AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Fross

form_srcid: Fross

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.163.26

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Fross

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/03/08 16:21:02, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 08 2006,18:26)
Maybe we need an award for the poster who stays on UD asking sensible questions the longest.  What is the current record?  3 days?  A week?

It's hard.  As of today I'm going back into lurker mode on UD.    
I've asked enough and had enough questions answered to satisfy my curiosities.  Most everyone there was nice enough to me and put up with my questions, and only one person seemed to get offended at simple questions.  (Red Reader)

The entire experience gave me the exact same feeling I get when I read Alice in Wonderland.   (more specifically the    Mad Hatter's tea party  )

Date: 2006/03/09 17:51:30, Link
Author: Fross
That's something I can't seem to pin down with I.D.  

I originally thought they were concerned with biological systems.  I thought they had a few confirmed examples of something created by mutation/natural selection vs something they felt was designed.  I was naive enough to think that these guys were sincerely taking a scientific approach to this, and were trying to distance themselves from the typical fundy creationist.  

I'm now fully aware that I.D. is about the entire cosmos, and even the motion of planetary bodies falls under the subject of I.D.  In other words, everything that's physical in this universe was designed according to I.D.   So the best they can offer is showing a case of design vs. redesign.  

It's creationism pure and simple.  They even use the 2nd law arguments, and I wouldn't be surprised if I read about how the thickness of moondust relates to I.D.  (Wow, I just read how finding water on the moon, Enceladus supports I.D.   Close enough.

Date: 2006/03/13 17:46:59, Link
Author: Fross
audiomartini.com recently interviewed WD and one of the questions concerned the misteps of I.D. what the I.D. movement should have done differently.  

Dembski responded that they should have been more effective at dissuading preemting the Dover case, and he said that regardless of that case, the movement is right on schedule. (what schedule?)  He also talked about galvanizing America's youth to support this movement.  (could you imagine Darwin talking about trying to gain merit for his theory by galvanzing Europe's youth to get behind it?)

He also made it apparent that their goal is to get this issue to the Supreme Court.  He also predicted that I.D. will fully supplant "Darwinism" within the next 15 years.


All I can say is "wow".

Date: 2006/03/15 12:29:15, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,17:25)
Wow:
Quote

March 15, 2006
“IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security”

Information Forensics (IF) — another branch of ID:

http://www.ieee.org/portal....ics.xml
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 1:14 pm
a branch of Intelligent Design???????????

Wow, I.D. just keeps on evolving.  Actually I guess it's always being tinkered into a new form.  So now I.D. encompasses any field that detects design?

Don't they find it problematic that in every field that does detect design, it's always in relation to what, when, where, and who?   If you ask those questions about I.D. being applied to biological systems, they suggest you go see your preacher.

Date: 2006/03/27 11:19:08, Link
Author: Fross
Are any of you guys parents?  My son is about to turn four, and he's as skeptical as you can get on the subject of God, angels, Santa, Easter Bunny ect.   Basically if he can't see them, he's very skeptical about it.   On the other hand, he is always afraid of "spooks" as he calls them.  (ghost and monsters in his closet)   We have to pound it in his head that he's just using his imagination.  Like he'll run out of a darkened hallway screaming with fear "i'm using my imagination again!" with slight tears in his eyes.
When we get to the subject of Santa, Angels, E. Bunny, etc. he tells us that that's just our imagination.  
As a parent, I get mixed emotions on when to trick him into believing something that's not real.  We're trying to get him to believe Santa, and the E. Bunny and that type of stuff, but in order to do it, we have to deflect all the skeptical questions he throws at us, and eventually his trust in us will cause him to accept these things.  

It's weird how strong social pressures are.  I feel the social pressure to get my kid to believe in Santa is 500 times greature than the social pressure to get him to believe in God.  Strange eh?

Date: 2006/03/27 12:00:01, Link
Author: Fross
we draw the line at holiday characters.   Mainly because we know that he'll figure it out, and eventually it may be a valuable lesson for him when he gets older.  For instance, he'll understand what it's like to have a belief, challenge it and deal with that belief being debunked.  Tough love baby!!

Date: 2006/03/27 17:18:03, Link
Author: Fross
my kid currently thinks that "God" and "Jesus" are words you shout out when you stub your toe.  We really need to start teaching him some of this stuff.

Date: 2006/03/28 05:20:39, Link
Author: Fross
Before I had kids, I thought the same way.  "I'll never lie to them just to make the holidays cute"  But once you have a kid, your brain turns to mush and most of the stuff you had pre-planned goes out the window.

Date: 2006/03/28 18:00:43, Link
Author: Fross
My parents were polar opposites.  My dad was an archaeologist and biology teacher.  He took me to museums and took me on fossil hunts growing up.  Evolution was just taken for granted.  However, my mother was S. Baptist and I remember little comments she'd make to me about "evolution".  So here are some funny ones.  If any of you guys had similiar experiences, please share them!

1.  Evolution was proven false when scientists took 100 generations of mice and cut off their tales at birth.  After the 100 generations, there was no change in the length of the tale.

2.  Cabbage Patch Kids are an attempt by the evolutionists to teach kids that we evolved from plants.  (I'm dead serious)

3.  She used to play us a song that the local Xian radio played.  It mentioned something about Grandma coming from a monkey.  One of the lyrical lines sang "well tell me friend, where did the water, the sun and the scum come from?".  I've not heard it since then, but this was circa 1983.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:27:01, Link
Author: Fross
Wow.  That borders on insanity.  :)

A YEC friend of mine once told me that the stars we see in the sky are just space debris orbiting earth and they shine because they're reflecting the sun.  That was his response to my question about how we could see star light from billions of light years away.

Date: 2006/04/13 07:08:12, Link
Author: Fross
I've been trying (rather unsuccessfully) to get creationists/IDists to reply to the ERV issue.  The best I've gotten so far is:

Since some ERV's have a function, they aren't old viruses, but merely a design feature.

or

The designer used ERV's to design the genome.

or

ERV's have an undiscovered mechanism that can cause them to insert in the exact same place on DNA.

or

They point to the few cases where an expected ERV isn't there.  (this isn't meant to explain it from an I.D. perspective however, but to cast doubt on common descent)


I'm amazed that someone at UD brought it up, and I'm looking forward to an official I.D. based stance on ERV's.  I've gotten one over an email conversation with a high up D.I. guy, but it wasn't different from the above examples, and I'm not sure he was officially representing the entire I.D. political group.

Date: 2006/04/27 17:45:10, Link
Author: Fross
nah, I've heard these guys before.

One of their main arguments against evolution is that if evolution were true, the first organism wouldn't have replicated itself because that would create competition.

Their grasp of evolution is a few rungs lower than the graps my four year old has on the topic.

edit:  I heard them use the cloud is a watermelon argument that Gish used to give.

Date: 2006/05/02 10:08:51, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (argystokes @ May 01 2006,22:14)
I think Fross is about to go....

Quote
#

“The rate of expansion of the universe since the Big Bang (Gen 1:1) would cause a time dialation effect …
Which in turn would cause mankind to argue about the age of the universe ..”

That is true and I never thought about that! Spacetime would be distorted and this would also make a spherical earth look flat from a certain vantage point. Seriously, I think those ancients were onto something here.

Comment by Fross — May 1, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

Yep, I'm no longer allowed to post there.

I tried my best to be polite on there, but some of the posts are so comical that I can't help myself.

Oh well, it was good while it lasted.

Date: 2006/05/04 16:46:45, Link
Author: Fross
I got my "Intelligent Design" Google alert a few minutes ago.

Within five minutes I read an article where ID advocates were saying that "Darwinists" were suppressing science, and then I heard a science professor say that IDists are trying to supress science. (or repress it)

So is anyone truly suppressing science here?  I don't think that's anyone's intention, but one side is definitely capable of bringing science to a halt.

Now based on my understanding of science as a tool, I have to agree with the professor (i'm refering to Givnish's comments in a recent Wired article).   The best analogy I can think of is that IDists are trying to pour sugar into the gas tank of an engine because they believe the engine is worthless without sugar in it. Scientists are trying to suppress this action because they understand that the machine will freeze up.


Another funny, yet telling thing I found in my Google Alert were these comments made by self professed "Intelligent Design Proponents."  

"God created the world, but the opponents of Intelligent Design (ID) would have us believe that, if He did so, He did it without a trace – or that it would be unscientific to admit that you found His fingerprints on nature."  -Mark Coppenger



“It’s gonna be very difficult to use the courts,” (referencing the Dover decision) Alderman, who is a Christian, said. “The argument needs to be won in the universities...I’m confident that Genesis is true...God’s deity and power are revealed in the cosmos.”

-Tom Alderman

“Billions of years isn’t enough time,”  “Nobody has shown that a dog can become a cat."  -Geoffrey Simmons


"a creator designed the cell with impressive power and subtlety"    -Jim Long

Date: 2006/05/04 17:19:38, Link
Author: Fross
they're never "not aging".

Date: 2006/05/22 12:05:21, Link
Author: Fross
I don't know.  I mean they're still just bacteria.  :p

Date: 2006/05/23 05:42:50, Link
Author: Fross
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." –Mahatma Gandhi


I don't know. For me it was ignore, then curiosity, then laughter and now it's a weird form of pity.  Look at Dembski doing his last "flailing before you drown" act over at UD.  He's buying domains in the name of his culture war.  What's he going to do next?  Fart in our general direction?

Date: 2006/05/24 05:19:00, Link
Author: Fross
from UD
"You know the battle is getting ugly when the Darwinist camp engages in Rollinian poetry."


They're on to us.  They found out that our great leader R. Dawkins sent orders to Rollins to create some Darwinian poetry.  It's the first step listed in our "Nail in the Coffin" document.  Hopefully they won't find out about step five which requires Darwin's image to be incorporated into the McDonald's logo.

Date: 2006/05/30 12:12:41, Link
Author: Fross
on the 0-100 scale, I just don't see teaching about god as making it on the chart.  It's usually taught as a sincere belief.

I guarantee that every action a parent does can be considered child abuse by someone else.  "OH my god, they let them play outside in the dangerous world.  Child abuse!!"  or "Oh my god, they make them stay inside all day to watch TV and get fat.  Child abuse!"   I bet my family thinks it's child abuse that I'm not taking my kids to church.

Date: 2006/06/01 09:44:18, Link
Author: Fross
this show aired the Padian story yesterday, yet they forgot to mention that the story was made up and an apology was made.

As a bonus the commentator preacher dude exposes his vast knowledge of evolution theory.  (at 35.55 minutes into the show)  It's so bad it's entertaining!!!

MP3 of show

edit "funday equals fundy"   heh

Date: 2006/06/09 19:48:22, Link
Author: Fross
Demski is known to post links to news stories with the words "intelligent design" in them to make it seem like I.D. is making headway.  (even though the articles themselves lend absolutely no support to I.D)   Changing the term to "Intelligent Evolution"  will allow him to start doing the same thing to news stories and articles on evolution.  The research supporing I.E. as opposed to I.D. will automatically increase 100 fold.


I also love the creationist way of doing science.

1.  Propose hypothesis
2.  Wait 5-10 years without testing hypothesis
3.  Rename hypothesis
4.  Wait 5-10 years without testing hypothesis
5.  Rename hypothesis

ad infinitum

Date: 2006/06/29 05:45:49, Link
Author: Fross
nah, I'm well aware of the whale transition fossils.  The only way to deny whale evolution is to be ignorant of the evidence.  (which most of the posts over there clearly show)  I was just trying to logically present what the evidence would HAVE to look like, so one day when they get lost and find themselves in a natural history museum, or if their remote control batteries run out and the channel gets stuck on a nature program on whales, they may just have that moment of realization.   Actually who am I kidding.  I was just being a smart ass for the sake of it.  heh

Date: 2006/06/29 18:46:49, Link
Author: Fross
it's always feels so dirty when fundy groups try to dress up their propoganda to look like something else.  It's the same feeling Stryper gave me back in the 80's.

Date: 2006/08/11 16:31:30, Link
Author: Fross
Wow, I just read that one post by Dembski about the "materialism" predictions.  Anyways, it got me to thinking about the concept of teleportation Star Trek style.

The fictional concept of teleporation breaks down your body into atoms, or possibly some kind of quantum breakdown and beams you to another place.  Then it rebuilds you.  A strict "materialist" would see this process as something that kills you, and then beams information to build an exact replica of your original self.(with memories and all)  To all observers other than your original self, you wouldn't have died.  Even your new replica would be convinced he/she was the original you, and no one would mourn the loss of your original self.  In fact I can't think of a scientific experiment that would verify that the original you ceased to exist and the new replica was a newly created being with replicated false memories.

A non-materialist would believe the soul got transported and all if fine and dandy.

Date: 2006/09/06 20:07:17, Link
Author: Fross
I read today that 75 "academics"  are coming out in support of 911 being an inside job done by people in the White House. (Project for a New American Century)  
This reminded me of the DI always touting their list of  "scientists" who are anti-evolution.  

The problem with conspiracies is they don't work. (unless it's the CIA or a gang of Chuck Norris clones)  Humans make too many mistakes.  Look at the efforts of the D.I.  They had their Wedge strategy and their hidden agendas.  By all definitions it was a conspiracy type project and look at how miserably that failed.  To think that a group could wire 3 buildings to explode and pull it off successfully is pretty absurd.

Date: 2006/09/07 15:47:05, Link
Author: Fross
I find it odd that a site called “stop lying to us” is making such an incorrect comparison.
-Fross


let me clarify.   Odd yet very expected and unsurprising.

Date: 2006/09/11 16:59:05, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2006,21:10)
If you accept what scientists say about science, you're just a dumb conformist, Denyse O'Leary tells us.

bonus tardity: the 'An anonymous scientist privately confirms the persecution' nonsense. Who does she think she is, Paul Nelson*?

---------------------------

* is it Nelson that usually makes that claim? I can't remember.

I actually have an entire family of I.D. "scientists" hiding out/living in my attic.  One of them is writing a diary as we speak.

Date: 2006/09/29 07:06:31, Link
Author: Fross
creationism/ID really bugs me.  Mainly because I grew up in a family/environment where it was always an issue in one way or another.  
But lately I've been getting far too many mass emails about things like 911 conspiracies, and UFO conspiracies (Discloser Project) and I think they actually bug me more.  I swear if I read "well they all though Galileo was wrong too!" I'm going to ummm, type in all caps or something.  (I'll do it!;)  

I have my reasons, but why do you guys single out creationism out of all the pseudo science gooblygook out there?

Date: 2006/11/01 05:37:09, Link
Author: Fross
YEC and OECism is fossilized. (ironically killed by I.D. sucking away the attention)

I.D. is dead.

"Teach the Controversy" is still alive.

Date: 2006/12/13 12:04:46, Link
Author: Fross
it was a brilliant move by the ACLU.  I think they've been breeding Judge Jones for quite some time.  The fact that they were able to manipulate events so that Bush could appoint him, and the way they got that school board to actively promote ID with church funding in that same district was superb.  The ACLU are grand puppeteers indeed.  They deserve more flash animations.

Date: 2007/01/23 21:31:30, Link
Author: Fross
ID is dead at a political level, but on a cultural level it is not.  My father, (a now retired biology teacher) had to constantly deal with parents who felt justified to cause all sorts of havoc on him and his school because they read some creationist/ID misinformation.  Public schools all over the US are purposely bipassing teaching evolution and even old earth geology in an attempt to make the school year go more smoothly.  Science education is still suffering big time.

Countering that misinformation is going to be a fulltime task and if you only educate one parent somewhere, that's one less parent a public school teacher has to deal with.

Kudos on your bookstore talk!!!

Date: 2007/02/07 12:15:18, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (djmullen @ Feb. 07 2007,00:45)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2007,15:46)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2007,16:09)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38571

Please, kids, pack up your houseboats and go.

I would love to see Christian Exodus become really successful. Nothing would make me happier than for 10 million theocrat freakazoids to both remove themselves from our political system, and take the worst state in the union off our hands. That would kill two birds with one stone. Probably wouldn't be the last thing they killed with stones, either.

Sadly, I don't think enough wackos will bother.

Our Big Mistake was fighting the Civil War.  Every immoral nut in the country LEFT the country and we fought the most expensive (in human lives) war in our history to bring them back.  BIG mistake!

This time, we'll say "Yes!" to secession and spend what we otherwise would have wasted on a New Civil War on building a really, really big fence.  I'm thinking of a fence about a hundred feet high with foundations sunk at least 100 feet into the ground.  We'll plant minefields about a mile deep on both sides of the fence, put guard towers with machine guns every 100 feet or so and every one of our nuclear missiles will be targeted where they will do the most good.

P.S. Does anybody know why the Original Bible Belt consisted solely of the slave states?  Because Southern style chattel slavery was 100% Biblically Approved.  Enslave foreigners?  Check.  Own them?  Check.  Kill them if you want to?  Check. (only let them live a day or two after the beating)  Own the slave's children?  Check.  And their wives?  Check.  Leave them to your children when you die?  Check.  Don't believe me, Dave Heddle?  Just ask and I'll quote chapter and verse.  Check!

you don't need to build a big fence.  Just place all your museums and libraries along the border.  They won't go near it.   *edit* and you may want to have a "no fast food zone" along the border as well.  Tards like to eat the fried stuff.

Date: 2007/02/26 14:40:33, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 26 2007,12:02)
Some vintage GilDodgen tard over at UD:
           
Quote
Here’s a thought about anthropic “coincidences.” Michael Denton, in his book Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (a tour de force which cannot be summarized here), points out that if metals could not have been smelted and refined at temperatures reachable through carbon-based fire, technology could never have arisen.

wow, that's like saying if someone didn't build a highway between my house and my job, I couldn't have gotten to work today.

In reality I would have just taken another route.


these guys are the smart.

Date: 2007/03/02 12:23:05, Link
Author: Fross
So I was thinking about the political movement called ID/creationism.  

If the over-use of anti-biotics can lead to super-germs, can we eventually breed the ultimate creationist political machine?  

So far the fossil evidence suggest this is the trend (adapting by increased mimicry):

Creationism  
Creation Science
Intelligent Design
Teach the Controversy

The largest environmental pressures seem to be the court rulings, and while the courts are never fooled by these new incarnations of creationism, they grow increasingly more palpable to the public.  The courts may not be the only selective pressure either.  Perhaps our daily monitoring and commentary on the ID movement is allowing them to test new strategies and weed out the weakest ones before they even get to the next court case. (they really do produce their own rope if you leave them alone)

Maybe it's my lack of imagination but I can't possibly imagine what could come after "teach the controversy", maybe it's an evolutionary dead-end.  

whadda ya think?

Date: 2007/03/05 15:15:03, Link
Author: Fross
ID predicts that there will always be gaps in scientific knowledge.

*for me to poop on*

Date: 2007/03/06 10:01:14, Link
Author: Fross
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 05 2007,17:46)
Quote (Jake @ Mar. 05 2007,11:23)
Oh, Im sure it can, but its just that its getting boring. Ive been following the whole C/E debate for about 6-7 years now, and Ive seen way more interesting creationist arguments than UD is currently offering.

Heck, I've been in this game since 1982, and haven't seen anything new from ANY of them during that entire time.

Yes.  Creationists actually made testable claims that were fun weekend projects to demolish (back when there was no internet to help out so easily.)   I swear that a lot of stuff I've learned in science was in response to challenging their outlandish claims.  (the Gish era)

The ID stuff is completely empty and there's hardly any substance other than trying to correct their understanding of evolution.  I find myself debating 911 conspiracy theories and crop circle believers more these days.

Date: 2007/03/08 16:35:12, Link
Author: Fross
the taint of ID???


ewwwaa!!

Date: 2007/03/13 09:58:52, Link
Author: Fross
i find no faults with non-extremist religions, but I do think it's strange that if religion is even questioned, it's seen as an attack.  (ie James Cameron's new pseudo-scientific documentary)  I also don't like how certain aspects of it are left un-touchable by modern society.  For instance, once someone gives a religious reason/excuse of why they're doing something, we're expected to accept that without question. (a religious sect can legally do mushrooms for their ceremony, meanwhile someone dying of cancer can't smoke a blunt to relieve some pain)

If religion is to exist in modern society, it needs to take more of a rational approach to itself and cut back on most of the mysticism.

Date: 2007/03/14 09:19:26, Link
Author: Fross
I have a couple of kids and my four year old was watching Between the Lions and they had an entire episode devoted to explaining how birds are probably descended from dinosaurs.  I'm just not used to seeing child educational programs go beyond a few common educational themes that typically don't involve evolution.

Have any of you had similar sightings of evolution in kids programming?

Date: 2007/03/22 16:48:19, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 22 2007,13:09)
There will of course be a creation science 3.0; with new players, and new phrases for old concepts.

from the looks of UD, I think they're moving on to global warming.  Maybe they can stick the wedge in there.

Date: 2007/03/30 20:54:03, Link
Author: Fross
i had my AC repaired today. They had a coupon for 10 dollars off the order, but in order to get it, I had to quote a bible verse from Romans. (the verse was written on the coupon)  

I love the south!!

Date: 2007/03/30 21:13:41, Link
Author: Fross
another book to milk the fundy homeschool crowd for all they're worth.

Date: 2007/04/02 12:28:47, Link
Author: Fross
From UD

"But the fact is, the rearrangement of atoms into human brains and computers and the Internet does not violate any recognized law of science except the second law, so how can we discuss evolution without mentioning the one scientific law that applies?"

Are they seriously using the 2nd LOT argument this blatantly?  Last week they used the giraffe neck, and Egnor is writing posts that say "I believe that God created us and all that exists, and that he holds us all in existence".    

At this point they aren't even putting on the cheap tuxedo anymore.

Date: 2007/04/16 12:04:54, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,18:36)
Quote (argystokes @ April 15 2007,19:30)
Well there's something we have in common. For me, there's something in some chocolate that tastes like peanuts too... that "you shouldn't be eating this" taste. But I definitely don't actually have the physical reaction to it. Ever had that happen?

No, not to chocolate, which never fails to be yummy. The only other thing that provokes that itchy taste are certain kinds of hard cheese. I don't know what kinds off hand, but a small percentage of them have a real annoying itchiness to the tongue.

growing up, i could never eat hot dogs or sausage without getting a dull head-ache.  Unfortunately my son inherited this as well.

Date: 2007/04/16 16:13:10, Link
Author: Fross
there's still a large misconception about what evolution is.  For instance, most everyone I know accepts it, but they'll commonly say things that are closer to the cartoon version of evolution than the real thing.  (Cartoon version being something you'd see on the movie Evolution or in a Star Trek episode.)

Date: 2007/04/16 22:30:09, Link
Author: Fross
growing up in a southern town, going to a S. Baptist church and private school, I had my share of creationist teachings.  Luckily my father, while very religious, majored in anthropology and biology and was public school biology teacher.  I grew up with evolution being as much a part of reality as the theory of gravity and I always thought of the creationism stuff as the extremist views that come with any religion. (even in a S. Baptist church you have your moderates who snicker at the home schoolers)  Even at the young age of 10, I was sometimes annoyed at how bad the creationist arguments were.  At that time, most of them were young earthers, so it was REALLY bad.  

When I got to college and had access to the internet, I ran into someone on a science site that was using all the same YEC arguments I heard as a kid.  We debated over email for years until we realized we were going in circles and we eventually stopped communicating, but I still posted on talk.origins and a few other evo/creation debate forums.  (i think one was carm.org??)  A link on talk.origins led me to the Pandasthumb and they kept referencing Uncommondescent and there seemed to be this feud between the two sites.    I goto PT for some great news tidbits and to get the latest news on the failings of the ID movement.  I goto UD for curiosity, amusement and at one time I had this naive hope that they want to pursue ID in a scientific manner. Since the Dover defeat, they've revealed themselves for what they truly are and that hope is no more.

Date: 2007/05/07 11:21:36, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (edmund @ May 07 2007,10:47)
Quote
This is an abuse of science, and UD will stand against it in whatever form it takes.

I am pleased to hear that Dr. Dembski and UD will finally be standing up to the HIV denialism of folks like Phil Johnson and Jonathan Wells.

Or does HIV denialism not qualify as "abuse of science"?

If you put your 6 year old child to work at the factory, it's considered child abuse, just like putting science to work is science abuse.

Clearly things like YECism, HIV denialism, and ID are examples of science not being abused.  (or used at all for that matter)

Date: 2007/05/11 22:48:25, Link
Author: Fross
with Seti and every other subject that deals with finding "design", we are able to pinpoint a location of the source of design.  With Seti we would be able to name a star system and a time frame of when the intelligent message was sent, and while we may not be capable of finding out who sent it, it's still a physical possibility that we could.
 
In every single field that deals with design, we can also find the when, where, how, and even the who.  ID is the only field that has no method whatsoever of finding the when, where, how and even the who of what they considered to be an intelligenct cause.  This is what happens when you propose supernatural explanations that lead absolutely no where.  ID can't be compared to SETI because of this.

Date: 2007/05/18 13:50:06, Link
Author: Fross
speaking of not so bright middle school students:

my dad taught biology to middle schoolers and one student asked him when color came around.  My dad was a little confused and had the student clarify.  The student said "well wasn't everything black and white when you were a kid?  When did color appear on earth?"   He casually answered that color appeared halfway through the first screening of the Wizard of Oz and the world was amazed.

Date: 2007/09/04 10:27:21, Link
Author: Fross
I usually try to stay in lurker mode, but sometimes the tard is just too much.  I read O'Realy's gem on neoteny and how she thinks there's a conspiracy of sorts to keep creationists from learning about it.  I suppose if we keep hiding the subject of neoteny in science books, we can assume she won't learn about it.


From O'Leary,

"Hmmm. We hear plenty about Darwin?s natural selection, but almost nothing about neoteny. And, to the extent that Dawkins was counting on our ignorance of neoteny, why SHOULD he bother to read Edge of Evolution before discouraging others from reading it?"


How can she be ignorant of such a simple concept like neoteny? (and somehow conclude that Dawkins was depending on her ignorance of it)  I'm pretty sure that even Richard Dawkins discusses neoteny in the Ancestors Tale and perhaps Blind Watchmaker.  Maybe she should "bother" to read some books herself.

Date: 2007/09/10 23:00:17, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 10 2007,22:03)
Quote

Do you think the younger races have more information for skin color than the younger races?


I wonder, is the "information" to which this refers simply the amount of melanin being produced in the skin?

If so, then even if that quantity is larger or smaller in one races than in another, how is that more or less "information"?

It's not like the lighter races don't have melanin at all; doesn't everybody (except albinos) have some of it?

Henry

In the summer, I use sunscreen with an SPF of 50.  It blocks the extra information from getting to me.

Date: 2007/09/11 13:35:52, Link
Author: Fross
UD has been very entertaining lately.


TARD

Janice says

"After years of discussing evolution with thoroughgoing evolutionists I came to the conclusion that trying to bog opponents down in the minutiae of research findings is one of their favourite debating tactics."

Date: 2007/09/18 13:05:34, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 18 2007,00:56)
Has this been said yet?

Game... Set... Match

Peerless

For everything else there's mastercard.
':p'

I read this is as:

"For everything else there's mastertard"

I've been on here far too long.

Date: 2007/11/16 14:31:23, Link
Author: Fross
yea, I voted encourage as well.  I'm curious to see what real ID research would look like.

Date: 2008/03/13 20:46:49, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 11 2008,13:19)
It's better than that.  After the fundies see it on opening day*, the negative reviews will come out, no-one else shows up, and they'll start showing it in church basements.  The marketing will then be "Expelled was #7 on opening weekend, before the Evil Darwinist/Atheist/Nazi/Stalinist Conspiracy produced all those scathing reviews and got it thrown out of commercial cinemas.  See the film THEY don't want you to see."  Ka-ching! Thank you very much!





* I'm not convinced this will be enough people to give it more than a half-decent opening weekend.  "The strongest opening weekend ever" is going to be well out of reach.


[edit - fixed a couple of sloppy word choices.  Either too much coffee this morning, or not enough.]

It will make for a good sequel.

"Expelled Expelled"

Date: 2008/03/13 20:52:19, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Mar. 04 2008,08:46)
Ben Stein writes in today's WingNutDaily: Charles Darwin:  Imperialism's pawn

[quote]

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

quote]

I'd suggest that the misunderstanding of evolution gave rise to these atrocities.  Just like the same misunderstandings give rise to the ID movement and movies hosted by D list actors.

Date: 2008/04/16 11:56:30, Link
Author: Fross
i work at a company (non-science related) and no one knows who Ken Ham is, yet when PZ Myers got booted from the movies the link was forwarded to the entire company.  

I think the Ken Ham type creationism is a small bubble of people (yet a seemingly dense bubble)

Date: 2008/06/30 19:39:23, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Chayanov @ June 30 2008,11:59)
Quote
Add a banana to yout milk for a perfectly designed shake.


Isn't it amazing how the glass is perfectly designed to hold the shake? Therefore, God!

You have that backwards.  The shake is perfectly shaped to fit into the glass.  

Therefore God.

Date: 2008/07/30 21:59:06, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 18 2008,03:17)
Quote (bfish @ July 18 2008,02:58)
And can we get a show of hands....... how many people have read damn near every word of part I of the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread? I would be one. I'm sure I haven't missed more than 20 or 30 pages - and possibly none. Rather daunting, really, in retrospect.

*Raises hand

I don't comment frequently, but I was watching from the start.

And I also agree with earlier comments that just when you think UD can't keep up the level of tard - it does!

(Comment mostly added just to get onto the 1st page of this thread)

i'm a daily lurker and have been for years.

Date: 2008/10/21 20:25:29, Link
Author: Fross
sorry.  I leave TX for a few years and it all goes to sh@#

I think we're doing alright here in NC though.  :)

Date: 2009/03/10 21:17:38, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 10 2009,21:07)
Take a deep breath, Denyse.  Here.  Lie down.  Don't fluster yourself.  My stars you gave us a scare there, didn't you?   I'll just shut the door now.  Gently.  You rest awhile.  Mmmkay?  Mmmkay.

those walls are padded for your protection.

Date: 2009/10/22 10:06:55, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 21 2009,21:57)
Wow - Gil's man crush gets even stronger:  
Quote
David Berlinski is a rare treasure, a true Homme de la Renaissance (French for a man of the rebirth – how interesting) in an age when very few such people exist. He speaks multiple languages; knows classical music, history, theology, mathematics; and can think and analyze on many levels. This combination of talents is extremely rare, and his willingness defy the powers that be is even more rare.

David knows which questions to ask (questions never asked or even considered by Darwinists), such as, “What would it take to re-engineer a car into a submarine?” This concerns the evolution of a land mammal into a sea-dwelling mammal. A few purported transitional fossils provide no insight into the efficacy of the Darwinian mechanism to account for the relevant engineering requirements.

Last, but not least, David is as eloquent, incisive, clever, iconoclastic, and humorous in person as he is in print.

My (snicker, giggle) bolding.

OMG.  How does a car become a submarine?

Date: 2009/10/22 22:54:55, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Reg @ Oct. 22 2009,16:20)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 22 2009,15:23)
   
Quote (Fross @ Oct. 23 2009,03:06)

OMG.  How does a car become a submarine?

For those that missed it first time around, oleaginous narcissist Homme de la Renaissance Berlinski gives his car-to-submarine analogy here.
In a twofer, he includes the now classic the "I stopped at 50,000 changes" line.

Has David Berlinksi ever shown his workings for the "50,000 changes" claim? And why not? Are we to believe that he's said this, which has made him rich and famous, but he hasn't kept the original notes? I think we should start a competition to find the original workings of Berlinksi's "50,000 changes" claim. Winner gets a copy of a Denyse O'Leary book. Runner-up gets two Denyse O'Leary books.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bedded#    

Someone figured it out, but I'm left confused.  Is this a win for Darwinism?   I also saw a jeep with a jeep snorkel once, but it was only halfway in the water.

I like Berlinski's example of getting a cow to turn into a whale.  A list with 50,000 items is quite impressive.  This brings up another good question.   What would it take to turn a *ahem* banana into a raven?  Darwinists have never asked this question nor come up with a list.  What are they hiding!?

Date: 2009/10/28 21:28:08, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 28 2009,21:15)
Quote (Maya @ Oct. 28 2009,17:33)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 28 2009,17:41)
   
Quote
* What does evolution have to say about our being able to make a virus from scratch?

And does somebody really have an itch to do that?

It would be pretty rash.

I'm psoriasis a head-scratcher.

I'll get me coat.

This kind of humor is so infectious.

Date: 2009/11/05 21:13:25, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Arts Myth @ Nov. 05 2009,10:58)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 05 2009,10:15)
   
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 05 2009,07:36)
Yet one more string to add to that talented bow.  Author, consitutional consultant, and now ... textbook editor.  Can anyone say "Jack of all trades ... "
         
Quote

3
O'Leary
11/05/2009
8:59 am

As a sometime textbook editor with an excellent reputation, I would say that we must be clear, who are the final users? The students.

"Jack-off. Halt raids"

"Masturbate nuns."

She is sofa king we todd did.

Date: 2009/11/10 23:13:10, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 10 2009,12:51)
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk

Date: 2010/12/07 00:05:10, Link
Author: Fross
wow, UD can rarely get 20 comments to any post, but you bring up the "homosexual agenda" and it quickly sky-rockets to 125 comments with some of the most vile anti-gay rhetoric I've seen in a while.  
I will no longer be visiting that site for the same reasons I don't visit other hate speech sites.  (it gets my blood boiling)

Date: 2011/07/19 10:18:23, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (J-Dog @ July 19 2011,08:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 18 2011,16:33)
House Husband from Texas:

http://www.digitpress.com/library....er.html

Excellent!  

Questions:
1.  How in the hell did you manage to find this?
2.  How surprised are we that someone that designs things for a living, backs a loser idea like ID?

I've been in the video game biz since 1994 (currently lead animator at Epic Games).    Luckily I've never had to work with someone with such an ego!   It seems his fact checking skills haven't improved over the years.  

Carmack is still making games. Most recently he ported a version of Rage over to the iPhone.

Date: 2011/09/07 09:34:41, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 06 2011,17:48)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2011,14:03)
I don't know if this has been posted, but the new Koonin book is available free for download At Amazon. If you non't have a Kindle, you can download a free reader.

The News at UD is rather stupidly touting it as an ID friendly book.

Details here:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....freebie

That is putting is mildly. Quote from Koonin's book:

"Of course, ID is malicious nonsense"

Bwahaha

Did  de News really just get excited over a new book on evolution because it knocks over her cartoon understanding of "Darwinism"?  

Too bad she doesn't read beyond the cover slips.   It seems most of her anti-Darwin rage was based on her understanding of the Selfish Gene book cover.  (according to her, that's the gene that makes us act selfishly and therefore evolve)

Date: 2011/09/09 15:32:55, Link
Author: Fross
Nice, a video game thread!!!

ya know, you should all check out this really awesome game called Gears of War 3.   ;)    I'm not just saying that because I've spent the last 8 years working on the trilory or anything.   It's just a good game!     :p

Date: 2011/11/02 00:09:47, Link
Author: Fross
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 01 2011,09:59)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 01 2011,09:55)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 01 2011,13:51)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 01 2011,06:45)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 01 2011,07:17)
   
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 31 2011,09:30)
Sorry, that was GinoB, not Chas D.

This is amazing!  From the same archy thread, BA77 has a link to a video that's actually worth watching!!

http://www.dogwork.com/owfo8......8....o8

An owl, flying directly towards the camera at 1000 frames per second.  I pity any small rodents that ever see a sight like this.

Owls are proof that God hates mice.

Yeah he doesn't give a hoot.

Wisecracks like that will put you in contempt of parliament ...

Flocking hell! That was a stretch. Made me screech it did.

Louis

I don't know, I think he's got a talon for puns.

Who?

 ;>

 

 

 

=====