AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: FishyFred

form_srcid: FishyFred

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.67.26

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: FishyFred

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/09/23 16:29:07, Link
Author: FishyFred
Reposting mine from PT...

You know… I’ve been getting the feeling that this case is far from straightforward. I know who would win in a straight-out brawl between ID and evolution, but what I’m getting at is the simple choice of the textbook. If you look at it as “just a textbook,” then this really seems less about the establishment clause and suddently the case takes the political position that the IDers wanted.

Now, not having read Of Pandas and People, I may just be outright wrong. Is the book really THAT THAT THAT bad? I’m talking not just about being a terrible textbook (from what I’ve heard, I KNOW it’s junk); I’m saying it would have to actually dip its toe in religion. Does it do that?

Date: 2005/10/03 04:38:28, Link
Author: FishyFred
... by someone who clearly doesn't know any better.

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18771/article_detail.asp

Can you say "taken out of context" and "misinterpretation?" Here's a one-paragraph sample.

Quote
Early in his testimony, Rothschild claimed that “intelligent design is not science in its infancy, it's not science at all.” Yet Miller’s own testimony contradicts this. In cross-examination, when asked by Robert Muise, the defense attorney, if during a debate between Miller and Michael Behe, an ID proponent, at the American Museum of Natural History, “you [Miller] were presenting your scientific argument against intelligent design, and Dr. Behe was presenting his scientific argument in support of intelligent design?” Miller responded: “Absolutely.”

Date: 2005/10/05 09:04:49, Link
Author: FishyFred
peach: It was admitted IN THE BRIEF that ID makes no predictions and has no scientific validity. See here.

As for the Scopes quote... I don't get it. Please enlighten me. Spell it out in detail.

Date: 2005/10/12 11:23:22, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 12 2005,10<!--emo&:0)
Four hundred scientists and a whole lot more that are intimidated by the hords herein and their memtors agree with me that mutations and natural selection are inadequate to explain the life we observe.. period.

As to transitional fossils whether dinos to birds or land mammals to whales are never ilustrated in the fossil record by a series of clear unmistakable fossils showing the incredible multiple changes required.

The dino to bird theory is as dead as is possible to imagine and thats just a fact.

When you morons refer to papers writtne by other brainwashed evos without one whit of math, fossil evidence, chemical evidence, experimentally varifiable date etc. that doesn't prove one darn thing just more malarkey and BS without a scintilla of factual evidence.

Give me a hundred just so stories.. they are not science.. just fairy tales.

You will never get it... macroevolution, common descent and abiogenesis will never be science because it cannot be demonstrated, repeated in the laboratory, is mathmatically inconsistent with statistical possibilities and all of the fossil evidence is mounted against it.. period.

You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong which is is other than a fairy tale.

Okay, who are you really? That entire post is a stream of ridiculousness that even DI fellows would be hardpressed to top. Who could have written that? I'm often curious about the people behind the screennames that I see on forums, but you take the cake. You have captured my curiosity. I want to know who you are.

Four hundred scientists are anti-evolution? I'll be liberal and say that 2000 biologists are out there that do not support evolution. There are millions upon millions on the other side. And don't tell me that the scientific consensus is wrong because YOU brought it up.

Evolution doesn't expect us to find every possible transitional fossil. They are too rare and too easily destroyed. But you'll act like I never said that.

So you're discounting all scientific papers just because they were written by scientists in a language that you can't understand? Then you have admitted that you cannot be swayed. Your mind is closed.

"You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong..."

Who the heck do you think you are anyway?

Date: 2005/10/12 11:27:23, Link
Author: FishyFred
How about "solution?"

The debate then shifts to calling something "The solution of relativity" or "The relativity solution."

"Theory of evolution" or "Evolution solution" (teehee!)

Date: 2005/10/13 06:33:10, Link
Author: FishyFred
"Oh noes! Those atheist evolutionists bow down to the almighty dollar!"

Of course, then we subpeona the DI's financial records...

Date: 2005/10/19 09:44:14, Link
Author: FishyFred
And why are you wasting your team on a forum when you should be working?

As the French say, "STFU and GBTW."

Date: 2005/10/19 15:40:49, Link
Author: FishyFred
evopeach: How sure are you that the court is in your camp? Let's go down the list (and I'm making the assumption that Miers will be on the court if this gets there):

John Paul Stevens - Voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard. A vote against Dover.
Antonin Scalia - Along with Rehnquist, dissented in Edwards v. Aguillard. You can probably consider his vote a vote for Dover, but I'm not 100% sure. Just... something. He'll probably vote for Dover.

That takes care of the justices who voted on Edwards v. Aguillard. Now lets take a look at the post-1987 justices.

John Roberts - Can't go either way on him yet.
Harriet Miers - I'm guessing she's on your side. If she isn't confirmed and O'Connor is in her place, you will not get this vote. She voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Anthony Kennedy - Slightly difficult to read, but he's tended toward the left. He'll vote against Dover.
David Souter - Not a chance in ####. He's voting against Dover.
Clarence Thomas - Arguable. I'm guessing he'd vote against Dover, but you can have his vote.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - A sure bet to vote against Dover.
Stephen Breyer - Also a sure bet against Dover.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt evopeach, you lose 5-4.

For more info on the Supreme Court justices, see the Wikipedia page.

Date: 2005/10/19 16:06:50, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
I.D. is peer-reviewed, over the squeals of many wee piggies I might add.
This was covered on either Pharyngula or the Questionable Authority (or both). There was a Proquest or LexisNexis or other scholarly paper search for "intelligent design." Essentially, there were maybe 10-20 papers in which "intelligent design" was in the proper context. Out of those, none of them supported ID.

Date: 2005/10/20 07:20:20, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote (cichlid666 @ Aug. 12 2005,07:01)
I cant fathom that our president can believe this. " Astrophysicists such as stephen hawking determined that the evident starting point just before the Big Bang was something called "singularity" wich is: all the cosmos's potential mass (matter), energy, and dimentions (and time) reduced down to an infinately small point ZERO volume --- so , matter, 3-dimentional space , and time virtually did not exist before the Big bang."I am truly scared If people can accept this, wow!

Here's the thing though. The way that it's put it is plausible enough, citing Hawking makes it credible, and 95% of Americans barely understand the concept well enough to know that the best explanation in the field going right now is a big bang.

I'm not particularly scared of this, nor am I surprised at all.

Date: 2005/10/20 07:23:20, Link
Author: FishyFred
evopeach: I gave you Roberts, Miers, Scalia, and Thomas. You still lose. Maybe you should reread your posts before you make them. You'd probably save yourself a lot of spelling errors and mathematical errors.

Date: 2005/10/20 07:27:23, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
Usually I don't respond to sex wierdos especially foot-sex addicts
AhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAhahaha... uhhhhha...




AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!ahahaha. ahhhhhhh...

Thanks for the laugh evo. BURN!

Date: 2005/10/20 08:17:26, Link
Author: FishyFred
Evo: Clearly, your "superior critical mind" can't grasp simple addition. Maybe I should have been clearer in my original post, but I conceded Roberts to Dover.

By my estimation (and if you think differently, please supply your own breakdown):

For Dover (the defendant) - Roberts, Miers, Scalia, Thomas.

For Kitzmiller (the plaintiff) - Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter.

Did I miss something? Perhaps John Roberts cloned himself and replaced Breyer with a John Roberts #2?

Date: 2005/10/21 09:31:28, Link
Author: FishyFred
Nah, Clinton was "impeached" but he was not removed from office. Those were two separate things. Impeachment is leveling charges at a government official.

evo: Ambassador Joe Wilson gave a talk to part of my freshman class at American University. He knows the country of Niger inside and out. He went there and determined that there was no possible way whatsoever that Iraq was buying uranium yellowcake from them. He said that he gave a full report and that it should have reached, at the very least, Condi Rice. He told us in no uncertain terms that when we cited intelligence that Iraq was buying uranium yellowcake from an African country, we were referring to Niger.

Niger was not selling. Iraq was not buying. We knew this. Hence, we went to war under false pretenses.

Joe Wilson for president, people.

Date: 2005/10/21 09:36:31, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
You see I never worry about ultimate outcomes when the other side is dead wrong on teh facts, condused on their own position and wish the worst to happen personally top anyone who opposes, even people in their own community.

I recognize them as mentally sick and an abberation of true humanity.
Ahem. Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.
Quote
the court's rapidly coming swing in our favor will not result in a win for ID.
I already gave you a breakdown of the Supreme Court and showed how, at best, you will lose in the Supreme Court 5-4. I am reiterating my request for you to provide your own breakdown of how the SCOTUS would vote on this issue.

Date: 2005/10/21 17:14:12, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
It was a felony butt head.
Clinton later recanted, but he technically did not lie on the witness stand (for what that's worth).

Bush is #### near guilty of treason.

Date: 2005/10/21 17:17:59, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
Is your hair naturally orange, or do you dye it that way?
Ooooh! Ooooh! Do we have a picture of evopeach? That would be awesome. I would love to see who I'm arguing with!

Date: 2005/10/21 17:25:12, Link
Author: FishyFred
Stevens voted in the majority of Edwards v. Aguillard. He will definitely vote against Dover.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia entry on Anthony Kennedy (emphasis mine):

"Born in Sacramento, California, Kennedy, a devout Roman Catholic, married Mary Davis, with whom he has three children. He has no relation to the famous Kennedy family of American politics."

Catholics are traditionally a reasonable and tolerant bunch and have long been okay with evolution.

And by the way, wouldn't the probability of two events occurring with a probability of 70% each only be 35%? In your scenario, the mathematical chance of you winning would be 65%.

Date: 2005/10/21 20:05:59, Link
Author: FishyFred
Ah, thanks Henry. I must be freakin' tired to have made that mistake.

Date: 2005/10/22 08:12:34, Link
Author: FishyFred
NOOOOOOOOO!

Date: 2005/10/24 08:34:30, Link
Author: FishyFred
This child is a THEORY, not a fact.

Date: 2005/10/25 09:49:26, Link
Author: FishyFred
Well you and other alumni can write a letter or do something to let the school know how you feel. Behe's presence is probably putting off potential Bio students (or any science students in general) from going to or even applying to Lehigh.

Perhaps you can withhold donations to the school. If you get enough of your fellow alumni to follow your lead, you might get the university to remove Behe. I think that, in extenuating circumstances, you can overrule tenure and get rid of someone.

Date: 2005/10/26 17:31:00, Link
Author: FishyFred
I want him backkkk! WAHHHHHHHHHH

Date: 2006/01/20 11:51:51, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?
I think it's only those who are official contributors.

I say Dembski leaves DaveScot in charge until he says something terribly offensive to some group of people. I'd take a wild guess and say that Dembski just doens't care what DaveScot or anyone else says on his blog anymore.

Has anyone seen what John Davison was posting? Oh my GAWD it is amusing. I know he's old and losing his mind, but he is just off the wall batty.
Quote
Karl Popper just confused things with all this falsifiable nonsense. Hypotheses are either verifiable or not. I regard Intelligent Design as verified simply because there is no other coneiveable alternative. The elimination of alternatives is a perfectly sound means of scientific inquiry. It has been employed in every aspect of scientific discovery and led to the downfall of the Ether, the Phlogiston and very soon Chance, the cornerstone and the Achilles heel of Darwinian mysticism.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689#comment-21155

Date: 2006/01/20 20:47:38, Link
Author: FishyFred
Oh... Flint: No, you've got it wrong.

He banned Steve Reuland with the same reason, word-for-word. He's removed the posts, but it was something like "As I am not allowed to post at Pandas Thumb, Pandas Thumb contributors are not allowed to post here." With that definition, he's only referring to contributors with administrative powers on the site. Jack Krebs and Steve Reuland, but also Wesley Elsberry, PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, Pim Van Meurs, and everyone else for sure. Not automatically people who comment on the site. Basically, his reasoning of "I'm banned at PT, so you're banned here" only applies to those people. He'll come up with different reasons to ban Pandas Thumb commenters.

In the end, you're technically right. If he likes what a PT contributor is posting, he'll let it stay. He's practicing some sort of swiss cheese fascism. Heck, the guy banned Josh Bozeman. Josh isn't nearly as aggressive as DaveScot, but he's just as dishonest/misled.

Date: 2006/01/21 13:17:34, Link
Author: FishyFred
I actually had a short correspondence with Casey Luskin. I wanted some quotes from him on ID for an assignment. He seems to be a genuinely nice guy who just happens to be caught up in ID. I wish him well... as opposed to DaveScot, who is the only person I have ever corresponded with (on the internet and in real life) whom I would not feel sorry for if he were to happen into a great personal tragedy.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:54:44, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
Oh, and btw, you might be banned at Uncommon Descent and not know it--one thing they do is set the software to hide your comment from everyone but you--that way you don't complain, because you don't know your posts are hidden to others. Just FYI.
How to tell: If the number of comments displayed at the top of the comments section (i.e. "23 comments") is different than the number of comments you can see, then you've been sent to coventry, the land of "Only you can see your posts."

Arden Chatfield: He probably has been IP banned from this forum because he was such a bad poster and a bad guy, but this happens all the time on forums across the internet. He's making it out to be worse than it is by describing it in a vivid and entertaining prose style :D.

Date: 2006/01/23 17:00:43, Link
Author: FishyFred
Under your post, there's an "Options" area. Uncheck "Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?"

:) see? :0

Date: 2006/01/24 06:33:34, Link
Author: FishyFred
One of the latest posts: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/701

This must be a joke. IIRC, Jack asked Dembski if he wanted to allow another viewpoint to be presented. Dembski said no thanks. Now DaveScot has the gall to pull this out.

Date: 2006/02/11 09:20:21, Link
Author: FishyFred
I hope it's Davison (cause it sure as heck isn't me). The guy is a nut. He brings back memories of evopeach, but with brand new keywords like "Darwinian mysticism." COMEDY GOLD!

Date: 2006/02/20 02:21:38, Link
Author: FishyFred
Well, here we are again back at cellular "machines."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/824#comments

"There are real machines in living cells. Really really complex machines." - DaveScot

FASCINATING!

Quote
Myer’s idiotically simple flow charts aren’t applicable to machines. Take a simple power transmission device consisting of two gears and a chain. Gear1—-Chain—-Gear2. It’s irreducible. According to Myers logic we can modify it into a more complex irreducible system by first adding a redundant chain so that we can break the first chain without disabling the device. Unfortunately gears don’t work that way. They’ll only accomodate one chain at a time. The flagellar motor is the same way. You can’t just add a redundant drive shaft so you can monkey around with the original without breaking it. There is no accomodation for adding a redundant drive shaft. Myers example fails when applied to machines.
Referring to this. It's a good thing that the diagrams aren't actually directed at machines.

Date: 2006/02/20 03:18:07, Link
Author: FishyFred
He needs a sharp whack with a clue-by-four.

Date: 2006/02/23 09:22:10, Link
Author: FishyFred
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/857

Oh your lord... somebody PLEASE kick his ass. He makes me weep for humanity.

Date: 2006/02/23 12:06:06, Link
Author: FishyFred
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/857#comment-25216

Quote
#

MattDean: “Not to sound insulting, but have you ever heard of the 14th Amendment?”

Oh, I’ve heard about it. I think it’s time to repeal it. It’s useful is no longer needed to address its intent (stopping Reconstructionist states from discriminating against freed slaves), and has been the source of untold judicial excesses over the last 30-40 years. The way it is currently interpreted, we are very far removed from being a ‘federal republic’, and much more closer to being a simple democratic ’state’ (forget the 50 states; it’s only 1 state–the federal government).

Comment by PaV — February 23, 2006 @ 5:08 pm


It's sad that Dave would probably take it even further than PaV has.

Date: 2006/02/23 13:32:52, Link
Author: FishyFred
I'm guessing John Davison would be the high mark.

Date: 2006/02/28 08:06:19, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
Q: What is the theory of Flinkywisty?
A: The theory of Flinkywisty says that living things exhibit Flinkywisty.
Q: What is Flinkywisty?
A: It's kind of like human Flinkywisty. It alters probabilities, perhaps. Or something.
Q: How did the living things wind up with the Flinkywisty?
A: That question is entirely off limits to science. Ask a philosopher.
Q: How do you know a living thing has Flinkywisty?
A: Living things are like paintings, right? Paintings have flinkywisty. I mean, it's obvious.


Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Date: 2006/02/28 11:50:44, Link
Author: FishyFred
Okay, you guys simply must see today's daily dose of moronic ramblings from Davescot: Link

Quote
What does the theory of Natural Selection (the most well tested theory in science) predict about Avian Flu?

Anything at all practical that isn't obvious from simple observations of past flu behavior?

Don't hold your breath. The most well tested theory in science is also the most useless theory in science.

Date: 2006/03/05 18:51:11, Link
Author: FishyFred
DaveScot at it again!

Quote
A number of people conflate heat entropy with information entropy and then willy-nilly substitute one for the other. This is what the NeoDarwinists do when they point to the sun and say it makes the earth an open system to explain the evident way life violates information entropy. The sun is irrevelevant in this siutation as it is adding heat, not information. While heat and information entropy are closely related (they both behave according to 2LoT which was originally formulated for heat alone) they are not the same thing and cannot be exchanged.


Link to today's hunk of carp.

::Bangs head on table::

Date: 2006/03/06 09:07:22, Link
Author: FishyFred
Quote
This is not the second law of thermodynamics at work because photons are hitting the cake


What if the cake is in complete darkness in a cold cave underground somewhere?

Date: 2006/03/18 10:13:06, Link
Author: FishyFred
DaveScot reports that trackbacks at Panda's Thumb aren't working. This time he appears to be right. Is somebody on this?

Date: 2006/03/23 15:11:15, Link
Author: FishyFred
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/943

You cannot be serious.

 

 

 

=====