AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Fractatious

form_srcid: Fractatious

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.226.46.21

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Fractatious

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/05/17 21:14:55, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (afdave @ May 17 2006,22:21)
A good guess for the Flood of Noah is probably somewhere between 2000 and 3000 BC.

I don't do BCE.  Jesus the Christ earned the right to get the dates named after Him.

If some other religous leader wants to have a crack at it, they are welcome.

Just be as influential as Jesus was and you too can have dates referenced to your birth!

Many here have already addressed the issue of the Global Flood but I wish to address the issue of acronyms.

Cited from Wikipedia:

Quote
According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell University and University of Chicago trained linguist):

CE and BCE came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity.

However, the term "common era" has earlier antecedents. A 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux says, "The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation." In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote "The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days." In its article on Chronology, the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia uses the sentence: "Foremost among these (dating eras) is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living."



Up until 1532, Europe used the Julian Calendar which consisted of 365 days in the year. Prior to 1 BCE, priests had been adding leap years, and that ceased until 9 CE. The inconsistancies this made in error of "time" in relation to a year has a deficit on either side of a given year by 5 years. The Gregorian Calendar was supposed to fix this, but still there is a deficit of around 5 years on either side.

So succinctly speaking there is NO accurate calendar date for Jesus especially using our current calendar system and our old one. Closest one may probably get is using the Jewish Calendar. So the argument of BC as opposed to BCE is a ludicrous one because 1BC could actually be either 6 BCE or 6 CE. Something to think about, huh? Common Era dispells that inaccuracy.

Date: 2006/05/17 21:58:16, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
What ponders me is if evolution, primarily macroevolution is correct then tracing time back we get to the Big Bang. Now the Big Bang inherently seems to point to creation--what caused it? Where did space, time, and energy arise from?


Macroevolution or microevolution are semantical terms set to confuse, the keyword is EVOLUTION. Macro is merely size. Also Big Bang has nothing to do directly with Evolution. Big Bang belongs to Cosmology so you are confusing two disciplines of science. Also if you are seeking a "starting point" then that is neither Evolution or Cosmology, it is ABIOGENESIS.

Quote
However, new theories have been formulated attempting to solve this question. I recall one stating that our universe is in a cyclical repetition of Big Bangs, however the energy required to reverse the universe expansion is no where to be found.


I have no idea what your question is really:

Evolution - the change of allele frequencies in a population over time.

Cosmology - studies of the origins of the Universe.

Abiogenesis - organisms originating from non living matter.

You started with an assertion about Evolution, flew into Cosmology then into Abiogenesis, so I'll try and jigsaw it together as I go.

Quote
cyclical repetition of Big Bangs, however the energy required to reverse the universe expansion is no where to be found.


Cosmology: A oscilating or cyclic universe is not a reversal of expansion at all (I'd like to know where you heard that from) but its actually an entropic universe. So depending on the density and gravity it is much like a black hole and it compresses (not reverses) and we see this in systems like boiling water into condensation back into water.

Quote
Lately the String Theory is the front-runner--it proposes that everything is made up of strings of energy within a 10 dimensional or even more world. The Big Bang would have been a result of a 3 dimensional world forming on top or within the other dimensions. This has far reaching implications however the big question is still never answered....


Superstring has caused a furor on its hypothetical concepts alone. But first, a superstring is an elementary particle and in its original form from the 60's was the hadron (so you're dealing with fermions and bosons or quarks and gluons) and within the fermionic version arose supersymmetry (for high energy physics) - what does this all mean? The Theory of Everything - with the added addition of quantum gravity. Because we are dealing now on a quantum level, you're dealing with fields. Fields such as Caliba-Yau or Kaluza-Klein in relation to dimensional spaces (above our current 4D Universe) based upon mirror symmetry (R, 1/R, T-duality) or simplstically, the compactification of a radius. Now with that explained, does it pose to deter from Big Bang? Probably not.

Quote
With any of these theories the where, what, why is never answered. Where did the strings of energy come from? Why do they exist? What caused the existence?


Big Bang Model also uses the boson particle assertion (or the x boson) so in that regard, there is generally no conflict with the models. As for the theories - if one were to actually study them indepth and in particular, the mathematics, they are not pitched against each other in a contradictory fight but they stem from each other in more a mathematical simplicity (often seen as much complexity - but they're not).

Quote
As I ponder these questions science seems to fall short, frankly the only answers seem to come with faith....


This is how I personally view religious claims to be - they fall short, rest on Wish/Desire for something to be true utilising faith. Science is not afforded such liberties and that is why you have all these theories - trying to answer, not make a "faithful guess".

Date: 2006/05/18 02:17:35, Link
Author: Fractatious
Inteligent Design in itself had a "designer" and I think it would be valid to say that the origins can be traced back to the endearing philosopher, William Paley.

Born in 1743 (England) Paley grew up Anglican, and trained for the priesthood. Paleys most memorable (and greatest work) book was Natural Theology:  Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Designer. His famous quote from this book (which one can trace to the ID movement today) is:

. .  when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. .  that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it..  the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker - that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.. The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is God.  

Date: 2006/05/21 06:04:45, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 20 2006,16:21)
So feel free to tell the ID advocates going on at length that they aren't less boring than the original.

Indeed - its regurgitated - a withering weed by any other name is still a withering weed.. oh the pascal of it all, it paleys in comparison..

Sorry couldnt help it.

Date: 2006/05/21 06:23:56, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,08:28)
Lewis obviously goes farther than is necessary to establish another piece of evidence for the existence of God, and I do to.

That was a very interesting read and brought home the fact that human psyche in relation to cognition and behaviour was not Lewis' forte. The apologetic argument and appeals. I think when it comes to understanding what propels and/or compels a human, then Lawrence Kohlberg (Professor of Psychology) book "The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Development" as well as Jean Piaget (Professor of Psychology) book "Insights and Illusions of Epistemology" as well as "The Moral Judgement of the Child". Lewis was an obvious reductionist (from reading his model of Laws pertaining to mankind) and wrongly classified humans (which you'll understand reading Kohlberg and Piaget). In a nutshell, Lewis should of stayed with Children Books and kept out of the realm of philosophy and psychology.

Date: 2006/05/21 06:28:00, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,08:35)
Why doesn't He intervene and just stop all this rot?  Well, He does sometimes--like with the Flood--and He will again at the End of Time.  This also is just like human parents.  They intervene sometimes in the lives of their children and they choose NOT to intervene sometimes because they want the child to learn some lesson.  What is so strange about this when it comes to thinking about God?

Well that was a great refutation to an omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscience God. The other alternative to that, which can be logically asserted it - there is no God.

Date: 2006/05/21 19:28:54, Link
Author: Fractatious
Sir Toejam.

Quote
Do you have a background in clinical psych?


Yes. I have worked in that department. I have 4 straight consecutive years in Human Development/Developmental Psychology (Social Science).

Quote
if so, could you comment on the theory that Dave is suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance, as evidenced by the rampant denial and projections he spins daily?


Technically I would not answer something like this publically. However, I'll just sketch over it. Socially we try and maintain a form of consonance, or cognitive consonance. Even if they are opposed in paradigm or some ideology, there can still be achieved, consonance. Dissonant cognition of course is the opposite of this and Festinger (father of cognitive dissonance) ascribed this to drive like abilities, a thirst to or drive to create an atmosphere of dissonance. An example I'll use is Kent Hovind, regardless of his credibility under fire as an authority in the field of evolutionary biology, and the many refutations to his outlandish claims, he is driven to go further, with such comments as "if a car is going at the speed of light and turns on its headlights, then the headlights are going twice the speed of light". That is an outlandish claim, and totally incorrect, but he will support it heaping more outlandish claims ontop. It also is not hard for anyone (whether they have a background in psychology or not) to see via interaction with another individual, how far their dissonance goes.

I hope that helped.

Date: 2006/05/21 23:47:00, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
so, not intending to put somebody on the couch, so to speak, could you point to ways you've been taught to more pragmatically converse with those apparently suffering Hovind's form of dissonance?


Usually one tries to remove the subject matter that causes such dissonance (which can be more trouble than its worth). In this type of forum, thats hard to do. It actually culminates it. Usually, when working with the individual directly, you'd have to take away the dissonance stimulus, ideally to eliminate it. Or present it to them in a manner that they have to be accountable. You can also show alternatives, to achieve a balance. Since this is behavioural, behaviours can indeed change. Even whilst dealing with belief systems, these can be changed also. Concepts of self motivation, reward, and punishment have been known methods to work. While reward and punishment are actual extremeties, self motivation is what is usually applied.

A subject has a belief that unicorns exist. While evidence is presented that unicorns dont exist, they will hold stringently to this. So you give them tasks. Such as "draw me a unicorn". The are visualising to you their belief. "Define the attributes of a Unicorn" they will then describe what they believe Unicorns do/are. (This is leading, yet it is addressing the belief directly). "Show me evidence of the Unicorn" this area is very sticky but vital none the less - this is where they are placed in a position to convince YOU its so. What happens if they don't? You tell them why and you let the subject drop. Don't be baited into an argument, let it drop. Change the subject. Disallow their ability to force it. Do this a series of times and its not so much "is it worth it" but they are self evaluating their own data.

Quick version I know. Personally, I disallow them the ability to play games with me. I disallow them emotive attacks. I refuse to focus on anything but the point at hand. Disagreeing basically nurtures their misheld beliefs. Structuring out what YOU see, removing as much means for a rebuttal as possible only allows them to assess.

Date: 2006/05/23 14:06:14, Link
Author: Fractatious
Not to disregard the ongoing topics, but I do notice the usage of "authority" on particular matters. I read an article today which I enjoyed very much.

As follows:

Eric Cornell, Why is the Sky Blue? ( What Was God Thinking? Science Can't Tell )

Scientists, this is a call to action, but also one to inaction. Why am I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have made me a renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll soon see what I mean. Let me pose you a question, not about God but about the heavens: "Why is the sky blue?" I offer two answers: 1) The sky is blue because of the wavelength dependence of Rayleigh scattering; 2) The sky is blue because blue is the color God wants it to be.

My scientific research has been in areas connected to optical phenomena, and I can tell you a lot about the Rayleigh-scattering answer. Neither I nor any other scientist, however, has anything scientific to say about answer No. 2, the God answer. Not to say that the God answer is unscientific, just that the methods of science don't speak to that answer.

Before we understood Rayleigh scattering, there was no sci­entifically satisfactory explanation for the sky's blueness. The idea that the sky is blue because God wants it to be blue existed before scientists came to understand Rayleigh scattering, and it contin­ues to exist today, not in the least undermined by our advance in scientific understanding. The religious explanation has been supplemented — but not supplanted — by advances in scientific knowledge. We now may, if we care to, think of Rayleigh scattering as the method God has chosen to implement his color scheme.

Right now there is a U.S. federal trial under way in Dover, Pennsylvania, over a school policy requiring teachers to tell students about “intelligent design” before teaching evolution. The central idea of intelligent design is that nature is the way it is because God wants it to be that way. This is not an assertion that can be tested in a scientific way, but studied in the right context, it is an interesting notion. As a theological idea, intelligent design is exciting. Listen: If nature is the way it is because God wants it to be that way, then, by looking at nature, one can learn what it is that God wants! The microscope and the telescope are no longer merely scientific instruments; they are windows into the mind of God.

But as exciting as intelligent design is in theology, it is a boring idea in science. Science isn't about knowing the mind of God; it's about understanding nature and the reasons for things. The thrill is that our ignorance our knowledge; the exciting part is what we don't understand yet. If you want to recruit future scientists, you don't draw a box around all our scientific understanding to date and say, “Everything out­side this box we can explain only by invoking God's will.” In 1855, no one told the future Lord Rayleigh that the scientific reason for the sky's blueness is that God wants it that way. Or if someone did tell him that, we can all be happy that the youth was plucky enough to ignore them. For science, intelligent design is a dead-end idea.

My call to action for scientists is, Work to ensure that the intelligent-design hypothesis is taught where it can contribute to the vitality of a field (as it could perhaps in theology class) and not taught in science class, where it would suck the excitement out of one of humankind's great ongoing adventures.

Now for my call to inaction: most scientists will concede that as powerful as science is, it can teach us nothing about values, ethics, morals or, for that matter, God. Don't go about pretending otherwise! For example, science can try to predict how human activity may change the climate, but science can't tell us whether those changes would be good or bad.

Should scientists, as humans, make judgments on ethics, morals, values and religion? Absolutely. Should we act on these judgments, in an effort to do good? You bet. Should we make use of the goodwill we may have accumulated through our scientific achievements to help us do good? Why not? Just don't claim that your science tells you “what is good” ... or “what is God.”

Act: fight to keep intelligent design out of science class­rooms! Don't act: don't say science disproves intelligent design. Stick with the plainest truth: science says nothing about intelligent design, and intelligent design brings nothing to science, and should be taught in theology, not science classes.
My value judgment is that further progress in sci­ence will be good for humanity. My argument here is offered in the spir­it of trying to preserve science from its foes — but also from its friends.

Eric Cornell won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2001.

Source: Time Magazine , November 14, 2005, p. 68.

Date: 2006/05/23 14:26:47, Link
Author: Fractatious
In the title of this particular thread, the words "Creator God Hypothesis" are used. I feel that is an apt description - a "hypothesis". As the Creator God assertion is tentative with no empirical value within science, then it is appropriately a hypothesis.

Why do Intelligent Designers (and/or those who support Intelligent Design) proselytize their ideology for fiercely in the face of science? This is something I have tossed around for awhile. Intelligent Design does not fit the criteria of science (thats a given), yet Intelligent Designers are combative enough to approach scientists "demanding" explanations for some flaw in science. I consider this a "Eureka Complex" (a term I devised, obviously). Waiting for a particular moment where the respondant says, "I don't know" before leaping in with their non scientific assertion. It's also interesting to note that philosophy is utilised more by the Intelligent Designer than science itself. If science is applied, its in a negative tone.

A question I have been asking for years, which has not been answered (and actually blatantly avoided and ignored) is:

Hypothetically, say science is wrong. Hypothetically, evolution is incorrect. Then give the Intelligent Design model using scientific methodology. Evolution would fail under scientific methodology, then show how Intelligent Design will excel above it, using scientific methodology.

All too often, scientists are put in a position to defend that which requires no defence. Intelligent Designers apply this a worthy and mainly successful technique - why?

Date: 2006/05/23 14:35:00, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hello, Stevestory

You said:

Quote
Is there a problem with considering "authority" in certain ways?


I do not consider C.S Lewis an authority on Morals, nor on the Laws of Man. I would consider Skinner, Kohlberg and even Gilligan, an authority on Morals.

I am currently completing an Essay for my Social Science Research Class which looks at validity, credibility and reliability of authoritative sources in relation to research in general. I find it interesting when using a source, how objective that source is. Was C.S Lewis a reliable source, credible and valid? No. A statement such as "in all of us there is a natural desire to reach communion with God".

Simplistically, would I go ask a Janitor with no higher education to give me an analysis of Mendel's Genetics? Would I seek out C.S Lewis to give me an analysis on Psychology?

Otherwise authoritative sources are good, if they are credible.

Date: 2006/05/23 15:02:18, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 24 2006,12:40)
If it had anything to do with science, ID would have been embraced, just like it's twin "creation science" would have years before.

There is, however, no way apparently to demonstrate that to the likes of AFDave.  Isn't it readily apparent why that is after a month of examining his mental masturbation?

Hello, Sir Toejam,

Indeed, for me it would be like clubbing a baby seal, slapping a corpse to make it go ouch, etc. I think it was Voltaire that said "It takes two to make a truth; one to speak it, the other to hear" - if I could coax someone into believing that I can levitate at will, shoot flames from my fingers, and recite the 2005 Complete Set of Britannica Encyclopedia, then wouldn't I be justified in my method of thinking? Then again it could be purposeful dissonance, purposeful attempt at dissension - any publicity is good publicity right? Hahaha.

By the way, as for Dembski's quote, I would LOVE to be paid for my research, for some its their job, for others its an ambition, for me its a paper requirement.

Date: 2006/05/23 18:33:30, Link
Author: Fractatious
Scientists (especially acclaimed) are often only heard when they have to refute a claim (in regards to Creationism and Intelligent Design). The Dover Case is a great (and recent) example of this. Intelligent Designers and Creationists have no problem mapping out their hypothesis, wrapped in philosophy, conjecture and science (often pseudo-science). In a previous posting, I posted an essay by Eric Cornell (Winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics) and his opinion of science in regards to religion. This time I will post my favourite scientist, Steven Weinberg, who is active in debating Intelligent Design and Creationism at Counter Balance (a formal forum of debate - where scientists battle out the science and religion puzzle).

Quote
I have been asked to comment on whether the universe shows signs of having been designed. I don't see how it's possible to talk about this without having at least some vague idea of what a designer would be like. Any possible universe could be explained as the work of some sort of designer. Even a universe that is completely chaotic, without any laws or regularities at all, could be supposed to have been designed by an idiot, as Macbeth suggested.

The Question to be Answered
The question that seems to me to be worth answering, and perhaps not impossible to answer, is whether the universe shows signs of having been designed by a deity more or less like those of traditional monotheistic religions --- not necessarily a figure from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but at least some sort of personality, some intelligence, who created the universe and has some special concern with life, in particular with human life. I expect that this is not the idea of a designer held by many here. You may tell me that you are thinking of something much more abstract, some cosmic spirit of order and harmony, as Einstein did. You are certainly free to think that way, but then I don't know why you use words like “designer” or “God,” except perhaps as a form of protective coloration. It would not surprise me to find that John Polkinghorne and I agree about what are the interesting questions; where we do disagree is in the answers.

It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful capabilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life. Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws we do know. The human mind remains extraordinarily difficult to understand, but so is the weather. We can't predict whether it will rain one month from today, but we do know the rules that govern the rain, even though we can't always calculate their consequences. I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.

Counterbalance - Steven Weinberg


And:

 
Quote
Steven Weinberg
Named 2002 Humanist of the Year


When the AHA board of directors voted unanimously to confer the Humanist of the Year Award upon Steven Weinberg, they took special note of his views on the latest version of creationism: intelligent design. In an address to the April 1999 conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he ended his address, saying: "I learned that the aim of this conference is to have a constructive dialogue between science and [traditional] religion. I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."

Responding to those making the point that today's "higher moral tone" found in some mainstream religious bodies is proof that religion, at least in the past century or so, has had a positive influence on society, Weinberg cites slavery: "Where religion did make a difference, it was more in support of slavery than in opposition to it. Arguments from scripture were used in Parliament to defend the slave trade."

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the media have been afloat in statements that to be good, patriotic, and loyal citizens we all must affirm belief in God. Citizen George W. Bush often remarks: "This is not a war about religion." In contrast, Weinberg's most memorable observation might well be: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil-that takes religion."

Weinberg founded the "theory group" upon arriving to teach at the University of Texas at Austin in 1982. There he holds the Josey Regental Chair of Science and is a member of both the physics and astronomy departments. In addition to receiving the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics, he is the recipient of the National Medal of Science, the Heinemann Prize in mathematical physics, the Madison Medal of Princeton University, and the Oppenheimer Prize, to name but a few. He is a member of the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society of London, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the International Astronomical Union, and the American Philosophical Society.

In addition to textbooks and technical writings, Weinberg has authored several books for general readers, among them the prize-winning The First Three Minutes and, more recently, Dreams of a Final Theory. He is a popular speaker to Humanist and free-thought groups.

American Humanist Association - Steven Weinberg

Date: 2006/05/23 21:10:03, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 24 2006,17:12)
Now, if a UFO were to land, and the aliens let us study them and give us a history of their development and technology, we would have a template to use to "filter for design" independent of the human one.

Can anybody tell me if they've met any aliens, supernatural beings, etc.?

Didn't Dembski use the alien movie "Contact" as an analogy for his "bleep-bleep-bleep-God"? Oh, some obscure mention of signals (bleeps) which on the surface appeared nothing more than bleeps but once translated, showed the "intelligence" within the "bleeps"? Hahaha. I'm sorry I'm laughing.. too many bleep for me to bleep with all this bleep.

Date: 2006/05/23 22:03:52, Link
Author: Fractatious
After reading Norms post, I felt I should add this from the National Academy of Science:

Quote
Don't many famous scientists reject evolution?

    No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred. For example, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." But Gould, an accomplished paleontologist and eloquent educator about evolution, was arguing about how evolution takes place. He was discussing whether the rate of change of species is slow and gradual or whether it takes place in bursts after long periods when little change occurs--an idea known as punctuated equilibrium. As Gould writes in response, "This quotation, although accurate as a partial citation, is dishonest in leaving out the following explanatory material showing my true purpose--to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself." Gould defines punctuated equilibrium as follows:


Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences.

Date: 2006/05/24 04:46:15, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hello, AF Dave.

 
Quote
Because the evolutionary science establishment cannot see the forest for the trees.


I snipped this portion, thought about it briefly and decided not to answer this as its already been covered numerous times on this very thread and I don't cultivate or encourage repitition where it comes down to almost blow-for-blow semantics. Your position is clear. I disagree with it, but its clear.


 
Quote
Surely you cannot really believe that C.S. Lewis is like a janitor?  Do you know nothing of his credentials?  Look, I don't agree with Dan Brown either, but I recognize that the man is brilliant and talented.  If you are going to discredit Lewis, one of the most influential Christian philosophers of the 20th century, you need something better than what you have given.


I find it vaguely interesting that you will take an analogy based on credentials and assume that I meant that Lewis was a Janitor - why did you do that?

Anyway I am aware of his history even (quote biographer, Alan Jacob based on letters that Lewis sent to Arthur Greeves) with Lewis "fascination in sadomasochism and sexual torture". I am aware that he was a professor of Literature (English). I am also aware that he was NOT a psychologist, his understanding of morality pays no semblance in regards to humans, to those leaders of psychology.

Date: 2006/05/24 08:12:10, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
No one has EVER told me that Humans and Chimps share more genetic similarity than say Chimps and Gorillas.  Is this true?


I found the usage of that quote interesting - interesting enough to use it and alter a few words around, such as:

No one has EVER told me actual Intelligent Design MODEL such as; X designed Y using Z methods, the overwhelming evidence which supports Z methods is P, therefore X is true.

Date: 2006/05/24 21:33:39, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hello, Ghost of Paley.

Quote
It is possible for humans to have knowledge without reading a word of Scripture, but the existence of that knowledge depends on the Bible being true.


A monotypic group (like the mesopatamians or mesoamericans, and pre neolithic asians and africans) had knowledge, without reading scripture that did not depend on the Bible being true.. did not depend on it period. Then what?

Quote
Students are not required to do every single experiement and observe every single piece of evidence by themselves. They are given the results via textbooks and journals, to be accepted on faith.


But if students wished to replicate those experiments (which many have, and will continue to do), this does not require faith. Unlike Intelligent Design and Creationism, it presents the research methodology in order to be replicated, in order to derive similar results, in order to be critiqued, and expanded upon. How do you think Intelligent Designers and Creationists get their negative information concerning science? Scientists conduct research, conduct experiments and register their findings. Those findings are made available. This is done so the flaws can be ironed out - for the Intelligent Designers and Creationists however, they do not view it as such - "why has science made this available?" a student of science will probably say "to show the method and to better both the research and experiment", the Intelligent Designer and Creationist will probably answer, "to prove science wrong, and God right".

Quote
What are journal results? They are testimony. No different from the testimony of those who observed Christ's empty tomb.


Journal results are recordings, they are recordings of a specific piece of research. How many times was Christ's tomb opened? How many accounts were given for this? Though I understand a need to (for the theistic person) correlate scientific methodology with religious faith, I fail to see how they can be compared with any great substance. One main point: Science does not require belief or faith, science requires scientific method. If it did, I would of prayed my way through my degree and probably got it.

Quote
This testimony is God's revelation beginning in the Garden of Eden. This is the only way to ground human knowledge.


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. From a historical perspective it is valid to state that the adherents to testimonial of God's revelation would rather isolate human knowledge, instead of watching it grow.

Date: 2006/05/25 21:43:17, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
Hello, Fractious One!


Hello, Ghost of Paley.

Quote
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.


As a newbie to this board, it takes time to build up an identity. Also as a newbie, I have an added advantage of identifying personalities already present on the board. So, I'll probably be saying this rather frequently (I imagine), but, "emotives really don't work on me, either on boards, in emails or in live chat". So, moving right along...

Quote
I specifically said the Bible was not necessary to have knowledge, but only to meta-justify knowledge.


"But only to meta-justify knowledge": that statement was not present. So you didn't "specifically say.." I reiterated that point for a reason (see below).

Quote
(I noticed you quoted me correctly and then claimed I said the opposite of what I actually did. You are a true idiot.)


I did quote you correctly. I also never made a claim, I made an analogy, which ended with a question. In the perchance I am misunderstood, I purposely structure out my statements so I *am* perfectly understood. Your statement came across in the same way I made an analogy. I ended with a question to gauge your thoughts on why you said what you said. So I'll restate my question in another way based again on your exact words:

You said: It is possible for humans to have knowledge without reading a word of Scripture, but the existence of that knowledge depends on the Bible being true.

It is possible for humans to have knowledge of what? Because you say "Scripture" then it has theological connotations. The existence however (according to your statement) depends upon the "Bible" being true. So this is a theological statement. I could take it to a cognitive debate but I will save that. Knowledge of God is possible, without scripture, but that knowledge relies on a biblical truth? How?

Quote
Evolutionists have different cultural traditions, but no more means of meta-justifying knowledge. As far as the rest of your point go, why don't read my bresponse to Eric, and grok it thoroughly before responding.


The evolutionary position is a tenuous as the theological position?

Deadman stated it correctly, you utilised epistemology. Its your epistemology versus empiricalism.

Date: 2006/05/25 21:47:14, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 26 2006,18:56)
Your post was on epistemology, Paley. I suggest you read up on it.

Bonjour mon doux,

I just read your post and you said everything that needed saying.

Merci.

Date: 2006/05/26 05:34:40, Link
Author: Fractatious
I read an article today and could not help but laugh. As follows:

Evolution, religion comments put heat on department spokesman

By Sophia Maines (Contact)

Friday, May 26, 2006

Normally, a government spokesman helps deliver news.

But David Awbrey, the mouthpiece for the Kansas State Department of Education, is making the news following his comments about science, evolution and religion at a recent public forum.

The controversy may drive him out of the job.

“I haven’t been house-trained in public relations,” Awbrey said Thursday, adding, “I’m going to have to spend some time during the next week or two thinking about where I’m going to go with my career.”

Awbrey is a Kansas University graduate and former newspaperman who once was editorial page editor for the Wichita Eagle.

At a Kansas City Press Club forum earlier this month, Awbrey argued that evolution proponents are practicing a religion. Supporting evolution, he said, is metaphysical speculation.

“Anyone see the origin?” he said. “Anyone see the Big Bang? Anyone see the dinosaurs? These are metaphysical speculations.”

Sue Gamble, a moderate Republican member of the state board who attended the forum, said she emphatically disagreed with the tone and content of Awbrey’s statements.

Janet Waugh, also a Democrat and board member, had similar sentiments.

“When he is doing his job as public information officer, he should not have an opinion,” said Waugh, who did not attend the forum. “When he is speaking for the board, he should represent the entire board. I think it was totally inappropriate.”

Conservative board member Kathy Martin, who did not attend the event, said she was unfamiliar with the issue, but said if she were a spokeswoman, she would make clear when she was speaking for herself and when she was speaking for the organization she represented.

Awbrey was hired in November by new state education Commissioner Bob Corkins to take the post of director of communications.

Having left the newspaper trade, he was planning on working as a school teacher, when Corkins tapped him for the communications director post.

Awbrey said his appearance at the forum was not on work time and he did not charge the state department for his mileage. He said he believed he was there to speak as a journalist and thought some people would know him from his former life — as a journalist and not a spokesman for the state department. But he also said that his boss, Bob Corkins, told him to go to the event.

“He was the one who sent me,” Awbrey said. “He told me to go.”

State Board Chairman Steve Abrams vouched for Awbrey.

“We were there as individuals and were speaking for ourselves,” he said.

Jack Krebs, of Kansas Citizens for Science, attended the event and posted audio recordings of the proceedings on the organization’s Web site, www.kcfs.org.

“They just didn’t invite him because he was an interesting journalist,” Krebs said. “He introduced himself as David Awbrey, director of communications.”

Awbrey’s statements provoked a Kansas resident to pen a letter to the editor that appeared in The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper.

“Mr. Awbrey’s starting salary at the KSDE is $76,000 per year,” wrote Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, of Hays. “He knows less about science than a beginning science teacher who will have to work for about 10 years to earn just half of Mr. Awbrey’s paycheck. Why is he telling that same teacher how science should be taught?”

Awbrey then wrote a reply.

“I think we should be humble and avoid claiming absolute knowledge of things that could well be beyond our intellectual or moral abilities to comprehend,” Awbrey wrote, signing the letter with his communications director title.

A self-described “theistic evolutionist,” Awbrey said Thursday he believes that both sides of the evolution debate are unyielding and both are engaged in metaphysical speculation.

“Both sides are practicing what I would say is a form of religion,” he said. “I think we need a little humility on both sides. I think we need to recognize that human knowledge is perhaps limited.”

Lawerence Journal World - source of article.

Date: 2006/05/26 16:32:41, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
At a Kansas City Press Club forum earlier this month, Awbrey argued that evolution proponents are practicing a religion. Supporting evolution, he said, is metaphysical speculation.


This reminded me of Ghost of Paley's comments on the AFDave thread. Basically if one can't lift religious ideology up to compete with science, then do whatever one can to reduce science to religious ideology.

"The cow jumped over the moon, which was a light giving source. This revolved around Earth doing its best to avoid a collosion with the sun, which was also revolving around the Earth. The little human laughed, to see such fun - however, God was not amused."

Date: 2006/05/26 16:41:32, Link
Author: Fractatious
In keeping with Theistic Blunders, may I present a selection of comments by Doctor Kent Hovind:

Hovind attributes this: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." to Professor Louis Bounoure, supposedly the former president of the Biological Society of 'Strasbourg'. A creationist web site actually gives a reference: The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17

Hovind: "All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3."

Hovind: "The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today."

Hovind: "The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times."

Hovind: "The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then."

Hovind: "Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation theory, Archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java Man, Neanderthal Man, etc.)?"

Date: 2006/05/26 20:01:34, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hello, Sir Toejam.

Quote
ever see one of his lectures to kids, Fractatious?

Thankfully, no *twitches*

Quote
Quote
"Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute
 
to be a good example of classic projection?


Possibly, but when you go through his other material it is blatantly obvious that he has very little knowledge on the topics he tries to discuss. In a conversation with him I asked him what an "allele" was and he could not answer. I think his bravado compensates for this.

Date: 2006/05/26 20:18:28, Link
Author: Fractatious
I would love to see him teach academic writing.

a) Be repititious.

b) Add less chapters than you claim to confuse your superiors.

c) Forget to discuss things you said you would.

d) Discuss things that have nothing to do with anything.

f) Get a crayola and scribble PHD across it.

Date: 2006/05/26 22:10:26, Link
Author: Fractatious
EDIT -

Quote
Montreal Protocol was for the elimination of Freon otherwise known as Hydrochlorofluorocarbons - HCFC.  I wonder how the Kyoto Protocol is doing though.


My apologies - it would seem that over the last few years they have decided to drop the H (Hydro) from the acronym (I just did a web research). However in the protocol orginally signed they used HCFC's buggers.

Date: 2006/05/27 01:01:10, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
Now kids, here is what you need to do, when you are in school and some teacher says, "Millions of years ago," just say, "Excuse me teacher, were you there?" They will say, "No, of course I wasn’t there millions of years ago." And say, "Teacher, do you know the earth is millions of years old or do you believe the earth is millions of years old?" See, that is not something you can know. You cannot test it, demonstrate it, prove it; you can only believe it. That is part of your religion, not part of a science. The earth cannot be billions of years old, in spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, it can only be a few thousand years old which we will cover here in just a minute.


I took awhile over this one, mainly to gauge the various angles it can take. So bear with me as I try and give structure to this from a psychological perspective.

"Now kids, here is what you need to do, when you are in school and some teacher says.. "

This is probably the most telling sentence, in the entire passage/paragraph. This is intent and purpose to achieve a goal and/or desire involving children. But let me step back for a second.. learning, and especially education has three stages which are: encoding, storage, and retrieval. It is Learning and Memory Stages, 3 to be precise. When this process is tampered with, its interference (aptly named). In Hovind's case its retroactive interference. Retroactive Inteference is "the disruption of memory by learning of other material during the retention interval" (Eysenck, 2004). Closely associated to "forgetting theories" this is actually used and or applied by abused people. I think what I am getting out is manipulation of the mind/indoctrination but in Hovind's case its premeditated. So yes, you possibly have a very, very good chance of presenting his videos to psychologists in America and have a standing case - I'm surprised it has not been done already.

Date: 2006/05/27 01:28:57, Link
Author: Fractatious
I am obviously a little slow moving around the board.

Ironically, I recently completed a paper (still awaiting my grade for it) concerning "abuse of children". (I posted concerning Hovind and manipulation/indoctrination on the Media Theistic Blunders thread but will focus on the legality and definition side of things).

My country is New Zealand. For those who don't know where that is, we're parked right next door to Australia with only the Tasman Sea separating us. Our politicians are battling out our Crimes Act, where in Section 59 it allows for parents or those acting in the role of a parent to hit a child with *reasonable force*. Yet it can be determined exactly what *reasonable force* will be. Considering too that if you hit your spouse, hit your employer/employee or hit an animal, you face immediate assault charges (hit can be defined as push and slap), it would seem that in relation to children, its subjectively defined. Ok, I'm getting off topic a tad bit but I do have a point to this.

Quote
1998 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


However religious families find away around a childs rights with:

Quote
Article 26.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.


These are sketchy, which is why the following is more vitally important when dealing with children.

Quote
Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 12

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Article 13

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.


The implications are quitec clear but the reality is vastly different. Most children are not aware of their rights. In fact, most adults are not aware of the rights of children.

Date: 2006/05/27 02:38:24, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

Date: 2006/05/27 15:23:42, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
When did we have the ability to start measuring global ozone levels? When we started measuring were the levels in an overall decline? Were they increasing in places and decreasing in others? Why?


I used this page as a statistical source while doing a paper of the Montreal Protocol.

Quotations:

"In the area over Antarctica, there are stratospheric cloud ice particles that are not present at warmer latitudes. Reactions occur on the surface of the ice particles that accelerate the ozone destruction caused by stratospheric chlorine. Polar regions get a much larger variation in sunlight than anywhere else, and during the 3 months of winter spend most of time in the dark without solar radiation. Temperatures hover around or below -80'C for much of the winter and the extremely low antarctic temperatures cause cloud formation in the relatively ''dry''stratosphere. These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules.  This phenomenon has caused documented decreases in ozone concentrations over Antarctica."

"In 1984, when the British first reported their findings, October ozone levels were about 35 percent lower than the average for the 1960s. When the first measurements were taken the drop in ozone levels in the stratosphere was so dramatic that at first the scientists thought their instruments were faulty."

"The U.S. satellite Nimbus-7 quickly confirmed the results, and the term Antarctic ozone hole entered popular language."

Source of Quotations.

Date: 2006/05/28 00:26:44, Link
Author: Fractatious
I am a fan of Ziyi Zhang (lesbianish fan) and sometimes when I chat in Yahoo, I use "Crouching Woman Hidden Tampon".

A friend of mine uses "Preparation H Medicated Asswipe".

Another friend uses "Deck My Balls With Lauren Holly"

Sorry now my brain just went blank.

Date: 2006/05/28 00:37:09, Link
Author: Fractatious
Step up to the plate President George Bush Junior.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"The world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership." George W Bush, White House, Oct. 28, 2003

Date: 2006/05/28 01:33:17, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 28 2006,07:00)
do you have the full reference to Eysenck, 2004?E

Eysenck, Michael W. (2004). An international perspective. New York: Psychology Press Ltd. (ISBN: 1-84169-361-8).

Chapter 9 - Human Memory (Theories of Forgetting).

Interference Theory

Interference theory can be traced back to Hugo Munsterberg in the nineteenth century. For many years, he kept his pocket watch in one particular pocket. When he started keeping it in a different pocket, he often fumbled about in confusion when asked for the time. He had learned an association between the stimulus, "What time is it, Hugo?", and the response of removing the watch from his pocket. Later on, the stimulus remained the same but a different response was now associated with it.

According to interference theory, our ability to remember what we are currently learning can be disrupted (or interfered with) either by what we have previously learned or by subsequent learning. When previous learning interferes with our memory of later learning, we have proactive interference (as shown in the case of Munsterberg and his pocket watch). When later learning disrupts memory for earlier learning, there is retroactive interference. Proactive and retroactive interference are both maximal when two different responses have been associated with the same stimulus; intermediate when two stimulus reponses have been associated with the same stimulus; and minimal when two different stimulus are involved (Underwood & Postman, 1960). (p. 306).

The role of conceptual recoding in reducing children's retroactive interference.

Howe ML.

Lakehead University, Department of Psychology, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada. mark.howe@lakeheadu.ca

Reductions in children's retroactive interference were examined with conceptual recoding. Children learned two 10-item lists of toys; items on the 2nd list could also be classified as vehicles. Some children were not told about this 2nd category, whereas others were told either at the end of acquisition or just prior to the retention test 24 hr later. The results showed that (a) children benefited from the recoding instruction, (b) younger but not older children failed to benefit from the recoding manipulation when it occurred just prior to the retention test, and © recoding reduced retroactive interference primarily through affecting storage processes. These results provide new evidence concerning the importance of making information distinctive in storage in children's retention. (© 2004 APA, all rights reserved) (Source)

I'm just currently reading through my Clinical Child Psychology (Walker and Roberts) book (3 inches thick) yay me.

Date: 2006/05/28 04:22:09, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hello, AFDave.

Quote
World Book.  World, History of the.  People have probably lived on the earth about 2 million years.  But the story of world history begins only about 5,500 years ago with the invention of writing.


This is the social science researcher in me curious. But do you have "Author. (Year). Title. Extract. (Edition). Location: Publisher. (page entry)" handy? Also, the social science researcher in me is asking for the reliability of the source (not necessarily the authenticity except for the reference). Possibly both phylogenic and geologic support.

In addition I'd just like to add:

Egypt - Thoth was credited with the origins of writing and the written word (Egyptian Book of the Dead).

Sumer - Enlil was credited with the origins of writing and the written word.

Mesoamerica - Itzamna was credited with the origins of writing and the written word.

Three Gods. The era is the Mesolithic. Conforms with the time frame given by "World Book."

Date: 2006/05/28 13:57:12, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
Can you tell me there was never an ozone hole before? Was there an ozone hole in 1850? Yes or no.


The start of the industrial era? Scientists claim this is when trouble with the ozone layer started, yes. How factual is that? I have NO idea.

Date: 2006/05/28 17:23:26, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
I read these things over 10-15 years ago when I had access to research libraries.  the web links were nonexistent, otherwise I would be glad to.


This I can do through my universities online data base and meta links. Which I will do very soon.

Example:

BIRA-IASB Develops New Online Ozone Forecasting Service.(Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy)(Brief Article).

Ozone Depletion Network Online Today (Nov 7, 2003): p0.

Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2003 EIN Publishing, Inc.

The European Space Agency (ESA) recently announced that the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy (BIRA-IASB) has developed a new online "near-real time global ozone forecasting service," known as the Belgian Assimilation System of Chemical Observations from Envisat (BASCOE), that "maps and forecasts not only the concentration of ozone in the stratosphere but also 56 other chemical species, including those responsible for ozone depletion."

According to ESA, BASCOE relies upon an instrument aboard the environmental monitoring satellite Envisat known as the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS), which "works day and night to measure infrared emissions from the Earth's 'limb' -- the narrow band of atmosphere between the planetary surface and empty space."

"The stratosphere is one of the best-understood areas of atmospheric chemistry, a fact which makes the BASCOE model possible," said BIRA-IASB official Dominique Fonteyn. "In fact this model predates the launch of Envisat, and was originally intended simply as a summary of our existing understanding of stratospheric chemistry. But the large amount of work that went into it -- some 50,000 lines of code -- made us look at using it in other ways, and assimilating Envisat data into it for operational use."

ESA noted that users of BASCOE, which is available online at http://bascoe.oma.be, can obtain forecasts of global ozone levels for the week ahead as well as maps of nitric acid trihydrate (NAT) and active chlorine (CIOx), "both implicated in ozone thinning."

Contact: ESA, website http://www.esa.int.

(EIN STAFF: 10/31)

Copyright © 2003 by EIN Publishing, Inc.

Source Citation: "BIRA-IASB Develops New Online Ozone Forecasting Service.(Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy)(Brief Article)." Ozone Depletion Network Online Today (Nov 7, 2003): 0. InfoTrac OneFile. Thomson Gale. University of Waikato Library. 28 May. 2006

(I'm not sure if the link will work without a login)

Source Article.

Date: 2006/05/30 20:09:25, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
Fractatious,

Just link directly to the article. If someone has an institutional subscription, then they'll see it. If not, they'll be prompted to give their password anyway.


I did. Right at the bottom of what I posted. I am using my Universities server and I don't think any here will have their login - it (my University) wraps itself with the article.

Date: 2006/05/30 20:17:41, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (beervolcano @ May 29 2006,12:36)
know in New Zealand who works for the Environment Ministry who (I thought) deals with ozone specifically. Turns out he deals with UV indexes but he did, well, I'll just paste in a bit of his email:  

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/ozone/
Quote
and it's no joke. The sunburns are surreal

Unless you're a nice brown - they it takes an extra 7 minutes to cook your ass (knows from experience).

Date: 2006/06/06 05:30:37, Link
Author: Fractatious
Fitting name.

Umm are those two fishes doing reprehensible things?  ; ???

Date: 2006/06/06 05:41:09, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (acriticaleye @ May 29 2006,16:40)
origins are important though, if theres no I.D.er then where did the laws of phisics, time and space come from?

Well this is a tricky question so I'll do my best to answer it. Where did the Laws of Physics (erm, phisics), Space and Time come from?

Lets narrow down the options: Vampires, werewolves, unicorns, dragons, phoenix, purple elephants with wings, dinosaurs, fairies, neopets, trolls, billy goat gruff, the tellie tubbies, Bert and Ernie, Beavis and Butthead, Bart Simpson, Bugs Bunny, oh Chuck Norris.

I'm sure I'm missing something *tilts head*

Righty-oh - mankind (two arms, two legs, some even have a brain) create laws in which to define the Universe. This aids in our understanding of it. I go with Chuck Norris, personally.

Date: 2006/06/06 13:38:16, Link
Author: Fractatious
Civil Union marriage is legal in my country - American Society is doomed.  :O

Date: 2006/06/06 14:49:49, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2006,11:45)
Quote
Civil Union marriage is legal in my country
Did all your heterosexual marriages implode as a result?

This means that religion does not have a hold over the rights of individuals from a political level (unlike a big nation I know of). Probably to do with our gay and lesbian political representatives, our transgendered politician and our atheist agnostic leader!

Fractatious

_its all about the spinchter_

Date: 2007/02/01 05:51:19, Link
Author: Fractatious
Ah.. k. So what is the scientific model and argument for ID?

Date: 2007/02/01 06:00:12, Link
Author: Fractatious
Kick start to help Avocationist:

1. Who and/or what is the Intelligent Designer (identification)?

2. What is the supporting model?

3. What is the testability of that model (and falsifiability)?

4. What are the predictions?

This is pretty straight forwards (by all appearances). Merely an answer is required to each question. It does not need the antithesis to support it - it should be self supporting on the questions alone.

*waits*

Date: 2007/02/01 06:36:30, Link
Author: Fractatious
Out of curiosity (and from the other thread which I interact under Fractatious and Serendipity), but that Dem your first post actually had nothing to do with the topic of ID (I could be wrong and will happily look back over that thread) and now its led to this thread (which was nice of Louis to do). However, the other thread started with "ID and support of it". From my point of view this is merely emotive diversion - if there is a real issue with posts and individuals - that would be something better taken up with the moderators.

Date: 2007/02/01 06:47:45, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hi Louis,

I mentioned to Deadman some stuff I picked up. Like the point that Dem joined under a week ago. Also that the structural pattern is similar. I have a habit of making comparisons because thats what I'm paid to do - I am paid to detect patterns in human behaviour, and notice nuances.

That aside (and easily equated to personas again) its successfully brought the other thread to a stand-still - for now. So perhaps Dem's complaints can be taken up by the moderators.

Just a thought.

Date: 2007/02/01 07:07:31, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,23:58)
Fractatious,

I didn't mean to disrupt the other thread and apologies for doing so. This thread has been open for a while (check first post) because it's actually an issue I'm interested in and one that raises it's head from time to time. Demallien seems an interesting person to take up the discussion with because he/she/it disagrees (apparently, although I am not yet sure, it's kind of hard to pick through the misunderstandings he/she/it has made) with my argument.

If Demallien wishes to bother the mods with complaints about Lenny's comments, then Demallien should of course go right ahead. I hope you'll permit me this thread to discuss the wider issue though, because as I said it s one that has long been on my mind.

Louis

Louis,

I'm not complaining about the disruption - considering the lack of substantiation on the other thread by Avocationist dispite the numerous requests - something had to give. But thank you for considerately pulling the "dispute" onto this thread, therefore laying the foundations for me to reintroduce the original topic back onto the thread.

I moderate an AvC email group. Because of the nature of the group complaints sprout their heads. Merely a warning towards the diversity of content, and also that people are not forced to read and/or post assists in the area of "complaints". Also being an email discussion group, I encourage people to use their spam filters. I am not sure if these boards have any such facilities - if they do, they should be stressed.

However I am now curious as to what is termed as "abuse".

Date: 2007/02/01 07:10:43, Link
Author: Fractatious
There is a "report this post to the moderator" under people's messages. If one is not happy - regardless of what they define abuse to be - they should use it.

Just a thought.

Date: 2007/02/01 07:17:34, Link
Author: Fractatious
Well this is hardly a formal debate with a mediator to assure opponents are kept on track. If it were, I'd be laying complaints about every ID'er I encounter based on "lack of education" and "wasting time" because they end up getting a FREE education (unless there is a way to charge them for condensing 6 years of biology into single threads).

"How DARE you abuse my TIME"

I also consider Benny Hinn's hair to be abusive.

Date: 2007/02/01 07:35:22, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 02 2007,00:17)
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:30)
Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.

I have not been "abusive".  I have been TRUTHFUL.  Avo ***IS*** a pig-ignorant uninformed dolt who should get her uneducated ass to a library and learn what she is talking about BEFORE she talks about it.

Sorry if Avo doesn't like it.

Sorry if YOU don't like it either.

(shrug)

I agree, what Dr. Lenny just said isn't "abusive". Brusque, CHECK! Honest, CHECK! Made me laugh, CHECK!

Date: 2007/02/01 07:46:03, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,00:33)
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:48)
Lenny, I would never presume to dream of being able to reach your level of abuse.

Demallien,

Pig-ignorant is apt. Ever chase pigs around a paddock? Ever wonder why they eventually end up running in circles making lots of noises? This is the most amusing part of my job when I go visit clients and end up being Farmer Joe having to chase bloody chooks because the male is strapped up to police monitor that will trigger security if he goes into the paddock and his elderly mother who looks like she'll drop dead just trying to climb the fence, THEN having to chase silly little pigs with a dog after you - oh yes, PIG IGNORANT is a good term. They cause a catastrophe in their wake because they run around with no clear direction! *scowls*

Louis,

Benny Hinn's hair is VERY abusive. Dembski merely reminds me of a contender for the special olympics - javlin up the ass competitor. (Oh god lords, I may be considered as abusive now - bite me). ID'ers and Creationists formulate their lives on purposely sifting through data to get to presuppositional bullshit, then engage in debates and DEMAND scientific substantiation. Lying then becomes a norm in order to overlook being corrected.

On the "For the Love of.. " thread, I addressed Avo's points on LoT and zilch. Even with her admittance of not knowing maths, she still made a claim towards LoT, I responded and zilch. Phhttt. This is the internet, I'm sure if ID'ers can log onto a board, they can websearch for information on biology, thus saving time. Instead of wasting it.

Date: 2007/02/01 08:03:02, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,00:37)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,07:35)
I agree, what Dr. Lenny just said isn't "abusive". Brusque, CHECK! Honest, CHECK! Made me laugh, CHECK!

Actually, truth be known, if I had found Lenny's insults original, and hence amusing, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the original post to start with.  It was because of the constant boring repetition that he finally annoyed me enough to complain...

You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious...

Inanity amuses me. Emotive verbiage amuses me. Sarcasm amuses me. I consult Diogenes of Sinope for my amusement.

Date: 2007/02/01 08:05:35, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,00:45)
Quote
You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious...

Well, in PM, we were certainly laughing over your histrionic double-speak hypocrisy, yeah.

Well yes there was that, and your teaching me how to flex my buttocks.

Date: 2007/02/01 08:14:42, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,00:47)
 
Quote
I have to say I prefer real names, they make things.....nicer somehow I suppose.

Hi Louis, I'm Jo (short for Josephine). My boss already knows how bad I can be both online and off so I have no problem saying I work for a Health and Social Services Provider. Google will just bring up THIS - its a considerabl waste of my time to hide my identity online, and especially on this forum where Deadman is on. Even if he was not here, it wouldn't worry me.

I vehemently agree on your discussion on liars and hypocrites. Also on what you term as abuse.

I'd like to reiterate again, people are not forced to read or even post. If this board does not have an ignore function, I'm sure people have the ability to just scroll past the people that they consider abusive and who they do not want to read.

Jo

[editted]

Date: 2007/02/01 08:28:09, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,01:21)
I want Deadman and Fractatious to be wrong about this.

Woah wait a sec - I'm never wrong!  ;)

1. The other board had a good discussion going on.

2. It was brought to a screeching halt with claims of abuse.

3. Louis was considerate enough to shift that thread to a more appropriate thread.

4. Hopefully the previous thread will restart where it left off BEFORE the claims of "abuse".

5. It's almost unanimous, that most posting here will not tolerate lying or hypocrisy.

6. Censorship does not have a strong filter on this board (good).

So, what is an amicable solution - making note that it would be agreeable by all?

Date: 2007/02/01 08:55:32, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hi Louis

Quote
Tchoh! Typical woman! ;)


I suppose that's better than being called atypical :D

Quote
ARGH NO!!!! STOP!!! WHY ARE YOU HITTING ME??!!?!?!


Because the chipmunks are taking a 15 minute break.

Quote
Setting fire to sanctimonious hypocrites who complain about the use of the word "fuck"? I'M KIDDING!!!! WHY ARE YOU ALL HITTING ME AGAIN???!?!?! Oh a spanking! Excellent!


I'm a huge campaigner for immolation. I mean, its FREE. Takes very little resources. G'#### chipmunks are still on break!

Quote
No idea. I will attempt to modify my language so that I don't fucking swear so fucking much. As I'm only fucking human, I may fuck up once in a while though, so don't fuck me over about it too fucking often. Lenny should continue as is, and we should all learn to love one another for our differences, not in spite of them.


Lenny is all about the FREEDOM OF SPEECH *screeches off a random national anthem* But I'm curious as to why Deadman is underfire.. I mean he's the most placcid flaccid, hippy tree planting, fungus finding kind of guys! There is NO issue!

Date: 2007/02/01 09:15:47, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,02:04)
Mein Gott, she called ME "flaccid?" After all those hours I spent sweating and ...I AM INSULTED...I call the thread polizia NOW!! Luigi, da me il telefono!!

It was said con l' amore! Picollo fiore *commences with bodily fluid exchanges* Sweating like the asino? *blinks innocently* I think it was drowned out with snoring.

L' adoro! *I'm such the Senorita Juano!"

Date: 2007/02/01 09:37:43, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,02:21)
Jo,

mmmm chipmunks.

Calling Deadman flaccid....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh that's just CRUEL! DO you know what that does to a boy's confidence?

Louis



I recant, he is a mighty tree!

Date: 2007/02/01 09:48:52, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
What do you think my motivation was for complaining about the abuse against Avocationist on the original thread?


I was not actually looking for a recap - that has been recapped, and mostly to be recapped again. Unless such an analysis will contribute towards solutions.

 
Quote
What are we here for if it's not to explain to people why evolution is correct, and that ID/Creationism is snake oil?


This is exactly where intellectual honesty is required.

 
Quote
Again, in my opinion, the undecided onlooker is going to feel much more sympathy for Avocationist than for us, and hence, much more likely to accept her point of view.


On that thread under Serendipity - I *was* an onlooker, a very polite onlooker, who took up her discussion on entropy. There were others on that particular thread who were polite. That she chose to select her "aggressors" to communicate with - well, if you leap into a pit of vipers... she could just of easily been very selective on who she conversed with.

That being said, there are a variety of solutions:

1. Moderators become strict and peruse each post (time consuming).

2. Moderator lays down the board laws and upholds them (which requires 1.)

3. People take responsibility for themselves on these boards and decide what they will respond to and what they wont (easiest solution).

4. Everyone becomes Mr. and Ms. Polite and communication becomes easier (asking for a miracle here).

Date: 2007/02/01 10:12:02, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,02:55)
Now, should we humble few be faced with hypocrisy, dishonesty, deceit, bigotry, intellectual dishonesty, weaselling, obfuscation etc I would imagine that we might be vastly less than polite or reasonable. But, as Demallien says, it's entirely situational.

Louis,

Well thats where immolation is free.

However, the issue isn't "should behaviour be modified to account for other posters"? The issue is, that it is obvious that people have a tolerance level before kelvin intervenes.

I suppose now would be a good time to air my position as opposed to critiquing responses:

Avocationist mentioned that she has taken the time to read material, learn and picked her position (here's the recap, I know - bite me). However the position was biased. It was specifically biased against evidential science/data. Of course, for those kind folks who have expended time and neuron power to learn this - encountering a person who claims or at leasts hints towards knowing the arguments, who obviously does NOT *know* the counter arguments - this becomes tedious. It becomes tedious even more so when said person keeps arguing even while admitting they may not be learned in the specific areas they are arguing with (such as Thermodynamics).

I take into account that the majority of english typing people I will meet online are American, and being aware of the battle of trying to erase evolution from schools and basically attempting to create a theocratic state - that such groups will have say, a lower tolerance level than I (note: I'm good at cloaking my rage).

I take into account the amount of people who have learnt biology and can speak proficiently on the topic and debate it, to encounter a person that has only perused the religious refutations against science and very little else.

I take into account a need for accountability and honesty.

Thus I have understanding and also share my lack of tolerance towards those who proselytize a paradigm that is one dimensional.

One last thing: when attempting to berate people on behaviour and conduct (that is, abuse and insult) it does not help by calling them "blithering idiots". Not for the sheer fact that Deadman is one of the most widely learned individuals I have ever had the pleasure to meet - but that, that "don't be rude and abusive" falls over when tagged with "don't be rude and abusive, you blithering idiot".

Date: 2007/02/01 10:18:23, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,03:01)
Ahem. By the way, mon petit chou, THIS will be more accurate in the future -- Yee-Haw!:

*laughs* mon chene puissant, I'm going to have nightmares of cactus-looking-enemas! Now I have that song "Rocketman" locked in my head *weeps*

Date: 2007/02/01 12:13:06, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,04:42)
deadbeat,

I've said it before, I'll say it again:
get a clue, get a life.  

Having done so, report bback, and I may take you seriously

Bold inserted by me: that was just a childish usage of a name. Considering there was no humour in that (such as the humourous dialogue by myself, Louis and Deadman earlier) none can be picked up from this dialogue. Having said that, this would make this moot to discuss.

Date: 2007/02/02 01:16:41, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,17:04)
Quote (k.e @ Feb. 01 2007,23:51)
Luckily for your country and the rest of the 'free world' some VERY BRAVE PARENTS in DOVER took up the challenge the politicians were too scared take up themselves.

I doubt very much that my country of birth, or my country of residence care much at all about the result of Dover, k.e.  This is strictly a US problem (for the time being at least)

It was also a New Zealand issue. As a leader in the field of biology education - we took great interest in the Dover Case. It set down boundaries between science and religion. If memory serves me right, Australia took an interest in it relating to law.

Here

Date: 2007/02/02 03:08:39, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,19:00)
Quote
It was also a New Zealand issue. As a leader in the field of biology education - we took great interest in the Dover Case. It set down boundaries between science and religion. If memory serves me right, Australia took an interest in it relating to law.

Here


Are you trying to tell us that New Zealand is at moderate risk of adopting ID in the school classroom in the near future?!?!

I can't see any other way that Dover would be of interest to a country.  But maybe I'm missing something.

No, I am telling you that it is of interest. It is of interest because much like Roe vs. Wade, it has set down boundaries. Australia was very interested in it. Not because of Creationism but as I said before, the boundaries between science and religion.

Date: 2007/02/02 03:15:40, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 01 2007,17:30)
Renewed Moderation Efforts

Beginning now, everyone here treats everone else here with respect or they get Bathroom Walled or just deleted. A little snark will be allowed. We're a snarky lot, so things like "check out this new blog by Casey Luskin, what a dork" will be permitted, but that's about it. If you have to be mean or rude, put it on the Bathroom Wall. The Bathroom Wall is the place to scrawl all your obscenities and dirty limericks, and it won't be moderated like the rest of the board.

Ah bu.. but  ;) obscenities are allowed, right?!?  ???  Oh phooey! *scampers off to the Bathroom*

Date: 2007/02/02 03:18:45, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 01 2007,20:45)
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 817
Joined: Feb. 2005

Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 01 2007,12:05)
Demallien:

I hate to say I told you so, but.....let's just say living in the South gives one plenty of experience in dealing with low-grade bullies and sociopaths. Don't let the hyenas get to you -- just tune them out and seek out people worth dealing with. I know you're an adult and you don't need any advice from a rascal like myself, but I don't want you leaving this board due to the baiting of assholes. Just be content that their true nature has been revealed for anyone with eyes to see.

I'd like to clear one thing up, however: I accept evolutionary biology. I know it's easy to confuse me with my parody (my fault entirely), but I'm actually rather pro-science. I'm just a little eccentric in how I show it.

;)

Go find another bridge, troll.


(apologies to the Politeness Police)

Why did this one get smacked up agains the bathroom wall?

Date: 2007/02/02 19:26:36, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hello, Avocationist..
Quote
could you clarify your question?

I honestly have forgotten what it specifically related too except some vague memory of "beyond quantum". That being said (and my being rather lazy at the moment to go back through the thread to recheck) - is there anything smaller than quanta?

Frac aka Serendipity.

Date: 2007/02/03 00:12:05, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,05:50)

Quote
Avocationist was undoubtably stressed by just that.

I'm curious but at what stage do people take responsibility and accountability for themselves on these boards? Having said that, it is what I stress to people on the groups I moderate.
Quote
If someone comes to debate here, they are going to have to deal with that level of heat.

And, if they can't deal with it, does everyone go running to Steve??
Quote
But on top of that there where the snide remarks attacking her intelligence

Yes, much how when deadman was called "deadbeat" and an idiot on this thread? C'mon!
Quote
The pack then turned it's attention to me, and we then got to see that abuse has just about become ritualised on this board.  First come the snide remarks on my reading comprehension.

Victimisation works, if you are not a perpetrator.
Quote
I was accused by 3 people at once, repeatedly, of being a hypocrite.

Actually if I remember correctly, Louis was stating how he responds TO hypocrisy. I responded to that. Then you called deadman an "idiot" - he called you a "hypocrite".

*sighs* this is totally juvenile. This is NOT a controlled debate forum. It's unfair to expect Steve (who you are appealing to) to monitor everything on this board because an individual and/or individuals do not know how to filter out what they will and will not respond to.

Date: 2007/02/03 00:31:07, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
Why is it drivel? Someone responds to the idea of other dimensions as if they were a magical idea, and I point out that if they exist, they are invisible to us. As you mentioned yourself, it is a part of string theory. If the string theorists are right, then those other dimensions are the bedrock of what we call reality, and yet we can't perceive those dimensions. We already know that there is a world of the unseen - life forms, molecules, atoms. We know that we can perceive but a small band of the electromagnetic spectrum, and yet people perist in always thinking that the latest discovery is the final and last. That we have already uncovered so much of the unseen, should instead have the opposite effect.


I had a vision of Zeno's Paradox blended with Olber's Paradox when I read this. It also appears to be leading away from what is known, to delve into what is unknown and thus blur the known because of it - make sense?

For example, the usage of Super String - which works on a map of space in relation to a string, and that strings coordinates on that map. It is quantum fielding. Having said that, many tend to think that quantum mechanics is this mystical side of physics when its not. Hence computation is the basis behind predictions of Superstring.

Making appeals to science because of incomplete data does not substantiate anything except researchers in science - and that they have more work to do.

Date: 2007/02/03 00:36:34, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
You also might note that I got what I wanted out of the discussion deadman, which is to say better moderation on this forum.


Yes, control.

Date: 2007/02/03 03:25:06, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
You, as with others, seem to be under the impression that I think that no insults should ever be uttered on this board

No I don't. Nor have I ever said that. This is NOT a formal debate. Therefore THIS does NOT afford constant monitoring.
Quote
and hence that I am a hypocrite for insulting deadman

If you are going to stress a point about behaviour, then keep within the boundaries of that behaviour. Simple. Otherwise it will rear up and bite you in the ass. "Do as I say, not as I do"
Quote
We aren't here to rehash all those arguments, but rather to try and find a way of preventing such situations in the future.

I was asking for solutions a ways back..
Quote
I'm appealling to Steve???


Well, you said:

Steve,  I'm not sure that people have really grasped where the incivility was in the last couple of discussions.  Let me explain from my point of view, at first as a bystander, and then secondly as the target.
Found here:
Link
Quote
You may choose to suggest that the attack was reasonable - I disagree, and that is a debate for elsewhere.

Ok, there is a  lot presupposition as to what I supposed am doing, posting, claiming AND thinking. So I will lay this out to save further confusion.

On these message boards as with any message boards and/or chat group and/or email group, people who decide to engage in discussions need to take responsbility and accountability for themselves. Avocationist is more than articulate enough to speak for herself. Avocationist is more than proficient enough to debate this subject for herself. The mere fact that Avocationist is debating on the other thread, is adequate grounds to say that Avocationist knows what she is doing. Also, that Avocationist chose not to speak to those insulting her, shows that Avocationist actually has taken responsibility into her hands to decide what she will and will not do - and much credit to Avocationist on that score. Avocationist is also back debating again. Probably with no long term psychological effects.

Deadman is my partner (or SO as Ichyt calls him) and the only time I intervened on his dialogue was when he was called "Deadbeat" however, I credit him with his own personal accountability and responsibility not to cock-block his discussions with anyone on any board. Nor do I defend him - he's more than capable of doing that himself - however I will pick out certain things said - that don't synchronise - one of those being "deadbeat".

The sheer fact that this has escalated to the realms it has, is a controlling factor. Who can do what, when, where, to whom, and why, and who should sort it out. It should never have escalated this far.

So let me reiterate this:

1. Personal responsibility and accountability is needed by individuals who enter onto boards where debate is present - there are opposing sides, and where it is not a FORMAL debate.

2. Avocationist is a big girl, highly articulate, eloquent and possessing skills to debate. Not to diminish anything she has done - her break away has infused her to continue debating - making this discussion MOOT.

3. Louis has conducted himself in a manner which I find to be amicable, stressing what he will and will not tolerate. In doing so he has set down his boundaries. It is up to others to accept those boundaries or not. If they accept them, then obviously it will be on the understanding of those boundaries. The same applies to Dr. Lenny, Deadman and anyone else here. Yourself included.

4. I have read many things, and I noticed that Avocationist has done the same - has she replied to everything that has been insulting? No. Why? Because she has started to self-filter. Which she is doing again on the thread named after her.

Conclusion: The original topic is back in full swing, after Avocationists short vacation - she did mention she would be away for awhile. Obviously not long lasting and with no long term negative effects. Positions have been stated, made clear and thats more than anyone could ask for - boundaries were laid down by specific people. Also, people are NOT forced to log in. They are not FORCED to answer. Why they chose to, is solely their responsibility.

I hope that's made it more clearer. If not, ask, and I'll restate it again.

Date: 2007/02/03 04:44:13, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
But if I haven't said that nobody should ever insult each other on the board, then it's not hypocrisy for me to insult someone "Do as I say, not do as I do" .  

This is really not very difficult to understand Jo.

Good because that is why I brought the focus back on Avocationist - this should never have been personalised. It's not about YOU, its not about ME, its not about DEADMAN, or LOUIS. If in fact its about anyone, its about STEVE. I made sure I never personalised it and dealt with the context of this. That should not be difficult to understand.

What should be understood is that this was raised - the only person with a major issue was you. It was evidently Steve's job to fix it - he has done his best considering. This continued topic all goes back to Steve - as the moderator. As a moderator myself, the best one could hope for to ensure Steve's job is made easier is to help him find a solution - are you DOING THAT?

The rest of what you are saying to me in your posts now are POINTLESS - sorry but thats true. It's absolutely POINTLESS. So stop being a cause and find a solution.

I have offered solutions - I will again.

Personal responsibility - personal accountability. Screen what you respond to. Simple.

Date: 2007/02/03 04:49:53, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 03 2007,15:55)
I think it is accurate to say, without exaggeration, that no being has ever been exposed to such emasculating, dehumanizing mockery as I was when not only was I forced to read k.e say "gerbils" but I was then assaulted by the terrifying visage of Dieter.

I am crying as I write this because this is the same Dieter whose demonic posturings and contortions are shown to millions of callow youths as he prances and capers like Satan himself across the graves of countless innocents.

I am crying because my shaking fear now knows no bounds since others have seen fit to torture my senses with their pixels of furious hate.

I am crying because now mankind itself is endangered.

I am crying because now my life has lost all meaning and I stand at the precipice of madness, staring into the dark abyss of nihilistic suicide.

I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY.

Mon cherie,

Vous etes une telle reine de drame. Je ris a vous hahaha.

Je vous adore ;)

Date: 2007/02/03 05:13:24, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 04 2007,00:04)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:49)
Mon cherie,

Vous etes une telle reine de drame. Je ris a vous hahaha.

Je vous adore ;)

Mon chéri... à moins qu'il soit moins homme qu'on a cru ;-)

Peut etre je demanderai pardon en avance pour ce commentaire hahaha. Votre conflit n'est pas la mine mais si vous voulez etre plus d'un homme qu'il est, alors etre mon invite  :p

Date: 2007/02/03 05:17:21, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,00:13)
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 04 2007,00:04)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:49)
Mon cherie,

Vous etes une telle reine de drame. Je ris a vous hahaha.

Je vous adore ;)

Mon chéri... à moins qu'il soit moins homme qu'on a cru ;-)

Peut etre je demanderai pardon en avance pour ce commentaire hahaha. Votre conflit n'est pas la mine mais si vous voulez etre plus d'un homme qu'il est, alors etre mon invite  :p

Votre correction de cher a ete note, a ete catalogue.

Naku noa, Deadman,

Kei pakeha korero tutai tenei.

Poi marie, taku tane hoa.

Jo

Date: 2007/02/03 05:28:13, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
If you don't actually have a scientific argument for ID, then do us all a favour and just say so.  I'll promise never to bring the subject up again.
If you like I'll provide you with some escape phrases.


I'll directly cite off GodandScience Website:

Characteristics of a Successful ID Model

1. The intelligent Designer is identified
2. The model is detailed
3. The model can be refined
4. The model is testable and falsifiable
5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA

Full Transcript Here.

Date: 2007/02/03 05:58:22, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
Which is where my proposed solution (a few posts back)comes in.  Firstly, that everyone tries to stay civil (my position right from word go), and when they slip, the moderator gives a simple warning in-thread.  This seems to be what Steve is now doing (he almost certainly came up with this independently though - wouldn't want to be accused of trying to claim credit by an uncharitable reader)- we'll see how it turns out.


So where exactly does this exclude personal responsibility (being civil) and personal accountability (moderation)? Let me map this out where you will understand:

Personal responsibility: Being responsible for ones conduct on the board. Being responsible for what one responds to, and how. Being responsible as a whole in communication - in particular ones own communication because you very well can't adequately predict and control another person's communication - therefore start with and focus on, ones personal self.

Personal accountability: If one does not conduct themselves in a manner befitting the usual discourse, then one must face the consequences. Usually having a moderator intervene.

So nothing you have said excludes what I have structured out, in fact, it's fully covered by what I have said.

Date: 2007/02/03 15:42:22, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 04 2007,08:05)
Need I say more?

Je crache dans votre visage!!!!

Date: 2007/02/03 15:44:50, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 04 2007,08:41)
Lissen up: you people should learn American and use it like normal human beings: if it was good enough for the Jesus and the Bible, it's good enough for me.
Damm furriners. - dt

Je dis ceci avec l'amour - me mordre  :)

Date: 2007/02/04 00:04:11, Link
Author: Fractatious
Hello, Avocationist.

Below is the chronology of our discussion (if it can be called that):

Found here is: "Other dimensions are not supernatural. They are very much part of your reality. I personally think the subquantum, sub-planck-length may be a divide into another, smaller dimension. That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?"

My response here is: "Anyway, heading towards a more reductionist view (it seems) how would Planck and Classical Quantum (Gauge Field) be divided into smaller microstats?"

Followed here with your: "could you clarify your question?"

Followed with my: "I honestly have forgotten what it specifically related too except some vague memory of "beyond quantum". That being said (and my being rather lazy at the moment to go back through the thread to recheck) - is there anything smaller than quanta?"

Which has eventually lead us to this:
 
Quote
You do love to talk over my head. I never said that science would accept other dimensions without proof, or at least clues to their existence. I merely mentioned other dimensions for reasons I have long since forgotten, and got a response from somebody, as though it were a silly or magical idea. And my point was that IF there are other dimensions, they will be just as real and just as much part of our reality as the three or four we currently approve of. And they came back with the problem that we can't see them. So then my point was, don't let that be such a barrier, in light of what we have already discovered that was unseen or dreamt of a mere 2 or 3 or so hundred years ago.

As to whether there is anything smaller than quanta, I am not sure. A quanta is the smallest unit of energy? If it is the smallest unit, then by definition there is nothing smaller. Where do the proposed strings fit into this picture? By the way, the book I mentioned reading is called Beyond The Big Bang.

At any rate, I'm perpelxed by your last post (in English, that is). I didn't know about a Biblical ID model. I guess there could be one. But why did you post it? If I would look for ancient wisdom as regards cosmology or human history,  I'd probably look at Hindu sources.

I find the Biblical Genesis creation mythos rather nice, and reasonably compatible with science, and open to many different possible interpretations.


You are obviously confusing discussions. I answered a post made about Superstrings - but it was not in this direct dialogue (view above). You mentioned sub-quanta and sub-Planck So I suppose we should look at what "sub" means in this context:

Quote
sub-
pref.

Below; under; beneath: subcutaneous.
Subordinate; secondary: subinfection.
Subdivision: subkingdom.
Less than completely or normally; nearly; almost: subfertility.

sub. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved February 03, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sub


What is below or beneath quanta and planck?

That would be the easiest way of of addressing that.

Date: 2007/02/04 00:07:48, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote
At any rate, I'm perpelxed by your last post (in English, that is). I didn't know about a Biblical ID model. I guess there could be one. But why did you post it?


I was responding to someone else, However its not so much the biblical content of it - its that it tries to employ scientific methodology.

Date: 2007/02/04 00:42:11, Link
Author: Fractatious
Avocationist,

"Beyond the Big Bang" is that by Odenwald or La Violette? Or some other person?

Date: 2007/02/04 05:09:54, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 04 2007,20:16)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,00:42)
Avocationist,

"Beyond the Big Bang" is that by Odenwald or La Violette? Or some other person?

if you've been following the Dilbert/Pharyngula wars lately, you might conclude it was written by Scott Adams.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....arn.php

That sounds like it fell out of the 1987 pages of Odenwald  ???

Date: 2007/02/04 12:11:09, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 05 2007,02:54)
Dudes, this is like discussing Einsteinian relativity with your parakeet.

(shrug)

Parakeets are cute until they become repititious and you have to blow its head off *sighs*

Date: 2007/02/04 12:15:12, Link
Author: Fractatious
Male sarcasm is equivalent to a javelin event by parapalegics at a special olympics  :D

*cries*

Date: 2007/02/05 06:18:37, Link
Author: Fractatious
Good evening, Avocationist.
 
Quote
Serendipity,

<<snipped>>
 
Quote
In a similar way, NDE, which I see as the other side of the coin to Biblical creationism - has a more complete theory - not much evidence to prove it but a nice, detailed theory.

This is an oxymoronic statement.
 
Quote
Lots of times I see the objection that someone or other wants to believe one theory over another because it has a fuller explanation. Never mind whether it holds water

Thus the crux of biological evolution when faced with Intelligent Design. The objective is not to solidify the Intelligent Design Model, but to denigrate [Sic] science where possible, based upon incredulity [Sic].
 
Quote
But few have the intestinal fortitude to maintain the "I don't know" position when appropriate. This is one reason I find ID the most rational and scientific of the three competitors. They work with what they've got, not their imagination.

Note also that the website I cited, used the bible as it sole evidence. That aside, Intelligent Design is neither rational or scientific. If it were rational and scientific, you'd have presented your model long ago. Behe would have presented his model long ago. Dembski would of presented his model long ago.

Behe relies on his model of irreducible complexity, where he creates a system where if that system has parts detracted from it, that system is no longer workable. He uses a mouse trap in order to do this (anology). However, his model is to show that science can't be correct, but somehow he must be.

Dembski uses a refined model of irreducible complexity, that being Specified Complexity, and bacterial flagellum (e. coli). He, like Behe, creates a system not to substantiate Intelligent Design but to degenerate biological evolution, relying on Intelligent Design to be the result if biological evolution fails.

You yourself, attempt the same as both Behe and Dembski. Its not a promotion of Intelligent Design, but an attack against biological evolution based upon increduality of the process of biological evolution. In all, this is neither rational or scientific.
 
Quote
I seem to remember when reading up a bit on string theory and quantum mechanics the use of the term subquantum, and that planck length was a sort of natural behavioral divide, and much talk of quantum weirdness.

La Violette wrote a book called Subquantum Kinetics. It is based upon nonequilibrium thermodynamics and systems theory. It is based upon the notion of transmutation, incorporating a mystical approach in the wake of scientific terms. In all, it offers a contradictive paradigm to what is already thought to have occurred with quantum mechanics (contradictive to Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, and so on). For example, if you take Kaluza-Klein quantum field, you are looking at a topological field of designated charged polygonal particles of space-time (fibre bundles), La Violette would propose that attaining a relationship between homeomorphisms or transformations of the fibre bundle would inevitably not surrender anything more of the field than an inconceivable break-down of that field, in fact a probable transmutation of that field.

However, I find that outside the field of physics, quantum weirdness is taken from a predominantly Einsteinian perspective (correct me if I am wrong). That ghostly spooky action at a distance. In the split beam experiment, it has seemed to have become a mystified version of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, where from the point of entry into the beam splitter, until the photon's connect with the detector, there must be something occurring between point A and point B. Or a perceived event between point A and point B. Which invariably becomes mystified - well at least by La Violette.

However I may be detracting from your statement. Planck's Length is a mathematical equation 1.6×10^-35 (or a factor of 10^-35) in comparison to a quark of 10^-18. Therefore Planck's length relates to "string" *nods nods* - however is that an open or closed string?
 
Quote
Since string theory proposes tiny dimensions, it occured to me that the onset of quantum weirdness might signal entry into a smaller dimension, and perhaps planck length is where it begins.
The author is La Violette.

String proposes one dimension as opposed to an elementary particle of 0 dimension. The accumulation of dimensions in a system is based on the string - covered by D-Branes, such as D0 being a line, D1 being a plane and on until D24 or D25 where we have the Bosonic proposition of M Theory. However that being said, there is nothing beyond 10^-35 (Plancks' Length) if there were, what would be the proposed dimenion beyond that string? If finding one, what would be its proposed mechanism in that system? Even more importantly how would it be detectable?

Date: 2007/02/05 07:07:39, Link
Author: Fractatious


I win the kibblets.

Jammon oooh ooh.

Date: 2007/02/05 15:11:32, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 06 2007,05:52)
Remind me to let you talk to my brother at the next mixer.  You and him would get along swimingly.
[/snark]

Mike PSS

Besides nothing being wrong with peas and carrots.. umm *face palm!*

Date: 2007/02/05 22:07:29, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 06 2007,12:36)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 05 2007,07:07)


I win the kibblets.

Jammon oooh ooh.

That is  . . . wrong.   Just . . . wrong.

Geez.

Didn't you say you wanted a brunette?  :)

Date: 2007/02/06 01:01:10, Link
Author: Fractatious
Has Avocationist gone on holiday?

Has she taken Louis with her?

Date: 2007/02/06 01:18:45, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2007,17:16)
Oh dear god. It's clear I'm banning Way too few people around here.  :p

Tis probably true - but you have to admit, that could be AFDave's twin!

Date: 2007/02/06 05:20:56, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 06 2007,23:45)
I do believe Louis has gone on a bit of a sulk.

He promises me he'll be back.

hope so.

Sulking is only good if you can take victims with you. However, pouting men are cute too.

Date: 2007/02/07 04:48:55, Link
Author: Fractatious
Dave (in disguise), at the Atheist Rally attempting to infiltrate and expose Evolution. He would of been totally unrecognisable if not for the over exaggerated "oooh"

Date: 2007/04/03 16:41:46, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Jason Spaceman @ April 02 2007,21:45)
Quote
Breaking down the definition: Intelligent Design
Is intelligent design testable? Luskin went on later to compare ID to a bacterial flagellar motor which is similar to a rotary engine as used in Mazda RX7s.

*tongue in check* even the RX7's went through processes of evolution. Prior to 1993, the turbo's were single, as opposed to 1993 onwards which are now twin sesquential turbo's of the 3rd generation. Also the adaptation of the piston engine to the turbocharged as well as speciation of US modified rotaries to Japanese modified of aspirated blowers.

Its not so much a complex system as a course of natural progression.

*chortles*

Date: 2007/05/07 07:11:38, Link
Author: Fractatious
PHD Mathematics (Patriot University)
PHD Molecular Biology (Patriot University)

Honour Student for the Assembly of God - Patriot University.

(un)successful tax evasion but I own dino's.



:O

Date: 2007/12/06 03:24:14, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 06 2007,18:07)
Gotta admit he sure had it coming.  In the last week he had gone apeshit, threatening the Mods and flooding their Complaints/Problem area with dozens of whiny preachy diatribes.

Umm yeah. We do have a good mod team and a great admin team. Does dave still post here?

Frac

Date: 2007/12/06 03:32:33, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 06 2007,22:25)
The only question in my mind is how long he's suspended for and how long I can keep up this laughter at his expense.

A week usually for small things. But most suspensions follow the self-ban's me think which is like a month. They should just ban his ass :)

Date: 2007/12/06 17:11:42, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2007,05:06)
but NO, the forum leadership seems to not welcome me generally (two former admins and at least two former mods at IIDB are an exception here) ... it seems that the reason is always the same--scientists [read evolutionary scientists ... you might say what other kind of scientists are there?] look bad when they spout off at me

My heart bleeds for you. It's not the former admin or mods you shoulda been worrying about, it shoulda been the current ones but noooooooooooooooooooooo. Was cute you trying to tell them how to do their jobs or how about whining like a baby? Yeah and Lee Merril and Robert Byers are still there, only YOU'RE NOT hahaha

Date: 2007/12/06 17:16:34, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2007,11:17)
Right, DM ... you like telling one sided stories I know, so I hate to spoil it for you ... the other side of the story is ...

10 infractions over 4 months (RBH's idea of a short time), maybe 2 of them legit, the rest very bogus ... anyone who reads QPC and that new sticky thread in E/C knows this and can see others complaining also on my behalf.

Just over 100 posts reported in 4 months comes to less than 1 per day ... and I only reported them because RBH instructed me to.  If he had told me to stop reporting them I would have.  Furthermore, if he had told me to quit posting so much, I would have also complied ... but he never did.  

It has the appearance that the Admins were tired of all the questioning of Darwinism going on in E/C.  Does that sound familiar?  Never had any trouble in BCH and I posted a lot there too ... had people ask me to post more there.  I've had former IIDB mods PM me and invite me to RnR and many other posters including the highly respected Jet Black express their desire to converse with me and even defend me.

So, DM ... you're Theory of Origins is not the only theory of yours that is questionable.  

Cheers!

Rants n Raves there you go. You wont last, they're allowed to piss on you and there is no one that you can tell on. As for it being RBH's fault, when exactly will you take responsibility for your own actions and behavior? Damn man, even christians at IIDB think you're a git.

Date: 2007/12/07 12:03:52, Link
Author: Fractatious
Poor Dave, let me cry for you... Ok I'm done.

Date: 2007/12/07 12:05:19, Link
Author: Fractatious
Lane,

You bully! I am the champion of the Tards.. watch my kung fu moves.

Whatever you supposedly did to get Dave banned, let me erect a shrine in your honor.

Date: 2007/12/07 14:11:08, Link
Author: Fractatious
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2007,07:57)
I predicted this long ago.

A gerbil could of predicted it. I mean how many boards have you been laughed off?

Date: 2007/12/07 14:33:31, Link
Author: Fractatious
"It's not my fault, its IIDB's"
"It's not my fault its Admin and Mods"
"It's not my fault its Worldtraveller's"

The mere fact that you expected EVERYONE at IIDB E/C to cater to your crap was so shocking it was laughable. The issue I see with Lane is that he's honest and you're not. When you encounter an opposite, shit is going to fly. Lane deserves a fucking medal (I am still erecting my shrine to him). Before he was rudely edited at QP&C he said what most of us were thinking.

Then you have RnR championing your cause? Read back through their threads, they only wanted you to pull in the others from E/C, they don't give a shit about you. Use the SEARCH function at RnR and put your name in, the archives will bring up the reason they wanted you at RnR - not for YOU but for those who debate you. To them, like to everyone else, you're a fucking joke. I'm glad you've been ousted from IIDB. I fucking hope they make it permanent.

 

 

 

=====