AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: FrankH

form_srcid: FrankH

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.138.180

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: FrankH

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/02/15 11:35:39, Link
Author: FrankH
I can't believe that they, the contributors of "Telic Threads", really believe all of that crap.

Does anyone really know why their blinders are so tight as to restrict blood flow to their brain?



Knowledge is Power
Power Corrupts
Study hard and become EVIL!

Date: 2009/02/15 16:23:46, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 15 2009,09:00)
Quote (khan @ Feb. 14 2009,22:12)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 14 2009,23:06)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:26)
[b]Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism[b]
O'Leary...
Do the tards ever discuss the biblical justifications for slavery used by the secessionist states?

From the Articles of Secession, in their own words.

Appeal to Divine Law.

Quote
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.

A grotesque rewrite of the Declaration of Independence.

Quote
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

And when someone tries to argue that southern secession wasn't about slavery.

Quote
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery

What so many forget is how the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, came about.

It's purpose was to give biblical backing to slavery.

When I told my Baptist friends, who chide me for "believing in Darwin and not god" about it when they started jumping on me for following such a racist SOB, Darwin, I pointed that out to them.

Then I introduced them to John C. Calhoun and his very verbose body of works.

Date: 2009/02/15 16:47:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (khan @ Feb. 15 2009,16:31)
Quote
What so many forget is how the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, came about.

It's purpose was to give biblical backing to slavery.

When I told my Baptist friends, who chide me for "believing in Darwin and not god" about it when they started jumping on me for following such a racist SOB, Darwin, I pointed that out to them.
I seem to recall some other churches split on the topic of slavery: Methodists?

There are many churches of the Xian god that were caught up in the subjugation and slavery of peoples around the world.  It caused many to look into what they were really preaching.  It also caused a great deal of change in the political arena.

Check out why the governor of Texas is such a weak position.

Here's a name to start, General Sam Houston.

Date: 2009/02/15 19:35:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,19:22)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:13)
Lest we forget:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)
Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry.  I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that.  It's my bias.  I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution.  I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).
                   
Quote
As for your other questions:  Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.
                       
Quote
As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that.  I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.
               
Quote
 It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor.  The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

Bill,

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.  You seem to be missing that point.  Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.  

Take Albatrossity's example.  If that's typical evolution, then novel features can evolve in one step - pre-regulated, all biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and cycles in place.  Is that the mechanism of evolution?  If so, I've won the debate on how evolution works.  I picked "saltational with big changes in one step", you guys all picked "many untraceable steps".

Do I win?  Or do we have some more 'cipherin' to do?

I'm interested in hearing why you think that evolution, ie the change of allele frequency over time, can't be decided by:

1: genetic drift

2: errors in duplication

3: selection of traits that allow those with the mutation to pass them on, etc.

On a side note, you postulate a designer, correct?

Could there be more than one designer?  What do you know about the designer?  I am interested as if an archeologist were to discover the remnants of some hereto unknown civilization via the artifacts they've left behind, they try and piece together the society that made them.

Why is ID so quiet on that point?

Date: 2009/02/17 10:22:17, Link
Author: FrankH
I'm still in awe over the absurdity of IDists who want the exact pathways of evolution but offer absolutely nothing on the identities of the designers.

Isn't ID doomed to fail as even if the life on planet Earth were conclusively shown to be a product of some designers, how did the designers come about?

Date: 2009/02/17 10:23:24, Link
Author: FrankH
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Date: 2009/02/17 13:53:02, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 17 2009,13:29)
ReMine's latest essay explaining Message Theory puts me in mind of Dud and Pete singing about [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaOD_3cL_z4]Ala a' Dale[/a].  He implies that we'll be treated to another post before he tells us what the thing actually is.

Sorta like the cliffhangers as the music swells, the picture fades to black and the line:

"To be continued"

hangs in the empty void on the TV just as the hero's very life looks to be snuffed out?

Date: 2009/02/18 12:49:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 17 2009,17:04)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 17 2009,22:46)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 17 2009,13:55)
I would suggest recording whatever audio/visual stuff they use so we have a record of who they swiped what from.

I have a small digital recorder*  I picked up from an empty desk when we were vacating a building I had worked in. It supposedly can record up to 290 minutes. Alas, I pulled the instructions down of the intertubes and it doesn't appear to have a means of downloading into a computer.**

* It is of the "note to self, LOL the cat when you get home" variety. I've never used it so I have no idea how it would work in a lecture setting.

** Unless someone knows how to take the output meant for an ear-piece and get that into a computer.

Regarding connections, the best I could offer is to use a minijack-minijack connector, and plug your recording device directly to your laptop's audio-in plug.

What he said.

If you have a MP3 recorder, I have done this, you connect the MIC side of the MP3 recorder to the headphone connector of the old recorder.

You then save the output in MP3 format.

Date: 2009/02/18 12:52:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 18 2009,09:46)
Abbie - From a post by Amadan - Even the Pope and the Papists are beating up on ID!  Be sure to ask Casey about this! :)

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said.

added in edit - The damn link!  Times OnLine

Oh come on.  Everyone knows that Papal followers and Mary worshipers are not real christians like the Trootm christian fundie.

Date: 2009/02/18 14:04:29, Link
Author: FrankH
You seem like a nice guy.

Happy Birthday, may you smell the flowers and not count the root tendrils for many years to come.

Date: 2009/02/18 19:49:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

Good.  You admit it and that is what I'm looking for here.

So, what evidence do you have that it is the Xian god that did it?

Could there be more than one designer?

Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?

How do you reconcile "less than optimal designs"?  The artery feeding the human heart, easily clogged, small and our eyes, blind spot, etc, come to mind.

Why did the designer have many different eye designs?

There are more but if you want to have ID taken seriously not only are you going to show what is designed and what is ad-hoc but you are going to have to answer all of those questions and more.

So how do you even know your god even exists and is not a projection of your own fears cobbled from bronze age superstitions?

Date: 2009/02/18 19:51:30, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,19:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 17 2009,18:15)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)
The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Good. Time to describe your mechanism.

By the way, "saltation" isn't a mechanism. It is a proposed description of the rate of change (very rapid, even single step) in evolution. It calls for explanation in the form of a mechanism.

Describe your proposed mechanism for saltation. Provide us with an illustration of it operating in a specific instance. The example of chimps and bonobos emerging from a common ancestor will do as an example, although you may prefer another. Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of the saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Ready, set, GO!

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles    
Quote
Our study provides, to our knowledge, the first phylogenetic-
based comparative support for saltational changes in the evolution of aggregation pheromones. It therefore raises the question of how these changes come about.


As for chimps/bonobos, that'll have to wait until I have more time.

How do you reconcile gradual evolution with designed creation?

Where does your designers stop designing and allow for changes, what is "front loaded" and where does gradual evolution begin and end?

It seems that you invoke the idea that your designer can do anything without explaining itself which as we know means it really explains nothing at all.

Date: 2009/02/19 07:26:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (khan @ Feb. 18 2009,20:41)
Quote
Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?


All of the above.

I refuse to worship anything that caused the frakkin pain.

What I can not understand is why their god needs to be worshiped.  So this god got lonely and needed to create petty beings so beneath it to worship it for why again?  Hell I got lonely so I just went to a bar!

My favorite of course is the negligent parent, this god of theirs, putting temptation in front of two people who were children and truly ignorant (hey they had no knowledge right so how in the hell can they know what is right and wrong?) and now because of the "fall" everything is going to hell.

Date: 2009/02/19 09:46:53, Link
Author: FrankH
If emotions are not controlled by bio-chemical processes, would someone please explain why the wife and our three teenage girls all make me spend one week at the bar.

Date: 2009/02/20 07:01:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 20 2009,04:23)
Yes, 'tis the first. Yes 'tis cool (plus scary).

Why do waterbirths result in less testicular pain? Is it because my wife won't be able to get out of the bath quick enough to catch me an rip them off?

Wait...don't answer. This is derailerisation, and I've done enough of that already. We'll take it as read that you replied and it was funny.

Soooooo how about that UD hey? Aren't they a bunch of muppets.

Louis

When my wife went through childbirth, I learned 5 things:

1:  One the pain of childbirth is like grabbing your lower lip, pulling it, then stretching it over your head.

2:  That my mother "dated" a great deal of men.

3:  That I too "dated" those same men.

4:  While pregnant women who are in the midst of giving birth may not be able to move much, they are deadly within 1.5m

5:  That all those things you liked to do that drove your parents nucking futs, well, pay back is hell.


Enjoy!

Date: 2009/02/20 09:48:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 20 2009,09:43)
Quote
In another thread ID critics complain there is no rigorous definition or mathematical formula by which everyone can agree on whether or not something exhibits complex specified information. Believe it not, they say it like mainstream science isn’t chock full of things that not everyone can agree upon. Like duh.
Shouldn't the vast array of mathematical tools in the ID quiver enable us to determine whether this is a natural or artificial formation? If not, then what can they do?

Isn't ID about design detection without requiring speculation about the physical history of objects?

You wish it was only that.

ID is just another term for "moving goalposts".  ID can do everything and nothing depending on what is being asked of it at the time.

Date: 2009/02/20 09:53:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (khan @ Feb. 19 2009,20:38)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,20:24)
Quote

You're right.


does this mean he can't be AfDave?

Are they not both lying creo shits?

Is there some way to distinguish?

Maybe we could build/design a filter.....

Date: 2009/02/20 14:41:07, Link
Author: FrankH
So Louis, you speak French as well?

Any German speakers here on this board?  My German sucks almost as much as my English, but I want to start trying to communicate with it again.

OBTW Louis, my great aunt is Norman and she's a sweetie, hates Parisians and a great cook so watch it buddy.....

Date: 2009/02/21 10:21:23, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,10:08)
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 21 2009,14:56)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,16:11)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,13:46)
see, what you do is take you some fine champagne, top shelf at the likker store, and you get you some Ripple.  and you mix them shits together.  and you gots Champipple.

What you do is take a bottle of Mad Dog 20:20 (or Thunderbird) and a bottle of port and a bottle of blue WKD, find a park bench, drink half the port, top up with blue WKD, drink half the resulting Cheeky Vimto, top uo with MD 20:20/Thunderbird, drink any remaining MD 20:20/Thunderbird/blue WKD, thus saving a bottle of Turbo Cheeky Vimto, which you can now carry through town as you swear at passers by and urinate copiously on public buildings before find a nice corner to curl up in, nurse you bottle of madness inducing uber alcohol and calmly shit yourself to sleep.

Ahhhhh tramps. The colour our streets in so many fine ways. Gentlemen of the road every one.

Louis

Do we have a sex for this so called baby yet or is it delirium?

Yup, it's a boy. Although he ain't born yet, so the word "baby" is unnecessarily "pro life" in my book. He's not a baby until he's out of the womb, and he's not a person until he's in my phone book! I'm harsh, I know.

Louis

P.S. Tongue meet cheek.

Hey bud, I understand.  The "baby", "fetus", "that thing inside" is what the parents want to call it.

What I can't understand is this wine thing.  And this from a half-Italian.

Give me a a good stout or ale anytime over a wine.  I guess it's the half-Irish in me coming out.

An Irish-Italian 7 course meal anyone?





A bottle of vino and a six pack of course.

Date: 2009/02/21 10:38:27, Link
Author: FrankH
George Carlin on "tits", from the 7 dirty words:

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/george-....cs.html

Date: 2009/02/21 10:40:22, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 21 2009,10:22)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,10:08)
I'm harsh, I know.

Louis
P.S. -- Tongue meet cheek.

Why, yes, that would be-a nice. Tongue, please to meet dis cheeks.


Carlson, stop ogling, you perve.

Thanks deadman, now I fear I'll be impotent for a while with that image is still in my mind.

Need to find some good porn.

Date: 2009/02/21 13:31:51, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 21 2009,11:39)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 20 2009,20:41)
So Louis, you speak French as well?

Any German speakers here on this board?  My German sucks almost as much as my English, but I want to start trying to communicate with it again.

OBTW Louis, my great aunt is Norman and she's a sweetie, hates Parisians and a great cook so watch it buddy.....

As Louis already mentioned I'm German and sparc is, too.
So, if you want to give it a try, go ahead ;)

A nice place to practice German as a foreign language is LEO. It's a site with dictionaries for German - English, - French, - Italian, - Spanish, and - Chinese, and for each language there's also a forum where you can ask language related questions or just chat (e.g. the English - German forum).

Danke,


Ich teile Ihnen mit, dass ich spreche oder schreibe Deutsch als ob das englisch war.

Es zeigt meine Unerfahrenheit der Sprache jedem Mal.

Date: 2009/02/21 13:47:53, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:14)
I'm not saying that CO2 and water vapor would have a chemical reaction and form O2.  I asking what prevented all those O atoms from bonding with each other in the atmosphere, IF there was enough (as inferred in the hypothesis) O atoms to form enough water for the oceans?  

Doesn't the hypothesis itself guide the O atoms underneath the earth?  This was not observed, but it's based upon assumed evidence such as red beds, oxidation of iron of a certain age, and metal oxides in fossilized soils.

What O2 in the atmosphere?  The ancient atmosphere of the Earth was a reducing one, not like today's oxidizing type.

Likewise, the early oceans were bereft of free O2 and it wasn't even blue.  No, the dissolved Iron in the ocean gave it a distinctively green color.

So why do you think the early atmosphere was oxidizing?  As for why was there H2O and therefore the O2, there is plenty of H2O in space but no free O2.

As to the BIF, below such formations you do not see FeO.  This is not "assumed".  How does your science explain the BIF?  The one where the Earth went from a Reducing to an Oxidizing atmosphere explains a lot with no hand waving.

Again, how does creation science explain the BIF?

I'll also ask you this, why is your god the correct version?  You do know that even if Evolution is 100% wrong and there was some divine agency, your god is one of thousands of options.

Date: 2009/02/21 13:58:43, Link
Author: FrankH
As I can't edit, I'll add more here.

What "hypothesis" has the O2 "moving underground".

O2 was produced by photosynthesis from organisms that "poisoned" their own world by dumping a toxic gas, O2, into their environment.

It was this free O2 that started to combine with the dissolved Fe in the oceans and other locals that gave us the BIF.

That leads me to ask these questions, in science usage what are the differences between:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof

This will speak volumes about your true science literacy.

Date: 2009/02/21 14:08:15, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Studying is good.  Too bad I fear you're going off to stick you head in the sand and re-read Gish and Johnson.

The only way you can be "more informed" is to drop your dogmatic approach.  I don't think anyone has calle dyou stupid.  Your ideas are the always refuted ones, the ones that a new generation of buy-bull thumpers get told as "fact" only to have their asses handed to them again and again.

Pride, hypocrisy and ignorance you have.  You have the pride that your "god" did it and that you know what your "god" is all about.  The hypocrisy comes from the dogma of your own Xian religion that your god is infinite and all knowledgeable and you as a limited and finite human being are no where close.  How do you reconcile you thinking you know what an infinite and timeless being is and you neither of the two?  Ignorance is clearly viewable in that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no problem with ignorance.  I am ignorant of who lives in downtown Hamburg.  Willful ignorance is what I fine so appalling.  See, I can find out who lives in downtown Hamburg if I needed to do so.  You have been pointed to sources that can assist you in learning and yet you close your eyes and ears.  That is much like claiming that there is nobody living in downtown Hamburg because you've never seen them.

As to your last sentence, that is prideful, ignorant, hypocritical and stupid as we can read the intent in your "fuck you" tirade as you stamp your feet and perpare to leave in a sulk.

Here's something to take

Date: 2009/02/21 14:11:06, Link
Author: FrankH
I forgot to finish:

RFJE, here's something for you to take:

Only a friend will tell you that you have food in your teeth or a rip in your pants.  Your enemy will let you make a fool of yourself for as long as you want.

Date: 2009/02/21 14:21:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2009,14:17)
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 21 2009,13:57)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 20 2009,16:09)
It is totally unfair and a stunning indictment of the American Educational System that you and JLT write better English than me.  

I seriously doubt that, but thanks all the same! :)

Besides, reading AtBC is really educational language-wise. So, if you think I write good English - I copied it all from you guys.

Danke, Fraulein Doktor JLT.

And here is MY favorite Rugby XV on tour last spring - Perhaps you might recognize the background


Salt Lake City?

:p

Date: 2009/02/21 14:44:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,14:31)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,13:58)
As I can't edit, I'll add more here.

What "hypothesis" has the O2 "moving underground".

O2 was produced by photosynthesis from organisms that "poisoned" their own world by dumping a toxic gas, O2, into their environment.

It was this free O2 that started to combine with the dissolved Fe in the oceans and other locals that gave us the BIF.

That leads me to ask these questions, in science usage what are the differences between:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof

This will speak volumes about your true science literacy.

OK, i am already stereotyped so that's why its no use to fight this battle.

I am completely acquainted with the reason evolutionists give for O2 in the atmosphere.  Did you think I didn't know that?  

I KNOW that the hypothesis says that microorganisms are responsible for O2.

The popular hypothesis about the atmosphere is that it was formed by volcanoes spewing out CO2, water vapor, methane, nitrogen among other things ---no O2.  

Therefore the IMPLICATION is that were alot of O atoms and they were underground, as in UNDER volcanoes.  The O atoms were in such quantity that they bonded with H, were spewed out by volcanoes as water vapor, eventually condensed, and formed OCEANS, not ponds.  That's alot of O atoms.  (i did not have to have a degree in chemistry to figure this out).

Are you telling me that O does not bond with O except by
metabolic means?   O has 8 electrons and can attract 8 electrons.  Therefore it will be able to bind with another O atom if they come into to contact.  

This oxygen crisis that I keep "yapping about" is in YOUR theory's geologic timescale.  God forbid that I should say ANYTHING that is associated with creationism, so I use mainstream sources.   The O2 catastrophe is there for all to read.

"Stereotyped"?  As you didn't stereotype that those on this board would be "ignorant" of what you had?  You telling us that you know that it was biological action that produced O2 yet you say Volcanoes produced O2 is part of the problem you have.

Your idea that there was a lot of free O2 under the Earth in Volcanoes, where'd you get that?  You do know modern day volcanoes are tremendous sources of CO2 don't you?  So why would you think that they changed significantly over the years?

Also, and I'm sure Louis can tell you more, but O2 is a very volitale gas.  It likes mixing as was your problem with "peptides being destroyed by O2".  Any free oxygen down in the earth would mix with other chemicals to form NO2, CO2 and such.  Why do you think that O2 heated to a red hot state would maintain being just O2 when at those temperatures, it will react with many different substances?

Here's more, why are the atmosphere of Venus and Mars CO2?

Date: 2009/02/21 14:45:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Quick question RFJE, what are the gases spewed out in a volcanic eruption?

Date: 2009/02/21 15:04:35, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,14:56)
[quote=Dr.GH,Feb. 21 2009,14:22]
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,11:47)
 [quote=Louis,Feb. 21 2009,13:27]

Dr. G.H.

If these well-meaning folks want to combine evolution with the Bible, they would have to construct a model that does not "destroy" Adam.  Let me explain.

Please indulge me even hypothetically for a moment, as if I'm reporting my findings of mythology.

According to the Bible, Adam started a chain reaction.  He brought sin, and because of sin he brought death.  The law was added later to define sin and show man what sin was.  But it had no power to help man to do right or forgive sin.  A complex sacrificial worship system was set up to "push back" sin, until the redeemer came.  Christ came and was seen by God as the perfect eternal sacrifice, and He is declared to be the way to God, through faith in his sacrifice.

If death came in the world because it just the ending of biological processes--starting at microorganisms--then the story of Adam is a myth or some kind of symbolic story--then there is no such thing as the original sin, nor the sin nature of man which we inherited from Adam, and therefore the death of Christ is meaningless.  Then Christ and the apostles are either crazy, or liars.

Then there is no basis for the church or Christians, because there is no need for Christ, and Christ is the only person who authorizes the church--the Bible is the only source where the church finds its foundation.

SO to mesh the two is to say the church is just a social club of do-gooders, hypocrites, sexual deviates, and simpletons who need "the opiate for the masses."

Science doesn't destroy religion.  It shows where dogma doesn't make sense or a "literal reading" is a waste of time.

What you've also shown is that you have no interest in anything that doesn't fit your preconceived world view.  It is you world view that this benevolent god told two people who had no idea of right and wrong (how could they as they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge?) and left them with a loaded weapon.  Of course, this omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god "went away" allowing a liar to come in and tempt them.

If a parent were to leave two toddlers alone with a loaded gun on a chair and say, "Don't touch that", they'd be a terrible parent, correct?  So why isn't your god the poster child for terrible parenting?

But if you really want to learn, you are going to have to let go of what you think is a fact.  If you go around looking for things that only agree with you, I know a place where that works.

Try the Taliban.

Date: 2009/02/21 15:13:17, Link
Author: FrankH
RFJE,


Why did your god go to a Roman backwater province, instead of a place where there were a lot more people.  Like China, like directly to the Roman Senate, etc?

Face it, even if evolution was wrong, there is no reason to believe nor think your holy book has anything even close to the "trooth" of what really happened.

The thing is this RFJE, if you found evidence that directly refutes your bible, is it:

1:  Something to study and verify.

2:  Lies by the devil/evil/somebody who hates your god

3:  Bad data that you can blithely throw away?

Date: 2009/02/21 15:43:35, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:16)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 21 2009,14:44)
Here's more, why are the atmosphere of Venus and Mars CO2?

Here's a better question:  Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?

Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C).  So there will never be life to create O2.  

SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans?  We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming.  How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.

And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation.  Where did O3 come from?  Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.

And Louis said that no ozone would be  "positively helpful," during abiogenesis.  Would that be because radiation promotes chemical reactions?  What kind of chemical reactions would happen in a nasty atmosphere like the one presented by your theory, along with radiation coming in?


You guys don't even acknowledge the problems of your own theory.  The truth is that is was created at the same time.

Wow, you are also unaware that 4 billion years ago the sun was about 70% as luminous as it is now.  In another billion or 2 years, the Earth will be too hot and our oceans will boil away.  See your science needs to think about these things and it falls flat.  If we didn't have such an atmosphere, the oceans would have frozen solid.

The reasons why Venus has a CO2 atmosphere as it does is that it never changed.  The Martian atmosphere has a different history.  I encourage you to go and find out what it is and how it differs from

Earth's atmosphere started to lose CO2 as organisms started to use CO2 for photosynthesis and more.  Earth's ancient CO2 atmosphere is locked in the chalk layers.  Not only did these organisms use CO2 for photosynthesis, they made CaCO3 for shells.  If you were to liberate the CO2 locked in these chalk formations, I think Earth's atmosphere would be worse than Venus.

OBTW, the facts that both Mars and Venus have CO2 atmospheres, that they are different and that one is frozen and the other molten, destroys your analogy.

Life we found can thrive in places we never knew before.  We know spores can live in the vacuum of space, in hydrothermic vents at 300C and unimaginable pressures in deep sea trenches and more.  It is also believed that the first organisms were in fact thermophyllic.

As to your "volcanic atmosphere", the reason we don't have more CO2 is that we have plants that do a really good job at removing those things from the atmosphere, or they did.  Nice to see that you're another denier of global warming as it doesn't fit into your world view.  The reason now is that we are deforesting the Earth faster than at anytime since the "great dyings" and we are pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.  So we are adding to the CO2 budget while at the same time destroying what is needed to remove that very same CO2.

O3 comes from high altitude bombardment of 3*O2 molecules by radiation that transform it into 2*O3.  But I thought you knew that stuff.  Those things are what show you to be narrow minded, ignorant and such more than anything anyone here can say.

As to Louis and his comment about no ozone being present, he is the chemist, not me.  I do know that ozone will react very strongly with amino acids and destroy them, but again, you miss that fact that there was no life on land for almost 4 billion years.  It wasn't until the atmosphere was changed into an oxidizing one and the O2 molecules in the upper atmosphere was changed.  Ozone at low altitudes are toxic to us and almost all life I'm aware of.

As for "problems in our theory", you haven't presented one.  If you thin you did, you are deluding yourself.

Again, what is the difference, from science, to these terms:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof


Thanks in advance

Date: 2009/02/21 15:55:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,15:27)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 21 2009,15:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,14:56)
Refried

It apparently doesn't bother you that you have adopted a conclusion-first approach to this discussion,or that your entire approach is an argumentum ad consequentiam. But it does mean that your approach has nothing in common with science, and that real scientists will just laugh at you.

Why don't you go away and only come back when you are able to contemplate changing your mind if the evidence demands it? We don't want to discuss the consequences for your religious views that accrue because of facts and reality, and you don't want to discuss facts and reality. That's not a good mix...
You are not guilty of the same thing?  Has your big bang model or geologic time scale changed much?  Everything that doesn't fit into it is rejected as insanity.  

And you have completely taken it out of context, as you probably only skimmed it.  I was offered books by I believe Dr. G.H. by Christians who are trying to mesh evolution with the scriptural doctrine.  You can't have it both ways.

If your scriptural understanding says Adam and original sin are not important then you can do it, but you have just removed a doctrinal foundation stone from scripture which will cause the whole building to fall.

Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.

I've got to go.  No hard feelings guys--a little frustration because you have said things I did not say.

Science takes steps to remove personal bias and beliefs.  It is called "peer review".  That is something that ID and Creationist never does.

Yes, you can be a Christian and know that Evolution is how your god did it.  Besides, remember that pride thing again?  There you are full of yourself telling people they can't be a Xian as they don't believe exactly as you do.  Tell me again, how do you know that you follow your god exactly?

While your at it, which version of Genesis is right?

Your scripture also allowed for slavery (even how badly you can beat them) and the price fathers can sell their daughters for into slavery.  Yet that part has been removed.  Another question for you is do you follow kosher law?

Yeah, if radiometrics were nothing but a big pile of steaming crap, you'd be right.  Fortunately, that is in no danger.  Radiometric dating is on far more solid ground than your bible.  Your bible was written first about 1500 BCE from ancient Sumerian texts.  Ever read the "Epic of Gilgemesh"?  Compare to the story of Noah's canoe.

As to your last line, what did people say that you didn't?  I think that you'll be amazed at what you really did say and were called on it.  I think that is what makes you the most upset, that you were caught.

Date: 2009/02/21 16:08:57, Link
Author: FrankH
To be sure RFJE, lying by omission is still lying, correct?

So why don't you answer the question put to you?  Answer them honestly as "I don't know" is perfectly valid and honest (if you really don't know that is).

Answer the questions Louis gave you, then mine, Nerull's and the rest.  A little soul searching will do you good.

Date: 2009/02/21 16:14:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2009,14:57)
[quote=FrankH,Feb. 21 2009,14:21]  
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2009,14:17)
 
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 21 2009,13:57)
     
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 20 2009,16:09)

Danke, Fraulein Doktor JLT.

And here is MY favorite Rugby XV on tour last spring - Perhaps you might recognize the background


Salt Lake City?

:p

Zer Goot Her Doktor Frank - Close...

I think both cities were ruled at one time by wierd religious nutz that heard voices in their heads... and thought they were the chosen people.

added in edit - And one of the cities still is!

Don't have to tell me about it.

I was sentenced to SLC for many years.

Probably why I became an agnostic.

Date: 2009/02/21 16:34:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 21 2009,16:22)
RFJE, seems you are on my turf now.

(snip)

Good night.

Hey, do you think we can get into fundie churches and "teach the controversy"?

We can have "Religious Freedom Acts" where all religions are taught including and especially the problems with fundieism.

Date: 2009/02/22 06:08:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Hockey is SO much better.

But if I ever see a futball mom like the one above, I think I can be swayed, a little.

Date: 2009/02/23 08:15:25, Link
Author: FrankH
Has anyone asked what it takes to get a true open debate where the evidence is hashed out, verified and such at UD?

I know from lurking for about, oh, two years on this board, which is why I know who's who around here, they won't come over but still can't they be shamed at all?

Or is shame, guilt and having a conscious all jettisoned to be a "regular" over there?

Date: 2009/02/23 10:30:01, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 23 2009,09:36)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 23 2009,08:15)
Has anyone asked what it takes to get a true open debate where the evidence is hashed out, verified and such at UD?

I know from lurking for about, oh, two years on this board, which is why I know who's who around here, they won't come over but still can't they be shamed at all?

Or is shame, guilt and having a conscious all jettisoned to be a "regular" over there?

I have an open challenge to DaveScot (aka, "Davey", "Scooter", "Dembski's Man Bitch", "Disgrace to the Corps", "Flaming Pustule on the Buttocks of Science", etc.).  So far neither he nor any of the other regular IDiots at UD have chosen to stray from their nice safe venue.

Yes, Davey, you may consider this another slap in the face with my dueling glove.

I understand that Clive, chief censor and bottlewasher at UD, reads our discussions here.  Perhaps he can arrange a discussion at a neutral venue (or guarantee no "moderation" on a thread at UD).  How about it, Clive?  Take the minimal step to show you're more of a man than Davey.

Dave was a Marine and he can't take coming over into "hostile territory"?

Must have been a "Tower Flower" or "See going Bellhop" version of a Marine.

Date: 2009/02/23 14:02:48, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 23 2009,13:17)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,13:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  [emphasis mine]

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said this to me. Yeah, slather it on, brother.

The ungratitude, the incomprehensible ungratitude and hubris of those who because of this shrieking void within themselves, that they call "faith," and this goody-two-shoes projection of themselves, that they call "Christ," will not pursue knowledge worth knowing and thereby refuse to be a model of the informed Christian. I cannot be a model for believers; only other believers can, if they only would. You have a model in Wes, but since you disdain and judge him too, what can I do but welcome your association of him with us atheists. What a compliment.

Bye-bye.

Don't be too hard on the boy Kristine.

After all it must be such a burden to carry such a cross, knowing that while you may not be perfect (but much closer than others you profess not to judge) that you are forgiven no matter how much of a self-important, judgmental hypocrite you are.

Not all of us can have such blinders on and still function, and neither can he.

Date: 2009/02/24 06:44:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Congrats making it to 48!*  That's older than me and I'm a grandpa!



* Beats the alternative.

Date: 2009/02/24 07:02:48, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 24 2009,06:41)
lol tarden has been holding onto that one for a while i bet.  probably choking himself with it while louis plucked single hairs out of tarden's mustache by slamming his butt cheeks together and J-Dog stood on his balls.  might wanna shake it off before you play with it.

Thanks for that visual that I didn't need.....

Date: 2009/02/24 07:13:22, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,07:08)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 24 2009,13:02)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,06:41)
lol tarden has been holding onto that one for a while i bet.  probably choking himself with it while louis plucked single hairs out of tarden's mustache by slamming his butt cheeks together and J-Dog stood on his balls.  might wanna shake it off before you play with it.

Thanks for that visual that I didn't need.....

What makes you think I needed that visual?

I'm bad enough but when 'Ras is back on the pipe, or K.E. has had his regularly scheduled dose of ground penis gourd and peyote snuff, things can get far hairier than Arden's moustache.

Louis

Never said you did.

Just didn't want to speak up for you as you are more than capable of doing that yourself.

Hey I'm an agnostic, one step from atheism.  So how can I make judgments about other people's sexual release mechanisms.

Jeesh..... :p

Date: 2009/02/24 07:15:23, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,06:58)
Here are just two of our models, designed to suit all tastes:


Whoa there guy, where'd you get a pic of my wife.

Taken last year at the party at Hef's place.

Date: 2009/02/24 07:18:59, Link
Author: FrankH
It's like this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was nailing his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly raped by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

As a dad, I completely understand that sentiment.  But I ask myself, why are they different?

Date: 2009/02/24 11:33:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,10:31)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 24 2009,13:18)
It's like this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was nailing his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly raped by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

As a dad, I completely understand that sentiment.  But I ask myself, why are they different?

One of these things is not like the other.

Try this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was being repeatedly raped by his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly, consensually nailed by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

Whaddya think?

In all cases (both yours and my switched cases) the teachers are exploiting the kids. It's a major breach of trust and misuse of authority in each case. Serious censure is deserved in both cases (whether or not it involves pain).

People under the legal age of consent (16 here in the UK btw*) have sexual feelings and have sex (I know I did!). If they are being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to break out the pain.

If they are not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to hold the pain in reserve until you make sure that ain't happening.

If the kid concerned is not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by someone roughly their own age AND under the age of consent themselves, then it's time to break out the lengthy discussions, documentaries, contraception demonstrations, and all round general support. Sex positive =/= encouraging promiscuity. Kids = people. Kids =/= stupid.

This derail is infinitely more interesting than Denial's bullshit. At least there's a chance it'll end in something productive.

Louis

*I love the fact that in the USA you can be in charge of a potentially lethal weapon (a car) before you can be in charge of your own genitals, and that you can go to war but not have a beer to celebrate survival! Also, what the fuck (literally) do people think that under age kids are doing in those cars? They drive off and fuck. Silver ring or not. The second I got my driver's licence (17 in the UK) my sex life took a turn for the better more frequent.

You're correct on two accounts here.  This is much than Denial's stuff.  Secondly you are correct in the content of your post.  That's why I specifically worded it the way I did.

Even the late, great George Carlin remarked that he didn't want to call 14 year old boys who were nailing (where I got my terminology) the gorgeous blond 25 year old female teachers "victims".  He wanted to call them "lucky bastards".

You are also correct in pointing out that the abuse of authority is what is really at issue in a student-teacher relationship.  That is not the case if, and it happened to me and mine, where you're at a company gathering and a young coworker, say 25 but looks like he's still in High School, tries to pick up your 15 year old daughter.

Now I wasn't upset with him for these reasons:

1:  Despite being 15 my youngest looks, talks and acts much older.

2:  The kid had no idea she was my daughter.

3:  She was coy in her responses (she thought him cute) and didn't reveal her age.

4:  He had no clue she was 15.

5:  My daughter looks older than a few of the young ladies at my work.

When he found out he backed off.  He was disappointed to say the least but he was "not as interested".

What is the problem is when you have a person who only goes after young kids or is in a position of authority over them and knows who they are.

Date: 2009/02/25 12:28:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong.  Why is yours correct?

There are other creation stories, myths, etc, that are out there.  What evidence do you have that shows ID to be valid?  In other words, instead of demanding fossil evidence of chemical pathways, show us the evidence that you have that supports ID.

See for ID to be valid, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived faults of Evolution.  A real theory shows how it explains what is already seen and makes predictions on what we should find.

I think I asked you this before, so if I did forgive me but I didn't see your response, what are the scientific, not colloquial, definitions of:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof


Thanks

Date: 2009/02/25 13:01:37, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,12:30)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)
Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong.  Why is yours correct?

(snip)

Oh, that one's too easy!!!!


We know where he gets it but why is his right and all the other faiths' versions wrong?

He needs to provide evidence for his version.  Circular logic will not cut it.

Date: 2009/02/25 14:10:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2009,13:27)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,19:01)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 25 2009,12:30)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)
Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong.  Why is yours correct?

(snip)
Oh, that one's too easy!!!!
We know where he gets it but why is his right and all the other faiths' versions wrong?

He needs to provide evidence for his version.  Circular logic will not cut it.
He absolutely will not do this. He knows he cannot. Hence flannelling about and cognitive dissonance and appeals to prejudice.

He cannot do it, just like he cannot prove he is not a child molester.*

Louis

*There is method to the odious and offensive frivolity of this specific analogy. Use Denial's own mode of argumentation and maybe he'll understand why it don't work none! It sometimes works....

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

Date: 2009/02/26 08:49:13, Link
Author: FrankH
How about you RFJE?

Can you show us what ID or whatever you believe in actually works?  I've asked Daniel and he seems to have slinked away.  Remember, if you are going to have something to replace Evolution, it must stand on its own and not called upon in anyone's perceived notions of how something else fails.

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2009/02/26 12:20:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2009,12:15)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 26 2009,11:39)
You called it...here's a sample of the writer's (one "Russell Huebsch" ) skills:

Interestingly there is a Russell Heubsch on Facebook and his friends include a Joshua Jackson Marks.

Also interestingly, Robert Marks personal website indicates he has a son named Joshua.

I would think that to be true to form, his son's name should be Sue.....

Date: 2009/02/26 12:50:15, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (dnmlthr @ Feb. 26 2009,12:41)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2009,18:15)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 26 2009,11:39)
You called it...here's a sample of the writer's (one "Russell Huebsch" ) skills:

Interestingly there is a Russell Heubsch on Facebook and his friends include a Joshua Jackson Marks.

Also interestingly, Robert Marks personal website indicates he has a son named Joshua.

A design inference!

Actually no.

That is blind, mindless copying/mimicking with no thought in the process what so ever.

Date: 2009/02/26 14:00:50, Link
Author: FrankH
Hello again there Daniel,


Just letting you know I will not forget about you.  Are you still at Telic Thoughts?  Should I ask these there?


Thanks again,


Frank

Date: 2009/02/26 15:08:24, Link
Author: FrankH
STOP THE PRESSES!

Research and scientific papers (or is it quote mining and sciency sounded rubbish?) to be seen soon!

I'm not holding my breath.

Date: 2009/02/26 15:13:58, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 26 2009,15:08)
STOP THE PRESSES!

Research and scientific papers (or is it quote mining and sciency sounded rubbish?) to be seen soon!

I'm not holding my breath.

the link:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....comment

Date: 2009/02/27 08:09:02, Link
Author: FrankH
Happy Birth Day.

Nice to know there are many on here older than I.

Date: 2009/02/27 08:30:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,18:54)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters.  They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

I have read your stuff and quite frankly I don't see any theory.  I see wishful thinking, tautological arguments and "I believe it to be" but no theories.

As for "lumping ID into a generic theory", aren't you even more a abuser of "lumping things together"?  In creation circles, cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic evolution, planetary formation, abioginesis and evolution are all the same thing.  You do know that they are different, right?

Even "evolution" has different components.

Now as you are saying that your views are not scientific but your views, that honest of you.  Tell me then, why is your views and perception of how the world works any better than a devout Hindu and how his gods made it all?

Discussing ones thoughts is a noble pursuit.  What is even more noble is learning from sources you don't agree and giving them a truly unbiased hearing even if it goes against one's personal dogma.

Date: 2009/03/02 15:20:22, Link
Author: FrankH
I'm still in favor of bringing ALL creation stories into the classroom to compete along side the OT stuff.

Come on, "LETZ TEECH DA CONTRIVERSEES!"

Date: 2009/03/02 17:11:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Wow.  After reading the exchanges between JAM and Wesley I am convinced that it'll make some at the Disco nervous if it was going on at one of "their sites".  There's something you'll see completely blotted out on a Creationist/ID blog, two proponents on the "same side" arguing openly.

If anything confuses them more, I am at a loss to say what that would be.

Date: 2009/03/02 17:52:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 02 2009,17:22)
Yeah, if they keep that up, sooner or later one of them will kick over one of the support poles to our big tent, and then where will we be? :p

SHHHH!  You're giving out our (socialist) state secrets! :O

That ID gets no respect is just due to "prejudice in science circles" truly shows their ignorance.  Obviously they've never heard nor seen the exchanges between PE supporters and detractors.

I bet that Daniel is thinking he's "winning" by making two "evilutionists" argue.  Earth to Daniel, that's how science is done.  Not only does one worry about the data but the exact meaning of each word in context.

Date: 2009/03/02 18:34:12, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,18:13)
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?
Jesus.

Was that a swear word?  Or are you saying that Jesus is more real to you than the Great Spirit.  Personally, I think there's as much evidence for Cthulhu.

What about some of the stories of other "gods born of mortal women" and "gods that died and rose from the dead"?

Osiris comes to mind.

Mitra is another

Date: 2009/03/02 19:45:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,19:35)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 02 2009,16:34)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,18:13)
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?
Jesus.
Was that a swear word?  Or are you saying that Jesus is more real to you than the Great Spirit.  Personally, I think there's as much evidence for Cthulhu.

What about some of the stories of other "gods born of mortal women" and "gods that died and rose from the dead"?

Osiris comes to mind.

Mitra is another
Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

Interesting.


So people can speak with their god?  Do you?  Please tell me about "your experience".  Was it as good for him as it seems to have been for you?

The thing that has always stuck in my paw about Xianity is that this all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent god, leaves two innocents (how else do you describe two people with no knowledge) alone knowing full well what they'd do and it's their fault?  If I left two toddlers in a room with a loaded gun on a table they could reach, tell them not to touch it and one blows the others head off, whose fault is it?  Why isn't your god just as culpable as my stupidity?

If anything this god of yours should be on its knees praying for our forgiveness if as many stated before that there was no death before man sinned.  Seems this god is either not so powerful or is in fact incapable of doing anything right.

One more thing, do you have anything from, I don't know, within 20 years from "secular evolutionists" that are far more on the cutting edge of what scientists have been doing or like so much from the ID or Creation side, nothing but snippets and retelling of old stories and out of text quotes to prop up your position.

I'm not an expert on Biology but even I can tell you have nothing.

Date: 2009/03/02 19:47:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (khan @ Mar. 02 2009,19:41)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:35)
(snip)
Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.[/quote]How big is god's penis?

Woah,


Looking for a date there girl?

;)

Date: 2009/03/03 07:46:19, Link
Author: FrankH
So Daniel, you want "exact pathways" that were taken by bio chemical processes, right?

You do know that unless we actually get precursor biological specimens to study we may never truly know.  Of yes, as others have shown you, we can get close and have a 99% certainty that the enzymes, catalysts and what not but we will never have 100% proof.

And that's what you want.  You are 100% sure that your version of Jesus and Heaven awaits you if and only if you are 100% true to this ideal that you have in your mind.  Fortunately for you as this ideal is only all in your head, you'll be able to rationalize your judging, condemnation and general hatred you have towards people you don't like or don't agree with you (usually the same group which is about 99% of the rest of humanity) and still feel "saved", "special" and "forgiven".

Your insistence on the path of A to B, then from B to C and so on is truly misguided.  From my understanding of biology, systems are co-opted if it is found that it works better in another function than what it originally "evolved" to do.

If what remember reading is true, there are few clean breaks from one "system" to another.  That is not to say that it can't happen.  Evolution can come quickly or it can take its time.  All that matters for evolution is that the creature with the "different" (I dare not say mutated) genes procreate and its offspring have an advantage over the competition.

That leads to the most over-blown and misused "Darwinian term", "Survival of the Fittest".  It is actually "Survival of the most able to survive and procreate".  If that means cowering away and being able to hid in a big pile of dung, so be it.  Evolution is not just the strong killing the weak.  It is so much more.

Here's something for you to think about.  You know how tidy Math is, right?  That's what you'd like to see.  Plug in a problem and the answer spits out.  Ever notice that when you take it to a more complex model, multiple and interdependent variables, it becomes very complex, almost impossible?

Welcome to biology.  It has many variables and very few can be controlled.  That is why pinning down biology is very difficult.  Change one thing and the effects can be wide spread or even non-existent.

Here's something for you to do, I'd like you to plot out the course for a comet, your choice on it's mass, inclination to the ecliptic, even how where it comes in from the Oort cloud as long as its original trajectory would have taken it within 50m KM of the Sun.

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

Date: 2009/03/03 07:50:26, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?

Date: 2009/03/03 08:28:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 03 2009,08:25)
Getting back to the roastee, I also considered that what Egnor was trying to achieve was purple prose satire.

Unfortunate, the prose is poor, it's not funny and there's no real theme.

That leaves Dembski-fugly purple.

What is it about creationists that they are jokes, but they can't tell jokes?

Creationists tell jokes, even write them down and have web pages.

Unfortunately they are not funny and they insist on taking them all seriously.

Date: 2009/03/03 08:56:13, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 03 2009,08:37)
Joseph actually contributes something informative.

Quote
Joseph:

Are Mutations Random?

Quote
The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time... mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful.

Mutations are observed to be random *with respect to fitness*, but are not purely random.

Which is something else that needs to be stressed.

Too many Creationist friends of mine keep harping on the "random" aspect as if it is the only source of evolution.  It is also where I suspect those suspect probability statistics come from.  If chemistry was truly random, I think they'd have a point, unfortunately for them, chemistry us governed by reactions they conveniently ignore.

I say, as a layman, that the term "random" be dropped and the term "changes" be used instead.  There should also a quick phrase that shows where these changes could have been, coding changes, radiation, even the catch phrase "environmental changes" to further describe it.

That should help quiet this nonsense of "random events changing slime into man" crap.

Date: 2009/03/03 09:55:58, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 03 2009,09:37)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,08:56)
I say, as a layman, that the term "random" be dropped and the term "changes" be used instead.  There should also a quick phrase that shows where these changes could have been, coding changes, radiation, even the catch phrase "environmental changes" to further describe it.

That should help quiet this nonsense of "random events changing slime into man" crap.
"Random " already has a well-established scientific meaning of "random with respect to" or "uncorrelated with".

(snip)

Yes, but we are alos dealing with a segment of the population that not only appeals to vox populi (hence the glee in which ID supporters proudly say "Well 50% of Americans believe/feel/demand ID be taught!") but has no problem confusing the terms "Theory" and "Best Guess".

I hate to say this but a more forcefully describing what the terms are and mean in context is needed.  Otherwise more disinformation is spread when you have people using terms incorrectly and thinking they understand when all that happens is their masters deliberately confusing terms as to make their assertions more "likely".

Date: 2009/03/03 10:09:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,09:56)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 03 2009,15:45)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:50)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.
As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?
I keep waiting for some YEC historian to claim "if science can't tell us precisely where Lewis and Clark were every second of every day during their 1804 historic expedition across America, then Lewis and Clarke never existed!"


:D  :D  :D
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

Wouldn't it also be science to say that it is impossible for Daniel to not show that his beloved Jebus didn't also find himself in a gutter, with dung on his head, fake breasts and a sore ass coming (or maybe he already came) from a bar?

Date: 2009/03/03 20:51:48, Link
Author: FrankH
Well Daniel?  Are you going to come back or are you going to avoid these questions?

Seems you run away when your idea of a god is questioned.  To me, it seems you are of little faith.  If your faith was strong, you'd be able to respond intelligently, factually and with vigor.

I see nothing like that in you.

Date: 2009/03/04 06:58:56, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 04 2009,03:07)
(snip)

I think that is a "yes". So Daniel, who had VD on the Ark?

The sheep had the STDs.

Then men of old were just too happy to get some "fresh mutton".

Date: 2009/03/04 13:41:56, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 04 2009,05:32)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2009,08:55)
Wolfie, I hope you have all of 20 years before menopause. My wife and I got to share "menopause in a bottle," AKA  tamoxifen following her first mastectomy. Her cancer has returned 5 years following a second mastectomy, and is unfortunately now considered incurable. She takes the estrogen blocker Arimidex, which so far has actually reduced the size and number of active sites in her lymph nodes, and so far there are no brain, lung or liver tumors (the next most likely sites for secondary breast cancers).

We are hopeful that with the anti-science swine out of the White House, medical research will catch-up in time to save her, and millions of other women's lives.

I'm sorry to hear that, Dr G.

Yet, sadly, it brings to light the inherent problems of fighting against science for ideological and theological reasons. No amount of "Jesus loves you" can replace an able lab with able scientists using all the WORKING tools they can to help those who are in pain.

What would be the state of the world if everyone shared, for exemple, the beliefs of Jehovah witnesses about blood transfusion. The more you think about it, the more crazy it looks, and really gives the best arguments against blind religious fanatism.

Although I would not wish harm to anyone, I wonder what would be your average IDCreationist's reaction if confronted with such an issue.

I kinda remember about Dr Dr writing a desastrous account of his visit to a "healing preacher" with his wife and his son who is afflicted with Down syndrome.

I wish this kind of tragedy would open one's mind, but sadly it rarely does.

Anyway, hold fast, Dr G!

Yep, it's amazing how some change when they are confronted with a problem.  Nancy Reagan is all for fetal stem cell research as her hubby died of a condition she believed stem cell research could have cured.

Date: 2009/03/04 13:44:06, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Daniel,


Looking to see if you're going to contribute or slink away and hide as you have then have nothing to contribute, only your dogma.

Date: 2009/03/04 13:45:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Dr. G,


Believe me when I say that sucks.  Hope it comes around for you and yours.

Date: 2009/03/04 14:03:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 04 2009,13:58)
(snip)

finally can you explain how k.e.. manages to always have a hand free?

Isn't that something about getting so good that he's able to switch hands and GAIN a stroke?

:p

Date: 2009/03/04 14:16:32, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2009,14:13)
PUNJABI


WELSH

What?

Falkland warbrides all converged in Wales?

Date: 2009/03/04 14:21:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2009,12:07)
So being interested and even playing sport, especially a team contact sport, is some indication of homosexuality nowadays?

Interesting.

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt8kve-dEWE

Date: 2009/03/05 06:42:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 05 2009,06:30)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,20:21)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2009,12:07)
So being interested and even playing sport, especially a team contact sport, is some indication of homosexuality nowadays?

Interesting.

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt8kve-dEWE

Sorry but what's gay about that? Isn't that how all Americans speak?

Louis

You call me sissy one more time I'll hit you with my purse and scratch your eyes out brute!

Date: 2009/03/05 06:47:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 05 2009,06:30)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,20:21)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2009,12:07)
So being interested and even playing sport, especially a team contact sport, is some indication of homosexuality nowadays?

Interesting.

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt8kve-dEWE

Sorry but what's gay about that? Isn't that how all Americans speak?

Louis

Come to think of it, that's a Welsh dialect, no?

Date: 2009/03/05 06:49:15, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 05 2009,06:46)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 05 2009,12:42)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 05 2009,06:30)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,20:21)
 
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2009,12:07)
So being interested and even playing sport, especially a team contact sport, is some indication of homosexuality nowadays?

Interesting.

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt8kve-dEWE

Sorry but what's gay about that? Isn't that how all Americans speak?

Louis

You call me sissy one more time I'll hit you with my purse and scratch your eyes out brute!

All I want to know is if you will actually call me a brute whilst doing it. If so, I'm free next Wednesday.

Louis

Can't do Wednesdays.

That's when the "Jane Austin Appreciation Society" meets.

Sigh.....


:p

Date: 2009/03/05 07:45:29, Link
Author: FrankH
Happy B-day to you.

Many more.

Date: 2009/03/05 08:41:29, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2009,18:26)

[QUOTE=Daniel]Wow, you take one day off and people make up all kinds of stories about where you've been and why![/QUOTE]That is due to dropping off suddenly with no mention that you were doing or going somewhere else is a standard ID/Creto evasion tactic.  When the going gets rough and the questions too hard, punt
Quote
Anyway, rather than argue about "unique" enzymes any longer with JAM, I've decided to change the wording of my Argument from Impossibility.  The gist of my argument was never about the "uniqueness" of the enzymes anyway - it's always been about the impossibility of constructing a believable step-by-step evolutionary pathway leading up to the present system.
That is what we call politely "Argument for Personal Incredulity"  Personally, I like to call it what it really is, "Argument from Perpetual & Willful Ignorance"
Quote
Maybe now we can get back to that goalpost.
Which you have changed.

You stated that each enzyme is uniquely made for one reaction.  It was shown that is not the case.

As for "step by step" pathway, those too have been shown to be not only possible but highly probable but you refuse to accept it as you have "never seen it".  As you've never seen your god, I wonder how you can believe in that.

Date: 2009/03/05 14:40:01, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 05 2009,13:36)
FFS! I take a couple of days to relax at an alternate establishment de bloggage and what do I get??? Abuse. Unwarranted, unasked for, undeserved, unintelligent abuse.

I hope your earholes turn into arseholes and you shit all over your pullover. May your next turd be a hedgehog!

;-)

Louis

You love it.

Louis:  Stop!

Us:  Have more Louis!

Louis:  Don't!

Us:  Even More LOUIS!

Louis:  Stop, don't!  Stop, Don't, STOP!

Us:  Here's even MORE!

Louis:  DON'T STOP!  DON'T STOP!

Date: 2009/03/06 08:58:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 06 2009,08:18)
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 06 2009,13:04)
Having donned the tard protection, muttered the incantations, invoked the guardianship of Darwin and Dawkins, I have marvelled at the (no word sufficiently derisive) posted at UD.

But this.............I dunno; how deep can tard get before it drowns its producers?

Very very deep.

I rarely go to UD because I am still too scarred from previous tardma*. I am suffering from Post Tardmatic Stress Disorder.

And before anyone mocks, you don't know, man, you weren't there. Tardlie was everywhere, Tardlie had underground tunnels, man, he was in the trees too.



Louis

*Tardma: clearly a terrible neologism meaning the trauma derived from overexposure to tard.

I guess I'm somewhat immune to tardma.

Living in both the south and having done time in Utah makes one more nihilistic and able to shrug off such inanity easier.

Date: 2009/03/06 09:43:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 06 2009,09:15)
(snip - random synapic misfires from two people)

ETA: You were in Utah, man? I hear some serious hit went down there. Were you with Special Forces?

You don't know the tardma over there man.  Horses in the Americas around 1000 BCE to 1000CE.  Stories of Jews who don't follow Kosher Laws nor write in Hebrew but "reformed Egyptian" (which look suspiciously like demotic Egyptian save they're all lost now).

It's bad man, real bad and now with Mitt Romney running around as the next Mo-mo messiah for 2012.

Time to go back on my meds as those flashbacks are getting worse now.

Date: 2009/03/07 06:39:59, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 07 2009,02:38)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 07 2009,10:01)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:16)
 Why should I cut and run?  I've got you all on the ropes!

Daniel, we are not 'on the ropes' in the conventional sense, we are casually leaning against the ropes watching as you stagger around the ring flailing your arms wildly and occasionally hitting yourself in the face...

shhhhhhhh

he's winning.


<snikker>

You spelled it wrong.

It's not w-i-n-n-i-n-g

it's w-h-i-n-i-n-g

Date: 2009/03/07 13:57:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Maybe I should start a new thread for Daniel, where he can show me at least why he believes that the topology of the Earth is supported by a global flood and not local floods.

I am most interested in his criteria for making those pronouncements.

Date: 2009/03/07 17:11:08, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 07 2009,16:40)
Oldman, I get the impression from your recent postings of back-to-back contradictory statements by Daniel Smith that he contradicts himself.  Often.  Repeatedly.

Do you think he appreciates the cognitive repair service you're providing?

Probably not.  It would take an effort of will.

This is a cognitive and willful act by Daniel.  Just like his heroes of the ID/YEC movements.  They willfully and consciously lie and changed their stories to make it fit their predetermined outcome.

Daniel already knows that the Bible is true and 100% errant, despite his protests to the contrary.  He has no reason do close his eye, stuff cotton in his ears and yell as loud as he can, "You're wrong.  You have nothing.  I can't see anything in the so called evidence you provided".

How 'bout it Daniel, want to do some geology?

Date: 2009/03/07 17:14:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 07 2009,17:06)
Quote (Junior @ Mar. 07 2009,16:27)
hard core proof of evolution
Is there a thread for hard core?

Yup.

All threads of hardcore are the ones k.e. responds to on this board.

However, I think we have a new friend who knows how to cut & paste from a Creationist site.

Date: 2009/03/07 17:34:41, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (khan @ Mar. 07 2009,17:23)
I think I filled my creationist bingo card.

So long as you didn't fill your Creationist dance card.....

Date: 2009/03/07 19:14:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Reminds me of that story about the atheist professor who said if there is a god that this god should come down and smack him.  Instead a Marine goes over and said, "God's busy".

I resent that out changing out with the US being the professor, the WTC being the "smack down" and the Marine was replaced by Osama.  The howls were great.

Date: 2009/03/09 08:25:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Once again Daniel:[QUOTE=Daniel]I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)[/QUOTE]I too have flown over the land.  What I've seen is a very diverse and varied landscape.

You have high, jagged mountains out west, lowering rolling mounts in the east, flat rolling plains in the middle, dry and arid land in the south west so tell me again how does that equal a world wide flood?

What evidence do you have for a world wide flood.  Again, you can't prove a negative.

Date: 2009/03/09 10:52:48, Link
Author: FrankH
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 09 2009,08:10)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 09 2009,07:34)
Ben Stein applies the Poof! theory in economics:      
Quote
Notice that recently Ben Bernanke said the recession might end this year, and the stock market rocketed up that day.

What we need, as Bill Clinton aptly pointed out recently, is more cheerleading and less fear-mongering. We elected Mr. Obama to be National Spirit Leader, not National Scary Storyteller.

If Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner, his Treasury Secretary, and Mr. Volcker, his well-respected advisor, and some real superstars like Warren Buffett and Jack Welch all came out and said, "The recession will end within 12 months. We are sure of it," the recession WOULD end within 12 months.

How ironic, since the main nay-sayers on the economic recovery prospects are the Republicans, who are also the main believers in the Poof! theory in all other respects.

As a former Republican (up until 2000), I have often "lively" debates with my friends at work.

A few things they have not been able to address are:

1:  If tax cuts are the cure, then why are we even in this mess after all the tax cuts from the Bush-lite era?

2:  If giving corporations a tax break is the way, how does that create jobs?

3:  If there "needs to be some pain" from people who are jobless and losing their home, how long would you like to have it happen to you?

4:  If it is a family's fault for buying "too big a home", why didn't the banks and the mortgage lenders stop them?  Isn't that their job?

Date: 2009/03/11 13:18:23, Link
Author: FrankH
That's it.  All of you blasphemers are in such trouble.

By denying your God Darwin and not claiming him as your Savior, I cast you out!  By the power vested in me by the States of Intoxication, Denial and Alternate, I call you all heretical and when the mothership comes, you will be denied ACCESS!

Repent now or forever be sentenced to this planet!

So say we all.....

Date: 2009/03/11 13:32:12, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 11 2009,13:24)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 11 2009,13:18)
By the power vested in me by the States of Intoxication, Denial and Alternate,
Reformed or Nebraska Synod?

NEITHER BLASPHEMER!

They are but falsehoods created by charlatans who know not of the Holy Book by HIS REGAL PERSONAGE DARWIN!  Both of those ill-conceived and diseased groups DO NOT use the Holy Secret Decoder Ring packaged in a box of "Count Chocula" back in 1974.

They are evil and follow false profits of long term savings and sustained great that will lead them to their collective doom!

Date: 2009/03/11 13:35:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Oops, you have riled me as you attack my beliefs evil doer.  For that, you will surely pay for the next three rounds!

old quote:
Quote
They are evil and follow false profits of long term savings and sustained great that will lead them to their collective doom!
Corrected quote:
They are evil and follow false profits of long term savings and sustained and renewable growth that will lead them to their collective doom!

Sorry for the confusion.  (But I hope it screwed YOU up blasphemer!)

So say we all.....

Date: 2009/03/11 14:08:11, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 11 2009,13:38)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 11 2009,13:32)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 11 2009,13:24)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 11 2009,13:18)
By the power vested in me by the States of Intoxication, Denial and Alternate,
Reformed or Nebraska Synod?

NEITHER BLASPHEMER!
Ah, so you're one of those Primitive Intoxicants? Well, I have no interest in listening to what a literalist barnacle-handler has to say.

Once again BLASPHEMER, I have PROOF!

Or should I say, there's more PROOF (151) in my State of Intoxication than in yours (3.2).

As to my being literalist, you're darn tootin' their bud.  Show me where it says anything about Nebraska or Reformed!  I read it literally as it makes so much cents that way.  I follow the TRUE PROFIT and each quarter my stock in HIS name splits and doubles again.

Date: 2009/03/11 15:23:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 11 2009,15:12)
Quote
Slavery is not the same as racism!

A racist can be against slavery(like Darwin). Someone not against slavery can be against racism(like God).

Hope that helps.

"God is against racism"?

Isn't he the one who selectively chose an entire people and killed their enemies, Red Sea, let them trick then kill other humans and take their virgin females as concubines and more?  Yet when "his people" were slaves, he killed the firstborn of the slavers.

But I do agree that Slavery and Racism is not the same.  A slaver holds that anyone can be "lesser" and are "just property".  Racists at least hold their own above others.  Neither are good in any sense of the word.

As for "racists" of the mid 19th century, read John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis.  Two "god fearin', good and TROO christians" of the US South.

Date: 2009/03/12 06:48:26, Link
Author: FrankH
I've always wondered that if Noah's flood was to rid the world of evil men, why were Ham and his wife (and their sinful progeny) allowed.

Ranks right up there with who had Syphilis and the Clap on that canoe.

Date: 2009/03/12 13:15:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2009,13:05)
Check out R0b's comment
LinkWorth reading in full but I don't have time to format it atm.
Quote
But I guess when your victories are so few and far between, you’ll chase down any small victory you can salvage.

Yep, we’re pretty desperate that way. Anything to put a damper on the highly successful ID movement.

But you’re right that the Weasel issue is a tempest in a teapot. Nobody in science cares about the 20-year-old trivial illustration. It’s the ID and creationist camps that keep bringing it up, and as long as they do, we’ll keep trying to help them get their facts straight.

Wow.

Is Evolution a "movement"?

Now I agree that ID is a highly successful "movement".  As much shit as they are full of there is no way to hold it in.

As for Dr. Carl Wieland and his stunning expose' on Evil, Vile and non-existent Darwinian body snatchers, isn't he the dentist who was chased along  with his family by Darwinian agents?

Date: 2009/03/12 13:51:21, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Chayanov @ Mar. 12 2009,13:25)
Quote
In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious.
You just can't educate people who are so willfully and stubbornly ignorant, much less engage them in any sort of meaningful dialogue (although I suppose you could spend time mocking them). How many times has this error been pointed out and corrected over the years?

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.....

None are so deaf as those who refuse to hear.....

None are so fricking stupid as those who get "do it yourself" home lobotomy kits.....

Date: 2009/03/12 14:31:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Bolding is mine.
Quote
436

DaveScot

03/12/2009

1:41 pm

Perhaps the greater flaw in Weasal is that it starts from an initial state of gibberish. Evolution doesn’t work that way. It begins from a highly optimized state and transitions to a different but similarly highly optimized state in response to dimunitions of the original optimization caused by changes in the environment. We have a wonderful case study in real life, in real time, of how this works. Behe examines it in “The Edge of Evolution” where the malaria parasite begins in a highly optimized state which is diminished by the introduction of anti-malarial drugs. If evolution worked the way Weasal works these drugs would be overcome in such very short order that they would be utterly useless from the very start. After all, chloroquine resistance only requires three amino acid substitutions to become functional. The parasite only has to go from “Methinks it is like a weasel” to “Methinks it is like a beagle”. It takes the parasite some 10^20 tries to get there. So there is clearly a huge disconnect from the Weasel program and how the diversification of life actually happens.
As a (hopefully) a learned novice, where is it said that evolution STARTS at a "highly optimized state.

Isn't this a strawman?

Date: 2009/03/13 06:57:03, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 13 2009,06:38)
joshuabgood:
Quote
Further, if RM and NS produce aggressive behavior or thought systems which aids survival of individuals/group by producing domination and extinction of individuals/groups without the identical adaptation - then TTOE, as defined by the engines of RM and NS can be considered the cause of aggressive behavior and aggressive thought systems.

Seems pretty clear to me…

If a group of bees develops a “Killer” mentality they are better adapted and can take over the “regular” bees. (We of course actually see this happening in the Southern US.)

The bottom line is with TTOE, Ken Miller aside, there seems to be no “ought” there is just “is.” Therefore which groups survive and which group go extinct is not a moral question at all but is instead one of survival. If a racist mentality helps a group exist/reproduce there is no moral constraint. TTOE in the least then, to my way of thinking, makes no moral judgment on racism and partially enables it by suggesting that some groups will be “better adapted” than other groups. Some groups of living things will become extinct as conditions change. It also makes good sense that groups that are “better adapted” would not want to be bred with groups that are not as well adapted and would also keep the less well adapted groups/individuals from the finite resource pool.
That is so wrong on so many levels.

AussieID shows ignorance in abundance.

My favorite part is the use of the term "Social Darwinism".  I have never seen anything about Darwin advocating or even suggesting that killing off "lesser people" is right, what we should be doing or even in passing.

That is like saying Xian Missionaries killed who they couldn't convert.  What a minute that is what happened.....

Date: 2009/03/13 07:07:48, Link
Author: FrankH
Just a thought.

Isn't blaming Jesus/God for the murder, rapes, conversion by sword point, wars, etc, easier to make than blaming Darwin?

After all with the amount of death and destruction from all the crusades, religious cleansing, spats of whose idea of Jebus is the right one ("He's the Prince of Peace!", "No, He's the Prince of Tolerance!", both "Death to you heretic1"), etc even more vile than self proclaimed atheists who openly say they don't follow any "kind and loving god"?

Date: 2009/03/13 08:20:55, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 13 2009,08:06)
Why is it that original sin as a doctrine post-dates Jesus by several centuries?

Something I want to know is why are most of what was written on Jesus appear about 100 years after his supposed life ended?

What I'd also like to know from believers in the KJV of the bible is what made Luther's version the right one of the bible above all doubt?

Date: 2009/03/13 08:24:07, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 12 2009,21:27)
So we're still waiting to hear from UNC Greensboro, but to this point my daughter has been accepted to Drexel, Johnson and Wales, and Liberty (snicker).

Today, we got the letter of acceptance from Arcadia (formerly Beaver College) in Glenside, PA (half a dozen miles from where I grew up). She's very excited. They have a "study abroad your first year" program, so she could go to London College of Fashion (she's not interested in fashion though), University of Stirling in Stirling Scotland, or University of Limerick in Limerick, Ireland.

Tickled for and proud of her. (But where the hell did the time go? She just started kindergarten last week, didn't she? didn't she?? Uni??? Already???)

I know what you mean.

Mine wants to go to Wake Tech to be a Massage Therapist or a Nurse.  Or was it Graphics Design?

Wait a minute, wasn't she that furry loaf I was holding just a few hours ago when she decided to take her first peak outside at the real world?

Date: 2009/03/13 09:11:37, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 13 2009,08:47)
{sigh}

I've got so much to learn.

Louis

You'd be surprised how many things that are fun are considered "bad parenting".

Like letting them play with frayed electrical wiring.

Swimming with Crocs and 'Gators.

Letting them puff on a cigar and drinking Johny Wlaker while watching the game with you.

Playing on the Interstate, with or without a vehicle.

Some many restrictions nowadays.  How can anyone have fun anymore?

Date: 2009/03/13 09:56:26, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 13 2009,09:51)
In this thread:
Quote
23
Clive Hayden
03/12/2009
12:38 am
I going to disapprove your 1st comment Seversky, I cannot allow such language about God being worse than Hitler or Stalin.
Seversky has had his comment reinstated!!!

The problem is that this god of theirs they claim has power, unlimited in fact, yet never shows to show the right way.

I'd say that makes this god way worse.

If you have the power to change things and you allow suffering on a planetary scale to continue to keep this illusion of "free will" to continue is just wrong.

Date: 2009/03/15 15:26:33, Link
Author: FrankH
The more I read from the TARD mines and from the overly religious just reinforces my opinion on them.  They are incapable of any thought other than a false dichotomy.

They see the world as:

1:  Black/White

2:  Right/Wrong

3:  Good/Evil

4:  Their religions views/heresy

5:  Their god/their devil

6:  Friend/Enemy

7:  Morality (theirs)/Immorality (what others do)

8:  Us/Them

Their mindset is one of predetermined correctness.  They "know" their god's correct.  They "know" their interpretation of this god's works is accurate and binding.  They know that they are being tested with "lies and fabrications" when they are presented with a point of view, or worse yet tangible evidence, that goes against their dogma.

So, and Daniel is an expert at this, when faced with facts that perhaps their ideals are wrong, they must retreat.  As was pointed out before, to deny their current beliefs could mean great losses for them.  They fear the loss of family and friends, their children even livelihood should they openly question their group's idealized version of what is right and what is wrong.  Thing is I'll bet money that there are more than a few that are suffering in the same way.

That is why they continue to rehash old, tired, oft refuted and out dated material.  It is comforting to them.  They understand it and it is real to them.  It is their safety blanket and when the world gets too hard and offers up too many evidences that may make them re-evaluate their ideals, they crawl right back to it.

It seems that many of them could easily fall into porn, alcoholism or many more addictions.  Religion is just another way to become addicted and they like it.  Just as the junkie tries to get their friends to get hooked with them, the over religious want others to partake of their drug or addiction of choice.  Those who recognize this in themselves figure that if they didn't have Jesus they'd be a junkie, pervert or worse figure that those who don't have Jesus already are.

It is interesting the people who after finding out that I am not religious comment and wonder why I'm not some sort of a criminal.  Some of them have asked me point blank why I don't just go out and rape, murder and more as I have, in their eyes, no moral center.  I ask them if they didn't go to church if they would be.  Too many have stated they probably would be "doing something illegal" as there would be no moral guidance in their life.

UD and Daniel show me everyday just how accurate I think my view of them really is.

Date: 2009/03/15 15:37:56, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 15 2009,15:33)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 15 2009,15:31)
David Kellogg, Man of Rhetoric, asks what we're all wondering
Quote
2

David Kellogg

03/15/2009

3:15 pm

I’d really like to understand what “higher standard” is met by the recent posts smearing Darwin and insinuating that evolutionary biology is racist and/or that evolutionary biologists are probably racists if they don’t respond to Denyse’s ultimatum.

Presumably insulting the other side ("Darwinbots", "Darwiniods") doesn't count either.
Gerrin there Bob! This comment is the nuked one I mention above, erm, 'onlookers'.

High-fives bob.

HAR HAR THIS IS BARRY:


Of course he's cowardly.

They tried to "show up" "Darwinists" but failed totally so they ran for cover, ignoring that their ass had been chewed out and that they are wearing their ass as a hat.

Date: 2009/03/15 15:41:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 15 2009,15:36)
Oi! Be careful what you wish for.

If they're not allowed to be rude about us, would we have to be nice about them?

UD without bannination would be like religion without damnation. What would be the point?

Personally I think that if one really wanted to get under their skin, being nice but pointing out their rudeness in a polite and "matter of fact" manner would be the way to go.

As much a I want to make fun of them and reach through the monitor to wring their scrawny little pencil necks, I know that killing them with kindness will work the best as it will easily be shown who is the rude moron.

Date: 2009/03/15 15:59:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 15 2009,15:08)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,13:28)
I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.
We'd noticed.
Quote
I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.
They have been convinced. It's just that you refuse to accept that you are not qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not, and refuse to accept that it has convinced the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.

What I'd like to know from Daniel are the names of these "scientists who study this stuff" who do not accept it.

So Daniel, either pony up these names of scientists who study this stuff and don't accept it, bonus points if they are not religious, or retract your statement and admit your objections are due to your own personal incredulity.

Then we can start on Flood Geology.

Date: 2009/03/15 16:39:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 15 2009,16:22)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 15 2009,15:26)
Their mindset is one of predetermined correctness.  They "know" their god's correct.  They "know" their interpretation of this god's works is accurate and binding.
Which reminds me of some poetry I read that is applicable to the folks over at UD (and I don't even need to tard it up):
Quote
So men, awake but dreaming, dare to claim,
believing it or not, they speak the truth -
though the hypocrite's is the greater sin and shame.

You mortals do not walk a single way
in your philosophies, but let the thought
of being acclaimed as wise lead you astray.

Yet Heaven bears even this with less offense
than it must feel when it sees Holy Writ
neglected, or perverted of all sense.

They do not count what blood and agony
planted it in the world, nor Heaven's pleasure
in those who search it in humility.

Each man, to show off, strains at some absurd
invented truth; and it is these the preachers
make sermons of; and the Gospel is not heard.
- Dante Alighieri, Paradisio, Canto XXIX, 82-96

Funny that Carson as I was thinking of Dante.  Specifically I was thinking more of Inferno, the Eighth circle, where the Hypocrites walk listlessly getting nowhere.....

Holy crap if that ain't the entire ID movement.

Date: 2009/03/15 19:19:03, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 15 2009,19:10)
It's been so gosh-darn exciting around here, I forgot to announce that I've joined the Dark Side.

And I'm not even using it for books. :)

Would that be TARD porn instead?

If so, I'm running a bit short on newer stuff.  Perhaps you could hook me up?

Date: 2009/03/15 20:07:47, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Mar. 15 2009,19:26)
Cry "Banned" and let slip the dogs of Tard.

To ban or not to ban, there is no question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of overwhelming evidence,
Or to take arms in the sea of litigation,
And by starting, lead them. To lie, to equivocate;

With all due respect to the Bard.

Date: 2009/03/16 06:13:48, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 15 2009,23:21)
Lou wrote:

Quote
There was a small fruit bat attempting to stow away on the Space Shuttle before launch this evening:


Must have been an escapee from spring training.

:)     :)     :)     :)

BTW, did you know that the bat is the state bird of Canada?

(hahaha Minnesotans can joke about our neighbors to the great white north, eh.)

:)    :)    :p

Oh course!

Just as the mosquito is the State Bird of Minnesota!

One just wonders how much brain damage is caused by that blue smoke that comes out when they first fire up their snow mobiles in September.....

Date: 2009/03/16 07:33:48, Link
Author: FrankH
Wanted to create a new thread for this.

For the anti-climate change group:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009....ex.html

It's a small world after all,
it's a small world after all,
it's a small world after all,
it's a small, small world.....

Date: 2009/03/17 06:35:57, Link
Author: FrankH
About the UD's comment on the "New Scientist" and the self-censorship of "Hidden religious agendas and how to spot them":

Yesterday I got my copy and right there, on page 23 in the left two columns is guest columnist Amanda Gefter and her article.

Did I not read the article in UD correctly?

Date: 2009/03/17 06:44:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 17 2009,01:25)
Fah!  Dat's da wrong way ta have a liquid-cooled engine!

:)       :)      :)        :)

Oh yah sure.....

Wit da air bein dat cold up dare, no water cooled engines are needed you know.

Date: 2009/03/17 07:36:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 17 2009,07:31)
yep, he's done it!

pope benedict XVI said, while on his flight to Africa, that distributing condoms is not a solution to AIDS.

The catholic church is fighting AIDS through abstinence.

Article in french

I'm very, very angry right now!

ps: lake of caps voluntary, this scum doesn't deserve any.

Why I'm no longer Catholic.

When one places their religious dogma above real solutions, it is obvious they have real problems.

Hey, if a person wants to believe in the FSM, wear spaghetti as a wig on their shaved and bald head, dance to no music and otherwise do what they think their god wants them to do, more power to them.

Just don't for even one damn minute tell me i'm supposed to do the same fucking thing.

Date: 2009/03/17 07:43:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 17 2009,07:40)
The trully Touched wears full Pirate regalia, you heathen fool!  :D

See? For this I use caps...

Wrong heretic!

You are now excommunicated from the "One True Church of the FSM"TM

One does not wear a cap but it is truly a colander worn only by the high priests and high priestesses (indeed the only thing they wear - by FSM I love my religion!) on high holy days.

Be gone blasphemer!   :p

Date: 2009/03/17 07:59:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 17 2009,07:50)
Ok, what schism do you come from? Because according to the Most Holly Gospel of the FSM, it's Pirate regalia all the way!

Just saying, and may you be Touched anyway... :)

Hey, I didn't say anything about Pirate Regalia.

As for which branch of the Church of the FSM, the only one TROOTM of course!

We're the ones where the masses start off with a clip of Whitney's empty net goal in game 7 of the 2006 Stanley Cup run, all while being served beer from 4 scores virgins (at least at the start of the mass) all between the ages of 16 and 19.5 years old!

Yes, yes, the oral sex comes first.....   :D

As for me being Touched, damn straight.  You raise daughters knowing there are other guys like me in the world and see what that does to your blood pressure!

Date: 2009/03/17 09:44:59, Link
Author: FrankH
Another one for "things are fined tuned for life" argument:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009....ex.html

Once again we note how life finds a way to continue even in places where other lifeforms wither.

Date: 2009/03/17 12:52:58, Link
Author: FrankH
I {heart} St. Patrick's day.

Where you can go to a pub and order 2* pitchers for 4 guys for lunch and nobody cares.

*  First Guiness, Second Smithwicks (hope I spelled it right)

Date: 2009/03/17 12:54:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 17 2009,12:53)
(snip)

Animalz - I see food and a fuck

I didn't know you too lived in Wales.

:D   :p


(or Wyoming)

Date: 2009/03/17 13:07:41, Link
Author: FrankH
On the misuse of probability at UD and other Creto sites.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on where I think they get their assumptions on the probabilities of the formation of complex proteins:

1:  That atoms forming together via covalent or ionic bonds are random and equal in probability.

2:  There is nothing special about Carbon nor its ability to form long and complex chains.

3:  A complex protein is formed spontaneously and no pre-cursors were needed nor formed first.

4:  The probability is done in a "Random Walk" style.  By that with three degrees of motion, in either a "positive" or "negative" manner (ie towards the completion or removing itself from the completion of the protein).

Am I missing anything?


Thanks

Date: 2009/03/17 14:02:16, Link
Author: FrankH
To me the whole analogy of language to evolution is nebulous at best.

Last time I checked, different sounds can mean different things to different people.  Also, language doesn't evolve in the same manner.

Unless I am being too literal, I don't see how using language is relevant as evidence for evolution.

Date: 2009/03/17 14:44:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Isn't trying to define a language in modern terms a lot like trying to say that life evolved directly into modern life forms.

I'm trying to do this in between getting asked why a x6745 line card doesn't work in a 6504E so forgive me if I seem rushed or I don't explain it as well as I should.

"Sounds" represented by letters, make communication possible.  It is only when we started formalizing these sounds into words and then words into sentences that the "rules of grammar" apply.  So the first "sounds" could have just been:

"Ugh"

To another caveman, this could have meant, "Crap".  

The sound, "ugh" could later turn into "uh oh" but the meaning could have changed.  The new meaning is "Danger".

I will try to explain it more later.  Am I making any sense here?

Date: 2009/03/17 17:35:47, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Mar. 17 2009,14:51)
FrankH:

Your two topics of attention are not unrelated :)

Which was something I thought would be just as relevant.

What I can read and understand can be much different than what others understand.

A lot of the stuff on this board goes right over my head.

So the sentence:

"The SIP 200 in slot six of the c7609 needs to be realigned and reseated", makes little sense to someone not familiar with Cisco gear.

So perhaps this venture in "evolving words" can show that some lines mean nothing until they are in an environment that pertains to what it's trying to say.

Date: 2009/03/17 19:44:03, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Benny H @ Mar. 17 2009,18:56)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 17 2009,13:07)
On the misuse of probability at UD and other Creto sites.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on where I think they get their assumptions on the probabilities of the formation of complex proteins:

1:  That atoms forming together via covalent or ionic bonds are random and equal in probability.

2:  There is nothing special about Carbon nor its ability to form long and complex chains.

3:  A complex protein is formed spontaneously and no pre-cursors were needed nor formed first.

4:  The probability is done in a "Random Walk" style.  By that with three degrees of motion, in either a "positive" or "negative" manner (ie towards the completion or removing itself from the completion of the protein).

Am I missing anything?


Thanks

I'm sure you're right, but they have much bigger problems with probability than what you've listed here. They don't seem to understand why it's meaningless to calculate the odds of an event that has already occurred and they don't seem to understand why long odds against a particular evolutionary pathway is not an obstacle for evolution in general.

One of my engineering friends where I work likes to use these "probability studies".  As I studied Physics not Engineering (why are there so many ID engineers who are saved by Jesus?) I had to take a lot of other courses and one thing I remember about chemistry is that it is not random.

I also know that the probability of something happening that has already happened = 1.

So what I've been trying to show is that these probability models are complete crap as O-Chem (funny how very few engineers have to take O-Chem it might just unravel their hard wired brains) shows that Carbon loves to make long, complex and "improbable" chains.

When I showed him that and that there are simple organic compounds in the depth of space, he answered, "Yeah but they are simple chemicals".  I tried to show him that his idea of a "random" conglomeration of atoms is so much bunk.

I was wondering if there is a place where I can go and find just how complex organic molecules can be without any "guidance".

Date: 2009/03/18 08:19:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 18 2009,06:07)
(snip)

Have I missed a chemistry opportunity again?

Oh balls!

What precisely is it that people want to know? The word "guidance" is what's confusing me. Is my setting up a reaction "guidance"? If not the entire field of organic synthesis is open. If it is "guidance" then space is your best bet. Is a crystal "complex"? Why did you give the answer you gave? It's the woolliness of these words that IDCists hide behind. Hence why I want to know what they, and anyone, means by "complex" and "guidance".

(snip)

All this from the creationists is yet again the appeal to personal incredulity and ignorance. Stick taxol through the EF. Stick glycine through the EF. Do you get different results? If so why? BAH!

Louis

Thanks Louis,


It is my understanding of ID/Creto thought in of one their many  misunderstandings holds that each molecule is essentially "hand built" by their god/designer.

My understanding of chemistry (this is from a person with a BS degree in Physics and now works as a network engineer) is that atoms bond together in a non random fashion and there are preferred "hierarchies" of binding together.  Yeah, I know I don't know the correct terms.

An example is CN is preferred by hemoglobin over O2.  So in the ID/Creto world, there is an equal chance that when given a opportunity to bond with CN or O2, it is a 50-50 chance for either one.

Same with structure.  The angles the two H atoms form when attached to O to make water is not an arbitrary value.  Now I forget why that is and I'm not going to Google it right now but I know I could find out.  To the mindset of the Creto, I'm sure that angle was "hand picked" to them.

So not even the structure is "random" which only adds to the "improbability" of proteins being made.  Of course as only one specific protein will work (one just knows that cars only run on 91 octane petrol), that makes the "design" that much easier to spot.  Never mind that while Protein A is 99% efficient for a process, Protein B, a precursor to A can do the same process at "only 80%", obviously B was never used.

Date: 2009/03/18 08:52:56, Link
Author: FrankH
Daniel,


So you believe life was "Intelligently Designed", correct?  You do know your belief basically has at least four parts, and it actually has more, that you need to provide evidence for it don't you?

Assumption 1:  The Universe was designed.

Assumption 2:  The designer was intelligent.

Assumption 3 (unspoken):  There was one designer.

Assumption 4 (unspoken):  The designer is still around.

Assumption 5 (unspoken):  The designer has benign intentions.

There are more but I think you'll not be able to get past your first assumption.

Granted that the last 3 are your personal assumptions, you being a Christian and all, but even if you show evidence for 1 and 2, you still haven't shown that is was your god.

So let's start with 1, without it, 2 is pointless.

What evidence do you have FOR the Universe being designed?  Remember evidence against something else is not evidence for you.  Just because a man's last name is not Smith doesn't mean his last name is Brown.

I wait with baited breath to read your responses.

Date: 2009/03/18 08:54:30, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 18 2009,08:42)
What's that about marine biologists?

They smell kinda fishy?

Date: 2009/03/18 09:08:53, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Mar. 18 2009,07:48)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 17 2009,20:10)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 17 2009,13:07)
On the misuse of probability at UD and other Creto sites.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on where I think they get their assumptions on the probabilities of the formation of complex proteins:

1:  That atoms forming together via covalent or ionic bonds are random and equal in probability.

2:  There is nothing special about Carbon nor its ability to form long and complex chains.

3:  A complex protein is formed spontaneously and no pre-cursors were needed nor formed first.

4:  The probability is done in a "Random Walk" style.  By that with three degrees of motion, in either a "positive" or "negative" manner (ie towards the completion or removing itself from the completion of the protein).

Am I missing anything?


Thanks
They also assume that only one protein meets the requirements, an assumption that is almost certainly wrong for every function.
Well, they've got a little more clever than that. They say that there are fewer ways to achieve a function than not to achieve a function (which is likely true) and that as the size of a protein increases, there become exponentially more ways to fail than to succeed (which is likely true).

Therefore, larger protein = less likelihood of evolution.

However, I've noticed that this actually doesn't account for a protein being built up slowly. They assume that because evolution is a random walk, it's not possible to teleport over sequence space.

But in fact, adding little bits of protein is the same as teleporting from a smaller sequence space to a larger one, and with natural selection you're guaranteed to end up on the equivalent island in the larger space (since the protein will likely do what it did before).

In fact, how about this example? I take a bit-string and decide that its fitness is decided simply by how many 1s it has. I can now make a list of increasingly large possible bit-strings, and their fitnesses.


0: 0
1: 1

00: 0
01: 1
10: 1
11: 2

000: 0
001: 1
010: 1
011: 2
100: 1
101: 2
110: 2
111: 3

0000: 0
0001: 1
0010: 1
0011: 2
0100: 1
0101: 2
0110: 2
0111: 3
1000: 1
1001: 2
1010: 2
1011: 3
1100: 2
1101: 3
1110: 3
1111: 4

and so on. I could take the string 0111111111111111 (fitness 15), and KF would tell me that the chances of getting something with that much fitness is 16 / 2^16. Tiny!

But not true. In fact, I began with the string 0, and added a 1 each time. And ended up on that tiny island.

I know this is a silly, simple example, but I bet evolution works the same way. Am I wrong? :)

In such a scenario, if you have it that having more 1s gives fitness, doesn't it hold that if you are going to have 16 numbers of 1 or 0, you'd have a preponderance of 1s?

After all, one would not expect that even getting to 4 zeros is very possible.

Let's say having more 1s gives a "fitness" (the ability to continue on) of 0.9 while having more 0s gives a fitness of 0.1.  Having equal 1s and 0s gives a "fitness" of 0.5

So if you start with:

0 - you have only a 10% chance of going on while

1 - has a 90% chance of going on.

Adding on it seems pretty obvious "0" dies out but that leaves 1 to become:

10

11

Now already you're selecting out "unfit" sequences.  If both are said to continue on, you wind up with:

100

101

110

111

Again 100 is most likely going to "die off" leaving you with:

1010

1011

1100

1101

1110

1111

etc, etc.

So getting to 16 "ones" is not going to be 16/216.

That is my take at least and yes, I believe your last statement-question is correct.

Date: 2009/03/18 09:46:37, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 18 2009,09:13)
Quote
ericB: War Games Fallacy, Version #2 ...

If a program, such as Zachriel (cf. JT’s comments above) or others like it, preferentially preserves words such as “of” because they are in the dictionary and will eventually become useful in meaningful sentences (even though they are currently useless for meaningful sentence construction), then that program is committing the second version of the same fallacy.
It's not a fallacy because, like Dawkins' Weasel, it doesn't claim to show more than what it does. In any case, ericB is still saying that words don't have meanings unless found in complete sentences. Try a dictionary. Word Mutagenation illustrates that disparate words can have common evolutionary origins within the context of the simulation.

{Xposted this and several other comments to Uncommon Descent. They accept the submission, but like previous attempts, never publish them.}

One could say that "partial sentences" then are RNA and "complete sentences" are DNA.

Can/did RNA double up/combine to form DNA?  What is the relationship between them?  Seems to me that is a great way to show that DNA grew then from RNA.  Complete sentences, DNA, formed when two or more partial sentences, RNA, combined.

If "information", whatever that is in the RNA/DNA world, is all that is needed, even singular words convey information.  That could be the proteins.  As you added would together, you got phrases, the "partial sentences" or RNA.  The add more to DNA.

In that way, "information" is passed along in more detail leading to more complex life.

I may be way off base but now this idea of words then phrases then sentences makes sense to describe how so called "information" is transferred and recombined forming more complex and detailed "messages".

Date: 2009/03/18 09:48:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 18 2009,09:03)
hey bait breath aren't we trying to get denial to talk about something substantive, not "Dude Look At Yer Hand"

I vote for Duh Flud.  And Nothing Else.  We need to get to the bottom of this happy horseshit, pronto, and Denial wants nothing more than tangential distractions about his opinions.  We have already determined that his opinions about this are worthless.  

But he has yet to share much of his opinion regarding the age of the earth and Duh Phlud.  That promises to be much more entertaining than his ideological pre-commitment to creation.

I don't expect him to talk about anything substantial nor deep.

I'd be happy to hear his take on Noah's canoe and the flood but me thinks he's out of his depth in a puddle.

Date: 2009/03/18 10:03:13, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Steverino @ Aug. 03 2008,08:41)
Richardthughes:    
Quote
...but if you're a Tardaholic like me, your boats come in..
That's my favorite quote of the month!  Now, that's a keeper!!!

I disagree on one point, Vox while a complete tool-bag, is very intelligent.  He does, however, lack the ability to interpret information without his religious biased.

Facts make sense to him except when they are contrary to his religious, emotional beliefs.  Then they are just complete lies.

P.S.  I love this pic...What a pretentious douche bag.



I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies

Hey, what's wrong with DnD?

Granted 4th Edition sucks but 3.5 is great(*)!

Still gaming, after 30 years.....

(*)  The best RPG is still C&S.....

Date: 2009/03/18 10:08:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 18 2009,10:05)
Speaking of puddles, that will be his answer for the universe - just look at how well designed the universe is for human life (even though it isn't).  Like the old Douglas Adams bit with the puddle.

Gotta love all of the ways the word "puddle" can be used.

Date: 2009/03/18 10:16:37, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 18 2009,10:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,10:05)
C&S?


[guilty pleasure] I always liked Traveller. [/guilty pleasure]

C&S red book?

Traveller, The Fantasy Trip, Runequest (Chaosium), Empire of the Petal Throne, Rolemaster, Champions/Hero System, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Bushido, Aftermath...the list goes on and on.  

I am a geek.

But Vox Day is still a loser.

"Chivalry & Sorcery" Red Book, 1st Edition and the three book boxed set 2nd Edition.  A great, but very difficult system.

DnD (original books), AD&D (1st), AD&D (2nd), DnD 3 & 3.5 - still gaming.

Traveller, "This is Free Trader Beowulf.  Under atteck, losing atmoshpere" love that game.  Mega-Traveller almost killed my enjoyment of gaming.

Gamma World, TFT (The Fantasy Trip), Empire of the Petal Throne, Arduin Grimoire and more.

Not to mention Ogre, GeV, Car Wars, Nuclear War, you name it.

Too many AH games.

Yes, I am a N.E.R.D. and proud of it.

Date: 2009/03/18 10:26:42, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,10:19)
I'm pretty sure the secret success of Ebay is me buying all the things I wanted as a kid but didn't have later in life...

;)

computer based RPG games seem to be getting there, but I don't subscribe to any as they'd take time I don't have.

Tell me about it.

I got a 1st Ed. AD&D book for my daughter's 18th birthday (she games with my group).  Fortunately it was only $10.

:)

Date: 2009/03/18 10:35:36, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 18 2009,10:33)
Quote
tribune7: There is no reward for guessing 99 percent of a safe’s combination.
But a weakly interacting enzyme might be rewarded.

Wouldn't that be if and only if it is an off/on, up/down or open/close situation?

Again, is it to the ID/Creto mindset that things either work 100% or not at all?

Date: 2009/03/18 10:38:08, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 18 2009,10:33)
WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF THE SPERM AND EGG (THAT MADE YOUR WORTHLESS PANSY GIRLY MAN ASS) MEETING IN SUCH A VAST UNIVERSE.  I'LL ANSWER FOR YOU, HOMO, SINCE YOU ARE OUT OF HERE:  0.  YOU DON'T EXIST

dt

So how many eggs does a woman have?

How many sperm cells does a man produce over his lifetime?

How many generations back to the "flud".

What were the chances that your ancestors actually met?

What are the chances that those specific egg and sperm met to make you?

Doesn't that make you an impossibility as well?

Date: 2009/03/18 13:18:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 13 2009,13:10)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 13 2009,09:55)
The Expelled folks need to head to Turkey to document this. Darwin was expelled from the front cover of a government-sponsored science mag.
Maybe we should just call Turkey "chicken" from now on.

Ooooh, Ben Stein is "notorious" as an ID advocate now! Maybe now he'll finally get the, er, chicks. :p

Should we send him your email address so he can start hitting on you?

 :p


(ducks for cover)

Date: 2009/03/19 10:09:24, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 19 2009,08:37)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 19 2009,07:16)
John fucking Calvert?

Oh sweet crap on a stick. This is going to be dumb with a capital STOOPID.

{looks away in embarrassment}

I'm not the same species, I'm not the same species, I'm not the same species, I'm not the same species, I'm not the same species....go to the happy place, go to the happy place....

Louis
C'mon Louis, don't you like how Pendulum is swinging with his comment?

I don't want to think about which way his "pendulum" swings due do his words.

Perhaps Carson does.

Date: 2009/03/19 10:15:59, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 19 2009,08:25)
Edit: and now it does show. blast, I feel stoopid!

Welcome to my world!

Date: 2009/03/19 11:36:00, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,11:17)
It's all bit 'lightning is so unique and fantastic there must be a Thor'

With the madness that is UD it must be Hastur.....

Date: 2009/03/19 16:46:07, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 19 2009,16:20)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,16:03)
Will Dave appear here?:

http://www.evoinfo.org/People.html
If they got room for Gil and his Frilly Shirt, there has GOT to be room for Dave!

From Your Link:
Gil Dodgen, M.A., B.A., Bachelor of Music  
http://vertigo-inc.com/    http://www. worldchampionshipcheckers .com/
Artificial intelligence, Guidance, navigation, and control in aerospace.
Finite element analysis
GilDodgen{at}cox{dot}net


I highlighted the fun parts.  And by fun, I mean

Ha Ha!  This is you! Funny!

Holy crap!

One thing I know about math is you can make anything utterly impossible if you choose the wrong starting points and select incorrect assumptions.

I apologize on behalf of all non-heads up our collective asses network engineers for being a major source of experts in "ID study".

Seems like studying ID is like drawing your own comics, or designing your own DnD world.  You can do whatever you want

Date: 2009/03/19 17:43:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Hehe.....


My daughters last year turned me on to a group that just don't get no air time in the Greater Raleigh, NC, area.

Muse, gotta love "Stockholm Syndrome"

They hate it when I start loving music they listen to that I'm supposed to hate.

:D  :p

Date: 2009/03/19 19:26:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,19:09)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 18 2009,06:52)
Daniel,


So you believe life was "Intelligently Designed", correct?  You do know your belief basically has at least four parts, and it actually has more, that you need to provide evidence for it don't you?

Assumption 1:  The Universe was designed.

Assumption 2:  The designer was intelligent.

Assumption 3 (unspoken):  There was one designer.

Assumption 4 (unspoken):  The designer is still around.

Assumption 5 (unspoken):  The designer has benign intentions.

There are more but I think you'll not be able to get past your first assumption.

Granted that the last 3 are your personal assumptions, you being a Christian and all, but even if you show evidence for 1 and 2, you still haven't shown that is was your god.

So let's start with 1, without it, 2 is pointless.

What evidence do you have FOR the Universe being designed?  Remember evidence against something else is not evidence for you.  Just because a man's last name is not Smith doesn't mean his last name is Brown.

I wait with baited breath to read your responses.
I'm working from the assumption that the universe was designed, that life was designed, etc.  

If you want me to convince you, when it's pretty obvious that your mind's already made up, you're out of luck.

If you really want to know about God, ask him.  He has convinced me of his reality many times over, I'm fairly sure he'd do the same for you.

Again, I'll ask you.

Show me your evidence that this Universe is designed.

As you're working from the assumption that the Universe is designed, you're going to have to show your evidence.  As to my state of mind, trust me it changes when I am presented with evidence.  Hell, I used to be a Republican.  Last year, I went stumping for Obama in Johnston County, NC.  If you know anything about Johnston County, you'll understand how much "fun" I had.

As for asking your "god", I have to talk to you as this entity is in your mind.

Tell me Daniel, do you believe that those who believe in Gaia or other deities that you don't believe in can also talk to their gods/goddesses?  If you think they are talking to "deceivers" ala Lilith, Satan, their own sub-consciousness, the Easter Bunny why are you not doing so?

See Daniel, for you to even be considered serious about the Universe being designed, you must show your evidence.  Otherwise, you see what you want to see and that is not evidence, that's masturbation.

Date: 2009/03/19 19:29:56, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 19 2009,19:21)
I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.

ALL HAIL CTHULHU!

When HE comes, I'll be eaten/completely destroyed first before ANY of you!

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

Yeah, I got that going for me!

Date: 2009/03/19 19:34:10, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 19 2009,19:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,19:57)
Quote
I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.
*squints* Sorry guys, my monitor is playing up. Is this thread 'argument from impossibility' or 'improbability'?
It's the "Argument from the Impossible." As in, "you are impossible."

No, it's an argument from WILLFUL Ignorance.

Ignorance is unavoidable but forgivable.  It is when you close your eyes, yell loudly, plug your ears and compartmentalize one's mind (tell me Daniel, your god.  He killed many children and innocent babies yet he allowed evil to persist in the world after he flooded it, what type of a monster do you worship?) that it is a crime.

Date: 2009/03/19 19:38:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 19 2009,19:34)
Ooo Frank be go down Wendell an shit

I love Johnston county.  Fall line of piedmont is fantastic.  until the god damned yankees ruined it with their Atlanta 2.0

stripes still run up the neuse though, there is hope yet.  that sort of hope that eric pianka talks about.

Wendell is in Wake County.  And I'm not a Yanqui.  I'm from California, LA County.  That makes me, uh, confused.  I like JoCo as well.  My middle kid has a "JoCo Girl" sticker on her car!

As for da Braves, WTF?  They're a faux pas Baseball team.  The team around here is the Cleveland Indians.  Don't ask me why.

Besides, I'm a Carolina Hurricanes FAN.  I gots some season tickets.

Date: 2009/03/21 08:27:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2009,22:50)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2009,19:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 19 2009,19:21)
I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.
ALL HAIL CTHULHU!

When HE comes, I'll be eaten/completely destroyed first before ANY of you!

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

Yeah, I got that going for me!
Infidel!!!!!!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

So there.  You've got one more chance to get it correct.  Damn youngsters.  Can't even be bothered to learn an Elder Tongue any more...

In my day...(drifts off to sleep of fishy things)

Expect a call from Nyarlathotep when you least expect it.

Blasphemer, your soul will rot in the orbit of Azathoth listening to the cacophony of the insane music playing Micheal Bolton's greatest hits for all eternity!

Date: 2009/03/21 08:58:24, Link
Author: FrankH
Wow, talk about beating your head against a brick wall.

Still, there is something so enticing of knowing you stuck it in them so they need to "moderate" you posts.

But it is blatantly obvious that they are not interested in anything that looks like real debate, just talking points.

Gods forbid that they lose "talking points".  Thankfully, too many times they are incapable of realizing they've been trounced and celebrate defeats as "victories".

Just in case it gets deleted:


Onlookers, this is most interesting:

From:

303
Joseph
03/20/2009
4:57 pm

<i>And why is what worked throughout history to falsify the design inference not any good for ID?</i>

Ah, still you haven't said anything about what would falsify ID save that "proving 100%", if you knew science you know that proof is not part of it (tell me how does gravity work?) evolution did it.

See I know evolution DID do it.  How is why people get Noble Prizes.

Still it is sad to see that ID, which is an attempt to explain things, albeit ever so whimsically, happen.

First it was a "designer" drove his chariot/barge/wagon across the sky dragging/pulling/carrying the sun.

Then we had "designer lightning" which were hand crafted.

This doesn't include the sounds of thunder as designers caused that as their hammers met the thick skulls of giants.

<i>So I apologize- don’t shut up- keep babbling on because you provide the reasoning for moderation policies, which is the topic of this thread…</i>

In truth, I have done nothing but protest when I was attacked, insulted or ridiculed.


From:



<i>Frank H is next on the list with a thrifty 11 swings at the ball. It’s worth noting that he was almost disqualified for teasing the judges. He opened his mouth, but nothing came out.</i>

Yes, so much to ask for a real item that would falsify ID.  As there is nothing save an appeal to "common sense" that "tells us if has to be designed even though we can't determined what is and what isn't designed".

Then when the proposal that "forensic specialists do this all the time" is brought in, the fact that forensics technicians do look to see not if something was planned but who the planners were is ignored completely.

You can't claim "looking for design" from some "Intelligent Designer" when you already hold that this designer is A: Singular and B: Intelligent.

ID must first find a way to accurately detect design in nature and not just "Because it looks that way" and it be used with 100% accuracy in field tests.  That is something IDist seem to recoil from.


Last:

309
kairosfocus
03/21/2009
3:24 am


<i>But, surprise: that’s how real world science, forensics, history, management and a lot of other serious disciplines and arts work — by glorified common sense that seeks to find the truth while being conscious of the possibility of error.</i>

Which is not applied to ID.  One small quibble.  Truth is the property of Philosophy.  Facts and Evidence are the meat and potatoes of Science.

ID admits nothing that they could be in error, hence the steadfast refusal to look into what these designers are, nor to actively seeking facts.

<i>So, again, selective hyperskepticism leads to self referential absurdity.</i>

Like the notion that there are self-replicating molecules, not quite life but blurring the line?

I'll ask again for what would be alive:

Virus:  Yes/No

Prion:  Yes/No

So we already know there are self-replicating proteins out there.  Are they alive?  Any takers?

<i>Predictably.</i>

Yes that ID doesn't ask questions of itself and leaves it to others to "prove a negative".

<i>Ever so sadly so.</i>

That we are stuck instead of taking resources into science (perhaps the Discovery Institute could take money from their legal fund and put it into research instead) and have to continue to defend against claims that are continually shot down, just repackaged and given a new label.

Date: 2009/03/21 09:10:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 21 2009,08:35)
If you're really interested in evidence (I don't believe you are), then read some of the many books written on the subject.  I'd recommend Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton.  Mike Gene's The Design Matrix is another excellent source for design evidence.  There are also books by a whole host of others that catalog very nicely some of the evidence pointing to design - if you're really interested.  

Personally, I think design is self-evident.  You know it when you see it.  I think you know that too.  You just don't want to know it.

Books are not research.  Let me turn you on to other books to "expand your horizons".

"Chariots of the Gods"

"The Inner Goddess"

and MORE!

What research papers can you point to?  And know, design is not self evident.  If it were then everyone would see it.  One could same the same about you and not realizing the healing power of crystals.

Date: 2009/03/21 09:13:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 21 2009,08:47)
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.

And they have been.

Do you have any evidence that some scientists are not looking into this?

Date: 2009/03/21 10:22:52, Link
Author: FrankH
It's official:


315

FrankH

03/21/2009

10:13 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

From:

313
crater
03/21/2009
4:23 am

Bill seems to have disappeared. Was he put on moderation or did he run away?

He’s on Moderation

Date: 2009/03/21 12:52:08, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 21 2009,11:31)
Here a bit 'O paranoid ideation from Jerry:
Quote
The list is from the last 3 days. Yes, I forgot about Mark Frank and then there was ribczynski, and Yellow shark and I am probably missing a few others and their mentors who coach them.

No projections there.  Good thing THEY don't do that.

Ya, right.

Date: 2009/03/21 12:59:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 21 2009,11:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 21 2009,18:34)
I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused.

Daniel. Are we or are we not going to talk about evidence for ye olde fuld?

I think that's what we're all waiting for now. Everything else is a bust!

If it "looks like there was a flood to you" please do tell what it is you are looking at!
Yeah a lengthy disertation on the Grand Canyon and it's age I think is order here don't you Daniel?

Plus any stories on good works by your church group would help.

Any worthy causes to contribute to?

Any bargain swamp real estate for sale?

"Works"?  Daniel doesn't strike me as being Catholic.  He wants the person who pontificates to him and tells him what passages in the bible mean to be closer.  Yeah, closer.

Closer, closer.  Getting there, oh that's it.  To the right, a little more lub.....

Um, where was I?  Oh yeah, Daniel.

Daniel I'll bet good $$$$ on is an Evangelical Protestant and we all know that Martin Luther ripped out "Works" as a way for salvation when he re-wrote the Bible.  As one of the signs on a farm not too far from my house states, "By faith alone, not "works", are yea saved".

Anytime Daniel you want to discuss the Grand Canyon vs the trench that blew a hole in the soft ash after Mout St. Helen's, I'd love to chat with you about it.

Date: 2009/03/21 14:46:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 21 2009,14:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 21 2009,05:51)
One doesn't get extra spam by having one's actual name mentioned, Mr. Mullings. One gets extra spam by having one's email address revealed.
I am living proof that one can have her real name online without getting gobs of spam (although I did remove my last name when I got a creepy invitation at my blog from some Englishperson to dance the cha-cha-cha mosh pit style).

Hey, I live outside of Raleigh.

I know it's an English name, Sir Walter and all.

I just want to, oops.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Date: 2009/03/21 15:07:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 21 2009,12:59)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 21 2009,11:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 21 2009,18:34)
I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused.

Daniel. Are we or are we not going to talk about evidence for ye olde fuld?

I think that's what we're all waiting for now. Everything else is a bust!

If it "looks like there was a flood to you" please do tell what it is you are looking at!
Yeah a lengthy disertation on the Grand Canyon and it's age I think is order here don't you Daniel?

Plus any stories on good works by your church group would help.

Any worthy causes to contribute to?

Any bargain swamp real estate for sale?
"Works"?  Daniel doesn't strike me as being Catholic.  He wants the person who pontificates to him and tells him what passages in the bible mean to be closer.  Yeah, closer.

Closer, closer.  Getting there, oh that's it.  To the right, a little more lub.....

Um, where was I?  Oh yeah, Daniel.

Daniel I'll bet good $$$$ on is an Evangelical Protestant and we all know that Martin Luther ripped out "Works" as a way for salvation when he re-wrote the Bible.  As one of the signs on a farm not too far from my house states, "By faith alone, not "works", are yea saved".

Anytime Daniel you want to discuss the Grand Canyon vs the trench that blew a hole in the soft ash after Mout St. Helen's, I'd love to chat with you about it.

My apologies to Daniel.

I should have never insinuated he was/is gay.

However he should still be trying to prove he's NOT a child molester.

Date: 2009/03/21 18:07:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Tried to, but I'm in Moderation Purgatory, so Joseph, like the coward he is, posts anyways.

I guess they don't let each other know.


======================================

316

Joseph
03/21/2009
5:11 pm

Farnk, Answer the question:

And why is what worked throughout history to falsify the design inference not any good for ID?

See I know evolution DID do it.

Did WHAT, exactly?

And what type of “evolution”? Guided or unguided?

Ya see Frank it is obvious from your posts that you don’t know anything about ID nor what is being debated.

You can say “evolution did it” but you can’t support that claim with any scientific data.

IOW ALL you have is faith is some vague thing called “evolution”.

Now stay focused and answer teh question:

And why is what worked throughout history to falsify the design inference not any good for ID?

Or admit you don’t know squat about anything….



317

Joseph
03/21/2009
5:15 pm

Frank:

ID must first find a way to accurately detect design in nature and not just “Because it looks that way” and it be used with 100% accuracy in field tests.

Science doesn’t look for 100% accuracy Frank.

But thanks for proving you don’t understand science.

And as I have told you we do have tried and true design detection techniques.

Now to refute the design inference all you have to do is show tat nature, operating freely can account for it.

And just because you can’t do that it is no reason to act like a crybaby.

Just admit that your position is based on imagination, not science.


318

Joseph
03/21/2009
5:16 pm

Frank:

So we already know there are self-replicating proteins out there.

We do?

Can you provide a reference for SELF-REPLICATING PROTEINS?

Thanks.

319

FrankH
03/21/2009
5:54 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Seeing if I am still in Moderation Purgatory.

======================================

Joseph,


Or any UD IDist who's reading this tell him this, you are invited over here.

I know you're too much of a coward and run behind your momma's skirt so I don't expect to see you over here as, well, you're a coward.  What else can I say?

Date: 2009/03/21 18:32:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Leftfield @ Mar. 21 2009,12:35)
I propose the AtBC crowd stay off UD for a day or two. I imagine it would be a ghost town, but maybe in the absence of their common enemy, the inmates would start arguing with each other, which could provide new and different pleasures.

I will.  Seems as though the MO of that group is take a beating, then put those who are giving them the beatings on "Moderation", read "banation by any other name", then pepper the "bad guys" with more questions they are not allowed to answer.

I guess when you continually get you're an IDiot and you continually get your collective asses handed to you, you'll have to "manufacture" any form of a "win", even if that means hamstringing others.

I still invite that coward Joseph to come here though.

Date: 2009/03/21 18:57:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 21 2009,18:48)
Gil Dodgen's praising his father.  (The real one, not the one in the sky.) Out of curiosity, I Googled "Dodgen Manhattan project" -- it's true, he's an impressive fellow.  My guess is he doesn't share Gil's love of IDC.  

I was struck by this sentence in Harold Dodgen's bio page:
Quote
After helping to bring about the peaceful end of World War Two working on the Manhattan Project, Dr. Dodgen was appointed to the Chemistry Department at WSU in 1948.
What an odd sentence! People think differently about the Manhattan Project.  You can think it saved your life, as many who fought in the Pacific theater did.  Or you can think it was a war crime, as I do.  The "peaceful end" thing, though.  Don't all wars end peacefully, in the sense that one side gives up and they stop fighting?  Was the Enola Gay carrying a love  letter?

Well as Japan almost didn't surrender even AFTER the two bombs, we don't know what it would have taken short of taking out the entire island.  After the blood bath that was Okinawa, the deaths on the main islands of Japan could have benn in the 10s of millions.

For war crimes, look at the Baatan Death march, the Rape of Nanking, the "Comfort Women" and more.

Then there's the fire bombing of Dresden.  Where the USAA lit the city up during the day and the RAF continued at night.  OVer 200,000 people died there.  War is a nasty business but there are more than just "peace" as the alternative.

Subjugation and slavery are others.

Date: 2009/03/21 19:54:28, Link
Author: FrankH
"Unpleasant Blowhard"!?!  I love it.

Yeah, again they post when we can't then chide us for it.

Do they ever come over and post here?  Or are these waters way too deep for them?

Date: 2009/03/21 20:55:56, Link
Author: FrankH
It seems we have people reading this board and "bringing attention" to our problem back at UD.

For them, what we have been hit with is the "Moderation queue".

Our posts are "waiting to be moderated" which appears to be "filed and forgotten".

I don't know what I did to get that form of "banning".

Date: 2009/03/22 06:33:24, Link
Author: FrankH
You're 29 as well?

What a coinkidink!

Happy B-day there young lady,

Date: 2009/03/22 06:47:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 22 2009,00:09)
Quote
You have been banned for the following reason:
Dr. GH

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
That is from the the good folks at "Rapture Ready." I have been banned forever because I am me.

10 years ago, the insane people at RR were the first ever to ban me from a creationist site. After 4 years I was again allowed to post, but this ended 3 years later when I pointed out that YEC satisfied all the theological criteria of a cult, while lacking a few criteria for a sociologically defined cult. Three years later, they still remember.

I propose that they are more pathological than my "pre-Banning" at UD by D'Tard.

PS: Never let fundies play with matches- you will be the one that gets burnt.

On a positive note about fundies and matches, when left in a vacuum, they burn their own.

Date: 2009/03/22 07:02:00, Link
Author: FrankH
I wonder if Clive will use what some of his sycophants say on other boards when it comes to banning them.  I wonder if they'll also put in their moderation policy that they'll read what you post on other boards as well.

Are the thought police next?

RB is a victim of his own success at pointing out the hypocrisy and inability of the IDists to explain ID or use their nixplanitory filter.

Date: 2009/03/22 09:56:20, Link
Author: FrankH
JLT, K.E.,


{channel=UD}I will never claim to have "stood corrected"!

I will channel the notpologists over at UD and ask if you two are still clubbing baby seals for beer money!/{channel}

I didn't know that.  I knew it was high and the number I kept on seeing was "at least 100k, perhaps 250k", or something like that.

Date: 2009/03/22 10:30:38, Link
Author: FrankH
I'm no chemist, nor am I a biologist but as the Daniels of the world require, nay DEMAND, workable pathways what do we know?

But then again Daniel, we'd like to hear voice recordings of Jesus and his followers, not "written statements made by eye witnesses".  As the UD crowd continues to use this mantra of "What Forensics use", any decent one will tell you physical evidence like you want is far more accurate than "eyewitness testimony".

So could you produce the same evidence about your god as you demad from us?

Date: 2009/03/22 10:39:32, Link
Author: FrankH
Any bets on how long David Kellogg and JayM have on the UD board before they're banned?

After all they just pointed out the double standards applied not just by the moderators on who can post, but how the pro-ID denziens are allowed to constantly violate the board's own rules about insulting and more.

In case they get "lost":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-309331

345

David Kellogg
03/22/2009
9:15 am

Clive [332],

<i>I usually do show why someone has been banned by me. Now, anyone who was not banned by me, I of course, cannot say.</i>

A few suggestions for making UD’s policy less arbitrary and opaque:

1. Provide a contact link where a person can email the adminstators. UD has multiple people with multiple levels of control but no “contact us” email. This is ridiculous. A banned person should be able to contact an administrator.

2. Provide a list of who controls banning and who they have banned.

3. Quit banning people for what they have said on other forums. You can’t be the internet nanny, but you can control what behavior occurs on your own forum.

4. Have a consistent policy between administrators. In [50], Barry says “If PZ [Myers] — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.” So PZ would not be banned by Barry for stuff he said at his own blog. He would apparently, however, be banned by you.

5. Have a consistent policy by one administrator. RB has been banned for discourtesy on this thread. But this thread contains comments by a pro-ID commenter who routinely insults others both here and on his own blog. The difference, apparently, is that he insults people who are anti-ID.

Just suggestions.


And, from http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-309333


346

JayM
03/22/2009
9:23 am

Re: Clive @330 and 331:

You have banned RB for remarks made on a completely different forum? I see nothing in the moderation policy you posted that supports that decision. In fact, Barry Arrington claimed that PZ Myers would be welcome here as long as he was polite, and Myers has been much harsher than RB.

In fact, many of the regulars here are much more offensive towards their opponents than RB has been, yet they remain and are not even subject to the moderation queue. Why the double standard?

JJ

Date: 2009/03/22 12:31:46, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 22 2009,11:36)
Sorry, RB.  I should have put that better.  I was just pointing out that, even accepting the strained ideas of the UD mod squad as to what constitutes discourtesy, their practice is inconsistent.

Like their "literal bible reading".

It's great to have Genesis literally true but which one makes them inconsistent.  Like how much I can sell my daughters into slavery for is likewise forgotten.

Date: 2009/03/22 13:50:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 22 2009,13:48)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 22 2009,14:46)
Shame there won't be a double act with DaveScot!
He must be out there somewhere laughing his ass off.

Gotta ask you there RB.

Why was I banned?  Any idea?  Are Joseph and Clive "good friends"?

Date: 2009/03/22 16:59:46, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Rrr @ Mar. 22 2009,15:09)
Gotta ask you there RB.

Why was I banned?  Any idea?  Are Joseph and Clive "good friends"?[/quote]Somewhere?
Scooty Puff, Jr

?????

Okay, you win.  I have no idea what you were trying to get at.  I just wanted to know why I was put into terminal moderation at UD.

Do you have any insight?

Date: 2009/03/22 17:00:59, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 22 2009,16:54)
Are you banned? Or just in interminable moderation?

I'm banned, as my posts no longer appear at all, even with the "in moderation" header.

The former.

I just want to know what got me into that form of purgatory.

Date: 2009/03/22 17:02:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Damn I need the edit ability, please?

I just found out I'm back in.

I swear to Thor I was still in purgatory and now my posts are showing up.

Date: 2009/03/22 17:59:35, Link
Author: FrankH
Are we doubling up on Kristine's B-Day?

What, are you aging twice as fast or something?

Damn that would suck.

Date: 2009/03/22 19:46:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Scary, very scary:

https://www.blogger.com/comment....7&pli=1
Quote
Joe G said...

Dazza McTrazza looking to find an argument

But anyway it's too late. I am already on the school committee.

Also next month I will be presenting "Intelligent Design Awareness Day" to 8th and 9th graders.

That was helped along by "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

9:18 AM
Those poor, poor kids.

Date: 2009/03/23 06:29:36, Link
Author: FrankH
Where does this old boy live?

I'd be happy to take it to the papers there or better yet if he lived around Raleigh.

Date: 2009/03/23 06:34:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 23 2009,04:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 22 2009,16:30)
I'm no chemist, nor am I a biologist...[SNIP]
Ah but do you play one on television?

Louis

Nope, I play with power tools and find new and ever more interesting ways to hurt myself.

More power, arrgghhh, arrgghh.....

(which basically sums up my skill with them, there's a reason I got out of construction and wen back to school)

Date: 2009/03/23 07:13:25, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 23 2009,06:58)
O'Leary self diagnoses:    
Quote
I’ve covered the persecution for years. To say it is not happening is, to me, like saying 9-11 didn’t happen. It is always possible for an ideologue to construct an alternate reality - a legend in his own mind, in which the event is not happening. He likes his alternate reality, of course.
Shes a little confused about the sex, of course.

After seeing "her", I'm not so sure she got the gender wrong.

Date: 2009/03/23 09:15:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Well, I'm still in moderation purgatory:



372

FrankH
03/23/2009
9:04 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Question to the Admins,

Why was I put on moderation? That is especially true if the other posters I was “sparring” with kept up with their personal attacks?

To be blunt, are only “anto-IDists” (to be fair I’m “anti-Santa Claus” as well) going to be tagged?

Date: 2009/03/23 09:55:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 23 2009,09:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2009,09:37)
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008....0107406
Quote
At 10:21 AM,  Joe G said…

AtBC:

Assholes that Beat Chicks

Assholes touching Boy's Crotches

Atrociously tasteless brutal cocksuckers

Anti-Thought Babbling Cretins
that gets you a naked full frontal man hug from Clive....

just to be consistent.

That is a vision I did not need!

Date: 2009/03/23 12:02:47, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 23 2009,11:13)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 22 2009,08:33)
Quote
The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.
As is your opinion skewed.

You fail to see the difference: We KNOW that if we find a face on Mars, it’s GOT TO BE DESIGNED, somebody would have had to MAKE it there. Because we KNOW about faces, have known for a long time, we have a lot of experience with faces; they are very common here on Earth. (You don’t mind some caps, do you?)

OTOH, we do NOT know anything about designed enzymes. Therefore we have no reason to believe they are designed. NO previous knowledge or evidence about DESIGNED enzymes. Therefore, since we know nothing about designed enzymes in nature the only option available is that they are not designed.

But we are always willing to look at evidence. You got some to show?
So all faces are designed then?

Let me try this one more time to chat with you and explain things.

You see design, I see patterns.  They are the same thing but they cause different reactions in us both.  You want to see your god in everything you do.  for myself, I don't believe in any god (I don't disbelieve in gods I just haven't seen a need for any of them).  So of course we will look at it differently, much like a glass half full/empty thing.

When you look at the rock formations in "Arches National Park", do you see your god's handiwork in it?  I don't.  I understand that the rocks are actually made out of different types on minerals.  Some are hard and resilient.  Others firm and tough but can be worn down when put under pressure.  Others are soft and crumble at a touch.

So these formations are the patterns made by the various conglomerations of the different rocks and their resiliency to erosion.  There is no "design" there, just patterns.

If you can't fathom that then don't read on as it will only confuse you.

Still here?  Good.

Now let's go deeper.  Let's go to something we can't see but have tons of evidence for, namely the structure of atoms.  Do you think that atoms were "designed" to fit together as they do?  Or are you like me and think that they form covalent or ionic bonds due to there structure?  Does Carbon form into long and complex polymer molecules due to chemical properties or that it was designed to do just that?

Now that is a primer on how you see design and I see naturalistic patterns.  Be careful about saying, "That's how my god did it" as each time we look we get a little bit deeper into why and how it is all done.  If we were just to take "god did it", we'd still be living in caves and throwing rocks at the moon.

Do you see where this is going?  If you can understand that, I'll write more.

You see god, I see pattern and we're looking at the same thing.  Again, why is your god better than say, Osiris?  After all, a lot of your god's reported history seems to have been taken from the history of Osiris.

Date: 2009/03/23 12:11:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2009,11:50)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 23 2009,10:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2009,10:05)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2009,10:01)
What's really lovely about "cake CSI" is that it would seem that a cake baked by a literate person following a printed recipe has loads, and about the same cake baked by an illiterate person has none at all.
Also (and mentioned before) is that 'a perfect sphere of aluminium of radius 1 meter' is clearly designed but has much less 'CSI' than 'a pebble' because of it's ease of description.

what about a 1-km perfect sphere of plutonium?
That can be measured by the size of the resulting hole.

How to get the 1-km perfect sphere together in the first place is left as an exercise for the reader, with the hope that the reader will do his experimenting in another solar system or galaxy.

Talk about a "great design" to even get that much Pu close enough to even take a spherical shape.

Honestly, I'm not even sure "beaming", ala Star Trek, all of that together could be pulled off.  Doesn't take much of that stuff to start fizzing all by itself, no "gun" required.

Date: 2009/03/25 07:59:36, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,06:28)
What I want to know is where BarryA has been through all this. Clive has made hash out of his intentions and, increasingly, a fool out of Barry.

(RB's perverted narcissistic fantasy: BarryA clawing at his shiny pate, screaming "I HATE that fucking Reciprocating Bill! Goddammit he's RIGHT!! Why does he have to be RIGHT?!" He then reinstates me out of principle.)

(More likely: "Fuck that asshole. Fuck all those assholes.")

Wondering why k.e. didn't pick up on this as this sounds so amazingly gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Unless you're not into it and somebody's trying to do that to you.

Then that's bad.

Date: 2009/03/25 08:17:11, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 24 2009,15:43)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 24 2009,11:50)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 24 2009,10:41)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 24 2009,09:24)
Can someone tell me how he arrived at 1010?
Well, if it was a five minute drive, and he started at 1005...

But seriously, I reckon he assumed 5 bits per character, even though that allows only one case, and no more than 6 non-letter characters.

Henry
Because I see where he thinks he's going with this I perceive a typo - well, let's see if my comment appears.
*Checks watch*
Quote
Did you intend to type 1616 instead of 1010?
Silence reigns. I should have said 1818 just for kicks.

What if it's 1812?

Can we get an overture for that?

Date: 2009/03/25 12:57:10, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,11:53)
How many Dembskis of error does this provide? can we tell?

I think we have a winner here.

Just as we have units of various forces and such in Webers, Telsas, Guass and more, I hereby nominate "Units of Error" to be known as Dembskis.

Bravo sir!

Date: 2009/03/25 13:12:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2009,13:01)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2009,12:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,11:53)
How many Dembskis of error does this provide? can we tell?
I think we have a winner here.

Just as we have units of various forces and such in Webers, Telsas, Guass and more, I hereby nominate "Units of Error" to be known as Dembskis.

Bravo sir!
Uh, where have you been?
Quote

Error in dembskis

That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a rounded-off value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is

? = | ln(erroneous measure) - ln(correct measure) | / 150

There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns".

It would seem I was under a rock.

I've never seen that before.

Date: 2009/03/25 14:17:21, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,13:36)
IDISTS: we has a secret lab, and we are researching, but there's no peer review because we'll get suppressed and evolutionists want to suppress us.
IDISTS: Okay - we've done some research - not PRO-ID but ANTI-EVO (because we can't work out what PRO-ID looks like)

WES: Okay, this, this and this are wrong, and these other 4 things aren't even relevant.

IDISTS: Shitty-shitty-shit-shit.

I can only imagine the emails going back and forth between Dembski, Marks and Atom.

It would seem the only thing that ID reliably predicts is that their next simulation will also be wrong.

Actually, their filter changes it to "This is correct".

Why it is wrong is by design.

Date: 2009/03/25 20:51:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2009,13:01)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2009,12:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,11:53)
How many Dembskis of error does this provide? can we tell?
I think we have a winner here.

Just as we have units of various forces and such in Webers, Telsas, Guass and more, I hereby nominate "Units of Error" to be known as Dembskis.

Bravo sir!
Uh, where have you been?
Quote

Error in dembskis

That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a rounded-off value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is

? = | ln(erroneous measure) - ln(correct measure) | / 150

There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns".

For Maya:


What the hell are you blabbering about?

Of course you'll bring up a "just so" story to cover your tracks.

Is this another way to bring out that "peer review" nonsense that you seem to worship almost as much as Darwin?

Answer me these questions and lets see if you can actually answer or are you going to slink away and snivel victory?

1:  Are you still beating seal pups for beer money?

2:  Are you still stealing money from primary school kids for beer money?

3:  What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

Let's see if you can answer them.


Is that better Maya?  Am I ready for UD yet?   :D

Date: 2009/03/26 08:32:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 26 2009,07:43)
(snip)

ID is not funny.

So true.

If it weren't so serious in the damage it does to rational thought it would only be sad delusions.

Date: 2009/03/26 11:02:41, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 26 2009,10:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2009,10:15)
A retired muslim vet airline pilot.
Geez, is anybody else having a 1984 moment - well, duh, but in this instance I mean Dembski's statement about ID being "young, rebellious, blah" like the claims of the Party in Orwell's novel, and the actual participants, like the actual Party members, being old and in bad health, and also being in terms of personality, er, well, blah?

The whole Creation thing is directly from 1984.  There are the inner party members, Dembski, Gish and the other liars for be Jebus, then there are the outer party members, Joe G, Denise, Jerry and such.  The outer party members are given meaningless jobs to feel special.

That makes the outer party members "know" they're special and all ride the bus together holding hands and singing "Kum by ya" as the driver takes them off of a cliff.

But like all good sycophants and sophists, it wasn't the driver's fault.  The road decided to up and turn suddenly.

Date: 2009/03/26 16:29:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 26 2009,15:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2009,10:15)
A retired muslim vet airline pilot.
Never trust a retired suicide pilot.

Wouldn't that be like throwing a reunion party for kamikaze pilots?

Date: 2009/03/27 08:00:32, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2009,07:49)
Apparently "twinking" is a term in games like WoW.  Who knew?  Hail Wikipedia!
Quote
A twink is somebody who, within the confines and restrictions that a game provides, attempts to maximize the effectiveness of his character in one or more categories. The process is called twinking and a character made in this fashion is considered "twinked" or "twinked out".
The traditional meaning has dibs, though.

In gaming, we call that "munchkinning out".

It's a property of the species Rulus Lawyerus and as I think about it, really does explain a lot about IDists.

Date: 2009/03/27 10:18:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2009,10:15)
Hey, a journal for Dembski to publish in
Quote
Rejecta Mathematica is a real open access online journal publishing only papers that have been rejected from peer-reviewed journals in the mathematical sciences. Click here to learn more, or read the current issue.
Caveat emptor

You mean he's not THE charter member?

Date: 2009/04/14 08:13:10, Link
Author: FrankH
Big Bang DISPROVED!

NASA shows "Hand of God" with his Crown!

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/04/14/space.hand/index.html

Take that all you heretics!  Proof I tell you, direct PROOF of God's handiwork in everything!

You're burning in hell and I'll bring the marshmellows!

Date: 2009/04/15 09:34:00, Link
Author: FrankH
Finally, a "peer reviewed" piece of creationist literature!

Still, I bet even the target audience would find it "simplistic" and "vacuous".

Date: 2009/04/16 13:24:22, Link
Author: FrankH
I have them all the time.

There are quite a few Creationists where I work and we almost always have some sort of conversation about politics, evolution, societal ills but they almost always come back to religion.

They know I'm agnostic and more than once I'll told someone that there very well could be a god or multiple gods but that I place little if any "faith" in their particular god.

One thing that has helped me is the little fact that many of the so called "literalists" themselves aren't literal about everything.  I was able to get the conversation away from Darwin and "scientists disagreeing with each other" and helped expand upon the differences between the Holy Rollers, Fundie Baptists, Evangelical Church of Christ and so forth.

By the time the dust settled, they were angrier at each other than me.  It seems that being "literal" is not as easy as they expected.  Each of them can't convince the other that their way is the "one true literal way".

Something else that has helped me is that most of them are pretty darn smart and if I give them information of where to find stuff on evolution like eyes, etc, they can read it and understand that there may be more than what they were told about the depth of study that goes into evolution.

Date: 2009/04/17 12:34:46, Link
Author: FrankH
Gotta love Gov. Perry of Texas ®.  He wants to be able to secede from the US as "Washington spends way too much".

I guess Washington spent too much on non-bid contracts to Haliburton which was once based in Texas and is now in Dubai.  Then there's those pesky hurricanes that wash up from the Gulf into the over built Texas shoreines and get Federal $$$$ to rebuild.  Yeah, what a wing nut.

Ever notice when crap like this is going on there's Fox News in the background egging this crap on?

Date: 2009/04/17 12:42:29, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (BWE @ April 16 2009,02:40)
Quote (k.e.. @ April 15 2009,21:46)
Quote (BWE @ April 16 2009,07:19)
Thanks all. That last one is a WTF a minute. One of the hallmarks of a wingnut, they need to disseminate their information as fast as possible for the survival of life on Earth.
...And BUY MY BOOK!
well, yeah. if you have the answer to save humanity from itself, you might as well make a few bucks, eh? :)

That seems to be the ONLY reason to save humanity from itself, to make money.

There is no other reason I can see to keep humanity around.

Date: 2009/10/13 08:43:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Speaking of scientific illiteracy.

Hello people, long time, no posting.

I've many "antis" at my work site.  One of the biggest "anti" is Global Warming.  Is there a good website to use as a resource for the "Heat Islands of cities skewing the results", "Solar Cycles mean the Earth is cooling", etc?

Yes, I live in the South.

Date: 2009/10/13 11:08:51, Link
Author: FrankH
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Date: 2009/10/13 11:17:12, Link
Author: FrankH
As I have no edit ability.  Here's a few questions:

1:  There are 6 Kingdoms of life.  Then there are Viruses and Prions.  Where do they all fit into the "Tree of Life" from a Creationist POV?

2:  How are the cells of plants (and the other non-animal cells) different from animal cells?

Those are two but I will think of more.

Date: 2009/10/13 11:27:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?

Date: 2009/10/13 11:31:45, Link
Author: FrankH
I'm sorry.  I thought I was posting on this thread.

Lou, if you want to move my comments here from the great FL Debate to the peanut gallery thread, I have no objection.

Date: 2009/10/13 19:35:55, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?

Saying Evolution has no goal is not entirely accurate.  It has no conscious goal but evolution does produce a goal of sorts.  Evolution works on populations.  The "goal" is for the population to adapt to the climate, available food, predominate predator/prey , etc.

So like water flowing downhill, evolution has a goal.  Granted it is harder to quantify but as water seeks the lowest level without conscious thought, Evolution works on populations to make the organisms in that population be better adapted to their environment.

So does Evolution have a Goal?  Yes!  Is Evolution diurected?  Yes!  Is this directed action conscious?  There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no direction.

Date: 2009/10/13 19:43:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,19:35)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?

Saying Evolution has no goal is not entirely accurate.  It has no conscious goal but evolution does produce a goal of sorts.  Evolution works on populations.  The "goal" is for the population to adapt to the climate, available food, predominate predator/prey , etc.

So like water flowing downhill, evolution has a goal.  Granted it is harder to quantify but as water seeks the lowest level without conscious thought, Evolution works on populations to make the organisms in that population be better adapted to their environment.

So does Evolution have a Goal?  Yes!  Is Evolution directed?  Yes!  Is this directed action conscious?  There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no consciousness directing what is the outcome of what comes out of the changes made to the populations made by evolutionary forces.

Ugh, I would like an edUgh, I would like an edit function.

The text in BOLD is what I was trying to say.it function.

Date: 2009/10/13 20:13:32, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,19:51)
It might be more accurate to say that evolutionary theory specifies no measurable teleological goal.  Given perfect information, we could predict precisely what evolution would produce.

Even the use of terminology like "purpose" and "goal" confuses the issue; by direct measurement, most evolution has no testable teleological component (we must exclude stock-keeping and breeding from this consideration, though these are also examples of evolution).

One of the issues that I think makes evolution so difficult is that there are so many "moving parts" to it.  Not only would we need perfect information, we'd also need to control all the variables in the natural selection process.

What I'd like to see from a creationist is them to describe the exact path and the groves it creates in the sand when they pour water down a sandy embankment.  After all, it's simple fluid dynamics, gravity and particle dynamics, right?  With that, they should be able to predict how the water flows and the grooves left in the sand, right?

Date: 2009/10/13 20:15:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,19:54)
FrankH said:  
Quote
There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no consciousness directing what is the outcome of what comes out of the changes made to the populations made by evolutionary forces.


You are making a logic error here: you are claiming that absence of evidence for teleology constitutes actual absence of teleology.  This is not the case. Is it rational to operate in a sans deos mode?  Given the impossibility of proving the existence or non-existence of God coupled with the lack of solid empirical evidence, yes, it is.

You are correct.

It should say:

There is no evidence to suggest that there's any intelligence behind it so there is no evidence to conclude that there is any consciousness directing what is the outcome of what comes out of the changes made to the populations made by evolutionary forces.

Date: 2009/10/13 20:23:55, Link
Author: FrankH
I would say that to be able to use a god, creator or other being to make anything, one would have to provide evidence that such being exist.

Then, after the supernatural is shown to exist, it is no longer "super" is it?

My biggest issue with those who claim "to know how their perfect and infinite god" though they do claim to be both finite and fallible.  That alone is a logical fallacy.

Date: 2009/10/13 20:47:00, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,20:26)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,20:23)
I would say that to be able to use a god, creator or other being to make anything, one would have to provide evidence that such being exist.

Then, after the supernatural is shown to exist, it is no longer "super" is it?

My biggest issue with those who claim "to know how their perfect and infinite god" though they do claim to be both finite and fallible.  That alone is a logical fallacy.

Theism is fraught with logic problems, I'm afraid.  I don't pretend that my beliefs are based on empirical evidence, nor do I claim that they should take precedence over more rationally-derived thought processes.  But I have them.  The practical problem would be not having them, so to speak.

Well having beliefs is not the same as having dogma.

If one says, "My God created everything", while it is dogma, it is not in itself a bad thing.  Saying, "My God created everything and this is how my God did it", is also not a bad thing in itself.

What is a bad thing is when someone says,  "My God created everything and this is how my God did it", when there is no evidence to support that position and the evidence that is there shows a completely different scenario, that to me is a bad thing.

Personally, I don't care how FL believes or feels.  It is just when people like FL tell me they have the "trooth"tm and that I really need to see it their way when there is no evidence is when I get upset.

Date: 2009/10/13 21:12:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Floyd,


Do you understand the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?  For the record, I'm Agnostic.

Also, are you saying that those who claim to be Christians but do not believe the same way you do, especially when it comes to a literal Bible, are not Christians?

Date: 2009/10/13 21:52:59, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,21:44)
At the risk of answering for him, that is precisely what he is claiming.  Floyd's actual Christian doctrine requires a literal reading of the Bible (the key hint is his constant refrain of "Biblical" Christianity).  That particular doctrine is, in fact, incompatible with evolutionary theory.

And I suspect that Floyd will claim that anyone who does not accept his version of Biblical Christianity is not really Christian.

Floyd?

I agree.  But I'd like to read Floyd's answers.

I like to think that I went way out of my way not to just answer his question of goals or no goals in Evolution but also gave definitions so we don't squabble what the definition of "is" is.

I'd like to see him answer a few of mine.

Date: 2009/10/14 10:46:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 14 2009,10:13)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,14:43)
Speaking of scientific illiteracy.

Hello people, long time, no posting.

I've many "antis" at my work site.  One of the biggest "anti" is Global Warming.  Is there a good website to use as a resource for the "Heat Islands of cities skewing the results", "Solar Cycles mean the Earth is cooling", etc?

Yes, I live in the South.

How to talk to a climate skeptic
An answer to almost anything climate "skeptics" come up with, e. g. urban heat islands

Thank you so much.

The biggest "anti" really hated it.

Good stuff.

Date: 2009/10/14 11:04:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:30)
Okay, let's check back with SLP.  I asked him a question previously.  I want an answer.

(snip)

Remember, you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  And you say it often.  However, your statement, as you can see, is NOT true.  That's what all this is about.

In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
 
Quote
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.


******

Okay, that's like background information for the upcoming post or posts.  

SLP thinks I "deceived readers" on the short version of Oro that I've quoted in other forums and past years (and wants to apparently debate it here and now), and meanwhile my own question for SLP is designed to show that I've never quotemined John Oro AND to show that Oro meant precisely what he said---and in doing so puts the lie to the evolutionist claim that prebiotic evolution (abiogenesis) is separate from evolution.  

No deceit, no joke:  Abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, no doubt.

Continued in next post or posts.

FloydLee

Oh Madonna,


The quotes you list say "evolved".  That's due more to a lack of a better discriminating word in the English language.  Like the phrase "Stellar Evolution", "Galactic Evolution", or better yet "The strategy for breaking into the Asian markets evolved over time" etc.  The problem is "evolve" means "to change" with an indirect but implied "and got better at whatever it was doing".

Abiogenesis and Evolution are related but one can be falsified and the other still remain true.

If Yaweh, Uncle Fester, LGM from Uranus, the Tooth Fairy and said, "Wham, you chemicals are alive now so go evolve into other things", Abiogenesis would be a dead end but Evolution still would have weight.  On the other hand if any of the above waited for the chemicals of the first life to have been formed by natural processes and then took those chemicals and made all life as we now see, it, Abiogenesis would still be correct while Evolution would have been falsified.

They are related but not dependent on the other.

I see now why you so desperately hold on to a literal Bible.  If you find that the Genesis story is not 100% the way it was, you'd have no faith what so ever would you?

Date: 2009/10/14 11:13:49, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 14 2009,10:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 14 2009,06:23)
WAD's perfect apologetics:
 
Quote
My approach, in a nutshell, is to argue that just as the salvation in Christ at the Cross saves backward in time as well as forward (the OT saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so the effects of the Fall can be retroactive. This, it seems to me, preserves the most important thing that young-earth creationism has attempted to preserve, namely, that the sin of Adam brought ruin on the human race and on the physical world.
That is lunatic talk.
That's a Star Trek episode.

No, I think it became a religion.

"Dianetics" anyone?

Date: 2009/10/14 11:33:49, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,11:19)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:49)
Quote
Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.
Interesting. C. Mews' personal opinion.  I think after doing SLP, I will do an extended focus on "C. Mews' personal opinions" WRT the Big Five, and that will end the Incompatibility debate no matter who posts any more posts or declares victory (that includes you too).  

******

 
Quote
If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".
May I ask for documentation on that claim too?
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Can't use the NIV.

We have a preacher close by who'll be burning all Bibles save the KJV as the others are tainted by Satan.

Also note that this includes many "christian writers", but not "TROOtm Christians" in his golden book of good and saved people, including the Rev. Billy Graham will have their books burned on Halloween.

Date: 2009/10/14 12:37:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Has anyone tried to start a thread at UD where there are multiple design style so therefore multiple designs?

One could start with the differences in the Squids' eye vs the Mammalian one.  One has a more competent designer as the blood vessels are are behind the layer of light gathering cells instead of infront of it.....

Date: 2009/10/14 12:49:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 14 2009,12:47)
I suppose I should have put that in quotes, but who could mistake the authorship?

Lemme guess, everyone's favorite, female(?), Canadian "writer"?

Date: 2009/10/14 12:53:59, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,12:44)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,12:38)
Quote
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.
I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee
Yep, if you can edit quotes, add elipises, and capitalize words that aren't done so in the original, then why can't I?

While showing FL how annoying misquoting can be, it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions and actually sticking his neck out when dealing with issues he'd rather just see go away.

So FL, how about the other posts where you've been shown your dogma doesn't square with facts (oh yes, saying you've addressed it doesn't mean you've been able to refute it if you have, I'm sure you'll be more than willing to repost it and put those people in their place, right?).

What about my question that if you found that Genesis is not literal, you'd have no faith?  Is that a correct assessment?

Date: 2009/10/14 14:00:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,13:22)
You're right of course.  It was mainly an attempt at humor.  Since he can't see the difference when the actual quote is presented, then he won't understand any other part of it.

I've got a list building for the ID teaching in school part, floyd, just let me know when it's time.  But please, answer all the current issues first.

Just remember that Ogre Mark V are no match for 2000 GeVs blowing hot air.

Date: 2009/10/14 14:01:30, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 14 2009,14:00)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,13:22)
You're right of course.  It was mainly an attempt at humor.  Since he can't see the difference when the actual quote is presented, then he won't understand any other part of it.

I've got a list building for the ID teaching in school part, floyd, just let me know when it's time.  But please, answer all the current issues first.
Just remember that Ogre Mark V are no match for 2000 GeVs blowing hot air.

That should say 1 Ogre Mk V is no match.....

Date: 2009/10/14 14:14:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 14 2009,14:05)
You guys aren't even a little bit troubled by the destructive power of radaition?

Not when I'm wearing my tinfoil underware!

Then I'm impervious to your death ray eyes!

Date: 2009/10/14 14:29:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Well FL, while you're waiting for SLP, try answering the questions others have asked of you.


Thanks

Date: 2009/10/14 14:43:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 14 2009,14:20)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 14 2009,14:14)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 14 2009,14:05)
You guys aren't even a little bit troubled by the destructive power of radaition?

Not when I'm wearing my tinfoil underware!

Then I'm impervious to your death ray eyes!


Oh Yeah?

"Damn you woman!"

Those are "Betty Davis Eyes" for which there is no cure.....

Date: 2009/10/14 14:50:55, Link
Author: FrankH
Just for FL, yeah it's CNN, the Communist News Nutwork, but:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009....ex.html

Besides your belief in a literal Bible, where's your evidence for Creationism?  You do know that even if Evolution is 100% wrong on every count, that does not make Creationism right by default, no?  There are many Creation stories so why is yours correct and the other ones wrong?

Date: 2009/10/14 14:53:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 14 2009,14:33)
Quote (khan @ Oct. 14 2009,14:25)
I'm looking for a quote
something like: a theory is an idea people come up with after a late night of drinking

Thanks
That one apparently fits.

After a night of heavy drinking, something I hope one does at least a few times in their lifetime (with a designated driver), how can one remember what they said?  As for recording devices, how many really want to hear themselves when they're drunk when they are sober?

Date: 2009/10/14 15:25:24, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:14)
So, where's SLP?  Did he respond yet?  Judging from CM's attempt to cover for him, apparently not.

Git on here, SLP.  Answer the previous question.  Ohhh, and answer the OTHER question too while you're here:
 
Quote
 
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posi the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution---natural selection.

Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.

You said you answered this one.  Show me again exactly how you did?

******

Oh, and you dropped this one too.  Completely.
 
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian De Duve summarized the plenary session:  "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories..." (2009, Nmgirl's post)
Care to address what he said, SLP?  I don't think you can.  I think you major in minors because you're not able to handle the fact that multiple experts, past and present, really do connect evolution and abiogenesis even down to 2009.  You whine and wring your hands, and try to shoot the messenger because you're too limp to deal with the message, is that it?

Don't try to hide behind CM or other low-octaners on this one.  Git on here yourself if you dare, and answer to these realities.  Ready yet?

FL, I answered them.

Again, the problem is not that Abiogenesis and Evolution are one in the same, but the impreciseness of the English language is at fault.

So, as I've and at least one other person has answered the evolution of "evolution", you could read what we stated.

Date: 2009/10/15 11:29:01, Link
Author: FrankH
I have no idea how one can reconcile a literal reading of the Bible to a caring, compassionate and loving father-figure god.

I can understand a POV where the Bible is a guide not so much of the god of Abraham's word, but how man fails to emulate goodness.

A few things:

1:  An omniscient god telling two people who don't know right from wrong or about good and evil (remember they are innocent and have no knowledge) and them leaving them to be coerced by a snake?  I thought this god was omniscient!  Would it be ok for me to leave to 2 year olds who can speak a few sentences alone with a loaded gun on the coffee table and say, "Don't touch", and expect everything to be hunky-dory when I get back?

2:  A flood that wipes out ALMOST ALL evil (like this omniscient god didn't know he was going to get pissed right?).  I say almost all because it seems that Ham and his wife were somehow cursed but they were still left on the boat while newborns were killed.

3:  A war where you kill all of those who are trying to join with you, even getting circumsized to do so.  Then, while they are healing up, you kill the men, boys and women, leaving only the virgin, young females that you can take as concubines and war trophies.

4:  Telling one how much they can sell their daughters into slavery.

5:  Not just allowing slavery but saying that a master can beat their slave severely, if that slave is able to get up in 3 days.

A person who doesn't take the Bible as literal can see these to be parables and stories about what not to do.  A literalist must do mental gymnastics just to avoid thinking about it, let alone make them see it a "good".

Date: 2009/10/15 12:37:26, Link
Author: FrankH
Livin' in NASCAR country, everythin' has a racin' or car analogy.

Doin' geology without gettin' all a' bothered by them pesky fossils in evilution, is like puttin' more gas and oil in your car while not lookin' at the water in your radiator then a wonderin' why the car overheated when you just put gas an' oil in it.

Date: 2009/10/15 13:51:37, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,13:46)
Quote
Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions
Just keep in mind that arrows in flight require constant efforts by angels to maintain their motion.

Even in heaven, someone's got to clean the toilets and take out the garbage.

And all that crap that evangelicals just "absolutely know about what their heaven is like" gots to be flushed somewhere.

Probably why Satan is so pissed.  That shit runs downhill.

Date: 2009/10/15 14:28:25, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 15 2009,13:04)
So Rude displays his brilliance for all the internets to marvel at:
Quote
Allen MacNeill’s Augustine and Gould’s NOMA are obviously attempts to delegitimize religion and Scripture as sources of knowledge—comfortable fantasies and useful
fictions maybe—but not public knowledge, as Phillip Johnson so astutely perceived.
[blah, blah, snip]
This is so dumb, even Tribune7 was given pause:
Quote
St. Augustine attempted to delegitimize religion?
That whole thread is pretty much a concerted YEC effort to pile-on the Dr. Dr at this point.   Recommended.

So the monster has turned on its creator?  Gotta love poetic justice.  More popcorn please!

What will the good Dr. Dr. do now that he's been "outed" as an OEC and therefore not a literal believer in the TROO tm word?

Might be hard to find someone to pull strings and get him a cushy job somewhere or sell books.

Is P Johnson, Esq, an OEC or YEC?

Date: 2009/10/15 14:57:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,14:50)
Quote
What will the good Dr. Dr. do now that he's been "outed" as an OEC and therefore not a literal believer in the TROO tm word?
Dembski has long argued that the difference between 6000 and 4 billion is negligible. Not something to excite the passions of ID scientists.

Yeah, that's the "big tent" style.

Gloss over any differences between yourself and those whose goals are closer to yours than those you wish to destroy.  As OEC and YEC both want to rid this planet of our most cherished religion and remove the High Priest Darwin, er, I mean they want to rid the world of Evilution, a few "soothing words" go a long way.

Still, is Phil Johnson a YEC or OEC?  I can't find anything that says one way or the other.

Date: 2009/10/15 20:01:25, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 15 2009,15:11)
Quote
Still, is Phil Johnson a YEC or OEC?  I can't find anything that says one way or the other.
You're asking for a pathetic level of detail.

Actually no.

It is when I go and talk to the group I work with, I have several evangelical co-workers and one of them is a retired preacher, it would be nice to "help drive a wedge" between those who want to use the good Dr. Dr. I can use Phillip as well.

Date: 2009/10/15 20:08:12, Link
Author: FrankH
Texas Teach:

Did you frequent the CARM board with Piokilotherm, Q and others?  If so, did you use another name?

Date: 2009/10/16 09:46:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Scienthuse:

Look up the definitions of "Elastic" and "Inelastic" collisions.

Please note cars in a traffic accident can be really good examples of inelastic collisions.

Date: 2009/10/19 13:09:17, Link
Author: FrankH
I can't make a new thread and since this is close to as Uncommonly Dense as you can get,

"I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" by Frank Turek, Dr. Norman L Geisler and David Limbaugh.

Who is the astronomer here?

Date: 2009/10/19 13:23:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (khan @ Oct. 19 2009,13:20)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 19 2009,14:09)
I can't make a new thread and since this is close to as Uncommonly Dense as you can get,

"I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" by Frank Turek, Dr. Norman L Geisler and David Limbaugh.Who is the astronomer here?
Rush's brother.

He is?

I thought he was a lawyer who's really into Christian persecution.

Date: 2009/10/20 06:59:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 20 2009,05:14)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,23:41)
Umm, I and II Maccabees is part of the Apocrypha.  It's NOT part of the 66 books of the Bible.  I'm only dealing with the claims of the Bible for this thread topic.
Not quite right.  They're technically deuterocanonical, not apocryphal.  And, considered fully canon by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.  So yeah.

You forget that a lot of the Protestant denominations cut out of the Bible the parts they didn't like to suit their version of the god they created in their image.

Like Martin Luther and his famous "Faith, not works".  That was to end the sale of indulgences.  Now it's used as a club by many protestant denominations to ignore people and their needs they don't agree with.

Yet standing outside a Planned Parenthood Clinic protesting what they don't like is being a "soldier of god".  Funny that many of them have no issue with war.

Date: 2009/10/20 09:36:12, Link
Author: FrankH
Floyd,


Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?

Also, you do know that if Evolution is wrong, biblical creationism is not right and does not win by default, correct?

Date: 2009/10/20 09:52:42, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,09:46)
Quote
Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?
Actually, science is compatible with Christianity.  Evolution isn't compatible with Christianity, because evolution is actually a mixture of science and religion -- the religion being materialism.

Um, exactly how is Evolution, specifically Biological Evolution, "materialism"?  How is that different from Gravity not needing a god nor angels to move objects around others?

Are you saying that those who are Christians who THINK Evolution is how their god did things aren't Christians?  Please be specific.

Date: 2009/10/20 10:10:17, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 20 2009,09:58)
We'll be lucky if they aren't spreading their own infection.

Personally, I'm not so sure they'll be "much better" than us.

I have a feeling that a certain amount of arrogance and ignorance are going to be a defining feature of technological intelligences.

Date: 2009/10/20 10:22:06, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:07)
Let's go right here, SLP:
Quote
In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
Quote
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution." ---Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.
Okay, now that's a really clear example of abiogenesis NOT being separate from evolution.  So what was your response?
Quote
Never heard of him of the book.
So you get to simply ignore and blow-off published statements like that of OOL expert Paul Lurquin, simply because you ain't been to your public library (the science section, btw) and read his book?  

No, that's not rational.  "Never heard of him or his book" is not a rebuttal, and is not a refutation of what he said.  It's as simple as that.  What Lurquin wrote, still stands.
Quote
So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?
Maybe si, maybe no.  But if you write that book, you will be forced to read the books of others first, and THAT is a very good thing in this case.

Your attempt to equate one person's opinion with scientific fact is poor Floyd.

That is like linking Christianity to pro-slavery as the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed for the sole purpose of lending scriptural support to slavery and not only was it a natural state, but one blessed by god.  By extension that means that Christianity has no problem with slavery.

Do you agree with that Floyd?

Date: 2009/10/20 11:24:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:58)
Quote
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.
This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.

Hardly.

First, there is no evidence souls exists.  So when you say with absolute certainty that the origins of humanity is based on something that has never been shown, it is an apt metaphor for your own level of discourse.

Again, what about the SBC and Slavery?  As the SBC was founded on showing that the Bible supported and according to John C. Calhoun demanded slavery, does that mean slavery is part and parcel of Christianity?

Date: 2009/10/20 12:02:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Floyd,


I'm still waiting on the Link of Slavery and Christianity brought to you by the SBC.

If you really think that the OPINIONS of someone mean that it is true, then you must accept not just that, but the OPINIONS of other Christians that Evolution and being a Christian is also true.

Date: 2009/10/20 13:34:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:04)
Just random googling, no more than two minutes duration, under the label "evolution incompatible with Christianity".  Found this opening post on another discussion forum, a general one.
Quote
What is/are your opinion(s) on evolution? The Catholic Church believes in it but they say that, somewhere along the line, God decided to give man a soul. That doesn't make sense to me? I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution (cause I do), I'm saying that evolution kind of contradicts God and Christianity a little, IMO.

People can tell, folks.  Ordinary people can tell.

Arguments from popular opinion?  "Ordinary people" thought slavery was good to and they could tell it was.  Is that what you're saying?  So when "ordinary people" revert to mob violence and kill innocent people "because they just know", that's okay with you?

I take it "ordinary people" means "those you agree with at  that time"?  What about those posts where people question and offer their conviction that the god of Abraham is a petty, jealous, rapist, murdering, egotistical blowhard that takes credit for all natural disasters even though this petulant child is no more responsible for these disasters than Elvis?

Date: 2009/10/20 13:37:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Floyd,


Why are you ignoring my posts?  Can't you answer them?

I guess that means in Floyd's world Christianity = Slavery = God's Blessed Will.

Thanks Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/20 13:54:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:40)
Quote
Argumentum ad Google?
Nope.  A mere observation.  Not intended to prove anything, but worth noting all the same.

You may be tempted to pretend such people don't exist, you may tempted to pretend that all Catholics don't see any incompatibility in there.  

But they do.  Many people do.  They can tell, even though they believe in evolution anyway.  I merely offered the reminder from an ordinary lay Catholic.  Seemed appropriate for this forum.

Again Floyd:

Is Slavery part and parcel with Christianity?  Remember the SBC and what they said.

Instead of some unknown web posting from somebody who might be a paid apologist, what about the writings of the good Christian John C. Calhoun?  Ever read what he thought Christians were?  This guy had and still has a following.

Does that make that nut's word more credible?

Date: 2009/10/20 14:02:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:46)
Quote
Why are you ignoring my posts?  Can't you answer them?

I guess that means in Floyd's world Christianity = Slavery = God's Blessed Will.
Guess you guys wanna keep going on this topic all the way to Nov. 1.  Sure starting to look that way.

Go ahead and repeat your question Frank; I'll answer it now.

From at least five different posts:
Quote
Floyd,

Is science incompatible with all religions or just Christianity?

Also, you do know that if Evolution is wrong, biblical creationism is not right and does not win by default, correct?

Um, exactly how is Evolution, specifically Biological Evolution, "materialism"?  How is that different from Gravity not needing a god nor angels to move objects around others?

Are you saying that those who are Christians who THINK Evolution is how their god did things aren't Christians?  Please be specific.
As these are all baisclly the same:
Quote
That is like linking Christianity to pro-slavery as the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed for the sole purpose of lending scriptural support to slavery and not only was it a natural state, but one blessed by god.  By extension that means that Christianity has no problem with slavery.

Do you agree with that Floyd?

I'm still waiting on the Link of Slavery and Christianity brought to you by the SBC.
Could you answer that if a major sect of the Christian faith says Slavery is good and indeed blessed by god from your own statements that means you agree with the statement:
Quote
Christian = Slavery = God's Blessed Will
Correct?

Last but not least:
Quote
If you really think that the OPINIONS of someone mean that it is true, then you must accept not just that, but the OPINIONS of other Christians that Evolution and being a Christian is also true.
Looking forward to your answers

Date: 2009/10/20 14:37:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 20 2009,14:35)
Praise teh designer it's not spelled "flameboyant"

I don't know but with the evolution of language it could evolve (or is it devolve?) that way!

Date: 2009/10/20 15:02:17, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 20 2009,14:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 20 2009,15:35)
Praise teh designer it's not spelled "flameboyant"
Praise teh designer it's not spelled "flamebolaboyanteDelicto"

What about jean duplication and getting sticky from Homo Erotic Erectus Pervus humping its leg?

Date: 2009/10/20 15:34:32, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,15:10)

Hmmm, that's not what I asked and your dodge is noted.

As a major evangelical Christian Sect was formed just to spread "God's truth about slavery", doesn't that make it one in the same?

Quote
Quote
Is Slavery part and parcel with Christianity?
The Bible's answer is no.
No?  What about Exodus 21:7?  Also, if she's a virgin, I can get more but if she's not, then Deuteronomy22:28-29 can come into play.
Quote
Euro-American slavery violated multiple Old Testament Biblical humane regulations (including at least one calling for a death penalty if violated, Exo. 21:16).
Humane?  Like this in Exodus 21:20-21
Quote
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
So if a "master" beat his slave and he lived for a day or two, no big deal as the master is just out a few shekels.
Quote
Beyond that, God's plan for all humans has always been equality NOT slavery.
Sorry, but again the Bible trips you up as if that were true, there'd be nothing about buying or selling of slaves and how to do it.
Quote
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God's original created order, and as God's created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated.
So your god changes its mind depending on the times.  Seems like a change in the ways of man that wages the tail that is his god.
Quote
---Steven McDowell, 2003, Wallbuilders website
Ah argument from someone who didn't address the verses in the Bible directly but instead lied about it saying his god changes its mind and that man makes this god sit up and beg to be worshipped.
Quote
And in the New Testament, the slaves were encouraged to go ahead and seek their freedom.(2 Cor. 7:21)  
Which contradicts the OT making your god a good subject for some deep and probing psychological evaluations now.
Quote
"Were you a slave when you were called (to hook up with Christ)? That shouldn't bother you.
Sounds more like it saying, "Being a slave,that was your lot so accept it".
Quote
However, if you have a chance to become free, take it."
Which again goes against the OT here:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

and here:

Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.

Looks like the OT contradicts what you say.
Quote
So, from the Bible itself, it's very clear that slavery has no chance of being part and parcel of Christianity.
Looks like the Bible disagrees[/quote]Slavery, just like evolution, is Incompatible with Christianity.[/quote]From Joel 3:8:

And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

Looks like your lord your god says otherwise.

Date: 2009/10/20 20:31:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,16:04)

Floyd Lee,


Let's look at your posts:
Quote
Quote
As a major evangelical Christian Sect was formed just to spread "God's truth about slavery", doesn't that make it one in the same?
What, are you in a hurry to ignore what the Bible says, FrankH?
Wow, really funny that I was using your Bible to show  
Quote
After all, that same sect has ABANDONED their proslavery position and they affirm that the Bible was correctly opposed to their mistaken position.
After how many years and even then, it was a huge fight inside the convention to do so!
Quote
They even apologized to blacks for their racial evils.
Yeah, we formed to enslave and slaughter whole families, now they are sorry for following their bible.
Quote
(Contrast that with the ongoing refusal of evolutionists to apologize for evolution-based racial wrongs like Ota Benga, the eugenic torment of minority women, and the flat-out murder of Australian Aborigines and stealing their children.)
Huh?  There's nothing in evolution that says to kill or enslave anyone.  In your Bible it actively discusses slavery and killing others.

Oh yeah, Ota Benga was brought over by a missionary Samuel Phillips Verner who also arraigned his stay at the zoo.

His being used as "human evolution" was done by those who wanted to misuse evolution for there own political agenda.  Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.  That was promoted by your Christianity and its slavery issues far better.

As for other outrages, like the Aborigines, look no further than the preacher who told his flock of Ham and how the "black man" carried with him the evil of Cain.

Eugenics was also done in the "religious bible belt of the south" to eliminate undesirables.  It was done by racists misusing science to further their own ends.

What about the missionaries going across the world along with the troops to back them up?

Again, there is nothing in Evolution that says do to any of those things.  There is in YOUR bible, how much one can sell their daughters for into slavery, how badly a master can beat their slaves.  Even your own blather from 2 Corinthians showed how being a slave was not a bad thing and not to worry about it.

Again Floyd, you fail.

What Commandment did you just break?  Oh yes, False Witness.  But to you "lying for Jesus" is a noble thing that smacks of "Works" doesn't it?  So if you really do believe in "Faith alone", then why do you feel that you need to lie?

Date: 2009/10/21 07:13:30, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Floyd:

Why is Slavery so great in the OT and just nothing to be ashamed about in the NT?  Was it:

1:  An omniscient god changing their mind?
2:  Stories of men who are trying to really understand the workings of an infinite being that as mere finite mortals can never grasp (ie it's impossible to know or understand fully)?
3:  Stories of men that change as the civilizations mature and become less barbaric?

Jus' wonderin'.

Date: 2009/10/21 08:42:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,08:29)
Quote
Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.
Ever read The Descent of Man, FrankH?

Yes I have.  Your point?

Compare "The Descent of Man" with the writings of those great "Christians", starting with John C. Calhoun.

Date: 2009/10/21 10:12:17, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,09:05)
Quote
What does this have to do with whether science is incompatible with christianity?
Ask FrankH.  He brought this up.

Btw, the thread topic is NOT whether science is incompatible with Christianity.  Thought you were clear on that.

I wanted to read what else in science disagrees with Floyd's selective and twisted reading of a book he considers infallible when it disagrees with things in "science".

Also, it was a great idea to see if he takes the bait and goes off topic.  My bad.

One thing that was shown he doesn't think Evolution is science was made clear.

Date: 2009/10/21 12:46:59, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,10:04)

Quote
Quote
On to ID Floyd.
Yeah, YOU are apparently in a hurry to escape any response from me about your reply to the Fifth Incompatibility.  But do you know what you are really saying, Amadan?
Here's another EPIC FAIL on Floyd's part.  Amadan did.  The fact that you are truly incapable of understanding what they wrote is a fact.  There are competing Theories as to why:

1:  You just can't as the synaptic connections needed for such a leap in comprehension is not there.

2:  You have your mind so compartmentalized that there is no way for information that contradicts another compartment in your mind to seep over to it.

3:  A yet unknown possibility.
Quote
"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but that's okay, evolution is compatibile with Christianity because God is cruel and sadistic too."I don't think you or Reed (or the other posters who tried this approach already) have any inkling how utterly and totally unconvincing this argument would be for Christians.
FAIL AGAIN! Floyd.  There are those on this board who ARE Christians AND believe in the Christian God while saying Evolution is how their God did it meaning they accept Evolution!
Quote
For example, why would anyone serve a "cruel and sadistic" God at all?  Why would Christians do so?
You mean someone who drowns babies, leaves a loaded weapon for two finite individuals to find and then brings down wrath upon their heads, orders his "chosen" to slaughter men, boys, women and babies but save the virgin females as sex-slave, err concubines and more when you insist on a "literal bible"?  I have no idea why one would.
Quote
So right off the bat, your line of argument doesn't even BEGIN to supply anybody with an actual reconciliation of the Fifth Incompatibility.  Doesn't resolve the problem at all.  It's a fail you've offered.
Actually no my dear Floyd.  Once again you're inability either organic or psychological to comprehend a POV based on logic and reasoning fails in so many ways for you.
Quote
******You know, there are times in BOTH the Old and the New Testament when God executes lethal planetwide judgment and lethal individual judgments.  Therefore the God of the OT is no different than the God of the Christian NT.
And why would such a powerful deity need to do that when all they have to do is go down to the people, explain a few things and maybe just WIPE OUT those who are the most wicked?  Seems to me to be a far more humane way, that's right your version of a god is not humane nor humble, to do it and make a real impression on the people.  ell, during the time of the Prophets, the Holy ghost was going down to one of them every other week and killing kids when one of the Prophets were mocked!  Don't believe me?  Check out Ezekiel.
Quote
It's the same God, it's the Christian God.
Your version is a monstrous, petulant child who needs to be forgotten.
Quote
So for those people who reject God on God's terms,
Let me guess, you know the mind and terms of an universe spanning, omnipotent, omniscient being even though you're a finite mortal and by (your) god, you know what such an entity wants?
Quote
(and who ignore the Bible's many OT and NT statements about God's love, mercy, kindness, patience, etc)
Most likely they are too busy reading the parts where kids die because your god was a piss poor parent who blames the kids when they screw up big time.[QUOTE]it may always gonna seem like God is cruel and sadistic.  But you [u]don't[/b] resolve or refute the Fifth Incompatibility by attacking the Christian God's character.[QUOTE]Your monster of a god's character has its viciousness in print for all to see.  Unless you're saying that your god has multiple personalities that are mercurial and change on a whim.  That could be the case as this omniscient being forgets itself and while it can't save people being put to death by the sword of others, it will find the power to get people lost in the desert for 40 years.
Quote
Rationally, that don't work.
What do you know about Rationality?  There is nothing in what you've written these past 59 pages that indicate you are even aware of the word and its context.
Quote
******(Btw, God's not cruel and sadistic, but he is the Just Judge of humanity, capable of executing just punishments and of course that follows from him being the Creator of humanity in the first place.  So you get all upset with God when God does what God is supposed to do?  Go figure.)
I have a major issue with your godhead.  This god creates things, sets up all the rules and then when two people who are clueless, yeah remember they didn't KNOW anything when they "disobeyed god" as they didn't KNOW what disobeying is!

The example of your god's reactions in the Garden of Eden smacks of a crack whore with little kids who as they are about to get high, tells her two 18 month old twins not to touch momma's stash of crack.  The children being young and having no idea, they are innocent kids with little if any understanding of right and wrong, do so.

Coming back from a crack fueled high, momma crackwhore sees the crack all over the room, useless and then she begins to beat the crap out of them.  Worse off, now that the crack is gone, the kids are kicked into the streets and the pets that they had turn feral, get killed or attack the kids.

So:

1:  How did Adam and Eve know that disobeying was wrong?  They had no idea and if the tree of knowledge implanted the ability to reason (hey, we're naked) there was no ability in either to know what they were doing.

2:  Why is everything to suffer for the actions of two innocents left alone by their babysitter?

3:  Where was god as he's omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient when the two were being led astray by Satan?

4:  How could Adam and Eve "let sin and death" into the world when Satan was already there in the body of a snake?  Doesn't that mean god let evil into the world?  No?  Why not?
Quote
Also, the God of the Bible, who not only creates humans but also judges humans, is the same one that Jesus Christ died to reconcile humans to.  IOW, there is NO such thing as "the God of the OT is cruel and sadistic but the God of the Christian NT is love love."
So your god does suffer from multiple and violent personalities then.  Thanks for saying so.
Quote
There's only one God of the Bible, whether you accept Him or reject Him.
And we come back to the dichotomy that leaves literalists permanently unable to function in the real world.

First, there may not be any gods, goddesses and such.

Second, there may be any gods, goddesses and such.

Third, even if there is a god, there is no reason to suspect that you have the "right version" of said deity.

In other words, your version of a god may be way off as to make an agnostic like me far more palatable to this or these deities as I'm no where as arrogant as you nor do I claim to know any of them personally.
Quote
Btw (for Reed I think),
the fact is that human sin has created a fallen world in which animals, sharing in the Curse, are liable to be killed when God is forced to execute His judgment on humanity (think of all the dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits living in Sodom and Gomorrah when the titanic Blast struck those cities).
Wow, even the US military tries "surgical strikes".  Your god don't care who or what it kills and sends to hell for an eternity of torment.

And again, your god created all of this knowing full well what would happen?  If I knew that certain actions were going to kill my children or leave them in a lifetime of agony, I'd do something different.  But that is the difference between me and your monster god, I'm not cruel and I actually love my kids, even when they are bad and don't ever want to hurt them.  your god wants puppets, free-willed it seems but puppets none the less or lest you will be killed and burn in hell because your god's a real nasty piece of work.
Quote
So it doesn't work to blame and diss God when you should be blaming free-will humans for choosing to sin and bringing down judgment.
Just when I think your remarks can't get more weird, yeah, blame those who play the game, not the one who made it and should be there on the field ALL THE TIME to ref it so all players know and see the refs directly.  Once again, you love your god because you FEAR your god.  Much like the battered syndrome, huh?
Quote
That's the real deal here.
That's lunacy.

Date: 2009/10/21 12:50:50, Link
Author: FrankH
The middle part is supposed to say:
Quote
(and who ignore the Bible's many OT and NT statements about God's love, mercy, kindness, patience, etc)
Most likely they are too busy reading the parts where kids die because your god was a piss poor parent who blames the kids when they, the parent, screws up big time.
Quote
it may always gonna seem like God is cruel and sadistic.  But you [u]don't[/b] resolve or refute the Fifth Incompatibility by attacking the Christian God's character.
Your monster of a god's character has its viciousness in print for all to see.  Unless you're saying that your god has multiple personalities that are mercurial and change on a whim.  That could be the case as this omniscient being forgets itself and while it can't save people being put to death by the sword of others, it will find the power to get people lost in the desert for 40 years.

Date: 2009/10/21 13:29:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)
Quote
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!

I'm sure he can but afterwords he'd have to kill himself for sinking so low.

Date: 2009/10/21 13:32:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)
Quote
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.
In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!

Actually, the whole post was about "soul" so where is this soul and how do you know, empirically, that such a thing exists?

Also, what does and does not have a soul and what empirical evidence do you have to back that up?

Date: 2009/10/21 14:08:02, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:55)

I just have to do this:
Quote
Quote
so are you now claiming that the soul is a physical, inheritable charachteristic, just like brown eyes?
Please check the definition of "immaterial."
Why check?  We have 59 pages of your reasoning.  That's 59 pages of noting masquerading as actual thoughts.
Quote
Actually, you evolutionists would have a lock on the Catholic angle if the soul actually WAS a physical inheritable characteristic.
No, the RCC says emphatically that the soul is based on faith and has nothing to do with evolution.  WTF are you blathering about?
Quote
As it stands now, the lock exists only for the Incompatibility!!
No.  The incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity is Evolution and your "biblically literal save in places where we gloss over and "ooh, look at that over there, not the man behind the curtain" attempts

Date: 2009/10/21 14:13:24, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 21 2009,14:09)
GilBaby used to an evil atheist darwinist, right? Could it be he took the lard jeebus into his heart in order to expel teh geyz demonz? I mean, let's examine the multiple lines of evidence here. The man (1) studied french, (2) studied french literature, (3) studied classical piano, (4) poses in frilly shirts, (5) has the hots for David Berlinski, (6) rides a Harley. Each peace of evidence on its own is already quite damning, if not entirely conclusive, but together... QED.

To be a trootm believertm in the good Dr^2's troupe, does one need to adhere to a strict "Don't ask, don't tell, don't fondle the other guy anywhere near a public venue" policy?

Or is it a "come as you can as often as you can in someone's can" policy?

Date: 2009/10/21 14:37:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:29)
Quote
Yodel Elf just used JP2, Benedict and Pius' opinions to prove his point
And the specific point proven was that there exists a specific Incompatibility between clearly non-negotiable Catholic Christian beliefs and evolution.

Uh no.  The inconsistency here is all on your end.

The RCC says Evolution makes the body,  their God makes the soul.

One is scientific and has evidence.  The other is religious and is based on faith.  One is empirical and the other is philosophical.

As they are both separate from the other, there is no issue.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:00:35, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
.

Quote
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
Yeah as Evolution, the science, really doesn't deal with "man's indomitable spirit" the Philosophy.  My dear sir, you confuse philosophical constructs with scientific evidence.
Quote
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:10:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,15:00)
Quote
One is scientific and has evidence.  The other is religious and is based on faith.  One is empirical and the other is philosophical.  As they are both separate from the other, there is no issue.
That's what you WANT to believe.  It's not what Pope John 2 actually said. In fact, he was quite sharp about it.
Quote
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter,

are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

---Oct. 22, 1996, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"


Imagine that.  The Pope said the magic word, "INCOMPATIBLE".  And not just "incompatible", but incompatible with THE TRUTH ABOUT MAN!!

(IOW, He doesn't even give you a cheap fake NOMA bone to chew on!!  He's definitely insisting on a real incompatibility because of the God-ensoulment requirement.)

Wow, you're powers of misdirection and confusion are even more amazing but you only do it to yourself.  The Pope said that theories of Evolution that say the spirit or soul of a human is from the forces of living matter are Incompatible.

I know of no theory of evolution that even tries to explain the soul.  None will, at least the ones that are based on science.  Evolutionists who explore the philosophies and ponder upon the soul or spirit being made by materialistic forces are not doing science but philosophizing.

Again, you fail.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:27:12, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Floyd,

Do you have any examples of "evolutionary theories" that try to explain how the soul/spirit is formed via materialistic processes?

Do you even have anything that says how one can measure, point to, discover, or otherwise produce evidence that a soul even exists?

See, that is why there is no issue between the RCC and the Physical Evolution of the human physical body and the RCC and their insistence that the Christian God they follow created the soul.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:56:55, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,15:31)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Quote
Quote
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.
And so, you've done a great job of exposing how John Paul's famous "TCCT" remarks concerning evolution reaffirm not only the 1st Incompatibility (Evolution denies God-as-required-explanation),[/QUOTE]Nope.  Evolution says nothing about a god.  Theistic Evolutionists hold that evolution is how their God did it.  If you read where in Genesis god spoke and from the Earth came life, that "from the Earth" is an allegorical response to a bunch of bronze age shepherds explaining as best they could understand that their god created them.  A Theistic Evolutionist holds the "Earth" was/is Evolution.  Again, you fall flat on your ass.
Quote
but also the 3rd Incompatibility (Evolution denies humans created in the Image-of God.)
Ah yes, humans look like god or rather, humans made their gods, with some exceptions, to look like them.  Please re-read the part where the bible says stuff about God's hands, eyes, etc, especially where it speaks of god's wings and other things that human don't seem to have.

In the RCC, the "in god's image thing" is humans, as god and the angels do, have immortal souls and freewill.  That is what is said.

But again, that's not "reading the bible literally" again is it?  No problem for you as neither do you.
Quote
IF you don't accept the Catholic God-ensoulment requirement, then you can no longer ground the dignity of man (and the specific reason for that failure is that the dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image. Without the Image-Of-God which comes with the Immaterial Ensoulment, you no longer have a basis for human dignity.
Epic Failure reached.

Hint Floyd, when you reach rock bottom and you can't dig anymore, blasting caps to go deeper ARE NOT the answer.

Human dignity comes not from some god but from who we are.  We are responsible for our own dignity.  Sorry, but I don't see how prostrating yourself to a viscous monster such as your petulant and evil child who you beleive to be your god is "dignified".
Quote
(IOW, the Holocaust becomes mere pest-control instead of a planetary war-crime.)
I wouldn't know.  but you lost again.  Bringing in Nazis against your web opponent means you've lost and lost big time.

Loser, thy name is Floyd Lee.
Quote
If this dignity thing sounds familiar to you, it's because evolutionist James Rachels pointed out the same thing (see the early pages of this thread.)
Wow, I don't take what James Rachels says as dogma.  What he writes in peer-reviewed science papers is one thing.  His opinions are his and I may or may not find them compatible with mine.  No big deal for me.
Quote
The ONLY theism that supports the Image of God thesis is a creationist theism in which God actively designs man and the world as a home for man.  Remove the Image because of the theory of evolution, and you remove the ground of human dignity.
Non-sequitor of the most absurd kind.
Quote
Remember what Mayr said?  "The application of common descent to humans deprived man of his former status."
Which was above all others because we have language and writing?  I don't know about you, but even with evolution I find humans pretty damn important.  While we have no right slaughtering animals and deforesting the Earth because we can, we need to think about future generations and what we leave for them.

the old theist doctrine of "We can do whatever the hell we want to any animal or forest" deprives humanity of our home and well being.  It is dogmatic adherence to outdated mythology, like the one you follow, that robs humanity of our dignity.  Being second to something that most likely doesn't and has never existed is not rising humanity up above anything.  In fact it reduces humanity to fearful creatures wondering if the wrath is going to come and get us unless we sacrifice something or someone to this god we created in our fear.
Quote
So in fact we're back to reaffirming the Incompatibilities again.  Even if that's not what you intended.

FloydLee
Ignorance is bliss Floyd and you're one hell of a happy person aren't you?

Date: 2009/10/21 16:01:41, Link
Author: FrankH
Crap, the first paragraph should look like this:
Quote
Quote
Quote
Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
I was waiting for this.  The "Evilution says we came from dirt.  The Bible says we came from dust.  Evilution is WRONG!  We are dusty not dirty physical beings!"

The real issue here is that Evolution means our physical bodies are nothing different when it comes down to it from any other animal.  Humans, being above animals in some people's book, are not able to endure the indignity of being an intelligent animal.

And so, you've done a great job of exposing how John Paul's famous "TCCT" remarks concerning evolution reaffirm not only the 1st Incompatibility (Evolution denies God-as-required-explanation),
Nope.  Evolution says nothing about a god.  Theistic Evolutionists hold that evolution is how their God did it.  If you read where in Genesis god spoke and from the Earth came life, that "from the Earth" is an allegorical response to a bunch of bronze age shepherds explaining as best they could understand that their god created them.  A Theistic Evolutionist holds the "Earth" was/is Evolution.  Again, you fall flat on your ass.

Date: 2009/10/21 16:20:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:09)

Quote
Quote
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?
Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.
You've never shown where Darwin was racist at all in "Descent of Man".  But I can show you where great and trootm christians were anti-semetic, racist or both.  Read Martin Luther's "The Jews and their Lies".  See the leader of the the entire protestant reformation speak so ill of Jews.

As the actual title is "Die Juden und Ihre Lugen", in German no less, it isn't hard to see where religious hatred can start a monster (you do know of course that many places, there were times when the Jews could be beaten and worse just because they were Jews and the religious leaders approved it, no?) and blame whatever they like.

Oh, the "Final Solution" was not Darwin based but religious as, "The Jews killed Christ, they to should be killed", crap.  But of course, you're a good parrot who is clueless and won't go looking up these things as it may make your hard wired brain explode.
Quote
Evolution, Eugenics, Holocaust.  Like the Fixx used to sing on the radio, "One Thing Leads To Another."
Religion, out dated beliefs, vicious dogma, fear, ignorance, hatred, slavery, genocide is more prevalent.

You know, religious wars have killed more people than anything else, don't you?
Quote
Is that sufficient?
In your mind maybe.  In someone who can think for themselves, not even close.

Date: 2009/10/21 16:22:26, Link
Author: FrankH
Is it wrong for me to really be enjoying watching Floyd and his argument get smacked around so much?

Nah.....

Date: 2009/10/21 16:26:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 21 2009,16:22)
here, Yodel Elf, meet one of your future play-friends:
(Hell, from the movie Constantine)

Because to be lying as you are, you are bound to end up in hell...

Nope, my house on Turkey day when someone gets the last turkey leg before my brother (pictured) does.

Date: 2009/10/21 16:49:55, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:42)

Just when you thought Floyd couldn't get any more inane with his posts:
Quote
Quote
Actually, Floyd, instead of an irrelevant and incorrect screed about Darwin and Hitler, I was hoping to find out more about your description of Holocaust victims as pests.
I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly, once I started talking about historical and ideological connections between your pet evolution belief and the Holocaust itself.
Uh, there is none.  Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  I note though that you didn't say anything about Martin Luther's treatise on Jews?  We can confirm that throughout Europe, religious persecution of the Jews was on going since Europe became more or less a Christian continent.
Quote
Confirmed.
That your reading comprehension is non-existent?  Yes it is but we knew that 60 pages ago.
Quote
And of course, YOU want no part of exploring evolution's denial of the Image-Of-God-Thesis as a potential source of denying human dignity and ultimately supporting genocide.
Humans were killing humans LONG before WW2.  So how does your flawed belief change anything?

Can you show us exactly the link you proposed?  I think not.  You're a lying coward for your little, monster god Floyd.  There's no dignity there.
Quote
Thanks for proving me correct.   :)
That you're totally bonkers?  Sure, no problem.

Date: 2009/10/22 07:16:24, Link
Author: FrankH
Floyd,


It's like this.  Your credibility is in tatters.  The only thing you've shown that you're able to do is regurgipost from other sources.  Your claims:

1:  You can't be a Christian and think Evolution is right.
Survey says:  Wrong.  You admit that the RCC is a Christian Church and that the Pope is a Christian.  The RCC accepts Evolution for the physical body of humans.

2:  You then change your tactics to say Evolution is not accepted by the RCC when Evolution tries to explain how the human "soul" or "spirit" was materialistically formed.
Survey says:  There is no evidence that a "soul" or "spirit" even exists.  As Geology doesn't show land at the North Pole for Santa's workshop, an electron microscope show us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or satellites show the Norse Gods fighting the Giants making the Auroras in the northern sky does that make them wrong too?  After all everyone knows Santa is real.  Can you show us any evidence for a soul or spirit?  You know, as your religion doesn't mention chakras, it must be wrong in other people's eyes don't you?  Last thing, can you show us those "Evolutionary Theories" which mention how a soul or spirit evolves?

3:  You equate biology needs to be guided by your god and that this god of yours was needed to make the chemicals needed for life.
Survey says:  Yet when you emphatically declare that your god was needed to make water, your god is not needed to make water run down a hill.  Why not?

4:  You claim your god is a loving caring god.
Survey says:  Your own god's book shows it to be a moody, schizo, monstrous and petulant child who kills whole populations, even newborns and I dare say babies in their mother's womb because it's pissed.  It also got mad because despite it being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, it left two beings who didn't know anything including that disobeying was bad (how could they) and this god of your "went away" leaving the gates open for the creature of pure evil into the garden and tell the two innocents to do something they were told not to.  When they did do it, this omnipotent being had to ask them what happened and said they let evil into the world!  That's like a parent, leaving the toddlers home alone, front door open for anything to "crawl in" and a loaded gun on the kitchen table and then that parent has the audacity to blame the kids for letting in outsiders and touching the gun!

5:  You claim Evolution leads to hate, antisemitism, evil men, eugenics and a host of other evils.
Survey says:  Racial hatred, antisemitism, war and more were around long before Darwin's theories.  Even eugenics, under a different name of course, was around long before Darwin.  Of course "undesirables" usually meant "people of another faith".  Those who did eugenics were evil people hiding under a veneer of science while they practiced their hatred on others.  Can you show us where Evolution says anything about eugenics makes a species stronger?

6:  You claim Darwin was a racist and it is for all to see in "Descent of Man".
Survey says:  Wrong.  You yourself can't show us where Darwin says anything like that.  I can show you Christian Churches and their adherents who wrote extensively on how the "lesser races" needed to be enslaved.  Care to show us anything in Evolution that says that?  Can you even show us where Darwin was a racist?

7:  Your 5 points.
Survey says:  Your 5 points are trash.  They've been debunked, blown away, shown for the hot air they are.  The only reason they are brought back out of the grave is you keep digging them up.  But like all corpses, when you let go of them and yell, "Charge", they fall back into the hole.


Face it Floyd, you're out of your depth in a puddle.

Date: 2009/10/22 09:01:47, Link
Author: FrankH
I've been pondering this question.  It would seem the good folks over at UD demand biological pathways back to at least how Oxygen combines with Hydrogen to form Water and they want to see how the electrons line up.  Yet they are coy, wink, wink, nudge, nudge not just on their sexual disorientation but on what the designer is.

Has anyone answered their rhetoric of "Please provide how X did Y, with extreme close ups (pant, pant)", with, "How about you explain how this designer thing works and what designed this designer"?

Date: 2009/10/22 10:47:53, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 22 2009,10:45)
I am no great fan of the Pope but I think he shows a degree of maturity in his thinking that is sadly lacking in every thought emanating from FL.

It's easy to see maturity and thinking in a person when they are not lying.

Sadly, I don't see maturity nor thinking in Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/22 10:51:48, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Oct. 22 2009,10:25)
I see, trying to pretend you're not a Darwinist by asking the verboten question.

Actually, Gil re-worded David's question to make it more related to design.  It wasn't "what would it take to re-engineer a car into a submarine", it was actually "what would it take for you to go down in my car".

So David can play patriot and paraphrase a oft quoted and well known phrase:

Launch your torpedo and full speed for head!

?????

Date: 2009/10/22 11:31:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 22 2009,11:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 21 2009,21:04)
Biblical perspective on biology:

(snip)

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

(snip)

Henry
I always found that bit extremely puzzling. Ancient Hebrews must have been breeding goats at least for centuries. Wouldn't they laugh at a prophet making that ridiculous claim?

Maybe they were thinking of themselves and their offspring.

Date: 2009/10/22 12:56:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 22 2009,12:48)
Who's the worst writer, then?  Berlinski, Dembski or O'Leary?

The ones who really think they are bona fide journalists would be the worst.

Date: 2009/10/22 13:35:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Where's the guest of honor?

Has he been scared away?

Date: 2009/10/23 04:55:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 22 2009,22:56)
Only if he can ever grok the difference between "is the ultimate cause of" and "is the explanation of".

Unless I missed something, Genesis declares that God is the cause.

It doesn't say that there isn't/aren't other explanations for the details.

Henry

But that's the problem for someone who is a literalist.  Their whole reason for being is they believe they know their God's mind and how one should live, vote, act, feel, etc to get saved.  How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.

But I haven't met a "witnessing" evangelical who thinks I need to save my soul be anything but a egotistical asshole who just knows they are absolutely better than you.

Date: 2009/10/23 06:45:24, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2009,05:39)
Oh, did someone mention one of the seven deadlies?

You know where that will get you, don't you Floyd?


Quote
Doctor Inferno, by movimente

I think out good friend Floyd suffers from at least three.

I say "at least three" because I don't have any evidence for "Envy, Greed, Gluttony, and Lust".  I'm not say he doesn't have any of those but there is no evidence that he has displayed on this board.

"Sloth", "Wrath", and "Pride" are what I see him displaying here on this board.

"Wrath"?  He is telling us we're going to hell because "we don't believe".  He seems not just sure but I think he wants anyone who doesn't agree with him to go to hell and "just the just rewards".

"Pride"?  He knows the truth and he's so sure as to be impervious to even contemplating that he could be wrong.  This is after of course he tells everyone else to reconsider and that they might be wrong.

"Sloth"?  Seems a bit of a stretch to some I'm sure but it is not.  All it would take is a little work on Floyd's part to learn for himslef and not just reguripost from sources that he wants to believe.  That is very lazy and totally slothful in MNSHO.

Date: 2009/10/23 08:21:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 23 2009,08:12)
Quote
 
Quote
So indeed, what the pope is saying is that there are several concepts of evolution and some of them -those that insist that the soul is a product of naturalist development - are incompatible with evolution. Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution. Once again, Floyd only demonstrates that he can't read or refuses to do so accurately and honestly.
Robin, thanks for highlighting the relevant phrase that FL left out.
My pleasure, though it seems that while Floyd can't read, I can't proofread...The second to last sentence should have been, "Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with Christianity". (sigh) Oh well...I'm hoping the point was obvious...

Goes to that "Sloth" thing I leveled against Floyd now, doesn't it?

Yes Floyd, everyone makes mistakes.  The honest ones own up to it.  Those that aren't "Slothful" change it, even if it is in a later post.

Date: 2009/10/23 09:10:58, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,08:56)
Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.
Quote
Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.
And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.  

Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3

No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory.  So it begs the question namely, "WTF are you talking about?"

Only theories that make predictions that can be falsified materialistically are science.  Ideas or thoughts on "how it could be" are regulated to philosophy.  There is nothing wrong with philosophy but in many cases, it's not science.

As to the books, what are you trying to get at with them as I can't read your mind and I'm glad.

Date: 2009/10/23 09:42:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:28)
Quote
How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.
Hmmm.  Suppose I mentioned to you that you're actually insulting God Himself by what you said there.
Quote
Jeremiah 24:7 NKJV)

[b]"Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart."
God Himself is the one making the offer to humans to get to know him.  Offer is open to you too, like all of us.

He didn't say you had to personally understand all the mechanics of the deal first.  He's just making the offer and if you give Him permission, (honestly and sincerely give Him permission, and don't take it back), then He can go to work on enabling you to know Him.

"A heart to know me"?  So the heart is what we think with?  Is this like "Rabbits chewing their cud", or "Insects have four legs"?

If I were to read it, "Heart to know me", would be faith to believe in me and love me.  It would have nothing to do with knowledge of what the person wants, even is.

As for insulting, that would be for your narrow minded and self-serving reading how you want it to be because you think you know it intimately.

I have no doubt that you "know" your god as intimately as you know yourself.  As your god is just a projection of yourself, you know your god as you know yourself.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:15:06, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory
That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee

Which is a lie.  You have not refuted anything.  You reguriposted and left it at that.  Then you walked away claiming victory.  Your mind is so compartmentalized to make yourself unaware that you lie and lie often.

Ratzch's OPINION is his OPINION.  It is not shared by all.  Once you let supernatural in, anything goes.

As for Millam, Testable and Naturalistic is not an issue.  We can smash together and then test the decay of particles in a vacuum chamber.  That is not something that happens naturally on Earth.  No problem there.

Once again, Floyd EPIC FAIL who can't answer the questions like why is his god not needed to make the patterns in the dirt as water runs downhill but his god needs to have made the water.

Then he can't explain how a omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god can blame two completely clueless people when "he goes away" and somehow "the numero uno evil being" somehow is allowed in (only Floyd's god can allow things like that to happen, right?) and gets two innocents to do something bad.

Then this "perfect creation goes to hell because evil was let in.  NEWS FLASH:  Your "god" let evil into the garden before when that damn snake slithered in!

Date: 2009/10/23 10:23:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:01)
Quote
Evangilism = Fail
And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.

Which god?  There are so many.

Why is your god real but Indra (Hindu, fyi) not?

Is the follower of Indra damned?

Also, can a person be a Christian or is there a "certain kind of Christian" one must be or can one be a Catholic who thinks Evolution is real and that their god used evolution and 12 billions years to do it, the bible is allegorical and follow the Pope?

Date: 2009/10/23 10:34:21, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)
Quote
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?
All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.

So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.

In other words, Floyd punts.

Hey Floyd, is true that a father can have sex and impregnate his daughters when there are no "reputable or worthy men around"?

Hey Floyd, after this dad gets his daughters pregnant, can he still sell them as per the bible?

After all the bible says so!

Also, what about the Catholic Version of the bible, is it the "whole true bible too"?  Why or why not?

Also, it is noted that you can't answer so you proselytize.

Admit it, you're way over your head.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:52:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:49)
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.

But you'll ignore it when you are completely unable to answer it, right?

Date: 2009/10/23 13:13:58, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 23 2009,13:02)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:01)
Quote
Evangilism = Fail

And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.

Evolutionary theory has lead me to a greater appreciation of the glory and majesty of God.

I am your worst nightmare, Floyd.  According to you, I cannot exist.

And yet merely by existing, by being an intelligent, educated Christian who accepts Christ as my saviour, and also accepts evolutionary theory and sees no conflicts between these two I prove you wrong.

Here's the thing Floyd,

I have no argument with Constant Mews.  Why?  Constant Mews thinks that their God was the cause of it all, no matter how far back science pushes the beginning of the Universe (or Multi-Verse if there is one).  Their God is one that, forgive me if I speak out of turn here CM, that they want to emulate and love, not prostrate themselves before and give sacrifices to out of fear that they will be persecuted if they didn't.

I think that God of Constant Mews is a lot smarter than yours could ever be.  The God of CM creates the beginning and is more than intelligent enough to be able to set mechanisms that require no micromanagement to complete.  Compare that to your God who seems that despite their omni-whatever, the more simple the person, the more likely they are able to understand this "god".

"Oh give me a simple mind which is easy to fill with faith as to leave no room for independent thought"

That's you Floyd.

As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect

Date: 2009/10/23 14:19:13, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 23 2009,13:43)
[quote=OgreMkV,Oct. 23 2009,13:23][/quote]
Quote
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,13:13)
As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect
I agree totally.  Personally, I'd rather be having this debate with CM.

Sure, but really...how long or interesting would that debate be?

CM: Well, I don't see evolution as being incompatible with Christianity.

Us:  ...

There are times when "more drama" is NOT what the doctor asked for.

When 'm at home, while I love a lively debate, I fear talking with Floyd would be worse than talking to a brick wall.

The Brick Wall won't be saying the same old tired crap day after day after day after day.....

Date: 2009/10/23 14:20:48, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,14:17)
Quote
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.
Okay, this offer is off the table now.  Gotta move on.

You had no intention of answering squat Floyd.  Do not think that you've made any points at all.

Date: 2009/10/23 14:22:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,14:14)
Quote
I have asked you at least a half-dozen times to show me any scientific research model that would allow this...and you have refused to answer each timep
Oh yes, I answered you.  I specifically told you that THAT part of the discussion needed to go with the "ID is Science" debate, that it was enough for THIS part of the thread, to be able to show that your view of science actually DIDN'T have support and had multiple flaw.  

Don't you remember?  Or are you simply lying?

Lying is your forte.

I don't think anyone wants to challenge you on that.

Date: 2009/10/23 14:26:29, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Lowell @ Oct. 23 2009,10:49)
Quote (RDK @ Oct. 23 2009,10:08)
Does anybody know what the dominant religion of the Caribbean is?

According to the Wikipedia entry on Demographics of Montserrat, the CIA Factbook states:
Quote
Religions: Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Seventh-Day Adventist, other Christian denominations
Considering that the CIA has never been wrong about anything, ever, that should settle the matter.

I think the CIA gets many parts right.

What is at issue is how those who run the government choose to read what they say.

Like the CIA's take on the US is the ever growing gap between the rich and poor.

Date: 2009/10/23 14:28:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Lowell @ Oct. 23 2009,10:31)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 23 2009,07:21)
Ms O'Leary must have blown a fuse:

In her opening post at UD "Cambrian Explosion Film to Be Shown After all"http://www.uncommondescent.com/cambria....omments

she links to her blog

http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2008....ve.html
Quote
As if to prove that modernization and secularization are not the same thing, as sociologist Peter Berger maintains, long-deceased cultural icons are "appearing" again. Darwin's face has been discovered in a tree and Turkish secularist Kemal Ataturk's face in a hillside shadow in a remote Turkish village. All the more interesting because Darwin is the icon of North American atheists and Atatürk was a devout secularist.
Uggh! That's nonsensical even for O'Leary. Instances of pareidolia in "modernized" parts of the world demonstrate that those places are not "secularized"? I guess so, if "secularized" means devoid of any superstition whatsoever, even in the everyday private lives of the populace. Which it doesn't.

From the same post:
Quote
We are expected to forever wait for a Darwinian explanation [for the Cambrian "explosion"]. That’s like waiting for the guy dead drunk at the bottom of the stairs to pay his rent.
Denyse O'Leary: Queen of Simile.

So how many times have you won?

Date: 2009/10/23 15:58:56, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,15:47)
So please tell me again exactly how it's supposed to be a sin for a Christian to have the mind of God!

Here's your answer Floyd:

It's called Pride.  There is "knowing about" and "knowing intimately".  I know about my Great Grandparents.  I do not know them intimately.

I can tell you general things about my great grandparents.  It would be a lie for me to tell you I know what they are really like, how they would react, what their secrets were.  Hell, I know my daughters really well, but I can't even answer those questions about them.

Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.  People can't ever say for certainty how others should act around others but you're so damn sure you know the way to some god's, your god it seems, eaven by acting a certain way.

Your sin is Pride.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:48:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:24)
Quote
Then compare that to your dead sure idea that you are so very "intimately familiar with god" that you know how we should act.

Ummm, keep in mind Frank that YOU GUYS are the ones who brought up this "having the mind of God" thing.  I never did.  And I haven't said much about "how you should act".  (Maybe your own conscience is starting to wear on you??)

And only after you starting claiming that having the mind of God was a SIN, did I offer you 1 Cor 2:16 in order to challenge that claim.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't say a single word about the Bible text itself.  You just blew right over it and ignored it.
Question is, "Why?"

Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?

Do you or do you not say that your god is for "X, y and z" and against "a,b and c"?

Do you or do you not believe that the Bible is the unfettered and unfiltered word of god?

Do you or do you not believe that that you know what your god wants, completely, by reading the bible?

See Floyd, you come with so much baggage and so much in unclaimed "facts" that you hide sometimes even to yourself that underlies everything you say and do.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:51:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:31)
Quote
Start with 1st Corinthians..  Or Romans. What a fool you are, Floyd, trying to argue with me on theology.

Ummmm, CM. check that verse again---that IS 1 Corinthians.

And don't ignore it this time.  Please address it and engage it CM.

I don't CM telling them that they have to believe as you or they will go to hell.

I see CM correcting you, often and deeply as it is beyond necessary, to which your Pride takes as Pride on CM's part.

Bejebus Floyd, you like to answer everything but the questions, like Deadman's "Why isn't you god needed to guide water down a hill when he's need to create water".

Answer that one Floyd.  I know you can't

Date: 2009/10/23 17:05:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Mea Culpa Deadman.

I also responded to the wrong post by our resident YEC on his response to CM.

I really gotta eat something.

Date: 2009/10/23 23:09:01, Link
Author: FrankH
Floyd's actions seem to be those of someone who is doing the research for him.

It also appears this person is making sure Floyd doesn't handle the hard questions and instead goes for the fluff.

I guess when you're used to being lead by the nose, it will happen.

Date: 2009/10/24 10:26:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 24 2009,09:52)
If he continues this discussion, he breaks his word. If he ignores it, he's dishonest.  In either case he is unable to establish his case.

I'm not sure which is worse: his dishonesty or his incompetence.

In Floyd's case I really do think it is both coupled with an overabundance of arrogance.  He's incompetent but he won't learn as he's so damn arrogantly sure about his being able to handle it.  Which means he's lying to himself which shows how dishonest he really is.

Like Floyd's answer on how to get into heaven.  He just doesn't know the amount of crap he piled on himself.  I guess though, when you're being beaten as thoroughly as Floyd is, covering yourself in shit is one was to get people to leave you alone.

Date: 2009/10/26 06:51:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 26 2009,05:55)
Here's a summary of the "debate" so far:

There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.  But FL doesn't understand this, so he maintains that it can't happen.

Here's some parallel "reasoning":

I don't understand credit default swaps, therefore credit default swaps don't exist.

Completely explains the problem with science for YECs and literalists.

They don't understand science so they make something up, call it science and then say the "other stuff ain't science 'cause it's a religion, just like mine".

Date: 2009/10/26 06:53:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey, where are some good videos showing the "intelligentsia of the ID/YEC movement" really being nasty and completely rude, hateful and condescending of science and especially those "evil people who 'believe' in Evilution"?

Thanks

Date: 2009/10/26 13:50:07, Link
Author: FrankH
To paraphrase Mao (or however it's spelled now)

"Power flows from the business end of the one with the biggest weapon"

Date: 2009/10/26 14:49:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 26 2009,14:34)
[quote=didymos]
Quote (FloydLee](Did you look at those verses?  Look at them again.  If you ever publicly debate a YEC in a university or church setting on the Incompatibility topic @ you can bet that's going to be a massive arsenal of information that the YEC could use on you.)[/quote)
I surely did look, Floyd:
Quote
1 Samuel 2:8 -- He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them.
So if we're forced, left with no escape, from six 24 hour days, then we simply must take this verse at face value as well.  So, um, where exactly are these "pillars of the earth" again?
This relates to a question I had for another bible-worshipper, on another thread.

Is the bible literally, word-for-word, true in all respects, Floyd?  Because if it is, we should be able to see these pillars somewhere.  Where are they?

On the other hand, perhaps you think the "pillars of the earth" are simply metaphor.  If that's the case, given that some things in the bible are metaphorical and therefore not literally true, do you have a reliable way to separate the literal from the metaphorical?

Like how Floyd says "slavery is not biblical" even though we have the verses where it tells us how much a father can sell his daughters into slavery and that as long as a slave can walk again 3 days after a beating by the master, it's all good?

Yet Floyd can't seem to answer that.

Date: 2009/10/27 08:06:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,17:46)

I can't let this one go and I think Floyd if you look very carefully, you'll see the problems in your argument if you're actually honest with yourself.
Quote
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?
Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible+straight forward.  [b-->
Quote (floyd]
Quote
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?
Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible @ straight forward.  [b)
John 3:16.  Revelation 3:20.  Romans 10:9-10.[/b]
Wow, that's it?  That's all one has to do? Let's see here:
Quote (3:16 KJV]For God so loved the world @ that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/quote)
Next:[quote=Revelation 3:20 ]Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
Last one is:
Quote (Romans 10:9-10]9 That if you confess with your mouth @ "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.[/quote)
Well I'll be damned (pun intended).

So Floyd, it looks like to be a Christian and be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ.  I don't see one thing about believing in a literal Bible, thinking Genesis is a technical account how your god did it or even not selling people into slavery.  Just blind faith in Jesus, right?  Good thing that the pesky idea of "works" was dumped by some Christians.  After all, could you imagine actually having to "work" to be saved and get into heaven?[quote=floyd]And I would bet anything that you've seen or heard those salvation verses before.   IOW, even you, as a Non-Christian, knows exactly what God requires to get into heaven.
Wow and if a Muslim tells you that only by praising Allah and following His prophet Mohammad will you find happiness in heaven, what would you say?

Why should I say anything different to you?
Quote
You reject God and treat Him like a dog, but you still know what He's looking for.  He's lookin' for YOU, dude!!  Why not let down your defenses and give Him a try?
I do?  How?  By not worshiping your god?  Here's a hint, I'd never worship your blood-stained, baby killing, slave taking petulant child of a deity ever.

The Christian God of benevolence, who's book is allegorical of how humanity screwed up is one thing.  You god is something totally different.
Quote
Quote
Do you or do you not say that your god is for "X, y and z" and against "a,b and c"?
Sure I say that, because the Bible says that.  All actions do not please God and all roads do not lead to God.  You and I have choices to make.  In the Bible, God specifies which way to go.
So you agree then that if I want to sell my daughters into slavery, I should start at the prices set forth in the bible right?  Or do I get to count in inflation?
Quote
Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.  (Isa. 1:18)
Wow, your god makes the rules, breaks them as it sees fit, leaves a lot of "holy writs" all over the place each with its own set of wackos slaughtering gleefully those that are "heretics" and I'm the sinner?
Quote
Quote
Do you or do you not believe that the Bible is the unfettered and unfiltered word of god?
Yes I do believe that.  In fact, Jesus Christ said it is the unbreakable word of God (John 10:35).
Then why don't you read the literal word when it comes to slavery?  The subjugation of women?  Killing of your enemies and raping their virgin daughters?  Are those not what your book said?

If you can't take that literally but need to "clarify" then why does Genesis need no clarification?
Quote
Don't you allow anybody -- whether they call themselves Christian or non-Christian -- to sell you on any lesser view of the Bible.  If a person wants to follow Christ, then let them follow Christ's complete and total trust in the authority, reliability and perfection of Scripture.
 I don't have to have anyone "sell it to me".  I've read the thing myself and it shows a petty, jealous and merciless deity who gets off on blaming others.
Quote
Quote
Do you or do you not believe that that you know what your god wants, completely, by reading the bible?
Yes.  And you know what God wants too, if you read the Bible.  But it's not just by reading.  As you can tell just from this thread alone, readin' the Bible ain't the same as believin' the Bible.  If you want to know what God wants, readin's a great first step, but then there's that issue of saying YES or NO to what you're reading.
So your god isn't omni-anything then is it?  If you truly knew all that, you'd be god but isn't that it?  Isn't your god just a reflection of your wants and desires?
Quote
Evolutionists keep on demanding that you say NO to God's clear word in Genesis.  Trouble is, a NO in that spot rationally opens the door to saying to NO in other spots.  
And ultimately, when one's faith gets all spotted up with disbelief, some folks end up saying NO to God, period.
This god's word is anything but clear, especially with 2 different versions of Genesis saying different things about when things were made on what day.

Again, if Genesis is so clear, then why isn't the other passages where this god MADE leaders "hearts harden" just so this god could punish them instead of going down and just explaining a few things in person to Pharaoh?  Ah yes, last time someone wanted to join the Israelites, they waited for the males to all get circumsized and with this god's "righteous anger" went and slaughtered all of them, save the girls who were raped.

Funny that why they didn't want to join up.[quote]Then they go to HELL.  All alone.  (Except for their new little malformed pointy-eared friends.  You know, the ones with the sharp teeth and stinky breath who can't stop laughing at you while munching on your intestines.)[/quote ]So the Pope and all Catholics who heed the Pontiffs directives are damned to hell too, even if they are Christian?

Funny, I thought that following those three verses you gave at the beginning of this was enough to get into heaven.  Again, none of those verses say anything about following Genesis literally.
Quote
The solution is to read the Bible and say YES to what God is telling you in that Bible.  Stop saying NO to John 3:16 and other salvation verses.  Stop saying STFU to Jesus when He's pleading with you to just let him in the door (Rev. 3:20).   (Yeah, you!).

Floyd Lee
Tell you what Floyd, if Jesus were to come to my door and knock, first I'd like to see some credentials (nothing big, curing all innocent children with AIDS would be a start) I'll give that dude my full and undivided attention.

However, if I start hearing voices in my head (or worse, voices in my heart), I'm checking into an institution right away.

I'm sure the Pope talks to Jesus and the Pope has no issue with Evolution.  Is there something else talking to him or any other Christian that doesn't here "Read it literally or join your mother you will!"?

Date: 2009/10/27 08:12:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Damn QUOTING!===>

I can't let this one go and I think Floyd if you look very carefully, you'll see the problems in your argument if you're actually honest with yourself.
Quote
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?
Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible, straight forward.  [b-->
Quote (Floyd @ ]
Quote
Do you or do you not think you know what your god requires as to get into heaven or not?
Yes I do.  It's written down in the Bible, straight forward.  [b)
John 3:16.  Revelation 3:20.  Romans 10:9-10.[/b]
Wow, that's it?  That's all one has to do? Let's see here:
Quote (3:16 KJV @ ]For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/quote)
Next:[quote=Revelation 3:20,]Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
Last one is:
Quote (Romans 10:9-10 @ ]9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.[/quote)
Well I'll be damned (pun intended).

So Floyd, it looks like to be a Christian and be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ.  I don't see one thing about believing in a literal Bible, thinking Genesis is a technical account how your god did it or even not selling people into slavery.  Just blind faith in Jesus, right?  Good thing that the pesky idea of "works" was dumped by some Christians.  After all, could you imagine actually having to "work" to be saved and get into heaven?[quote=floyd]And I would bet anything that you've seen or heard those salvation verses before.   IOW, even you, as a Non-Christian, knows exactly what God requires to get into heaven.
Wow and if a Muslim tells you that only by praising Allah and following His prophet Mohammad will you find happiness in heaven, what would you say?

Date: 2009/10/27 08:23:54, Link
Author: FrankH
I give up.

Canz eyes getz mee de edumachangit feetur?

Pulheezey?

Date: 2009/10/27 09:01:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 27 2009,08:52)
[quote=Constant Mews,Oct. 26 2009,20:10][/quote]
Quote
You need to use some logic when you post, Floyd.

I will pray for you, you need the Grace of God to rescue you.
Nope...no way. I don't even think God is powerful enough to fix self-imposed stupid.

Is that like the question of can God create a rock so big not even He could lift it?

Date: 2009/10/27 09:05:55, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,17:01)

I wonder why Flody didn't share this bit, from the poll he cited.

I have a problem with the word "believe".

Like "Theory" in the wrong hands, as there are multiple meanings and some of them are very close, one can be easily tripped up into having their "belief" in the sun appearing to rise up from the East to be a statement of faith.

I don't "believe" the sun will appear to rise up in the East.  I THINK that with the absence of some most likely catastrophic event, the Earth will continue to rotate in a clockwise fashion when looking from a north to south perspective.

Likewise, I THINK that Evolution is the best at predicting the diversity of life here on Earth, etc, etc.

Date: 2009/10/27 09:20:30, Link
Author: FrankH
Feel the love pushing up from behind from a few on this board.....

Happy B-Day

Date: 2009/10/27 10:08:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 27 2009,10:04)
Which one, DvK?

http://www.jurgita.com/models/czech-male-models

Gotta ask, do you have websites like this in "Bookmarks" and numbers on speed dial?

On second thought, TMI.

Date: 2009/10/27 10:38:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 27 2009,10:07)
I suspect Floyd is unable to distinguish between "accepting" a theory and "believing" a theory.

It's not just Floyd or "religious people" for that matter.  Anyone with a closely held, dogmatic belief will suffer from that issue.

Let me say that I'm one of the only person who voted for Obama, thinks that global Warming is real and doesn't go to church or otherwise believes deeply in the Almighty at work.  Too often I hear things like, "Well, it's just a Theory.  The 2LoT is a LAW!", along with a smattering of "why can't ToE predict what life will look like exactly"?  That's when I ask 'em about multiple body gravity effects and predicting how water will trace out grooves in the side of a sandy hill.

I've learned never to say "I believe x" on anything otherwise obviously I'm taking things on faith.

Date: 2009/10/27 12:03:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,10:47)
 

Quote
Quote
Floyd, Genesis 1-11 is, at best, metaphorical truth explaining the concept of Original Sin.  Even Futuyma admits that.
Thanks CM.  If Futuyma is saying that, he would be saying that on the basis of evolution, unless you have a biblical analysis from Futuyma to offer me.
Spacious reasoning at it's best.  Even still, using Futuyma as "proof" when it is just his opinion is appeal to authority at it's worst.
Quote
Assuming you don't, then the only rational conclusion is that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity, since Genesis 1-3 and 1-11 aren't metaphor at all.
That will be taken as you surrendering any and all links to logic or rational thinking.
Quote
Those chapters are straight historical narrative and intended by the biblical writer to be taken that way, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the historical claims therein.
Right.....

Just like a "straight historical narrative" shows the god of the literal bible not going on with regards to the other aspects that you are so quiet about?
Quote
Scholar James Barr (who was NOT a fundie and didn't personally believe Genesis himself) wrote:
Quote
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984).  

So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.
Yet another appeal to authority.

OBTW, what does the whole quote actually say?

Date: 2009/10/27 12:53:11, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)
Quote
Yet another appeal to authority.
Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?

Do you consider the Hindu Vedic or the Koran of Islam to be sources that CONFIRM the existence of Indra or the s Mohammad to be true?

If it's no to any of the above, then why is yours correct and theirs not?

Date: 2009/10/27 13:08:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)
Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

The check I use to even begin to site a source is internal consistency.

Floyd, the OT all by itself is inconsistent.  When combined with the NT in a literal fashion, the weirdness meter breaks.

Oh yeah.  Is there a mountain high enough on which a person can see the whole world?

Date: 2009/10/27 13:35:15, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2009,13:23)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,12:08)
Oh yeah.  Is there a mountain high enough on which a person can see the whole world?
Maybe if it's on the moon?

Now, I'm not very good at math, but I think that if the surface of a sphere is SA=4piR2 then you'd still be short S=2piR2 where R = radius of the Earth and pi = some number around 3.

Date: 2009/10/27 14:29:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:27)
Quote
What the authors intended and what other readers of the Bible thought DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT GENESIS 1-11 IS TRUE.
Not talking about "proving Genesi" true in this case, I'm talking about being able to confirm what the author of Genesis intended (historical narrative.)  

THAT, you can check the Scripture textually and contextually, and confirm.  Would you like to?

Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:03:01, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:51)
Quote
Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.
Sure you would.  Here's a pop quiz.  Mulitiple choice.
Correctly classify the following chapter.  

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV

a.  Historical Narrative---specifically a historical genealogy  

b.  A Parable

c.  A Metaphor

d.  An Allegory


This quiz is Pass-Fail, btw, so get it right the first time.

You forgot:

e) A copy of a copy of a copy of illiterate shepards passing down a creation fable that they copied from previous cultures.

f) A drug induced vision by someone smoking camel dung.

g) A joke.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:07:58, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:51)

For you Floyd:

Quote
Sure, I'd love to see you twist with this one too.
Sure you would.  Here's a pop quiz.  Mulitiple choice.
Correctly classify the following chapter.  

[URL=http:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25%3A44-46&version=NIV[/URL]

a.  Historical Narrative---specifically a historical genealogy  

b.  A Parable

c.  A Metaphor

d.  An Allegory


This quiz is Pass-Fail, btw, so get it right the first time.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:12:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Oh yes to answer your question about:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV

The answer is most likely e) but I can see f) as well.

Your turn.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:14:10, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2009,15:11)
Btw, what does that chapter have to do with whether Genesis 1 is historical or allegory or metaphor or whatever?

A string of "begats" is certainly in the form of a historical narrative.

I still wonder who the sons of Adam begat with?

Eve?

Their sisters?

Someone else?

Something else?

Each other?

Date: 2009/10/27 15:30:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:26)
Quote
Yes.
"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.

Didn't answer a single one of our questions there Floyd.

Care to try?

OBTW, Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:39:17, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:33)
Quote
We do not know who the writers of Genesis were, much less what they intended.
Yes we do.  We know it's Moses, because Jesus said so (and you've read the NT already so you know that), and that's on top of a ton of internal evidence.  We know it's intended as historical narrative, we can confirm both text and context on it, and from both Testaments as well.

Does the concept of "circular reasoning" mean anything to you Floyd?  You know many other religions use their "holy writ" to back up their "holy writ" don't you?  Again, why are they wrong and you right?

What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?

Date: 2009/10/27 15:48:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 27 2009,15:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2009,21:09)
I'm really nervous about my kid ending up a smart, but second class citizen, because he is smart.
THAT is a fascinating topic to me. It seems to me that in many cultures, "smart" is seen as a threat, particularly in the "West." It's seen all over the place, in the stereotypes and memes we use. Husbands in commercials are rock-dumb, women are "clever" but not smart, scientists are portrayed as nutty fuckers commonly. Smart seems to edge on madness in popular culture (and real life -- high-IQ people may well have a higher proportion of psychological issues by population percentages). At any rate, smart certainly appears to be threatening or scary in the popular view.

Contrast that to the "eastern" view of extolling early intelligence (youth) through to aged wisdom. There's something there that I can't quite put my finger on, but I think it may have to do with the peculiar trajectory that Eastern ancestor worship took, along with other factors. Maybe. I dunno, it's hard to get at such things.

Good point.

I think a lot of the "anti-smartness" in the west comes from the bible.  It was the "smart ones" who started noticing the problems with Floyd style blinders, of which we'll seen way too much of recently, and were vilified when they did.

Like the saying, "Too smart for your own good".

"Give me a simple mind that I may fill with unshakable faith"

Date: 2009/10/27 15:52:23, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 27 2009,15:47)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:44)
 
Quote
And actually, you've got no ability to prove that, either.

Oh yes I do.  We both have the actual text of Gen 1 and Gen 2.  We can examine individual verses from both chapters and quickly mark down the "magnifying glass" connections.  Wanna do this with me CM?
Lol. You don't know what the word "prove" means in that context, Flody.

Proving one bit of the Bible by another bit of the Bible when both bits are demonstrably unhinged from reality is silly.

ETA: Damn,  CM, I read ur MIND!!

Yeah, add "prove" and "proof" to the long list of words that are misused due to their flexibility which allows a "worm tongue" to trip up anyone by say, "But you said you believed it right here!  That's faith!"

Date: 2009/10/27 15:53:42, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:51)
Quote
What evidence do you have that Jesus existed?
Quote
Let's try to stay out of that box.

Very odd.  Your evo-homie is trying to dictate to you what you can and cannot ask of me.  I wonder why.

Because CM saw more clearly than I about how you'll use whatever you can so you don't have to answer the tough questions there Floyd.

CM, sorry, you were right.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:58:46, Link
Author: FrankH
The movie "Idiocracy" does a good job of showing what will happen if those trends continue.

Date: 2009/10/28 04:00:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 28 2009,01:22)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 27 2009,20:39)
Quote (khan @ Oct. 27 2009,16:06)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 27 2009,18:40)
StephenB:
Quote
The atheist life ethic may be summed up as follows: When we want them, babies may live; when we don’t want them, they must die.

So no "believer" has ever had an abortion? According to StephenB I guess not.

Anybody fancy asking him? I've not been able to stand the stink over there lately...
Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in the USA. Lying cretins try to ban abortion while they have them.
And natural (divine?) abortion, a.k.a. miscarriage, is even more common. God must be the the most prolific abortionist of all. Praise the Lord!!!11!
But sledgehammer, miscarriages are our fault, not God's.  They can be traced directly to the Fall.  Just ask William Dembski, the Isaac Newton of fucked-up apologetics.

Isaac Newton?  There must be a better name to use so a real figure in science is not used for apologetics.

I think not.  Newton was a despicable man but he actually gave the world Classical Mechanics and Calculus, two very good tools to use on our "ladder" up the cliff of knowledge.  Dembski has the Nix-planatory filter and ways to re-TARD science which cuts the legs off of the ladder.

I'd prefer a fictional character.  Hopefully he's more like the Ahab of apologetics.  May the "White Whale" of Evilution drag his sorry ass down as well.

Date: 2009/10/28 07:33:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Oct. 28 2009,07:23)
Not to mention the staggering infant and child mortality rates for the vast majority of human existence.  Designed that way from the start?  Or implemented to punish some long dead ancestor?

Suffer the little children.

Of course if you point that out to a fundie, you get, "It's due to man's wickedness".

Which is why I like to ask them how evil got into the Garden of Eden and then correct them by pointing out the snake and who it was supposed to be.  (And why did their god let that thing in the Garden in the first place?  Sorta like leaving your 4 year old with a child molester isn't it?)

Date: 2009/10/28 08:44:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
Quote
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.
Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)

Again you're wrong.  You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".  It really can't be done.  It's like me asking you to prove Islam being divinely inspired and given to Mohammad.  You can't.

It is up to those who hold on to something to provide the evidence for Genesis being historical.

OBTW, Darwin is mute on Genesis in his Theory.  He may have said his opinion on the subject but that is his opinion.

Learn the difference please between "opinion" and "evidence".

Date: 2009/10/28 08:46:26, Link
Author: FrankH
CRAP!

Again you're wrong.  You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".  It really can't be done.  It's like me asking you to prove Islam being divinely inspired and given to Mohammad.  You can't.

Should say:

Again you're wrong.  You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".  It really can't be done.  It's like me asking you to prove Islam wrong in that it is not divinely inspired and given to Mohammad.  You can't.

Date: 2009/10/28 09:04:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:48)
Quote
You're trying to get someone to "prove a negative".
Nope.  The specific claim is that Genesis 1-11 is metaphorical.  That's not "proving a negative."

Now you get to prove that Gen. 1-11 is metaphor and not a straight historical narrative.  You up for it?

Wrong.

The claim, by you, is that Genesis is indeed historical and really did happen.  You're good at lying Floyd.

Your Jesus must be so proud!

Date: 2009/10/28 09:18:13, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 28 2009,09:15)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 28 2009,02:00)
Isaac Newton?  There must be a better name to use so a real figure in science is not used for apologetics.
It's a reference to this infamous blurb on the back cover of Intelligent Design -- The Bridge Between Science and Theology:
Quote
William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His 'law of conservation of information' represents a revolutionary breakthrough.

Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas

Wow.

They liking stroking each other don't they?

Their egos of course.

Date: 2009/10/28 09:28:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Floyd which of these can't be done:

Provide evidence that the following are metaphorical, made up, mythical or plain wrong:

1:  The Hindu Vedic
2:  The Bible
3:  The Q'ran
4:  Santa Clause
5:  Easter Bunny

Date: 2009/10/28 10:12:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (RDK @ Oct. 28 2009,10:04)

Quote
Quote
It's a reference to this infamous blurb on the back cover of Intelligent Design -- The Bridge Between Science and Theology:
Quote
William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His 'law of conservation of information' represents a revolutionary breakthrough.

Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas
It's a MIRACLE of course don't you know!
Quote
I think the good Dr^dr is too busy stroking himself to notice anybody else.  The proportional difference between the surface area of his hand and the size of his twinkie just doesn't really allow for more than one stroking to go on at at once.
I'd like to thank you for that mental image.

I need to lose weight and I was going to get a snack out of one of the vending machines.

Now I really don't want one.

Date: 2009/10/28 14:38:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,13:19)
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!

HAHAHAHAHA!  You did what?

Floyd, you're a liar.  A damn liar and you know it.

Using circular logic, "Jesus, who's in the Bible, says the Bible was written by Moses, so that shows ya", is bullshit.

I guess that means the Easter Bunny is alive and well as  my mom told me and well, she exists and others can talk to her, unlike your god which is all in your head.

Date: 2009/10/28 14:39:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Don't close the thread.

Let all see and read Floyd's lies and distortions for themselves.

Date: 2009/10/28 21:33:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 28 2009,15:09)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 28 2009,12:39)
Don't close the thread.

Let all see and read Floyd's lies and distortions for themselves.
"Closed" doesn't mean "deleted", Frank.  The thread will be here for our amusement until long after the Rapture.

I know that.  But to give in to "ending this thread" would make Floyd a "winner" in his and other fundies' eyes.

Leave it open and ignore it for the most part but don't give Floyd his "victory".

Date: 2009/10/29 09:38:23, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Floyd,

The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister

Question:  Are they or are they not Christians?  Yes or no will do.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:07:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:02)
Quote
I don't have to refute apologetics statements

No, you don't have to.  But your inability to do so makes things a lot easier on me.     :)

Hardly.  Do you feel the need to refute bullshit?

No?  So why do you think we need to refute yours?

Also, about those who are Christians and accept evolution.....

Date: 2009/10/29 10:35:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Floyd,

The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
5:  nmgirl

Question:  Are they or are they not Christians?  Yes or no will do.

Date: 2009/10/29 10:55:56, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:43)
Quote
The following people accept Evolution as the way their god made life, including the physical nature of humans:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
Your question WRT the Pope has already been answered by me (quite directly, btw).  I'll let you go back and look up my answer.

In other words from Floyd
Quote
blah, blah, blah I won't answer as I haven't the cajoles
Humor me.

Answer the questions again and directly.  Don't lie, dance or do the FL duck.  Be a man and answer them again, yes or no:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
5:  nmgirl

You want peopel to answer you yet you refuse to do the same.  How many times have a re-answered you?  Way too many and yet you don't have the courtesy to do the same?

Date: 2009/10/29 11:02:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Floyd,

Why are you such a damnable liar?  You know you've never answered my question with a "yes" or a "no".

If you want, I will go back and find every response by you, list the page and show that you are a true goddamn liar.

Answer my question about this:

1:  The Pope
2:  CM
3:  Robin
4:  My sister
5:  nmgirl

yes or no!

Then answer the question Eramus asked of you that you've completely ignored as you know far to well it will show you to be a pathetic liar for whatever the hell you worship.

Date: 2009/10/29 14:28:08, Link
Author: FrankH
You know Floyd, I answered your questions.  I even answered questions about non-personal things you asked of other people.  So what about answering mine?

Now, before you say, "You didn't answer all of mine", go back and take a look at when and where you asked these questions.  They were when you answered a question with a question so you never answered my question.  Still in more than a few places, I answered you and re-posed my question.

So if you feel you have a problem with deadman, then fine.  But at least answer those who've answered you.

Date: 2009/10/29 15:08:42, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,14:35)
Quote
You know Floyd, I answered your questions.
Hey, I gave you straight answers on your laundry list of "Christians" there.  Even respectfully answered concerning your sister.  Gave you specific explanations.

But I did already provide this board specific answers on Pope and Nmgirl (and Francis Collins too), and and gave you specific answers on the rest including your sister.

Sorry, I think I have a right to insist that you NOT act like I never provided them already, and that's how you've been behaving all this time.  You've been on this board long enough to have looked them up already.  

You said you'd look 'em up to prove I was an (expletive) liar.  So, you gonna look 'em up already or not?

No you did not.  Specific answers are "Yes" and/or "No".  You danced around answers but specifics?  Not even close.

Then I ask you r indulgence here to just come out and say YES or NO.  These people claim their God used Evolution:

1: The Pope
2: nmgirl
3: My Sister
4: Robin
5: CM

Are they Christian or not?

Date: 2009/10/29 15:10:26, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)
Quote
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.

Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works, helped me to both understand the objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources with which to carefully and specifically argue against trying to equate that negative presupposition with science itself---(like Deadman and his pals were trying to do.)

So yeah, at bare minimum, you've already seen that Deadman's presuppositions, (or yours, or mine, which mine are all on the table already) can indeed have serious bearing on this topic.

But Deadman has had PLENTY to say around here, not just that one thing.  So how many MORE pre-suppositions are lurking in there?  How many MORE times is he actually relying on his Pre-Sups for his conclusions instead of on the evidences and sound reasonings?

(Actually, he ain't the only one who could be asked those question.  But at least you've been forthcoming and halfway straight with me on where you're coming from.  Deadman has NOT been.

You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs.

I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid.

Floyd still thinks people's opinions, even if he gets them all wrong, "prove" his points.

So I guess that a whacked out crack whore who believes she is giving birth to an aliens baby proves the existence of aliens.

Date: 2009/10/29 19:31:21, Link
Author: FrankH
Well Floyd you just showed that it is indeed possible to be both a Christian and think Evolution is how the Christian God did it.

As you concede that nmgirl, The Pontiff, and CM are Christians and they say that their God used Evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on Earth, that is the evidence needed that even you claim it is possible to be both a Christian and be an "Evolutionist".

Case Closed.  Onto ID!

Date: 2009/10/29 19:39:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 29 2009,19:21)
You may be interested to know that these are the exact same first words posted by both Louis and Arden!*


* Please go to UD and ask Dr. Dr. D to run the probabiltity numbers on this.

The New and Improved Nixplanatory Filter says:

The odds of those electrons moving in exactly the correct pattern to excite the screen and produce the patterns as to decipherable by us means that it was intelligently designed.

Trivial, really.

Date: 2009/10/30 08:55:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Actually Robin I was not asking about your sister.  It was for my sister who's a good Catholic girl.

She took my word on "Theistic Evolution" and when the Pontiff came out and said what he did on Evolution and Catholicism, she dropped all issues with Evolution and being a Christian.

Date: 2009/10/30 09:27:59, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,09:13)
Quote
Care to point to that? Page? Citation?
Page 27, dude.  I was quoting you quite directly.
Quote
.....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman
Sound familiar?

Um, I went to page 27.  I found Deadman's remarks and I didn't see that one anywhere.  Is it on a different page?

In any case that is true.  If one were to include "supernatural claims", then there will be no way to separate ANY of the myriad of Supernatural entity from being responsible from anything!

That means any religion and any belief can be used, all with equal weight, along with totems, animal spirits and the invisible friend of the weird guy sitting across from you in a McDonald's as being responsible for anything you want them to be responsible for.

Date: 2009/10/30 10:38:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:02)
Quote
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position

But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.
Quote
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
[b]D
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."[/b]

----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website
So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.

******

And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  

(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)
 
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.

And once again Floyd takes Dawkin's opinions as some sort of an "Evilutionist" Canon to which all who "believe in Evilution" must abide by.

False.  Dawkins was expressing his oen Atheism and say why HE BELIEVES that the universe is not designed and there is no god.  That is a statement of faith, of sorts in no god or gods what so ever, a position to which I don't agree.  What Dawkins is actually doing here is criticizing people like you who think that because we survive in the universe, all of this was designed for us.

Why do you continually mix opinion with facts?

So you "#5" incompatibility is a construct of your own mind and has been defeated many, many times.  Only your willful ignorance.

You seem to forget that you yourself have already concluded that the Pontiff, nmgirl, CM and others are Christian and they accept Evolution.

Again, you lost and you are making yourself look more and more ridiculous.

Date: 2009/10/30 10:44:58, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)
Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.

"Religion of Materialism"?

I guess it's like yours and other YECs who feel that those think Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth must "believe it is true".

Again, I don't believe Evolution is true.  I think it is the best explanation of how the diversity of life we see came about.

Date: 2009/10/30 12:33:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:23)
Quote
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.
Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?

And Einstein had a PhD in Physics but I wouldn't let him operate on me or anyone else.

Tell me Floyd, what IS "Computational Chemistry"?  How does it relate to Biology?

As for "Dr. Ratzch", what is his degree?  Remember Von Danken(sp?)?  He wrote "Chariots of the Gods" and was published all over the world.  Again, how does a "professional philosopher of science" relate to biology?

Read the term "argument from authority" again.  Save your "authorities" are speaking out of their asses in subjects they don't study and do research in.

Date: 2009/10/30 12:35:08, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:18)
Quote
We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science.
No you didn't.  Not ONE of the sources quoted offered ANY refutations to any of Meyer's specific points, nor Millam's huge point, nor even Ratzsch's for that matter.

Go ahead and re-quote your sources. if you'd like to compare notes.

Again, we do not have to "refute" a person's opinions.  The one making the opinions are required to back up their rhetoric.

Sadly for you, that doesn't happen in the YEC/ID world.

Date: 2009/10/30 13:23:36, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:11)
Okay, let's go further now.  Essentially Deadman's question FOLLOWS from what Drs. Ratzsch, Millam and Meyer pointed out.

Since there are no sustainable BLANKET prohibitions against investigating supernatural design within science, how does one test for the supernatural?

There's only one answer at this time, but it's a very real answer:  Indirectly.[/i]

Simply put:  The scientific method is all about observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, and drawing conclusion.   Indeed, Deadman's own insistence on "testing" reflects this reality.

So, we find an intelligent design hypothesis such that the causative agent in the given situation [n]could NOT be a natural cause.
 If this particular hypothesis can be FALSIFIED via observation, and if you can say what those observations would be, then you got yourself a scientific hypothesis.

This is true, btw, even if it takes you 20 years to actually observe one of those given falsifying situations.
One black swan is enough to falsify the hypothesis "all swans are white", even if you never see a black swan within your own lifetime.  (Hat Tip:  Wikipedia.)

So, that's how you test for supernatural.  Not directly.  Indirectly.  Now, let's find an ID hypothesis that fits.

I can see why you want to change tact.  You lost BIG TIME and you want to scoot away.  Great!  Fine with me.

OBTW, if something can be observed then it is NATURAL!

See, that "indirectly" way to observe things?  Science does it all the time.  Check out Particle Physics.  The thing is science makes experiments for it.  There is no such research for ID-iots and their science.

Date: 2009/10/30 13:27:00, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:21)
Quote
've only asked you this same thing a dozen times.
And you were specifically told (as far back as the first time out.....)

(1)   Your answer would have to await this "ID is science" presentation...not earlier.

(2)  Drs. Ratzsch's, Dr. Millam's, and Dr. Meyer's specific points refuted your original claim regardless of the *followup* question of how one tests for supernatural design.

Did you forget.....?

No forgetting here just nothing from you that needs to be refuted as it's all opinion, not fact, not science, not anything!

Again the things you say need to be refuted are someone's opinions.  Again that is not how it works.  If I were to tell you "your God is dead", it is not up to you to show that the petulant child that you claim is omni-whatever is dead, it is my job to give you the evidence for it.

No?  Show me that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist!

OBTW, you're lying again about when you'd do something.....

Date: 2009/10/30 13:37:08, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 30 2009,13:35)
Looks like Floyd has had his ass handed to him yet again. Aren't your butt cheeks sore at this point, Floyd?

Quote
Dummy Ass, by gaelx.

I think he likes it.

But more likely with the fist and it shoved somewhere.

Date: 2009/10/30 13:42:43, Link
Author: FrankH
The even worse thing for Floyd is that if this were only about Philosophy, he'd still be losing.

Earth to Floyd, a hint:  When one stakes a position, even in Philosophy, it is best to be constant.  You claim that there's no way a person can be a Christian and be an "Evolutionist".

Yet the Pope and more than just a few of the people on this board hold hold of those positions.

The only logical way for you to have been consistent is to have declared them all to be "Not Christian".

Date: 2009/10/30 14:30:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Reg @ Oct. 30 2009,13:58)
That's always the way isn't it? The great Collapse Of Evolution is always just not very far away, real soon now and imminent at any moment... but never seems to happen. It must be terribly frustrating.

That reminds me of St. Helen from another board, I think she actually married Setterfield, and her "Barimnology(sp?) ideal.

For years I heard how this "Bar-whatever" was going to overturn Biology as we knew it and drive the final nail into Darwin's coffin.

You know, a lot of the rhetoric from the YECs/ID-iots about, "Oh it's coming and soon", reminds me of the Soviet Union and how close they were to the "New Communist Man".

Date: 2009/10/30 14:32:32, Link
Author: FrankH
Screw Carbohydrates, I want TURBOHYDRATES!

Date: 2009/10/30 14:39:17, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 30 2009,14:20)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 30 2009,12:23][/quote]
Quote
Quote
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.
Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?
They don't have the authority to determine what is or is not science. That is what I wrote, Floyd, and it is a fact. NO single scientist has such an authority. They can toss out their opinions all they want, but the fact is science is defined as an institution by the scientific community. So no Floyd - for the 3rd time - they don't have the authority and those who are actual scientists (including me as a researcher) can ignore their opinions and go with the actual accepted definition.

{sarcasm=Hyperspeed}

Wrong!  Today, in honor of Theocratic Greatness Inquisitor Floyd I, I declare that scientists must provide us with White Chocolate to be scientists.

Tomorrow, I'll need it to be Pumpkin Pie.  After all, we were shown by TGIF 1 that science and facts are what we want them to be!

{sarcasm=off}

Date: 2009/10/30 14:43:06, Link
Author: FrankH
OgreMkV, I'd like to add one to you list:

Floyd Questions for you Floyd:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?
7) Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution.
8) Please provide a rigorous and testable definition of [/i]Information[/i] as it pertains to biology.

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2009/10/30 17:07:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,16:59)
Quote
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?
Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee

No, you have to show that Genesis is the way it happened.

Also, the are Creationist Hindus that will think of the NT and OT with the same disdain you have for the Vedic.  That means it is not Evolution vs the NT/OT, if one is right the other is wrong, it is which creation story do we believe?

You know there's a hell of a lot more than one.

Can you prove or show us that the Vedic is not a Historical Narrative?  Or is it just as real as your Bible?  Come on, prove the Vedic wrong!

Date: 2009/10/31 07:36:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2009,01:18)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:26)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
In addition to the many other objections raised, this core "decisive way" to test the Privileged Planet hypothesis is not a scientific test at all, and merely provides a foundation for future waffling.  

To make this a meaningful test, we first need to count the number of diverse scientific discoveries it's possible to make in our local environment.  Actually, cancel that.  What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

OK, so we need to define our terms.
Then we need to count our discoveries.  
Then we need a methodology for determining how many discoveries are possible in other environments - which are hostile to life, so we can't just ask the locals.

Sounds straightforward to me.  Let's see your data, Floyd.

Another question for Floyd is what type of life would show that his god didn't "design it".  What type of life did his god design?

The problem now is very different from even just 50 years ago.  In the 50s, a YEC could say with certainty that the "life god wants" breathes oxygen or can metabolize CO2 for photosynthesis, lives in an O-N atmosphere, yada, essentially what we see on the Earth's surface and its upper layers of the oceans.  This YEC would also say with certainty that nothing can live in the scorching heat and pressures at the bottom of the ocean nor in the cracks and fissures around volcanoes.

Now we know those things exist.  We know about "Extremophiles" that live in pressures and temps that would turn anything on the surface into base proteins and even those might get mashed.

So FLoyd, what type of life would falsify your ID?

Thermaphiles, Extremophiles, etc, are no problem for Evolution as evolution holds life will do its best to adapt to the environment around it.  Life makes use of the materials around it in Evolution.

How does your ID handle that?

Date: 2009/10/31 07:40:14, Link
Author: FrankH
As a follow up, how does your theology even handle those things like Thermophilic life which lives in locations bronze age shepherds would be completely clueless?

On a broader scope, why is there all this stuff in the Universe if Earth and only Earth is the "Privileged Planet"?

Date: 2009/10/31 08:16:13, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2009,08:02)
(snip)

This contrasts strongly with the bafflegab IDC advocates try to pass off as  providing falsifiability of their various conjectures.

Ah yes the, "Our thingy predicted that too", method of lying when your "thingy", in this case ID "Theory", actually predicts nothing.

In a game I've played many years ago, SFB, it's called "me too" weapons fire.

Date: 2009/10/31 11:48:01, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 31 2009,10:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 31 2009,07:40)
As a follow up, how does your theology even handle those things like Thermophilic life which lives in locations bronze age shepherds would be completely clueless?

On a broader scope, why is there all this stuff in the Universe if Earth and only Earth is the "Privileged Planet"?
I am afraid questions like that means nothing to people like FL: the standard reply is, we don't know what may have been God's reason for making things the way they are. Or whatever.

I know.

But it begs the questions:

1:  Were they in the Ark?

2:  Why did your god create them if we and they can't live in the same environment/don't even live on the same planet?

Date: 2009/10/31 15:27:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Where's Floyd?

I guess he realizes that his "shur fiar points to trip up dem evil ol' Evilutionists" from Dr^2 or even Dr Dino aren't worth the electrons they're transmitted on.

Date: 2009/11/01 09:29:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)
Quote
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.
Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.

Hey Floyd,


If there was but one way to read the Bible then why are there so many Christian denominations?  Because there are so many denominations, doesn't that really mean there is no one way?  Can't you yourself be accused at "incomplete and inconsistent biblical readings" as well?

We already see that you're inconsistent with you biblical readings as you read things "literally" one way and other things "literal with explanations" for other things.

Then you don't always read the passages in the Bible that came after the parts you want to make a point with which means you read the bible incompletely as well.

Date: 2009/11/01 09:42:01, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:37)
Quote
Certainly.  I do not debate this; evolution requires death.
Thanks.  You just openly affirmed the part evolution plays WRT the Fourth Incompatibility.  From here on out, no evolutionist should be using the term "opinion" WRT the 4th Incom.  Clearly the basis of #4 is fact, not opinion.
Quote
And it is also quite clear that an educated, intelligent Christian will see that "Death" in Romans is far more likely to be referring to "spiritual death" than it is to "physical death."
I've already quoted Dr. Douglas Moo, professor of NT and author of the NICNT commentary on Romans (is that enough education and intelligence for you??), showing that the term "death" in Romans 5:12-17 is referring to BOTH physical and spiritual death, not either-or.  

Also referred to the Gen and Rom texts and offered a bit of explanation from those as well.  

Hence your claim is refuted, but again thanks for showing that the 4th Incompatibility is solidly based in evolutionary theory itself.

Earth to Floyd:

Again you mistake "opinion" for fact.  Do you likewise hold the position that some really "bright" Dr/PhD types hold that many parts of the bible was not written until far later?  See Floyd, you take as evidence that which you already agree with and ignore the rest.

You do know that none of us have a vested interest in Evolution don't you?  Evolution could be shown to be wrong tomorrow and my life would go on just fine.  Also, if it were to find that Evolution is wrong, it does not mean OT style Creationism is automatically right.  There are plenty of Creation stories out there all with as much and some with more "evidence" as OT-YEC Creationism.

Then I think of you and what would happen if you lost your faith.  Images of Bell Towers and Rifles come to mind.

Date: 2009/11/01 09:55:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:42)
Quote
....the result of your particular interpretation of the Bible
So what is YOUR particular interpretation, and would you mind putting it on the table for rational and critical examination?  

Seems like people around here are really really scared to offer their own particular interpretation of the verses/texts I've been discussing.  

(CM is pretty much the only exception to that rule, and as you can see, even he's doing rather poorly with his interpretation of Romans 5.)

Sure Floyd.

My best evidence "reading the Bible produces no consensus" are the staggering array of different Christian Denominations.  If everything was easy to read in the Bible, then there wouldn't even be the different flavors of Judaism.

Hell, the Christians can't even decide what books are in the Bible.  Martin Luther decided he knew the bible better and ripped out the parts he didn't agree with.  Who made him privy to this god's mind?

Date: 2009/11/02 07:04:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:47)
Quote
(CM)Evolutionary theory says nothing about God
Quote
(Evolutionist Dr. Ernst Mayr)

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.
It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

----SciAm, July 2000
Nuff said.     :)

Here's a few other things that "rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

Medicine
Classical Physics
Quantum Mechanics
Rain Falling from the sky
Water cutting grooves into sandy soil as it drains down
Mechanical Eng
Computer Eng
Chemistry
Structural Eng
Internal Combustion Engines
A light bulb
etc

So all of "modern science" rejects supernatural causalities as science is empirical.

Can you name any science that uses the metaphysical?

Date: 2009/11/02 09:05:26, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,08:56)
Quote
I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies.
And that's the way it should be.  The personal testimonies are provided so that you and I can see that this issue is a REAL problem for Christians, not merely an excuse to play around with online debating.

The testimonies establish that there's a genuine reason to talk about this issue.  The followup for that is to rationally examine the Big Five Incompatibilities.

What about personal testimonies from Mormons, Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses?  Then there's the witnessing of other faiths.  If witnessing is important, why aren't you one of those?

Why is your particular version of the bible right?  Why isn't the Catholic Version right?  How do you know it is right.

See that's the thing.  You are declaring what scriptures are to be believed and others ignored (slavery, remember?), what bible is to be used.  All you're doing is showing people how to be a Christian like you.

What that really does mean that you believe that the only "Trootm Christiantm according to you is one who acts, reads and thinks (in your case parrots oft refuted garbage) as you do.

Date: 2009/11/02 09:09:51, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:07)
Quote
If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith?
It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian.

So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity?

And yet there were churches springing up whose only purpose was to give scriptural support to slavery.

Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible.

Date: 2009/11/02 09:18:36, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,09:09)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:07)
Quote
If Floyd manages to convince Someone of his idea that there exists a dichotomy between fact based reasoning and Christian faith, and this Someone then leaves his faith because (s)he can't deny facts, doesn't that make Floyd into one who leads people away from faith?
It depends.  They say that the great revivalist, Charles Finney, wouldn't allow you to join his church if you owned ANY black slaves, even if you said they were Christian.

So, was Finney "leading people away from faith", or was he simply insisting on Christians letting go of major inconsistencies and living out a consistent, biblical Christianity?
And yet there were churches springing up whose only purpose was to give scriptural support to slavery.

Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible.

Actually what FL was not able to do was show that the bible condemns slavery.

I showed that it did.

Date: 2009/11/02 09:34:15, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:26)
Quote
Remember Floyd, you failed on showing how slavery isn't part and parcel of the bible.
And YOU remember, I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).

And I also showed (direct quote, remember?) that the New Testament openly called for slaves to take any opportunity they got to free themselves from slavery.

(And you better believe the American black slaves did NOT ignore those Bible instructions!!)    :)

You are a troo liar for Jesus Floyd.  Releasing oneself from slavery and condemning slavery are two very different things.

It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.

Yeas Floyd, the verses you quoted showed nothing about condemning slavery in the NT while the OT told a man how much they can cell their daughters for.  Yeah, you selectively read your bible and as far as you reading the bible "literally", that's another lie from you.

Date: 2009/11/02 09:58:17, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54)
Quote
It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.
Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"

Who else would be reading or hearing that?

Christians of course.

Also note it does not admonish those with slaves to release them!

Date: 2009/11/02 10:00:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54)
Quote
It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.
Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"

Why?  Others have offered chapter and verse but you've already poo-pooed it because it was "Catholic doings and not (your) biblical!

Date: 2009/11/02 10:22:25, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,09:54)
Quote
It also showed that Christian slaves were to do this, the rest of the world be damned.
Nope, the NT verse does NOT say "Non-Christians must stay on the ole ball and chain!"

As your bible said nothing about slave owners releasing their slaves, why is it true in your mind that slavery was condemned?  Your bible says nothing about it yet you think that is the way it is despite OT "witnessing" to the contrary and even with specific examples on how one can sell family members and treat their slaves!

Yet you say that the OT must be followed explicitly every where else but it was "changed" for things you don't like?

Who wrote the book Floyd?  Your god?  This god changes its mind?

Date: 2009/11/02 10:25:53, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,10:22)
I showed that the Euro-American slavery show, clearly violated the Bible (including violating a death-penalty-level Biblical regulation).  And here's a reminder:
Quote
The Bible condemns kidnapping as a capital crime, and kidnapping is what fueled the African slave trade of the 1500s to 1800s,
therefore the Old and New Testaments (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; etc.) condemn slavery.  ----  Bob Enyart
Your disproof of this was.......?

You showed nothing of the sort Floyd.

Read the OT again about selling your daughters.

As for "kidnapping", taking prisoners of war was not "kidnapping" in the bible.  Like when the Israelites slaughtered the other tribe and took the virgin females as concubines.

Read you bible again Floyd.

Date: 2009/11/02 10:40:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 02 2009,10:26)
The Bible doesn't condemn taking slaves forcibly. That would be kidnapping in any other context than war, and the Bible says that it's okay to take prisoners as slaves.

Are you saying FL has "selective literalness"?

Perish the thought.

Date: 2009/11/02 11:00:21, Link
Author: FrankH
For FL:

21:2  If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5  And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

So if you give a slave a wife, and the slaves wife has kids, and the guy decides to go, he's free.  If not, then he stays with you forever as the master's property.

Tell me again how this coincides with your "biblical" bull shit Floyd.  I'm showing you right here that in the bible, if you have a slave, you can make them yours forever by giving them a wife and having them stay!

OBTWm Ex 21:16 has to do with crimes against family and neighbors, ie those in your village.  Yet again Floyd you ignorance of your own Bible is amazing!

Date: 2009/11/02 11:04:33, Link
Author: FrankH
1 Tim 1:9 - 10,

Well, 1:9 has nothing about slavery:
We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

But 1:10 doesn't like slaves traders as much as it doesn't like liars, which is you Floyd:
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

So liars are despised as much as slave traders.  Nothing about slave masters or owners though, note that?

Date: 2009/11/02 11:26:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 02 2009,10:26)
The Bible doesn't condemn taking slaves forcibly. That would be kidnapping in any other context than war, and the Bible says that it's okay to take prisoners as slaves.

Like this?  Deut 21:10-13

10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

Date: 2009/11/02 11:31:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Floyd, you still wanna play "Let's quote the bible"?

How about this:

Judges 21:10-12

And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.

And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.

And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

Date: 2009/11/02 11:56:08, Link
Author: FrankH
So Floyd, what's the best EVIDENCE FOR ID you can think of?

Remember, if my name is not "Mr. Brown", it doesn't automatically mean my name is "Mr. Smith".

For ID to have merit, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived weakness of Evolution.

Date: 2009/11/02 13:05:21, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,12:52)
Quote
....for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. (1 Tim 1:10)

Good!  Now nobody has to play games anymore---you DO agree that slave trading is condemned by the Bible, and you DO agree that the NT openly called on slaves to take any opportunity they could get to free themselves.

You also agree that the EuroAmerican slavery show violated Biblical regulations regarding slavery, and you agree that Genesis says that all humans are created equal, and created in the image of God.

At this point we don't need to debate the Bible and slavery any longer.  You may have some other questions about it, so I'm supplying a historical resources

http://bible-history.com/isbe/S/SLAVE%3B+SLAVERY/
Quote
If I have despised the cause of my manservant (ebed) or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he (God) visiteth, what shall I answer him?

Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb (Job 31:13-15)?

The NT holds that slave trading is bad.  Still owning a slave is not on the list, presumably as in the OT one gets their slaves from conquests.

Even in the OT selling of slaves other than one's daughters doesn't seem to be an issue.  So the NT specifically mentions Slave Traders, not Slave Owners.

You haven't provided jack shit there Floyd.  You didn't even know what 1 Timothy 1:10 said until I provided it for you!  Then you bring up another apologetic site that ignores the parts they don't like.

What about Judges?  What about Exodus?  What about the "giving a slave a wife"?  Again Floyd you lie.

The bible may condemn Slave Traders (who may resort to kidnapping, etc., to get their slaves) but nothing against Slave Ownership!  Are you really that dense?

Date: 2009/11/02 13:18:46, Link
Author: FrankH
From FL's own URL he listed:

Gal 3:28). The Christian slaves and masters are both exhorted in Paul's letters to live godly lives and make Christ-like their relations one to the other--obedience to masters and forbearance with slaves. "Bondservants (m), be obedient unto .... your masters, .... as bondservants (m) of Christ .... And, ye masters .... forbear threatening: .... their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him" (Eph 6:5-9).

Showing that slavery was still in the NT and acceptable but the master had to be more "humane".

Date: 2009/11/02 13:58:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,13:47)
Quote
Haven't we done this already?
Hey, I told these boys that we don't need to debate this slavery thing anymore.  Maybe you should tell 'em!

Of course we don't need to debate this slavery thing, you have no position other than to accept defeat.  Slavery is sanctioned by your god.  Deal with it.

Now about ID:

What is the best evidence you have for ID?

Remember for ID to be a Theory, it must make predictions on its own and not rely on perceived flaws in something else.

Date: 2009/11/02 14:25:03, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:18)
Quote
he can't quote-mine the bible
Maybe you need to show me specifically where I quote-mined the Bible-----oh wait a minute, weren't you the one who was just complaining about not discussing ID?????

Guess you'll hafta make up your mind!

A chance for you to lie and quote mind now in ID Floyd:

From here:
Quote
Posted: Nov. 02 2009,11:56    
So Floyd, what's the best EVIDENCE FOR ID you can think of?

Remember, if my name is not "Mr. Brown", it doesn't automatically mean my name is "Mr. Smith".

For ID to have merit, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived weakness of Evolution.

Date: 2009/11/02 14:40:55, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 02 2009,14:20)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,13:58)
Now about ID:

What is the best evidence you have for ID?

Remember for ID to be a Theory, it must make predictions on its own and not rely on perceived flaws in something else.
Expect:

1. clouds of biblical squid ink as Floyd digresses to avoid discussing science

2. "select" quotations (or ahem near-quotations) about science or ID, but nothing that can't be described as vicarious argumentation.

This thread should be required reading for every vulnerable young mind tempted to sign up for Bible college.

I find it only works on minds that have the capacity to do something other than parrot.

Floyd here takes whatever "shor fiah auntie-evilutionism" POS argument there is and wonders why his ass is grass.

I've seen too many "biblical bible thumper college idiots" here in the south to expect much of anything from those brain dead kids.

Date: 2009/11/02 15:01:00, Link
Author: FrankH
Floyd drop the slavery thing, you lost, suck it up.  Again, since you're incapable of forming a thought of your own:

What is the best evidence you have for ID?

Remember for ID to be a Theory, it must make predictions on its own and not rely on perceived flaws in something else.

Date: 2009/11/02 15:10:42, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:00)
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.

I have no doubt it was not in favor of it, but like the NT changes the OT here, why is Floyd so insistent about the OT when it comes to Genesis but so willing to wipe away the OT when it comes to slavery?

Sounds like "selective reading" to me.

Date: 2009/11/02 15:15:23, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
Quote
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)

Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.

Date: 2009/11/02 15:33:06, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
Quote
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.

Color it however you want.  I disagree it condemns slavery.  Slave traders, yes.  Jesus also said that he was to reinforce the Laws of Moses, not repeal them.

Seems to me that the NT told the Slave Master to "Love" their slaves.

But then again, I also think that any literal reading of the NT and OT if they ever two parts for some god, shows a bi-polar god.

Date: 2009/11/03 03:38:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:52)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:33)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:25)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 02 2009,15:15)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,15:09)
Quote
And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.
Hmm.  Now to move on.  :)
Of course Floyd but please note, the NT does not Condemn Slavery either.
Yes it does. The second greatest commandment for the Christian, and the first when it comes to how humans are to behave toward one another, is to love our neighbor as ourself. Slavery is manifestly incompatible with Jesus' primary instruction for human relations.
Color it however you want.  I disagree it condemns slavery.  Slave traders, yes.  Jesus also said that he was to reinforce the Laws of Moses, not repeal them.

Seems to me that the NT told the Slave Master to "Love" their slaves.

But then again, I also think that any literal reading of the NT and OT if they ever two parts for some god, shows a bi-polar god.
Actually he never said that. And in effect he replaced them all (Moses' laws) with a fuller revelation of the law. Moses' law against adultery got replaced, in a direct statement, by Jesus' law against lust. Moses' law against murder, in a direct statement, by Jesus' law against hate. Moses' law on divorce was effectively replaced with: never. Laws on tithing were replaced by: give what you can joyfully, or don't even bother. Moses' pattern "Don't do this or that" was in fact entirely abandoned, replaced by Jesus' tougher laws concerned what you think rather than what you do or don't do.

The law that maintains each jot and tittle is Jesus' law, not Moses'. Following the pattern, the OT is a type or shadow of the NT. If you take the time to study Jesus' law, as his teaching on what is sin, which is quite different from the Mosaic law, and if you understand Paul's proper emphasis on the true gospel as opposed to an imaginary social gospel--then you can grasp why there is no explicit condemnation of slavery. If you are interested, I have a small post on this subject here.

It is not a bi-polar God, but one who demonstrated through the Jews that even the most privileged nation will not be able to save itself through obedience. That a savior was necessary or all are lost.

So Jesus didn't come to strengthen God's laws as said by Moses?  Wow.

That sarcasm wasn't meant for you but all of the literalists out there, like Floyd.  So often we hear how the OT is literal and that "Jesus said Mosaic Law is 100% right" .

Personally, I don't know what Jesus said or didn't say or if he was real and not just some amalgamation of different people, faiths and superstitions.

One thing I do know though is that the different writers of the NT seem to downplay the Communistic/Socialistic words of Jesus as do many of his most strenuous adherents today.

As to a "bipolar god", if one reads the bible literally, I think that is what one comes up with when comparing the OT to the NT, literally.  Then again as the whole thing was written by men with their own ideas on how things should be, one should expect to see what was "good in the day" being extolled as "righteousness".

Date: 2009/11/03 06:47:07, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 03 2009,06:39)
Also from niwraD:
Quote
A believer asked God: “Lord, how can I approach You?” God answered: “By means of your humility and poverty”. May be in this teaching there is a message for us about our actual topic (a message that Gödel, Hawking and Chaitin seem just to have humbly acknowledged): indeed by recognizing the radical incompleteness (”humility and poverty”) of our systems, we have a chance to understand the “Infinite Completeness” of God.
Translation: There are gonna be mighty few ID Honchos in heaven.  Buy my book.

Link

Remember "Conan The Barbarian", the first Conan movie with Arnie?  The beliefs like this, indeed by recognizing the radical incompleteness (”humility and poverty”) of our systems, we have a chance to understand the “Infinite Completeness” of God., keep reminding me of "Embracing Set and find Emptiness".

Date: 2009/11/03 06:52:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 03 2009,06:31)
Some Xtian Torture Pron admonitory guidance for Floyd.

And it's all brought to you by a kind, loving god that hasn't seen fit to show up in 2000 years when there was a time that he was burning bushes and working miracles through his prophets every other day.

If it's Tuesday, there must be a prophet having little kids eaten by wild animals for laughing at his bald head or a leper getting healed by someone.

Date: 2009/11/03 10:42:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,10:21)
Quote
I've given you 7 questions
And the first one, the most important one, was directly answered.  From there, the only task is to show that it's a scientific hypothesis.  That, in turn, is a matter of establishing falsifiability.  Just following the scientific method.  (Saves time.)

Doesn't really matter if mainstream scientists like Dr. Gonzalez present it, or if other mainstream scientists have already presented the hypothesis.

Do you even know the difference, in science not vox populi, between Postulate, Hypothesis and Theory?

Also, are you even aware that the famous "laws of physics" are based on Classical, not modern Physics?

Do you even know what "falsifiability" is?

Date: 2009/11/03 10:54:20, Link
Author: FrankH
For a quick summation (please those of you "evilutionists" with more info than I feel free to jump in) of Falsifying ToE and predictions ToE makes:

Falsification:
Dogs giving birth (naturally) to cats
A Rabbit in the petrified gut of a T-Rex
Closely related species having no common DNA

Predictions:
Closer the species, the more commonality their respective DNA will be.
Those individuals in a population most likely to survive and propagate are those who a selective "edge" (the oft totally mis-quoted "survival of the fittest" which is actually "survival of the ones with the best adaptation to do so")
Mechanisms for genetic change and drift.

There.  I'm no biologist but even I cam come up with a few things that will falsify evolution and even offered predictions for ToE.

Your turn for ID.

Date: 2009/11/03 11:15:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2009,09:59)
Dan, you're just rationalizing your picking and choosing. How about this - it's all a *fictional* morality tale.

Why would the omnipotent use such an imprecise and ambiguous medium?

An omni-anything caring creator deity would be more than willing to come down every generation or more and let people really know what it expects of them.

Leaving fragments that people squabble and fight to the death over even when they read what is the same book is not the sign, to me at least, of what the bible says about its god.

Date: 2009/11/03 11:54:17, Link
Author: FrankH
Speaking of weird things:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum....74&st=0

This guy thinks that he's asking something simple, like "Show us the morphological changes from the whale's ancestor to the Sperm Whale", or "Is the Komodo Dragon a descendant of some dinosaur?"

Good stuff.

Date: 2009/11/03 12:46:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,12:39)
Quote
It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years.
But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference.

Again we see that Floyd is far too happy to answer these types of questions rather than providing evidence for ID.

Oh and Floyd, I agree with you 100% here.  There is nothing in a "selectively read literal bible" as you do that says anything about the age of the Earth.

Date: 2009/11/03 13:16:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,13:05)
Cosmological ID and biological ID are two different concepts, so bringing in cosmological when the subject matter of this thread was biological, was changing the subject.

Henry

I've noted that in the mind of a YEC, Evolution includes, but is not limited to:

Big Bang
Galactic Evolution
Stellar Evolution
Planetary System Evolution
Abiogenesis
Non flood Geology

and more!

Date: 2009/11/04 07:35:06, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,07:13)
Quote
Cosmological "ID" is still a different subject from biological "ID",
Intelligent Design is Intelligent Design.  I said I'd present posts on "ID is science and therefore it should be taught in science classrooms."  That's exactly what I'm doing.  What are you complaining about?

Guys, I can't help it if you've never read "The Privileged Planet" by Gonzalez and Richards. It's there at your local library and bookstore, it's been there for years, why didn't you READ it when you had a chance?  

Now you'll just have to play catch-up.  Your local library should be open today during daylight hours, yes?

FloydLee

Uh, no.

In REAL science, Cosmology is a different science than Biology.

But I guess in biblical literalism, as everything comes from the bible, they would be the same.

I guess it is another reason Floyd can't handle reality.

Date: 2009/11/05 07:59:48, Link
Author: FrankH
I have request for a little help here.  One thing I've noted is how YEC, even OECs love to quote from books.  Doesn't matter that these books are 15 years old, already refuted and have refs to even old creation books to "support it".

No, I can go to the Geological Society to read a few of the research papers there.  I would like to know if there is a better depository not just for geology, but evolution, astronomy, etc., that is search-able.

Where are these on the web?

Date: 2009/11/09 08:09:35, Link
Author: FrankH
Asking a favor:

A YEC has stated that the "superior oblique muscle" on the eye "proves creationism" and refutes Evolution as obviously it can't be done.

As a novice on the Pub Med stuff, how would I go about looking it up?

Date: 2009/11/09 08:13:00, Link
Author: FrankH
Here's the link to the post:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2836

Date: 2009/11/09 09:01:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 09 2009,08:36)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 09 2009,08:13)
Here's the link to the post:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2836
I can't post there as my IP was banned a few years ago for daring to ask Fred to support his claim that Oil of Hyssop contains "50% antibacterials" as he has claimed...

But what we have is the creationists' ignorance of things like development leading them to ask asinine 'questions' such as how did the muscle find the hole in the bone to go through.

Simple answer - it didn't need to.  It, like th eother extrinsic eye muscles, devleop in situ.  They do not sprout and then extend to find their point of attachment.  

That 'challenge' is just the sort of thing that Fred the electrical engineer thinks is a game winner.

Thanks SLP,

I've tried to tell them that one part doesn't grow all by itself and then the other parts grow around it.  Personally, I don't think I'm long for that board as Ron and I seem to have a major difference of opinion.

Date: 2009/11/09 20:51:01, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 09 2009,17:33)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 09 2009,08:13)
Here's the link to the post:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2836

Hi FrankH

Just to let you know, CTD's "giraffe neck evolution challenge" has also been discussed over at TWeb, where CTD also spews his daily ignorance.

CTD was provided with several research papers and an explanation of the evolutionary process here.  I know he read them because he made a smarmy comment about them.

Being the cowardly cunt he is, he ignored the bulk of the post and instead quote-mined the abstract of one of the provided papers to toss back at the EFT retard farm.

It would be a hoot if you posted the same papers and explanation over at EFT and asked him why he ignored them.   :D

Done

:p  :D

Date: 2009/11/09 22:00:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Wow, those guys at EFT are even worse than UD.

At least there they first attempt to show science.

Those guys put out crap and then have nothing but insults as they really don't even understand what they are posting.

Date: 2009/11/10 10:16:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 09 2009,23:17)
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!  

That's great!  Man did CTD ever squirm and run when those papers showed up.  I wonder how long it will be until he tries to get you banned?

Thanks a ton, I owe you a cold one.   :D

I take it you read his response?

For those who enjoy out of here and unintentional funny and trootm TARDerytm, here you go:[QUOTE=FrankH][QUOTE=CTD]
Quote (FrankH]Hey CTD @
Here are some great links for you:[/quote)
Folks seem to think this is a thread for random Giraffe evohype. It isn't.

Um, well, um, some folks seem to think this way - not all. Anyhow, why don't you who are incompetent to read the O.P. start your own evohype thread?
"Evohype"? I guess you mean research? I just want to let others know that the evolution of the Giraffe is well studied.

S@xual factors are just part of it.

Trying to confine the discussion of Giraffe neck length to mating practices is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately misleading. It also shows that if you want to stop the study of something at just what you want will get you results you deserve.[/quote]It gets deep and they don't like being shown to be idiots, when they finally realize it of course.

Date: 2009/11/10 10:18:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Can I get the Edit function, pretty please?

Date: 2009/11/10 10:22:46, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 09 2009,23:02)
i am worried about you guys.  the deep stupid that is EFT is too much for anyone to be able to handle.  please, for the kids, leave that shit alone.  you'll burn out tard and then what will you have left.  don't do it.  UD is bad enough, but you have to measure the average stupidfuckery of EFT posts is on fucking log log scale. compared to UD, it's, well, don't compare it.  don't go there.  christ my eyeballs are still burning from the last time.

It's like Floyd, only dumber.

It is getting old but I'm doing my best not to get banned so when they ban me, it won't be because of me mouthing off.

Date: 2009/11/10 12:51:56, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 10 2009,11:02)


http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....respond

Now I know where Matt and Trey got the model for Mr. Garrison.

Date: 2009/11/10 14:23:03, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 10 2009,14:14)

Yup, that's it.

I wonder if the good Dr.^2 has the same self loathing issues.

Wouldn't that destroy his credibility with the YECs or will they embrace him, publicly and literally.

If they don't I know some guys who like the geeky librarian guy look, sigh.....

Date: 2009/11/11 06:50:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 11 2009,06:46)
Especially for yooooooo


Hence the term "baby cakes".

A staple of "Evilutionists and their Satanic practices world wide".

Happy Birthday you two.

What forms of debauchery are you planning to celebrate you've made it through another year of not going to hell?

Date: 2009/11/12 15:37:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 12 2009,15:06)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 12 2009,14:55)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 12 2009,12:26)
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 12 2009,11:15)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2009,12:50)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 12 2009,04:32)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,06:23)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,20:25)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2009,04:33)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 08 2009,16:20)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,10:14)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 08 2009,14:38)
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 08 2009,13:24)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.
On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.
It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.
It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.
Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.
Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.
Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.
That's because he's a naval gazer.
I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.
It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.
BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?
RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.
They say the pun is mightier than the sword.
I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.
Is this what you folks call a nested hierarchy?
I have it on good authority that no such thing exists.
Wes'll be so mad if you break his forum!
Like BA77, you speak with undo bias.
Anyone have more eggcorns? Speak now or forever hold your piece.

Noledge is power, sayeth Frost122585. And just saying your a Chrsitain does not make you one. It simply doe snot.
Stare at the squares.  Innie or outie?
I wonder how many more of these it will take to squeeze the central square into  a vertical column of characters.  Let's find out!
This was clearly Intelligently Designed.  The entire thing is one big oxymoron.  You're all refuting Darwinism as we speak!!11!!
This would make a tarderiffic sweater pattern.
Could it grow large enough that a single post could fill an entire page and/or match the screen area taken up by a single kairos-kaa-kaa or batguano77 post?

Of course, but it would take deep deep time and many cumulative additions before it would occur.  Only a fool would deny the power of such a process.

And according to every YEC site I've been too, there are plenty of those here.

Date: 2009/11/12 18:06:17, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 12 2009,18:00)


Does anyone think Robert Marks' eyes look photoshopped blue?

Does anyone else think that would be a weird thing to do?

http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/Bob/Marks_2008.html

When his hair turns naturally blond, the transformation will be complete.

Date: 2009/11/13 12:21:03, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 13 2009,04:08)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 12 2009,18:00)
img]http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/Bob/Bob_2008.jpg[/img]

Does anyone think Robert Marks' eyes look photoshopped blue?

Does anyone else think that would be a weird thing to do?

http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/Bob/Marks_2008.html
Someone's been eating too much spice.

Looks more like a cheese problem to me.

Who is this guy, besides a wanna be plugger of the Dr. Dr.?

Date: 2009/11/13 12:21:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 13 2009,04:08)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 12 2009,18:00)


Does anyone think Robert Marks' eyes look photoshopped blue?

Does anyone else think that would be a weird thing to do?

http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/Bob/Marks_2008.html
Someone's been eating too much spice.

Looks more like a cheese problem to me.

Who is this guy, besides a wanna be plugger of the Dr. Dr.?

Date: 2009/11/13 22:23:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Well, I got banned at EFT.

You're right, there is a buttload of deep, deep TARD at that site.

I'm actually proud of it:


ikester is in bold:
Is it politically correct to tell a Islamic person that his god Allah does not exist?
Irrelevant to Evolution or any science.  Science can never confirm nor deny the supernatural.  What can be shown though is the "literalness" of a story.  The only type of threat science poses to a religion is one that is "literal" and says, x, y and z happened.

Or is it more politically correct to tell a Christian his God does not exist?
Again science does nothing of the sort.  Only those stories which are taking literally are at risk, not the existence of any deity.

And by the way, you being here and not at an Islamic forum debating creation already answers the question.
Nope.  As the Islamic version is almost exactly the same as the Christian version (see Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions) it makes no different.  Also I know of no Islamic YEC sites here in the US.

I asked it to make a point of what you claim and what reality is, are two totally different things.
No, ask as you want to paint me as bigoted vs Christianity.  Come clean now.

I want you to know I completely despise your debate tactic.  You're losing and losing badly so you need to change the conditions of the debate.  That's because you lost and can't handle it.  You lash out now and LIE about what your opponent did.  I am not attacking Christianity.  At best, I'm mocking small minded followers of "the literal word" who selectively read the parts they like and gloss over the parts they don't (slavery, selling one's daughters into slavery etc) and then cry foul when they are held to the fire.

Face it ike, you lost and your actions are those the desperate gamble of a man with no class, honesty, integrity nor humility.

I also note you've dropped any pretense of science.

What do you think the percent difference is that evolutionists go and debate Islamic people or even Hindu people about their creator Allah or Buddha is, compared to how many constantly debate Christians on the same subject. 99.9% to .1%?
Far more Christian YEC sites.  I know of no Buddhist YEC site, nor Hindu and there are those who claim to be Muslim on this site as well.  Oh and Buddha is NOT a god.

Proof is in the action of your claims. When is the last time you, or any of your peers, went to Hindu or Islamic forums to debate against their Creators? Never?
Ill-relevant.

Thought so. So your idea to make it sound stupid for the claim of oppression is not working.
The only thing stupid here is your line of BS.  There are many Christians who accept Evolution, ancient universe etc.  The only thing I'm saying is your claim of an infallible and literal bible is flawed.

I'm also showing that you are a sore loser and a LIAR.

You show me where I disparage all Christians.  You can't.  Thought so.

You're blowing smoke and I'm going to make you such it all back down.

Your actions prove what really is happening. And anytime you want to show evidence of this otherwise, on the same level as how it's done to Christians, me and everyone else at this forum will want to see this. And will be waiting for this example.
Whine away.  Your claims are false and your reasoning non-existent.  See not all Christians, I think it is actually specific type of Christian is a YEC.

See I don't tell people their "god" is wrong.  I tell them that telling me I have to worship their "god" ain't going to happen.  Also, if someone claims their "god" did "x" and there's no evidence, I call them on it.

Again, action speak louder than words. Maybe you'd like to go to a Hindu or Islamic board and debate them just like you debate us.
If they are spouting off that it was their god  and their holy books that need to be taught in school as fact, I most certainly will.  Tell me, do you know of any Islamic or indu YEC sites?  No?  I thought so.

Once again you deliberately confuse and LIE as that's all you got.

You're no Christian, you're a LIAR!

Be as one sided, stereotype them, call them stupid uneducated morons like most evolutionist call us. Make your actions back up your claims for once and maybe someone might believe you.
Not at all seems you have a one track mind:

Flop and flail on the ground while crying, "Not fair.  You're smarter and more educated than me so of course you tore a new one in my argument!"

Ike, I'm laughing at you.

I never was keen on using words that 80% of the population deos not even understand. That is why so many reject all that you guys try and push because you cannot convince people with fancy words that most do not even understand, while trying to impress one another.
Nope "fancy words, deliberate changes and lies" are your tools.  I prefer honesty, education and evidence.  Somethings you know absolutely nothing about.

I actually laugh everytime someone joins this forums and uses words that are not commonly used everyday.
Of course you do.  It's called willful ignorance on your part.  The "so called everyday lexicon" is the language of the street.  That is why disciplines, such as law, use very specific definitions on words.  Otherwise, the ability to actually communicate in a meaningful way goes out the window.

People get tired of looking up definitions on their posts and stick to reading ours because they understand it.
Ah yes, you are speaking of people who prefer "willful and deliberate ignorance" than educating yourself.

Well, believe it or not, things like that don't concern me. I don't even know what Creation Ex Nihilo is.
It's a YEC science journal, not my "creation".  See I am VERY well versed in the lies those who get rich off of selling you books tell you to think.  If anything, I'm trying to help you say your money.

I do my own thing, and work out my own ideas as much as possible. That's why my posts don't match any copy and paste creation sites. The only time I copy and paste is when it comes to numbers and uncommon words and names. My memory in some areas, is not what it used to be.
I do that because those sites have a ton of information and saves me times.  See, I don't like re-inventing the wheel.  I'd rather invent something new and Biology is not what I studied.  I rely on other people, not gods, to help me learn.  I help them when I can.  I find that more rewarding and far more enjoyable than talking to air.

Each person tries to follow there own ideas which usually branch off of other ideas. It causes problems when the dots cannot be connected. But that don't mean it makes him a bad creationist. Not everyone can understand everything. There are debates here I won't even venture into because I know absolutely nothing about it.
But yet you sit back and pontificate that:

1:  Evolution is a lie
2:  I attack Christians and only Christians for their beliefs (hint my wife is a church going Methodist, my mom and sister are very good Catholics and my kids are baptized Christian as well.  You have no idea what type of a person you are but I think there's a bunch more of you laying in my yard and I have 2 dogs)
3:  You know what is and is not the "truth

You're so full of it right now ike you're sloshing in your pants.

Here is your example of always being right. There is never an option to disagree is there?
BS.  You can always disagree.  If you have the evidence I listen.  As you have just stated, you don't and there's a lot of things you don't know.  I'm showing you and it's getting under your skin.

I bet it's even making you re-examine your ideas.  GREAT!

See I like re-examining my ideas, my "beliefs" if you will.  If they can't stand scrutiny, I don't protect them, I dig deeper.  I know that is something you've never done.  You're already wavering ike and you probably came here to re-invigorate your faith.

Now I see your faith is failing you as you see that there is nothing to support your faith.  If you were confident in your faith, you wouldn't have to argue and you wouldn't be so mad and call out others on what you actually see inside yourself.

I'm not telling you to not be Christian.  I'm showing you that perhaps there is a great deal more to your faith and your god then you know.  Pigeon holing your god in some book for thousands of years ago.  Isn't that idolatry?

So you see when you point out that another person is wrong, without an option. You are showing that you think you are right on that issue. Now how many times have you told someone they were wrong, with no option to diagree? So by doing that you are implying you are right on every issue.
Nope.  Just have the evidence to support my position and you don't.  If you want me to look at your position, INCLUDE evidence!

I can show you past and more recent event of falsifying evidence to sell the idea of evolution. But because science is about no absolutes, it really does not matter does it?
Yes it does.  But falsifying evolution is not finding an "issue".  Perhaps you really need to learn the scientific method.

If science is science, there should be no restrictions on what can be researched. But there is, right?
Nope.  Only that with is not supernatural can be studied.

Other supernatural claims are:

Paganism

Occultism

Santa Clausism

Do you want them in the science class as well?

Date: 2009/11/16 09:06:32, Link
Author: FrankH
Getting banned from EFT for having the audacity to tell them, you know, "sciency stuff" and telling them off.

I'd post a link but I guess I'm permanently banned.

Date: 2009/11/23 14:06:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Happy B-Day and may you have all the TARD you can handle.

Date: 2009/11/23 14:08:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Even later,


Happy B-day.

Now strip down to your b-day suits and lather each other up looking at Denise O'Lecherous posters.

Date: 2009/11/23 14:10:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Man I leave and have a life and what do I see?

People having the audacity not winning any Darwin Awards.

With this group, you'd think it'd be more popular.

Date: 2009/11/23 14:13:39, Link
Author: FrankH
What, another one?

Another Birthday?

Not just for you but by Jesus, what gets in the water around February?  Don't people know it's late hockey season and the playoffs are just around the corner?

Date: 2010/03/19 08:30:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Howdy folks,


Long time since I've posted here.  I dropped out to study more in my field (CCIE Routing and Switching) and while this is fascinating and informative, it really doesn't help me configure Route Reflectors in a BGP Confederation.

(For those of you whose eyes rolled, now you know how I feel when I read a few of the posts here.  Not that it's bad, I just have tons of stuff to look up.)

In any case, I was just settling into work when I heard several other engineers discussing evolution.  I listened in and crap, the amount of idiocy from people I thought were intelligent discussing the following:

How "Evolution is just a Theory and has no proof".

By definition, "All mutations are bad".

The amount of miracles covered up by the liberal media, like the church that was on fire but there was no damage to it and the firemen who were called to put out the fire "fell to their knees as the power of god was so strong".

Then the oldies but goodies came out:

The "odds" of DNA arriving "spontaneously".

How curiosity and fear cancel each other out so evolution can't explain our curiosity.  One of the "facts" was, "Remember, curiosity killed the cat!"

Why didn't monkeys evolve like us after all, we had pretty much the same pressures?

That Intelligent Design explains all of that.

This was from many people who I say are otherwise bright and intelligent.

What can be done?

Date: 2010/03/19 10:32:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2010,10:19)
Fuck off Guinnea Worm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health....xt.html


Fuck off for ever.

You rat bastard.

All of god's creatures are special.  He designed all of them in his own image.  How dare you want to destroy what he has created!

I thought all you tree huggers (or buggers) want to promote diversity!  What happens to diversity when one of god's special creatures goes extinct?

Hell, if we can't build a golf course because of some damn lizard, why is this worm's fate any less deserving?

Date: 2010/03/19 17:03:31, Link
Author: FrankH
As I can't yet start a new thread and I can't find one that seems to address this issue, one of the "best evidences" he ahas against evolution is that Humans are unique.  One of the traits is our curiosity.  Our curiosity, it was stated, goes against evolution as fear means we should be afraid of everything.

What I replied as a rebuttal is that not everything can be seen as a danger in the beginning.  It is the perceived threat vs the chance to gain food, shelter, etc that need to be weighed against the other, especially for a species that has replaced a great deal of instinct with intelligence.

I think that sort of backfired as he then stated that the loss of instinct in humans shows we were designed as well.

Any ideas?

Date: 2010/03/20 10:06:01, Link
Author: FrankH
It seems to me the whole basis for the rejection of science they don't agree with is based on a literal reading of the Bible.

If the person still says that there is no difference between the two versions of Genesis, ignore them and move on.

Unless you like running into a brick wall.

Date: 2010/03/20 10:53:51, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (rhmc @ Mar. 20 2010,10:31)
Japanese researchers have managed to engineer mosquitoes into “flying vaccinators” that could theoretically be used to deliver protein-based vaccines against diseases such as leishmaniasis and malaria through their bite. The team, from the Jichi Medical University in Japan, report on the development of a transgenic mosquito that can express foreign proteins in its saliva...

more here:  http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=78153298

around here, it's not a matter of if i'll get skeeter bit when i go out, it's a matter of how many times.

no malaria here anymore but equine encephalitis and west nile virus show up every year...

Watch out, Jenny McCarthy and her boyfriend will demand that those mosquitoes be destroyed or there will be more cases of autism.

Date: 2010/03/20 13:19:27, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 20 2010,11:29)
Of course, running into brick walls is one way to support one's concussion!

Ah, it's easier to keep your mind closed when it doesn't work well?

Date: 2010/03/21 15:18:22, Link
Author: FrankH
Wow.

I guess if I were going to create a sock puppet somewhere I'd need to really go over the edge.

Are they real or are they a product of salmonella poisoning and a bad acid trip?

Date: 2010/03/21 18:22:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 21 2010,17:15)
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2010,10:18)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.
Actually it's a god sized hole.
Black body radiating?

I doubt it.

Even a Black Body emits information of some sort.

There doesn't seem to be any information emitted from that hole.

Date: 2010/03/22 06:44:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Happy B-Day.

Is this your 21st, 25th or 29th and holding?

Date: 2010/03/22 06:56:07, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 21 2010,23:41)
Barry is even stupider than you might think.

"Information has no mass.  It has no charge.  Indeed, it has no property that can be measured by the same means we measure matter and energy."

Really?  Then how did you manage to write, read, speak and hear it?  Did you pray for it?

Bully...er... Barry, ALL information is physical or you wouldn't even know it's there.

Tard.

Um, being a non-biology type here, I still don't understand how Barry (is that Barry Setterfield?) can say that information has "no mass, charge, can't be measured, etc".

What about the magnetic charge on a tape?  The leavings of the pencil lead on the paper (even if you ignore the paper the shapes left from the friction created between the paper and lead) have mass albeit very small.  If you were to "write" the sentence in air, leaving none of those lead shavings, would you still have left any information?

Then one needs to remember the mass, chemical and electrical impulses in the brain and the energy required to "allow" the brain to "remember" that information.

So information is not free.  Even the verbal transmission of the ordered sound waves produced by muscles that use energy to move in such a manner rendered Barry's postulate wrong.

Date: 2010/03/22 15:19:51, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 22 2010,10:39)
Right. (For teh record, "Jason" is younger than me today.) I told him I needed a bare midrift for that suit. ;)

As always, shimmies to all! :)

Pictures please.

Date: 2010/03/24 07:16:11, Link
Author: FrankH
As a dad of three teenage girls, 17-18-19, I want to congratulate ras on joining the ranks of the bewildered.

"But dad, he's so cool!"

"But dad, he loves me!  He even told me so, sort of...."

Guns are passe.  Get a broadsword and take out a tree when they come over and mumble something about, "I wonder how far this thing can slice into a body...."

;)

Date: 2010/03/24 09:18:37, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Mar. 24 2010,08:08)
1) I hate Mornington Crescent because everyone looks at my favourite card game, Mao, and says 'Hey, that's Mornington Crescent!' and then they won't take it seriously (or at least, with the minimum seriousness required for Mao).

2) Sewell's essay is quite frightening.
Quote
He went on to talk about how genetic accidents and survival of the fittest produced even more complex collections of atoms, and how something called "intelligence" allowed some of these collections of atoms to design computers and laser printers and the Internet. But when he finished, I still didn't know how to incorporate natural selection -- or intelligence -- into my model, so I never did get the simulation to work. I decided the model was still missing a force or two -- or a smarter random number generator.
It's hypothetical, true, but this is about as bad as the guy who wrote a moon simulator that left out various details such as, you know, the fact that bodies rotate, or having more than two bodies in the system, or tidal locking, or anything that scientists actually use to model moon formation with, and then declaring that because his sim shows the moon can't form naturally, maybe we should look outside the universe for answers.

Good thing that there's no Jupiter nor Sun to mess up his calculations.

My guess, a 15 year old with Dr. Austin's book and a want to be a hacker.

Date: 2010/03/24 13:14:25, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 24 2010,10:35)
Don't get me wrong, I am very pleased to have a son, but a part of me wants a daughter just so I can mess with potential boyfriends' minds.

(snip)

Dude, don't be so closed minded.  Who's to say you won't be able to screw with your son's bf's mind?  :D

Even in the US south, one of my daughters introduced me to a "good friend".  Later I asked her if he was her new boyfriend and said, "No.  'Jack' is not my boyfriend, he's 'Steve's' boyfriend".

Then there's the question you ask yourself, "Is she my daughter's 'special girlfriend'?"

Date: 2010/03/24 13:26:25, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 24 2010,13:06)
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 24 2010,17:26)
[SNIP]

My God, we've all become LAWYERS!!!!

You take that back!

Louis

I'll see you in court.  I'll sue you for every Euro you have.

Maybe you can do some pro bono work for a few "less fortunate" people on this board.

Date: 2010/03/24 14:56:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 24 2010,12:11)

Wow.

What hubris, what arrogance that he thinks he knows all of the variables that go into the universe.

I especially love his appeal to authority
Quote
British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington said quantum mechanics "leaves us with no clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural".
Wow, I guess back 150 years ago, while they were still struggling with the UV catastrophe, I would suppose that the differences between the Strong, Weak, Electro-Magnetic and gravity were likewise "spooky" as well.

One again, an appeal to ignorance.

The ID motto is really, "I can't figure it out and since I'm so smart, god did it!"

Date: 2010/03/24 17:48:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)

Quote (cdanner]It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met.[/quote]I've never met Charles Manson either.  After reading the good Dr.Dr.'s writing @ essentially that if he finds data that goes against his religious beliefs, he ignores that data as to him, "obviously it's wrong".[quote=cdanner)
Is this how you discuss and display your understanding of creation and evolution?
As almost all the creationists I've met so far are cowards, there are few to talk to about creationism.  Are you different?  Would you like to present evidence FOR Creation?  If so, you've find a group here that would love to discuss it with you.  Now, if you run into "obstinate people" when trying to get your point across, hey, that is science.  If you've ever read the sniping between Gould and I forget the other "evolutionist" over "Punctuated Equilibrium", and these two were/are convinced that "Evolution is a fact", you'll see what I mean.
Quote (cdanner]Frankly @ if I were one to be torn away from being a follower of Christ because of these entries, I wouldn’t  have much faith in God, would I.[/quote)
Your faith is no concern of anyone's unless it's your Dogma that gets in the way of evidence and facts.[quote=cdanner]Oh my goodness, I said several words that are no-nos, didn’t I.
Nope.  Why what did you think are no-nos?  God?  Which one?  Faith?  I have faith I will make it to Friday without killing anyone.  Yeah, we know those words.
Quote (cdanner]Well @ let’s all have a little faith in something, shall we.[/quote)
I do.  It usually concerns how good the Bass is going to taste, and I ain't talking fish.[quote=cdanner]After all, it is both faith in God and faith in one’s fellow human beings that allow science and Christianity to stand together, right?
Nope.  Science has nothing to say about Christianity.  Also, which version of Christianity are you talking about  Roman Catholicism, Amish, Mainline Protestant (which sect?), etc are you talking about?
Quote (cdanner]I mean @ does trashing an honest man such as Dr. Dembski display the faith we all have in common?[/quote)
Nope.  I would like to read how you think it does.[quote=cdanner]You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general.
Not at all.  I don't care which god, goddess or gods you follow.  When you say for certainty that your god is "the real one" and that your book of antiquity describing the supposed actions of bronze aged shepherds and that is scientific, I mock you.  After all, do you take the Vedic seriously?  What about the Q'ran?  No to both?  Any other holy book do you think is correct?  If not, why should we take your god and holy book seriously
Quote (cdanner]Yet @ I have no desire to belittle or ridicule many of your posts.[/quote)
Please do.  If you find stupidity in mine, let me know!  Granted I may not see it that way but if your argument is good and sound, I will listen to you.  Please note:  "Good and sound does not mean 'My god said so' cause if your god can talk to you, it can certainly talk to me.[quote=cdanner]I wonder why? Could it be that, after hearing the man speak, and looking into his eyes, and turning my preconceived notions in his direction, that he makes perfect sense?
Sounds like love or infatuation, not science.
Quote (cdanner]Could it be that my Creator and Redeemer leads me to truly wonder why so much venom must be spewed in one person’s direction @ simply because of dislike.[/quote)
I don't dislike him because of anything other than he speaks what he wants to say is the truth and closes his eyes to everything else.  I my book, that's a willing lie.[quote=cdanner]OK, so after all of that rambling, what is the real issue, huh?
Quote (cdanner]Is it Christianity @ is it organized religion in general – what?[/quote)
It is not any religion, it is literalism and the mental gymnastics needed by "those who believe in the literal word" to maintain there delusion.  OBTW, it is not just Literal Chrisitians.  Hell, it ain't even about Christianity.  I don't hate Christians, my wife is one.  My mom and sister still try to get me to go back to church.  Why would I want to hate Christians?[quote=cdanner]I mean, if you’re going to have fun verbally tearing someone apart, get down to the real issues.
Love to but Dr. Dr. does not like to debate.  He does not like to have things used against him later.  He makes broad pronouncements and he says, "There, that is what I mean".  Many times it is ambigous, like his so called EF, that it doesn't make any sense but he doesn't come out to chat.  When he does, it is so heavily moderated as to make it worthless.  He's a coward who can't come out to a neutral area.  He has to control the venue so he can get rid of the parts that make him look foolish.
Quote (cdanner]Actually @ if you are honest about your feelings, I could bring them to Dr. Dembski’s attention, and we could actually sit down and discuss them one by one.[/quote)
I think he's invited here.  What a better way to defend your faith than going to the "belly of the beast".  No moderation, what is written is written and everyone can see it?  Perhaps Dr. Dr. could be just exposed to "real scientists" and not rabble like myself.  Then he can give his "thesis" a real test.[quote=cdanner]Hey, maybe we could design a forum aimed just at me, as well.
You're on one.  Just ask any question.  You may not like the answer but if you're open and honest, you'll be treated with respect.
Quote (cdanner]I’m relatively old @ so I really do not care what you think, other than your belief in Jesus.[/quote)
No belief in Jesus.  I don't care what you think Jesus is or was.  Most likely a composite of many holy men that wandered the area over 2000 years ago.[quote=cdanner]If, for example, you would like to talk like an adult about issues of science, organized religion, unorganized religion, or any other aspect of life that does not require trashing someone on-line while I hide behind my avatar, let me know, and we certainly will talk.
I'm doing that now.  The bal's in your court.
Quote (cdanner]Otherwise @ I try to be a good steward of my time, so thank you for the opportunity to speak.[/quote)
Nobody is stopping you.[quote=cdanner]God bless you all.
Allah Akbar or May Cthulhu eat you first to save you from madness.

Date: 2010/03/24 17:51:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Crap.

Can I get an edit feature?

I'll be a good boy.

Date: 2010/03/24 18:27:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,18:14)
Quote (snorkild @ Mar. 24 2010,18:03)
Is cdanner one of the disciples from UD?

Is the course requirement #4 fulfilled if he produces 10 posts of bitching and moaning, or is some minimum of factual content expected?
I have already filled my requirements, so I can moan all I want. Want to talk about creation? Also, the vast majority of the posts I scanned have not factual information, so I'm just trying to fit in. BTW what is your definition of "factual?"

If you find me direct and hopefully honest, that's a start.

Factual mean evidence.  I, for one, am interested to see what you have as evidence FOR creation.  Even if you do find evidence for creation, which creation story does it support?  Remember, there are many creation stories.

Remember, if evolution is wrong tomorrow, not that I'd care really, that would not mean creation is correct.  What is the reasoning behind it?  As someone who is smarter than I stated, "If you are looking for 'Mr. Brown' and you see two men walking, if the first guy is not 'Mr. Brown', it doesn't mean the second guy is 'Mr. Brown' either."

So if you want to promote creationism, great!  Remember, the guys who brought us an ancient Earth, Evolution, etc were Creationists as that was the only book in Europe with a narrative of how things began.

Those are the guys who saw the evidence and realized the Earth's history was not how the bible presented it.

Date: 2010/03/25 12:24:00, Link
Author: FrankH
Wow, it's like I'm phasing perpendicularly through a parallel universe that is UD.

Beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent life here.

Date: 2010/03/25 13:47:55, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 25 2010,12:38)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2010,10:24)
Wow, it's like I'm phasing perpendicularly through a parallel universe that is UD.

Beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent life here.

Totally inapropos metaphor. It's more like you're shunting diagonally across the Northern Line, with escalators wild.

As to "intelligent life", sir, I'll have you know that more than one commentator has referred to Mornington Crescent as "Chess for the mind".

When you fling metaphors, fling them orthogonally using the ley line nexus for the volley hoop.

Transmorgification of the relative density of the tard inhibits lateral receptors from horizontal metamorphic properties.

In the end, just remember the coo coo ca choo.

Date: 2010/03/25 16:52:13, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 25 2010,16:40)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 24 2010,16:27)
 As someone who is smarter than I stated, "If you are looking for 'Mr. Brown' and you see two men walking, if the first guy is not 'Mr. Brown', it doesn't mean the second guy is 'Mr. Brown' either."

No it wouldn't.

But it MIGHT just mean that he is a yellow banana.

Only if he fits perfectly in your hand.

Date: 2010/03/25 17:02:20, Link
Author: FrankH
Speaking of looking to fit perfectly into a sock of some sort:

cdanner!

Where are you?

Date: 2010/03/25 18:09:47, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 25 2010,16:44)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 25 2010,17:49)
Quote (huwp @ Mar. 25 2010,10:33)
Oh well, if Louis' opened up the Masonic pathway then it seems a shame not to use it.

I know it may be seen as radical in the everso stuffy corridors of bah-humbuggery inhabited by Louis, Tom and fnxtr where only Stovold will do (which is roughly equivalent to the King James Version only movement) but the advent of the DLR has added an extra dimension to this game.

So thanks to the Masonic reference of the double pillars of the old Naval College (now University) of Greenwich, I get to leave Knid and outflank the lot of you.

Cutty Sark.

HA!
Woo-hoo!

I admire your innovative thinking, but you seem to have forgotten about the five blue tokens pegged at the Euston entrance. Since the public convenience there has been out of order for at least a week (didn't know that, did you?), I get to contra-lateral via Oxford Circus (moving widdershins, of course), which brings me to:

Mornington Crescent!

Nice game, all.
It's this sort of utter disregard for the conventions of Mornington Crescent what causes unrest.

Firstly, trying to move widdershins from Oxford Circus (having left Cutty Sark, which was an inspired move from HuwP, getting himself out of Knid, putting the rest of us in Spoon and changing the laterals to Islets of Langerhans) is a Forbidden Contract under the Great Treaty of 1612 in which, might I remind you we beat the French (always important).

Secondly, the public convenience at Euston has been augmented by the permission of the McDonalds Corporation franchise located nearby in permitting McShits, and even a McShit with Lies*, at all hours. This admirably covers the shitehouse shortfall.

Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, you have tried to make two moves. You intend to go to Mornignton Crescent via Oxford Circus. That is a move involving two stations. If we could, will-he nill-he, merrily stroll via two stations any time we pleased then anyone one could win the game at any time. It would be like there were no rules at all. This, sir, is an-fucking-outrage!

Fouthly, and above all finally, elevators are wild. If you people cannot incorporate the simplest aspects of the game then I despair, I really do. Perhaps you might find this instructional video of some value.

Since, by sheer dint of luck overcoming judgement (and luckily judgement just loves to be come over), fnxtr has made a legal move to Kensal Rise. We can only thank him for this as otherwise play would have had to be abndoned and a Disquisition would have had to be organised.

Thus I can only move to London Bridge in the hope of restoring some sanity.

FrankH has clearly missed the point and is raving uncontrollably. Shame. It happens to the elderly.

Louis

*Engaging in a McShit is the practise of, after an extensive night on the beers, creeping half cut into an early (~6am) McDonalds and taking what can only be described as an epic shite in their freshly cleaned toilets. A McShit with Lies is where, on entering the premises and being caught by an employee, one has to indicate that one will be returning from the shitehouse to purchase breakfast, even though one has no real intention of doing so.

To be or not to be, that is the end game.  Whether the weather cause atmospheric fluctuations in the gyroscope of the panda, the game is still that to which we ignore.

With that farted into the wind, baring a repeal of the redux of the Great Plague of 1944*, the poster to whom I have dedicated this post to has decided that a move from Widdershins from Oxford Circus is forbidden.  We all know that to be utter bunk as the Great Treaty was null and void.

To further stress my point a move from Homerton to Old Street where as one can Abe it up and reminisce how onions were the fashions off of the belt** shows the ideal of the blue haired woman.  It is this blue haired woman who takes leave of her sense and cents and proceeds to find Euro all over her.

Further, the idea that one can't make a two station move means that there is no cheese left in the entirety of the game.  With no cheese, there is no one to cut the cheese and the whole premise falls flat into disuse.

Which requires a new device to complete the journey.  That device, a new compact to help things grow and evolve around the newness of the situation where you find you leave your senses.  Legally speaking, he previous poster is only half right*** but always totally wrong.  To complete this passage, if you will, you would proceed to be a new covenant therefore the correct and only legal move would therefore go to Covenant Garden.

*The Great Plague of 1944 was the start to which many a good Englishman forcefully claims that his dad died fighting Gerry and is most definitely not a by product of a lonely British bird and a horny American GI

**Depending on the local you might find yourself in a full Nelson after leaving the Tube especially if you thought you were riding Bart

***A product of his wit no doubt

Date: 2010/03/25 18:32:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 25 2010,18:20)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2010,16:09)
(snippity do da)

Now you're just making shit up.

Which is precisely the route I was taking with Louis.

Please note that the cycles of his bike and his mind twirled inside going down the tracks of his thoughts to the train only to find a runaway.

Over the trestles he pedals faster as the gerbils ride along only to find bridges?  We don't need no stinkin' bridges!

Date: 2010/03/25 18:33:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 25 2010,18:19)
Come on, somebody, move.

I did, to Covenant Garden.

Date: 2010/03/26 06:25:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 26 2010,03:04)
Such blither. And before I've had my coffee too. Under these conditions a Gentleman can only move to Canada Water.

Louis

So you're still going to have coffee, right?

In any case the scaring of the readers as per the Concord of Grapes in 1798 has been achieved earning me a "Get out of jail free" card.

I place my "Get out of jail free" card over the large red dots which allows me to cross the border into never-never land and reclaim my tokens.

Ames will still need to sing the "I'm very sorry song" backwards followed by singing the 1812 Overture with a kazoo.

Louis is stuck in the brier patch with a willy-nilly and a case of  Bud Light.

Date: 2010/03/26 07:19:39, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 26 2010,07:10)
Richard Thompson's latest lawsuit

You remember Richard, don't you? He was the guy whose legal team defended the Dover, PA school board in Kitzmiller v. DASD back in 2005, leaving them with a $1,000,011 judgment against them.

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Gee, I wonder if I can get out of paying for my car insurance that way.  After all, I don't want to pay for someone with a fast car now do I?

Date: 2010/03/26 10:50:52, Link
Author: FrankH
Excellent feint!

After watching Louis skipping, whistling show tunes to the beat of a sputtering MG, Ames taking dull moves worthy of the Great Sleep of 1256 and fxntr lost at Parson's Green I spill the gambit and renege on my tokens going for broke.

Using the Elevators are Wild, I find some girls too and tip toe through the tulips to Holborn.

Date: 2010/03/26 13:18:46, Link
Author: FrankH
Using the McShite that was so graciously opened by Louis, I saunter my way and climb up the tree lined path to Bark.

However, thanks to the fact that as per the Addendum of the Second Rugby Council of 1899, from before, having opened the door I go through the parallel world, I park and move orthogonally to Monument where I climb up the ever expanding piles of scat to Tower Hill.

A Quadruple move that earns me 5 Cylons and 123.245 and T Cubits.

You heard me, Tower Hill

Date: 2010/03/26 13:26:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Arrrghhhh!  Damn you fnxtr!

I rip a hole into the space heater/DVR continium using my Tardis as I slip sides through the chute and find my move ends at Warden Street, 6 begats past my original move but 13.gy5 micro-bleeps into the Nexus Void.

Damn you!

Date: 2010/03/26 13:38:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 26 2010,13:27)
Turnham Green the hard way:

Piccadilly line before 7:45 am, on Sunday.

I don't think so.

As fxntr did the Snaresbrook maneuver, reminiscent of the Bilge/Blythe "Over the hedge" fiasco of 1969, and my fascination with the movement of a little puck over ice, the Nexus Void and lube shop is still in effect.

You must move through yourself and find the other side for the next 1.23t time units.

That is as fxntr points out so eloquently, you don't implode first.

Date: 2010/03/26 14:23:29, Link
Author: FrankH
Rubbish.


The Shamrock Contention and Grocery Stop of 2590 clearly states that all future rules should be applied moderately to the rash.

Therefore I twaddle to Baker Street where light in the head and dead on my feet, it's another crazy day as I go out of my mind to Bond Street, not shaken, but stirred.

I'll see your Charlemagne, and raise you a Ceaser!

Date: 2010/03/26 14:46:46, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 26 2010,14:33)
Lurkers take note: that's how the game is played. Must be something in that north Wales water...

(snip)

Disregard what you read above.

He didn't say "Simon Says"!

Now, Simon Says that's how it's played in an uncivilized place like Wales.

Also, what's in the water in north Wales is what is scooped out of the Thames.

Date: 2010/03/26 15:19:07, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 26 2010,14:58)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 26 2010,12:46)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 26 2010,14:33)
Lurkers take note: that's how the game is played. Must be something in that north Wales water...

(snip)
Disregard what you read above.

He didn't say "Simon Says"!

Now, Simon Says that's how it's played in an uncivilized place like Wales.

Also, what's in the water in north Wales is what is scooped out of the Thames.
Just to bring you up to speed: Grandchampion Algernon Simon has not been a significant part of the game for more than a decade. What Simon says has very little relevance to any of the post-millennial rulesets.

Bejebus!

I'm not referring to the Old GMC Algie Simon, but to Simple Simon.  After being a pie man, he has rose to new prominence making rule clarifications as he sits in his wheel chair, watching old "Swedish Erotica" videos to DvD and perfecting his intricate hand movements.

As the work Simple Simon squirts out is so seminal he is still regarded as the no 1 in the land of sticky floors.  Even Arden, it is said, waits for every drop of Simon's contributions to the game!

With that, I think my next move is to Edgware Road

Date: 2010/03/26 15:30:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 26 2010,15:06)
Algie's cousin Gershorn Simon was another sort altogether. I could have forgiven him for making that cheese commercial - we all have to make a living - but in the very same dress?  Simply crass.

It might have worked if our present L'Enfant terrible Louis, wasn't wearing it while picking up his award (and nose) while entertaining the Queen.

Date: 2010/03/26 15:42:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 26 2010,15:38)
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 26 2010,20:22)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 26 2010,15:12)
Some of you Americans seem to think that Mornington Crescent is somehow like Calvinball, an entirely ruleless and fictional game.

Calvinball is NOT fictional!

Heathen!
Oh you can find anything on the internet. I cite UD as an example.

Ouch

Louis score: + Infinity and Beyond

ppb score: uh, 0

Date: 2010/03/26 16:08:36, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 26 2010,15:25)
While your scholarship leaves much to be desired, I can't quarrel with your play.

Oh please.  We see the same things we just interpret it differently.

Date: 2010/03/26 18:51:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Finishing up a 70 hour work week.  Trying to scoop what left of my brains back into my skull.  I've let my mind wander too far to exciting places as I make my move to:

Finchley Road

Date: 2010/03/30 10:50:26, Link
Author: FrankH
Well folks, we're still here.

No "mini-black holes", to collapsing of the "metastable vacuum", no "rip in the fabric of space-time".

Whew, the only problem is I need to get back to work.

LHC

Date: 2010/03/30 11:01:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,10:17)
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 30 2010,14:39)
Further comment would be superfluous.

{sniff}

Sometimes the world is so beautiful I just want to cry.

Louis

After I go in for a checkup with the doctor next week, I plan to get lit up as I've been a good boy.  No alcohol, fried food, easy on deserts, back running (back up to 10k at least twice a week), etc.  Yes, life really sucks.  (On another topic, does exercise, eating right really make one live longer or does it just feel that way?0

So I ask the good gent from Wales.  I like the dark stouts and porters.  I also enjoy a good ale, not IPAs though.

What are some of the best you think are out there that I might be able to procure in the US?

Date: 2010/03/30 13:29:47, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 30 2010,12:29)
[quote=Louis,Mar. 30 2010,12:16][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 30 2010,17:11)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,12:03)

 
Quote
Old Speckled Hen should only be drunk from a bottle in an emergency.


Louis


Fortunately we have a lovely little "pub" here near me that gets it on tap. I quite enjoy, and would right now more so...

Draught is ok. Bottles always seem to me, and de gustibus non est disputandum, to be lack a certain something.

Louis


I agree.

I have always wondered about the chemistry in this. Why are kegs and casks so much better for beer (it seems) than bottling? Is it volume related? Do they have to use a slightly different recipe for bottling?  Never quite understood that.

None of the above.  Just stinking to non-metric units:

Barrel = 55 gallons (OBTW, how many litres in a barrel)

Bottle = 12 oz.

You know that you can drink far more than one bottle but even in two or three sittings, the barrel might be a bit much.

Date: 2010/03/30 15:01:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 30 2010,14:51)
How about the infants and children of Jericho, or Sodom? Or Hiroshima, or Tokyo?

Or the infants during Noah's deluge?

You forgot Dresden, Nanking and many, many more.

Date: 2010/03/30 16:31:37, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 30 2010,15:22)
I guess the basic question to Joe is, would the Nazi extermination camps have been moral if God had ordered them up, and if Hitler had been named Joshua.

We already know the answer.

As their god commanded them to feign joining with another tribe.  They had the men circumsized and then attacked.  All males of any age, including infants, were put to the sword.  As were all women who had given birth.

But the virgin females?  They were spoils of war.  And call it what you will, I say they were raped and raped by "god's chosen".

Date: 2010/03/31 06:20:02, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 31 2010,00:21)
What I want to know is when they're going to start colliding some LARGE hardons  :p

A comment worthy of Arden.

Date: 2010/03/31 06:26:18, Link
Author: FrankH
Having fulfilled my "time out" session brought upon by the illegal, but uncalled move by not one but two members of this game (and by the Treaty of Odessa I am not allowed to give their names nor even spell them out), I think the next move for me to take, well, it's so simple and so noble:

"Barons Court"

Date: 2010/03/31 06:33:57, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 30 2010,20:10)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 31 2010,08:17)
Gee, BarryA has been strangely silent on the Hutaree arrests.
The responses will be
1. They weren't real Christians
2. If they weren't white and Christian they would have been left alone.

I think that the UD crowd is getting very boring and repetitious, I'm only here for the ATBC humour

If you read the wing nuts coming out and saying how the groups right's were trampled on as, "After all, it was their right to own guns and oppose Obama that made the government hate them".

Sad thing was, that was on CNN's blog.  I shudder to read what tripe has been puked forward by that stalwart of human decency and freedom, Fox News and their posters, have said.

Date: 2010/03/31 06:53:06, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 30 2010,21:41)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,21:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 30 2010,21:01)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,08:46)
...and from what I understand the agony of childbirth draws out about 18-30 years.  Longer if you name the lil' nipper Louis.  :D
Hey now!
No, Lou, I'm certain you were a delightful child and the apple of your mother's eye.  As opposed to Louis, who likely filled the role of talking snake.  Or not.  We should ask his mum.  Once Arden is done with her. *

* My apologies to Louis' mother, who has suffered enough, as it is.
There is a direct line from talking snakes in Eden to snarky talk at AtBC.

Oh, this is a fallen world.

The worst part is when you fall and can't reach your beer.

Fortunately, we haven't fallen that far yet.

Date: 2010/03/31 10:46:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 31 2010,10:26)
bornatard77:
Quote
Here is a true story of a miracle that happened in my life in 1989.

I was living in Lancaster, California in the high desert of southern California. I was invited to go to a sunrise service, with a church called the Vineyard, for Easter. The Saturday night before the service I was going to bed around 10:00 p.m.; I had no alarm clock to get me up at 4:30 a.m., so I prayed a simple prayer, “Lord, if you want me to go to the sunrise service, could you please wake me at 4:30 am”. I went to sleep, and at exactly 4:30 a.m. my roommate tripped on a rug on his way back from the restroom and fell right on top of me in my bed. I woke up, got up, and dressed . I went down to the doughnut shop where the church was meeting, so we could drive down to the place together to our Easter sunrise service.
On the drive the sky was a clear star filled night turning to dawn. When we got to the place, of the service, the sky was still clear. Let me take a moment to tell you what the place looked like. The spot of our service was on a twenty-five yard-wide ledge which was part of a huge quarter mile deep bowl in the earth. Next to the bowl were some quarter mile high foothills. The bowl was full of giant boulders, here and there, the evidence of violent tectonic activity was everywhere, brush and trees held on wherever they could get a foothold in the earth.
As we were bringing down our musical gear from the parking lot to the ledge, clouds started to come around the foothills, building up, threatening our view of the sunrise. But, undeterred, we set up anyway. When we finally were set up, we started to sing our worship music to God. Then,…IT STARTED TO SNOW…in southern California in April…but the amazing thing about this (dry) snow is the WAY it was falling. The snow was moving in rhythm with our music!!! When we would slow down, the snow would slow down; when we sang faster, the snow fell faster; and due to the updraft from the bowl, when we would hold a note the snow would catch an updraft for that moment and hold still in front of us. This was, how shall I put it .. VERY STRANGE!! SYNCHRONICITY INDEED…Then, as we stopped singing, the snow stopped. Then, while the pastor was giving the message about Jesus triumph over death, the snow was stopped but the sky was still cloudy, When our pastor asked if anyone would like to accept Jesus as their savior, right at the very second, when people started to put their hands up to accept Jesus into their hearts, the sun broke through the clouds and started shining down on us. What a truly heartfelt moment that was. It was amazingly beautiful. The sun was shining through the trailing mist of the clouds, literally looking like a million diamonds sparkling in the sky. After the message, we sang again; As God would have it, the clouds came back again for yet one more snow dance with the music. When we finished, the snow finished. As we broke up our musical gear, the clouds broke up. And, as we drove away, the sky was perfectly clear again, just as it had been when we had arrived. Needless to say, we were all pinching ourselves to make sure we were awake and had really seen what we had seen. I’m very fond of the memory of that morning, because, best of all, my best friend, who went with me, was convinced of Gods reality, by God’s own power and not by any of the arguments I was trying to persuade him with. When you really think about it, a miracle is truly the only way to convince someone that has reservations, that all this talk going around about heaven and Jesus is, in fact, very real, indeed.

After reading this, I came to one conclusion:

Stoned out of his gourd.

Date: 2010/04/03 13:29:29, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 31 2010,18:45)
Someone should have explained how "perfect" the discs are to my dad while he was in agony for a decade because of a couple of ruptured ones.  It was only after they figured out how to remove them and fuse the vertebrae that he was able to function again.

Oh, and years later this "intelligently designed" body conked out because his bone marrow quit producing red blood cells.

Intelligent Design my ass.

Tyrell: You were made as well as we could make you.
Roy: But not to last.

I love the catch-all excuse, "Things were perfect BEFORE the fall!  It was man's inexcusable sin against god that allowed evil into the perfect world".

Of course there's more than just the back.  One can show how design, if it was used, has no intelligence evident in human:

1:  Sinuses
2:  Appendix
3:  Eyes (blind spot is a glaring example)
4:  Artery that clogs yet supplies blood for the heart.

Remember, there are three things postulated in ID:

1:  Design
2:  Intelligence
3:  Though not explicitly stated, a singular "designer"

Date: 2010/04/03 13:46:26, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Zachriel @ April 01 2010,20:14)
Quote
Zachriel: Nor do we have to have knowledge of molecular genetics to know about inheritance or show that certain traits are heritable.

ID guy: You can't show something is heritable without that knowledge.
So much for Mendelian Inheritance.

It's hard to believe, but ID guy doesn't even know about the birds and the bees. Yes, ID guy, when birds reproduce they make little baby birds, not bees. When sunflowers reproduce, they make more sunflowers.

{Instructions:  Take 4" needle.  Jab (you are going through bone) firmly in the upper left corner of right eye socket or upper right corner of left eye socket until you push passed bone.  Mix vigorously}

Oh yeah Mr. Evilutionist?  That's what ID says all along.  Kinds only give birth to kinds!  It is Evilution that says dogs give birth to cats or liberals give birth to human babies!

{Warning:  Once contents inside brain case are stirred, the process is irreversible}

Crap.

Date: 2010/04/03 14:20:02, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (J-Dog @ April 03 2010,14:05)
Denyse could have totally avoided becoming a laughingstock over this if she would have first read Joe G's seminal work about the chemical differences between water and ice...

added in edit:  Intelligent Design... For when real science, just won't do.

Wow.

Okay, which one of you have sock-puppets named Denyse and Joe G.

That is truly some deep, deep, deep undercover sock puppetry (nobody can be that stupid) that expedites what ID can do to ID all by itself:  Make ID look stupid.

Date: 2010/04/03 14:44:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance

Date: 2010/04/03 15:33:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.

Date: 2010/04/04 08:03:43, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Joe,

I gave you an example of evidence for Evolution.

Now I would like to see your evidence for ID.  I would like to see you use CSI or EF to explain what we see in biological organisms.

Thanks in advance

Date: 2010/04/04 08:26:47, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Mindrover @ April 04 2010,08:18)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.
Granting that SI can be measured, how much SI is required for CSI to be present?
Does CSI = Designed?

These are honest questions, I would hope for an answer devoid of invectives.
To add to Mindrover's post, as he's granting that CSI is measuring "information", I'd like to know what is actually being measured?

Joe, could you define or tell what type of information is being measured by CSI?

Can different methods show different degrees or types of information?

Date: 2010/04/04 17:17:04, Link
Author: FrankH
Well, I hope Joe G. takes this as a serious attempt to see where both sides stand.  So Joe, I and others have done two things:

1:  Presented Evidence that supports Evolution

2:  Shown that many here understand CSI and EF but feel that it is not adequate to do what Dr. Dembski has stated it does.

So are you going to show us an example of evidence FOR ID and how EF and CSI work on biological systems?

Date: 2010/04/04 17:39:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Henry J @ April 04 2010,17:30)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 04 2010,07:04)
Breathing is carbon-neutral.
Unless breathtaking inanities are involved.

I think that's covered under:  "Oxygen being wasted"

Date: 2010/04/05 06:29:22, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (sledgehammer @ April 05 2010,00:14)
Oh no! We have fungus among us.

I'm not lichen your attitude there bud.....

Date: 2010/04/05 06:59:44, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2010,06:34)
Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,22:53)
I see my point holding up either way.
In other words, there's nothing anyone can say that will change your alleged mind.

Thanks for making that even more clear than it was before.

Too bad the ID/YEC crowd is not populated with young ladies who could contort their bodies as well as they can their minds.

Ah, the pleasing mental picture that makes.

Date: 2010/04/05 07:44:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Aardvark @ Mar. 30 2010,18:37)
BarryA:
Quote
...if it can be demonstrated that a pedophile’s pleasure from molesting children is greater than the suffering he causes, then, for that pedophile, molesting children should be considered “good.”
Why does he have to bring the Catholic Church into this?
Like all "good evangelicals", Barry A. is delighting in the suffering of children at the hands of the Great Whore of Babylon.

The next thing they are waiting to see is when it is revealed that this site is supported by the RCC and when the Pope marches his armies into the Holy Land.

All of that after of course we get our "identification tattoos" and the RCC comes out and states it has been in charge of the UN all this time and dissolves all nations into "One World Government".

Date: 2010/04/05 09:42:53, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (k.e.. @ April 05 2010,09:13)
Quote (FrankH @ April 05 2010,14:29)
Quote (sledgehammer @ April 05 2010,00:14)
Oh no! We have fungus among us.
I'm not lichen your attitude there bud.....
Moss likely you're causing a fuss over a mere truffle

Are you trying to mold me into something I'm not so I can slime my way around?

Date: 2010/04/05 11:20:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (k.e.. @ April 05 2010,09:49)
Quote (sledgehammer @ April 05 2010,17:39)
Quote (k.e.. @ April 05 2010,07:13)
 
Quote (FrankH @ April 05 2010,14:29)
Quote (sledgehammer @ April 05 2010,00:14)
Oh no! We have fungus among us.
I'm not lichen your attitude there bud.....
Moss likely you're causing a fuss over a mere truffle
That's silly. (sigh)  Been there, done that.
You're pimping my stool, toad.

Would that be "pimping your stool" or "pushing in your stool"?

Date: 2010/04/07 09:32:12, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:15)
Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,15:33)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.
Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.
Yes, Frank I have supported ID:

supporting ID

Also your support for evolution is a joke.

There isn't anything about blind, undirected processes.

Ya see ID is NOT anti-evolution.

Just anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes.
Hmmm,

Well Joe, I see no reason why you can't reproduce some of that work here.  The only thing is on your blog, you control the comment.  Here you can't.

Also, I didn't see anything for ID, not even the so called "peer-review" articles.  There is nothing about ID in any of the links.

Also, ID makes not 1 but 2 and more likely 3 unverified claims for ID:

1:  That there is a directed design.

2:  The the directed design is caused by some intelligence.

3:  That this intelligence is singular (and most who follow ID believe, no evidence at all, that this designer is their god or goddess).

Now, instead of just saying that what I brought to the table is a joke, please be so kind as to point out the flaw in the studies.  Excuse me for not just taking your word that it's a "joke" when you haven't shown where the errors are.

Evolution is not "blind chance".  There are feedback effects that "direct" evolution.  To say this "direction" has a goal is a sign of "intelligence" would be akin to saying that water going downhill is "directed by the intelligence of the hill" would not be correct.  In the same way ID fails at doing anything.

To go further, ID holds that some things are designed and others are not.  Yet there is no evidence for this.  Has anyone ever shown that EF and CSI have been demonstrated to determine design?  No?  But wait, you say they have?  Well, I've never seen it.  Perhaps you could give us an example.

Again, if you say it can without providing any evidence or show us how it is done, I will mark that EF and CSI don't work, despite any claims that it does by you.  Obviously if you can't do it and you support that postulate then like all other "thought experiments" such as "lower life forms (flies, worms, ants, etc) come about through rotting flesh" it would be wrong.

As for ID being anti-anything, it is anti-science.

Date: 2010/04/07 09:41:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:05)
Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,14:44)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?
Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance
Frank,

You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

No Joe,

I won't use a "divining rod" to look for water as that is crap science.  I won't use EF or CSI either as that is crap science.

Again, let's say that evolution is wrong.  It does not stand that ID nor creationism are right.  You are going to have to show that your postulate (what verifiable predictions does ID make?  What have been tested?) has merit.

The ball is in your court to show EF and CSI have merit.  I don't have to disprove anything about EF and CSI is a proponent such as yourself is unable to make it work.

Date: 2010/04/07 09:52:29, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (qetzal @ April 07 2010,09:14)
Anaerobic multicellular animals!

Here's the abstract:
Quote
Background
Several unicellular organisms (prokaryotes and protozoa) can live under permanently anoxic conditions. Although a few metazoans can survive temporarily in the absence of oxygen, it is believed that multi-cellular organisms cannot spend their entire life cycle without free oxygen. Deep seas include some of the most extreme ecosystems on Earth, such as the deep hypersaline anoxic basins of the Mediterranean Sea. These are permanently anoxic systems inhabited by a huge and partly unexplored microbial biodiversity.

Results
During the last ten years three oceanographic expeditions were conducted to search for the presence of living fauna in the sediments of the deep anoxic hypersaline L'Atalante basin (Mediterranean Sea). We report here that the sediments of the L'Atalante basin are inhabited by three species of the animal phylum Loricifera (Spinoloricus nov. sp., Rugiloricus nov. sp. and Pliciloricus nov. sp.) new to science. Using radioactive tracers, biochemical analyses, quantitative X-ray microanalysis and infrared spectroscopy, scanning and transmission electron microscopy observations on ultra-sections, we provide evidence that these organisms are metabolically active and show specific adaptations to the extreme conditions of the deep basin, such as the lack of mitochondria, and a large number of hydrogenosome-like organelles, associated with endosymbiotic prokaryotes.

Conclusions
This is the first evidence of a metazoan life cycle that is spent entirely in permanently anoxic sediments. Our findings allow us also to conclude that these metazoans live under anoxic conditions through an obligate anaerobic metabolism that is similar to that demonstrated so far only for unicellular eukaryotes. The discovery of these life forms opens new perspectives for the study of metazoan life in habitats lacking molecular oxygen.
Link to full text

ETA:
Link to some commentary

Link to more commentary

HT: The Scientific Activist

Excellent!  Yet more proof (I'd say at least 151) that those anaerobic animals were specifically designed, by some intelligence of course, to live "just so" in their environment.

Another case (of Bud) for ID!

Date: 2010/04/07 15:56:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 07 2010,15:43)
Mechanism without Mechanism! Morgentau:
Quote
But we do have an hypothesis — design. So we do not need to choose between a bad hypothesis and no hypothesis. Also design is a mechanism. Just because we do not know how design works does not mean we do not have a mechanism.

It is like the automobile. A man says “How did that automobile come to be that way?” and we say “it was designed,” and that is true. If a man “was it made by robots or humans” we may not know the answer. But knowing robots or humans is like knowing the mechanism of the mechanism, not the mechanism.

Got that?

Uh,

Isn't ID, strictly speaking, a postulate?

Also, how can one determine the mechanism before one even understands what's going on?


To borrow a phrase:

Yup!  All Science so far!

Date: 2010/04/07 16:34:19, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (J-Dog @ April 07 2010,16:26)
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 07 2010,15:43)
Mechanism without Mechanism! Morgentau:
Quote
But we do have an hypothesis — design. So we do not need to choose between a bad hypothesis and no hypothesis. Also design is a mechanism. Just because we do not know how design works does not mean we do not have a mechanism.

It is like the automobile. A man says “How did that automobile come to be that way?” and we say “it was designed,” and that is true. If a man “was it made by robots or humans” we may not know the answer. But knowing robots or humans is like knowing the mechanism of the mechanism, not the mechanism.
Got that?
We got you Morgentau... Life is like a mechanism, you never know what you got until you get runned over by it, like your Momma used to tell you.



ID Scientist Doing Deep Research

No, Gump is actually smarter.

He goes through life will little if any preconceived notions.  He doesn't bend what he finds and lives through to fit some idea about how things are supposed to work.  He takes what he finds and works with that and learns and adapts to work with the facts.

ID scientists should be so lucky to be so smart.

Date: 2010/04/07 17:23:53, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (JohnW @ April 07 2010,17:20)
Quote (Louis @ April 07 2010,13:45)
I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.
I see new opportunities for ID research here.  Abandon the Explanatory Filter and try the Excretionary Sphincter.

Well, Banana Boy already told us how well the banana fits.

Perhaps he'll do the research or publish the results of the tests he's already done.

Date: 2010/04/07 17:34:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 07 2010,08:17)
Our local coal-burning utility company likes to put a green veneer on their activities, and thus have provided a place for peregrine falcons to nest on their headquarters in nearby Topeka. They equipped it with two webcams, and the images from the "side cam" are pretty nice. This is the female peregrine, who is incubating three eggs, on a cold morning today. The scimitar-shaped primaries, a hallmark of the falcon clan, are particularly obvious when these birds are hunkered down like this!


To me, it looks like a, well, bird of prey.

What are the "scimitar shaped primaries"?

Date: 2010/04/07 18:32:05, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (sledgehammer @ April 07 2010,18:21)
The "primary" flight feathers at the tips of the wings.

Ah.

I thought it was the beak.

Thanks.

Date: 2010/04/08 06:58:54, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 07 2010,22:03)
Quote (FrankH @ April 07 2010,17:34)
What are the "scimitar shaped primaries"?
Sorry about the jargon.

Bird feather topography explained here.

And here is a quick guide to various birds of prey. Top = buteo (e.g. red-tailed hawk), middle = accipiter (e.g. sharp-shinned hawk), bottom = falcon (e.g. Peregrine)
Thanks bud.  This is much appreciated.

Hey, I'm a guy that has a background in Geo-Physics and work in the networking field (CCIE coming soon!).  Biology is what I skipped as much as I could as the classes and labs "really stunk it up".

But in my field, there are many evangelicals and "bejeebuz is my lard".  I have always wondered why so many of my fellow "engineers" support ID.  It is always interesting when they find out I'm neither an ID supporter nor religious.

Date: 2010/04/08 07:04:09, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (afarensis @ April 07 2010,18:52)
How to challenge the consensus view and not be thought a quack
Quote
In the study, U-M evolutionary biologist Jianzhi "George" Zhang and colleagues Ben-Yang Liao and Meng-Pin Weng set out to systematically test a hypothesis proposed by molecular biologist Sean Carroll in 2005. Carroll posited that changes in morphology (such things as shape, color and structure of external and internal parts) occur through different genetic mechanisms than changes in physiology (inner workings). Carroll backed up his assertion with examples, but the idea, which challenged previous dogma, was controversial, Zhang said.

Wow, in other words produce the work and show the evidence that backs up you claim instead of claiming something and expecting others to:

A:  Fall in line

or

B:  PROVE you're wrong (but of course you're right until they prove it)

Date: 2010/04/08 09:21:12, Link
Author: FrankH
Um,

Checking the people behind the site Evo Info I can't help but notice there are no biologists there.

Isn't that like having a bunch of tax accounts in a kitchen making a seven course meal using tax code as recipes?

Date: 2010/04/08 09:32:33, Link
Author: FrankH
Actually, I think that the ID info people have it all wrong.

If I am reading their work correctly, it is as they believe that genetic code is a linear code.  That would make it like a language and standard computer code.

But what I think is the case is that any "information" in a genetic code is not information in a computer code or a sentence.  While it may have proteins fold a certain way (I'm speaking here as a biology novice so if I don't get the terms right, buy me some Bass Ale and teach me) that is no more "information" than how a river cuts through the land based on the relative elevations and hardness of the various strata and imperfections it runs across.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "information" in genetics is more of a 3 dimensional form that shapes based on chemical and topological markers in the DNA.

That would also mean that those in the ID movement are blowing smoke, but that was already well known.

Date: 2010/04/08 09:53:27, Link
Author: FrankH
It seems that the UD crowd has sunk to that lowest of low forms of argument, "We're failing so yes we must attack the messenger!"

But who is the "expert" on their side that should also be tuned out?

Date: 2010/04/08 10:04:41, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 08 2010,09:56)
Quote (FrankH @ April 08 2010,09:32)
If I am reading their work correctly, it is as they believe that genetic code is a linear code.  That would make it like a language and standard computer code.
I've actually asked this on UD. If the genetic code is a language then could they translate some of it into English? Or German?  

If they can't (and of course they could not) then perhaps "language" is the wrong word and another is required.

They still claim that it's a language.

Then why can't they decipher it?

Or if they do, would that mean that they will "speak the language of the angels and their god"?

Date: 2010/04/08 10:28:50, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Badger3k @ April 08 2010,10:22)
Quote (FrankH @ April 08 2010,09:53)
It seems that the UD crowd has sunk to that lowest of low forms of argument, "We're failing so yes we must attack the messenger!"

But who is the "expert" on their side that should also be tuned out?
Why...everyone!  Just listen to them - they are all experts.

Okay, I'm not an expert so they should love me

Date: 2010/04/08 10:50:16, Link
Author: FrankH
Hey Joe,


Is information required to make the path for a river?

Would you describe DNA to be a linear language, such as English, German or a computer program or is it a 3D recursive language that is not just linear but does different things based on the structure and what comes later in the sequence can affect what was being formed back in the chain?

Looking forward to your answers.

Date: 2010/04/08 11:08:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 08 2010,10:57)
Quote (FrankH @ April 07 2010,13:56)
Uh,

Isn't ID, strictly speaking, a postulate?

Also, how can one determine the mechanism before one even understands what's going on?


To borrow a phrase:

Yup!  All Science so far!
Well, it is more of a pustulate.

Is that like a festering boil?  If so, can we lance it?

Will it strangle itself and fall away?  If it did, is there some sort of "ignorant malignancy" that'll cause another to bloom?

I'm sure that the new boil will claim it has new things to say but under the different color scab, I'm sure it will be the same thing.

Date: 2010/04/08 12:19:25, Link
Author: FrankH
Forget EF and CSI.

I think that the UD crowd needs to determine what is made by information and what is not.

Examples:

Is or is no information required for a vine to grow up a wall?

Is or is no information needed for wind to carve out rocks into structures

Is or is no information needed for the intricate patterns to form in sand from water washing over it?

Is or is not information needed to make proteins by DNA?

Could you give detailed explanations why you said Yes/No and why if some do and others don't need information?

Date: 2010/04/08 12:57:34, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (fnxtr @ April 08 2010,12:30)
Well. Now that I've somewhat recovered from my chocolate bunny overdose ("My butt hurts."  "What?"):

Upper Holloway.

Note that this is a step-free access station. As The Stranglers are singing to me right now, "Sometimes it's harder to look than to leap."

Were you the test subject for Joe G's Osmium and splinter wood experiment?

Wow, for that, I'll sashay on over to Queensway in your honour.

Date: 2010/04/08 13:36:31, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (fnxtr @ April 08 2010,13:33)
No, that's what one chocolate bunny said to the other. I guess you have to see the cartoon to get it. :-)

My wife puts the various "cutesy flags" on our mail box in honor of the different holidays/celebrations.

I saw it and I saw (I hate myself for this one) an opening too.

Date: 2010/04/09 14:53:37, Link
Author: FrankH
I found a new place that looks fun for Tard mining:

Comic, er Cosmic Fingerprints

I don't know if I should be proud that I found it or saddened that it exists at all.

Date: 2010/04/09 15:29:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 09 2010,15:24)
Sal is an IDiot.  Basically he quotes Ken Miller
Quote
the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles."
Along comes Sal Cordova, expert on Biochemistry, quoting-mining lots of things, but with no comprehension - they sound like nuggets suggesting there is very little junk DNA.  Sal is under the delusion that because the words come from reputable sources, this make his arguments backed up by science.  

No attempt to develop a comprehensive understanding.  No distinction between the difference in functional genome elements and development.  He quotes part of a Nature extended essay (not article):
Quote
Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA — what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA — has been fascinating and befuddling.
The article contains plenty of things that "scientists did not realize" - but in actually were not recognized by those with a shallow understanding,  (including many biologists) but also including Sal.

Junk DNA is not equal to noncoding DNA.

That said, there is still plenty of junk.  Junk DNA

DNA "researcher" Pellionisz, often quoted by Sal, gets a mention in the comments.
Your jealousy at Sal the obvious non-expert, you expert you, is palatable here.

Of course he can see things that you and other "experts in biology" can't!  He sees things through the "lens of the common man who possesses the common sense given to him by god".

Repent sinner.

Date: 2010/04/09 15:51:14, Link
Author: FrankH
Yeah, the stuff gets "better" (or is that much, much worse?) the more one reads.

After reading this site and UD, UD is a bastion of intelligence.

This guy though seems to allow more open debate.  But he's still bit shat nucking futz.

Date: 2010/04/09 17:44:36, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (DiEb @ April 09 2010,17:21)
Quote
35
DiEb
04/09/2010
4:40 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Judging from the fact that – after a year of contributing to this site – I’m still hold in moderation, I have to assume that I’m classified as Potential Trouble. That’s unfortunate, but I can’t see what I can change about it, as I’m an ID-critic.

However, I would see it as a courtesy if the moderation process could be accelerated a little bit: In a discussion, it’s a little bit annoying if a comment doesn’t appear for over fifteen hours…
Obviously you're just an enema of the state.

I don't know why, but the hypocrisy of those sites make my blood boil.

The only good thing about sites like that, Fox News and Rush and his ilk have for me is things to get me mad when I'm running.  It's amazing how much further and faster a little Rush or Beck can do for me.

Date: 2010/04/11 11:44:03, Link
Author: FrankH
Joyous times on the anniversary of your coming out day.

Date: 2010/04/12 06:18:40, Link
Author: FrankH
Happy day of still breathing oxygen*.

*(I am assuming you do breath oxygen but in no way wish to sound biologically restrictive or elitist in saying that only oxygen is good.  H2S is equally as good if that is what you want.  So too could NH3 or CH4 if either of those float your boat or any other vessel that rides on whatever particular fluid covers whatever % of your planet or homeworld)

Date: 2010/04/13 18:29:11, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 13 2010,18:17)
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 13 2010,18:14)
Flew the Coop!

Note how Denyse deftly uses Flew's death to flog her own blog posts and relay someone else's compliments about her.  What a narcissist.

Just like she predicted using Dr^2 EF and CSI

Date: 2010/06/13 10:31:28, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 13 2010,08:02)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ June 13 2010,07:38)
Quote
I even watched a little of the game
Really, you lot need educating about the beautiful game, you really do.
I actually played youth soccer back in the early to mid-1970s, right when it was starting up in earnest here in the United States.  I wasn't very good at it and, after 6 years, switched over to Little League baseball.....only to find out I wasn't very good at that either.
I tried it too, save that I spouted off how some players, that was the first time I ever played soccer/futball/whatever, got special treatment.  They're the ones who'd been playing it all their lives and could sprint much faster than I.

I told the coach, an English transplant, to his face and in front of other parents that he did play favorites.  I was off the team for being "too disruptive".  I guess that was the "AYSO" way of finding a way around the "everyone plays" BS of the time.

Hated "soccer" ever since.

Date: 2010/06/13 11:42:22, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (J-Dog @ June 10 2010,08:02)
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 09 2010,23:41)
Like Guillermo Gonzalez, Robert Sheldon has discovered that if you can't cut the mustard, it's better to be thought a martyr to your religious beliefs than a simple fuckup.
This should be the DIs motto!  Put into Latin, it would add a certain flair to their organization when crayoned over their P O Box in the lobby of the post office.

No Latin but Italiano is close:

Se non potete tagliare la senape, è migliore da essere pensato un martire alla vostra credenza religiosa che un semplice fuckup.

It's close but my Italian is really rusty.

Date: 2010/06/13 15:14:53, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (fnxtr @ June 13 2010,14:47)
Quote (Quack @ June 13 2010,12:26)
Quote
Se non potete tagliare la senape, è migliore da essere pensato un martire alla vostra credenza religiosa che un semplice fuckup.

Wisdom transformed into poetry!
Looks like it would make a great aria.  Not sure how to advise the singer to pronounce "fuckup" with an Italian accent, tho...

I think there's actually an Italian word that is very close to fuckup but I thought that fuckup is just too good to pass up.

Date: 2010/06/13 15:35:38, Link
Author: FrankH
Quote (Louis @ June 13 2010,15:16)
And that soccer is a crap game watched and supported by people who deserve to be on the wrong end of a genocide, obviously.*

Louis

*Any and all hyperbole is for the sake of comedy only. Actual genocide my not be as shown.
Genocide is too good for them.

They'll be forced to watch Sarah Palin answer science critics without the assistance of cards, written answers on her hand or a tele-prompter while in the company of rabid Tea Party voters.

Date: 2010/06/17 17:18:45, Link
Author: FrankH
Hi all,

Yeah, been lurking and not posting, but I wonder if anyone knows where to find research papers on Psychology and/or Behavioral Sciences.

No, this is not for me but my sister who has just started to get her Master's in Psychology (perhaps more).

I feel so proud to be her inspiration on helping those with deviant and malign personalities!

Date: 2010/06/18 16:43:36, Link
Author: FrankH
Thank you

 

 

 

=====