, Greek just has to be a mixture of Turkish and German.

LOLZORZ

Date: 2006/05/25 10:34:25, Link
Author: Faid
One of Dave's poodles jumps to his defense...
Quote
It seems there are two aspects to ID — the first is science in that the empiracle, objective evidence is on the side of a designer (regardless of whom or what the designer is.)

The second is that the opposition to ID is not science but political/cultural/religious. This is where the ACLU is relevant.

If the courts allowed questions of creation to be treated in public schools as they had from before the Constitution’s ratification through 1963, this debate might not be as acrimonious or unproductive.

Comment by tribune7 — May 25, 2006 @ 3:01 pm


...But fails to make any sense whatsoever.

Date: 2006/05/25 10:45:04, Link
Author: Faid
Um... Why do you want others to start the thread for you?
???

Date: 2006/05/25 11:20:23, Link
Author: Faid
If I'm not mistaken, the only thread you started in a long time is your "poll" thread. And of course, there's always this one...

But OK, you know, whatever.

Date: 2006/05/25 11:43:56, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm. It seems to be on grounds of insufficient evidence record. Which means that a new trial might not be needed, just a supplement on the evidence.

But hey, another chance for creo bashing  is always welcome...

Date: 2006/05/25 13:04:12, Link
Author: Faid
Steve:
 
Quote
IIRC, it was all based upon the allegation that an observation that an audience was largely "young, asian and fundamentalist" was the same thing as saying "All asians are young fundamentalists" or something, although it wasn't spelled out quite like that.

Actually, it was more like:  
Quote
"young", "Asian", and "fundamentalists".

That's right, he was quoting separate words that weren't even directly connected in Padian's phrasing.

It's ridiculous, of course, but then again so is Denski.  :)

Date: 2006/05/25 21:00:47, Link
Author: Faid
Wow.

Paley, you don't have to present your model. I believe it already.
:)
Now, can you tell me a good reason for you to arbitarily stop at the bible, and not take your revolutionary, irrefutable and totally unoriginal logic to its unavoidable conclusion- Solipsism?

Date: 2006/05/25 22:08:42, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost, in case you start calling me names for misunderstanding your position, too, I retract my previous statement.
You are not a Solipsist; you are a Tlönist:
(Sorry guys, I know it's long, but it's interesting)

Quote
Amongst the doctrines of Tlön, none has merited the scandalous reception accorded to materialism. Some thinkers have formulated it with less clarity than fervor, as one might put forth a paradox. In order to facilitate the comprehension of this inconceivable thesis, a heresiarch of the eleventh century (3) devised the sophism of the nine copper coins, whose scandalous renown is in Tlön equivalent to that of the Eleatic paradoxes. There are many versions of this "specious reasoning," which vary the number of coins and the number of discoveries; the following is the most common:

On Tuesday, X crosses a deserted road and loses nine copper coins. On Thursday, Y finds in the road four coins, somewhat rusted by Wednesday's rain. On Friday, Z discovers three coins in the road. On Friday morning, X finds two coins in the corridor of his house. The heresiarch would deduce from this story the reality - i.e., the continuity - of the nine coins which were recovered. It is absurd (he affirmed) to imagine that four of the coins have not existed between Tuesday and Thursday, three between Tuesday and Friday afternoon, two between Tuesday and Friday morning. It is logical to think that they have existed - at least in some secret way, hidden from the comprehension of men - at every moment of those three periods.

The language of Tlön resists the formulation of this paradox; most people did not even understand it. The defenders of common sense at first did no more than negate the veracity of the anecdote. They repeated that it was a verbal fallacy, based on the rash application of two neologisms not authorized by usage and alien to all rigorous thought: the verbs "find" and "lose," which beg the question, because they presuppose the identity of the first and of the last nine coins. They recalled that all nouns (man, coin, Thursday, Wednesday, rain) have only a metaphorical value. They denounced the treacherous circumstance "somewhat rusted by Wednesday's rain," which presupposes what is trying to be demonstrated: the persistence of the four coins from Tuesday to Thursday. They explained that equality is one thing and identity another, and formulated a kind of reductio ad absurdum: the hypothetical case of nine men who on nine nights suffer a severe pain. Would it not be ridiculous - they questioned - to pretend that this pain is one and the same? They said that the heresiarch was prompted only by the blasphemous intention of attributing the divine category of being to some simple coins and that at times he negated plurality and at other times did not. They argued: if equality implies identity, one would also have to admit that the nine coins are one.

Unbelievably, these refutations were not definitive. A hundred years after the problem was stated, a thinker no less brilliant than the heresiarch but of orthodox tradition formulated a very daring hypothesis. This happy conjecture affirmed that there is only one subject, that this indivisible subject is every being in the universe and that these beings are the organs and masks of the divinity. X is Y and is Z. Z discovers three coins because he remembers that X lost them; X finds two in the corridor because he remembers that the others have been found... The Eleventh Volume suggests that three prime reasons determined the complete victory of this idealist pantheism. The first, its repudiation of solipsism; the second, the possibility of preserving the psychological basis of the sciences; the third, the possibility of preserving the cult of the gods.

Date: 2006/05/26 04:42:42, Link
Author: Faid
Give the guys a break. They've been through a lot these last months, and it's not like it's gonna get better...

Date: 2006/05/26 09:00:48, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=afdave,May 26 2006,11:39][/quote]
Ooooh boy. Yet another post from La-La Land by Dave... this time with pictures! Wheee!

Has everybody noticed how, the more sincere his posts get, the more evident his inability to understand even the basics of science, along with his childish behavior, become?

Anyway Dave, once again, I'll be responding to the parts where I'm concerned (although it's hard to resist to make fun of your assertion that you "debunked" Max, when in fact you proved to be unable to grasp anything he says, but anyway).
     
Quote
Faid-- This proves MY point, not yours.  But thanks for agreeing with me inadvertently.

Oh really? Please be as kind as to demonstrate how this proves your point. That is, without accidentally debunking yourself and looking like a fool. To help you, let me say again that my point is that human language is in its essence arbitrary, and therefore any simillarities and/or differences between words have nothing to do with the meanings they have in the real world. Well?
     
Quote
No connection, huh?  
OK, then let's do an operation on you and splice any old sequence into your genes (can they do that?) and see what happens?
What, any old sequence? Well, if anything haqppens at all, I'll probably get cancer. But tell me, what do you think would happen to you, dave? Would you grow flippers or feathers, perhaps? A tentacle? How about just an extra limb? That can't be that hard.
Or maybe get covered with scales? Elephant ears? Chicken feet? Come on, the possibilities are endless...
...No need to feel embarrassed- I don't blame you. It's natural to have such a flawed perception of genetics, when your only knowledge about it comes from B-movies and comic books.
     
Quote
thought of that.  It's a good consideration.  
But remember, my little sentence "My dog was running around and barking all over my deck" is a very small sentence (a genetic snippet?) in a very large book (the genome).  
You cannot make the huge change from a dog "book" to a cat "book" by changing one letter of one sentence.  

Dave, dave, dave... That is what YOU are saying. A simple change in a "letter" changes the meaning to something completely different, although equally meaningful- That is your "language" analogy, remember? That is how you explain the 98% human-chimp simillarity, remember?
Or are you gonna jump from one contrary argument to the other when the previous is refuted, like you did with the GULO gene?


Anyway... By spotting tell-tale signs like "that man 2000 years ago" and "remember that Pharaoh's name?", I predict that your posts will get more and more amusing as you run out of sciency-looking "arguments" from your favorite sources.
Especially since you gave up all pretense about your true motives for coming here.
Which reminds me: When you show your cute comparison picture as a slide to those poor kids (as I'm sure you intend to), why not have this follow it:

http://www.geocities.com/he_whos....imp.jpg

(edit: large image- oh well)

     
Quote
Ain't no way these retards are related to me!

Date: 2006/05/26 09:32:04, Link
Author: Faid
I' um, trust you hit the link to see the previous pic, the one the gorilla quote was referring to?
I didn't display it cuz it was kinda large...

Date: 2006/05/26 13:30:13, Link
Author: Faid
Oh man.

First lack of transitional fossils, now the Krebs cycle?

Sceptic, I'll be frank with you: You're not convincing.

For a person who supposedly has a backround in science and biochemistry, you sound suspiciously like some plain creationist who just read Darwin's Black Box and thinks he's well-equipped to deal with all evilutionists.

Anyway... Here's something about the supposed "irreducible complexity" of the Krebs cycle:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....itation
And an analysis from TO:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec99.html

Now, as for the "lack" of a fossil record... sceptic, come on. It's impossible for us to take you seriously and accept your credentials when you say stuff like that. I mean, Please.

Date: 2006/05/26 14:01:05, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm... I wonder if Ghost is gonna throw the entire theory of relativity out the window, too...

Anyway, and considering his latest solipsistic tendencies, I think it would be safer if he was kept away from experiments involving single photons and prisms... (wink wink -if only I could remember who wrote that novel...)

Date: 2006/05/26 22:06:45, Link
Author: Faid
First the fossil record, then the IC of the Krebs cycle, now "we should observe evolution happening"...

Did I miss anything? Is anyone else keeping track of sceptic's parade of standard worn-out creationist drivel?


Nevermind that he first said he thinks evolution is an indisputable fact, and now he wonders why it's no possible for someone not to believe in evolution and disbelieve ID as well...

Date: 2006/05/27 03:46:26, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, can you state your "great example" again please? I must have missed it. Oh, and don't point me to your previous posts; not me, after all the times I've explained the same thing to you over and over again. Can you tell me, in plain words, how ToE uses aquired resistance to antibiotics by bacteria as an example of macroevolution?

Quote
The hilarious thing is that the folks here at Panda's Thumb say they aren't even aware that resistant bacteria are offered as evidence of macroevolution.  This can only mean that they are lying or they are very naive.
Or, you know, that you have absolutely no idea what macroevolution is supposed to mean. Just a thought.

But since Prof. Anderson is your new favorite now, after Wieland and Woodmorappe bit the dust, can you answer that question I keep asking you?

If another point mutation in the same place makes the enzyme sensitive to rifampin again, what function will be lost, dave?

That's like, the fourth time? But don't think I'll get bored. I'm actually enjoying this.

Date: 2006/05/27 04:22:28, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 26 2006,21:31)
Quote (Faid @ May 26 2006,19:01)
Anyway, and considering his latest solipsistic tendencies, I think it would be safer if he was kept away from experiments involving single photons and prisms... (wink wink -if only I could remember who wrote that novel...)

Robert Anton Wilson?

Hey, could be! All I remember is that it was about some scientist who believed that humanity's collective consciousness actually shapes reality, and modifies it as time goes by- and that's why the Earth was flat once, with the planets orbiting it, etc. And he had a plan to make reality collapse or something, involving a photon, a prism and... a mouse? Something like that. Totally up GoP's alley, if you ask me.

Anyway, if Paley ditches gravity and gets stuck with electromagnetism, and at the same time has to disregard Einsteinian relativity, then I predict his thread will soon turn to "Geocentricism II: Return of the Aether".

Date: 2006/05/27 04:59:13, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
SUMMARY OF AF DAVE'S YEC EVIDENCE PRESENTED SO FAR

A)  YEC proposes a Super-Intelligent Creator God.  Evidence:  



























Aaaand that's about it.

Date: 2006/05/27 05:30:24, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 27 2006,10:14)
Quote (Faid @ May 27 2006,09:22)
Anyway, if Paley ditches gravity and gets stuck with electromagnetism, and at the same time has to disregard Einsteinian relativity, then I predict his thread will soon turn to "Geocentricism II: Return of the Aether".

Too late; the aether is already a part of Bill's cosmology. Give the LUCA thread a gander.

...

WHAAAAAA?


:D


Does the Phlogiston have its place in there somewhere, too? I mean, if gravity doesn't exist, and everything is simply drawn towards the Center of the Universe, then how does the Sun ignite?
(or stay in one piece, for that matter?)

Date: 2006/05/27 07:09:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
AFDAVE...I am more than willing to engage in a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion on proof for God.  I will agree with everyone though that you are not providing "Scientific" evidence for God.

Puck, we tried to explain that to dave, like, 20 pages ago. At least I did, when I still thought he was sincere about his reasons for coming here. Don't bother.

Date: 2006/05/27 10:28:40, Link
Author: Faid
dave, dave, dave...

check out the following two statements:

A --> B

A  =  B

Are they identical, or different? and  why?

If, you're having trouble, check your kids' schoolbooks.

Date: 2006/05/27 12:14:07, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Faid, what is your point?

Oh, I dunno- maybe what you are demonstrating by not answering?


Jeannot:
 
Quote
Dave is about to meet another big disillusion.  

I doubt it. After the chromosome fusion thing, dave has raised his mental shields to the maximum: Nothing comes through. His response will probably be something between "that don't count" and "la la la I ain't listening- look at the silly ape picture".

Date: 2006/05/28 16:38:26, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Thus, functional change must be extremely important for macroscopic macroevolutionary change.

Exactly, dave.

A ---> B, dave.

Starting to get the picture now, dave?

Oh and, for the next argument you present, if you want it to be a tad more convincing, try ALL CAPS, BOLDS... AND ITALICS. I hear it can help.

Date: 2006/05/29 05:26:25, Link
Author: Faid
Well, since we're now discussing loss of functions again, can you answer my question, dave? This is the fifth time I'm asking...

Oh, about the Down Syndrome thing: I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that a fusion is responsible for its occurence? That's simply not true. For the vast majority of cases, failed disjunction (sp?) is the reason: and that's affected by things like the mother's age etc. Now, a quick glance at my old textbooks told me that there are in fact a few cases of DS attributed to chromosome fusions (Robertsonian translocations); but those are like, 3% of the total number.
Or is it that you are claiming that all fusions have such disastrous effects? That is also extremely incorrect. In all the people in the world today, more than 1 in 1000 has a kind of Robertsonian translocation. Most of those are "balanced" fusions, and their carriers have no phaenotypic problem. It has been suggested that these people might have an increased risk in giving birth to children with genetic defects (like Down), but recent studies propose that the risk is much smaller than previously thought.
As for other mammals: Robertsonian translocations of various kinds are quite common, especially in horses and cows, with only a minor drop in fertility as a result -which may pose problems for selective breeding, but none for the animal's survival. IIRC, there's also a kind of antelope where a RobT is so common and without problems, the population of the species has three distinct caryotypes, with 24, 25 and 26 chromosomes.But I'll cave to check that out.

Date: 2006/05/29 06:50:32, Link
Author: Faid
Well, I just realized that trying to address dave's latest display of absolute absurdity is as futile as it is tiresome.

"humans didn't exist, because writing didn't exist!"

"And why isn't it, simply (and obviously), that humans existed, but hadn't developed writing yet, like steelworking or sea sailing or flight or computers?"

"Ah, but if they existed, we'd have written records by them! We don't, therefore they didn't exist!"

" :O  :O  :O  :O "

Seriously dave, can't you do better than that? Or do you think your arrogant assertions and delusional comments can make up for complete lack of relevant education and plain logic?

Just two small points:

Why do you accept scientific dating when it demonstrates that a Pyramid (or a hut, or a pot) is 5000 years old, and absolutely deny it when it demonstrates that a cave painting (or a dwelling, or an axe) is 20000 years old? which is the difference (if any) that makes the one a valid scientific conclusion, and the other a made-up atheist conspiracy, dave? Do you even know or care, dave?

Since ancient Egyptians knew, as you say, the true value of Pi (which jews thought it was three), not to mention the diameter of the Earth (!!!!!!!!!;), which the Book That Explains Everything says absolutely nothing about, do you know any good reason why I shouldn't start worshipping Isis and Osiris? Hmmm?

Dave, honestly: You suck at this indoctrination business. I can think of 3-4 pro-creationism "arguments" off the top of my head that are way better than yours  (if served to the public properly).
At least they make you go "whaa?" for just a moment, before realizing the scam and laughing your a$$ off. With yours, it seems we go to step 2 immediately.

Date: 2006/05/30 03:27:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
And we've got a long way to go through this outline.  What names will you be calling me by the time I get to D3?

No names besides the ones your record here has earned you, dave. At least, not by me.

You see, I do not think you are an idiot. Not because of what you believe. Like I've told you before (I wonder if you even paid attention), I think that people must be judged for their actions, not their beliefs.
And when you say this:
 
Quote
A1 was a pretty easy win.  You guys came at me with "what about multiple universes?"

You are LYING, dave. Period.
There's just no way around it anymore. I have pointed you a dozen times (literally, I believe) to the link you posted, three paragraphs down, where it says we don't need multiple universes. I quoted the darnn thing more times than I can remember. You deliberately ignored me every time. Then you say this.


Dave: Even an actual retard (one below border intelligence) would understand people are trying to tell him something and would address it, even to say "I don't understand", or "that can't be right". So in your case there is just no alternative: First you are being deliberately evasive, and then you say that all we founded our disagreement on (besides semantics and name-calling) is parallel universes. And you are obviously, blatantly, shamelessly, lying.

So, there's no point to address any of your other ridiculous claims -about how you won the GULO debate, or the resistant bacteria issue- where all you did was demonstrate your complete inability to understand basic terms in biology and genetics. I tend not to take Liars-for-Jesus seriously enough to bother pointing their flaws to them.
Again, others who are more patient can once again pulverize your absurd claims- not that it will make any difference to you, of course. Not if little children still buy them, right dave?
You go ahead and smash our arguments with your fiery blade of truth, you poor deluded thing. I can only hope that this ridiculous mix of ignorance, stone-headed stubborness and arrogance is just your internet persona, and not the way you really are in everyday life. For your sake.

Date: 2006/05/30 05:34:57, Link
Author: Faid
Wait wait, what did I miss: Didn't skeptic already admit he was an OEC, and post a relevant link? Or something like that? Or was he being sarcastic?


<edit: whoops sorry skeptic... I thought your "cat's out of the bag" comment after posting that thing about Schroeder and his book in LyingDave's thread was about you. Well you can't blame me, now can you?>

Date: 2006/05/30 05:48:12, Link
Author: Faid
Well, I had my suspicions from the start, but for me the clear and final giveaway was when he used the old "we should observe evolution happening today" argument. I mean come on.

Date: 2006/05/30 07:20:33, Link
Author: Faid
Hey dave, when you're done with "Big Daddy", check this for a few final thoughts:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3114033640598425726

Date: 2006/05/30 08:07:31, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (jeannot @ May 30 2006,12:13)
I think Dave wants to become a martyr here, and be like crucified in public. Seriously.
The more you insult him, the better he feels.

I do believe you are right, jeannot. After all, there's no denying that comments like this:
 
Quote
I guess this is why I sense so much emotion coming from some of you.  You are getting madder and madder and trying to come up with new names to call me and so on.  I guess this is understandable when your arguments sound ridiculous and you don't know what else to say.  I guess it is also embarrassing to be shown the truth by a layman.

Are intentionally provoking. He's trying to irritate us, in order to be able to interpret our angry remarks as admissions of defeat (since the only other "arguments" he has are essentially "I don't buy it" and "Come on, it's obvious!").

The funny thing is that he really doesn't have to try and be irritating: It's his amazing display of combined ignorance and cement-headedness that flustrates and angers us -and, of course, his intentional ignoring, evading and distorting of our arguments. His childish attempts to mock and gloat are just cute.

I, of course, am angry for another reason, too: for giving him too much credit at first. Seems like I'll never learn...  :angry:

Date: 2006/05/30 08:35:28, Link
Author: Faid
Post 1168 in a nutshell, the way I see it:
Quote
Churches! Youth clubs! Christian colleges! Order a copy of my books for your library! They help people find Jesus again!


:angry:

'Nuff said.

Date: 2006/05/30 13:51:04, Link
Author: Faid
So Ghost, if a tree falls in the forest when there's noone around, does God say "hey, what's that racket"?

(This is no sarcasm, believe me; I'm still trying to figure out if you lean towards Solipsism, Berkeley's empiricism, or if you're really a Tlönist...)

Date: 2006/05/31 02:58:34, Link
Author: Faid
Guys, guys... Don't get your hopes up waiting for dave to present his evidence for a young earth... IMO, here's a small summary of what will happen:

1. Dave presents some copypasted "arguments" from his favorite sites (with a generous dose of mocking and gloating).

2. Dave waits for a while as his pathetic arguments are easily refuted. Then he promptly ignores the arguments he doesn't like, distorts and mangles the rest to turn then into beatable strawmen (or simply make fun of them), and at the same time copy/pastes again some pathetic rebuttal attempts from his AiG heroes.

3. Dave waits again, as those of us who still have the patience explain our arguments over and over again and point him to the real evidence.
Then, in a long, BOLD-TITLED post, he ironically posts one of those ridiculous pre-cut debate-enders creationists use: Say, how some live snail was supposedly carbon-dated and found to be thousands of years old, or maybe a picture of a fossilized tree trunk found upright, supposedly "penetrating" ages of sediments.

4. From that point on, Dave proceeds to a complete system shut-down: As those of us who still bother try to explain to him how silly what he posted really is, he responds with ironical posts like
"Come on, a tree STANDING UPRIGHT? Through MILLIONS of years? How DESPERATE must you silly evos be to believe T*H*A*T?".
Throws some more "HMS Darwin" crap in there as well for the flavor, and absolutely refuses to listen or provide a meaningful response to anything else.

5. Dave waits as our expected (and justified) angry posts now pile up. Then, in his familliar humble christian style, he posts another "SUMMARY OF AFDAVE'S EVIDENCE", where he boasts about how he clobbered us up reel gooood in this issue as well, and how our insults and anger alone are proof of our ultimate defeat.



...Did I forget something?

Date: 2006/05/31 03:58:55, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Someone else in the peanut gallery thinks my admission means that ID is really a religion. The unspoken implication is that their admission means that they consider atheism to be a religion. I agree.


Another example of DaveLogic:

1. Atheism denies the validity of religion.

2. ID opposes Atheism.

3. Therefore, Atheism is a religion.

Don't try to work it out, kids- only supergeniouses of 150+ IQs can master the math involved.

:D

Date: 2006/05/31 04:39:15, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I, myself, think that the jury is still out on this issue and may never come to a verdict.  Debates among  paleontologists over new finds, classifications, dating, etc highlights the difficulties inherent in the science.  


Why, man, why? Is it much to ask you why you think that way? Is it much to ask you for a simple justification of your claims? Is it much to ask for a single argument -even a flawed one? All you seem to be able to say in this issue is "Well I think that..." and continue with some vague statement that you do not back up in any way. This leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that you have nothing but hunches and personal preferences to support your assertions, and never bothered to read or learn anything relevant . Sorry.
Unless, of course, you have some arguments... but are afraid to use them because they will clearly reveal you as a creationist. In that case... Come on man, that's not that bad. It's dishonesty that's frowned upon in here, not beliefs.


...OK, maybe some beliefs. But dishonesty first.

Date: 2006/06/02 07:11:16, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=afdave,June 01 2006,11:42][/quote]
Quote
Since speaking to a doctor friend recently, the chimp chromosome thing has reopened in my mind.  While I do recognize that it is tempting to postulate the fusing of chimp chromosomes '2A and 2B' (for lack of better terminology) to produce human chromosome 2, he informed me that there are many chromosome fusions that occur, but that they are all harmful.  Is this true?

No.

Quote
Drew Headley referred me to the nylon-eating bacteria example, but I think Faid disposed of that one for me.  Am I wrong?

Yes.


Quote
I am not arguing from incredulity ... you guys should really stop saying this ... it makes you look dumb.  (...)  It is highly unlikely that humans would live for 195,000 years without ever writing anything down.  Gimme a break!

Best AFDavism so far. :D

Quote
I am not lying.  Talk Origins is quite clear that multiple universes is an option for evolutionists and several on this thread have said so also.  I understand that there are other wild theories besides multiple universes, but it is not lying to say that this is one of the theories.

You are lying NOW. Unless you can point me to the post where you stopped ignoring me, addressed this "wild theory" and attempted to refute it. But you can't, because all you ever argued against is the impossibility of alternate universes. And certainly not the point addressed only a few paragraphs down your favorite TO quote, in spite of me calling you on it a dozen times. And you still haven't. Because you still haven't bothered to check. Give it a rest. You're not fooling anyone.

Quote
The truth is that there is a universal moral code and you and I both appeal to it every day, yet neither of us can live up to it perfectly.  So C. S. Lewis is right and he is also right that there has to be an Originator of this Moral Code.

"Our society shares the same moral code, therefore God made it". Another memorable AFDavism.

Quote
All I have ever pointed out is that the Laws of Relativity speak of this weird phenomenon called Length Contraction and Time Dilation.  The very fact that these concepts truly exist is evidence which supports (not proves) the claims of the Bible when it says that God dwells outside space and time.

Suure, dave. Can you explain why? Hmm? Oh wait, I see it now: it's the old "Gimme a break, it's obvious" argument. Whoa, I never saw that coming.

Quote
You seem to have the mistaken impression that I am engaged in a scientific debate based on the assumptions of methodolgical naturalism.  You are mistaken.

Funny, I thought you started this thread to prove that you can present a "scientific theory" based on Lenny's steps, which are just that... Did I miss something, dave?
Quote
you know ... back in the days when Theology was the Queen of Sciences ... back before the fog of Darwinism spread over the planet.

Ah, the good olod days... When research and experiment and every "scientific" claim had to be backed up by church-approved authority, and people believed the 4 fluids theory because some ancient dude said so... When you could get into serious trouble for saying that the heart is a pump, or that there is some unseen factor that transmits disease. Man, the possibilities in the 21st century  are endless. I can't wait to start chopping limbs to treat fractures, and drain blood to treat fevers.
Oh, and BTW, you do know that scientists knew how amazingly old the earth was before Darwin, right?


In short: You're getting boring, dave. Sorry. Get on with your young earth and flood evidence (and sorry, but the RATE project is not it: If science was valid or productive or credible the way those guys tried to do it, Everyone would have a cold-fusion generator in his house by now. Look it up).
Hurry, because GoP with his hypedense frictionless crystalline Aether will get quite more interesting...  :p

Date: 2006/06/02 07:31:09, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 02 2006,12:19)
What I have always wondered at is the ability of theist fundies such as our dear clown Dave here to lie outright and yet somehow reconcile that with their ostensible Christian beliefs.

How do they do that?  Doublethink?  Stupidity?  Some peculiar epinephrin-triggered shunt that the rest of us don't have?

Anyone have any ideas?

Well, I s'pose that, as this "Creator God" (I always hear this phrase with a televangellist voice in my head), who is the founder of the Universal Moral Law, can break it anytime They feels like it, so the faithful can easily disregard it, when they feel they do their Creator God's bidding.
...Simple as that.

Date: 2006/06/02 07:47:21, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ June 02 2006,12:37)
Quote
What the Laws of Relativity do is simply show you that space and time are finite entities whereas before Einstein, no one knew this, although the Bible clearly taught this.  Now do you understand?  


How exactly do the "Laws of Relativity" show that?

Aaand steve beats me to it.

Also:
Quote
I found it interesting that Norm had not heard of anyone using helium to date rocks.  That's because creation scientists are pioneers, Norm.

MUAHAHAHAHAHA

...Ok, dave, now you're doing a better job. Keep it up!

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/06/02 08:02:32, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Cassini and Voyager, if they still exist, are in the hard drives in the basement of the same studio in Burbank, CA where they created all of those cgi images used in the evolutionistic prolefeed called "Science and nature programming." Deep space probes?--My arse! Yes, the images have gotten sharpen since the crude clay models used in the whole moon landing shoot, but its still the same charade!


I knew you wouldn't let me down, Ghost! Yay!
:)

Date: 2006/06/02 08:11:07, Link
Author: Faid
Also: Forget Berkeley's Empiricism and Tlönism and such, Ghost... I just think you played too much Mage: The Ascension as a kid.

Mr. Davidson: Post of the week material there, sir.

Date: 2006/06/02 09:25:52, Link
Author: Faid
Parallax is a conspiracy, Eric. Haven't you seen "The Parallax View"?

Date: 2006/06/02 10:16:55, Link
Author: Faid
"parallel descent"... Hmm...

Like, say, from the Kinds that were on the Ark?

Date: 2006/06/02 10:36:02, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 02 2006,14:56)
Were the ancient Greeks part of the conspiracy, I wonder.

Oh yes they were.

Date: 2006/06/02 11:52:42, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (JonF @ June 02 2006,16:32)
 But scientists quickly realized that helium-based dates are not trustworthy, because helium escapes so easily and it's so difficult to calculate how much helium escaped;

hmm... Maybe that explains the YEC obsession with helium...

OK, I can just imagine a meeting of all these "respectable scientists":

"So, guys, what other element can we use that gives as ambiguous results as possible?"

LOL

Date: 2006/06/03 07:07:32, Link
Author: Faid
SUMMARY OF AFDAVE'S "ARGUMENTS"

"36% simillarity in guinea pigs? Come on!"

"One half of a lousy percentage point? Come on!"

"58% He retention? Come on!"


And so on, and so on... *sigh*

you're getting more and more boring, dave.

Instead of labelling things you can't understand as "garbage" (Even that is copied from Humphrey), and since you'll attend the RATE conference and ask questions, why not ask them this simple thing:
Since these pioneers of science have reinvented the wheel- er, the helium dating (all-too-suprisingly, at a time when everyone else regards it as unreliable, except in special cases), why don't they do what every other scientist would do in their case? Why don't they test more zircons? Why don't they try to verify their (already unreliable) results with measurements from different places?  
Is it perhaps, oh I dunno, because they're just quacks who only care to fill a space on a creo page for the afdaves of the world to use? On children who don't know better? Just a thought.

Anyway, remember to ask, OK?

PS. Oh, and did you remember to ask that doctor friend of yours why he/she lied to you claiming that all chromosome fusions are harmful?
What was that? Sorry, can't hear you...

Date: 2006/06/03 10:52:23, Link
Author: Faid
sceptic, about that thing, you know, presenting arguments and such... Any chance it might happen soon?

Date: 2006/06/03 14:14:52, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56)
 
Quote
Until then, all you've got is a mildly interesting possible anomaly.
Hmmm ... that's the closest anyone here has ever gotten to saying a creo is right. I guess that means we're making good progess.

Actually, dave that's the closest you've ever come to understand that it's you YECs who are mildly interesting anomalies. Which is, not at all.
   
   
Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56)
   
Quote
Why don't they test more zircons?
They're going to.

Can't wait... But don't hold your breath.

   
Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56)
 
Quote
Dembski often makes these posts. I work with several engineers and physicists who study biological systems, and use engineering principles to study them, and they all think creationism and ID are a load of nonsense.
Poor guys!

Yeah, it really sucks to be blinded to the Truth™ by science and rational thinking, eh dave?

   
Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56)
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ June 03 2006,11:24)
Hey Dave, I'm still waiting for you to explain relativity to me.

AF Dave's Definition of Relativity:  Steve Story is a close relative of chimps.  Or is it gorillas?  Nah ... chimps.  They're like 1/2% closer I think.  Or is it the other way around?  I forget.  Let me get my handy dandy 'Evo tree' and I'll get back to you.

dave, on the other hand, seems like a closer relative of chickens. YEC? More like BEC-BEC..

Date: 2006/06/03 15:35:30, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost:

You went on and on about how you needed to have time to work on just one of your promises, and even suggested to be banned from other threads, and declared that you'd answer only to those two or three people you had the debates with first, so you wouldn't get distracted...
And finally, after you post some vague math and not even a crude sketch of your model, you revive another, clearly provoking, thread on a subject you know is heated, and will be debated with zeal. And why would you do that, If you didn't want to discuss this now?
But I suppose it's ok because you're "good at multitasking", like you said then. Yeah, right.
How about opening a couple more threads then, to discuss Tiktaalik and guts-to-gametes and scale-free networks, Mr. Dualcore?

Spare me, Ghost. I'm not biting. Work on disproving all aspects of modern astronomy and physics, and leave your political rants for another time.

Date: 2006/06/03 16:19:07, Link
Author: Faid
Well Barry (since you are reading this too), if you really have questions, you know better than us that UD is not the place to have them answered- not with your friend the Banninator deleting posts and making everyone "go in peace but go".
Why not post your questions in this forum, where people can actually discuss, and just maybe find out the real answers?
If you want to, that is.

Date: 2006/06/04 00:51:46, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
As for Dembski, he is not lying when he says ID has nothing to do with religion.  Religion is all about robes and rituals and candles and homina-hominas.  ID is about the possibility of an Intelligent Designer creating the universe.  Do you see the difference?  Dembski acknowledges that some might see this Designer as God or ET or The Force or whatever.

Well, since he's acknowledged it, that's just how it is, I guess...  :D

Dave, maybe you should check your new mentor's record a bit. Especially his "street theatre" techniques, his lame attempts at self-promotion in Amazon, and his repeated slanderous actions against people he doesn't know based on hearsay (if even that).

Maybe that will somehow shake you out of your usual state of denial.

Although I doubt it.

Oh, and, speaking of denial: Did you check why you got lied to about fusions- again? No? Din't think so...

 
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 03 2006,22:56)
two - like i said, Dave learned all his biology from disney films.

And his genetics from Marvel comics.

Date: 2006/06/04 04:22:59, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (JonF @ June 04 2006,08:52)
W.A. Dembski:
     
Quote
Intelligent design, as a scientific research program, attempts to determine whether certain features of the natural world exhibit signs of having been designed by an intelligence. Whether this intelligence is ET or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent are all, at least initially, live options. The problem with ET, of course, is that it implies a regress -- where did ET come from? The same question doesn't apply, at least not in the same way, to telic principles or transcendent personal agents because the terms of the explanation are different. ET is an embodied intelligence, and that embodiment itself needs explanation

Sure doesn't sound like it could be ET.

Wait wait- did Dembski actually say that?

And he still has the NERVE to say that the "who designed the designer" argument is lame -and he bans from his blog anyone who mentions it?

The man is truly a jerk.



:angry:

Date: 2006/06/04 09:40:07, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (dhogaza @ June 04 2006,13:54)
BarryA
 
Quote
It was reported above that the 90’s saw a lot of the gaps in the fossil record filled in. Someone must have forgotten to give the memo to Schwartz, Carroll, and Patterson, who wrote the following toward the end of the 90’s:

“[We] are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms."


So, let's see, we're in the dark about the origin of most - but not all - major groups of organisms, therefore evolution is disproved, he thinks.

Totally ignoring the fact that we have detailed fossil records for the evolution of critters like whales ... that "most" is not synonymous with "all".

Amazing blinders he and those like him wear.

Um, right. "A lot of gaps in the fossil record are filled in" is directly contradicted by "we still don't know the origins of all organisms". OK.
And, of course, both are in complete inaccordance with another statement Patterson made in the 90s: "I like cheese".

Seriously. If that's the way Barry supported his cases, I wouldn't like to be represented by him.

Date: 2006/06/04 10:30:29, Link
Author: Faid
Yeah... Going from "powerful evidence" to "not prove, but support" and finally "I'm sure they'll find some connection eventually, but it's not my job"...

Dave, do you understand now why I was polite and patient at first, and now I'm just fed up with your "baloney"?

My only reason to be angry is I wasn't on to you from the start.

Oh well.

Date: 2006/06/04 11:13:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
You were happy when you won the chimp chromosome argument and now you are mad because I wouldn't buy your explanations about the ape GULO thing.


If by "wouldn't buy" you mean "systematically ignore, distort and mangle", then you've pretty much hit the target, dave.
<If it was just "I don't buy it", I'd still lose my respect for you, but I wouldn't get angry... After all, that's basically your only answer to everything.>

As for relativity, spare me the drama. Either you have "powerful evidence" and can explain it, or you don't.
You're not talking to children here.

And speaking of the fusion thing, any luck finding out why you've been lied to again (about all fusions being harmful)?

Date: 2006/06/04 11:35:17, Link
Author: Faid
Here's the 101st question to remain unanswered...

What concept exactly you say has been observed to be "outside space and time", dave? And what does it have to do with Einstein's relativity?

Date: 2006/06/04 11:40:09, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
The problem is that explaining things over and over again to people who have their minds made up a certain way is pointless.


I see... You're quite willing to explain to us how almost every known field of science is fundamentally wrong, and Earth is 6000 years old- but don't bother to explain the mystical way in which relativity is evidence for God... Because we have our minds "made up".

Be sincere for once, dave. Spare us the "baloney".

Oh yeah, and do tell me what a saint Constantine was. Just remember I'm Greek, OK?

Date: 2006/06/04 13:31:51, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
OK Steve, I'll speak really slowly this time ...

The mere fact that it has been discovered that a dimension of space can be 'contracted' -- Length Contraction, and that time can be dilated -- Time Dilation is powerfully suggestive to me that the claims of the Bible regarding God dwelling outside of space and time just might be true.  It may not be suggestive of this to you at all.  That's ok.  It won't be the first time we disagree.

I don't understand how relativity works.  I don't need to.

That's all I've ever claimed.  That's all I know about it.  And that's all I care about it.  Are you happy now?

Well, I know I'm happy.

Dave just demonstrated how twisted and detached from reality his "powerful evidence" really is.

And at the same time, he had the nerve to finally admit what we all know already:
That, in his mind, he doesn't really need to know anything about all the things he argues for (or against); all he needs is to believe they're right (or wrong), and that's enough.

That's AFDave in a nutshell for you.

Date: 2006/06/05 02:43:02, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
%$&*#(*&%^$&  (smoke coming out of your ears)


Awww... You cute lil' thing. You never did grow up, now did you?

I wonder what it's like to live willingly imprisoned inside your little fantasy world, built for you by the lies of others and your own illusions...

Anyway, take some time to check what an UNBELIEVABLE LIAR AND SLANDERER your new mentor is.
And if you have the time, maybe you should also wonder why our resident Young-Earth Geocentricist and Self-Proclaimed Denier of the Objectiveness of Reality rushes to your rescue (with his usual irrelevant blabber).

And finally: Did you find out why you got lied to about chromosome fusions again? Don't think I'll get tired and stop asking...
(Ima gonna jump at the race too, guys!;)

PS. Paley: Cut the crap and work on your model, and stop shooting diversion flares. We're not gonna start another debate with you, no matter how provoking and offensive you try to be, no matter how desperately you want us to. Just FYI.

Date: 2006/06/05 03:05:58, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (skeptic @ June 04 2006,22:55)
[quote=ericmurphy,June 02 2006,23:28][/quote]
Quote
Common descent is a "fact" to the same extent that the earth is an oblate spheroid is a "fact."


Eric
This comparison is faulty and it illustrates. I think, the false thinking around this whole issue.  The shape of the Earth can be directly observed and verified.  You can send a satelite into space, circle the Earth and photograph it and collect conclusive data.  

Sooo sceptic, are you saying that we found out the earth is round, without doubt, in 1957?


:O


...Seriously, sceptic, are you past eighth grade yet?

Date: 2006/06/05 04:47:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I love the peanut gallery at ATBC. They’re better than The Three Stooges, The Keystone Cops, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and The Benny Hill Show rolled into one! None of them are actually banned. Some just don’t get all their comments posted. Some hardly ever get a comment posted. A few aren’t even on the moderation list because they’re not stupid or trollish. -ds


Aww shucks, Davesy! Thanks! We remember well your warm welcome and our hospitable stay in your forum, and we're honoured that a genious of your magnitude still finds time from single-handedly disproving evolution in his basement, to bother with us!
And I'm personally honoured to be compared to Monty Python by you. *fights a tear*

Which gives me an idea:

Guys: Which characters from MPFC do you think are most comparable with our beloved UD residents? Here's some, IMO:

William A. Dembski - Ms. Anne Elk (OK, you saw that one coming)

Davescott - Sergeant Major (..Unleash the banning tiger!;)

Salvador - Wensleydale (replace cheese with evidence or arguments)

Larry Faffarman - Mr. Smoketoomuch (will you be quiet please)

Any other ideas?

Date: 2006/06/05 05:03:36, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (J. G. Cox @ June 05 2006,09:16)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180

Funny how they made him come from Lehigh...

Quote
"It's true that I've been condemned and ridiculed by the world's most prominent chemists, as well as by a good number of amateur hobbyists," Hapner said as he rubbed a ballon on his head to demostrate a basic principle of hydrodynamics. "But then, wasn't Eistein ridiculed when he unveiled his theory of relativity, or Copernicus when he posited that the Earth revolved around the sun? True, I have since proved them both wrong, but at least they took risks."



G...Ghost?

Date: 2006/06/05 05:23:11, Link
Author: Faid
Hey now you just waitaminute, Mr. deadman: Not all christians were unsympathetic to Native Americans, you know. Some were reeeeal compassionate and humane towards them- like this guy:
Quote
THE REMOTE CAUSE

In 1517, Fray Bartolome de las Casas, feeling great pity for the Indians who grew worn and lean in the drudging infernos of the Antillean gold mines, proposed to Emperor Charles V that Negroes be brought to the isles of the Caribbean, so that they might grow worn and lean in the drudging infernos of the Antillean gold mines. To that odd variant on the species philanthropist we owe an infinitude of things: W. C. Handy's blues; the success achieved in Paris by the Uruguayan attorney-painter Pedro Figari; the fine runaway-slave prose of the likewise Uruguayan Vicente Rossi; the mythological stature of Abraham Lincoln; the half-million dead of the War of Secession; the $3.3 billion spent on military pensions; the statue of the imaginary semblance of Antonio (Falucho) Ruiz; the inclusion of the verb "lynch" in respectable dictionaries; the impetuous King Vidor film Hallelujah; the stout bayonet charge of the regiment of "Blacks and Tans" (the color of their skins, not their uniforms) against that famous hill near Montevideo; the gracefulness of certain elegant young ladies; the black man who killed Martin Fierro; that deplorable rumba The Peanut-Seller; the arrested and imprisoned Napoleonism of Toussaint L'Ouverture; the cross and the serpent in Haiti; the blood of goats whose throats are slashed by the papalois machete; the habanera that is the mother of the tango; the candombe.


...Although something tells me Paley wouldn't like this guy that much.

Date: 2006/06/05 09:37:14, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 05 2006,13:27)
Oh ... almost forgot ...

Faid ... I think you may be all wet about chromosome fusion.  Down's syndrome is a bad thing, right?  Caused by chromosome fusion, right?

I understand that there are many other diseases caused by chromosome fusion, are there not?  I think you denied this, but you gave no links or proof.

Can you supply those, please?

Oh reeeeaaaaly?

From your "prove evolution" thread, a couple posts after you first mentioned this:
   
Quote
Well, since we're now discussing loss of functions again, can you answer my question, dave? This is the fifth time I'm asking...

Oh, about the Down Syndrome thing: I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that a fusion is responsible for its occurence? That's simply not true. For the vast majority of cases, failed disjunction (sp?) is the reason: and that's affected by things like the mother's age etc. Now, a quick glance at my old textbooks told me that there are in fact a few cases of DS attributed to chromosome fusions (Robertsonian translocations); but those are like, 3% of the total number.
Or is it that you are claiming that all fusions have such disastrous effects? That is also extremely incorrect. In all the people in the world today, more than 1 in 1000 has a kind of Robertsonian translocation. Most of those are "balanced" fusions, and their carriers have no phaenotypic problem. It has been suggested that these people might have an increased risk in giving birth to children with genetic defects (like Down), but recent studies propose that the risk is much smaller than previously thought.
As for other mammals: Robertsonian translocations of various kinds are quite common, especially in horses and cows, with only a minor drop in fertility as a result -which may pose problems for selective breeding, but none for the animal's survival. IIRC, there's also a kind of antelope where a RobT is so common and without problems, the population of the species has three distinct caryotypes, with 24, 25 and 26 chromosomes.But I'll cave to check that out.

You must have missed that, eh?

Oh, and links: check page 37, post 5 in this thread. Oops, that kinda slipped past you too... and to think that you were online at the time...

Shows how much you really pay attention to what we tell you. Meh, nothing new there.

Anyway, here it is again:

http://www.spokane.wsu.edu/researc....rce.asp

And some more (it really didn't take more than 20 minutes of googling):

http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units....ian.cfm

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15918

And here are the reasons for Down syndrome, which are exactly as I said (woo I still remember something from the old med school):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Genetics

And I even found a link to the studies I mentioned (a good thing, since you'd be reluctant to read any atheist evilutionary articles):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract

And BTW, I stumbled onto another interesting lesson, from U Indiana again. Try it; you might learn something.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html

Now, I'll be glad to check for links to horses and cowses and antelopeses too, but how about doin' some work by yourself, champ?

(Don't you hate it when I'm right? :p )

Date: 2006/06/05 10:06:41, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 05 2006,14:50)
Quote
Part of the problem, I now see, is that many educated liberals don't know about Foucault's true beliefs. This (along with my vague writing) helps explain your reaction to my first post on the topic. I admit I should have specified what I detested about the man, but geez, guys, I woulda thought that you were more familiar with his scribblings. But now you know, so there's no excuse. The next time someone praises his writings, do pass along the tidbits you learned, willya? One man can only do so much.....


Oh Jesus F. Christ.

Okay, first GoP complains that Foucault is typical of all liberals, all liberals worship him, and that Foucault is the basis for liberal thought.

Then when it's pointed out that none of the liberals here worship Foucault, that in fact many of them either haven't read him or reject him, what does GoP do? Does this indicate that his initial statement about Foucault's influence on liberals is WRONG? No, he complains about how terrible it is that we haven't read him.

A man that GoP apparently disapproves of terribly, and who is evidently such a massive influence on liberals, and he's irked that the libbies aren't basing their lives on him. We're failing to live up to his stereotypes, and this annoys him greatly. And, he sees no contradiction here.

And even tho no one here worships him, somehow Foucault is still germane to this discussion.

Shit, if we HAD all read him, GoP would scorn us for that, too! Make up your frigging mind!

And let's not forget that it's Paley who brought Foucault up, in a completely irrelevant subject...


...Can you say "troll"?

Cut the BS and work on your model, Ghost.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:14:46, Link
Author: Faid
Wow. You managed to use Hitler in the only way that he can be used as an appeal to emotion and still not invoke Godwin: Adopting the opponent's stance to disprove it.

You guys are good.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:37:22, Link
Author: Faid
Oh my gosh I'm so ashamed...

dave, I was wrong. Those weren't antelopes, they were Okapi.

And there's only one fusion in the population, with two karyotypes: with 45 and 46 chromosomes (not 25 and 26- silly me).
<edit: hey there is a 44 karyotype too whaddaya know.>

And the worst thing is- the two karyotypes aren't equally distributed...





...The fusion karyotype is more common.

:p

Date: 2006/06/05 12:13:02, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
But Dave can have ya. I've got work to do.....

Go in peace but go, GoP.  :p

Date: 2006/06/05 22:02:09, Link
Author: Faid
Ghost is not sincere; he's too smart for that. He's just craving for attention- he's the kind of guy who loves to hear his own voice talking.
So he's just pulling our leg. He's probably showing this thread to his friends saying, "hee hee I got all the evos waiting for me to prove earth is the center of the universe to them how cool is that" or something.
Oh well. We amuse him, he amuses us... Many long-term relationships are based solely on personal interest, right?  :p

Anyway, I voted for Sal just to heat things up.

Date: 2006/06/05 23:48:35, Link
Author: Faid
And now for something completely different:

Guys, turns out this site is pretty neat

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/



Kinda hate the layout, though.

Date: 2006/06/06 01:05:20, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 05 2006,18:29)
Quote
He also rejects other basic scientific facts like plate tectonics.
Oops.  Right on all but this one.  I accept all basic scientific facts including plate tectonics, but I reject some scientific speculation such as millions and billions of years, neo-Darwinism, etc.

Um, dave, I know you probably won't return to this thread to protect your new friend again... But I'd hate to ask you any more questions on your own thread, in case your brain explodes.
So, here goes:

Do you accept Einstein's relativity, dave? Forget all the "powerful evidence for god" blabber, I don't care anymore.
I mean the theory itself: Do you accept that it's  valid and well-established? You should be, since you used it as "evidence" in the first place... But I'd like to hear it from you.

...And yes, this is a trick question. And no, it's not about Paley: it's about another good friend of yours.  ;)

Well?

Date: 2006/06/06 01:26:53, Link
Author: Faid
He's not.

Date: 2006/06/06 04:07:11, Link
Author: Faid
Whoa... Talk about christian ethics...


Hey davey, how's this for "universal moral law"?

Date: 2006/06/06 04:52:41, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,09:45)
I showed my work to a fellow church member and she was totally lost. She didn't understand the motivation for anything, and agreed that I overused Mathematica.

Wait... So you mean that inventing revolutionary cosmological models is not a good way to get the chicks?

Crap. And you were beginning to give me ideas...

Oh well, guess I'll have to go back to my "World Domination" plan...

Date: 2006/06/06 23:55:27, Link
Author: Faid
Gin & Tonic

Since, I dunno, forever


...I'm no fun at parties.

Date: 2006/06/07 00:37:23, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Did I miss anything?


*sigh* Yeah dave, you missed me. As usual. But that's OK, I've got used to you ignoring me by now...

Just one sidenote, about the Portuguese thing: I said I wouldn't touch that again (not my field, anyway), but even I am beginning to feel sorry for you, the way you keep embarrassing yourself. So, here it is:

Portuguese is PORTUGUESE.
Portuguese is PORTUGUESE.
Portuguese is PORTUGUESE.

It emerged as a distinct and separate Iberian language from Vulgar Latin early on.

It evolved (hah!;) during the Middle Ages, accepting some influence from Spanish (Castillian, actually), but without losing its distinct character at any time.

It became the official language of the newfound kingdom of Portugal, after Latin. Not French, not Spanish. Portuguese.

It was influenced by French much later, during the 18th century, and not substantially (Unless you consider Portuguese and Brazilian entirely different languages).

And that's the truth. It was NEVER a "mixture of French and Spanish", whether "among other things" or not.

You were wrong. Admit it for once, deal with it, and live with it. Who knows? Maybe that will be a good start.

Date: 2006/06/07 01:02:44, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 07 2006,05:54)
Faid...    
Quote
And that's the truth. It was NEVER a "mixture of French and Spanish", whether "among other things" or not.
Your own members of "Team Evo" agreed with me.  The linguist here said it might be true if you could show a large influence which I promptly did.  Many here wouldn't touch the subject because they feared I was right.  I showed you word comparisons.  Rilke's article from Wikipedia agreed with me just a short distance down from the part she quoted at me.

In short, I gave you abundant evidence to support my claim.  Rilke made a foolish challenge in calling me an idiot, and she lost ... BIG.

What you will do by continuing to whine about the Portuguese thing is confirm for me even more your lack of character ... your inability to eat a loss and keep smiling.

Ooookay...

So Davesy boy, Do you Deny that Portuguese was a separate dintinct language that came from vulgar latin early on? Yes or no? Quit beating around the bush with "I said, he said". Remember, you originally claimed that it did not exist before all those knight came to Portugal, and the people spoke Spanish. Also, can you substantiate your claims in any oter way than saying that French (and other) knights gained land in Portugal, which is as vague as thin air linguistically? Can you address all those official sites that specifically say (and prove) that PORTUGUESE EXISTED ALREADY????

Quit your projection. Someone else is a sore loser here, and we both know who.

<edit: and I have yet to "lose" to you, dave my man. Unless you have some exiting new argument, I think I've pretty much every reason to keep smiling...  :) >

Date: 2006/06/07 01:20:56, Link
Author: Faid
Dave...? Oh daaaaaveeeeeee...

Date: 2006/06/07 01:34:12, Link
Author: Faid
*Checks if dave's still logged in; sees he's bailed out*

Well, there goes Mr. Intellectual Honesty...

Come back, dave! Can't you spread your Truth™ without employing 'hit and run' tactics?

Anyway, next time you're in town, remember to at least address my previous posts on the fusion thing... (yeah, right).

Date: 2006/06/07 03:19:06, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
The last time you sent me to your links they were misleading, remember?  Your link implied that the ape and human GULO had the same deletion and that this was the end of the story.


WHAT


:D  :D  :D  :D

Oh dave, you're a blast.


Why don't you just admit that you were pulverized on both cases?

And about fusions, guess what: I did explain, in my own words, before providing links (links that YOU asked for, only a few pages ago, remember?) Check the post I made then (quoted again for your convenience on page 43 of this thread), Dave. And quit spinning round like a rat in a maze.

Date: 2006/06/07 03:34:13, Link
Author: Faid
No, Renier. He's not even trying to see it. I don't think he ever tried.
He's either incapable to understand what we try to explain, or he has got it, but his subconscious is blocking it off, projecting all these distorted perceptions for his mind to argue against. Either way, he's hopeless.


 
Quote
I won that one and it is a breeze to demonstrate that I did.


Please demonstrate it by answering my questions, dave.

They're just a few posts above; you can't miss them.

Date: 2006/06/07 04:21:20, Link
Author: Faid
Improvius:


I'm not sure if anyone denied some French influence on the language: Certainly not me.

This is how it went: Having no prior knowledge on the issue, I looked around the web for the origins of Portuguese language. I found out it was a well-accepted fact that it came separately from Vulgar Latin, evolved parallel to Spanish, and got its first major influence by French in the 18th century. All this made dave's claims (about portuguese not existing before some French knights mixed their language with Spanish) totally bogus.

But dave seemed quite sure of himself: So, I thought that he might refer us to some new evidence- maybe a book by some author who denied the early origins of portuguese (claiming that the earlier samples were apocryphal, I dunno) and gave some more evidence to prove an early role of french to actually create Portuguese. So, in my first posts, I simply posted the links I'd found and waited.

And then dave comes with glory and trumpets, Posts some data from a medieval encyclopedia that had NOTHING to do with language, points us to some simillarities (acceptable, of course) between french and portuguese, gloats for awhile and declares victory.

Now that I think of it, it was then I lost all respect for him. You see, I could understand twisting and distorting and ignoring facts to support your religion: It is your worldview, after all. It's about your God.

But then, seeing how he acted in a completely irrelevant subject, I realised dave was just protecting his ego.

That's why I can't help coming back to it: It was the time I really figured dave out.

Date: 2006/06/07 04:57:45, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
That would make the lack of a mammel fish common ancestor a possibility no matter how unsavory that sounds.


You're right, it does sound unsavory.

But how exactly does your "parallel evolution" theory make this a possibility? I don't get it.

Date: 2006/06/07 08:21:14, Link
Author: Faid
oooooh man...


Thanks, Mr. Dembski! We hadn' had a good laugh from you in a while. Glad to see you still got it!

Date: 2006/06/07 09:42:25, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=afdave,June 07 2006,13:52][/quote]
 
Quote
I will keep slamming them with the facts.
Please do. And start by this:
 
Quote
I showed you the encyclopedia statement that admits that Portuguese and Spanish were essentially the same until the time period when the French knights came over.

Care to provide that quote for me dave? I can't seem to find it at Wiki... Instead, I find this:  
Quote
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. It began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with fairly minor influences from other languages.
...which says the same thing as all the other sites we quoted to you.
Oh, and, just in case you mean the encyclopedia about medieval history you had quoted: That quote said NOTHING about language, and you know it. It just said that French knights came to Portugal. Period.

What up, dave? Thought we'd forget what you had said by now? Pathetic.

About fusions:
 
Quote
Faid-- Have a look what Chris has to say.
I did, and I agree with him. And my quote still stands. Did you perchance read it, dave? And the links YOU asked for, to show that I'm not pulling "facts" out of my hat like you so often do?
If not, I suggest that you do, and stop pointing me to other people's answers to create confusion. Is that the best you can do? Pathetic.

About GULO:
 
Quote
Yes.  This is the more accurate picture that I understand now, no thanks to Faid, but thanks to many others.

:O
You GOTTA be kidding me. Should I go and find every single time I had told you just that, before I finally gave up? And if you did understand it, it is unconvincing to you because....? Does common design somehow predict that the errors in a broken gene in two species should be the same if the two species look alike, and continue to accumulate in an almost identical pattern on the broken part? Do you think we forgot how many times we tried to explain that to you, and your responce practically was " oh pppphhhhht!"?

In short: Pathetic.

Date: 2006/06/07 09:55:25, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2006,13:58)
Quote

Well Stevie, tell me if Norm-Dung's suggestions Christians be thrown in some unspecified institutions where they would be watched closely some hallucination on my part, or did I really quote that?


I don't know what you're talking about, but this is the thread for the regnant champion, AFDave, not your fantasies about liberal nihilism. Why don't you start a thread called "Terrible Things I Imagine About Liberals"

Oh he will, steve, he will. Anything to cut the traffic in The Thread That Must Not Be Named...

Date: 2006/06/07 10:33:38, Link
Author: Faid
SUMMARY OF AFDAVE'S DEBATE TACTICS

As collected from the dave-faid fusion discussion

In his "Prove evolution" thread, a bajillion posts ago, dave says that Down Syndrome is caused by a fusion, and that all fusions are harmful (as a doctor friend told him), implying that it can't be used as material for evolution.

Shortly after that, I reply thus:
     
Quote
Oh, about the Down Syndrome thing: I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that a fusion is responsible for its occurence? That's simply not true. For the vast majority of cases, failed disjunction (sp?) is the reason: and that's affected by things like the mother's age etc. Now, a quick glance at my old textbooks told me that there are in fact a few cases of DS attributed to chromosome fusions (Robertsonian translocations); but those are like, 3% of the total number.
Or is it that you are claiming that all fusions have such disastrous effects? That is also extremely incorrect. In all the people in the world today, more than 1 in 1000 has a kind of Robertsonian translocation. Most of those are "balanced" fusions, and their carriers have no phaenotypic problem. It has been suggested that these people might have an increased risk in giving birth to children with genetic defects (like Down), but recent studies propose that the risk is much smaller than previously thought.
As for other mammals: Robertsonian translocations of various kinds are quite common, especially in horses and cows, with only a minor drop in fertility as a result -which may pose problems for selective breeding, but none for the animal's survival. IIRC, there's also a kind of antelope where a RobT is so common and without problems, the population of the species has three distinct caryotypes, with 24, 25 and 26 chromosomes.But I'll cave to check that out.

Dave promptly ignores my reply.

I try to get his attention, to no avail. He touches the subject again, in this thread, saying the same things. I post a link that shows he's wrong. He ignores me again.

I press him on it a bit, untill he finally addresses my claims.... By completely ignoring my previous answer, saying essentially the same thing, claiming I never answered and demanding links.

I reply by quoting my post from the other thread, and providing some links that show how, indeed, there are many fusions (Robertsonian translocations) that pose no danger to their carriers... And about the pathology of Down Syndrome.

He replies by saying that he doesn't want links after all, because he can't underst- ...because they are "misleading", and he wants me to explain "in my own words", if he is to address my claims.

I point him again to the fact that I have explained, in my very first post on this subject, and direct him once again to it. I also remind him that he demanded the links, and press him to address them, and my statement.

He responds by pointing me to Chris's comment, and essentially saying "you guys work it out", as if I ever said that all chromosome transactions are without problems... and refuses to say anything else.

And this is where we are now.

What does a neutral observer make of all this?

Date: 2006/06/07 11:11:59, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (skeptic @ June 07 2006,12:20)
Quote (Faid @ June 07 2006,09:57)
You're right, it does sound unsavory.

But how exactly does your "parallel evolution" theory make this a possibility? I don't get it.

In order for parallel evolution to occur the processes that led to those ancestors are still in effect.  We can assume that free energy relationships are the same because we have no reason to believe otherwise.  This means that the reactions involving organic molecules are the same.  In this way the emergence and propagation of life is a favored reaction.  If it happens once it happens multiple times.

The one aspect that we're pretty sure has changed is the environment.  The relative composition of the atmosphere, the available components in the "prebiotic" soup, soil composition, etc.  But at what point did these factors change and what impact could this have had on evolution?  When did the emergence of life become an unfavorable reaction?  Or did it?  In an extreme case we could be talking the independant development of both reptiles and mammels but that really flies in the face of all the collective knowledge to this point.  I'm not inclined in that direction but like I said it is an unfortunate consequence of this line of reasoning.  I'm going to look at this alittle more closely when I address nested hierarchies.

Um, sceptic...

I asked how exactly your theory makes the lack of a mammalian fish ancestor a possibility.

And your response was...?

Even if life emerged in different cases, and each led to a different class, wouldn't the ancestors of each class have come from the sea? From fish-like ancestors?
Or do you propose entirely different linages, that just haven't been discovered yet, and do not even originate from sea creatures?

Sorry, you've lost me again. But I must admit the possibilities of this are intriguing... For Sci-Fi.

Date: 2006/06/07 11:27:55, Link
Author: Faid
Um, yeah.

I believe that he once searched and found someone's nick on a dating site, posted it on UD and made fun of him. Just because, you know, if you visit dating sites means you're a pinko sissy, and all your opinions suck.

And that creep had the nerve to accuse others as bigoted.

Date: 2006/06/07 11:47:09, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
One darwin of energy
Definition: The amount of energy exerted by an average-sized Darwinist (5¡ä 5¡å, 200 lbs) freaking out for 60 seconds at 70 degrees Fahrenheit on visiting the Discovery Institute website.

Exercise: Convert this unit to proper SI metric units.

Exam question: What mean rate of darwins over what length of time is required for Darwinism to implode and be a thing of the past? Justify your answer.

Filed under: Intelligent Design ¡ª William Dembski @ 4:17 pm

Well, Mr. Dembski, I do believe some data is available on this issue...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez...._docsum

Date: 2006/06/07 12:50:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Because I didn’t look for anything beyond what was on usenet. -ds


Jesus Intelligently Designing Christ.

Date: 2006/06/07 14:28:25, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm. From what I read so far, I was under the impression that Ghost dreamt up of an expanding Universe, With Earth at its center, and every single galaxy moving away from it... But now I'm not so sure- and Ghost's half-hints and smoke screens don't help.

Um, Ghost, a description of your Universe first? That's how models begin, you know...

Date: 2006/06/07 14:37:32, Link
Author: Faid
And now you're all banned, you man-loving quote-burning cloak-mining church-wearing ebola buoyz... no wait


(crap this got too long, dint it?) -dt

Date: 2006/06/07 15:09:54, Link
Author: Faid
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Date: 2006/06/07 22:40:40, Link
Author: Faid
It's only natural. After Dover, he's not looking to expand his market; he's just trying to keep his appeal to the core of his target group. He11, I'm pretty sure he'll turn into a young-earther (or at least throw quite a few winks and nudges at them), if that helps him stabilize his sales...

Anyway, it's easy to understand where WD got the idea for his "dirty, unclean" metaphor:
Quote
The loosers @ PT do nothing but sling sh*t around. This is not suprising because its obvious every pro evo-darwinist there only know about eating sh*t.

Like the saying goes, ya are what you eat right ?

Charlie

Comment by Charliecrs — June 7, 2006 @ 3:44 pm


Um, sure, Charlie. And what you say.

Date: 2006/06/07 22:48:14, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 08 2006,00:53)
Quote
I can't wait to hear his excuse for not using it.


because it's illegal to burn public property?

Post of the week.

Date: 2006/06/07 22:51:41, Link
Author: Faid
ZZZZZZZZZZZHuh what who hormonally challenged teens what

...Oh I see nevermindZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Date: 2006/06/08 02:11:31, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (GCT @ June 08 2006,06:43)
I wonder if Dembski will now post a whole slew of things in order to push his embarrasment down the page and off the first page as quickly as possible.  It's been done before.

Looking at his immediately following posts, "A darwin of energy" and "meet Joe the archaeologist", I'd say that's extremely likely.

Date: 2006/06/08 02:28:03, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Joe only has enough funds and resources to dig at one of these sites. At which (if either) of these sites should he dig and why?


The first one, obviously. Hands down.

I mean, it's obvious: Both anomalies possess spades of CSI, so they are designed. But the crude and incomplete characteristics of the first one can only be made by puny  ancient hu-mans, while the amazing symmetry and perfection of the second one can only be the work of an extraordinary intelligence- Qejalcoatl, perhaps, or the Jaguar God.
Oh yeah, and Aliens. Thank you, Mr. von Daniken.

Date: 2006/06/08 04:30:00, Link
Author: Faid
Oh my goodness this is just precious...

Not only dave posts the same crap all over again, this time he gives up all christian pretense and lies through his teeth!

LIE #1

dave says:
 
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,07:56)
This from Rilke's source of choice (Wikipedia) ... I guess she just didn't read far enough ...

   
Quote
Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French


and...    
Quote
Portuguese and Spanish were essentially the same language until about AD 1143, when Portugal broke away from Spanish control. World Book, 1993, "Portuguese Language."

Only the first quote (as we have already explained) proves nothing, and as for the second one...
It doesn't exist!
Nope! See for yourselves!
What wikipedia does say is:
 
Quote
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. It began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with fairly minor influences from other languages.

Which is exactly what all the other official sites say.

Care to enlighten us, Lyin'Dave?

LIE#2

dave says:
 
Quote
Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.
Oh no, dave, we can all clearly see what a liar you are. Let's see a few things about this supposed "french dialect" of Lisbon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon#Moorish_Rule
 
Quote
Life in Muslim Lisbon was completely different from contemporary Lisbon life. Arabic was the official language, spoken by the majority of the populace as their mother tongue. Islam was the official religion, and by the 10th century the majority of Lisbon's inhabitants were Muslim.
 
Quote
In 1147, as part of the Reconquista, a group of combined French, English, German, and Portuguese knights, led by Afonso I of Portugal, sieged and reconquered Lisbon. It is believed that some of its inhabitants of all religions were slaughtered. Lisbon was now back in Christian hands.

The fall of Islam is one of the most significant events in Lisbon's history. Arabic lost its place in everyday life, and was replaced by Portuguese.
(all emphasis mine)
"French" influence. Riiiiight. Selective blindness, dave? Or did you just hope we wouldn't check?

The language that replaced Latin (and arabic, in Lisbon) was PORTUGUESE. Portuguese already existed as a separate romance language, and all its relationship with French at the time was their common origin. Choke on it, Lyin'Dave.
 
Quote
Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.
No, it's not rocket science. It's you copy/pasting your illusions again. Where's the connection, Lyin'Dave? Can you explain WHY those "Knights from Burgundy" had a Linguistic influence any more than, say, the Bavarian Nobles who ruled Greece after 1821 had? How about quoting the exact passage in your encyclopedia that specifically mentions this influence in language? But you can't, because it's not there. You're just trying to pass off your daydreaming as historical truths by distorting and ommiting data. And that's LYING, Mr. holier-than-thou "christian".  
Quote
And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here), instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots, you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...

phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)
And, of course, we have explained it to you, Lyin'Dave. They are both Romance languages. Are you still pretending you weren't answered? Shame on you. Your Creator God is watching you, Lyin'Dave; you think he's happy with your deliberate insincerity, just because you think you are "doing his work"? Take a minute to think about that before you pray tonight.
 
Quote
There's no way out, Arden.  You and Faid walked out on another branch with Rilke, and I cut it off.  I warned you!
Only, once again, and in perfect accordance with your cartoonish arguments and ideas, you were sitting on the wrong end of the branch, Lyin'Dave. And this time, there were some nasty cactuses below.

Choke on that, Yosemite Sam.

Date: 2006/06/08 05:28:23, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2006,07:39)
Why doesn't he just calculate the amount of CSI in each one?

Don't be silly... we all know that CSI comes universally in just two quantisised values: Zero, and Lots.

Date: 2006/06/08 08:07:43, Link
Author: Faid
Aaaand he's baaack!  :D

 
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,11:31)
I'm not sure why Faid could not find my reference.  It's right there in World Book (the hard copy, Faid, you know ... a real book like you tell me to buy all the time?).


Wait, what? That was not a quote from Wiki? Then why on Earth did you put the reference inside the quote? You clearly made it look like you were posting two parts from the Wiki page... Hmm, I wonder... Was it just a stupid mistake, or did you want to show like you were posting something more contemporary and specialised than a snip from an old 'Pedia?
But it don't matter, dave. You are still wrong. All you have shown is that, while we have contemporary and official links from libraries, institutes and universities to support our position, all you have is a dated quote from a school encyclopedia that could have been edited or addended a dozen times by now. And a lot of hand-waving, of course.
 
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,11:31)

3) Is there a significant French influence?  Why yes there is ... fancy that!!  Right in that very timeframe of the 12th century too!!  Glory be!!  Here it is again ...      
Quote
Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of contingents of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].  Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  Maybe because of the French influence and intermarriage in the ruling class? I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.
(Dictionary of the Middle Ages, v. 10, 1988, American Council of Learned Societies) (From the public library, a famous, non-YEC source)  (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2002, Micropedia, "Portuguese Language" for the part about official Portuguese being based on the dialect of Lisbon)

:D

Ooookay, I knew you were just gonna ignore my answer to this, after I pulverized it and showed that you LIE... But you managed to surprise me this time.
Quoting yourself as evidence?
As what, authority? You're a blast, davey boy. How 'bout quoting the actual paragraph from EB instead, though, so we can see if it says anything to your defense? You're pretty eager to send us to libraries and bookstores to see if you're right, how about typing some words yourself?
Maybe then you'll have to address what I wrote about the "French-influenced Lisbon dialect" on my previous post. Come on, champ! It's as plain as plain: If you look at my post reeealy hard, without blinking, I'm sure you'll see it eventually.  :D


Anyway, as a parting gift for now: Here's a few perty pixxx from this lovely (and official) site:

http://www.orbilat.com/Languag...._Period





<edited for clarity... Not that that will help dave get a clue, of course>

Date: 2006/06/08 09:21:57, Link
Author: Faid
I s'pose this needs some 'xplainin', davey-style:



1) is that city whose people spoke a Spanish dialect at the time. You can clearly see why.

2) is, er, that language that, um, wasn't supposed to exist at that time. Forget that.

3) is France.



1) is the wildfire spread of this new, French-influenced Spanish dialect, seven years after all those French nobles started getting it on with Spanish ladies. As Thordaddy would put it, "Isn't traditional marriage amazing?"

2) is still France.



1) shows the distinct blend between Spanish and French that led to Portuguese... Come on, it's obvious!

2) ...Yep, France.

Date: 2006/06/08 09:45:18, Link
Author: Faid
For use in Occam's list:

What do you have to say now that you know that all fusions are not harmful, dave? Not by a longshot? Are you gonna discuss this with my colleague friend of yours?

<edit>

 
Quote
(but your arguments are nonsense)


Hmm... Do I sense a slight tad of resignation, dave? Is that the best you can do?
How about explaining why it's nonsense? (and I mean actually explaining, not simply repeating your previous arguments)

Unless, of course, you mean the numbers and arrows I posted above... In that case, you're right: They're supposed to be nonsense. They're explaining the pics according to your model.

Oh, and I had a spoonfeeding emoticon that was better for the case in hand, but I can't find it... :(

Date: 2006/06/08 10:17:12, Link
Author: Faid
Just the ones I'm fluent in? OK...


English
Greek

...aaand that's about it.

Date: 2006/06/08 10:38:52, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Isn’t it true that an irreducibly complex system may have come about either gradually or suddenly? The key is not whether it came about as a single abrupt system or as a result of a long cumulative process. Rather, the key is whether the system as it stands exhibits specified complexity that is the hallmark of intelligence. There is no requirement that a designer, in the process of infusing specified complexity, must do it all in one fell swoop or not at all.

Comment by Eric Anderson — June 8, 2006 @ 11:47 am


In a nutshell: "Irreducibly complex systems don't even have to be irreducibly complex, if we think they are designed!"

The Maelstrom inside the heads of those guys is pretty impressive.

Oh and, Dave dude: You mind if I quote you on your new "ID should be taught in schools because it's intuitively obvious" remark? Maybe even call you as a witness on our side in any new trials (yeah, right)? I'm sure you have the time, and a genious of your magnitude is always an acceptable authority...

Date: 2006/06/08 10:48:40, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,15:24)
Faid ...    
Quote
What do you have to say now that you know that all fusions are not harmful, dave?
Fusions?  You haven't begun to convince me that they are not harmful.

Chris Hyland says they are.  You say they are not.  Chris seems more honest.

Hmmm ... we'll see.  I need more data.

That's because you're not listening, dave. As usual.

And Chris says that most chromosome transactions are harmful. Which is true.
So, instead of accusing me of dishonesty, get your facts straight.

Read my first post again (if you ever did). Page 43. Post 5.
And as for data... Yep, you got it. Check the links.  :p

<edit: and before you start the distorting game: I'm not saying that all fusions are harmless. Read what I say in my posts carefully.>

Date: 2006/06/08 14:37:31, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Henry J @ June 08 2006,17:53)
How many cases are known of a chromosome fusion spreading throughout the species? Any besides the human case that's been discussed here?

Henry

Well, there's that "antelope" I recalled in my post, only it's not an antelope after all, but this beautiful beast:

http://medicine.ucsd.edu/cpa/okapi.htm

 
Quote
13) Genetics

The okapi chromosome number is 44, 45, or 46 in different animals (Ulbrich & Schmitt, 1969; Hösli & Lang, 1970; Koulisher, 1978). The fact that so many animals with 2n=45 have been identified, suggested that this karyotype may also exist in the wild (Benirschke et al., 1983). This has been established with certainty from the study of a wild-caught male (Petit & de Meurichy, 1986). Fusion of the acrocentric elements #8 and #21 from such a progenitor stock with 2n=46 is likely to have taken place in Zaire. It has now been verified in a specimen from Zaire by special banding techniques (Petit & de Meurichy, 1986). Moreover, Vermeesch et al. (1996) identified a specimen with a further reduction of chromosome number to 2n=44.


It seems that the fusion karyotype is more common than the normal one, too.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site....ni.html


Then there's horses:
http://content.karger.com/Produkt....r=75753

And, of course, many domestic mammals where Rob.Ts are quite common- often with no other effect than a slight drop in fertility:

http://www.kursus.kvl.dk/shares/vetgen/_Popgen/genetics/10/3.htm

(And bear in mind I'm trying to avoid the "evilutionist" sites that are everywhere mentioning all this, dave...  :) )

Date: 2006/06/08 22:39:56, Link
Author: Faid
thordaddyyyyy! You're still here! Coherent as always, I see.
Still babbling about getting it on with your kid sister and marrying your pet rock?

Date: 2006/06/08 23:48:17, Link
Author: Faid
For some inexplicable reason, I feel kinda sad now... :(

*waves hankie to trolldaddy*

...Oh well, this too shall pass!  :p

Date: 2006/06/09 15:48:45, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,07:13)
[Faid...    
Quote
all you have is a dated quote from a school encyclopedia that could have been edited or addended a dozen times by now.
You are taking a shot at World Book.  Who do you think writes articles like that?  Some office guy at Berkshire Hathaway?  (World Book's parent) No. They find experts in the particular field.  The 'Evolution' article I quoted from World Book a while back was written by an Oxford professor. Oh .. by the way ... the article says the same thing in the 2006 version.  No change.


Ok, dave, I'll take your word for it. I'll accept that is what your expert in the subject (expert of what, btw?) says. Now, how about looking at what all those other experts, in all the official sites we showed you (approved and endorsed  by institutes like Instituto des Camoes, that are dedicated to the study of the Portuguese language) say? You do realise that you are taking a shot at all of them- and, unlike us, they are not evil deceiving evolutionists. Someone must be wrong, dave. Who do you think this is? And can you actually show why?
Oh, and since there is a 2006 version and you found it, can you provide a link please? It's the least you can do, after all the links we gave you...

Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,07:13)
Faid...    
Quote
Quoting yourself as evidence?
As what, authority? You're a blast, davey boy. How 'bout quoting the actual paragraph from EB instead, though, so we can see if it says anything to your defense?
I DID quote an actual line from EB. Wanna see it again? "standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon."  And I gave you the reference.
 
dave, dave... That is not the paragraph. That is a snip of a phrase. What does EB actually say about this dialect of Lisbon? Does it say it's Spanish? French? The sentence must have a context. Come on, can't you show how that reference shows a french influence on this dialect? THAT is what you are supposed to do... otherwise posting that reference as proof of your views was deceitful to say the least. Well?
But you know, I'm sure you've already figured it out, dave. You know we are right. You know the dialect spoken in Lisbon (by the minority- most spoke Arabic) was PORTUGUESE (Galician-Portuguese, actually). You have checked yourself, and now you know that it's Galician-Portuguese that was the next official Language of Portugal, that it existed as a separate language and that your supposed linguistic ifluence of noble intermarriages (an idea so absurd it would make all language experts choke from laughter) was just another one of your daydreams.
But, of course, you'll naver admit it. Not to us evilutionists that do the devil's work on Earth. So you resort to more and more pathetic attempts to "support' your argument- like quoting half-phrases, and sending us to bookstores to check your claims.


Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,07:13)
Incorygible...    
Quote
Chromosomal misallignment (of which fusion is only one possibility) occurs all the time during meiosis (gamete (sperm/egg) production).  Consider it a cost of doing business.  Is it harmful? etc. etc. ...........
Faid ... notice how Incorygible goes to the trouble of actually explaining things in his own words, rather than sending me off to 5 different links. Take notes from him ... he is good. (not just being a smart aleck here)


Let's translate that:

"Oh shi... Baloney. I'm running out of evasive tactics, and I still can't find anything on AiG to copy/paste that could bail me out... What to do? ...I know! I'll (sort of) admit it, and claim that Faid never explained it to me and just pointed me to links (links I asked faid for, but who will remember?). Yup, that's the way to save some face!"

Sorry dave my man, but no dice. You see, all I have to do to show how dishonest you are being again it to quote, once again, my very first post, the one you systematically ignored (and keep ignoring):
Quote
Oh, about the Down Syndrome thing: I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that a fusion is responsible for its occurence? That's simply not true. For the vast majority of cases, failed disjunction (sp?) is the reason: and that's affected by things like the mother's age etc. Now, a quick glance at my old textbooks told me that there are in fact a few cases of DS attributed to chromosome fusions (Robertsonian translocations); but those are like, 3% of the total number.
Or is it that you are claiming that all fusions have such disastrous effects? That is also extremely incorrect. In all the people in the world today, more than 1 in 1000 has a kind of Robertsonian translocation. Most of those are "balanced" fusions, and their carriers have no phaenotypic problem. It has been suggested that these people might have an increased risk in giving birth to children with genetic defects (like Down), but recent studies propose that the risk is much smaller than previously thought.
As for other mammals: Robertsonian translocations of various kinds are quite common, especially in horses and cows, with only a minor drop in fertility as a result -which may pose problems for selective breeding, but none for the animal's survival. IIRC, there's also a kind of antelope where a RobT is so common and without problems, the population of the species has three distinct caryotypes, with 24, 25 and 26 chromosomes.But I'll cave to check that out.


Any famous last words, for your newborn "argument", dave?

Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,07:13)
So, (now that I have a very detailed answer on the subject from someone who appears to be knowledgable) I guess we could say that chromosome fusion events could be considered to be a sort of mistake?  Sort of like the deletions and substitutions of nucleotides we explored a while back? And like those, these are usually not harmful (at least that we know of), but sometimes they are?  Like Downs Syndrome?

Is this an accurate summary?

Well well... Yes, dave, I guess it is, more or less. Only we know they are quite often harmless (and feel free to prove they're not), and this harmless "mistake" provides material for evolution -like mutations, or duplications. Oh, and: Typical Down's syndrome is not caused by fusions. Familial Down's Syndrome is caused by fusions, and it's 2-3% of all DS incidents.

So, instead of trying to move the goalposts in another hemisphere, and making lame attacks at my level of knowledge (you of all people), why don't you ask your doctor friend (who should know better) why he said otherwise?

Date: 2006/06/10 02:31:49, Link
Author: Faid
Um, sorry guys... I know this dead Portuguese horse has been reduced to a morphless pulp already, but I just had to bring it up... You see, thanks to Britannica Concise, I found the passage from EB dave snips this little bit from-
     
Quote
Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon


So here it is, for your viewing pleasure:
     
Quote
Portuguese language

Romance language spoken by about 170 million people in Portugal, Brazil, and other former Portuguese colonies.

The first literary works in Portuguese date from the 13th–14th century. Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation in Portugal is limited, but the differences between Brazilian and European Portuguese are more extensive, including changes in phonology, verb conjugation, and syntax. The four major dialect groups are Northern (Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain), Central, Southern (including the Lisbon dialect), and Insular (including Brazilian and Madeiran) Portuguese.

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc....=lisbon

Soooo... As it's plain for all to see, the "dialect of Lisbon" mentioned here is a dialect of Portuguese. The whole paragraph has nothing to do with any supposed medieval local dialects of Spanish, with an imaginary French influence, that led to Portuguese: It has practically nothing to do with the history of the language itself. It's about Portuguese dialects.

Under the light of this data, one can't help but find dave's selective quoting of that snippet... interesting.

Got anything to say for yourself, HonestDave?

Date: 2006/06/10 03:04:38, Link
Author: Faid
...dave? since you are online, maybe you could shed some light on this?

Date: 2006/06/10 03:35:34, Link
Author: Faid
dave... Since you are still online, check what your quoted authority, Encyclopedia Britannica, actually says about all Romance languages:
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377118/Romance-languages  
Quote
The major Romance languages—French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian—are national languages. French is probably the most internationally significant, but Spanish, the official language of 19 American countries and Spain and Equatorial Guinea, has the most speakers. Languages spoken in smaller areas include Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian, and Rhaeto-Romance. The Romance languages began as dialects of Vulgar Latin, which spread during the Roman occupation of Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, and the Balkans and developed into separate languages in the 5th–9th centuries.

<all emphasis mine>

Hey dave, here's a new emoticon for you:

Date: 2006/06/10 09:51:13, Link
Author: Faid
HAHAHAHAHA


AAAAAND DAVE EJECTS!

That was the best you could do, dave? another pitiful summary of "the world according to me", and um, "ok so I say I won again, but let's move on now, 'kay?"

And the most amazing thing... After I showed clearly, for all to see, how you delibelately snipped and distorted the meaning of the Encyclopedia Britannica paragraph, to make it look like it supports your views,, all you can say is "yeah why don't you call me names like Rilke"?
Utterly pathetic.
Like I've told you before: A man is judged by his actions. And your actions here (ignoring and evading arguments, twisting words, moving goalposts, chickening out -even whe we know you are online- to wait for more replies to pile up and answer what you like, creating smokescreens, and now your intentional and deceitful snipping and source-tampering) have proved you to be, in fact, a dishonest intellectual washout.

Good luck bailing out of your crashing plane, HonestDave. Just don't let the canopy kick your butt on your way out (like it did to Goose, in that realistic movie you love so much).

:D

Date: 2006/06/10 10:07:46, Link
Author: Faid
Also: Did you guys notice that HonestDave brought the relativity theory subject back up? After it was demolished, and he was forced to agree he could not support it, and dropped it? And now he acts as if he posts from some parallel universe where he managed to argue for it successfully?
Here's my take on this:
The little summaries dave posts after every "step" of his "hypothesis", are pre-cut and pasted.
They're probably the same ones he'll use to "teach" those poor kids: He just modifies them a little, and posts them, and will do so untill his last "step". Nothing can make him change them, no matter what we (or himself) says. In his poor deluded mind, he's already won: he's just rehearshing his little gloating rants on us. that's how honest he is.

Date: 2006/06/10 10:58:51, Link
Author: Faid
Steve: I used to think that, too. Now I'm unconvinced.
Seeing dave's recent accomplisments, one has to assume he's honest only if he's actually of border intelligence: He'd have to be unable to make sense of a paragraph in simple English, or be unable to hold anything in his memory for more than five minutes, or even suffer from actual Wernicke's aphasia.

Now, I don't think any of this is true: I just think he's lying.
And he thinks that's fine, because he lies for his God.
Like I said: If his deity can break the universal moral law (the one it made) whenever it likes, then why can't dave break it too, if he believes he's doing his deity's will?

As for the Portuguese thing, which wasn't about God in any way... I dunno. I think that dave probably thinks he's got a "get out of jail free" card from his God, which allows him to lie about anything, as long as he's a faithful christian soldier, fighting for the Cause.
(Which of course means he's using his religion to justify his actions and satisfy his ego, but he'll never deal with that).

And that person has the nerve to claim that it's Atheism (or Agnosticism) that's immoral...

Date: 2006/06/10 13:03:06, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 10 2006,16:28)
Good catch Faid.

Who'da ever thunk it - a fine Christian Creationist role model like AFDave guilty of dishonest quote mining.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Well AFDave, what have you got to say for yourself about this latest time you were caught lying?

Thanks, Occam, but I'm afraid dave beat us up reel goood in his response...

You see, he demonstrated beyond doubt that, to show how he deliberately LIED about his source, and how Encyclopedia Britannica actually supports our case, well...
...You have to prove abiogenesis first.

Date: 2006/06/11 03:56:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
I try to read them all.  I got soured on reading Faid's links because he sent me on a goosechase.
That's BS and we both know it. You were simply unable to get a clue as to what the lesson was about, and decided it was "misleading". And, of course, you completely ignored us when we tried to explain- as usual. So quit your whining.
 
Quote
I didn't.  If you can't understand my Portuguese explanation by now, then you are as blind as Rilke.
Yes you did. You deliberately quote-mined the Encyclopedia Britannica article. You LIED about that, dave. And even if Occam confused the two articles, that doesn't help your case. You still lied to us, HonestDave.
Quote
Show me where I have lied.
Ooookay, dave... off the top of my head:

You LIED about TalkOrigins only refering to multiple universes in their rebuttal of the "fine-tuned universe" argument.
I pointed you to the part three paragraphs down from your own quote, and you systematically ignored me.
After about 20 times of showing you the quote, you blabbered something like "I dont have to address every wild theory you guys come up with" and kept arguing as if we only discussed multiple Universes.
Strike one.

You said that all fusions are harmful. I explained that it's not so.
You ignored me once again, until, after a hundred posts and two threads, you claim I never answered you (LIE 1) and ask for explanations -and links. I quote my explanation, and provide links.
Then you say you never asked for links (LIE 2), just an explanation. I quote my explanation again.
Finally, when you're cornered, as more people weigh in, you say "OK, but Faid never explained anything to me" even when I was the first one to do so. And that's LIE 3.
Strike two.

And the winner:
You quote a snippet of a phrase from Encyclopedia Britannica, that supposedly says something about Portuguese originating from some medieval dialect of Lisbon.
Quoting half a phrase out of context looks suspicious, so I do some search...
And find that the actual passage talks about existing Portuguese dialects, and how "standard" Portuguese is defined by the dialect of Lisbon, and has nothing to do with the language's roots or history.
And I find out that EB actually supports our claims about the origin of Portuguese.
Deliberate quote-mining and tampering with a source = LIE, dave.
Aaand that's strike three.

And that's just some of the times I was involved in the debate, dave. So tell me, in all honesty (hah!!;)): If someone did this to you, what would you say about him? And how long would you be able to keep your temper?
Quote
There are 20 or so of you and only one of me, so you'll have to forgive me if I miss a thing or two.
Only, for some reason, you always seem to miss those things it would be... inconvenient for you to answer.
And that's no surprise, since you avoid answering until a lot of comments have piled up, and answer to those that you like.

dave, dave... You missed your path in life. You'd make a great used car salesman.

Date: 2006/06/12 02:22:12, Link
Author: Faid
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1209

GO AGNOSTIC DAVE GO!


:D

Date: 2006/06/12 04:03:58, Link
Author: Faid
I wouldn't worry. Thordaddy probably just wants to propose to the donkey...

Date: 2006/06/12 04:18:48, Link
Author: Faid
...


...OHMIGOD


:O

Date: 2006/06/12 05:43:21, Link
Author: Faid
[quote=afdave,June 12 2006,09:21][/quote]
Trollish, eh? OK, dave, let's take this from the top...

Quote
Faid- you're becoming a troll ... I wasn't anywhere close to a lie on the 'multiple universe' thing.  My point with quoting that article was not what you thought it was.  My point was to show that even Talk Origins did not attempt to refute 'Cosmic Fine Tuning.'  I pointed out that surely they would have attempted to refute it if they could have.  They essentially agreed that the appearance of 'Cosmic Fine Tuning' has in fact been demonstrated, and the only objection they could muster was essentially 'Well, that may be true for THIS universe, but what about other ones?' and other simlar musings.  You took what I said and tried to twist it beyond recognition-- very trollish!  

You are failing to make sense, dave -Please explain what you just said. Do you claim that TO's rebuttal of CFT depends on the existence of multiple universes, yes or no? The TO article specifically says that mupltiple universes need not exist for a universe much like our own to be probable.
Do you agree with that? If not, then why did you refuse to address my posts where I showed it to you? And what do you have to say about it now?
If you do agree, do you also admit you were fighting a strawman, just arguing against multiple universes all this time?
Own up to your words, dave. Like I said, you're not arguing with children here.
Quote
I did not say all fusions are harmful and you know it.  I said that I was talking to a doctor friend of mine and SHE claimed that.  I passed this claim on to you for analysis which you did (sort of).  Incorygible did a much better job of it and where that issue stands in my mind now is that it appears to be simply a subset of all mutations.  
Let's take a trip down memory lane, dave, and feel free to prove me wrong if you can -it's me who's the troll, after all.
You did say a doctor friend told you that -and that is why, in all my first posts, I specifically asked you to talk to your "friend" about it.
After lots of ignoring on your part, do you finally say "well that's what he told me", or "I'll see what he has to say"? NO. You say: "Faid, I think you might be all wet on the chromosome fusion thing". And you repeat the same things, without a mention of your "friend" (whose existence I seriously doubt) this time.
And NOW, after you were forced to admit the "all fusions are harmful" argument is rubbish, you say "boo hoo it wasn't me, it's my stupid friend that said it"?
Dave, how much more LAME can you get?

As for Incorygible doing a better job than me to explain it -I have no problem admitting that: Far from it.
But that is not what you claimed, HonestDave, remember? You claimed that I never explained it, and just pointed you to links- and that was a lie. I was the first to address your claim and explain it, as I repeatedly showed by quoting my old response.
And you also claimed you did not ask for links, after I provided them, which also was a lie.
Feel free to prove me wrong- But you can't, of course, because, unlike you, I do not lie.
Own up to your words, dave. Like I said, you're not arguing with children here.
Quote
It appears that you tried to mislead me with your 'Deletion Lesson' ... The article was not misleading for what it was teaching, but it appeared to me that you were attempting to mislead me by using that article to make me believe that Humans and Chimps had an 'identical mistake.' I later learned that some substitutions and deletions are the same, but there are many that are not.  I cannot prove that you did this intentionally, but it appeared that you did.  If you want me to spend more time answering you, try to convice me that you are not simply being a troll.  

You can't be serious... What that lesson shows (I wonder if you ever tried to read it) is exactly what me (and everybody else) had been trying to make you understand from the start. I can't even remember how many times I've said it myself: That the pattern of the breaking in the gene is almost identical in primates and humans, and the (already small) differences are more minimal, the closer each primate is to humans. Because mutations had less time to accumulate.
Claiming we never explained that to you is another lie, dave.
Thank you for doing all the work for me.  :p

Quote
Faid…  
Quote
You deliberately quote-mined the Encyclopedia Britannica article.
 Faid- The quote I used from EB has the same meaning whether you include the context or not.

WHat???????

And what meaning may that be, if I may ask?

Quote
Let me say this about the Portuguese thing and many similar items ... You scientists are so detail oriented (a good thing in many contexts) that you sometimes get hung up on my generalizations.  Saying that 'Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish' is a GENERALIZATION, like 'The sky is blue' or 'the grass is green.' You could legitimately argue that those two statements are not accurate, but who would be so obnoxious as to do so?  Well ... there are a few here that are that obnoxious as I have found, but they are few, and you will notice that most of the regulars are either silent or conciliatory on the issue, which is highly indicative given the extreme bias against my views that exists here.
:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
Well, guys, I guess that's the closest dave's ego can allow him to get to "OK, I was totally wrong, I admit it."
Ok, dave, don't sob that loud... I won't pick on you any more. Let's all agree that, when you said "Portuguese did not exist untill some french knights had an influence on Spanish", you actually meant "Portuguese existed all right, but it was somewhat influenced from Spanish in the middle Ages, and also from French sometime- maybe the 18th Century". Then we can all be happy.
Tell you what- let's call it a draw.
:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Quote
Crabby ... you are not very bright if you think I'm going to get tired of being 'b!tch slapped' and leave.  There are two reasons I will leave:  Wesley bans me or I finish what I set out to do.

Oh well... Since we all know that, in your mind, you'll finish what you've set out to do without any problems eventually (I'm sure you've already got the ending speech saved and ready), and since nothing outside the world that's inside your mind ever counts...
Goodbye, dave. Thanks for helping us see the light.

Now get back to indoctrinating children, where you can get a result other than inducing laughter and amusement.
Unfortunately.

Date: 2006/06/12 05:55:20, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (improvius @ June 12 2006,10:41)
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,10:36)
...not give an honest picture of how much more similar to humans chimps are vs. gorillas

I thought we were all discussing genetic similarity.  What, praytell, are you referring to, Dave?

Oh come on, do you want dave to post them picturz again?

Date: 2006/06/12 06:14:31, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,10:53)
Faid...    
Quote
Let's all agree that, when you said "Portuguese did not exist untill some french knights had an influence on Spanish", you actually meant "Portuguese existed all right, but it was somewhat influenced from Spanish in the middle Ages, and also from French sometime- maybe the 18th Century". Then we can all be happy.
Tell you what- let's call it a draw.
No.  No way.  We don't agree and that's not what I meant and I won't call it a draw.

I meant exactly what I said ... It is an accurate GENERALIZATION to say that 'Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French'

End of story.

And yes, you are being trollish.  How do you say 'troll' in Greek?

No need to get excited, dave... just beat this troll down by showing how your quote was in context, and how EB supports your claims. Try to remember this, too:
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377118/Romance-languages

Oh and: We don't have a word for troll in Greek. We have one for you, though. Pseftis. Look it up.

Date: 2006/06/12 07:24:09, Link
Author: Faid
Hmm... Speaking as a doctor who remembers little math, I fail to see the problem here...

We have two statements:

Humans are 0.5% more simillar overall to chimps than to gorillas

and

Humans share 40% less differences with chimps compared to gorillas


Both these statements are true, right?
So, the issue is... Which is significant, and which is not?

Or are they both?

Dave, in your worldview, are differences between chimps and gorillas significant, or not?
Are differences between chimps and humans significant, or not?

And what does this data say about that to you?

Clearing up your case would help you make your point -if you have any.

Date: 2006/06/12 07:46:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (normdoering @ June 12 2006,12:29)
So, no YEC postulates some sort of magic trick to shield Adam and Eve from the radiation, you just postulate a magic trick where the half-life of uranium drops from 4.5 billion years to one day before Adam and Eve were created.

Or that a huge, magically-suspended canopy of water orbited Earth in the stratosphere, somehow protecting us from earth-made radiation.

Oh, and that made us live 800 years.  :D

<edit: Unless dave meant after all the water fell, in which case... Ark stew, anyone?>

Date: 2006/06/12 09:55:40, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (GCT @ June 12 2006,13:38)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1198#comment-42643

Ha ha ha ha ha.
Quote
13.  DS
Do you really think its that simple? Christianity + capitalism + democracy = prosperity? During the Middle Ages the Muslim world was far more advanced and prosperous than Europe. It was largely the desire to procure goods from Muslim lands that drove the search for capital. It was Europe’s geographic good fortune to be the first to reach the wealth of the western hemisphere. It was fierce competition between nation states that drove a lot of the innovation in warfare, colonization, and general technology. The Reformation was invaluable in making Christianity more compatible with capitalism.
The resulting military domination held by European powers allowed global colonization and exploitation. India, China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and on and on were all dominated by Europe for centuries. You don’t think that this may have something to do with our respective places in the world today?
My miniscule narrative is an absurd over simplification, but it is much more telling then your formula.

As far as Canada goes size and wealth do have a lot to do with trade. We give them x amount of dollars for their goods. We are an extremely wealthy country with a high standard of living. They can by a certain amount of goods here or they can by much more elsewhere. This is not good or bad, right or wrong it just is. People lament the disappearence of manufactueing from the US economy but the reality is that the standard of living has rose at the same time. Certainly there were losers in the deal but life and history are not too concerned with being fair.

Do you really think its that simple? Christianity + capitalism + democracy = prosperity?

Yes. It really is just that simple. This isn’t the middle ages. And you’re wrong about trade balance. And now you’re back on moderation again for making me correct you twice. -ds

Comment by ftrp11 — June 9, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

Silly ftrp11, you should know better than to point out when DaveTard has made a fool of himself.

You won't be making a fool out of me anytime soon - You're outta here -dt

And Davetard corrected him... How, exactly?

Oh I see, the "I say so" defense. Man Davetard is good. Almost as good as AFDave.

And you haven't seen my special triple-reverse ultra-banner tecnique yet, homo. Hiiiii-yah! -dt

Date: 2006/06/13 03:16:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 12 2006,17:09)
(since you want the last part first, I'll have to put a few things together).

Ghost, what you describe as "last part first" is actually the proper way to do it.
You seem an educated man, you should know that as well as I do.

Date: 2006/06/13 15:58:27, Link
Author: Faid
Guys I'm at my rounds now, but if I get the time tomorrow... Maybe it would be a good idea to make and save an actual catalogue of dave's bogus arguments and evidence, and their dismantlement -like Rilke did, just more concise and/or specific when needed- to copy/paste ourselves, every time dave copy/pastes his own again like nothing happened?

Because honestly, this is getting really boring.

Date: 2006/06/13 16:07:59, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 13 2006,18:27)
Why have our governments lied about sending probes into space. Why has no one involved in the conspiracy leaked anything.

Chris the media has a known heliocentric bias i meen common

Date: 2006/06/14 06:53:45, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,10:02)
Let me put it to you this way ... where would a new freshman guy on campus go looking to get a date?  The sorority house?  Or the zoo?  You biologists get your micrometers out and get all worked up ... "My goodness!! Chimps and humans share 98.5% genetic similarity and gorillas and chimps only share 98.0%!! Heavens to Betsy!! We're related!! And boy are we close!!"

Well ... I say if we are so close, why don't the freshmen go to the zoo to get dates instead of the sorority house?

The fact is guys, we're NOT close.  Our DNA is very similar, yes.  But when comparing everything else, gorillas are MUCH closer to chimps than humans are to chimps. This is so obvious that it's pathetic that I have to explain it to you.

You are the silly ones.  Not me.



dave, please read again what you have said.
Basically, you consider all knowledge in biology and genetics irrelevant, vague and meaningless, if we are to discuss differences between humans and other primates, because -well, because you say so. You have nothing substantial to say besides "there are huge differences, come on, its obvious" and "well if we're so close, why don't we get married" and ridiculous stuff like that. And THAT'S pathetic, dave. Almost Thordaddy-pathetic.
You're not talking to children here.


dave, what are the differences between my kitty purring on my couch, and a sabretooth tiger? They must be HUGE- come on, it's obvious! How can one possibly claim they were the same "kind" once, and diverged within 6000 years?
Now if we were to compare the Tasmanian Wolf and the European wolf, then I agree... They must be the same kind, they're practically alike. I mean, it's obvious! :p

And how exactly are the differences between humans and chimps non-biological? What do you even mean by that? An extremely developed brain is a biological difference. A very substantial one, no doubt, but still a diversity in the biological plane. Unless you plan to break out the "S" word- but please do so in a theology forum, not here.

As for all your other old "arguments" reposted without a mere reference to their complete dismantlement... I don't have the patience anymore. Our answers to those can be found a dozen times each, if you check all those pointless previous threads. I'm fed up.
Just this:
 
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,10:02)
Wells..      
Quote
You still haven't grasped the point: we have a perfect historical record of P,F,S,I,R(omanian)... all descending from Latin.
I have never denied this.  I agree with it.  But it is not specific enough.  My explanation fills in the missing details.
[/quote]

I see.
So, you accept that Portuguese originated from Vulgar Latin, and developed to a separate language by the 5th-9th Century (and that is what Encyclopedia Britannica, the source you blatantly misquoted, actually says about the origin of Portuguese... like all other sources).

But you just want to "fill in the missing details"... by saying that Portuguese didn't exist untill the 12th century, when some knights supposedly had a linguistic influence on Spanish in some undefined way.

...Sure, thordadd... dave, that makes perfect sence. Details: Filled. :D

Look, Dave. It must be obvious to you that you were wrong by know. Now, frankly, I couldn't care less about the origins of Portuguese; what gets to me is your amazing stubborness and inability to lower your guard and let your ego suffer this (minor) blow.
And it is about your ego, dave: You're not speaking for your God or defending your faith or fighting for your beliefs in this issue. It's just about a silly trivial matter, and it's you, dave the mortal man, who hates to admit he was incorrect. That's what irritates me, and keeps me going on this- and it should irritate you too, because it makes you say absurd things like the one above, and will do so even more in the future.

Take this hint from an old troll: Give it up.

Date: 2006/06/15 05:24:37, Link
Author: Faid
Oh man. Just when you think UD's comic interest is beggining to dry out, Dave And Sal's Flying Adventures come to save the day!

:D

Date: 2006/06/15 06:02:50, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,09:52)
So just how crazy do I have to be to mix it up with you guys when every bullet I fire is going to be answered with a hailstorm of gunfire?

How crazy, I dunno- Do you intend to scientifically prove that the Earth is 6000 years old?  :)

 
Quote
The attempts to bait me into 'opening the door' and demonstrating that I know what evolution is are being resisted on purpose.  Because I recognize a gravity well when I get near one.  As soon as I get started, I'll get suctioned in (much as I already have....I really MUST get some work done today! ARGH!.


I see... OK, that's understandable. Unlike W.A.Dembski, you seem to have a life; so it's normal to hesitate to "match our pathetic level of detail" (WAD's words).
But you could, you know, give us a small summary of what you think is wrong with the way ToE explains the diversity of life, and we could talk about that? Just a thought.

Anyway, you've seen afdave, and you've seen sceptic's posts, so I guess you must know by now exactly what's frowned upon here...

Date: 2006/06/15 07:28:20, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
The laws of the land don't support him.  Heck, even the vary source he cited doesn't support him.
This is becoming kind of a pattern with dave.

Date: 2006/06/15 16:06:43, Link
Author: Faid
Dave, you say your method is better. People have provided you with a dozen possible ways helium diffusion rate may have changed. Now, instead of trying on and on to refute those, can you come up with just one method in which radioactive decay rates may have changed?

Use science, please.

Date: 2006/06/15 22:23:53, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (jujuquisp @ June 15 2006,14:14)
At least Sal and DaveTard can spell "beginning" correctly.  Geez.

yikes! :O

(you try typing when you're ROFLing) :p

Date: 2006/06/16 01:05:03, Link
Author: Faid
A bit OT, but it was mentioned a while ago I believe...
I did a search about Michael Denton, and I found a bunch of sources claiming that in his second book, "Nature's Destiny", he basically accepts evolution and common descent as an indisputable fact, and simply disputes the ability of RM+NS as a mechanism for it. Much like Behe and the others.
So, is that accurate? Does anyone know? Cause it looks like another "hmm" moment for dave...

Date: 2006/06/16 05:03:23, Link
Author: Faid
dave, why do you think Denton has a "dillema"? He accepts evolution, but rejects natural selection as responsible for it. He's got it aaaaall figured out inside his head, just like you.

He's still wrong, of course, but at least he's not in the Absolute State of Denial that you are.

But of course, you can always ask him...

Date: 2006/06/16 05:27:18, Link
Author: Faid
Congrats, Rilke!

Oh boy, try to save the world before you have babies- otherwise we're DOOMED (I've babysitted enough nephews to know...)

Date: 2006/06/16 07:21:43, Link
Author: Faid
Now wait a minute dave... Before you go on parroting AiG claims, I want to make something clear...
From the first pages of this thread, you overwhelmed us with quotes from Denton, praising him as the authority that would help us understand the errors of his evolutionary ways. You said he was one of those that helped open your eyes, iirc... and I can't even remember how many times you said we should buy his books, and read them to get things straight.

And now, you say you just skimmed through his second book, because you didn't really care what he had to say about evolution, since you already knew evolution was crap?

dave, when you blatantly admit things like these, how can you expect us to take you seriously?

Date: 2006/06/16 07:35:15, Link
Author: Faid
Guys, this is not my field, but I found this and had to jump in...

dave, google "c14 dating method" and read the FIRST link.

Quote
. After 10 half-lives, there is a very small amount of radioactive carbon present in a sample. At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating).


Whoops!  :D

Date: 2006/06/16 07:48:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 16 2006,12:31)
Good lord.

In the latest installment of Life-Imitates-Art, DaveTard is now signing his comments 'DT'!

Specifically, see here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1227#comments

He's also parodying our parody of his CONTENT:
 
Quote

I can make YOUR confusion disappear, pal.-dt

I guess we have a big influence on him over here.  :p

It also says something about how accurate our parody of him is, that it resonates so well with him.

It also shows his total lack of imagination and originality, but then, that's why we love the guy.  :p

Date: 2006/06/16 07:54:04, Link
Author: Faid
Dave tries harder:

Quote
You’re mis-construing the inportance. It’s not “we’ve found a missing link, therefore evolution is proved”, but rather “we’ve found a fossil ancestor that tells us something interesting about how birds evolved”.

There’s a good write-up on Living the Scientific Life.

Bob

Wanna see me turn YOU into a missing link? -dt

Comment by Bob OH — June 16, 2006 @ 12:36 am


Pretty good, Dave! maybe one day you'll manage to live up to your legend.

Date: 2006/06/16 08:05:46, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 16 2006,12:59)
Dembski's Google post vanished. I have a copy...


anyone need it? :p

...Google post?

Date: 2006/06/16 08:19:25, Link
Author: Faid
I hope noone ever asks you to prove if some lady is a witch.

Date: 2006/06/16 09:27:10, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 16 2006,14:00)
On a more general note, there's a common thread running through Dave's "critiques" of radiometric dating methods. He (or, more accurately, the sources he C&Ps from) take a technique, apply it in a situation where it is known not to work (like using radiocarbon to date 250-million-year-old coal deposits), and then complain when the results don't make sense (and yes, Dave, they don't make sense when there's no rhyme or reason to the dates these results give; see my post above).

It would be as if one were to use a saw to hammer nails in, a screwdriver to apply paint, and a cutting torch to lay bricks, and then conclude that since the results are not what are claimed for those various tools, the tools must not work as advertised.

The way I see it, it's the "5000 year old live snail" argument, phrased again and again in more indirect and sciency-looking ways. They got nothing else.

Date: 2006/06/17 13:24:01, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 17 2006,17:39)
Here, Dave, knock yourself out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Portuguese_language
http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/History/index.html
http://www.orbilat.com/Languag....ry.html
http://www.orbislingua.com/eag.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-the-portuguese-language
http://www.deltatranslator.com/port_lang.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0839850.html

I know, I know, "hardly anyone has ever studied Portuguese in as much detail as *I* have..."

And let's add these to the list:

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

And let's not forget what dave's "quoted" source, Encyclopedia Britannica, actually had to say:

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377118/Romance-languages




Also, what's this about "breeding apes"?  :O

Darnn guys, I go away for awhile and you gone and brokded dave...

Date: 2006/06/17 13:51:26, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
You don’t think that providing typewriters to the monkeys rather than pencils and erasers makes the results highly non-random?

Comment by Mung — June 16, 2006 @ 12:35 pm”

Why even provide pencils and erasers? Given an infinite number of monkeys, surely some would eventually chop down a tree to build the body of a pencil, while others would stumble onto the manufacturing process necessary to produce long, skinny shafts of graphite.

Comment by russ — June 17, 2006 @ 7:03 am


And indeed they did!  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/06/17 14:56:33, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,19:05)
Faid...      
Quote
And let's add these to the list:
http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM
http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php
http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html
http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm
And let's not forget what dave's "quoted" source, Encyclopedia Britannica, actually had to say:
[URL=http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377118/Romance-languages


Faid ... Believe me, I've looked at all these and they say the same basic thing.   L --> P with 3 basic phases, one of which I gave you a great amount of excellent detail -- the middle phase beginning in the 12th century

None of your links refute my statement or my explanations.  That's why you don't C&P any statements from them.  You just give all these links that you hope no one will go look at because they don't refute anything I said.

Is that how you operate?

(The EB article doesn't help you either, Faid)

Dave, you know darnn well how I operate, you liar, because I have presented quotes from my arguments from the beginning. And you know it, you just hope someone has forgotten. You want them again? here you go, and with extra:

     
Quote
In the formation of the Portuguese language, the Latin base also incorporated features of the Celtic, Greek and Hebrew languages, to which Germanic and Arabic elements were later added.

We may consider three phases in the evolution of the Portuguese language: the proto-historic phase, until the thirteenth century (a phase when there were still very close connections in written terms with Barbarous Latin), the archaic phase, until the sixteenth century (a phase in which, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, one of the most important developments was the Galician-Portuguese language, with Portuguese later acquiring its own autonomy in relation to Galician) and the modern phase, with the publication of the first grammar books, by Fern&#947;o de Oliveira, 1536, and Jo&#947;o de Barros, 1540(...)
See any french there, dave? And don't worry, I'm not as dishonest as you, the ommission is not relevant... you can check.      
Quote
From the year the Romans invaded the peninsula in 218 BC up until the ninth century, the language spoken in the region was known as Romance, a variant of Latin that was an intermediary point between vulgar Latin and the modern Romance languages such as Portuguese, Spanish and French.
     
Quote
The appearance of the first Latin-Portuguese documents would come to pass between the ninth and eleventh centuries, marking this period as one of linguistic transition. Certain Portuguese terms appeared in these mainly Latin texts, but Portuguese, or more precisely its antecedent, Galician-Portuguese, remained an unwritten language spoken only in Lusitania.
     
Quote
The Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula brought about the consolidation of the spoken and written forms of Galician-Portuguese throughout Lusitania. The first non-Latin literary texts and official documents from the region were written in Galician-Portuguese, including the following collections of medieval poems known as the Cancioneiros, or songbooks:
     
Quote
The process of differentiation between the Portuguese and Portuguese-Galician began with the Christian advance towards the south of the Iberian Peninsula, whereby the northern dialects mixed with the southern Mozarabic dialects.
Whaddaya know, no french influence... No wait, there is this:      
Quote
Between the years of 1580 and 1640, when Portugal was governed by the Spanish throne, Portuguese incorporated many Castilian words, such as bobo (fool) and granizo (hail), into its vocabulary, and the French influence of the eighteenth century in Europe brings about a divergence between the languages spoken in Portugal and its colonies.
Just like I told you. And let's see what the sources say about all Indoeuropean languages:      
Quote
Italian and Portuguese are the closest modern major languages to Latin. Spanish has been influenced by Arabic and Basque. French has moved farthest from Latin in pronunciation, only its spelling gives a clue to its origins. French has many Germanic and Celtic influences.
hmm. And here it is again:      
Quote
When Christians started to re-conquer the peninsula in the 11th century, the Arabs were expelled to the South. Galician-Portuguese became the spoken and written language of Lusitania. The separation between the Galician and Portuguese languages, which began with Portugal’s independence in 1185, was consolidated after the Moors were expelled in 1249.
And what about later?      
Quote
Portuguese entered its modern phase in the 16th century when early lexicologists defined Portuguese morphology and syntax. When Luis de Camões wrote Os Lusíadas, in 1572, the language was already close to its current structure of phrases and morphology. From then on, linguistic changes have been minor.

French influence during the 18th century changed the Portuguese spoken in the homeland, making it different from the Portuguese spoken in the colonies.

Oh and, of course, the EB article that "doesn't help"...      
Quote
The Romance languages began as dialects of Vulgar Latin, which spread during the Roman occupation of Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, and the Balkans and developed into separate languages in the 5th–9th centuries.

Had enough, dave? You know, you should really make up your mind. You want links or no links, quoted or not, with arguments or not? We'll be happy to oblige either way -as you see.

But this has gone far enough. After tadancing through our evidence, after COMPLETELY DISTORTING your original claims (from "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, and didn't even exist until some frenchman's son founded the kingdom of Portugal, and some knights blah blah" to "Hey I always said that Portuguese was derived separately from Latin, I'm just filling in the details"), and after your little trick with the EB "quote", now you have the nerve to accuse ME of misquoting?
Tell you what: I DARE you, if you have even a shred of honesty, to look through all the links I posted and find where it supports your views(*), and disproves mine, and show it to me. Otherwise, kindly shut up.

(*)Your original views, mind you; I mean, the way you twist your arguments, I wouldn't be surprised if you end up saying "hey I never said Portuguese were actually linguistically influenced by French, just that some french guys helped free Portugal..."

Date: 2006/06/17 15:11:53, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (stevestory @ June 17 2006,20:08)
LOL Faid, what did you do before the internet? Did you go to the morgue and kick the bodies?

*Smack* *Smack* "Had enough? Had enough now, bitch?!?!?!"

And compared to dave, I believe they put up a good fight.

Date: 2006/06/17 22:32:19, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,20:27)
Another Portuguese war, eh?  OK, why not!

Sure, why not? From what you wrote, however, it looks like another blitzkrieg walk for us, dave...

You know, I fail to notice any retraction or apologies for your lying claims that my sources don't support me... but then, that was expected. Maybe it's against your religion, Idunno...
What was also expected was that you'd be devastatingly wrong again. After all, you did simply c&p your previous "arguments" about some nefarious linguistic influence some French crusaders had, although it's impossible for you to even argue for it... and all you can do is point us to historical events, as if they have the slightest linguistic significance. Same old, same old.
This, however, seems kinda new:
Quote
... the problem with this article is that there was no such thing as Portugal prior to the 12th century.  There was only Spain.  So Faid's article would be correct if it said "common language of what would become Spain and Portugal" instead of just saying "Portuguese."  It's an OK article, just not specific enough.  OK.  Everyone with me so far?

Sorry dave, but wrong again. There was no common ancestral language of Spanish and Portuguese at that time. As our sources say (you did say you read them, right?  :p ), the languages that led to Portuguese and Spanish were already separate from the 9th century. Galician-Portuguese for Portuguese, and Castillian for Spanish. Remember those pictures I posted, dave? the link is there above your post. I remember you said they were "nice"; did you look at the pretty colours hard enough?

Nice try for a smokescreen, dave. Just be careful not to set your pants on fire again.

Date: 2006/06/17 22:51:09, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 18 2006,01:20)
Faid, we thank you.  :)

You're welcome, Arden... Actually, I'm much less patient than you: I get easily irritated when a person with afdave's history here has the nerve to accuse me of dishonesty. That's all.

Date: 2006/06/17 22:55:17, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
p.s.  maybe somebody could add in the number of times Thordaddy used the word "opine".


:O

Ichthyic, I am a mortal man.

Date: 2006/06/20 11:29:24, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (GCT @ June 20 2006,13:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 20 2006,12:59)
Randy says..

 
Quote
Actually, I’m opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out....


Preach it, Randy!

We know DT reads this over here, so how will he react to the fact that his new poster-boy just said ID is nothing but religion?

Make him a regular?

Date: 2006/06/20 12:39:04, Link
Author: Faid
BWE, I don't think you should really bother anymore. dave won't respond.

You see, he is afraid.
He's afraid that the combination of arrogance and ignorance he displays will be obvious to the people who think highly of him, and might read this.

I can see no other reason behind his actions. Remember, he started by betting money on this:
 
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.
And that was his "later, more specified" statement, the one he claimed was 100% true.

Without ever backing out in my claims, I pointed out to him how wrong he was... and we claimed he won.

I showed him that it was not so... After lots of ignoring, he reverted to his original P=S+F statement, and claimed he won.

we showed to him how wrong he was... after lots of more ignoring, he turned it to P=S+F+"other factors", and claimed he won.

Those who still had the patience, showed him his immense mistakes again... After much more ignoring, he turned that to "P=S+F+"other factors" and anyway I never denied that Portuguese was derived separately from Vulgar Latin what are you saying...
...And of course, claimed he won. And this is where we are today.

This pathetic display of childish behavior and immaturity is more fitting for a 13yo, not a husband and a father. It's sad.
Sorry dave, that's how I see it. You totally lost me when you admitted and apologized for saying that I hadn't provided quotes to support my views, and then you kept arguing without addressing them, like I never provided them in the first place. It was like they didn't exist for you.

It's obvious that dave knows our arguments very well, but simply refuses to address them. All he wants, like he said, is to convince himself... Although that is not entirely true: He was convinced before he even came here.

What he really wants is to compliment himself, and his ego: To emerge from this hornet's nest of atheists victorious and thriumphant; And, in his mind, that WILL happen, and he won't let trivial things like arguments and logic stand in his way. It's like it's already done. I'm sure he's even got his "ending speech" all ready to c&p.

What can we do to help him? Nothing, really. Every attempt will lead to another denial recital, along with a few more comments about how he wishes we see the truth "in our deathbeds" (what's up with that, btw? Is that as far as his pastor allows him to go with the usual "you'll burn forever in the lake of fire" threats?).

But we can enjoy ourselves with arguments like the "selective breeding of apes" all around the world for 4000 years. Man that was precious.

Date: 2006/06/20 13:01:56, Link
Author: Faid
Wait wait... So, to prove that gravity is the strongest force in the Universe, DT quotes a snippet, from an article that starts with:
Quote
Gravity is the weakest force in the universe. Because of this weakness gravity waves, [See my column in the January-1988 issue of Analog.], the traveling waves made by disturbances in gravity, are below the present threshold of detectability and have never been directly observed. But in the year 2000 this should change.


:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Thanks davey old man! I was beginning to think you were losing your mojo...

Date: 2006/06/22 09:41:27, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
Oh yes.  We will get to this as well.  We will also talk about a topic I raised with Faid ... "The Origin of the 7 Day Week" ... I think Faid will be surprised.


Surprised? Hardly. You'll just do the same things you did when you supposedly "beat down" the GULO issue, or when you "won" the Portuguese (non-) debate:
You'll just say the same things you said when we first had this discussion, ignore any and all of our counterarguments (or twist them according to your liking), and declare another victory for your ego- sorry, your "God".

You've ceased to surprise me long ago, dave. And, after your "ape-breeding" assertion, I don't think there's anything you can say that will surprise me.

But by all means, do some more copypasting from your favorite "sciencey" sources, and try to prove once again that the effect is the cause and vice versa. We can use the extra laughs.

Date: 2006/06/22 09:52:01, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (GCT @ June 21 2006,13:12)
It should be pointed out that DaveTard also threatened to hack this site.

Davetard can't even hack on firewood without losing vital parts of his anatomy.

Date: 2006/06/23 09:56:19, Link
Author: Faid
Guess what, dave, turns out that Troy was an actual city after all!

Well, I guess that means the Greek Pantheon is real, too, right? All praise the mighty Zeus!

And what about Helen, Paris, Achilles and Hector? Totally historical figures, too! QED!

But if Greek mythology is true, that means the myth of Deukalion and Pyrra is the real deal, and those copycat Israelites stole the tale!

Your 'arguments' are getting less and less rational as you go on, dave. I can't wait for you to get to the fossil record and the flood...

Also... I believe this is the evidence from China you were pointed to, dave:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2956925.stm

By the way, wtf was that:
Quote
Q:  What's the last thing to go through Mr Christopher's mind before the 18 wheeler that jumped the median smashes into his car?
A:  Oh my Goodness!  AFDave was right!!  Hello?  God?  Are you there?

What up, dave? Are you afraid that your veiled threat of "I hope you recant on your DEATHBEDS, when you DIE of DEATH" doesn't work that well? Or are you just losing your cool?

Pathetic.

Date: 2006/06/23 14:15:49, Link
Author: Faid
A thing that amazes me is the ease in which dave sprouts out this assertion:

That only we humans have to obey this instinctive, hard-coded Universal Moral Code, not God who made it -and, come to think of it, we don't have to obey it either, if Gawd tells us not to...

And he doesn't even realize how he tears poor C.S.Lewis' arguments (and, ergo, his own) to shreds by doing so.

Keep up the good work dave.

Date: 2006/06/23 14:35:18, Link
Author: Faid
Eric: Try to attribute all quotes to the person who wrote them (for example, by c&p "[quote=afdave,June 23 2006,17:22]" instead of just "[quote]", in the beginning of all dave's quotes).

I think that's the only way you can get quotes within quotes... If that's the problem.

Date: 2006/06/24 00:36:00, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
You have a very brutish understanding of the knowledge of the ancients.  Some time I will enlighten you about some of the things they knew.
Please do, Mr Daniken- I mean dave. Tell us again all about the amazing knowledge of the ancient Eguptians- they knew the radius of the Earth, did you say? Something about the Pyramids?

i've a feeling this will be even better than your "ape breeding" scenario.

Do you have the slightest idea of how unbelievably silly you sound, when you try to venture even a tiny bit on your own into fields not directly covered by your AiG mentors?

Pathetic.

Oh and, like I said: Nothing has directly disproved the Iliad yet- in fact, Troy turned out to be real! Should I get my sacrificial altar to Neptune ready, dave? The Earth-Shaker longs for the smell of burning horses...

Date: 2006/06/24 01:20:13, Link
Author: Faid
Alan, I love how, in your blog, the Great Banninator Davescot tries to cope with being just a normal poster:

"Gravity is the strongest force, not the weakest!"

"actually, no, Dave."

"It is I tell you! It says so here!"

"That's figuratively speaking, Dave. It's still the weakest, and your source states that clearly".

"Well if it's the weakest, why was it the only force in the beginning, and all the other forces came from it?"

"Actually that's not true, Dave."

"Oh yeah? Well that's what it implies here!"

"Not really, Dave. And here's a bazillion links that say otherwise."

"Well GTR sucks! And you suck! And I googled 'regime' and turns out I can use it if I like, so KISS MY LILLY ASS!"


Poor guy.  :p

Date: 2006/06/24 04:27:51, Link
Author: Faid
Quote
DEADMAN CONFIRMS C.S. LEWIS INADVERTENTLY


Well dave, since you keep bashing poor C.S.L. with your arguments, someone has to come to the poor guy's aid...

So, dave: If your God came to you, beyond any doubt in your mind, and told you you should kill babies in his name, because that is his will at the moment and he knows better, would you do it dave?

A simple yes or no will do.

Also: While you think about it, tell us what your inerrant book says about the value of Pi, the Sun-Earth distance and the polar diameter of the Earth.

You do know that the ancients actually discovered most of these things, right dave? By using (and thereby setting the foundations for) the scientific method? And were reasonably accurate?
Or is it that your god had switched favors, and preferred to whisper into the ear of Pythagoras, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes instead?

   
Quote
Now that is simply UNCANNY!  What a remarkable record!  This is truly a Supernatural Book!


You are talking about the Iliad, I presume... Thanks, dave! Wanna chew some leaves and foretell the future with me?

Date: 2006/06/24 12:03:54, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,11:08)
Faid...    
Quote
So, dave: If your God came to you, beyond any doubt in your mind, and told you you should kill babies in his name, because that is his will at the moment and he knows better, would you do it dave?
No. I would not.  This is one of those 'have you stopped beating your wife?' questions.  God does not 'come to people' and tell them things these days that I am aware of.  He did that in the days before the Scriptures were completed.  That is no longer necessary.  We have 'Moses and the Prophets' now to quote someone famous (Jesus).  Why do we need God speaking directly to us?

Sorry no bonus, davesy. It is a perfectly normal question, and that's why you avoid answering it as usual.
"God wouldn't speak to us today" is not an answer, and you know it; it has no relevance to the question, which regards morality, as you darnn well know. Our Universal Moral Code is hardcoded in all of us from the beginning, remember? (if it's not, well, it's not instinctive but just cultural). What if you were Joshua, dave? What if you were a soldier of Joshua, and your beloved leader came to you and said "Yahveh came to me, and said we must butcher all men, women, children and babies of the ___ until nothing remains breathing"? WHAT WOULD YOU DO, DAVE?

There's no avoiding this question, dave. Answer it, or admit you can't. Don't try to play games; you're not dealing with children here.

Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,11:08)
Faid...    
Quote
Also: While you think about it, tell us what your inerrant book says about the value of Pi, the Sun-Earth distance and the polar diameter of the Earth.

You do know that the ancients actually discovered most of these things, right dave? By using (and thereby setting the foundations for) the scientific method? And were reasonably accurate?
Or is it that your god had switched favors, and preferred to whisper into the ear of Pythagoras, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes instead?
Why don't you tell me your version of which ancients knew these things and how they knew them.  Then I'll tell you mine.  You obviously haven't a clue about what mine is.

Oh I think I do, dave. Although I may be wrong, of course, unlike you the Inerrant Soldier of God. So, you want my version? You could easily obtain it by googling the names I provided. Here, let me help you get going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth

For starters. Now, please tell me how the ancient egyptian dynasties already knew the polar diameter of the earth. Seeing you engage in Pyramidology and Von Danikenism will match your "ape breeding" scenario in entertainment- almost.

Oh and, once again: what does the Bible tell us about all these things, dave? Or is Osiris the one true god after all? :D

But what am I saying- we have already established that the Greek Pantheon is the real deal... After all, the Iliad remains unrefuted! AND it was the basis for archaeological predictions that came TRUE! Beat that, Moses!  :p

Date: 2006/06/25 15:21:16, Link
Author: Faid
Quote (afdave @ June 25 2006,07:19)
Faid...      
Quote
What if you were Joshua, dave? What if you were a soldier of Joshua, and your beloved leader came to you and said "Yahveh came to me, and