AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Ftk

form_srcid: Ftk

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Ftk

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Ftk%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/04/02 11:58:35, Link
Author: Ftk

The reason I haven't put your comments through is because I've been watching you ridicule me here and at RSR while at the same time trying to act as though you are interested in carrying on a sincere conversation with me on my blog.

I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.

I had been putting every single one of your comments through, although your first attempt at conversation with me was to refer to me as "Eff" the kids.  I looked past it and thought perhaps you really were interested in understanding the general public and how they feel about these issues.  

But, since then I've found that you are not sincere.  

I have your comments waiting on hold and have not deleted them.  If I ever feel that you are making an attempt at sincerity again, I'll put them through.

I very much enjoyed our conversations when you displayed some semblance of respect for me.  

Any of you who take the time to go through my blog archives will see that I regularly carry on lengthy conversations with those who treat me with respect.

Date: 2007/04/02 12:59:10, Link
Author: Ftk
That's incorrect.  You didn't start posting here when I decided to put your comments on hold.  Your first post appeared some time ago, and I overlooked that one.  Your second post came when I signed up here.

Apparently, for some strange reason, you felt that would be a good time to come in here and join in the juvenile attacks on people whose views differ from their own.

I'd imagine it was an ego thing.  You saw that they were congratulating the "Dave" who was discussing various issues with me, and you decided to let them know it was you.  That way you could receive your accolades in person.

BTW, it's interesting that you bring up DaveScot and act as if I would allow him to ridicule others merely because he supports ID.  I believe you probably recall that I don't allow ridicule regardless of who it's coming from.

BTW, I signed up here for occasions such as this.  If I feel I am being unjustly accused of something by various posters in this forum, I may choose to comment on it.

Date: 2007/04/02 13:10:16, Link
Author: Ftk

I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either.

Miraculously, after months of not being able to post at PT, suddenly I'm allowed to comment again.

You may believe that only ID blogs moderate or ban because obviously that is where you're most likely to be banned from posting.  I doubt you'd find yourself in the position of being banned at an anti-ID blog or forum.

Date: 2007/04/02 13:19:52, Link
Author: Ftk
Thanks for the welcome, Richard.  

My contributions to this forum will be sparse.  I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.

Date: 2007/04/02 13:43:33, Link
Author: Ftk

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

Date: 2007/04/02 14:15:40, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave wrote:
“My first post addressing you directly, which is what I thought we were talking about, came after you blocked my comments.”

This is the first sentence in your second post here:

“Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet!”

I noticed another post soon after that one, so at that point I started holding your comments on my blog.

you wrote:
“When my comments were going through on your blog, I didn't post here. When they stopped going through, this seemed like an appropriate place to comment.”

Your comment I highlighted above came *before* I started holding your comments on my blog.  Of course no one here will take my word for it, but in your first post you did not mention that I had banned you, neither did you state that I wasn’t responding to you.  

I actually enjoyed our conversations and I had thought you were sincere.  I was mistaken.

Date: 2007/04/02 14:20:52, Link
Author: Ftk

You might notice that DaveScot got the point.  I haven't seen anything inappropriate since that post.

Date: 2007/04/02 14:59:01, Link
Author: Ftk
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed.  

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

Date: 2007/04/02 15:43:30, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave wrote:
“What part of "addressing you directly" is unclear to you?”

It was very clear that you were trying to get around the topic at hand.  I merely decided to stick to the original conversation and emphasize why I am not putting your comments through moderation at my blog.

you wrote:
“Was that post addressing you directly (i.e. commenting on things you said on your blog)? Or was it addressed to Richard and J-Dog and others? Since I was the one writing it, I'll have to vote for door #2 and conclude that I was not, at least in my own mind, addressing you directly.”

It really makes no difference who you were addressing.  It’s irrelevant.  You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others.  It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue.

“You can bet that I am sincere; I sincerely desire a better understanding of the issues, both for me and for you. I don't know how insincerity can be the accusation when I post public messages on blogs that I know you read. How sneaky is that? “

It’s not “sneaky” at all.  Obviously, I can come here and read all of your comments about me as you join in with others who are prone to inappropriate ridicule.   It shows me that you aren’t sincere, because if you were, you would find more appropriate venues in which to discuss the scientific issues surrounding this debate.

Date: 2007/04/02 15:55:53, Link
Author: Ftk

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, here.

Date: 2007/04/02 16:16:05, Link
Author: Ftk
"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. "

Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum.

Date: 2007/04/02 18:03:49, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave wrote:
"that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. "

Yes Dave, you caught me in an error.  Obviously, I should not have used the word hypothesis in that particular example, though it would be useless to try to convince you that I do know what the word means.  It's one of the first things you learn in high school biology class, so I'd guess that most people are able to use that particular word appropriately.    

You and I both know that I wrote three lengthy posts that evening in response to some of your comments.  You also know (because I mentioned it) that I fell asleep with my laptop still in my lap that night because I was up too late putting together responses to your posts like I promised I would.  Some of you seem to have an excessive amount of time to spend in these Internet blogs and forums whereas I have a life outside of cyberspace and have to squeeze in time when I can.  I was tired and made an error - simple as that.

I also remember that you used the word "prove" when talking about scientific evidence one time, and you know that the word "prove" in not appropriate in that type of discussion.  So, we all make mistakes occasionally.

Granted, I would hope that I don't know as much about science as you do seeing as you are a biology professor.  But, nonetheless, I think I have the right to discuss these issues and also consider the position of your opponents as well.  Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

I'm sure it is comforting to believe that everyone who disagrees with you simply "doesn't understand how science works", but I have a hard time believing that to be true.

Date: 2007/04/02 18:18:49, Link
Author: Ftk
Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.  Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me.  I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.

Date: 2007/04/02 18:36:45, Link
Author: Ftk
Stevestory wrote:

"FtK, you don't seem interested in discussing the science, just in badmouthing us."

Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear as to my reason for being here?  I'm certainly not here to "discuss science" with any of you.  

I've been reading threads here for some time now due to my sitemeter picking up on your regulars who apparently found it thrilling to post rude comments on my blog.  Before that time, I didn't even know this place existed.  Obviously, there is nothing of value coming from this site.

I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.

Date: 2007/04/02 18:49:50, Link
Author: Ftk

I really have no idea how posting that supports your case.  You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.

Date: 2007/04/02 18:59:53, Link
Author: Ftk
Stevestory wrote:
"FtK--so you don't want to discuss science, just insult us, and your insult is that we don't want to discuss science, just insult you. Wow."

Is what I'm writing insulting to you?  I was merely stating facts.  But, if you do consider them insults, wouldn't I fit right in with the rest of you.  That's what you do, correct?  And, many of you have said that your demeanor is appropriate, so why the big "Wow" at the end of your sentence?

Date: 2007/04/02 19:03:38, Link
Author: Ftk
Not a problem, Lenny.  Consider it done.

Date: 2007/04/02 19:16:37, Link
Author: Ftk
Stevestory wrote:

“So what are you here to do, FtK? What's your goal?”

Goal?  Need there be a goal when entering this forum?  It seems to me that the conversations here are merely sporadic posts on nothing of particular interest.

I entered the forum to counter Dave’s assumptions as to why his comments were not showing up on my blog.  He apparently thought it was due to an enlightening revelation which led me to the “conclusion that [I] really do[n't] know squat about science“.

So, there you have it.  I provided Dave with the real reason why his posts aren’t making it past moderation, and at that point was flooded with further comments from the gang.

So, I’ll take my leave now and go enjoy a nice evening with my family.

Date: 2007/04/02 23:01:13, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 02 2007,22:08)
P.Z. Myers rejects the claim that FtK was banned at Pharyngula as well. He does say that FtK was put on notice there, but that is not banning.

Wesley, you might work harder on your reading comprehension.  I'll repeat what I said:

"I was banned from KCFS and PT, and PZ Myers doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through either."

I was banned from KCFS and I assume I was banned at PT because I was not able to post for months, and when I emailed admin., I received no response as to why I could not post.  I have just recently been able to get comments through again.  

I *never* claimed that PZ "banned" me.  I said he "doesn't allow some of my stuff to go through".  He has, on occasion, made my posts unreadable.  So they make it past moderation, but they have been messed with so that the words look like gibberish.

Date: 2007/04/03 13:54:03, Link
Author: Ftk

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Date: 2007/04/04 17:03:46, Link
Author: Ftk wonder there are so many engineers who support ID.

Date: 2007/04/04 20:47:51, Link
Author: Ftk
"I view FTK (and all the other IDers) as entertainment value.  Nothing more."

Jeez, Lenny, I was just thinking the same thing about this blog.  

I've been highly entertained the last couple days watching you guys act like complete goofballs.  Some of you are just weird, but a few of you are actually pretty funny.

But, Dave's right.  I really should be getting back to my own blog and work on my review of the Humes lecture.

Date: 2007/04/04 20:53:45, Link
Author: Ftk
Wouldn't discussions about actual science be kind of out of place in this forum?  I don't see much serious stuff being discussed around here.  

But, I can stick around and shoot the shit with ya for a while.

How old are you Richard?  Just curious.

Date: 2007/04/04 21:23:07, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,21:10)
There are members of this forum who are biologists, physicists, geneticists, microbiologists, geologists, chemists, zoologists, engineers, programmers, a girl from the NIH...there are frigging linguists here, for chrissakes. We got everything. You wanna talk about a scientific question? Just ask. AFDave's been gone for like 2 months. We need a little scientific red meat to chew on.

Darlin', the last time I started asking questions in a science forum, I became addicted to that forum for 2 1/2 years.  

My husband actually suggested that I change my screen name from FtK to OCD.

Date: 2007/04/04 21:36:08, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,21:11)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
Jeez, Lenny

I, uh, asked you not to speak to me, since you've already made it clear that you're not willing to discuss anything substantive.

So please STFUAGA.


Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.  

I gotta ask you you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?

Date: 2007/04/04 21:41:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,21:37)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:36)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,21:11)
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,20:47)
Jeez, Lenny

I, uh, asked you not to speak to me, since you've already made it clear that you're not willing to discuss anything substantive.

So please STFUAGA.


Hey, Lenny, guess what?  They won't ban me I can pretty much say whatever I want to whomever I want to say it to.

Pretty cool, huh?  Gosh, this could actually be fun.  

I gotta ask you you think that anyone in cyberspace actually takes you seriously or do you surf these forums merely to provide comic relief?

You are accountable to yourself, of course.

LOL,  and how are you doing with that self-accountability thing, Richard?

Date: 2007/04/04 21:57:09, Link
Author: Ftk
"Pretty much just don't straight-up insult people."

I don't "straight-up" insult people.  It's just not in me.

But, I'm really not into chatting about science with ya.  I've been doing that gig for years in other pro-evolution forums, and I think I've heard just about every argument for and against ID and evolution numerous times now.  

I find it much more interesting trying to figure out what makes you people tick.  You're such a snarly bunch of folks.

Date: 2007/04/04 22:42:04, Link
Author: Ftk
"Wow.  Can you please stick around long enough to make this a TOP 10 list?"

Not a problem, blipey.  Here are your last 8 of 10:

I can’t discuss science with you because...

8.  Apparently there are a lot of homos around here, and everyone knows that conservative Christians have homophobia.

7.  I fear further wrath from PZ due to my comment that “biology isn’t rocket science”.  God knows the man actually believes that biologists are at the top of the professional food chain.

6.  Atheists scare the bejesus out of me.

5.  J-Dog keeps referring to me as someone with an “expansive backside”.

4.  Dave has already offered everything he’s got in defense of common descent, and I still think it’s a crock.

3.  I’m afraid k.e. will expect me to “lickalottapussie”.

2.  I’m frightened that I might actually become attracted to Richard Hughes (I was always a sucker for the bad boys).

1.  I’m scared to death that Lenny will end up wanting to sleep with me.  That would be a fate worse than death.

Date: 2007/04/06 13:35:28, Link
Author: Ftk
ROTFLMAO...I knew you'd like that one, Richard.

Date: 2007/04/06 13:44:24, Link
Author: Ftk

[whispering to Kristine]

What's your going rate for a few quick shimmie lessons?

[/whispering to Kristine]

Date: 2007/04/06 14:02:25, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 06 2007,13:50)

Keep up the good work. A few more comments here and you will be become "one of them", forcing you to ban yourself from your own blog.

OMG, you're right...the atheist mentality is oozing into my subconcious.  It's Richard's fault for luring me in here with his overwhelming sexual prowess.  

I will fight this urge to go where no true conservative Christian has gone before.

Date: 2007/04/06 14:12:39, Link
Author: Ftk
"If you're beliefs are true, then examining them and other viewpoints should only ultimately make you more sure. The fact that theism discourages inspection should be a big red flag."

I've spent years examining the evidence for various religious beliefs.  If there is a religion that discourages inspection of their beliefs, then no doubt they are based on faith alone.  I do not base my beliefs in God on faith alone.  

You're right about one thing.  Examining other viewpoints has ultimately made me more sure about my own.

PS:  Yes, several - various you have a favorite?

Date: 2007/04/06 20:19:54, Link
Author: Ftk
I think it sucks...

Filter that.

Date: 2007/04/07 10:04:14, Link
Author: Ftk
Good grief...would you people mellow out.  I was just playing around.  Truth be told I've only glanced at the paper.  I've been too busy flirting with Richard.

For some insane reason, some of you actually think I'm going to dive in and discuss science with you when I made it extremely clear from the start that I have no intention of doing so.  

I've been there, done that in other forums for years and I've had my fill.  There is not a one of you in these forums who has an inkling of respect for anyone who does not agree with your position in this debate (and many of you seem completely blind to the truth).  That's fine, but I'm certainly not going to come in here and feed your intense and somewhat twisted desire to bash creationists.

I'll read the paper within the next few days because I find this stuff fascinating, but I'll do it when I have time.  I used to immediately read and respond to so much crap thrown at me in another forum that my family darn near disowned me due to my obsession with this topic.  There were usually 10-20 people on average responding to me and I felt compelled to answer every single comment.  Dave can attest to the fact that I like to have the last word on any given subject.  Psycho, I know, but it's just who I am.  

I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't been lured in --  I'm thinkin' you people are out recruiting creationists to munch on, and you send Richard out to find some poor unsuspecting target to lure back into the den.  Now, I find myself attracted to the lure and can't get back out again.

[ps...Kristine, sorry if my last post sounded snippy.  I certainly ~don't~ want you as my enemy.  We gals gotta stick together.  Girl power and all that.  If you be nice to me, I‘ll put in a good word for you next time I talk to Dembski.]

[pss..Louis, just fyi, I am definitely attracted to the swarthy demi-Greek description, but at the moment Richard has my heart.  Though it does sound as if you are the true scientist and he is not, so there is hope for you yet because, truth be told, the real reason I hang out in these forums is that little nerdy science types turn me on.  (Don‘t tell anybody).]

Date: 2007/04/07 12:39:56, Link
Author: Ftk
"Christian believers who have not met a lot of people from other cultures/traditions tend to think that other religions are just different flavors of Christianity and that drives me nuts."

Kristine, do any of you realize how atheists in these pro-Darwin forums seem to adhere to a strict steroetype of what they believe an IDist to be (ie. a Christian "fundie" who has no experience outside of the sancuary of their own church).  I joke around about atheists, but I know plenty and some are very good friends, but they don't treat me the way I'm treated by atheists I find in these forums.  And, none of my Christian friends have any desire to establish a theocracy or destroy the wall of separation.  

All this nonsense I see flying around in cyberspace is more hysteria than reality.  Sure, there are those Christians who are loud and nasty,  just as there are atheists who are loud and nasty, but I certainly don't believe that the majority of us (Christians or atheists) agree with everything they say.

"So don't talk to me about "truth" because I could pick any number of faith traditions if I was inclined to, and it wouldn't resemble yours, Dembski's, or Egnor's. From what I've seen I have a lot of choices.""

How do you know what my faith tradition looks like?  Seriously.  Christians came at these issues from different angles, so I'm not sure you have me completely figured out by exchanging a few posts with me.  

When I wrote the word "truth", I'm was talking about the whole scope of this debate - not merely religious truth.  

Oh, btw, I've only emailed Dembski twice, and I'm not sure the man is particularly fond of me.  But, he hasn't kicked me out of the big tent just yet.

Date: 2007/04/07 12:50:44, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,11:16)
Phhhh carlsonjok; I've still got it.

Let's give FtK a chance to read the paper and get back to us, then we can have a freindly discussion. I'll also quiz her more about her lingerie.

*pats FtK's arse, playfully*

Richard stop!  You are seriously turning me on, and I just don't have time to play today.  Quit luring me back in here wondering what you're going to say next.  

I need to try to figure out how in the heck to cook a humongous ham for an Easter shindig at my house tomorrow.  I'm guessing you just stick the sucker in the oven for 2 or 3 hours, but I'm a absolutely horrendous cook who rarely opens the oven door, so I've got to try to find a recipe book around here somewhere...

Date: 2007/04/07 19:40:32, Link
Author: Ftk
Only have a sec...

Dave, thanks for providing that link so that I don't have to keep repeating myself over and over, but this...

"(she has been told, and apparently believes, that accepting scientific reality in favor of the explanation from Genesis will turn her into an atheist)."

... is absolutely and positively false.  I do not believe this in any way, shape or form.  In fact, this is so not me that I am suppressing the urge to scream.  

First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO.  And, second, I absolutely *do not* believe that dismissing a certain interpretation of the book of Genesis "turn[s] a person into an atheist”.  Nor do I think that adhering to other religions make a person an atheist.  I simply do not believe that other religions provide as much evidence for their claims as Christianity does.

For instance, Jeremy (a regular at my blog) is a theistic evolutionist and buys into common descent and the whole nine yards.  He believes in God, and is certainly not an atheist.  The dude is a Christian, and after several private conversations with him, I've no doubt about his dedication to his belief in God.  We disagree about science, not the ultimate *reason* why we are Christians - though we do have different ideas regarding the term "faith".  

I don't have a problem with "evolution".  I understand the mechanisms, and I readily accept the empirical evidence that supports the theory.  

I have a problem accepting macroev. and common descent as "facts".  Btw, I've read talkorgins 29+ evidences for macroev. several times in the past, and I don't see the "facts" for the inference.  I see "facts" for microev. and inferences and just-so stories for macroev. that *may* be correct, but are certainly just as questionable as inferring design in nature.  Though, in my mind, the two are quite different issues.  I don't believe that ID is a threat to the mechanisms of evolution except in questioning how far they can be applied.  

Here is another link where Dave and I discuss macroev.  It's a mess because there are other discussions going on as well.  But, if you’re actually interested, it might save me some time explaining myself again.  And, ~please~ don't just sift through it looking for things to pull out and declare that I simply "don't understand science".  I've *never* claimed to be a scientist, but I do think that I have the right to try to understand these issues and discuss them without people writing me off as a complete idiot from the get go or getting seriously ticked off when I honestly don't agree with them.  

Stephen wrote:

“It is pretty much impossible to discuss science here and remain a fundamentalist (by which I mean interpreting Genesis literally), unless you become completely disshonest.

BTW, I doubt that you have ever really discussed science on other forums in any honest way. You may think that you have, but you have not.”

Statements like that are what have made me completely lose interest in talking with folks in these forums.  You demand that if we don’t accept your logic and “scientific facts”, then we are simply being dishonest.  I have never been dishonest about my position in this debate.  I’m interested in both the science and the religious implications of the topics discussed.  But, I don’t think one needs to resort to discussions of the supernatural to consider various interpretations of the scientific evidence that support the inferences being made.

Date: 2007/04/07 21:37:34, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2007,20:19)
Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,20:40)
First of all, "scientific reality" is seriously out of place in a discussion about scientific inferences, IMHO.

Causality is always an inference in science. To say that scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science is to misunderstand the method of science. There is no science without inference.

I completely understand that, and totally agree.  I did not state that a "scientific inference is some especially sketchy part of science".  Those are your words, not mine.  

Some inferences are supported with enough empirical evidence to be considered at *almost* the same level as fact.  But, there are many, many inferences made in scientific research, and I don't think they are all equally supported by the empirical evidence being applied to them.

Date: 2007/04/07 22:57:42, Link
Author: Ftk
{getting tingly all over}

Do I need to keep the heels on?  I'm pushing 6'2" in these suckers and they're killing my feet...

Date: 2007/04/08 14:20:40, Link
Author: Ftk
:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

I refuse to be "Nellie Olson"....

Going back to my party now...have a happy Easter (or whatever).

Date: 2007/04/08 22:38:14, Link
Author: Ftk people are going to drive me insane quickly.  

Yeah, I think Brown's stuff is what.

If you really want to dig into some reading, I can refer you to a 3 month debate that occured in the same forum.  I led the thread, with Brown commenting on occassion.  

Of course, it would have been much more fun if people had played along with my initial plan on how to set the entire thing up, but they were all serious party poopers.  No matter...I found it quite interesting anyway.

Date: 2007/04/08 22:42:26, Link
Author: Ftk
"Tom", I noticed that you are a new member.  You wouldn't happen to be an old friend of mine from KCFS who is posting under a new and improved name, would you??

Date: 2007/04/09 09:16:20, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,01:48)
Oh noes for the kids! It's going to be hard to flirt with you if you link to conservapia.. (see the eugenics link). This is just pure faith driven revisionism, and you should know better.

Nothin’ wrong with something against conservatives, Hon?  

I’ve gotta say that I’m certainly glad I’m a conservative due to the fact that we conservative protestant women are a much more satisfied group overall...

From the article:
“The women most likely to achieve orgasm each and every time (32%) are, believe it or not, conservative Protestants. But Catholics edge out mainline Protestants in frequency of intercourse. Says Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist-priest and writer of racy romances: ''I think the church will be surprised at how often Catholics have sex and how much they enjoy it.''

As a protestant woman, I can attest to the validity of that claim, though I have to wonder if our ability to abandon all inhibitions in the sack is due to the fact that conservative men bring out the best in us (if you know what I mean).  

Read it and weep, boys...

Richard, care to cross over to the wild side?;)

Date: 2007/04/09 12:15:50, Link
Author: Ftk

Just shear curiosity...

From what I've read, you've never really taken the whole god thing seriously - even as a youth.  When did you stop attending church/sunday school?  I find it kind of hard to believe that you never came across other Christians who were searching for answers to those more difficult questions.  What type of church did you attend?  Did you switch churches when you weren't provided answers, or did you ever consider the possible evidence for other belief systems?  

What evidence led you to believe that there is no "god" (or whatever) that is ultimately responsible for our existence?

And, for craps sake, don't think I'm asking you these questions to try to "convert" you or some craziness like that.  I have no desire whatsoever.  I'm just curious about people who make some of the statements that you have made.

Date: 2007/04/09 12:20:31, Link
Author: Ftk
You also wrote:

"I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!”

Are you for real?  I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots.  I've never heard anything like that coming from people who attend the lectures I've been at.

Date: 2007/04/09 12:30:46, Link
Author: Ftk
Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people?  Seriously?  You know all the arguments.  I know all the arguments.  

Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.

btw, who is this AFDave guy and where is this long thread he was involved in that you guys keep talking about?

Date: 2007/04/09 12:51:48, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum.

Date: 2007/04/09 13:15:12, Link
Author: Ftk
It's a complete waste of time to discuss these issues.  I'm hopeless.  I'll never be able to accept the notion that the mechanisms of evolution have the "power" to produce everything we observe in nature.  I don't care what the "scientific consensus" is.  It's simply not logically sound, IMHO.  

I'm convinced worldviews skew our ability to understand each other.  You think I'm a dishonest liar, and I cannot fathom how in the world you can actually believe that the mechanisms of evolution are as powerful as you believe them to be.

Date: 2007/04/09 13:23:04, Link
Author: Ftk
"Have you got any scientific topic you ARE willing to discuss here."

Not really, but I would like an answer to the question I've had for years.  I don't understand why scientists insist that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for everything we observe on planet earth.  How can that ever be considered anything other than speculation?  Why can't other options be considered?  

When I think about that first living organism, it seems like shear insanity to consider that it started evolving on it's own and from that starting point everything we observe came to be.  We've never observed anything remotely close to supporting this notion, but yet it's considered rock solid fact.  

This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with basic logic.

Date: 2007/04/09 13:31:09, Link
Author: Ftk
"On the contrary, I don't think you're a dishonest liar, which is the reason I am engaging you. It's also the reason I'm not discussing anything with AFDave anymore. "

Sigh...well, that's sweet of you to say, but I'm sure it wouldn't be long before you would change your tune.  

F'instance, Dave said something simliar at one point but when he couldn't convince me of macroev., he simply concluded that I'm being disrepectful of his knowledge and have nothing other than a religious agenda.  He questioned my honestly and thinks I have no interest in the scientific issues, but am merely interested in shoving my religion down students throats.

Date: 2007/04/09 13:52:20, Link
Author: Ftk

As much as I am attracted to you, I must be honest with you and tell you that you simply don't listen (at all).  I *HAVE* been studing these issues *endlessly* for years now.  

It must on some level occur to you that you are never ever going to consider anything other than what coinsides with your worldview, so what is the point of further dialogue?  

You're not interested in actually considering that neither of us might have the perfect explanations.  Nor are any of you willing to come to some sort of understanding or middle ground on how to solve the conflicts in this debate.  

I've been reading the threads in this forum for a while now (ever since Richard started screwing with me over on my blog), and it's pretty apparent that you guys are here for only one reason.  And, sincere dialogue is certainly NOT the reason.

Date: 2007/04/09 14:09:16, Link
Author: Ftk
"There is no positive evidence for ID/Creationism. If there is, please point me to it. ID has zero predictive and explanatory power. It is ignorance seeded by dogma."

There is no positive evidence for common descent either.  Inference...key word here.  Inferences for both ID and common descent.  The predictive power of evolution is overstated.  It's more a mind set than anything else.   If the notion of common descent had never been considered, science would have rolled along at exactly the same speed as it has.  It's irrelevant.  

"it would seem the problem is not with NDE but your ability to conceptualize."

LOL, conceptualize?  That's what this comes down to?  You can imagine that first little blobby cell popping out of nowhere and starting the process of evolution on it's own and I cannot.  Fine, you're great at day dreaming, but I consider those stories just that.  Interested dreams.

"And I'm not going to give you a playfull spanking now."

:(  :(  :(

My day just won't be complete without that playful slap on the ass.  I'm going to go have a good cry...unless you might consider changing your mind?

Date: 2007/04/09 17:02:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, Kristine, I find you quite may not want to continue this conversation because I’m not sure my comments can all be classified as “science”, but nonetheless, I’ll throw it out there anyway and maybe you‘ll take a stab at it.

FTK- since you asked: Lutheran. I stopped believing in God (if I ever did) at age nine. I did what was expected of me and it never occurred to me to ask to go elsewhere - otherwise I would have asked to go to a different school, too (and grow up elsewhere). It's no one's fault that I was different, restless, a tomboy, a voracious reader, a questioner and an artistic kid stuck in a small town she hated.

Hmmm...I grew up Lutheran as well.  I’ve since dropped the dogma of “religion” and attend a non-denominational church which is a more authentic, down to earth, fact driven environment.  Nothing against Lutherans, but I wanted an environment where I was learning more about why we believe, not what we believe (plus the organ music and hymns from 1850 were torture to sit through).

I don't believe in the supernatural. I have no evidence for the nonexistence or existence of God. I'm more interested in what I can do. Reality is participatory, like democracy.

This type of statement has always been of extreme interest to me.  From what I have gathered, atheists are quite driven by the belief that we must use our reason and intellect when considering the many facets of this debate, and education is what they believe to be the key that allows one to dismiss the “myth” of the supernatural.  Yet, they have no evidence that God doesn’t exist.  It seems to me that the only option for someone who doesn’t believe that there is evidence for or against the supernatural would be to adhere to agnosticism.  So, what is it that takes a person that step further and claim that their belief is that there is no god?  I’ve never quite been able to figure that one out.

And, for me, it seems like an interest in science automatically leads to the question of the origin of life.  But, I suppose I’m just an odd duck.  The bottom line for me is that I ~can’t~ conceive of the universe evolving from nothing whatsoever.  That is an extremely irrational, illogical conclusion, IMHO.  So, that leads to the next obvious there any evidence at all that supports the notion of a supernatural or natural designer, and can we learn anything about that source of our existence from science, history, archeology, or other areas of study.  So, that’s were I’ve been for the past 6+ years - addicted to finding the answers to these questions.

Anybody has the right to try to convert anybody.

While that may be true, I have no interest in attempting to convert a hard core atheist.  I’ve never converted anyone in my life, and I am *certainly* not going to attempt it here.

A recent poll confirms that Americans, who are so religious, are biblically illiterate. Read Rick Warren and see what an intellectual he is. *Bleah!*

Could be.  I’m certainly not going to doubt that.  I’ve met some pretty biblically illiterate Christians in my day.  But, I will say that there are many biblical scholars and everyday Christians who could probably carry on a very intellectual conversation with you.  Does the fact that so many Christians don’t know what’s in their bible make Christianity wrong?  Nope.  Does the fact that many atheists don’t know squat about science and consider Dawkins as their source that proves the non-existence of the supernatural make atheism the wrong conclusion?  Not necessarily.  

Regarding your science teacher:
He didn’t go there. “If you want to believe that ‘Something started it,’ and that’s God for you, fine. If you want to believe that things always being in motion is God, fine. Or you can just believe that everything was always in motion, forever back however long it extends if there was a beginning. But if you put down on any test that ‘God did it,’ you get an F.” He paused, and then said with a twinkle, “And even if God takes my class and puts down on my test that ‘I did it,’ He’ll get an F, too. And then I’ll keep Him after class and make Him write a paper. Boy, [winking] would I make Him write a paper!

I have no problem with what your science teacher told you.  In fact, I agree with him.  

I think it's important how one believes, if one is going to be a believer.

I certainly agree with that, but I think it’s different for different people.  Some have no problem believing in a God or Buddha or whatever on blind faith.  For me, that seems insane.  That is why I have a hard time understanding the mindset of some theistic evolutionists that I’ve talked with.  They state that they are Christian, but it seems to me that they base their beliefs on faith alone because they do not seem interested in considering the evidence for their beliefs.  

Incidentally, Ftk, I have recently encountered, though unfortunately not yet met, a Christian who is a scientist and who impressed me very much with his book. He really took me by surprise. But look at how he is being treated.

Yeah, I’m pretty familiar with Miller’s arguments, and it doesn’t surprise me that atheists are impressed with him.  He believes everything that they do in regard to the issues of this debate, except in the end he states that he is a Christian with no further explanation of ~what~ he bases his Christian beliefs upon.  

It sounds to me that he bases his Christian beliefs on that “feel-ology” thing that you seem to abhor.  So, I’m not sure why you are impressed with him.  I actually exchanged a few emails with him once because he is someone who is of extreme interest to me as well.   There seems to be a disconnect somewhere between his theology and his science.  Of course, he was not keen on telling me much because he had read my review of his KU lecture, but he did mention something that I felt might shed a little light on the reason for his beliefs.  

Anyway, I am curious why a guy like Miller impresses you when he doesn’t seem to me to be using his intellect in regard to his religious beliefs - rather he seems to rely on “feel-ology“.

Date: 2007/04/09 18:55:37, Link
Author: Ftk
What interested and impressed me was the science in his book, Finding Darwin's God. However, the last two chapters I did not get at all. I don't understand where his religious beliefs come from. I have no idea where they come from and I don't presume to know; it was, frankly, gobbledygook but at least they don't come from a vehement rejection of science that I've seen demonstrated by other people.

I've read his book as well, and I found it extremely lacking in evidence for macroevolution or common descent.  He also made grand claims that ID had been debunked and that the there existed evidence that the flagellum evolved.  If that's a fact, we wouldn't see scientists still writing papers trying to dismantle ID.

But, your quote above is exactly my point.  His reasons for his faith are "gobbledygook" IMO as well.  So, I’m not sure why you believe “he's very well educated in theology as well.”  And, if he is as well-educated as you believe, why do you believe his science, yet not his theology?

As for Wes' paper, I truly am not an expert on the EF and truth be told I’m not terribly interested in discussing it.  I believe that you people have a very legitimate point.  ~At this point in time~, it is still difficult to pinpoint exactly what is too complex to have evolved through evolutionary mechanisms.  But, at the same time, there is such vast complexity in nature that it is equally difficult to provide explanations of evolutionary pathways that explain what we observe in nature, not to mention providing empirical evidence that supports common descent.

I certainly support further research in attempting to answer these difficult issues in regard to evolution.  I do not support replacing evolution with ID because, in my mind, it’s a completely different concept.   Truth be told, I think the two concepts should be considered hand in hand.  I think it merely boils down to philosophical arguments that prevent people from rejecting either concept.

Date: 2007/04/09 19:06:10, Link
Author: Ftk
George wrote:
Theistic evolutionist here.  And yes, I do base my belief in God purely on faith.  What else is there?  I'd be very curious to hear about concrete evidence about God.  I've yet to hear anything convincing to tell you the truth.

Certainly, in the end, there is an element of faith that that leads a person to believe or reject God.  But, there are certainly lines of evidence that one can consider when choosing to accept or reject specific faith beliefs.  

Question:  What kind of TE are you?  You mentioned "God"... Christian?  Jew?  And, ~why~ do you adhere to your belief in God?  If you base your beliefs "purely on faith" what led you to accepting that faith?  Feelings?  How do you know your feelings are correct?  Do you care one way or the other?  Do you believe in specific things about God, or do you just believe there is a "God" out there somewhere ultimately responsible for your existence?

Date: 2007/04/09 21:27:49, Link
Author: Ftk

I'm sorry you feel that way, but now I'll tell you what I think about you...

You have left ~countless~ comments on my blog complaining about one thing or the other, yet you've said practically nothing of importance.  You kept leaving messages getting after me for not posting about the Humes lecture quickly enough *after I specifically said I'd post on it after Easter*.  

True to my promise, I did just that.  I have always kept my word when I've said I was going to post about something.  You said, if I ever did post something about it, you'd be interested in discussing what I wrote.

But, now you've moved right on to something else to complain about.  Now you want me to throw out 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology because you believe that I know absolutely nothing about either.  What difference would it make if I did that?  Then you'd just say, "google's great, huh?" and tell me what an idiot I am in regard to something else.  You seem absolutely convinced that I'm the most notorious liar on the face of the earth, so why bother even trying to carry on dialogue with me?

I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues.  Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent.  That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.  

And, Doc Bill, I'm not even sure how to respond to that crap you threw out there.  Are you okay?  Ya sound a little unbalanced.

btw, Stevestory, thanks for sending that one to the bathroom wall.

Date: 2007/04/09 21:36:19, Link
Author: Ftk
That is exactly how I feel. In the days of google, it is hard to test anyone's knowledge in these forums. But a short essay test, given away from the computer, would do wonders toward dispelling the legend-in-her-own-mind myth that FtK has even a minimal understanding of biology, evolution, and science.

Based on the two times I quizzed her and DT, using thought problems with no history on the creo/ID websites, she would fail a freshman biology test on evolution. But that's OK, because, as she tells us repeatedly, she really isn't here to talk about science.

For the sake of argument, Dave, let's assume that I know absolutely nothing about *anything*.  How's that work for you?  

Now, you teach me.  You start wherever you need to in order for me to understand why macroevolution is a ~fact~.  You can act as though you're talking to a 1st grader if that makes you happy, but teach me something instead of endlessly telling everyone that I'm a half baked moron.  

I await for my first biology lesson..

Date: 2007/04/09 22:44:01, Link
Author: Ftk
I always enjoy finding people who are honest and curious.

From what I've experienced, people with your attitude only enjoy those who are "honest and curious" if they end up changing their opinions in the end and agree with you.

As for the rest of your post, let me clue you in to something.  I did not enter this forum looking to discuss science with any of you.  I don't know why you even keep engaging in discussion with me.  

I found out that Richard had started a whole freakin' thread dedicated to ripping me apart.  Now, being the person I am, I'm not keen on letting people write crap about me that's not true.  It's irritating as ####.  So, I popped in to give Dave a piece of my mind.


I just need to just get the heck out of here, and that should put an end to this.  I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss, but I realize that “morons” like myself come in here and talk about the same issues endlessly, and you guys have to repeat yourselves time and time again.  ~I know how frustrating that can be~.  

So, I’ll go research the topic on my own and perhaps post something about it at my blog at some point. (That doesn't mean I'll write a post on it *tomorrow*, Blipey, so don't come to my blog nagging for it.)

BTW, Blipey, if you post at my blog, you seriously need to change your attitude.  I won’t post comments like the ones I’ve seen you put through to date.  Take a pill or something before you start putting down your thoughts so they don’t come out so nasty.

I don’t mind you people posting comments at my blog, but just try to be nice about how your respond.  Dave was doing ~really~ well there for a while until he flew the coop.  I just can’t deal with people treating me like shit on a consistent basis.  

And, Dave, if your only objective for commenting at my blog is to find ammunition to state endlessly that I "know nothing about science", than just quit reading my stuff and save yourself the agony.  My blog's not terribly popular so it's not as if what I say is going to have any affect on this debate whatsoever.  Probably 90% of my readers are pro-Darwin anyway.  So, just relax and quit worrying about proving my ignorance.

Have a nice evening everyone.

Date: 2007/04/12 09:42:10, Link
Author: Ftk
Sources say that Eugenie has visited the museum with BBC reporters.  LOL, lordy, that had to be an interesting visit... :O

Date: 2007/04/12 10:07:58, Link
Author: Ftk

Why don't you contact the SMU professors and suggest that they engage in discussion.  If you had no problem debating an ID supporter, then they probably have nothing to fear either.  

SMU professors wanted "a teaching moment".  Wouldn't open dialogue with those "lying creationists" be a good way to put a stop to this ID nonsense and provide their students with a lot to think about.  Or, maybe you guys don't want the students to actually think about these issues for some reason?

Date: 2007/04/12 10:18:53, Link
Author: Ftk
Hey Richard, not sure if you've noticed, but I engage in open dialogue on my blog continuously.  I merely don't allow people to talk down to me in my space.  

If they do, I'll either flick the comment into space or let it go through and shove the attitude back in their face.

And, fine, I'll go back to my blog now.  But, I think it's really, really, a bad move not to engage with IDists when they are plastering the invitation all over the media.

Just, MO.

Date: 2007/04/12 10:26:14, Link
Author: Ftk
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not.

Date: 2007/04/12 10:55:30, Link
Author: Ftk
and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program.

What does this gobbledygook mean?  

"critics of antievolution" - does that mean an evolutionist who is speaking out against ID and the inclusion of it in science classes?

Date: 2007/04/12 11:19:31, Link
Author: Ftk
I will note that FtK reserves a right for herself of choosing not to discuss things on anyone else's terms and conditions that she denies to the SMU professors.

I'm kinda thinkin' that the ID folks aren't going to hurl insults like the ones I find sitting in moderation on my blog.  It also seems to me from what I've read that the SMU professors aren't being denied anything.  Sounds like they can come in a say whatever they want.  It's called *dialogue*.  Conversations *with* each other rather than *at* each other.

Btw, Richard, are you saying that Dave, Blipey, and Zach's arguments suck?  Perhaps you could do better?  Doubtful, hon.

Date: 2007/04/12 11:33:36, Link
Author: Ftk
gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!]

Nope, actually I use that word quite often.  Ask Jack Krebs - his statements often resort to my use of that term.

Honestly, Kristine, I'm guessing that you and I have quite a few things in common other than our age and our terminology.

Date: 2007/04/12 12:26:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Have you read the trial transcripts? Yes/No.

No.  Not the entire thing.  If you pull up the link for me, I'd appreciate not having to take the time to find it again.  I keep meaning to finish reading it, so I'll add it to the stack of stuff I'm currently reading.

I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*.

Wesley, I'll get back to you in a bit because I have a few things I must comment on in regard to your last post.  Right now, work calls...

Date: 2007/04/12 15:00:43, Link
Author: Ftk

Nope, that's definitely post-snake.  See those cave kiddo’s in the car?  Dead give away, buddy.

Date: 2007/04/12 15:48:48, Link
Author: Ftk
Ah, equating Sin and Sex. Classic.

Are you for real, or is that suppose to be a joke?

Go back and take a stab at those first few chapters of Genesis.  The "snake" crawled down that apple tree at the very beginning of the account of man.  

Munchins aren't mentioned until after they had been thrown out of the garden.  

And, btw, sin and sex should never be used in the same sentence.  Nothin' sinful about sex unless you're misusing the function and hurting others by your actions.

Date: 2007/04/12 15:58:10, Link
Author: Ftk
Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner!!!

Date: 2007/04/12 16:16:18, Link
Author: Ftk
IMHO I think you'll find that a large part of christianity and religion in general is about making people feel bad (i.e like they've commited a sin) when doing things that come naturally. evidently must not know many Christians.  I assure you that sex is something I engage in frequently, and I certainly don't feel like I've commited a "sin" afterward.  

In fact, biblically, one of the very first things God told Adam and Eve was to get it on....a lot.

Date: 2007/04/12 17:30:28, Link
Author: Ftk
No, FtK, you don't know what you are talking about.

Gee, imagine that...something I’ve never heard here before.

Back in 1996, I got a "call for papers" for a conference called "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise". There was no mention of "intelligent design" in it. It was, it turned out, fully an IDC conference, funded with DI CRSC money and featuring all of the DI big names with the exception of Michael Behe.

Not knowing that, I submitted an abstract and got accepted to present there. During Phillip Johnson's plenary talk, he went on about how the mere attendance of critics of "intelligent design" helped "legitimate the question". Whoa. There had been no mention of "legitimating the question" if I showed up at the party. You probably have no idea how upset that made me.

Um, no, considering who you are, I can definitely understand your fury.

We are far, far past the point of deferring judgment concerning bad behavior of that sort on the part of IDC advocates. Of course IDC advocates manipulate critics and the media and claim that their position is improved thereby, no matter what the content of what the critic said. They've done that consistently at least since 1997. This latest media stunt is no different than the thing at Biola last year: scour around for token critics, give them a minor presence at the event (let them ask a few questions where there's no limit on how long the answers can be or how well IDC advocates respond to the actual question), and forever after use the fact that they were there as a talking point for the legitimacy of IDC. That's not dialogue, that's demagoguery. Fool me once, as the saying goes...

Hmmm...sounds exactly like what I see you people doing to them.  

My debate with Bohlin was on the narrow topic, "Intelligent design is a topic suitable for inclusion in public K12 school science curricula". It was a public policy debate. I took the negative. Bohlin led off with saying that ID was not yet ready for inclusion in K12 science classrooms, conceding the point.

Good win...LOL.  You didn’t have to say a word, did ya?  Truth be told, I’m not sure ID belongs in K12 curricula (yet) either.   It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.

The DI is suggesting a whole different critter, a "debate" that is supposed to somehow revolve around scientific legitimacy of "intelligent design" and "Darwinism". The SMU professors are right to shun any such shenanigans.

Doing so looks very cowardly.  Why not have the SMU professors question the DI a bit more about how the dialogue would be carried out?  If it’s unfair, then they have something to complain to the media about.  As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started.

What I would suggest to the SMU professors is that, failing to persuade SMU to boot the DI dog-and-pony show off-campus, they should arrange an event for scientists to present cool research into evolutionary science, and have a section with one or more critics of antievolution to say why antievolution is antiscience and has no place in K12 education. I would be happy to return to SMU for that part of the program. in the world is that scenario any different than an actual debate in the sense that it might help make "legitimate the question" as to whether ID is a threat to Darwinism?  

Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks?  Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.

I see no reason for the SMU professors to legitimate the DI dog-and-pony snake oil sales pitch with their presence.

You’re making a huge error, big guy.  Your minions are out everywhere lecturing and writing books and articles trying to sway the public away from ID.  You have already “legitimized” ID due to your intense battle against it.  Now, when you refuse to debate in a situation like SMU, that looks really, really bad.  It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the  accusations you’ve made against design.

Here's what I think.....

SMU should replace their mascot with this guy...

Date: 2007/04/12 17:40:18, Link
Author: Ftk
They have never, to my knowledge, censored comments that make them look bad. They have always seemed very keen to engage in meaningful dialogue with people of different views. They are the very antithesis of you. Please don't compare yourself to them.

I think you're missing my point.  I LET DAVE, BLIPEY, AND ZACH post at my blog when they actually engage in civil dialogue.  In fact, Zach has suprised me with his comments lately compared to some of the stuff he's left me in the past.

Luv, the comments you leave me don't give me much to work with.  Usually, you're merely complaining about moderation.  Other times you post under "anonymous" and make some useless comment as well.  

Speaking of Dave, I better get back to my blog and finish up my response to his last comment!

Date: 2007/04/12 18:00:03, Link
Author: Ftk
In an on-line forum?  The public isn't like to find exactly where you want to hide these little on-line debates.

There's no media coverage, and it's unlikely that one would have the fortitude to scan through all the ad homs, etc. to get to the meat.  People tend to get to the subject much more quickly when face to face.

College campuses are the best place to discuss these issues, IMHO.

Date: 2007/04/12 18:39:10, Link
Author: Ftk
That religion, particularly Christianity, defines many things as sinful (e.g sex outside marriage) when it's quite good odds that it's going to happen anyway. Very handy I'd say.

Hmmm...let’s put on our thinking caps and give this a go, shall we?

Let’s consider the pro’s and con’s of having sex before marriage...

Pro - It feels really, really, really, really good.  

Con - STD’s, unwanted pregnancy, problems with multiple partners, such as: doing it with so many people that it’s difficult to be content in a monogamous relationship (which leads to the breakup of families).  Feelings of being used if one person is in it for fun and the other has deeper feelings.  Feelings of jealousy when your prior partner is now getting it on with someone else because she’s done with you.  The list goes on and on in regard to our emotions.  

Now, according to the Bible, that crazy make believe dude in the sky has made up all these horrible rules to live by.  Darn - such a party pooper he is.  

Now, could these suggestions from the guy in the sky actually be of some use?  If she/he/ET actually did design the human body, chances are he/she/it might actually know a little about the best way for that body to conduct itself without getting hurt.  Hence we are provided with suggestions, rules, or whatever you are comfortable calling them.  

King David was a favorite of the big guy, though David had many wives.  If you’re familiar with biblical history, you’ll find that David’s love life, and his children’s lives, were a mess.  Check out the squabbles between Abraham’s wife and his concubine as well.  God didn’t turn his back on them because of their error in judgment, but they did suffer due to the fact that people were designed for one man, one woman relationships.  

Granted, hormones rage and odds are pretty darn high that most won’t make it down the isle with their virginity in tact, but because we are all better off waiting for that mate for life, we should try to make it a goal to live by those dratted rules.  Pretty much just makes life easier for us in the long run.

So 100% happy with married homosexual folk getting married FTK? Does that cancel out the sin of sex outside marriage I wonder? Hmm...One for the theologians that.

There’s not a chance in #### that I’m going down this road again.  Been there, done that.  Brace yourself, it’s 26 pages long.  And, if you decide to quote mine me, you better be darn sure you’ve read all 26 pages or it might come back to bite you.

Date: 2007/04/12 18:51:25, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL, he's pretty cute, but personally, I seriously hate those things.

Anyway, as you can probably guess by the number of abortions taking place throughout the world, birth control isn't all it's cracked up to be.  

Now, don't give me the song and dance about people not using birth control because of their religious beliefs.  Sex ed has been taught and supported in the public & private schools for eons.  Problem is, that in the heat of the moment, shit happens.  So, unless we shoot all our girls up with birth control early on, we're screwed (and knocked up quite frequently).

Date: 2007/04/12 22:22:49, Link
Author: Ftk
Not a bad idea. But they have pills now. I think they call it, "The Pill."

Dude, my sister is a social worker.  I can tell you that those little girls having sex with whoever is nice to them are not very good about remembering to take that pill each morning.  It is much safer to give them the shot that lasts for about 3 months.

Just fyi.

Date: 2007/04/12 22:41:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Interesting. Can you point to the passage in the Bible where the crazy make believe dude in the sky rules specifically against premarital sex? Or defines marriage?

Interestingly enough, I've never found any specific verses about premarital sex, that's why I engaged in lot of it.  JUST KIDDING!

But seriously, right from the very beginning the big guy points out the relationship between man and women.   We also have a big 'ol commandment about not commiting adultry, along with other guidelines for sexual conduct in the law.  

There are stories galore giving examples of the crap that follows when biblical patriarchs blew it and were constantly getting a little on the side.  Monogomy is the ticket to a happy healthy sex life, IMHO. :)  

Premarital sex - don't know what to tell ya.  But, I do know that one man/one woman for life seems to be the best option when considering all the pros and cons.

But, then what do I know...I'm actually guillible enough to believe in God <gasp!>.

Alternatively, if you'd rather not justify this statement, you could answer the questions Zach and I left for you yesterday on your blog.

Patience--I just posted my response to Jeremy.  You're next.

Date: 2007/04/12 22:51:05, Link
Author: Ftk
It is, of course, the foaming fundies who are opposed to contraception and sex education . . . right?

I know those types exist, but I don't know any of them personally.  Most parents don't want their children to end up dead, and with the STD's we've got floating around these days, you'd have to be a complete moron not to advise your kids of all the options.

But, that doesn't mean I believe it's advisable to hand out colored condoms like candy and tell them to have at it.  That's a good way to destroy something that is very special.

Date: 2007/04/12 23:10:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Here's one to add to your collection, Richard:

Scott, aka slpage, aka Doppelganger wrote:
What a sissy...

Why would a tough guy supposed former marine need dogs, chain saws, etc.?

All bluff and bluster, no balls.

Typical bully.

That one won’t see the light of day at my blog.  

Now if it were someone other that Scott, perhaps I’d consider it teasing, but I've never known Scott to have much of a sense of humor, so I flicked it into space.

Date: 2007/04/12 23:14:09, Link
Author: Ftk
Here's another:

...The wolf howls when the moon is full...

LOL -- no clue what was going on in the mind of 'ol anonymous.  

If I had to guess, it was probably Richard.

Date: 2007/04/13 07:30:04, Link
Author: Ftk
I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

I suggest promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences.

Date: 2007/04/13 07:37:33, Link
Author: Ftk
I've NEVER posted under any name other than Ftk (Forthekids).  I'm most certainly not Diana.

Date: 2007/04/13 08:16:36, Link
Author: Ftk
You are putting words in my mouth at this point, so I'll just back off and say your absolutely right.  You win.  I'm deluded.

If you seriously want to take this conversation further, let me know.  But, at that point you'll have to stop misrepresenting my position.

Date: 2007/04/13 09:02:37, Link
Author: Ftk

SMU will present "good science" today to off set the "bad science" that ID will present.

So what will they present as "good science"?

There will be a showing of "Inherit the Wind," the classic 1960 courtroom drama directed by Stanley Kramer. Spencer Tracy plays Henry Drummond and Frederic March plays Matthew Harrison Brady. The movie is a light fictionalization of the Scopes trial that pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan. Most of the script is taken from the transcript of the 1925 Scopes trial in which a high school biology teacher was prosecuted (and convicted; it's not a suspense movie!) for teaching evolution.

Holy crappers.  Evidently, this is no joke.  

The more inquisitive students must be wondering why those profs. won't step up to the plate and debate.  Hopefully, the students will start asking questions about this hesitation to engage in dialogue.

Date: 2007/04/13 09:17:04, Link
Author: Ftk
That would not include premarital sex between unmarried folks.

I never said it did.  I said I haven't found any verses giving specific instructions about premaritial sex.  Why do you always mess with my words?

Actually, that is why I take my time responding to you on my blog.  I have to read through my response several times before posting to be sure I'm articulate enough for you to get the message and not read something else into it.

It's easy to post here because I have no intention of putting much thought into anything. It's not worth the time, because regardless of what I say, it's going to get twisted anyway.  LOL. :p

Date: 2007/04/13 09:57:44, Link
Author: Ftk
I most EMPHATICALLY here proclaim that I do not get outside help from creationists before I respond to your comments.  I thought you were kidding when you said that!

I have talked to various authors who have written books on creation, ID and evolution in the past.  But, I have NEVER contacted them about anything we've discussed.  You're questions aren't that difficult to answer, dave. ;)

Date: 2007/04/13 10:48:44, Link
Author: Ftk
The anonymous commenter sent me two more cryptic comments.  It must have some secret meaning!
.....At the gate at midnight...

....Friday the 13th.....

So, we have "the wolf howls when the moon is full at the gate at midnight Friday the 13th!"

Today is Friday the 13th!!!  What could this mean? And, does it have anything to do with the Design conference at SMU???  So mysterious...

Date: 2007/04/13 10:57:52, Link
Author: Ftk
"do you think homosexuality  is a sin?"

Personally, I think it's unhealthy both emotionally and physically for ~numerous~ reasons.  You can read the thread I posted for further enlightment into my crazy and demented worldview.

Date: 2007/04/13 12:13:47, Link
Author: Ftk
Now, now, people.  I've alluded to the possibility that I'm delusional many times now.  I make choices based on evidence like everyone else, and merely hope I'm on the right track.  I don't make claims that something is a "fact" when there are questionable elements to my assertions.

Oh, and yes, I realize that I have a tendancy toward toward displaying arrogance.  It's a little tough to walk into god knows how many Darwinists looking for a fight and choose not to display some confidence.  Unfortunately, somehow my confidence comes off as arrogance (quite often).  It's something I'm still working on. ;)

Date: 2007/04/13 12:29:25, Link
Author: Ftk
What about stoning to death people who commit adultery?

Well, certainly I don't condone stoning.

sigh....those dratted OT law codes.  I've addressed this in the past as well, so I'll post it here for kicks:

Below you will find quotes from Josh in regard to the OT laws. I’ve pulled them from three different threads. He has obviously given this subject a lot of thought, and it is indeed a troubling issue for many Christians.

"I reject a God given to malicious tricks, so there can't be a conflict between what Moses wrote in the Torah and what is written in the world around us."

"The process of accepting particular religious evidence is different from scientific evidence. Christians don't keep kosher, almost no one rejects clothes made from two forms of cloth on religious grounds, slavery is considered immoral, despite the fact that the Bible has no problem with slavery. I try to think about the Tao Te Ching, and Buddha's teachings are a powerful source of inspiration, but no one accepts every line of religious evidence as equal."

"How we pick and choose is driven by our ability to integrate a particular teaching with our understanding of the world around us and what we believe the broad religious message to be. Slavery was acceptable because a Chosen People could set itself apart from other peoples in a way that modern humans, linked by a common ancestor, culture, and world, cannot. Cotton/wool blends are comfortable in the summer. Kosher laws are a hassle."

"It's the same reason that homosexuality is a heinous sin because of what the Bible says, but eating pork is OK, despite what the Bible says."

"It's convenient for religious authoritarians to use some Bible passages for their purposes, but others are inconvenient. Clothes made of two kinds of fibers are comfortable, and planting two kinds of crops in one field is handy. Leaving fields fallow one year in seven would be expensive. Forgiving all debts every 50th year would be a pain in the neck."

"It's silly to denigrate your opponents' morality. I think it's immoral to deny basic legal protections to any loving, consenting couple. That's an "extreme" position, but it's moral. Just a different morality from some other people's."

OK, Jeremy, I’m keeping my promise here. I wanted to take some time with this as it is a touchy subject for many people.

First I’m going to share an excerpt from the Emmy-winning show The West Wing.

The president of the United States, played by Martin Sheen, is shown twisting the host of a religious radio talk show into an intellectual pretzel.

The scene is the White House, at a meeting with broadcasters. When the religious radio host affirms that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, the president explodes with sarcasm:

“Yes it does!” he shouts. “Leviticus 18:22.”

“I wanted to ask you a couple of questions,” he says, beginning his interrogation. “I’m interested in selling my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 . . . what would be a good price for her?

“While thinking about that, can I ask you another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?”

Now on a roll, the president steams on triumphantly. “Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

“Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?"

“Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?”

He then sneeringly refers to Bible-believers as “the monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-a** club.” The ensuing silence is deafening. The religious radio host has been verbally chastised into silent submission, her beliefs on homosexuality and the Bible exposed as intellectually absurd and morally bigoted.

Had the president of the United States really demonstrated that the Bible was out of date? Should it indeed be relegated to the scrap heap of history? Do the very Scriptures that condemn homosexuality also give praise to slavery? If so, then how can a Christian today use Scripture to assert that homosexuality is sinful?

I think some people are very uncomfortable when they think they are being told how to live. It is much easier to try to find holes in God’s message so that we can eliminate the laws He asks us to keep. What I think people tend to forget is that God is our creator (through creation or TE - doesn’t matter). He knows what is best for our body because He was the one who created it. He made us and knows what kind of lifestyle will make us happy, healthier people. In OT history, God gave Moses many of the laws to protect them from the affects of sin. Kind of like a guidelines handbook. This would include eating, drinking, clothing, ceremonies, rituals etc. etc. Remember that they were a nomadic desert community for many years. Things would apply to them that would never be considered in the modern world of convenience. Many of these laws were done away with in the New testament with the death and resurrection of Jesus. He was the fulfillment of the law, thus many of those “guidelines for early Israel” do not play any part in what is going on today with Christianity. Now let me expand on that thought.....

Some of those OT laws seem a bit bizarre to us today, but when written (approx. 3,500 yrs. ago), I’m sure these laws had significant application. It is interesting the insight that the Israelites had in regard to quarantine, waste disposal, sterilization, etc. For example:

1. When the Black Plague was killing much of Europe prior to the Renaissance, desperate nations turned to the church for guidance. Returning to the Old Testament laws of Mosses, they instituted principles practiced by the Israelites for diseases like leprosy, handling of the dead and waste disposal.

2. A Biblical insight not understood until late 1800’s is the principle of basic sterilization (washing hands and clothing). Guidelines for washing are stressed in handling of the dead (Num 19). Basic purification practices (some ceremonial) and control of contamination were also specified for many other items including: “unclean” food (Lev 11:29-40), childbirth (Lev 12), bodily discharges (Lev 15) and infection (Lev 13). Even with ceremonial sacrifice and offerings, disease protection was controlled by thorough burning and washing (eg. Lev 6:8-13).

3. In the 1840’s the tragedy of non-scientific, non-Biblical medical practices was poignantly uncovered by Viennese Doctor, Ignaz Semmelweis. In his obstetrics ward he noticed an unusually high death rate of Women examined by teachers and students. The daily practice was to perform autopsies on the dead in the morning and later (without washing) give pelvic exams to new patients. A new practice of thorough washing after autopsies was instituted by the doctor. But it was greeted by sharp ridicule and disdain from his colleagues. Although deaths dropped sharply, Semmelweis’ contract was not renewed. Upon his leaving, washing stopped and deaths again sharply increased. Guidelines within the Bible were not recognized until 1865 by Joseph Lister, an honored scientist and a Christian.

Likewise we have the Agricultural Insights:

The Bible indicates God added an important insight by commanding the Israelites to “give the land a rest every seventh year” Lev 25:4 Today, the need to replenish soil with nutrients by crop rotation and the principle of “fallow” (resting the land) is well known. Although the Leviticus command was written about 1500 BC, the first evidence of the practice (other than Israel) was by the Romans about 200 BC. And it’s conceivable Rome learned of the practice from Israel.

Likewise, the Creator God knows that planting two types of seeds together would not yield a plentiful harvest. Incidentally the Israelites, by following these laws, were practicing excellent crop husbandry. In other words, the soil/crops were being rotated to prevent the soil from becoming sterile; “zapping the nutrients”.

In regard to slavery, I believe it was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it was allowed. You must remember that even though the Israelite slaves were treated very harshly by the Egyptians, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn’t the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly. Some references to this are Exodus 10:10, 21:2, 21:20, and Leviticus 22:11. Remember also, that in modern times; that is, after the Civil War when emancipation was granted to numerous slaves the majority of them chose to remain with their masters on the plantation. So who knows what the situation was in Israel at the time.

In regard to wool & linen: (Deut. 22:11 & Lev. 19:19) In Hebrew, this forbidden mixture is called “shatnez” pronounced shot-nezz. It is an acronym for “combed, spun and woven”, which describes the stages in processing fabric: combing the raw fiber, spinning fibers into thread, and weaving the threads into cloth. (Kevin, forgive me but I am showing off...... do you like it!;) hee hee har har - I’m just kidding - I’m not even sure if that’s right.

Any whoooo....the only way I understand this is that, again, God is either issuing some sort of protection for His people or there is some meaning behind it that we are not aware of. The Old Testament does not explain the reason for shatnez and this would appear to be a law whose logic is not evident. (kind of like the forbidden eating of pork).

Here is the clincher in regard to the laws. Many of the laws and the sacrificial offerings were dispelled after the death of Christ. He was in essence the sacrificial lamb. There are many verses referring to this change in the “Law (or Covenant)”. Jesus broke bread describing it as his body - “broken” for the world. Likewise after supper, referring to the 3rd cup of wine (redemption cup) Jesus called it the NEW COVENANT in his blood... poured out for many.

Now, on to homosexuality.....

There were “sexual perversions” mentioned in both the Old and New Testament. These perversions are considered especially harmful. First Corinthians 6:18 says, “All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Romans 1:26-27 says, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...” Romans 1:28-32 goes on further...

These passages still ring out loud and clear in the New Testament, after the death & resurrection of Christ. They were considered perversions. Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic). There has never been a civilization that has embraced homosexuality as a normal function. Tolerated? Yes. Accepted into mainstream life? Never. (even pagan Rome did not embrace it.)

OK, having said that, how do we treat homosexuals? With as much kindness & respect as we would anyone else. We love the person, but not the sin. It’s kind of like the alcoholic - we love the person but not the problem.

Josh, I’m certainly not perfect, and I’ve done many things that I don’t even care to discuss. Let’s just say that some of the stuff I’ve done is no better than the sin of homosexuality. My late teens through my 20’s were quite interesting. I was a bit of a wild child. But, I can say with all confidence, once I started living the way God intended for me to live, things all fell into place.

I have a cousin-in-law who died from aids about 12 years ago, so I know the heartache that the lifestyle can cause for families. I have 3 other cousins that are gay, and I treat them like anyone else. I’m to chicken shit to tell them they should consider a different lifestyle. I wonder sometimes if I should, because I know it’s wrong and I already have one cousin who has died from aids.
Hmm... what to do.

Anyway, I know you didn’t want to wade through this much stuff, but I hate it when a issue like this is brought up and someone supplies a pat little answer without much explanation. So there you have it....... maybe to much information. Hope some of it made sense.

HTH....probably won't, but at least it will give you something else to bitch at me about. ;)

Date: 2007/04/13 14:13:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Maybe you should have gone ahead and read the rest of it.

There were “sexual perversions” mentioned in both the Old and New Testament. These perversions are considered especially harmful. First Corinthians 6:18 says, “All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Romans 1:26-27 says, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...” Romans 1:28-32 goes on further...

These passages still ring out loud and clear in the New Testament, after the death & resurrection of Christ. They were considered perversions. Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic). There has never been a civilization that has embraced homosexuality as a normal function. Tolerated? Yes. Accepted into mainstream life? Never. (even pagan Rome did not embrace it.)

There was a LOT of stuff in those law code that applied to people at the time they were given in regard to the environment they were living in.  As far as the new covenant goes, the sacrificial system was done away with due to the ultimate sacrifice.  But, the NT doesn't do away with ALL the laws and we find them scattered throughout.  There is a lot to say about how we treat each other, stuff about sexual perversions, etc.  

Jesus stated that the two most important commandments were to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.  That certainly covers a lot of ground.  Course, he wasn't the only one to mention those ground rules.  I think if we apply the sermon at the mount as well, we get a good idea of how we should live.  But, the law is not completely demolished because many of those things automatically fall under the teachings of the NT.

And, yup, I'm sure Christians vary on the interpretation of what a "sin" is and what is not.  So what?  We do the best we can.  But, I don't know of many traditional Christians who do not adhere to the new convenant in Christ.

Date: 2007/04/13 14:30:09, Link
Author: Ftk
Have you ever considered that we aren't "darwinists" because there's no such thing (oh I know the term gets bandied about by everyone but it has annoyingly false dogmatic connotations) and that we aren't spoiling for a fight?

Yeah, I know you hate the term, but likewise, I hate being called a creationist, an IDist, an IDiot, and the million other labels that have been applied to me (including the Wicked Witch of the West (RSR) and "vile hag" (gotta love Skatje Myers)).

Anyway, I don't know what to call you because evolutionist is not accurate (I'm an evolutionist).  It is the philosophical position that everything evolved from that first molecule that renders the problem.  Hence you are considered Darwinists.  Sorry.

As far as you "spoiling for a fight", it seems that from what I've read in this forum you guys are rather delighted with the thought, and you throw out fighting words and ridicule at the drop of a hat.  So, yeah, I think some of you enjoy the "fight".

If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

Date: 2007/04/13 14:37:13, Link
Author: Ftk
Louis, the term "hate" is something that I hope you never apply to what you believe ~my~ feelings are toward anyone or anything.  

I do not "hate".

Date: 2007/04/13 14:51:26, Link
Author: Ftk
But I didn't find a list.

LOL, well Mr. Scientist, no, I don't have a "list".  Are you familiar with the NT?  It's pretty obvious from reading it and the lessons it provides to get a fair idea how one should live their life.  I'm not sure anyone has a "list".  

I think the reason being is that although we try ~very hard~ to follow the suggestions laid out, we all fuck up quite frequently.  Hence, we're in need of and receive forgiveness.  Not to say that if we are living in opposition to how we were to designed to live we won't suffer some consequences, but there is forgiveness.  

Of course, if we run out and commit a million heinous acts because we know we merely have to kneel at the alter and ask forgiveness, that's not living as Christ would have us live, and we're obviously not taking our faith seriously.

Date: 2007/04/13 15:03:58, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ April 13 2007,14:40)
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:30)
If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

which position did we miss here? And anyway, how can we work with you when you clearly said you refuse to discuss science with us?

Honey, I'm not talking about me.  I'm talking about you people working with the big guys from my side of this debate.  

All this immature bickering back and forth is really getting us no where, and my worry is that your side is set on pushing discussions of these issues into the private sector rather than the public square.

You want ID viewed as religion and confined to discussions in the church which, IMO, is going to lead to many more problems in the end.  By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.

Date: 2007/04/13 15:32:59, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave - got it.  FTK = ignorant.  You've made that point many times in the past.  Does repeating yourself get tiring?  

Arden - NACIH (not a chance in ####) that I'd touch those topics with a ten foot pole *here*. :)

Got some "household chores" I gotta get back to.

Later people!!!!

Date: 2007/04/13 16:13:16, Link
Author: Ftk
I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university.

In theory, that might possibly be an option (though that is a lot of science to shove into a philosophy class).

But, the problem is that those who would be approved to teach the class would probably guys like Elsberry or Krebs.  In that case, the course would be useless.  That would be like having Kent Hovind teach a class on evolution (or ID or creation science for that matter - LOL).  

See the problem?  

It's also interesting that you don't think it's a problem to present these issues at the universities, yet on the SMU thread, people are outraged about the conference taking place this weekend on university grounds.   Would that be because there are actually ID advocates running the show rather than anti-ID professors teaching a class in regard to these issues?

Date: 2007/04/13 16:30:32, Link
Author: Ftk
Oh, I understand, Dave.  I simply disagree. ;)

Honestly, I do understand the concerns that many of you have.   But, I still think that ID falls under the category of science, and I don't believe that it is a threat to scientific advancement whatsoever.   The fear and hesitation to accept ID centers around the philosophical and religious implications.

Date: 2007/04/13 18:06:34, Link
Author: Ftk
Abstinence students still having sex. Which hardly surprises me.

Doesn't surprise me in the least either.  That is why I stated that I support abstinence +.  See, that way if your abstinence goal fails, you know exactly what route to take next.  Make sense?  I think that would work rather well.  I TOTALLY disagree with abstinence ~only~ classes.  

Ftk, speaking only for me, you're talking to a nerdy bookworm who was 1) too unpopular to care about peer pressure 2) saw too many girls get pregnant and said, "Not me" 3) had an escape plan to get out of Dodge 4) was holding out for a Carl Sagan type. Believe it or not, I believe it's a good idea to wait at least until one is out of high school. But I also believe in advocating condom use.

Again, we're very much alike.  1) Average popularity, but I was pretty shy in high school so I had a hard time striking up conversation with the guys much less get into bed with one.  LOL.  2) Also watched friends end up pregnant, and still know some of them today.  Their lives were seriously affected by their mistakes. 3)  I also wanted to "get out of Dodge" and did, but found out that "Dodge" wasn't all that bad so I hightailed it back eventually.  4)  Had way to much respect for myself to allow myself to get used like some of my friends did.  5) Also believe having sex during those high school years is usually a mistake.  6) I have no problem advocating condom use.

My "wild" days didn't include sleeping around.  Unfortunately, I was a lush.  Drank to hide the shyness - got pretty crazy.

Date: 2007/04/13 18:29:31, Link
Author: Ftk
Why is that?

Well, let me tell you why that is, Lenny.  Most of us have been around a while and have had the "science" discussions in the past.  I spent literally years in a forum where I carried on dialogue about the scientific issues until I finally got the boot.  I did talk about religion, philosophy and everything else under the sun as well.  But, there was a lot of science covered.  

I think many of us learn that some crowds are not really interested in our point of view.  They've heard the issues before, just as we have, so they point us to talkorigins, and we point to them trueorigins or other sites, and there is a back and forth that lasts forever without either side being able to convince the other of anything.  Then the whole discussion starts over again...and again...and again.  There are defininently different interpretations of the data and I'm convinced that we cannot state emphatically that one "side" is correct over the other.  

So, what's the point in a layperson like me going through these issues again?  Now, I can see where a thorough written or oral debate might be quite interesting.  But, that would be between the leading advocates from both sides of this controversy.  

Why do I talk about religious & philosophical issues?  Well, because people always bring up something about religion and that just automatically leads to further conversation. It doesn't take me as much time to field those questions because I don't feel like I'm being set up.  I honestly don't care what anyone thinks about my religious beliefs.  But, when I'm answering questions about science, I have to be very careful to articulate exactly what I mean because I've found that people have a knack for misunderstanding my position.  Either I'm not clear, or they unconsciously misrepresent my position.  

And, Lenny, it is interesting that this question comes from you.  I've seen you in action in many forums now.  Your approach is probably one of the worst I've seen if your goal is to actually engage in serious discussion.  I highly doubt if you have any true intention of doing that.

PS:  I thought you told me you didn't want me to talk to you, but you keep asking me questions. ;)

Date: 2007/04/13 18:37:22, Link
Author: Ftk
The AIDS epidemic is not a "gay" epidemic.

Okay, I'll buy that.  Sorry to have made that connection.

Date: 2007/04/13 23:27:21, Link
Author: Ftk
Hi Jack...and thanks!

ps: Stevestory - Jack isn't talking about this forum, he's talking about other places I comment at.

Date: 2007/04/13 23:53:56, Link
Author: Ftk
Wesley Elsberry, the christian who owns and operates this here discussion board, is afraid of the implication that god might exist?

I'm relatively sure (though I'm not a mind reader) that even though Wesley is a Christian, he is on some level concerned about the religious implications of ID.  So, yes, I do think that even TE's are in this debate due to the religious implications.  They feel their religious beliefs are on the line as well.  

I've found that many TE's think that those who support ID have a hidden agenda to bring a particular religious belief into the public schools.  Obviously, they wouldn't want that.  Some TE's believe that ID supporters want to actually teach biblical creation in the science class.  

Others TE's don't want ID taught because they believe it is in conflict with their Christian beliefs in which they hold that the Creator created all of life through the mechanisms of evolution.   I've had a TE tell me that he did not want his children to feel uncomfortable in school due to their Christian belief that God created the world through evolutionary means, and he felt that ID may create that type of atmosphere.

So, yes, I think virtually everyone (if they are honest) must admit that the religious implications do have great bearing on their involvement in this debate.

Date: 2007/04/14 09:21:26, Link
Author: Ftk
cdesign proponentsist,

I'd be happy to address your post, but Lenny et. al.  are sick of the religious mumbo jumbo.  Want me to send a response to you privately?  Just let me know.

Date: 2007/04/14 09:28:57, Link
Author: Ftk
FTK, do you realise that you have no credibility whatsoever because you refuse to "go there" on the subject of the earths age, and the other simple questions you've been asked.

Fine...age of the earth....maybe 4.5 billion/maybe somewhere around 10,000.  I'm open to either and will not be bullied into ignoring other interpretations simply because authority insists that they are above reproach.

As far as some of the other questions being asked, I've rambled on and on about many of them at my blog and in other forums.  I'm almost ready to post a response to Dave, and no doubt he'll bring it back over here for you all to critique and reject on account of my "dishonestly".

Date: 2007/04/14 09:53:07, Link
Author: Ftk
I don't think that I've ever been so thoroughly insulted before. What was that about IDC advocates not hurling insults?

You and I disagree on our term “insult”.  What bothers me in these forums is that many evolutionists are vicious in their name calling routine.  There are thousands of examples to choose from, but here are just a couple that were recently thrown at Dr. Egnor:

“Michael Egnor is a Crappy Neurosurgeon Who Will Cut out Your Brain and Eat It,”

“..compared Egnor’s arguments to taking “a big ol' steaming s*** on a piece of paper and want[ing] that taught as science.”

“...let me say,as [sic] gently and politely as possible, that on this Egnor is full of s***,”

“...if idiots couldn't weather having their idiocy pointed out to them, they wouldn't BE idiots now, would they.”

I do apologize for comparing you to Hovind, and I agree that was a bit over the top.  I was trying to make a strong point.  I would be very uncomfortable having you teach a course on ID because you obviously believe that all ID supporters are liars, so it would be questionable as to how you would approach the topic of ID with your students.  Now, obviously, I don’t know you at all.  So, it could be that you are one of the few who would be able to leave their emotional baggage at the door and teach ID as an ID advocate would teach it.  I believe that would be quite difficult for a guy who works for an organization who is out to stop the movement at all cost, but who knows.  

My religion says that lying is wrong. Yours apparently doesn't.

Well, for a guy who doesn’t like getting insulted, you certainly have no problem insulting others.  I’m not a liar.

Date: 2007/04/14 10:38:25, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL.  No, though it certainly would be cool to get paid to play on the internet!!!  Shoot, as much time as I've spent in cyberspace the last few years, I'd be a milionaire by now.  

From what I read in Monkey Girl, it appears that Matzke gets paid to play.  Hmmm...there must be a few DI guys that check in here every once in a great while to see what Elsberry is up to...


Actually, that's a pretty funny accusation, Oldguy.  The DI guys would probably be more comfortable having me disappear from the Internet due to the fact that I'm nothin' other than a layperson.  I probably do them more harm than good.

I used Casey's stuff because it was handy.  I already had it on my blog and rather than go through individual blogs and forum, I just pulled the quotes from what I had.

Although, I suppose I'd merely have to go through a couple of Lenny's posts from the past few days and have plenty to work with.

Date: 2007/04/14 10:51:11, Link
Author: Ftk
Do you have any idea .....even just an inkling, that you are a total moron?

Well, I certainly consider that possibility ever single day.  God knows, I get my daily dose of evolutionists telling me what a complete moronic idiot I am.

Date: 2007/04/14 11:13:34, Link
Author: Ftk
I wonder did you even check the quotes to see if they were accurate (and in fact existed) before "using them on your blog"? Or did you just repeat what Casey had to say?

Of course I do.  I don't think you realize the depth of my obsession with this subject.  I have PZ, Good Math/Bad Math, Orac, PT, and many other science blogs & forums bookmarked.  I peek in all the time.

Date: 2007/04/14 17:27:40, Link
Author: Ftk
You don't work for NSCE anymore?  I just assumed that you did because you're still listed on their site as staff.

As far as you relaying a fair account on ID, I still have to wonder.  Right off the bat I noticed that you use the term - "IDC" instead of "ID".  I think that says something right there.  I know a bit about "creation" science and I don't think there is a creation scientist on earth who would state that ID falls in line with "C"reationist claims.  

That term is misleading because, although I'm sure you have some contrived justification for the initials, when people look at it without your specific reason for using it, they assume it means ID is part of creation science, and it's not.

Anyway, perhaps you are "fair and unbiased" when you cover intelligent design.  There's no way for me to judge that unless I have the opportunity to listen to you speak.  I just recently read Monkey Girl and listened to Humes lecture at KU.  He has been labeled as "fair and unbiased", but nothing could be farther from the truth.  

So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have a special knack for keeping your own bias thoroughly hidden when teaching about ID.  Fair enough? :)

Date: 2007/04/14 17:50:13, Link
Author: Ftk
Hi celdd!!!  Gosh, all my old friends from KCFS seem to be showing up.  Fun times.

As others have, I’m responding here because of your moderating policies on your site.

I didn't know that I rejected one of your comments.  I don't know why I would have done that.  You're usually tame in how you carry on conversations with me.

I’ve noticed that you have progressively come to acknowledge evolution as valid, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it as valid between “kinds” (whatever you consider kinds to be.)  As Dave pointed out, your restricted definition of evolution isn’t the same as considered by science in general.

That comment is unfair.  I have always acknowledged evolution as "valid".  There has been nothing "progressive" about that acknowledgement.

On the KCFS forum, you seemed to advocate for the views expressed by Dr. Walt Brown.  How do you explain the geologic record that shows, with hard incontrovertible evidence, that there is overwhelming evidence for a steady progression from one-celled life through life as is present today?  And furthermore, that the recent advances in biology such as DNA etc. confirm the relationships construed from the geologic record?

Well, all of that is easy to claim in one paragraph, but I've read countless books and articles from both sides of this debate and have come to the conclusion that at this point in time, science has A WHOLE LOT OF WORK TO DO before they can make outrageous claims like the one you just made above.  

You may get there some day, and all power to you in filling in the gaps.  I have no intention of supporting anything that puts a stop to further research into evolutionary claims.

If there was a creator, why not create all the various life forms at one time?

Can you provide scientific evidence for that?  I can't.  Scientists are still searching for answers in regard to the origin of life.

Are you saying that the “designer” has intervened millions of times to create the next species, and the species after that?

No, I don't think science has answered that question yet either.  

Scientifically, I'm saying we can't rule out design.  As to how you scientists are going to get that fact worked into your science, I'll await patiently.

Gosh, I'm hoping the whole mob from KCFS doesn't show up or I'm going to have to quit my day job.

Hope all is well with you and your daughters.

Date: 2007/04/14 17:58:07, Link
Author: Ftk
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.  The only simliarity is that they both support the notion that there has to be a source of intellect responsible for the information and complexity we observe in nature.

Date: 2007/04/14 18:12:03, Link
Author: Ftk
I am getting the impression that FtK would not consider any presentation of IDC "fair" that was not credulous and deferred showing what happened when IDC claims met criticism. Teaching students only the hype about IDC would be wrong.

Hey, man, I'm good with "fair".  I'm just saying I'd have to hear you speak before I came to the conclusion that you'd be "fair".  I certainly want students to understand every facet of this controversy, and that would include the view from opponents of ID.  The topics surrounding this debate are extremely interesting and I believe it would spark the interest of students and lead more of them into the field of science.

Date: 2007/04/14 18:19:16, Link
Author: Ftk
Ugh....serious deja vue going on.

I'm not going there again.  Too time consuming.

Date: 2007/04/14 19:09:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Hey, man, I'm cool with that.  I certainly can understand why you wouldn't give two hoots about what I think.

ID cheerleader - hmmm...okay, I can deal with that description.  I do whip out the 'ol holler back girls at my blog quite frequently to acknowledge slam dunks made by my team.

Show 'em your stuff girls...

Date: 2007/04/14 19:29:22, Link
Author: Ftk
HI CONNER!  Gosh, this is fun.  

Hope all is well out there on the west coast!

Date: 2007/04/14 19:32:31, Link
Author: Ftk
If it was me my explanation wouldn't include the words 'conspiracy', 'darwinism', 'materialism', 'atheism' or 'worldview' so I suspect I would be accused of being biased.

Neither would mine.  I think it would be biased to use those words, don't you?

Date: 2007/04/14 19:37:32, Link
Author: Ftk
De-lurking to ask FtK a couple of questions; I'm really just too curious as to why you're here.  What, again, do you hope to accomplish?

Nothing, other than just having some fun.

What, after 115 posts, do you think you have accomplished thus far?

Not a thing.  I'm basically just shooting the breeze and getting to know some interesting folks.  That's pretty much it.

Date: 2007/04/16 15:58:48, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2007,15:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 16 2007,15:25)
Hey FTK,    
A new study commissioned by Congress has concluded that abstinence only sex education has literally no effect at all on whether or when teenagers have sex.

Fundies aren't really bothered by the STD thing, it's the lack of kids/ vectors for there mimteic virus to infect.

Ya know why I don't discuss anything of depth with you guys?  As predicted, I knew you'd twist anything I say to work for you.

Someone needs to show me where I said anything about supporting abstinence "only" classes.  I would never support such a thing.  That's crazy.

Date: 2007/04/16 16:12:03, Link
Author: Ftk
it sounds like you accept the findings of the study.

Um....did I say anything about whether I accept the findings or not????!  

Why bother to spend taxpayer $$ on something proven not to work?



Jeez, you people are dense.  Of course, this is the EXACT same thing they did to the Kansas Board of Ed.  The moderates screeched to the media that the board wanted to place abstinence only sex ed classes in KS schools.  THAT WAS A COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE!  The board supported ABSTINENCE PLUS classes.  I emailed some of them myself to be sure of what they supported.

Keep spinning my friends.  It'll catch up with you in the end.

Date: 2007/04/16 16:45:56, Link
Author: Ftk
I'm asking why support abstinence classes at allif they have been proven to have no effect?

Oh, forgive me!!  How silly of me to suggest that perhaps those youngsters may not have thought about all the baggage that can go along with having sex with whomever & whenever at a young age.

How's this..the teachers stands at the head of the classe and states that today is a big 'ol party day and the party favors are flavored condoms in a plethora of assorted colors!!!  Far out.  

Then she spouts off all the other ways to try to avoid pregnancy and STD's .  But, not to worry!  If those don't work and you still get knocked up, there's always the abortion option.

At the end of class, she can tell them to go out and fuck to their hearts delight!!!  Heck, she could pair the kids up and let them have a go at it right there in class!  They have porn classes at the university level, so why not just start those classes in high school??  That would surely give them some SEX EDUCATION.

The teacher won't have to deal with the repercussions, the parents and the students will.

What in the heck is wrong with you people? Abstinence should certainly be suggested and discussed, along with discussions of the emotional issues involved in sexual relationships.  There should also be discussion about treating the opposite sex with respect.  I'm thinking Richard and I would fail that part of the class.

Date: 2007/04/16 17:01:35, Link
Author: Ftk
Well, that makes SIX times and counting.

You must be daft.  There is no way in #### that I would discuss anything serious in this forum.  There are very few people here who are capable of discussion.

And, if I actually did start to engage, Lenny, Oldman, et. al. would (again) start posting numerous separate posts at a time and take up huge amounts of thread width.  They'd make it virtually impossible to carry on a conversation.  Lenny's a real piece of work.  I have no idea why you people allow him to post here.

Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is.

Date: 2007/04/16 18:02:31, Link
Author: Ftk
Arden, you're as bad as Lenny and Oldman.

Your concern for 'thread width' is touching.

I don't have any concern for your thread width.  

I'm saying it is impossible to carry on a descent conversation when some idiot posts 6-7 separate posts in a row, saying virtually nothing (other than they are are to stop creationists) and using one phrase from their opponents post for each of their separate posts.  When people pull that stuff, it's apparent that they are putting no thought in their response at all.  They see the first sentence they disagree with, get pissed, post, they go back and see something else, post again, etc.  Lenny is a mess.

And, some of you have some serious issues with religion that probably would be better handled by a professional.  I have no idea what happened in your past that got you to this point, but thank goodness there aren't many like you in the world.  Sheesh.

Date: 2007/04/18 17:28:03, Link
Author: Ftk
ID is dead.  Unalterably dead.  Dead, dead, dead.

Do you guys realize how often you keep repeating this mantra?  It's as though you're trying to convince yourselves, and evidently the repetition is comforting.

I don't know if you’ve noticed, but ID (and creation science for that matter) is more widespread then ever before.  People are curious at this point because the Darwinists act like raving loons the second ID is mentioned.  

The inference has been banned from the science classroom, but I think that probably makes it all the more intriguing.

I guess I should be thanking you guys... :p

Date: 2007/04/18 21:41:14, Link
Author: Ftk
she'd LIKE to think the repetition is on our side, but we've been hearing about the waterloo of the ToE for nigh unto 80 years now from the creationists.

You'll never hear any predictions that the ToE is on it's last leg coming from me.  It's a solid theory, except when you get to the part that is based soley on atheist philosophy.  LOL...

Nope, personally, I think the ToE and ID can get along rather nicely together.  Though, I think the proponents of each will fight like children until the end of time (which might be very soon, if the global warming "experts" are right).

Date: 2007/04/18 22:12:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Vacuous comments don't become better when you add "lol" to the end of them.

Sorry about all the laughing, but this place does give me oodles of entertainment.   I like the way you all pat each other on the back and rave about your intellect.  But, readers would be hard pressed to find anything here that displays all that immense "intellect".  Though, lame jokes seem to be all the rage.

I gave my sister the link to this forum.   She always finds arrogant enlightened "intellectuals" highly amusing as well.  

She doesn't find Richard attractive, though.  She thinks I should never have sent him those pictures of me in a miniskirt.  She also asked if he was retarded due to the hat and the inability to write a decent sentence.  That took quite a bit of background information to explain!

Date: 2007/04/18 22:35:03, Link
Author: Ftk
Gosh, Doc Bill, you've got all that, and you still aren't able to convince the public that the "all powerful" mechanism of natural selection is the only "intelligence" needed to account for everything in nature.  

I know, I know, Americans are, for the most part, completely ignorant and unable to process these issues like you "enlightened" sciency types are.

But keep talkin', because every word that comes out of your mouths is quite helpful to ID.  All the blatant anti-religious rhetoric only solidifies the fact that ya'll aren't here due to the science.

Date: 2007/04/18 22:53:37, Link
Author: Ftk
Well, Blipey, I'm certainly not going spend much time doing research work for you.  But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters.  

One of the "moderate" KS school board members alluded to the fact that ID is growing when she whined about it at a panel discussion at KU.  She stated that in '99 she received many emails from individuals in other countries questioning why there is such a problem with "creationism" here in the states.  In 2005, she received emails again, but this time they were complaining that the "problem" was in their neck of the woods as well.  

ID used to be a US "problem", but now it's EVERYWHERE.  Probably makes you want to go have a good cry, no??

Oh, and what about the recent Salk Institute Conference? Sounded like the scientists attending that shindig were absolutely frothing about the popularity of ID.

Date: 2007/04/18 23:02:07, Link
Author: Ftk
why don't you at least admit that the ToE has NOTHING to do with "atheism"?

Not a problem.  I truly, honestly, cross my heart hope to die, swear on a stack of bibles believe that the ToE has NOTHING to do with atheism.  It's merely a scientific theory - nothing more, nothing less.  

But, atheists, on the other hand hold to the ToE and specifically the all powerful and majestic ~natural selection~ as their source of life and will go down fighting for it just as a theist would fight for their right to worship their particular brand of god.

How's that?  Will that work for ya?

Date: 2007/04/18 23:10:59, Link
Author: Ftk
the issue, as has been pointed out to you MANY times, is that ID is only relevant as an explanation of the observation of variability IF IT PRODUCES RESULTS.

Oh, you mean in the same way that macroev. and common descent have produced results?  [snicker]

Microev. has been vital to science, but scientists were aware of microevolutionary changes long before Darwin.

The rest of it is just window dressing for philosophical leanings.  If scientists had excluded the macro. mindset long ago, it wouldn't have had any affect on scientific advancement whatsoever.

Date: 2007/04/18 23:21:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Here's the amount of research that I'm sure you're familiar with:

A Google Fight

Well, hey, I think ID is doing darn well considering that it is literally banned from all educational systems due to Darwinists threatening the jobs of those who dare speak the words "Intelligent Design".

Can you imagine how many students google for ToE information throughout the school year?  It's all they've got, and they certainly need to research in order to get good grades.  So, obviously, the "ToE" is going to have many more hits in that respect.

Date: 2007/04/18 23:26:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Well, boys, it's been fun, but I've got to go get some sleep.  Later...

[Richard, I'll be dreaming about you in your funky little Tard hat.]

Date: 2007/04/19 20:31:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Oh, get real Blipey.  Why the heck would Dave suggest that a "Christian" couldn't have possibly pulled the trigger that killed those 33 individuals unless he was baiting you guys.  

Obviously, Christians have gone off the deep end in the past.  Good grief... as if Christianity can keep all adherents completely unsusceptible to pain, grief, or whatever it is that causes people to lose touch with reality.  

I was trying to save you from looking like an idiot, but I'll certainly let it go through if that's what you want.

Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.

Date: 2007/04/19 20:59:57, Link
Author: Ftk
Here a big news flash for ya:

I couldn't give two hoots if you people take me seriously or not.  :)

Date: 2007/04/19 21:16:17, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:06)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:31)

Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.

...and yet he escapes censorship moderation!

Yup, I figure the guy needs a place to mess with you nasty 'ol meanies.  From what I understand you've banned him from posting here.  

Personally, I find him highly amusing.

Date: 2007/04/19 21:37:06, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (deejay @ April 19 2007,21:17)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:59)
Here a big news flash for ya:

I couldn't give two hoots if you people take me seriously or not.  :)


Should anyone take your views on IDC and science seriously?

LOL....probably not.  Obviously, I'm not a scientist.  I merely love to read and research about this topic.  It's a hobby (that I don't have time for).

As I've stated many times on my blog, I write about this stuff because I'm pretty much obsessed with the topic, and my husband can only take so much of my banter.  He finds it quite interesting, but not on the level that I do.  His eyes start to glaze over when I go on and on about something I've read.  

I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???

My friends and family know I'm into this stuff, and they occasionally ask me questions.  They take me seriously.  Usually...  :p

Date: 2007/04/19 21:41:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Hey Richard, how come I made Arden's signature line, but not yours!! :angry:

You better do something about that.

Date: 2007/04/19 21:43:37, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:40)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???

Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?

LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge.

Date: 2007/04/19 21:55:19, Link
Author: Ftk're a mess, Richard.

Oh, btw, I grew up in the disco era, not the 50's.  Jeez, you're making me feel ancient!

Date: 2007/04/19 22:36:21, Link
Author: Ftk
I'm not lying.  I honestly couldn't care less what anyone in this forum thinks of me.  

And, yes, I was very involved at KCFS for several years, I was serious, and I learned a lot.  One thing I learned was that the most important issues in this debate are based on the ~interpretation~ of evidence, so if someone is set on a particular interpretation due to their philosophy or religion, there is no convincing them otherwise.  And, most of that significant "evidence" is based on historical inference, so it's next to impossible to refute.

My feelings are that neither evolution, ID, or creation science will ever reign as ~the~ theory that ousts the others.  It's like a tennis side points me to talkorigins, the other points me to trueorigins, etc., etc..  The ball will bounce back and forth literally forever.  

I do take my blog seriously, and I try to be fair to everyone who I think is at least trying to state their case politely for my readers.

But, as far as this forum is concerned, I'm just here for the laughs.

Date: 2007/04/19 22:41:09, Link
Author: Ftk
Take a chill pill, Blipey.  I posted your comment.

Date: 2007/04/19 23:03:32, Link
Author: Ftk
Yeah, that "wallowing in ignorance for years" has been a real bitch.  

Oh, btw, the "sky pixie" scenario is highly overused.

Date: 2007/04/19 23:14:28, Link
Author: Ftk
Because you were merely looking for a fight.  That's why.  Obviously, that comment isn't going to lead to anything productive.  Nonetheless, it's there now, so you can sleep peacefully.

Date: 2007/04/19 23:19:41, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (k.e @ April 19 2007,23:14)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2007,05:51)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,21:40)
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,21:37)
I've also found that this is such an explosive topic that it is much better discussed on the internet than face to face. ???

Are you trying to seduce me Mrs. Robinson?

LOL, I doubt that would be much of a challenge.

To be honest FtK, I think you might go home alone and disappointed. Things have changed a lot since

I don't have the time to train a fundy at the moment. Let K.E. snog you for a while and I'll get a report from him... :)

Disclaimer - you should only enter into intimacy with people you care about

Yup I'm getting my visa now, but you'll have to wait a little, I haven't had all my shots yet. But when I do, I'm on my way. Do they have roads where you live? Do I have to bring my own toilet paper and water tablets? Do you have a satellite phone? I'm looking foward to a journey back to where modern civilization has yet to appear. Do the women folk still walk around topless with a bone through their noses? Dont worry I'll bring my own penis gourd, the ones you have aren't big enough.

I'm scared.  Seriously.  Somebody, call him off.

Date: 2007/04/21 18:52:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 21 2007,18:43)
Apparently I hit a nerve, causing FtK to close the comments on this thread, and accuse me of "causing more hatred."

I respectfully disagree with that accusation. Read it for yourself and see.

Dave, you need to remember that it's not all about you, hon. I've had to remind you of that in the past.

I stated that "You've all had a chance to get your digs in now".  That was refering to ~everyone~ who commented on that thread, including me.

I knew that post would probably flair up a few emotions, and now it's time to put a stop to it.  At a point, it just become counterproductive to keep after each other.

Carry on...

Date: 2007/04/23 10:39:50, Link
Author: Ftk
For a KSU professor, you sure act more like a preschooler, Dave.

Ya gonna come over here and nark ~every~ time I reject one of your comments?  Go for it, but that might keep you pretty busy.  

The only people who read this forum are die hard ID bashers.  What do I care if you come over here and tattle.

BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.  If that keeps you from visiting my blog, so what?  Buzz off then.

Have a great day.

Date: 2007/04/23 21:57:46, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ April 23 2007,20:50)
Quote (Ftk @ April 20 2007,00:19)
FTK re KE:

I'm scared.  Seriously.  Somebody, call him off.

I don't know if you're kidding here or serious. If you're serious, I can understand how showing up in the middle of things, some of KE's posts could look dangerous and weird. Thing is, the capitalized aggressive comments are a joke. Davescot is well-known for making loud, dumb threats. People here jokingly spoof those threats, and the spoofs are usually either capitalized or boldfaced, based on Davescot's fetish for boldfaced comments. Davescot isn't as bad as he used to be, Dembski tightened up his leash last summer after too many people complained.


No, I'm not serious, and yes, I understand the capital letters & the Dave connection.  That's pretty obvious.

Bear in mind that I never plan on being "serious" here.   I just get a kick out of watching you people act like complete goofballs.

Date: 2007/04/24 07:47:00, Link
Author: Ftk
Yeah, it is cool.  That's why I put it  on my blog.  And, yes, I noticed that they didn't mention any flowering plants.

The 4.5 billion year age of the earth doesn't bother me, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, Arden.  But, I keep an open mind about these issues, and seriously consider ~all~ the arguments from both sides of the debate.

So sue me for not refusing to join in the dogma.

Date: 2007/04/24 08:22:31, Link
Author: Ftk

You are such a liar.  Seriously, how do you live with yourself?

Brown did participate in that thread.  The debate went on for months.

Date: 2007/04/24 08:45:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Yup, the other points are more important, and Brown did not get "demolished".  That would be wishful thinking on Scott's part.  Just like anything I might choose to discuss here, it would be spun to your liking.  

I've had no serious discussions here, yet when I did merely mention sex ed classes, that conversation was contorted to what you wanted to think I supported.  Yet, in writing, I had already given my opinion on the matter.  It didn't match with what you relayed to readers later.  Not surprising.

I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  


You're certainly not going to change opinions in this debate if you can't play fair.

Date: 2007/04/24 09:47:44, Link
Author: Ftk
More misinformation.  I've addressed that false spin here before as well.


Date: 2007/04/24 10:03:08, Link
Author: Ftk
Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

Date: 2007/04/24 10:25:46, Link
Author: Ftk
Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.

No, I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.

You want to read the Brown thread?  Go for it.  It ran from June '05 - Sept '05, with about 1900 comments to the thread.

I tried setting up very fair parameters in that particular debate, but to no avail.  People were evidently so intimidated by the thought of debate that I couldn't get 3 judges (you'd have to read the thing to get the idea).

Now, we'll see what jerks you people actually are.  If you start quote mining from that thread and showing disrespect and ridicule, you'll prove my point.  If you are able to control your emotions and act civilized when commenting on what you find, you'll prove me wrong.

Date: 2007/04/24 10:39:03, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL, I've set Meert straight on more than one occasion.  I'll have to see if I can dig up some of our old conversations about his "offer" to debate Brown.  What a crock.

Date: 2007/04/24 12:14:14, Link
Author: Ftk
Louis, this shouldn't be a surprise since I've mentioned it repeatedly, but I don't care whether you think I'm dishonest, stupid, moronic, or any other choice of adjective you choose to use.

I've discussed many issues on my blog and at KCFS.  Peruse that if you need a fix, but I'm not going to be discussing anything in this forum.

I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum.

Have a great day! :D

Date: 2007/04/24 12:50:19, Link
Author: Ftk

Let's be honest.  Whatever I present as "evidence", you will reject.  I'll sincerely believe it to be solid evidence, but you won't.  Pretty much end of story.

And, as far as my readers are concerned, I have all confidence that they will certainly understand why I do not engage here.

But, thanks for worrying about me.

Date: 2007/04/24 13:44:55, Link
Author: Ftk
Good grief, what the heck is wrong with you, Oldman?  You're just dying to get into a big YE/OE bashing session, and I provided on the other thread a freaking 4 month long debate I was involved in called "Brown's evidence".  What the heck more could you want?  

Read it...have a ball.  I was up against god only knows how many Darwinists on that thread.  Well over 40 I'm sure.  

I have never said that I believe YE creation scientists to be right and other scientists to be wrong.  I believe there is ~much~ to consider coming from both sides of the debate.   I don't think ~anyone~ has it right yet.

So there.

Date: 2007/04/24 14:08:23, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (improvius @ April 24 2007,13:49)
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,11:25)
Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.

No, I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.

This is an excellent example of the creationist "mental blockade" that prevents contradictory data from entering the conscious thought process.  Sources of contradictory data are classified as "untrustworthy", therefore the data itself can be safely ignored.

Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".  I've provided a link to prove it, and that is only one freaking thread of hundreds I've been involved in over the past 3 years or so.

I merely won't go through it here again with you people.  There is no point in it.

Date: 2007/04/24 17:50:45, Link
Author: Ftk
Me, I think you're just an attention whore.  (shrug)

Hmmm...I get that accusation alot.  

Here's a thought...quit responding to me, or better yet, don't set up whole threads highlighting everything I blog about.

I don't look for the attention, it seems to come to me.

Date: 2007/04/24 18:24:43, Link
Author: Ftk
FTK, did you initially agree with the consensus view of the age of the earth?

Yes, completely.  It's all I was taught in high school and college, and the churches I attended growing up never mentioned anything about "flood geology", or a "young earth".  Most churches that I'm familiar with wouldn't touch that subject with a 10 foot pole, and the one I attend now doesn't hold a particular viewpoint on it either.

What caused you to question it?

My kids were young and into the whole dinosaur deal.  I was surfing the net looking up dino info. for them, and ran across some young earth stuff, and at about the same time I was attending a bible study (that had nothing to do with this subject) and some guy brought in a film on flood geology.  I'd never heard of anything like it, and the leaders of the class had no comment about it, but they let the guy show part of the film.

How do you decide which authority to listen to? The science involved is obviously beyond you, so is it personality, charm, what? Or is it just that you choose your authority figures depending on if they agree with what your magic 2000 year old book happens to say?

I "listen" to all "authorities", and I have certainly not made any final decisions on these issues.  I also DO NOT in any way believe that the earth MUST be young to validate scripture.  I do think there is conflict with common ancestry and scripture, but perhaps one day a TE will put something together to rectify that problem.  

But, the biggest problem I have with common ancestry involves the scientific issues, not my religious beliefs (I couldn’t care less if you believe me or not).  I don’t think that common ancestry can be considered fact merely due to the similarities between organisms.

And, yeah, I think "charm" figures in there somewhere.  I've never met people as rude as the Darwinists in this fight.  It doesn't matter how much I listen or what I try to discuss, they treat me like crap.  Every once in a while, I'll come across someone who will be kind for a bit, but when they find out they aren't going to change my mind with a few post, they turn on me like gangbusters.

I think the way people treat others provides insight to their overall character, and I think that is something to consider in this debate on some level.

Date: 2007/04/24 19:31:45, Link
Author: Ftk
Try honesty and uh, answering questions for a change. Generally,  respect is, like, earned.

Hon, anything that does not coinsider with your worldview would be considered "dishonest".  I've never said anything that is dishonest, but I've been told repeatedly from members of this forum that I'm dishonest.  What's the point in fighting that crap?

I think respect shouldn't have to be "earned".  If everyone treated each other with respect from the get go, the world would be a much better place.  It's quite possible to disagree with someone without showing utter disrespect for them.

Date: 2007/05/02 22:10:09, Link
Author: Ftk
I hope that her kids don't tell anybody about heronicide when they pick up their prizes for the duck stamp contest this month. And someday I hope that they learn about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which was amended in 1998 to allow the fine for a misdemeanor violation of that act to range up to $15,000. And yes, if you want to know, Great Blue Herons are protected under that law, as well as various Kansas statutes.

You are such a dope, Dave.  My kids go after the Herons with a bee bee gun at very long range.  I assure you they are not going to ~kill~ a Heron.  Personally, I love watching them on the pond.  But, as I said in my comment to Dave, one of them ate the baby chicks that had ~just~ hatched, so it was *very* disappointing.  We had been taking care of that pair of Mallards for quite some time.

My husband and kids are members of Ducks Unlimited so they know all the rules *quite* well, thank you.  And, they've also been through hunter's saftey.  My husband is a stickler about the rules.  

Of course, when the bible tells you that you have dominion over the earth, you really don't have to pay attention to those cheeky laws that restrict what you can do to the planet. When the Rapture comes, you get to leave this planet for the heathens to live on!

News flash, Dave...

I'm not a Premillennial Dispensationalist, so I don’t find biblical support for a first “rapture”, a "tribulation" period for the "heathens", and a “1000 year reign”.  In other words, I’m not a Tim LaHaye fan.  I take care of the planet like anyone else.  My husband built our home with conservation in mind.  It's a fairly large home, but he did quite a few things so that our energy usage is much lower than the norm.  

Also...I did not encourage Dave to do damage to Bilpey.  I was merely alluding to the fact that from the looks of both of them, Dave wouldn't need the dogs to protect himself from Bilpey.  

Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.  It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.

Date: 2007/05/02 22:43:13, Link
Author: Ftk
Blip, Bilp, Blup...whatever.

He seems to spend quite a bit of time and energy on Dave.  I'm thinkin' he might have a crush on the poor guy.

Date: 2007/05/02 23:05:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave is not "ugly as a mud fence".  Here's a about you post a picture of your mug so we can see how extraordinarily handsome you must be.

Date: 2007/05/03 08:51:38, Link
Author: Ftk
Oh great.  Now I'm going to have to post pictures of myself because that is the single worst picture ever taken of me, and it's a couple years old....UGH!!

I'd seriously like to know who in the #### dug up that picture and how they knew it was me.  My name was not in that paper so it's someone who knows me...

Liz, Jack, Jeremy, Josh, Burt....speak up.  Someone went to some work to find that one.

Date: 2007/05/03 11:56:45, Link
Author: Ftk
My name is NOT Alice Wright.

And, you're right, Louis.  I can't believe someone would post a picture of me due to the fact that I have always wanted to remain anonymous and have stated that over and over in different forums.  

I don't think Jeremy would stoop this low, but I can't imagine who would other than LIZ.

Date: 2007/05/03 12:42:05, Link
Author: Ftk

Liz would do it.  

I can't imagine Jack or Jeremy doing it, and it's not anyone I know personally because the people I know aren't interested enough in this debate to follow me over to this forum.  Besides, whether you want to believe it or not, I don't have any enemies in the real world.  I've always been well liked.  

It's definently someone from KCFS.

Date: 2007/05/03 15:34:31, Link
Author: Ftk
But doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that FtK's first response to having that picture posted was to try to post some more pictures?

Dude, I look like hell.  Looks like I wanted to kill someone....oh, yeah, I did.  The speakers were all from KU and die-hard liberal evolutionists.

I think my links work now...but, maybe not.  Computer wiz, I'm evidently not.

Date: 2007/05/03 22:09:54, Link
Author: Ftk

For the record...

I don't advocate killing people.  

I don't advocate shooting Herons.  

I don't advocate hunting down people who post my picture on the Internet.    

Let's see, did I miss anything?  If I did, I'm sure Arden will let me know. :(

Date: 2007/05/03 22:13:17, Link
Author: Ftk
NO!  Keep them to yourself.  I've been outed enough for one day.


Date: 2007/05/03 22:28:01, Link
Author: Ftk
In my front yard.  It's common knowledge that I live in Kansas.  We do have pine trees here...

We had a Thanksgiving shindig that day, and since I'm horrible at getting my family in for professional pictures, we shot a few of us and other friends and relatives.

Date: 2007/05/04 08:47:12, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 04 2007,07:55)
Quote (slpage @ May 04 2007,07:24)
Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,15:34)
Looks like I wanted to kill someone....oh, yeah, I did.  The speakers were all from KU and die-hard liberal evolutionists.

Yeah, because all evolutionists are librals' and need to be killed.

Like Krauthammer and George Will and Guiliani etc...


What is it with conservative religious fanatics and their death cult?  Always wanting to go to war (as long as someone else has to go fight), always talking about violence.


yeah, because wanting to kill somebody for the views they are espousing is really scientific.

FTK, can you imagine how scientific debate would be if the protagonists were sitting there "wanting to kill each other".

I think you'll find only religion inspires such hatred towards your fellow man.

Violence is obviously something that's not far away from your mind, or DS' come to that. Threats to kill if property lines are crossed, desire to kill somebody for having a "liberal" viewpoint. Very Old Testament.

What a bunch of sicko whackjobs you are. And it only took a picture for the true you to come out on display for us all to see.

Next time, instead of sitting there thinking "I want to kill these people" you spend that time trying to think up cogent arguments that support your case. Oh, sorry, right....

Um....are you for real?  

So, let me get this straight.  You think I literally want to "kill" liberals, that I want to instill OT rules and regs., and that because I'm "religious", I hate my fellow man.

And, apparently you think that everyone who questions the naturalist creation story feels this way as well?

Just curious...

Date: 2007/05/04 08:53:26, Link
Author: Ftk
k.e.  I just thank God every day that you live on another continent with lots of water separating us.  You're out there, man.

Date: 2007/05/04 10:43:12, Link
Author: Ftk
I don't think people who subscribe to Biblical Inerrancy are evil; in fact, I find most of them to be good people who will sacrifice themselves for others.

Okay, there seems to be a disconnect here somewhere.  I don't think I've written anywhere that I think those who do not ascribe to Biblical inerrancy are "evil".  I also don't think you'll find anywhere that I believe atheists to be "evil".  If you do, please check the context as I'm probably joking around.

Truth be told, I think the whole "evil" atheist, "evil" fundie thing to be kinda ridiculous.  But, at times I play along for kicks.

As I've told people before, I don't live in a fundie bubble.  I have friends of all faiths (I include atheist and agnostics as those who have "faith").  

Just about anything I write here is in jest.  I tend to write with sarcasm and I like to joke around.

I don't think I'd be flirting with Richard if I thought he were "evil".

Date: 2007/05/04 16:54:29, Link
Author: Ftk
TGoP writes:

When I attempt to support my opinions, I'm "google trawling". When I don't, I'm "blithering". If I quote from a book people claim I quote too little/too much (often simultaneously), and this is used as further evidence of my dishonesty. Personal anecotes? Obviously made up. I'm surely too stupid to understand the scientific papers I cite, so pub med is out. Permalinks? Nope, I took the permalinks out of context (yes, I've been accused of perma-mining) so they don't count either. Dishonestdishonestdishonest.

Let's see. My task, if I choose to accept it, is to support my obviously dishonest opinion without recourse to books, journals, the internet, or personal experiences. My critics, of course, are the ultimate authorities of what is dishonest, and they are under no obligation to demonstrate dishonesty, because....well, they're honest people, unlike me.

Hit the 'ol nail on the head with that one.  Was it not you who recently asked me if I was ever going to talk about anything serious on the other thread?  

Reread your quote above again....

[giving you time to read]

Now, do you understand why it is completely ridiculous for me to try to discuss *anything* of significance here??

Date: 2007/05/06 14:51:57, Link
Author: Ftk

I don't think it's necessarily strange to want to discuss various issues face to face, and yes, it is nice to put a face and name to people who you talk to in these forums.

I've met a number of people from KCFS at various functions, and I'm certainly not afraid of them.  For the most part they seem normal. :p

I even went to Brian Fleming's flick, The God Who Wasn't There, when it was playing in KC because one of the KCFS posters was going to be on the panel discussion afterward and I wanted to meet him.  He had no clue I was going to be there, so it was kinda fun introducing myself.  Fleming was there as well, but I couldn't find him afterwards so I didn't get to talk to him.  Just as well, I suppose. ;)

But, personally, I just think it's a bit weird to tell me you're going to come visit me.  I certainly wouldn't mind meeting you at some evo. shindig in Kansas, but I'm thinkin' my husband would find it just a bit odd that some dude I met in a forum shows up at my house out of the blue.  I also have no clue why you'd have to come to my house to talk with me about "education" etc. when we can do that on-line.

I'm not quite sure why you'd want to meet Dave at his house either.  Wouldn't email work just as well?

Date: 2007/05/07 12:27:31, Link
Author: Ftk

Try email.  Wanna discuss?...we'll discuss privately.

Date: 2007/05/07 20:33:52, Link
Author: Ftk
I seriously don't know how you guys can praise Pat.  He is such a scare monger.

All his talk about fundies taking over the government is absolutely ridiculous.  I live in the freaking bible belt, and I don't know of ANYONE who comes even remotely close to being like the crazy fundies he constantly alludes to.

His post made mention that we home school our kids and don't let them learn about science, etc.  He's nuts.  No doubt there are some fruit loops out there who shelter their kids from the real world, but they're a minority.

I mean, let's get real.  Just about anything goes these days.  We can turn on the tube or Internet and watch any perversion known to man.  We have freedom to do just about anything we like, and being atheist/agnostic seems to be all the rage these days.  Anyone that is religious is deemed "ignorant".  

And, isn't Carl Rove an atheist?  What the heck is Bush doing with an atheist if he is planning a theocracy?  

Sheesh, you people are leading a serious paranoia club.

True Christians, if they have ever read their bible and are familiar with the words of Christ, realize that the last thing He would ever suggest is a take over of the government.

Date: 2007/05/08 07:49:24, Link
Author: Ftk
Do any of you know any "reconstructionists" personally?

I had never even heard of the term until I became involved in this debate.  I then heard it repeatedly from Darwin advocates who feel the DI is a bastion of religious fruitcakes out to control government.

Where are these reconstructionists?  Do they center around certain denominations or what?  I truthfully have never met ANYONE who holds the view of these so called "reconstructionists".

Date: 2007/05/08 08:04:08, Link
Author: Ftk
I was thinking about this a bit more...

I'm not sure what exactly this Ahmanson guy is involved in as far as "reconstruction" *at the moment*, but in regard to the money he supposedly gives the DI -- so what?  Should they not accept the donations?

That would kinda be like me telling all of you to reject Dawkins, PZ, Weinberg, et. al.  They have made it quite clear that they are using science as a means to put a stop to religious nonsense.  Should we reject their scientific accomplishments because their mission is not focused on science alone?  

Do you see my point?  I HONESTLY cannot believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. want to see a Christian theocracy.  That's just completely insane.  

At the religious level of the debate, there's nothing wrong with wanting people to consider that there is an ultimate source of our existence.  But that is much different than wanting to take control of the government.

Date: 2007/05/08 08:12:10, Link
Author: Ftk
Wes quoted:

Christianity as a specific doctrine was slain with Jesus, suddenly and utterly. He was hardly cold in his grave, or high in his heaven (as you please), before the apostles dragged the tradition of him down to the level of the thing it has remained ever since.   - George Bernard Shaw

What do you think Shaw meant be this?  Elaborate...

Date: 2007/05/08 08:18:14, Link
Author: Ftk
way to avoid the question. Don't you have any comment on Lenny's huge post as to who the paymasters are at the disco institute?

Hey, oldman, back off.  I know how this plays out...I've been here before.  If I post something, all of a sudden there are numerous darts thrown and I'm expected to answer everyone immediately.  Screw that.  I don't have time for it.  I'll comment on what I'm interested in, and if I have time later to go back and comment on the rest, I will.

Ignore me if you don't like it, but if you start freaking and bellyaching from the get go, I'll ignore everything else you have to say as well.

Date: 2007/05/08 10:02:44, Link
Author: Ftk
Can you then explain why

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
is in the document that defines the DI's goals?

I truthfully do see what the big deal is about that sentence.  Design has always permeated much of society as most folks do believe in an ultimate creator of the cosmos.  

That doesn’t mean that all the world views this designer as the God of Abraham.  For those of us who are Christian and consider the designer to be “God”, we *try* to live our lives as Christ instructed.  That doesn’t mean we should feel compelled to ~take over~ the government, but that on an *individual* level we live accordingly to how Christ would have us live.  Certainly, that belief may influence our political views, but the majority of Christians in the world realize the immense problems that would follow if a religious theocracy were to replace a secular government.  

Free will enables everyone to make a choice about these issues.  If one has done the research and chooses to believe that an ultimate designer is non-existent and that we are the product of chance, then they should certainly have the right and privilege to preach that to the masses if they so desire.  

But, OTOH, this no-design based perspective should not be the only consideration in the science class.  IMO, ID should be considered at some level in the universities. Perhaps the IDEA clubs are the best place to address these issues at this moment in time due to the scare tactics being forwarded by the NCSE and other organizations.  

I mean, come on...even Dawkins, the atheist’s equivalent to Billy Graham, sees design in nature.  Science follows the evidence, yet for Dawkins his philosophical perspective won’t allow for him to do that.

Date: 2007/05/08 10:08:56, Link
Author: Ftk

I understood the point, but I was wondering what you believe Shaw to be saying specifically.  I also wonder if you agree with his quote.

Date: 2007/05/08 11:00:48, Link
Author: Ftk
as I pointed out in a comment on RSR, science is being short-shrifted in public schools, due to the bizarre ramifications of No Child Left Behind. Bush et. al are making it more likely that American schoolkids are ignorant about science. That may not be what they specifically planned to do (I'm not sure they are that clever), but it is certainly happening.

While I think NCLB is going to fail our children in the long run, I certainly don't think that it was set up to oust science from the curriculum.  I mean, come on Dave, scientific literacy is at an all time high.  You cannot truly believe that anyone wants to purposely “short-shrift” science in the public schools.  

My kids seems to be getting a good science education.  My 6th grader spends more time on it than my 4th grader, but that probably makes sense.

IMO, reading, science and math are the most important classes for our kids, and I tell mine that all the time.

BTW, you mentioned you know some "reconstructionists".  Do they tell you that they believe there should be a Christian "theocracy"?  What are they like in general?  Do they hide the world from their children or what?  Seriously, I'd like to know what these people are like, because I honestly don't know any.

Date: 2007/05/08 12:48:18, Link
Author: Ftk
So, Dave, what you're saying is that science has taken a nose dive since the Clinton era.  Do you have evidence to back that up?  I didn't know the man was terribly interested in science other than studying the human anatomy of his interns.

Personally, my family has taken a new interest in science due to this debate.  Not because we are out to stop science due to the fact that ~some~ scientists believe that the natural world is all there is.  No, it's because we find the issues in this debate extremely interesting, and I find that ID proponents have a different way of presenting science that leads to excitement in learning more about our universe.

Evolutionists act as if the world is just a chance event.  That doesn't seem terribly interesting or exciting, IMO.  Their personally credulity seems to keep them from expressing the grandeur and complexity of nature.  

Dawkins writes with some eloquence, but it seems that he has replaced the term “god” with “natural selection”.  The man, IMO, is just as religious as the next guy, but he has selected NS as his object of praise.  I certainly don’t think that Dawkins writing in regard to  scientific issues turns a person away from God.  He sees the design, he just can’t accept it.  Very strange, IMHO.

Two books come to mind to explain what I mean...  More than Meets the Eye, by Richard A. Swenson, M.D., and Billions of Missing Links, by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.  These two gentlemen recognize the immense complexity and awesome design in nature.  Their writing relays this wonder of science to the readers and compels them to want to explore the subject even further.  While reading those two books, I went to the net many times to learn more about the subjects they discussed.

Evolutionists are BORING because they don’t write or teach with the intensity that those who accept design do.  If they did, they’d give credence to design, and WE CAN’T HAVE THAT!!

Now, Dave, don't get all defensive on me.  I'm sure you are a wonderful and exciting teacher.  Don't blow a gasket....this is just MO, and I'm just a stupid creationist, so relax.

Date: 2007/05/08 12:56:07, Link
Author: Ftk
This summer we have expanded the workshop to include grade school teachers.  Why?  Because they have asked for help in addressing their concerns about teaching science.  The NCLB-mandated focus on math and reading has, for many classrooms, eliminated any time for science.

I have worried about this in the past as well.  At this point, our school seems to be doing a decent job of handling the load.  But, they do spend extra time working at math and reading for the assessments.  At the beginning of the year they have early warning tests and get kids into before/after school tutoring to work specifically on math and reading.  This is a good idea, IMO, because that way they don't need to spend so much extra time on it in the classroom.  It also benefits those kids who are behind.  But, this takes time and money as well.

Date: 2007/05/08 13:16:07, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 08 2007,12:15)
As you may have heard, the official platform of the Texas Republican Party now has a plank "to dispel the myth of the separation of church and state". That smacks of theocracy to me. Do you know people who would agree with that platform plank?

I predict that FTK will state that the separation of church and state is a myth, and then to refuse to back up her reasons for saying so.

No, I don't agree that the separation of church and state is a myth.  I think the socas is very much needed for people in our society to live together peaceably.

I saw a video by Barton one time, and thought that many of the things in it were interesting, but I didn't realize at the time that he wanted to disolve the much needed wall of separation.  

But, OTOH, I do think that there was a strong Christian influence during the time of our founding fathers.  Today we find that there is a loud movement from the left complaining about virtually everything religious, and we have found that the wall of separation is doing what it was designed to keep the peace between various groups and allow for religious freedom.

Though, I do think that many times people take the socas too far.  For instance having to take down displays of the 10 commandments, crosses, etc. from every freaking public display is getting pretty carried away.  At the time of our founding fathers bibles were in the public schools as was prayer.  Nobody complained then, but today it's as though some people want to rid the nation of Christianity altogether.  It's a shame that something so wonderful for some can be viewed as such a negative to others.

Date: 2007/05/08 13:21:40, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2007,13:07)
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,12:48)
So, Dave, what you're saying is that science has taken a nose dive since the Clinton era.  Do you have evidence to back that up?  I didn't know the man was terribly interested in science other than studying the human anatomy of his interns.


Okay, maybe.  Maybe we need to get NCLB to test on science as well.  Do they include science testing at any grade level for NCLB?  

Regardless, there is no way anyone will convince me that NCLB was set up to do away with science.  

Richard, did you notice Norway????!  -38 - holy crap.  So much for the liberal Norweigans.

Date: 2007/05/08 13:33:37, Link
Author: Ftk
Do you think that 17% is a good score?

Of course not.  But, do you think religion is what is holding the country back from doing better in science?

Date: 2007/05/08 14:08:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Out of interest, do you think Church and State are equal entities? Equal in stature and one is as important as the other?

Well, let’s put it this way.  I don’t know of many people who put the church before the state.  We answer to the law of the government, not so much the law of God, and  personally I pay WAY more to the state than I do to the church.  Heck there’s nothing left to give to the church after the state takes it’s toll.  

I don’t think the Church and State are equal -- I think the State takes precedence in virtually every situation.  

On a personal level, I try to make my decisions in life based upon my understanding of scripture and Christ’s words for us.  So, I put that first... not necessarily “religion” or “church” first.  

When there is a choice to be made, and Church is pulling one way and State the other, who should win? Always? Or can the matter be decided on merit, case by case?

Case by case, IMO.  Paul once wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:12...What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?  Are you not to judge those inside?  God will judge those outside, “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

I think Jesus pretty much relays the same idea.  He told Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world” - John 18:36.  

Hence, I have no problem with the separation of church and state.  IMO, God is more than likely cool with it as well.

Are you ok with other religions adding their Icons in that case? Tributes to the Koran etc?

Sure, slap a buddha right up against Christ if need be, but I don’t think that we need to hide our religious beliefs from the world, or secretly talk of them in the privacy of the church.

Date: 2007/05/08 14:12:30, Link
Author: Ftk

I saw that specific review before I bought the book and almost decided to skip the purchase.  In fact, I did at first and then a few weeks later decided to go ahead read it and decide for myself.  

I'm glad I did.

I agree that there were a few sentences he could have left out, but they are few and far between.  You'd have to read the book to pick up on his style.

Date: 2007/05/08 14:18:12, Link
Author: Ftk

What the hell is "religiosity".  Sheesh, I didn't even make it past that first sentence.  Is that kinda like "Albatrossity".

Date: 2007/05/08 14:55:51, Link
Author: Ftk
Oldman, your agreement with most of my last reponse to you threw me for a loop so I had to go back and re-read it.

When I wrote:

"I don’t think the Church and State are equal -- I think the State takes precedence in virtually every situation. "

I was writing a bit sarcastically and I now see that it didn't come off that way.  I don't think that the state should always take precedence, but that we should consider that people hold various religious beliefs and we should try to be fair to all people.  So, it would definently be a case to case situation as to whether we side with the "church" or the state.  But, like I said, personally, I try to just follow scripture rather than rely primarily on what the clergy from a church might suggest.

As far as your statement that it's easy for me to say, but if some other religion ousted Christianity in popularity would I actually be able to live by my words?  Good question, and I honestly don't know for sure what my reaction would be.  

I can say that when atheists suggest that atheism is not a religion and their ~philosophy~ is allowed in the science room as well as other classrooms under the notion of "truth and reason" rather than faith, it is irritating to me.  I feel that they have a foot in the door that other religions do not.

Date: 2007/05/08 15:21:04, Link
Author: Ftk
really, you just WANT her to be reasonable, but she ain't.

and she's laughing at you guys for even a moment thinking you might be on the same side.

Know what?  That really pisses me off.  

1.  I'm not on anyone's "side" in if we're talking about evolution vs. ID or creation science.  I've always been very clear about my feeling that the "scientific community" is ousting the movement due to philosophical issues not scientific ones.  

2.  The fact that you frame this issue in light of SOCAS seems to make my point that you are rejecting ID due to the fear of a theocracy rather than the science.

3.  I POINT BLANK SERIOUSLY SUPPORT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.  My Mother (who is a strong Christian) once came to one of my kids "holiday" presentations at school and I told her it would be nice if they could sing a few "Christmas" songs.  She stopped me in my tracks and pretty much threw the socas in my face and what would happen if public schools went that way.  I already knew all that, but I just wanted to hear a few nice Christian Christmas sue me for missing traditional Christmas programs.

Date: 2007/05/08 15:24:19, Link
Author: Ftk
BTW, I'm not "laughing" at anyone unless they are clowning around.


Date: 2007/05/08 16:22:12, Link
Author: Ftk
uh, hate to break it to you, but that exactly the position of the ID crowd, so, yeah, you've taken a side.

Of course I side with the ID crowd in that respect.  Obviously, I wasn't clear.  You said that I was trying to act as if I'm on the side of the posters here.  I said, "I'm not on anyone's side" refering to those in THIS DISCUSSION.   If there is an ID supporter posting to this thread, please let me know.

You can search 'till the cows come home, but you won't find anything from me stating that my goal is to do away with the separation of church and state!  I thought that was what we were talking about here.

I also do NOT believe that Dembski, Behe, et. al. have any intention of breaking down the wall of separation.

Date: 2007/05/08 18:20:34, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL, sorry Richard.  

Stevestory was kind enough to take down that yucky picture of me.  I could not bear to have it posted over and over again.

The poem was very cute though... ;)

Date: 2007/05/08 18:50:29, Link
Author: Ftk
Of course. However, if it takes philosophy to combat "the movement" and science is not taken out of the cupboard and used (+7 Modifier), what does that say about ID? Philosophy vs philosophy in science class? Nah.

I never said it takes philosophy to “combat” ID.  I said that, due to the philosophical position of some scientists, they reject ID and creation science as “religion” or “apologetics”.   Regardless of anything that is presented as evidence for design or creation science, it is immediately waved away as religion even though what is being presented is science.

Are you implying that ID is more of an intellectual exercise with no practical use?


If not, where does ID beat conventional science?

It doesn’t “beat conventional science”.  It’s just one little ’ol scientific inference in the whole big ’ol world of science.  It certainly doesn’t replace anything.  

What trick is the "scientific community" missing?

None that I know of.  

Why is "scientific community" in scare quotes anyway?

Because I don’t think that the majority of scientists would reject ID if they were well versed in ID (or creation science for that matter).  I think it is the upper echelon of those who deem themselves the “scientific community” that put the scare of theocracy and other bull into the mix due to their own fears.  So, we have the NCSE and other organizations scaring the bejesus out of other scientists in general.  It’s the scare tactics that turn them off ID, not the inference itself.

Quote either means that the "scientific community" is not engaging the scientific arguments that ID is making, or that ID is making no scientific arguments. Either way if philosophical issues are being used to oust ID, the scientific issues should nonetheless remain (if they indeed exist).

Sigh...ID is a freaking inference just as common descent is an inference or the multiverse theory is an inference.  Obviously philosophical issues will affect all three.  So what?  That doesn’t negate the inference.  I believe that mainstream scientists are addressing the scientific issues surrounding ID, and we see that daily on-line and in other venues.  It would be nice if they were more open to public debate, but I believe at some point they will have to debate or look like cowards in the public eye.  

The premier ID journal has not published in years. Where is this science you speak of?

There are all kinds of articles in mainstream journals that point to the inference of ID, but they certainly aren’t written by ID advocates.  Although, the writers of those articles do not support design in nature (as IDers do)  due to the reigning fear of the implications of ID.  

But, what exactly do you expect ID supporters to do?  I think it’s pretty much up to Darwinists to do the research to provide us with evidence that would dismiss the IC that Behe speaks of.  He’s done the research and finds that molecular machines are irreducibly complex.  Prove him wrong...  

As far as ID research, you’re right....I haven’t seen much from them.  Though, I think there are many avenues they could explore, such as junk DNA.   I keep hearing that there is research being done, so you might want to be patient for a bit yet before you deem ID worthless.  But, even if research is done, if an ID proponent points to design, evolutionists are going to scream “science stopper”.  At that point, the ball is in the court of the evolutionists.  Provide evidence that negates the inference.  

OTOH, creationists are writing scientific papers and providing interesting peer reviewed articles all the time.  Of course creationists are all completely insane and delusional, so we won’t go there.

If we can agree to call ID philosophy for now, thats something at least? Although it's a shame to drape that tawdry rag on that word.

ID is not philosophy...  It’s science.  *Your* philosophical position is what keeps you from considering it as such, “oldmanintheskydidntdoit”.

Date: 2007/05/08 18:57:40, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, Darlin'.  You can PM me with your request...

Date: 2007/05/08 20:07:53, Link
Author: Ftk
He proved himself wrong - UNDER OATH.

If that is true, why have I seen articles written since the trial trying to disprove the IC of molecular machines?

Date: 2007/05/08 21:11:11, Link
Author: Ftk
So, evidently, according to Jefferson, much of what was written about Jesus was bogus.  So, why would one claim to be a Christian if they do not adhere to the central tenents of Chirstianity, namely Christ's fulfillment of OT prophecy and his death and resurrection?  

I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate.  For instance, let's take a guy like Wesley..  

~If~ he doesn't accept the death and resurrection of Christ, if he believes that the truth of scripture is not actually "truth" but the ignorance of man, or if he thinks that Paul et. al. didn't really know what they were talking about and made up lots of stuff as they went along, why claim to be a Christian? Seriously, why?

Why not just be agnostic?  I mean, if you think about it, you'd have to rip out quite a few pages of the NT to rid yourself of the notion that Christ = the Messiah.  So, what are you left with?  The Beatitudes?  What's the point?  What's the attraction?

[edit:  thanks to jim for pointing out a spelling error.]

Date: 2007/05/08 21:40:41, Link
Author: Ftk
J-Dog, don't get too excited.  People who know me from these forums know I ask A LOT OF QUESTIONS.  

It doesn't mean that you're going to convince me that the historical inferences of the ToE are "fact".  And, I will always be open to creationist theories because personally I think they are much more logical (shut up - that's not due to my religious beliefs alone).  

When people have a hard time convincing me of their "facts", they no longer care whether I'm still questioning or not.  They turn on me immediately because I don't agree with their "science".  


He was nice to me for all of 10 minutes.  Then he discovered that he wasn't able to convince me....became a whole different person.  I'm still pissed about that.

Date: 2007/05/09 07:39:23, Link
Author: Ftk

Most of your post is BS, and I don't have time to elaborate because I'm going to be busy trying to work and post at UD at the same time.

But, there is this again:

I have plenty of experience with right-wing authoritarians.

This is the second time you've alluded to your "experience" with "authoritarians".  What are they like?  Seriously.  Do they tell you they want to establish a theocracy or what exactly?  What makes them "athoritarians"?

Date: 2007/05/09 07:52:26, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 08 2007,22:28)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 08 2007,21:49)
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate.

Dear Pirahna Lady,

Do you presume to be the Great Arbiter of the Central "Tenants" of Christianity?  You decide who's a "true" Christian and who isn't?  Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture (or the one you've chose to become a tenant of)?

Indeed, but I think Wes has to be the one to provide the real answer to this.

Wes won't answer it.  I've posed this question many, many times, and Christians who don't believe in a literal death and resurrection avoid the discussion like the plague.  

I just don't understand why one makes the choice to be a Christian when they reject the NT as literal and, in fact, believe that some of what is written comes from an active imagination on the part of the writers.  

It's as though they claim to be something that they completely disagree with.

Date: 2007/05/09 08:48:30, Link
Author: Ftk
Someone doesn't endorse fundamentalist literalism? Impugn their faith.

I'm not challenging your faith...I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY will talk about this issue.  If you don't believe much of what the NT says, why are you Christian?  Is it more of a belonging to a community of believers that is appealing or what?  Why Christianity vs. another faith?  Is the quote provided by Carlsonjok accurate in your case?  

I keep asking these questions and no one will ever give me a clue as to why they choose Christianity above another faith.  Is it because they believe there is a higher power, but that we cannot know for certain what that is, so they just go with what is considered right within their family and their community?  What's the difference between that and agnosticism?  

And, if you believe there is a higher power, why would design not be something you are interested in?  Perhaps science will eventually discover even more evidence for design...isn't that something that, as a believer, one would be interested in considering rather than completely rejecting?

Date: 2007/05/09 09:07:27, Link
Author: Ftk
What evidence convinced you?

I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

Date: 2007/05/09 09:11:24, Link
Author: Ftk
"Design" is a scientific dead end unless you can investigate the designer (or, as noted many times on your blog, unless design theorists postulate a testable mechanism).


Date: 2007/05/09 09:35:00, Link
Author: Ftk
Pause to consider whether it's the issue or the interrogator. Lots of people decide to give a pass to discussions with people who start out with completely offensive rhetoric, especially when they seem not to notice that they are being offensive. I know I do.

??  You mean direct, or offensive?  I'm asking direct, straight forward questions.  How could I ask these questions in a more delicate manner?

It appears that most of you are QUITE direct, and you seem to expect me to answer your questions.  How is your approach with me different than how I approach you, Wes?

Date: 2007/05/09 09:39:08, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,09:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2007,09:22)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:07)
What evidence convinced you?

I've never heard of something errupting from nothing, let alone something that led to the complexity of, say, DNA.  Pretty simple really.

that is not evidence.

FTK needs to read this again.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.....

Maybe you need to consider that your arguments stem from your own personal credulity.

Date: 2007/05/09 09:49:52, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 09 2007,09:22)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,09:11)
"Design" is a scientific dead end unless you can investigate the designer (or, as noted many times on your blog, unless design theorists postulate a testable mechanism).


Let's turn this question around and see if critical thinking skills can be developed.

Please design a scientific experiment (including observations, testable hypothesis, doable experiment, and possible conclusions) based on the premises of ID (some "design" happened at some unknown time, by some unknown actions, at the behest of an unknown entity).

If you can do that, you will be the first ever to do so. Behe and Dembski will have to send their ID paychecks to Topeka.

ID is an inference....Behe’s done the experiments and broken down molecular machines to the point of realization that they must work as a whole to function properly.  Could they have evolved?  I think not...but in order to convince me that they could, you need to show conclusive evidence for that assumption.  If you can’t, the ID inference remains a strong conclusion.  

News flash...ID has been considered a scientific inference since the dawn of time.  Only materalists reject it.

Date: 2007/05/09 10:14:18, Link
Author: Ftk
Many TE are materialists as far as I can tell.  I think there is a distinction between the terms "atheist" and "materialist", but maybe I'm wrong.

Date: 2007/05/09 10:26:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, Richard's right.  My bad.  It's hard to tell where TE's stand though.  I'll be honest, I've never understood them, and I've had numerous conversations with a couple of them.

They believe design cannot be detected in nature, but they ultimately believe in a designer.  They make no sense to me ~whatsoever~.  It a bizzare leap of faith for a Christian, IMHO.

Date: 2007/05/09 13:13:56, Link
Author: Ftk
People have written about the fact that evolution will produce systems that cannot be reversibly broken down for nearly a century.

Hmmm...seems to me that in that sense, evolution is completely unfalsifiable.  In fact, I have no idea what would falsify evolution other than evidence for a young earth.

Date: 2007/05/09 13:48:02, Link
Author: Ftk
No really, It magnifies your God in my opinion. If the designer was so perfect and flawless to leave no trace of his work......?

Yet, this is not what scripture tells us.  There are numerous passages pointing to the hand of God being involved in nature.  Christ spoke about the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, the Flood.....Paul writes in Roman 1:20 that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

So, again, there is so much of the bible one must reject due to the belief that when we consider the awesome complexity of the universe, it shows no appearance of design.  The TE’s I’ve had continuing conversations with state that they do see design in nature, yet they don’t.  They do - but they don’t.  ????  Just makes no sense.

I think what it really comes down to is that the TE’s who reject design are either rejecting it due to their belief that the leaders of the movement are pushing for a theocracy (which I certainly don‘t want either).  In this case, I think their fear is misplaced.  

Or, they truly don’t see design in nature and don’t believe that much of NT is even close to being accurate.  In this case, it truly makes me wonder why on earth one would bother with Christianity if they reject the teaching of the NT?

So, I don’t think one must reject evolution to be a Christian, because from what I pick up in scripture there are only a few things one must believe to truly be a Christian in the traditional sense.  But, when one starts eliminating everything they reject as storytelling, they might find that calling themselves a Christian is a bit of a farce.

Honestly, I have no clue how one cannot see design in nature, but then again, I realize that others feel exactly the opposite.  I don't know why that is.

Date: 2007/05/09 13:54:14, Link
Author: Ftk
Actually, their worst nightmare is you... if you DO get educated and understand why they are scamming you, and what they are doing to continue the scam.

Scamming me into what?  If they don't believe what they put forth, what is the unlying devious plan?  A forced CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY??

Date: 2007/05/09 14:12:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 09 2007,13:54)
"invisible qualities...have been clearly seen"

That's unreconcilable. If you're a biblical literalist, I don't have much to work with. Nature is magnificent, but it's not signed by God. That's not to say he wasn't the author.

Good grief, Richard...  I'm not that literal.  It would take another whole thread to explain my views on biblical interpretation.

Believe me...knowing you, you don't want to go there.  Most of you think that bible beaters believe whatever turns them on anyway, so those type of discussions are pointless.

Date: 2007/05/09 14:30:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Fucking Monks, MONKS taught me for far too long when I was a child. MONKS.

Fucking monks?  Monks that FUCK??!  I didn't know that was allowed.  Who did they fuck? Inquiring minds want to know.  

And if there was some "evidence" for Christianity, I be sure they would have mentioned it at the time. Really quite sure. rEALLY very quite sure indeed.

Personally, I think Catholics do by far the worst job of teaching the bible to their parishoners.  JUST MO PEOPLE, SO DON'T BLOW A GASKET.  Catholics would rather tell people what to believe rather than encourage them to dig into scripture on their own.  Most of my Catholic friends have no clue what's in their bible, but they certainly never miss a church service.  I asked a few Catholics recently if they attend an adult sunday school, and they said SS wasn't even available for adults.  I'm sure that's not always the case, but I wonder what the monks taught you.  Care to elaborate?  How long did you attend catholic schools?  I attended Lutheran school for 8 years, and I was never taught anything about apologetics or evidence for the faith.  It centered more on teaching me bible stories and what to believe, not why I should believe it.

What "evidence" do you mean? The Bible? What else is there? Or do you count it as self evident as your design evidence? "DNA, it's obvious!"

Sigh....I'm sure you've heard it all, Oldman.  Probably just doesn't jive for you for some reason.  If you're really serious about this particular conversation, you can PM me and we'll talk further.

Date: 2007/05/09 14:39:56, Link
Author: Ftk
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....

No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.  There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

No matter....just a fucking fluke.  Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

Date: 2007/05/09 14:52:54, Link
Author: Ftk
So, let me get this straight.  It's not a theocracy the DI guys are after.  It's the money!  Yeah, they allow themselves to be shunned by the scientific community because they have no better way to make a living!!  

They're pretty bright guys...I can think of better ways to make money than to scam Christians.  Honestly, Behe seems pretty darn sincere.  I'm anxious to read his new book, but I guess I'll have to wait until I can pick it up at the library.  DON'T WANT TO GET TAKEN IN BY THE SCAM!!!!!

Date: 2007/05/09 17:55:09, Link
Author: Ftk
Let's hope she gets a comment from Dr. Dr. Dembski hisself!

Dave, I really wish you would not have said that.  I seriously was going to ask DaveScot if he could get Dembski in there to address this issue.

Now I can't because no doubt DS does pop in here occassionally, and he'll think I was asking due to the promping here.

I'M NOT... I don't care what you guys think.  I'm simply sick to death of having to address this issue ~repeatedly~ .  I want to know how the DI guys would respond to this, and I figured I might as well try to get the answer from Dembski himself.

Now I can't -- bad Dave! :angry:

Date: 2007/05/09 21:26:23, Link
Author: Ftk
But it is abundantly clear that none of what is said here has ever had the slightest effect on him...

There you go again...there is no one more informed than myself and my sciency buddies.  Everyone must conform, or we write them off as ignorant loons.  They simply don't listen....screw 'em.

That approach isn't going to get ya anywhere, Dave.

Date: 2007/05/10 07:46:58, Link
Author: Ftk
It's really pathetic that you claim to know what's good for school children and yet you don't understand this.

I'll tell you what's really pathetic....the fact that you believe evolutionists are the only people who have a right to educate the public on these issues.  You instill the false notion that every scientist, doctor, etc. who rejects the historical inference of the ToE has the IQ level of a baboon.  

If it was just myself who wasn't able to grasp the "facts" surrounding the theory, I'd have to write it off as ignorance on my part.  But, unfortunately for all of you, there are plenty of extremely intelligent folks that feel the same way I do.  AND, THE NUMBERS ARE GROWING...

Date: 2007/05/10 12:33:28, Link
Author: Ftk
Argumentum ad populum noted. One of the advantages of taking an intro to philosophy course is that you'd be able to actually name your various habitual logical fallacies.

Ah, yes, Wesley...I bow before your immense knowledge and enlightened vision.  

God, you're nauseating.

Why don't you get back to work trying to explain what parts of the bible TE's take literally and which parts they don't.

Thanks in advance...

Date: 2007/05/10 14:01:34, Link
Author: Ftk
I'd take a shot that the really nauseating part for FtK is that I'm also right.

Your "shot" certainly missed it's target.  I don't think you're "right", Wesley.  

Here's something interesting, though.  Why is it that you are given the luxury of avoiding whatever questions you deem unworthy, yet I'm not given the same priviledge?  

Why are TE's never pushed to explain where they draw the line between what is and what is not considered to be "literal" in scripture?  

Double standard there, big guy?

Date: 2007/05/10 14:14:30, Link
Author: Ftk
the only one being evasive here, is YOU.

Really?  Cool... I must have missed it.  Can you link me to the response from Wes in regard to my questions about biblical literalism?  Thanks.

Date: 2007/05/10 15:07:53, Link
Author: Ftk
It seems to me these two situations are not comparable.

I don't see why not.  Whenever a creationist or an IDist talks about science, you people consistently accuse them of having a religious agenda.  It always comes back to that.   So, let's look at that religious agenda.  If Wesley thinks that everyone should drop their 'literal fundamenalist beliefs' and replace them with reasonable theistic beliefs so that they can 'accept science' (as if evolution is all of science), he should share with us how to do that, no?

I mean, if religion is the root of the problem, perhaps we should be discussing that rather than science.  

Go back and read many of your posts -- all of you.  Religion pops up all the time.  You love to get your digs's what keep you going.

BTW, the SOCAS thread at UD didn't bring out an agenda of a planned theocracy.  The folks who posted seemed to pretty much agree with my take on the matter, and like myself, they see this complaint to be primarily used as a red herring by guys like PAT HAYES.

Date: 2007/05/10 15:19:16, Link
Author: Ftk
No, I don't see anything in my sentence that implied that *I* have been discussing science here.

Date: 2007/05/10 15:23:01, Link
Author: Ftk
I must be missing something...what is new in this article?  It thought we already knew that.  In fact, I think creationists predicted it.

Date: 2007/05/10 17:40:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Whatever can be tested scientifically and is found to be false is not literally true.  E.g. the world was created in seven days; the world has four corners.  Anything after that is irrelevant to the evo-creo discussion.

And, the words of Christ?  Some of them have to do with creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood.   Those must must have been shoved into the mouth of Christ by the apostles.  Heaven and Hell?  Nope, science pretty much rules that out.  I understand that you can't test for "Heaven and Hell", but I can guarantee you that the atheists here believe that science has ruled them out.   How about the numerous miraculous events found in scripture?  Science tells us it is not possible for a person to rise from the dead.  

The creation story would be out completely, as would much of Genesis, yet we are stuck with those geneologies which include an "Adam" and an "Eve".  

If the fall was a farce, what's the point of Christ's coming and his resurrection?  If there was no resurrection, then there's really no point in adhering to Christianity other than for social reasons.

Gosh, there is so much to consider.  Where does one draw the line as to what is "literal" and what is not?  And, who determines what all has been ruled out as far as scripture is concerned?  

And, the biggest question would be why would one reject scripture for what they believe science has established as fact when scientific views are forever changing?

Date: 2007/05/10 17:57:46, Link
Author: Ftk
Uh, why did Rousas Rushdooney finance the initial publication of Henry Morris's first YEC book, "The Genesis Flood"?

Beats the heck out of me.  Maybe he liked it?  I can't imagine that an evolutionist would turn down money from Dawkins just because they don't want to be associated with his brand of militant atheism.

And, uh, why did Howard Ahmanson finance the establishment of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, and why does he currently sit on the DI's board of directors?

Because he supports their work?  I've been digging for two days now and can't find a ding dong thing on the guy other than he at one time had supposed ties to Rushdooney.  And, from what I've read, his views were not as psycho as Rushdooneys.

I can find nothing... no damning articles written by him, no indication that he is working within the government to establish a hostile Christian take over.  There is simply nothing there.  

Lenny you, my dear, are nothing but a scare monger.  You apparently hate Christianity and, by god, you're going to do anything in your power to stop it.  Pat Hayes is another scare monger.

In your twisted mind, ID = religion.  It doesn' has religious implications just as evolution does.  I can live with evolution - all of it.   You in turn, are going to have to live with ID.    

You are doing serious damage to our society.  You're stirring up the pot when there is nothing there to stir.

Date: 2007/05/10 20:29:06, Link
Author: Ftk
Well, my dear FTK, others HAVE.  And that's why they oppose him.

Lenny, if others have, please inform me what they have found.  I have been looking for days and I was going to post what I found at UD.  But, I found nothing.  

If Ahmanson is planning a theocracy, I want to know about it.  That poses a huge problem for me, and if there is proof of this, then I will certainly rethink my support for the DI.

Date: 2007/05/10 21:58:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Edmund wrote:
You know, FTK, earlier today I was tempted to respond to you and politely explain exactly why I, as a theistic evolutionist, feel that TE is not only an appropriate stance to take scientifically, but makes a lot more sense theologically than Biblical literalism does. But I didn't have time at the moment, and another poster responded instead.

But, here is the problem I have.  What does Biblical literalism mean to a TE?  I assume you must believe that some parts of scripture are literal.  If you start cutting away the parts that we cannot prove scientifically, then you’re not left with much.  And, if you believe in some parts as supernatural or miraculous events, how do you determine what is miraculous and what is not?

Your reaction to that poster suggest to me that you're really not especially interested in learning what other people think or why they think it. That's a shame. A lot of the folks here are vulgar, or rude, or just bizarre, but they do know an awful lot.

I am interested in what people think or I wouldn’t post at places where I am a direct target for ridicule.  Why put oneself in that position?  I’m curious, so I put myself out there.  I want to know what leads people to believe what they do both scientifically and in the religious sense.  Yes, I get testy at times.  It gets frustrating when I try to start a conversation with one person and 5 others pipe in with nonsense and poison darts.  I wish there was a way in these forums to block out certain posters so that I wouldn’t have to view their comments.  I also don’t want people to expect to change my views, I just want to know what leads them believe what they do.

BTW, I think my “reaction to that poster” was merely direct, and I don’t see that I displayed disinterest.  On, the contrary, I think I asked some very appropriate questions.

If you'll forgive my discourtesy, many of your positions-- about TE, about evolution, even about the basic nature of science-- seem more like prejudices than any real understanding. I don't think you can really articulate how science is different than non-science, or why that's important. I don't think you've seriously thought about how science interfaces with theology. You certainly haven't thought very hard about the problems of Biblical literalism in a world where scientific knowledge keeps expanding. (If we should prefer the literal Biblical account to science because scientific knowledge is constantly being revised, then should we believe that the earth has four corners? That the sun revolves around the Earth? No? Why not?)

And, there again, it all centers on what we mean by biblical literalism.  Obviously we have poetry, allegory, parables, etc. within scripture.  But, TE’s cut deeper at the core of Christianity and some even reject historical information, and that is something I wish a guy like Miller would write a very detailed book about.  If TE’s believe their stance on interpretation is more reasonable, they need to do a better job of sharing their beliefs with other Christians.  From what I have seen, many TE’s have gone as far as to reject the resurrection of Christ.  I have no idea what the point of Christianity is if one feels compelled to go that far due to their scientific beliefs.  You are quite wrong in your assumption that I have not thought long and hard about how science interfaces with theology, but I can understand why you wouldn’t believe that by what I write here.  I simply don’t know how to interact with some of these folks.  Private conversations is probably the way to go.

Moreover, I'm willing to bet that you don't know nearly enough about evolution to actually evaluate whether or not the theory is accurate. Could you explain to me why common descent is expected to produce a nested hierarchical pattern of novel traits? Could you explain to me why we expect molecular equidistance when we're comparing neutral genetic variation across a phylogeny? Could you explain to me how selection ought to skew the ratio between synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions when we compare coding regions from related species? No? FTK, the topics I'm throwing out there aren't even the complicated ones. They are just the tip of the iceberg of things you haven't even thought about yet. And you need to understand this stuff in order to know whether the theory of evolution makes accurate predictions or not.

True, the scientists here know more about “how science works” than I do.  So, if I understand you correctly, the best thing for myself and others is to let go of our skepticism and trust the scientists who support evolution even though they are not able to explain these things to us unless we have taken years of science courses.  We should also reject the views of those who dissent because they have silly religious beliefs that don’t jive with reality.  See, I have a very hard time with this suggestion.  It is next to impossible for me to believe that everyone who dissents is simply ignorant or a religious nut.  

Another problem for me is that due to an extensive amount of time engaging in discussion with scientists in various forums, the majority of those who are telling me that ID is a farce also tell me that the mission of the DI is to destroy the SOCAS.  The majority of them are also atheists/agnostics who seem to *me* to be quite hostile toward those who do find truth in religious teaching.   Do you understand why it is difficult to learn from  them when I’ve been around long enough to understand that there is more to it than science for many of them?

I understand that it is difficult to teach a person everything that you feel they need to know to completely accept the ToE in is full glory.  I understand this because when someone throws out a particular question about religion, I feel like I would have to provide an immense amount of background information to make the point that I want to get across.  So, I do understand your frustration, I just don’t know how to fix the problem.

If you prefer to learn, the facts are there and other people's views are there for you to learn. If you prefer your prejudices, well, I'm sorry for you. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't have the humility to set aside the latter and learn the former.

Hmmm...but, could it be that prejudice is a two way street, or is that again only something that is used to describe those who don’t agree with you.  And, as far as humility is concerned, there again, I think that is something everyone could use some work on.

Date: 2007/05/10 22:10:59, Link
Author: Ftk
One more time, FTK ---

Why did Rousas Rushdooney fund the publication of Henry Morris's first YEC book?

Why does Rushdooney's acolyte Howard Ahmanson (who sat on Rushdooney's board of directors for over 20 years and gave him nearly three-quarters of a million dollars), fund the DI's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture?

And, one more time.... I suppose it is because the man supports their work.  

You're not making your point, Lenny.  There is no evidence that Morris was or that the DI fellows are working within the government to demand a hostile take over and shut down all science classes throughout the country.  If there is -- provide the evidence please.  

What specifically has Ahmanson written or done showing that he has an army of God's chosen people ready to advance a Christian theocracy against the will of the people?  Who in the bloody hell is going to back him?  You're delusional if you honestly think that there is a chance for a Christian theocracy to take root in this country.  Cripes, man, what is wrong with you?  Seriously... I've wondered this for some time now.  

How old are you...and, have you ever been institutionalized for anything?  Dude, I don't think you realize how off center you seem to many of us "Jesus freaks".  You're seriously not helping your fellow evolutionists.

Date: 2007/05/10 22:28:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Not at all, FTK --- it's FUNDAMENTALISM that I hate, not "Christianity".

Oh really?  I’m not sure you know the definition of either.  In fact, I think just about everyone has their own definition of those two words.

Dembski is not a fundamentalist -- he’s a Christian.  When we consider his quotes below, again we see that he is a Christian who realizes the implications of both ID and evolution.  No one is trying to hide these implications, but there is definitely a separation that can be made between the science and the religious implications of both ID & the ToE.

These quotes...

"In its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." (Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", website, February 2005)

"The conceptual soundings of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." (Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology", 1999, p. 210).

"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it." (Dembski, address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004)

"Intelligent Design theory is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory". (Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999)

...display the man’s Christian beliefs and his concern as to how far we have turned toward materialist views and values with regard to the education of our students.  There is nothing in those quotes that displays a hostile take over of government or a call to break down the wall of separation.  

I agree with him wholeheartedly, but I certainly do not believe this demands that the ToE must be removed from the classroom or that a Christian theocracy must be put in place.  It merely allows for our students to once again consider their Christian roots without being ridiculed by those who currently have a strong hold on what our students should be allowed to learn.

Date: 2007/05/10 22:48:20, Link
Author: Ftk
Here you go Lenny...

What exactly is the source of your religious authority.  God’s word  What exactly makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else’s. My opinions should not be viewed any more “authoritative” than anyone elses.  It’s up to each of us to search for answers. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. I’m not asking them to.  I’m merely asking for the tolerance that you seem to expect for everyone else’s views except mine.  It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn’t equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s. We each choose our path, and again, I merely ask that you are tolerant of mine.  I’ve never once asked you about your religious beliefs nor have I ridiculed them.  I expect the same treatment in return. Are you more holy than anyone else? LOL.  Obviously not. Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else? No. Does God love you best? No. Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history? Of course not. What exactly makes your opinions better than anyone else’s? Other than your say-so? Well, obviously, you think my opinions are wrong, so I guess I could ask you the same thing.  Yet, I believe I'm on the right track, and I'd assume that the other posters feel they are on the right track as well.  We make choices based on what we believe to be accurate.  I merely think there should be as much tolerance for my beliefs as there is for everyone elses here.  

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible? No. Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible. Neither do I. Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are? Other than your say-so? I don’t think you should.

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Amen, brother!  

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise? Other than your say-so? Got nothing...


Date: 2007/05/10 23:02:51, Link
Author: Ftk
Well, that would depend on the TE.  They all believe different things from what I can tell.

Fr'instance...Some believe that Adam and Eve are figurative characters who lend to a moral lesson for readers, yet biblical geneologies include these figures as historical as does Josephus in his accounts.

There are lots of little issues like this to consider.

Date: 2007/05/10 23:09:13, Link
Author: Ftk
yes, he is, but just as usual, you purposefully miss it. is he making his point?   What is Ahmanson up to?  Solid evidence please.

Date: 2007/05/10 23:25:56, Link
Author: Ftk
Certainly the dates don't jive (never do), but obviously creationists believe that humans evolved from a "small group" of people who emigrated somewhere near Africa and spread throughout Eurasia.

Ever heard of a guy named Peleg?  

I'm sure you've heard the creationist take on “mitochondrial Eve”.

Date: 2007/05/10 23:53:29, Link
Author: Ftk
I am so sorry, Blipey.  I keep meaning to address your PM, but get distracted out here.  Between that, and the little PM fling I have going on with Richard, I can't seem to find the time to get to ya.

I promise I'll try to address your post tomorrow...sorry.

Date: 2007/05/10 23:59:02, Link
Author: Ftk
I think my brain just melted.

Sorry to be the cause of that, but I just don't think that a donation is enough to create a evil Christian reign of terror.

Date: 2007/05/11 07:06:36, Link
Author: Ftk

Date: 2007/05/11 07:14:34, Link
Author: Ftk

I'm not "lying for Jesus".  I told you from the beginning that I'm open minded to both an old and young earth.  Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years.  But, I'M NOT A SCIENTIST.  I'm merely an open minded layperson.

As for "original research".  Brown's book is lengthy, and he's done plenty of it.  But, I know that doesn't mean squat here, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time defending him in this particular forum.

Merely thought I'd throw that link out there for kicks.  Enjoy.

Date: 2007/05/11 07:26:01, Link
Author: Ftk
To FTK and in Lenny's defence (coming from a science educator) You have a right to your version of Christianity and your interpretation of scripture; however. one of the DI's goals is to change how science is taught in public schools, which should be free of anyone's religious interpretation. Lenny's goal, and the goal of many here (if you see the purpose of Panda's Thumb) is to promote sound SCIENCE education, among other things. Putting a religious twist on science is called indoctrination, plain and simple, and it has no place in schools.

But, the truth of the matter is that what would be taught in regard to ID would not include any type of religious teaching ~WHATSOEVER~.  And, ID is also FREE OF A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION.  It does not exclude or include any specific religion.  The only group it might offend would be those who hold to a philosophical view that there is absolutely no designer.  

Why can none of you see that?

Date: 2007/05/11 07:28:29, Link
Author: Ftk
Lenny, you sir, are a mess.

Carry on.

Date: 2007/05/11 07:43:45, Link
Author: Ftk
Lenny Flank = psycho, psycho, psycho...

Either that or a liar...I'm going with psycho.

There is no "fundy" regime...and ID certainly has nothing to do with reconstructionism whatsoever.

Date: 2007/05/11 07:55:33, Link
Author: Ftk
Who to believe...who to believe....

Back and forth the arguments go, and where they stop nobody knows.  

I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something.  So, today, I consider the earth old, tomorrow I may not.

Why aren't there more grand canyons?  Why should there be?  

Here, read all of this for shits and grins.

Date: 2007/05/11 08:09:47, Link
Author: Ftk
Back to the Bible.  I reckon there are 3 kinds of statements in the Bible:
1) statements that can be disproved scientifically, e.g. the creation myth, Noah's flood.
2) statements that could theoretically be disproved, but are practically impossible to do so because of lack of evidence, e.g. Mary was literally a virgin, Jesus literally rose bodily from the dead.  Most (all?) of the miracles in the Bible fall into this category, as it's very hard to disprove a once-off out-of-the-ordinary event, which is what a miracle is.
3) statements which science cannot disprove because they are outside the realm of science, e.g. Jesus is the son of God, blessed are the peacemakers.

TEs reject the parts of the Bible that conform to 1) above, and that's all that's needed to be a TE (well, and "believing" evolution).  Those bits are really a very small part of the Bible.  Accepting or rejecting statements under 2) or 3) above are up to the individual and, I would suggest, are irrelevant to evo-creo discussions., given the fact that creation is a myth, I'd assume you write off Adam and Eve and the garden.  Now, obviously there is more to the story that a tree and a snake, but if you write off most of the beginning of Genesis, what exactly is it that Christ was sent to do?  Or, do you reject salvation as well?  How do you tie in Christ's work on earth?  What was his objective, and who was he really?  Did he literally rise rise from the dead or not?  If not, what's the point of Christianity?  

In other words *why* are you a Christian?I hope you'll answer these questions because up to now only one person has been willing to discuss these issues with me and they seemed a bit tentative as to what they believe.

Date: 2007/05/11 08:16:45, Link
Author: Ftk
I want 3 months of classroom lessons, preferably in the 50 minute lecture / 5 per week format.

??  On ID alone.  Crap, evolution doesn't even get that much time in the high school classroom.  Science classes usually consist of many topics throughout the week.  ID would probably consist of a quick overview of the inference, along with issues like the anthropic principle.

In regard to OOL, there is sure more to offer when considering ID than there what there is to learn about "primordial soup"!

Date: 2007/05/11 08:31:09, Link
Author: Ftk
So on the basis of what the back of a single book says, says the goddit.

No where you will find "goddit" in Brown's theory about the grand canyon.  Get your fingers out of your ears and the blinders off your eyes and read it.

Date: 2007/05/11 09:09:30, Link
Author: Ftk
Wes, including the supernatural in the science classroom is merely a fear tactic on your part.  You know as well as everyone else that you don't have to mention the evil word "supernatural" even once in reference to ID unless you're an evolutionist.  Then you have to use the word repeatedly.

Alb2 - Ever heard of IDEA clubs?  Sal's been teaching ID for years, and he covers plenty of ground.  Doesn't matter to me if it stays in that venue for a while -- in the longer run, people will insist it become part of mainstream curriculum.

Date: 2007/05/11 10:55:15, Link
Author: Ftk

I'm not sure you've really addressed why it is that you're a Christian.  I assume, from you have said, that it is due to the teaching of Christ in regard to moral issues.  

But, if you reject the rest of traditional Chrisitianity, you also have to reject quite a bit of the NT which alludes to Christ's actual words.

So, what you're left with is perhaps the beatitudes and a few other morally sound (for some people) suggestions.

Why Christianity then?  Why not some other religion that puts forth a few nice sounding moral laws?

See, I think there is much, much more to the totality of scripture than that, and if one studies it extensively, it's terribly hard to reject the notion that there was some form of interaction between a higher intellect and the writers.

So, what is it that attracts you to Christianity?  Specifically.

Date: 2007/05/11 12:03:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Yes, the pro-ID clubs that require you to be a Christian in order to hold office, even though ID "has nothing to do with religion."

Yeah, kinda like the way you must teach as a naturalist leaning towards materialism in order to keep from getting fired from teaching a public school science class.

Date: 2007/05/11 13:17:33, Link
Author: Ftk
I'm going to disappoint you and not answer your last question because:

1) it's private and personal- I'll talk about TE in general, but not my religion,
2) it's not relevant to the reason why I support evolution rather than creationism,
3) this board is about religion and science with respect to evolution, not just religion.

sigh....fair enough.  I won't push you further.  Thanks for at least answering some of my questions.  I appreciate it.

But maybe you can tell me why you fail to understand why someone can be a Christian and also accept evolution?  That's what I've been trying to explain.

I don't think that people must reject evolution to be a Christian.  What I'm saying is that some of them have a difficult explaining why it is that they are a Christian.  

From what I can tell, TE's vary in their interpretation of what a Christian is.  Confusion is okay with God, IMHO (no, Lenny, I don't claim to know what God is thinking, and he doesn't speak to me directly.  Just MO.).  

But, if evolution leads a person to reject 95% of what Christianity is all about, then I really don't see the point in calling oneself a Christian.

I know TE's who accept that Christ died for the sins of all believers, yet they have a hard time putting into words how they've come to that conclusion.  Okey dokey with me, but I'm thinking that if they are so adament that their stance on biblical interpretation is the only one that can be considered in light of current scientific enlightenment, then they need to help the rest of us understand their position.

Date: 2007/05/11 13:41:13, Link
Author: Ftk
The stud in the Tard hat wrote:

So presumably you prefer James 5:15 over medicine?

Hmmm...I didn’t read anything in that verse stating that we must reject medical assistance.  Got something against prayer?  Seems to work for some.

Here’s something fascinating...

The list of medications derived from nature is enormous and growing.  Scientists estimate that there are 125,000 to 750,000 medications yet to be discovered.  Ancient Egyptians already had 850 plant remedies, and a 5,000-year-old Iceman who was found in the Italian Alp had fungal medicinal powders in his pouch.  

Why are there so many useful and lifesaving items within our reach?  If the Earth were merely a huge collection of dust particules after the big bang, how did it get all these useful products?

It’s like the designer - whoops natural selection set up a treasure hunt for us to explore and make use of.

Date: 2007/05/11 13:49:27, Link
Author: Ftk
Let me ask you a question. I am going out on a limb a bit here. Is the church you currently attend the same denomination that you or your husband grew up in?

Nope.  Hubby changed denomination when we got married, and more recently we changed denomination again.  The whole denomination dealy doesn't mean much to me.  Granted there are little things that cause bickering amongst denominations, but I think much of it is senseless.  

We attend a non-denominational church in Topeka at present.   My Mom was a tad dissapointed, seems my brother and I have broken the Lutheran tradition within my Mom's side of the family.  Whatever...gotta go with what feels right and seems to jive with what one reads in scripture.

Date: 2007/05/11 14:10:24, Link
Author: Ftk
Sure, Louis, I wouldn't mind listening to what you have to say.  But, there is something about you that rubs me the wrong way.  Something about the attitude.

How about when you explain it, you...

1. Work hard at explaining in laymen's terms.
2.  ...yet, don't talk down to me.
3.  Leave out the arrogance.
4.  Don't insist that I must chime in and answer all your questions.  Just provide the info.
5.  Allude to facts as facts, and speculation as speculation.

Might be a good exercise in trying to learn how to deal with the general public who think a few of you are full of hot air...

Date: 2007/05/11 14:17:30, Link
Author: Ftk
So, you may consider if so many theistic evolutionists self-identify as Christian maybe it is because they were born into Christian families and feel at home in Christian churches.  

Well, I have considered this, but what this tells me is that they wouldn't actually be "Christian", they would be agnostics who feel at home in the Christian community.  So, why not just say that?  

Kind of like DaveScot.  From what I understand, his wife is Catholic and he attends various church get togethers with her, and I'd bet he's been to church with her from time to time.  But, he's honest enough to say he's not buying it.  He's agnostic, yet has no problem being around the Catholic community.

See what I'm getting at?

Date: 2007/05/11 14:24:41, Link
Author: Ftk
Some day you must tell us hot air types how you learned to be so unarrogant.


Are you saying that I'm arrogant?


Nah...couldn't be. ;)

Date: 2007/05/11 14:42:36, Link
Author: Ftk
Many agnostics I know refer to a god or designer...they just don't believe it is possible to know what or who the designer is.

Date: 2007/05/11 15:19:15, Link
Author: Ftk
No, I don't see what you are getting at.  My wife is born-again.  I'm an agnostic with deist leanings.  We manage to get along just fine.  Why shouldn't we?  

In a hurry, so I can only get to this part.  Hopefully, come back to the rest later.

I'm not saying that an agnostic and a Christian or an atheist and a Christian couldn't manage to "get along".  I'm saying that if one does lean toward agnosticism, why not just admit it and say that they enjoy the community of the Christian church but don't buy the whole shebang?

Date: 2007/05/12 08:52:01, Link
Author: Ftk
"What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive . . . ."

I have absolutely no idea what you see in Behe's response that you feel could be conceived as deceptive.  

I still think you are completely and uttering insane.

My biggest question for you though, is why in the heck you write 5-10 posts in a row to express your thoughts.  Why not put them all on one post?  It's truly the strangest thing I've ever seen.

Date: 2007/05/12 09:03:11, Link
Author: Ftk
Louis, I really like this topic.  Your post is very interesting, and I've got a couple questions to ask.  I read through you article twice last night and jotted down a few things, but I'll have to read through it two more times in order to try to absorb all of it into my tiny little unscientific brain. ;)

After I do that, I'll ask my questions.  I may not get them posted until Sunday or Monday because I have 4 friggin' ball games to sit through today, and tonight is my 6th grader's big party with his classmates.  They head off to junior high next year.  Yikes!  My baby is growing up...

Date: 2007/05/12 09:11:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 12 2007,08:58)
One way to counter a Gish Gallop is to split replies down to one reply per concept. That way, the galloper doesn't get to pick and choose some one part of a reply and ignore the rest of the concepts, which would be the case if the original post were fisked in one long reply.

It makes perfect sense given the manifest perfidy of Gish Gallopers and their track record of obfuscation.

Truly, that is the most assinine thing I have ever heard of.  

That "tactic" completely destroys the thread, and I certainly am not going to go through each separate post and respond.  That would turn the thread into an utter mess to wade through.

He did that on another thread, and I simply quit posting to the particular thread.  I think Stevestory should come in here and clean up that crap.

Lenny is fool in more ways than one...and, that is saying something because I very rarely name call.

Have a good day.

Date: 2007/05/12 09:16:16, Link
Author: Ftk
Thats's nonsense. ID advocates repeatedly talk about the supernatural and how the problem with science is materialism. Have you ever read anything written by Paul Nelson?

Who gives a flying fig?  Scientists have discussed the possibility of natural and supernatural occurances since the dawn of time.  

That certainly doesn't mean that the "supernatural" will be discussed or taught in the science classroom.  There is no need to address it in class, just as there is no need to address whether natural or supernatural occurrences started the process of natural selection when we are discussing evolution in the science classroom.

Date: 2007/05/12 09:19:56, Link
Author: Ftk

Are you saying that you support Lenny's style?  If so, that certainly says a lot about your character as well.

But, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that.

Date: 2007/05/12 09:21:03, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2007,09:18)
FTK said:
He did that on another thread, and I simply quit posting to the particular thread.  I think Stevestory should come in here and clean up that crap.

You're the last person I'll be taking moderation advice from.


Date: 2007/05/12 09:23:27, Link
Author: Ftk
BTW, is there any possible way to keep Lenny & Oldman from posting to this thread?

Date: 2007/05/12 10:40:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Holding to a young earth, rejection of common ancestry, etc. entail the rejection of that entire network, including the specific conceptual bases for Louis' inquiry, which is thoroughly and intrinsically evolutionary in nature. So it is beyond me why Louis' research would have the slightest interest to you - unless that larger network, and the promise of progressively increased understanding of the natural world leveraged by evolutionary biology, also beckon.

God, you people are infuriating.  Is it so utterly hard to understand that some people are looking for answers and that they are open minded to everything?  

I think the ToE is a fascinating subject.  A person doesn't have to be completely 100% convinced that something is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt to find topic interesting to read about.  

So, let me get this straight, you feel that if a person is open minded to the possibility of a YE, they never again read about anything that might negate that viewpoint?  Is that what you think?  If so, then you're crazy.

Date: 2007/05/12 10:46:23, Link
Author: Ftk
What FTK is actually trying to say, of course, is that she doesn't understand a single thing you are saying, so she's going to search around for some creationist tract or another that discusses something that she thinks is vaguely similar, and then parrot all the "devestating questions for evolutionists" that she finds within.

Someone better get this asshole off the thread, or I'm done.  

FYI, I have already had questions in my mind about this topic before Louis even brought it up.  That is why I mentioned it on another thread.  Obviously, there are parts of the article that I don't completely understand so I'd like to take the time to read it thoroughly again before I post.  Is that okay, freak boy?  And, no, I'm not frantically checking creation websites for Q&A's.  I'm leaving in 15 minutes for a ball game.

Someone please get this freak off the thread.

Date: 2007/05/12 10:50:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Lenny, I'm not a "fundy", nor am I "Catholic", nor do I listen to Falwell, Pat Robertson et. al.

I'm done here until Lenny leaves or passes on to the neatherworld.

Date: 2007/05/12 10:52:11, Link
Author: Ftk

When you get rid of Lenny, I'll address your posts.

Date: 2007/05/12 10:54:36, Link
Author: Ftk
Fine, Lenny.

I'm done here.

Date: 2007/05/26 21:33:20, Link
Author: Ftk

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Via prothesis

Date: 2007/05/27 08:51:30, Link
Author: Ftk
:angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :(

Date: 2007/06/02 13:47:14, Link
Author: Ftk
Did you ask him if you could post that publicly???

I had also emailed him and asked for a copy as well, and I found it quite interesting.  It should definently be something that is read in totality rather than quote mined, and also with an open mind and without preconceived conclusions, IMO.

Personally, I don't think he would appreciate you posting that here, so I do hope you asked permission.

Date: 2007/06/02 14:45:10, Link
Author: Ftk
You know what, Dave?  You are the *very last person on earth* who I would ever seek to learn anything from.  You are arrogant, condescending, and down right nauseating.    

You can criticize my lack of education about evolutionary biology, ID or whatever until the cows home, but you don’t intimidate me ~in the least~.  Know why???  Because there are creationists and IDists who blow your credentials out of the water, and they make arguments that are so compelling that regardless of how much you toot your horn, you’re going to get no where with me due to your complete lack of respect, and your call for "ridicule" and "pity" for anyone who disagrees with you about these issues.  

And, if you’re interested in predictions from a creationist who is following the evidence where it leads, you can read through all of them thoroughly by going to this index and looking under “predictions of hydroplate theory”.

You have not “debunked” all creationists and ID arguments, and if you think you have, I urge you to encourage your evolutionist friends to participate in a very thorough written debate with a creationist or an IDist.  Get crazy, and address every freaking issue surrounding this debate, and put it in book format.  Hell, make a series of books...whatever.  But, all this ranting back and forth is not convincing me of one flipping thing.  It’s like watching a tennis to here, link to there, back and forth for an eternity.  It’s never ending!  Both sides make very compelling arguments, and it should sink in at some point that all three avenues should be explored at length.  New information arises daily, theories are updated, and that needs to be taken into consideration.  You’re fighting a losing battle if you think that you’re going to lay ID to rest.  It ain’t happenin’, so live with it and quit being such an arrogant jerk.  


Date: 2007/06/02 14:48:37, Link
Author: Ftk
Go read that guy. He is a christian, an ID supporter, and a former physicist, and he will tell you, plain as day, why ID is not science.

I am *quite* aware of why many people do not accept ID as "science".  I actually agree with some of their reasoning, but the fact remains that everything that ID relays to the public is scientific.  It's about science...not religion.

Date: 2007/06/02 14:50:55, Link
Author: Ftk
Bird boy is "Dave".  Trust me.

Date: 2007/06/02 21:26:47, Link
Author: Ftk
Dang, Steve, I think this might answer one of the questions you keep throwing at me....

Read it and weep, boys.  Looks like ID has a lab at Baylor University.  :)

Date: 2007/06/02 21:48:26, Link
Author: Ftk
People study information in evolution all the time. It's in textbooks. Looking around that site, I don't see the words Intelligent Design, or a paper outlining ID hypotheses and experiments. Do you see those things, FtK?

Uh, Dude, correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but isn't ID all about INFORMATION & IC?  I mean, what the heck do you think they are going to do in an ID for God under a microscope?  Sheesh...

Date: 2007/06/02 22:02:44, Link
Author: Ftk wasn't me.  No doubt it was the Goldstein crew...sounds just like him/them.  This is about the 5th time someone has alerted me to someone ~borrowing~ my name.

Date: 2007/06/02 22:08:26, Link
Author: Ftk

Why does Dembski seem to be involved if the lab has nothing to do with ID?

D. wrote:
I’ve collaborated on three papers with Prof. Marks, and more are in the works:

Date: 2007/06/02 22:25:23, Link
Author: Ftk
Good God, Steve, I think the lab is quite new...patience, hon.  I'm sure we'll hear more soon.

Date: 2007/06/02 22:29:42, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL, Steve, I think you're getting kinda flustered over this new lab.  You've spit out about 10 little posts in a row...but, but, but, they can't have a lab at a university...they just can't!  


Date: 2007/06/02 22:33:53, Link
Author: Ftk
The concept is new, darlin', and you wouldn't even believe who sent me an email alerting me to it.


I'm going to go pop a bottle of champagne now...anyone care to join me?  Richard? ;)

Date: 2007/06/02 22:50:22, Link
Author: Ftk
[quote=stevestory,June 02 2007,22:40][/quote]
The concept of doing ID experiments is new?

No, you stated that:

The publication list for the lab lists papers going back to 1993.

Who told you it was new?

And, I said that the concept of the lab was new.  They are exploring INFORMATION (ie. ID concepts).  Capisci?

Date: 2007/06/02 23:16:45, Link
Author: Ftk

I think that focusing on information and IC is basically what ID is all about.  Since Darwin's time, we've found that the complexity of nature far surpasses anything he had ever imagined.  It's time to put Darwin to the did this information arise?  And, is it possible for it to have evolved without the aid of intelligence?  

Hey, at least with this Baylor lab it should be a bit easier to keep abreast of what it going on with it being a public university and all.  Guess we'll find out soon enough...

Date: 2007/06/03 14:48:16, Link
Author: Ftk

I've posted the Brown's Evidence thread here before.  But, as usual, they all had their blinders on...except for Dave of course.  He dove right in looking for spelling errors and such to "ridicule" me with.

Par for the course...

Date: 2007/06/03 19:16:50, Link
Author: Ftk
I got to thinking again today about GCT posting excerpts from bornagain’s essays.  I’ve gotta say again that I find it really unethical to post something without the consent of the author...especially when it was provided to you by private email without authorization to do so.  

It is also truly tragic that you all immediately ridicule the conclusions.  From what I understand, the studies in this area of research are rigorous and the experiences are validated as authentic with several studies establishing that the mind and brain are in fact two separate entities.

To post a few paragraphs, and mock his conclusions is typical of some of you, but again I realize that this is the tactic that many of you wish to use to put a stop to anything that you feel might conflict with your worldview.  I doubt that GCT has any PhD. level studies to back up his own views on the topic.

I’m just bringing this up again because I don’t think there is anything much lower than sharing private information without consent from the person who has shared it with you.  Blipey pulled that crap with me, and I didn’t appreciate it either.  Of course, there is also the fact that someone posted my picture again as well.  

Personally, I think you should have the decency to delete his work from this thread unless you are going to act civil and actually consider it in a professional manner.

Date: 2007/06/03 19:36:40, Link
Author: Ftk
Bornagain is offering it to anyone who wants a copy.

So what..

If you guys want to read it, go ask him for a copy.  But, he didn't give permission to post it anywhere, and it certainly shouldn't be posted here as an object of ridicule.  

Treat his research the way you would want your work to be addressed.  Peer review is great, but gang banging is way wrong.

Date: 2007/06/03 20:23:27, Link
Author: Ftk
Also, once you put it in the public domain, you can't really take it back.

Hmmm...that's an interesting comment, Richard.  Do you condone sharing private emails or messages?  

Just really curious about your response to that question.

Date: 2007/06/03 21:45:43, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 03 2007,21:04)
Quote (Ftk @ June 03 2007,20:23)
Also, once you put it in the public domain, you can't really take it back.

Hmmm...that's an interesting comment, Richard.  Do you condone sharing private emails or messages?  

Just really curious about your response to that question.

If its freely available to anyone, as the author suggests, could you please explain to me how it is private?

Maybe it's just me, but if I offered an essay that I wrote to the public, via private e-mail, I would certainly appreciate the person on the receiving end to ask me whether they would mind me posting it elsewhere.  

I would also appreciate knowing where and how many places they were going to be posting it.  I believe that to just be common courtesy.  

Personally, I wouldn’t appreciate my work being posted in a hostile forum environment where there is no doubt that it will be received with ridicule and rejection without proper consideration.  

I didn’t see anyone ask for more information on the essay or ask whether they could view the essay privately in it’s entirely so that they could get a better sense of what the author was sharing with the reader before they commented.  And, if there is further research on the subject that others could offer to rebut the papers that  bornagain references, that should be addressed as well.  Kristine made an attempt at dialogue, though it was also riddled with insults.

I know next to nothing about NDE’s, so I would find a respectful dialogue on the topic interesting.  But, I don’t think that is possible in this forum.  Preconceived conclusions are too strong in this group, so why not treat the guy the way you would want to be treated?  I doubt anyone here would want their work thrown out to wolves who have no intention of doing anything but taking a dump on it.

Date: 2007/06/03 23:18:37, Link
Author: Ftk
"GCT, did you at least read the research before saying it sucks?"

And, I said I also said I was kidding when I said "it sucks".

Date: 2007/06/05 22:51:37, Link
Author: Ftk
Now, see Kristine?  You think DaveScot's a jerk?  I've got about 20 DaveScot's ripping me apart on a daily basis.  Don't worry... you get used to it after a while.  You can just thank your lucky stars that it's only Dave you have to deal with.  

But, I'm evidently as moronic as they claim I am because I don't have the good sense to stay the hell out of these anti-ID forums and blogs.

I remember DaveScot referencing you at UD one time in regard to a 'jungle fever' article you posted here.  At least he was nice about it, and didn't rip you apart.  

Sheesh, there's an entire thread set up over here to dog me on a daily basis, so I guess you're getting a small taste of what it feels like to be in my shoes.

Um, speaking of "jungle fever", where's Richard?

Date: 2007/06/05 23:06:48, Link
Author: Ftk
Oh, and as far as the “pirahna” reference...yeah, you’re right.  I have no idea what the heck I was trying to say there.  Piranha certainly sounds idiotic,  but pariah sounds kind of stupid in that particular sentence as well.  Just a serious fuck up, if you ask me.  But, God forbid we consider the thousands of other posts I wrote at kcfs.  I know...wouldn’t matter...still ‘tard’ material.

Thanks alot, Dave, for digging through my kcfs posts to dig that one out.  Nice of ya.

Date: 2007/06/05 23:10:31, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 05 2007,23:03)
Now, see Kristine?  You think DaveScot's a jerk?  I've got about 20 DaveScot's ripping me apart on a daily basis.  

Are you kidding? We're MUCH better looking than DaveScot! :angry:

Really?  Until you post your picture, Arden, we can't be sure of that now can we?  

That's another thing!!!  Someone even posted my freaking picture here...and God only knows how they found it.  That was in a paper from years ago.

Freaky stalkers!!!!

Date: 2007/06/06 00:05:03, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave, call me a tard, but I just don't understand why common descent is vital to the example you’ve provided.

You wrote:

Obviously some components of the chloroplast electron transfer system interact well with the bacterial enzyme, if that enzyme can be targeted to the chloroplast. That means that this particular scientific advance is made possible (or at least a lot easier) by the fact of common descent; it would have been much more difficult to generate resistant plants if bacteria and plants did not have a common ancestor, but had rather been uniquely poofed into existence.

Creationists don't think that everything was "uniquely poofed" into existence.  Granted, microev. can accomplish alot, and creationists believe it can account for countless changes within a species.  But, as far as similarities between species is concerned, obviously an Intelligent Designer would not need to redesign every living organism in order to reassure us that we are not all related to a common descendant. Most designers we witness in our world don’t reinvent the wheel for every product they design. Automobile designers use the same parts for most cars and tweak them for different purposes, yet they are all designed for the same driving environment. The same thing applies to all living creatures. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food.


I think Gish’s statement helps support my position about this topic:
Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc. What could we eat? We couldn’t eat plants; we couldn’t eat animals; all we could eat would be each other! Obviously, that wouldn’t work. All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same. The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function.

What I keep trying to get across to you is that I don’t understand why a creationist and an evolutionist couldn’t work side by side and come up with the same conclusions.  Either way...whether by common descent or special creation, we’re studying and comparing similarities between species.  Both a creationist and an evolutionist will come to the same conclusions regardless of ~how~ they believe it “evolved” to its present state.  

And, it’s not that I feel I must reject macroev. due to my religious beliefs.  Heck, there are lots of TE’s that have the same Christian beliefs that I do, and I don’t by any means believe we must reject evolution in order to receive salvation.  The Bible doesn’t say that ANYWHERE.  I, personally, don’t see any empirical evidence that macroev. actually occurs in nature.  I only read about historical inferences and a whole lot of speculation and just so stories.

Date: 2007/06/07 14:27:32, Link
Author: Ftk
Hey, how come there isn't an *eyes rolling* emoticon in this forum?  I really need one for a response I'm working on.  

Just wondering...

Date: 2007/06/07 17:12:17, Link
Author: Ftk
Not exactly...that rolling eyes is smiling.  But, I do like the hammer guy. :p

Date: 2007/06/08 08:43:37, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave wrote:
Let's go through this again. We're not talking about common amino acids and sugars so that we can eat plants. Per usual, Gish misses the point. We're talking about common multi-enzyme systems that perform metabolic functions.

No, I don’t think Gish  “misses the point” because I didn’t quote him in response to your particular example.  What I’m trying to relay is that evolutionists believe that everything must have evolved through common descent due to the similarities they observe between organisms.  Creationists believe that due to how the designer formed the cosmos (with the intention that all organisms were going to live in and of the same environmental constants), there is the need for all creatures to be designed with similarities.

Now think about it. Creationist scientist and evolutionary scientist want to engineer this pesticide resistance into a plant, using genes from a bacteria that can degrade the pesticide. Creationist scientist does not believe in common descent. OK so far?

Okay, Dave, I’ve “[thought] about it“.  And, I’m still “OK so far”. [I was going to roll my eyes here, but I know Dave is ~trying~ to be helpful, and he did sent me a pretty cool biology textbook, so I’ll cut him some slack for a couple days....maybe.]

Creationist scientist and evolutionary scientist can both determine empirically that there are three bacterial proteins (gene products) involved in the degradation of the pesticide. So yes, up to this point, they can come up with the same conclusion.


But here is where it diverges. Creationist scientist has no reason to think that the plant has enzymes that might substitute for some of the bacterial ones, and also no reason to think that these enzymes would fit together properly and work together.

Why?  If both creation scientists and evolutionists throughout history have been conducting research and experimentation in regard to the similarities between organisms, why would their results look different? Both would be comparing similarities and documenting them for future use, so why wouldn’t both be aware of what to substitute? 

Rather than assuming that every single organism evolved from that first microbe, creationists would merely assume, as Gish stated... “Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc. What could we eat? We couldn’t eat plants; we couldn’t eat animals; all we could eat would be each other! Obviously, that wouldn’t work. All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same. The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function.”  

What he is saying is that nature displays a purposeful and useful design.  Whether by evolution or special creation, nature certainly gives the “illusion of design“ due to it’s quite apparent organization and continuity throughout.  As we know, all organisms share similar attributes.  So, IMHO, there are two interpretations... we may never know for sure which is correct, and although I understand your perspective as to how common descent can be a useful teaching tool or a “consistent theme” to help student understand the concept, I don’t comprehend how this interpretation is any better than the creationist interpretation as far as research is concerned.  Both will end up with the same end results because both have been studying and classifying various organisms, and both understand their similarities.

Again, please note we are not talking about amino acids, sugars and other nutrients; we are talking about the things that do the work, the enzymes. SO creationist scientist would logically conclude that he/she needed to construct transgenic plants that contained all three (3) of the bacterial genes. It might work, or it might not, because transgenic experiments that increase in complexity usually decrease in efficacy.

Evolutionist scientist knows better. Because of common descent, he/she suspects that the only missing piece in the plant is the oxygenase, since electron transfer systems in chloroplasts and mitochondria are highly conserved across genera and even kingdoms. So he/she engineers a plant that contains only the oxygenase gene. That is one gene, not three. And voila, it works BECAUSE the plant chloroplast enzymes work just fine together with the oxygenase. Note, this is not just like mixing a bag of enzymes together and hoping that they work together. Electron transfer systems and the proteins that they interact with (like the oxygenase) are tightly-organized two-dimensional membrane-bound entities.

Obviously, I’m not a biologist or anything even remotely close to it, so you’ll have to try to explain this a little further.  If you have an evolutionist and a creationist working on this problem, why wouldn’t they both understand the same thing?  Whether their interpretation is common descent or special creation and total acceptance of microevolution, why would the creationist not be able to figure this out?  Research & classification of various species was being conducted long before Darwin’s theory, so why would it be impossible to keep classifying organisms to benefit future research if Darwin had never written his infamous book?  

Hope this helps you understand why knowledge of common descent makes it easier to do scientific experiments and come up with useful products or processes. Hopefully we can agree that a one-step process is better, and easier, than a two or three-step process.

I still don’t understand why a creationist would have to do a two or three-step process.  Due to previous research, he would know the same thing that the evolutionist does.

You quoted me:
And, it’s not that I feel I must reject macroev. due to my religious beliefs. Heck, there are lots of TE’s that have the same Christian beliefs that I do, and I don’t by any means believe we must reject evolution in order to receive salvation. The Bible doesn’t say that ANYWHERE. I, personally, don’t see any empirical evidence that macroev. actually occurs in nature. I only read about historical inferences and a whole lot of speculation and just so stories.

Your response:
Unfortunately this doesn't agree with previous posts you have made on this board. I'd dig them up and quote them, but I have to run to a meeting in a few minutes. But at any rate, I seem to recall your saying that you believe that Genesis MUST be true (and that would include the creation myth parts of Genesis) because otherwise there would be no Fall, no original sin, and no reason that Jesus would have to redeem you. No, that obviously doesn't mention evolution, but it certainly seems (to me, at least), that you are rejecting it because of your religious beliefs.

Yes, presently I believe that if there were no fall and no original sin, their wouldn’t be a need for redemption, but there are other Christians who believe that regardless of whether the “creation myth” is correct or not, evil exists in the world, and Christ came to redeem us from the sins we commit due to our exposure to evil.  Obviously, there are many interpretations here, and that is why I try to get theistic evolutionists to communicate their beliefs more often.  But, I’ve found that they are a very quiet bunch in regard to their faith beliefs.  

I’ve believed different things in regard to my faith at various times in my life.  At one point (college years) I pretty much believed that it didn’t matter what religion you were and that “God” was God to all within their own interpretations of what He is.  But, after many years of reading and reflecting, I’ve come to the conclusion that all the evidence points to the God of the bible as being the legitimate creator.  

So, yes, my religious beliefs do affect how I view some of these issues, but unlike the AiG folks, I do not believe that we must reject everything that we don’t feel fits our interpretation of Genesis.  Ya gotta follow the evidence wherever it leads, but you have to be careful in doing so because science is continuously correcting itself.  I also am not the type of person who accepts Christianity on “faith” alone.  I believe there have to be lines of evidence to follow in which to base your religious beliefs upon rather than blindly accepting something on faith.  

Dave, you have stated a few times that you have no interest in discussing religion.  You also said that when you first started posting at my blog, you promised yourself you wouldn’t get into religious issues.  In this forum you basically stated once that you weren’t well versed enough to get into religious discussions.  And, when I mentioned a book you were reading and stated that I wasn’t surprised that you were reading a book about how religion “evolved”, you admitted that that was the only interest you had in religion (how it evolved).

So, why would I take your word that the ToE is a fact beyond question when you don’t seem to know or care much about theology?  Perhaps your “indoctrination” was as persuasive as mine was.  Is it possible that YOU might perhaps be missing a piece of the puzzle?

Here is the bottom this point in time, I ~honestly~ don’t understand how the concept of common descent is of any more benefit to science than merely considering similarities between organisms, and when I consider all the other controversial issues surrounding the ToE, it just seems silly to consider the theory a “fact” rather than merely an interpretation of the data that ~may be~ correct.   As far as my religious beliefs are concerned, why reject so much of the bible as “myth” due to a scientific theory which may never be supported with enough empirical evidence to make it a "fact"?  I think I’ll wait for further evidence before I decide to reject my personal religious beliefs.

Date: 2007/06/08 08:46:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2007,19:38)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2007,18:17)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 07 2007,17:56)
Just a reminder for you, FTK --- my questions make their point all by themselves, whether you answer them or not. I don't need your cooperation.

Although your not answering does make it pretty appearent to all the lurkers that, well, you simply don't have anything serious to say.  (shrug)

She wants you, Lenny.

I can tell.




Don't worry, Richard.  I'd rather be hung by my toes while being read "Origins of Species" for the rest of my life than get anywhere near Lenny the Loon.  

I'm all yours... ;)

Date: 2007/06/09 08:55:52, Link
Author: Ftk

Um...Richard, you mailbox is full.  I guess I sent one too many pictures...


Date: 2007/06/09 14:22:08, Link
Author: Ftk
Arden,  YOU ARE MEAN.  You don't know Larry's situation so don't comment about it.

I agree that he should read the flippin' books before he writes a review on them, but just because he didn't do so doesn't make him crazy.  

Why don't you start a blog and share some personal info. about yourself so we can psychoanalysis you, buddy.  Or better yet, just start sharing right here...go for it.   Tell us about yourself, Arden.

Date: 2007/06/09 14:33:34, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave, I have a couple more questions about your last post....I think it's the power of prediction that I'm not quite understanding.  

I haven't put anything together yet, but I've been thinking about it while cleaning the house.   My men are pigs, and I'm having a party next weekend, so I chased them off in order to get the pigpen cleaned up.

Hopefully, I'll get a post together later tonight.

Date: 2007/06/09 14:42:16, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 09 2007,14:26)
 You don't know Larry's situation so don't comment about it.

actually, we do.

his brother explained it at length in a post on Ed Brayton's (IIRC) blog a year or so ago.

what made you think you know more about Larry than the people like Arden, who have seen him post for years now?

oh, that's right, you're the expert on everything you know nothing about.


have you considered that therapy i recommended yet?

couldn't hurt, right?

I didn't say I know more about his situation than anyone else.  But, I think it's nasty to make fun of him like that.  I don't know anything about his brother or what he posted at Brayton's blog, but why the heck was his brother posting that kind of stuff on Brayton's blog in the first place?  

Try this attitude for a your neighbor as yourself.  Just a suggestion.  You'll be a much happier person...

Oh, and I've never said I'm an expert on anything...merely giving my point of view.  God knows, I'm wrong about lots of stuff.

Date: 2007/06/09 14:45:01, Link
Author: Ftk
Ever heard the name 'David Fafarman'?

Not really...I think I saw him comment at Larry's blog once.  I don't keep up with Larry's blog everyday.

Date: 2007/06/09 14:56:30, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, Arden, I scanned through it, but I'm more than a tad confused.  Does Larry really have a brother named Dave (who he was impersonating), or was he making up the sibling part and impersonating the real Dave?

Sooooo confusing.

Date: 2007/06/09 15:10:38, Link
Author: Ftk
Yikes...just ran across this post.  After reading the comments to that post, I'm sooo very glad that I moderate my blog.  Wow.  I have no idea what is going on in that conversation...

Date: 2007/06/09 15:28:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 09 2007,15:14)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,14:42)
Try this attitude for a your neighbor as yourself.  Just a suggestion.  You'll be a much happier person...

Well, by golly, I love YOU, FTK.

Do you, uh, love ME . . . . ?

Yeah, Lenny, I do LOVE YOU.  I just can't communicate with make it impossible to do so.

Love, FtK

Date: 2007/06/09 16:17:27, Link
Author: Ftk
And I'm still waiting to hear why anyone should care any more about your religious opinions than they should about my next door neighbor's or the kid who delivers my pizzas . . . ?

Lenny, I don't remember ever saying anyone should.  Do you?  I haven't pushed my religious views here, nor have I stated that I have the ticket to religious truth.  I have my opinions just like you have yours.    

I'd certainly be interested in your religious views if there is any possiblity that you can carry on a conversation without bringing in the pizza boy or snicker giggling your way through the conversation. And, one post is much easier to wade through than 5-10 posts in a row with a sentence in each.

Love ya...

Date: 2007/06/09 16:55:24, Link
Author: Ftk

I don't know if you've noticed, but to be quite honest with you, I haven't seen a whole lot of science being discussed here.  Not that that is bad, it's just that EN&V, and UD aren't really places to socialize, talk sex, converse about favorite drinks or how often one gets a buzz, etc.  

I think some blogs and forums are trying to maintain a certain standard so that the conversations don't turn into bar fights.  That is probably why they choose to moderate.

Ya think DaveScot should start a UD "after the bar closes" forum?  That might be interesting.  Dave's probably the only one who has the personality to pull it off.  I think he's probably able to brush off the constant insults.  

Someone who occassionally reads the threads over here mentioned to me just the other day that the "your skin is a lot thicker than mine".  A lot of people don't have the fortitude to put up with they way some of you treat those who disagree with your stance about science and life in general.

Date: 2007/06/09 17:00:28, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 09 2007,16:45)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,14:56)
Okay, Arden, I scanned through it, but I'm more than a tad confused.  Does Larry really have a brother named Dave (who he was impersonating), or was he making up the sibling part and impersonating the real Dave?

Sooooo confusing.

He has a real, non-insane brother named David, who popped into his brother Larry's blog last year and gave people the lowdown on Larry. (He's on some kind of disability, can't hold a job, and has been embarrassing their mother for some time.) Larry freaked out, and started claiming that David's posts were an impersonator. Ed Brayton proved that David's posts were genuine. David still pops up on Larry's blog from time to time, and basically provides the only sane, entertaining posts there.

Also, check out what Larry says about the holocaust, if you haven't already.

Here's the thing that is kind of weird about that.  If I had a sibling who had any sort of disability or problem with mental stability, I would never jump into their blog and lay it all out publically.  So, do you really think it was his brother?  

Would someone be that inconsiderate to their own brother?

And, no, I haven't read about Larry's holocaust denial.  I know of it because he's mentioned it on my blog, but I haven't taken the time to search his blog looking for the reasons why he feels this way.

Date: 2007/06/09 17:02:12, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 09 2007,16:47)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,15:28)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 09 2007,15:14)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,14:42)
Try this attitude for a your neighbor as yourself.  Just a suggestion.  You'll be a much happier person...

Well, by golly, I love YOU, FTK.

Do you, uh, love ME . . . . ?

Yeah, Lenny, I do LOVE YOU.  I just can't communicate with make it impossible to do so.

Love, FtK

See, Lenny? I told you she wanted you!  :p

Mercy....I don't love him THAT WAY!  I'm deathly afraid of what he'd be like in the bedroom.  

He's frightening, but I love him anyway....from a distance.

Date: 2007/06/09 17:29:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 09 2007,17:18)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,17:00)
Here's the thing that is kind of weird about that.  If I had a sibling who had any sort of disability or problem with mental stability, I would never jump into their blog and lay it all out publically.  So, do you really think it was his brother?  

Would someone be that inconsiderate to their own brother?

This thread gives a little more context to David Fafarman's motives with regard to commenting on his brother.  Particularly this comment:

What I would ask of those who interacted with Larry is that they try to find some understanding and charity in their hearts. And perhaps even look for ways that he can contribute (that would be hard).

and this one:
Larry, you owe a lot of people an apology. I will waive mine. But I do have some expectations of you. These are simple and I hope are still within your capacity.

(1) You must apologize to Ed publicly for calling him names. I suggest you do this at your blog, and let me know once you have so I can email Ed, since, as he said, "I do not read Larry's blog as a matter of course." (And you should not assume that I do either.)

(2) After that, you may phone me and speak about topics of your choice, except that it may not be a subject designed intentionally to goad me. If you are not sure, ask.

(3) You will then be forgiven for my part.

While this perhaps falls short of the "Unconditional Love" that it is said all people crave, it is about as close as you're likely to get in this world.

I would like to have my brother back.


-- Dave

Do you hear heartbreak in those words?  I did.

Perhaps...but, there is no telling what is really going on in someone elses family life.  And, do you really think that a PUBLIC BLOG where ANYONE can engage in the conversation is the most appropriate place to address your own brother?

Date: 2007/06/09 17:57:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 09 2007,17:19)
Here's the thing that is kind of weird about that.  If I had a sibling who had any sort of disability or problem with mental stability, I would never jump into their blog and lay it all out publically.  So, do you really think it was his brother?

then you wouldn't be doing your sibling any favors.

most likely, you come from the kind of family that prefers just to sweep that kind of thing under the rug, rather than deal with it.

not uncommon in the US, but tragic, nonetheless.

I don't know if you've noticed, but to be quite honest with you, I haven't seen a whole lot of science being discussed here.

there's that denial rearing its ugly head again.

just because YOU don't bother to followup on the many references that are posted here, doesn't mean they don't exist.

hell, even in the rambling AFDave threads, there was MUCH science discussed, even if Dave managed to avoid almost all of it.

Actually, keeping family matters out of the public domain seems to me to be the better choice for all concerned.  I can't imagine that I would feel kindly toward my brother if he aired personal information publically.  I don't think that is probably the way to "get one's brother back".  

And, no, I can't remember my family "sweeping that kind of thing under the rug".  My family has helped me through many situations throughout my life...we were very close.  But, they had the good sense to keep things that were personal to themselves rather than share them publically or with people who we didn't even know on a PUBLIC BLOG without consent.  

And as far as the science being discussed here, I can only comment on what I've seen here the last month or so.  I wasn't around when AFDave posted.  I think the only way you might have a chance at some good conversations would be when there are creationists or IDists posting, but you guys treat them like crap from the get go.  Heck, Lenny's been trying to run me off since I got here.  

But, I can't comment much anyway because I'm NOT A SCIENTIST.  It would be nice to find a forum where Darwinists and IDists can actually converse civilly.  And, on a personal level, I think it'd be much more interesting if people from both sides got to know each other a bit more personally...makes the conversations more fun.  They may even find out that those from the "other side" aren't as idiotic, delusional, evil, and dishonest as they might think.

Date: 2007/06/09 18:15:21, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 09 2007,17:56)
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2007,17:29)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 09 2007,17:18)
Do you hear heartbreak in those words?  I did.

Perhaps...but, there is no telling what is really going on in someone elses family life.  And, do you really think that a PUBLIC BLOG where ANYONE can engage in the conversation is the most appropriate place to address your own brother?

Sometimes it may be the only appropriate place.  From my reading it sounded like Larry would deliberately antagonize his brother in private conversations. In that context, perhaps making a plea publicly was the only recourse David had.  I can't presume to know his motivations, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. It couldn't be easy to pour that pain out in front of a audience.

Well, like you said, we don't know either one of them well enough to know what was best in this situation.  I can only speak from my personal feelings, and even if my siblings angry or abusive toward me, I don't think I could ever bash them publically unless they were in agreement to take it public and ask for guidance or suggestions as to how to solve the issues.  

With everyone bashing Larry due to David taking it public, I can't imagine that did anything positive for the sibling relationship....but, maybe I'm wrong.  

Think about it...what if your brother or sister decided to post at UD and brought up something negative about you, and then everyone there jumped on the bandwagon and laid into you and poked fun of you for quite some time afterward.  Can't imagine that would bring you closer to your sibling.

Date: 2007/06/09 18:27:57, Link
Author: Ftk
have you actually read any of the scientific articles recommended to you in this very thread over the last month or so?

Yeah, I read the one Wesley wrote...printed it off and everything.  But, I certainly don't have the expertise to debate him on it.  And, as I've said before, I understand the position that it may be hard to distinguish exactly what is and what is not designed.  

The reason I argue that ID should be considered at the university level (and perhaps in high schools at some point) is that it does cover many scientific issues, and is certainly food for thought in regard to how much of evolution can be considered "fact".  

If scientists refuse to allow it into the science classroom, where I think it probably belongs, then it should at least be in the philosophy of science classes...and be taught by a design proponent. Or, perhaps it could be taught by both a person who supports design and one who doesn't.  I just think it should be addressed in some reasonable fashion.

Dave was also kind enough to send me a biology textbook which at first I was pissed about because he obviously thinks I don't know the first thing about biology.  But, after thinking about it for a while, he made me realize that it has been about 20 years since I took college biology, so an updated textbook might be interesting to peruse.  And, I've been reading that when I can find a spare second and enjoying it.  

So, yeah, I think I'm taking what you guys share seriously.

Date: 2007/06/09 18:36:14, Link
Author: Ftk
[quote=carlsonjok,June 09 2007,18:23][/quote]
One of David's comments that I thought was important is this one (again):
What I would ask of those who interacted with Larry is that they try to find some understanding and charity in their hearts. And perhaps even look for ways that he can contribute (that would be hard).

That isn't the sound of someone trying to hurt his brother.  That is someone desperately trying to help their brother.

Why would he ask that of a hostile group of commentors?  I suppose perhaps he wasn't aware that Larry had been the brunt of their jokes?  I mean who would do that?  I could never do that to my sister or brother.  I can't imagine anyone from that blog was going to befriend Larry or try to find a way to help him.  Did you?  Did any of you?

Date: 2007/06/09 18:44:15, Link
Author: Ftk
So butt out and shut the fuck up about it.

Okey, dokey, Lenny.  I'll shut the fuck up about it and go do some laundry.  I won't say another word until I post my questions for Dave.

Love you...lots. :)

Date: 2007/06/09 23:44:31, Link
Author: Ftk
I've found people using either "FtK" or "Reasonable Kansans" in at least 4 different blogs.  I've got a feeling that the those using my name are from the Emanuel Goldstein clan of commentors, because Josh (Thoughts from Kansas) was able to check IP addresses once, and if I remember right, the IP address was the same as one of the Emmanual/Blair/JC/etc. reincarnations.

Date: 2007/06/10 00:05:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, Dave, I’ve been “thinking” again...frightening, I know.  Anywhoo...

As I said earlier, I think it’s the importance of prediction that I’m probably not fully comprehending.  Let me try again with comments and questions to your last few posts.  

Warning:  This post is a seriously jumbled mess because I addressed your two previous posts point by point.  I didn’t go back and try to make it more organized so it’s very repetitive in some areas, but maybe that’s not a bad thing.  If I wasn’t clear the first time, maybe my second attempt will be more understandable.


But all creatures DON'T live with the same "environmental constants". That may have been the notion when the bible was written, but we now know it is not true.

Perhaps I should have used a phrase like living within the entire biosphere or world as a whole rather than the word “environment“.  I didn’t mean individual environments.  BTW, as far as I know, the bible didn’t relay any “notion” about environmental constants.  It’s not a science textbook.  

Bacteria living in the soil experience very different environmental constants than those experienced by a chloroplast in a soybean plant, in this particular example. And going further afield, there are bacteria that live in hydrothermal vents at extreme pressures and temperatures. What would Gish et al. predict about these organisms? According to your above-referenced "environmental constants" notion, one should predict that their metabolic pathways and enzymes are very different from soil-dwelling organisms, since the environmental constants are very different.

I would have thought just the opposite (if you note my corrected meaning of the word environment) would seem to me that Gish would predict them to be similar because of his statement in regard to the observation that so much of nature obviously depends on other parts of nature for their livelihood.   Due to that observation, one would certainly predict massive similarities throughout much of nature.   It seems to me it’s always been obvious that we share common characteristics with other other organisms.  Linneaus started classifying these similarities before Darwin hit the scene, and I find it hard to believe that we wouldn’t be exactly where we are today unless we had rejected common design for common descent.  The notion of common descent might have possibly helped push us more urgently toward further exploration of organisms at one point in order to try to confirm the concept, but there is no reason to believe that a creationist wouldn’t be able to “do science” due to their belief that similarities are due to common design rather than common descent.

Common descent, on the other hand, would predict that they would be very similar. Guess what? The Gishite prediction fails; these bacteria have electron transfer systems that are very similar to those of soil-dwelling bacteria.

Okay, so since we assume that, due to common descent, everything evolved from that first organism, then we predict that there are similarities between all organisms.  But, an evolutionist can’t just look at something and make a prediction as to where it should be classified without thoroughly examining it.  So, what good is the concept of common descent other than to say that, “hey, there will be similarities of some sort between these organisms because we know that everything evolved from that first microbe.  So, let’s dig into this sucker and figure out how to classify it with other organisms that have the closest similarities to this creature“.  

Fr’instance, the dolphin/fish example.  We can’t know how to classify these creatures until we’ve thoroughly examined them and conducted further experiments in order to place them in reasonable categories for future research, can we?  Both a creationist and an evolutionist would go through this process, so how is it that the evolutionist is ahead of the game in determining that they should not be categorized together?   I’m not being a prick here, I still just don’t understand, and I think I might be missing something important.

And that's the point. Creationists don't have any way to really predict anything, because all the predictions depend upon reading the mind of a supernatural being. And those mind-readings seem to change as new facts are discovered. By scientists who can make valid predictions based on common descent.

Lost...seriously.  I don’t understand why I would have to read the mind of a supernatural being in order to observe, examine, and classify various organisms accordingly to their similar attributes.  Let’s take the dolphin/fish example again.  Say I just discovered both and don’t know squat about either except that they have some similar features and live within the same environment.  How would an evolutionist know to classify one as a vertebrate, and one as a mammal, without further investigation?  They can’t predict anything different than what a creationist would predict until they do the work and then classify it with those creatures similar to each, can they?  So, either way, our outcome is the same, isn’t it?  Same with the bacteria living in the soil compared to the bacteria living in hydrothermal vents...even though they both live in different environments, I don’t understand why one could only conclude that they are similar due to common descent rather than common design.

Creationists are piggy-backing on the data generated by real scientists, and then generating hand-waving arguments to pretend that they would get the same answers.

But, Dave, there is no reason why they wouldn’t get the same answers.  As I’ve said many times, classifying these similarities which would lead to future scientific breakthroughs doesn’t depend upon believing that everything evolved from that first microbe.  It’s an interesting concept, but I just don’t comprehend why similarities must be the product of common descent.  

What will happen when, somewhere in the cosmos, some other creature is discovered and it has a very different metabolism, perhaps a different genetic molecule, etc. How will that be accommodated by your statement: "Creationists believe that due to how the designer formed the cosmos (with the intension (sic) that all organisms were going to live in and of the same environmental (sic) constants), there is the need for all creatures to be designed with similarities."? I predict that there will then be more hand-waving. What do you predict?

Well, I guess that a creationist would dig in and investigate it to see whether there are any similarities at all with anything on planet earth, and if not, they’d classify it as a new discovery that has been made on another planet in the cosmos and compare it to other findings in the area.  What would an evolutionist do?  How would he classify it?  What would evolution predict about it?  I don’t know why “hand-waving” would be necessary - it would be on an entirely different planet, so why would it have to be similar to what we find on planet earth?  

I wrote:
Both will end up with the same end results because both have been studying and classifying various organisms, and both understand their similarities.

And, you responded:
No. Only one UNDERSTANDS their similarities, and can make confident predictions based on that understanding. The other knows some facts, but those facts are useless for predictions, and don't allow him to understand new and different organisms such as those found in deep-sea hydrothermal vents.

Why??  What ~specific~ predictions would an evolutionist make based on common descent that a creationist wouldn‘t make based on common design?  Why would they not understand new and different organisms such as those found in deep-sea hydrothermal vents?  How would an evolutionist know any more than a creationist based on “prediction” without further examination of the organism?

Re religion, I will remind you that you brought up that subject first; I was merely responding. I am not interested in discussing your religion or mine; I am only interested in understanding why your religion keeps you from understanding science, or accepting reality. And again you put words in my mouth. I never said that evolutionary theory was a fact. Evolution is a fact; evolutionary theory is the currently best supported explanation for that fact. Creationism and ID are other attempts to explain that fact; but they are not supported by any scientific experiments. They are supported by hand-waving, and can only be believed if you ignore lots of other facts.

Sigh...creationists do conduct experiments, research, and make valid predictions in which some have been confirmed.

And, at present evolution theory may be the “best supported explanation” accepted by the scientific community, but at this point, it looks like it will be the only one that will ever be considered because no one is apparently allowed to question it unless they can provide a new “mechanism” to replace natural selection.  That’s obviously not going to happen because natural selection is responsible for much of what we observe in nature.  Scientists won’t allow micro and macro to be considered separately, and although we may never observe macroevolution actually occuring, we’re stuck with it as being considered factual.

You also stated that you are “only interested in understanding why [my] religion keeps [me] from understanding science, or accepting reality”,  but actually you’re not, because if you were, you’d be more interested in religion in general and try to understand what it is that causes people to believe that one can follow various lines of evidence to support their faith beliefs.  That would require conversations about religion which you are obviously not willing to discuss and feel are a waste of time.   If you were really interested, you’d spend more time learning about religion from the viewpoint of those who oppose your scientific views rather considering all of us irrational religious loons.

What you’re really interested in is trying to teach people why your view of science and evolution is “reality” and why their view is irrational and wrong.  And, when you decide that they are deluding themselves and are just too stubborn to accept “why common descent is a powerful predictive concept”, then you get thoroughly pissed off and decide to “leave [their] further education to others” rather than even attempting to consider that there might be some truth to be found somewhere other than a science textbook.  To you, religion is just another result of the evolution of the mind.  Do you see why it is as frustrating for me to try to communicate with you as you believe it is to communicate with me?  

And indeed, some ideas developed by creationist scientists are still around, even though they may have been modified drastically in order to accommodate new findings. Linnean taxonomy is a good example. As you may recall, Linneaus had a taxonomic category he called Vermes, which included not only the standard worms, but snakes as well. Their external morphology was enough to convince Linneaus (and his contemporaries) that these organisms were closely related. Obviously we know better now; snakes are vertebrates and are not very closely related to the invertebrate worms. But the basic Linnean taxonomy, and the nomenclature, is still workable, so that framework survived, even though it was generated by a (gasp) creationist. There is a big difference, however, between this type of science (observational) and the types of science (experimental) which benefit from the power of prediction.

And, again, neither an evolutionist nor a creationist could make a proper classification without further investigation.  I don’t know why a creationist wouldn’t do further experimental investigation rather than mere observational analysis.  Why can’t a creationist who observes that similarities exist between organisms due to common design do experimental science??

So a creationist can make no scripturally-mandated choice between a world where all organisms share a common genetic material and many common metabolic pathways, or a world where bacteria, bats, and bonobos all have different genetic materials and different metabolic pathways.

...a “scripturally-mandated choice”.  Holy cow, I had no idea that a creationist would have to go about it that way.  I had always assumed that reasonable creationists would go about their work the same way evolutionists do...they both realize that there are vast similarities between organisms due to their observation as to how the world works together as a whole.  They’d experiment and classify in the same manner a evolutionist would.  As far as other areas of creation science, I see no reason why considering history should be completely off limits to science.  Makes no sense.  Seems we should consider all avenues of study to make such important decisions in regard to what can be considered “reality” and what can’t.

Done..sorry about the repetition.  I know that makes it hard to wade through and respond to what you feel is important to comment on further.  Though after reading through this mess, you’re probably cross-eyed and furious enough to “leave my education to others”.  LOL...

Date: 2007/06/10 00:12:33, Link
Author: Ftk
Yeah, it tells me there are "nuts" on both sides.  Fr'instance, it's common knowledge that you use various names on other blogs.  Why, I don't know, but evidently that's not considered "nutty".

Not to worry though, I still love you.  I just think you're a bit of a fruitloop.

Date: 2007/06/10 00:56:45, Link
Author: Ftk
Here's another thing to explain to me, Dave...

I was over at UD and found this comment in the Carroll review of Behe's book thread:

“The “no transitional fossils” argument…”

The “no transitionals”, contrary to the reviewers bare assertion, is more valid than ever.

When will Darwinists figure out that calling something a transitional because it shares morphological traits doesn’t make it such?

This is the most concise example of the “affirming the consequent”, and the “undistributed middle” logical fallacies that Darwinism is based on. “It looks like this and precedes this, therefore it comes from this”.

Isn’t it perfectly obvious that one must assume Darwinism to be true to even consider such a statement? Thus making it a tautology and logical fallacy.

I still believe one of the major defects of Darwinist scientists is a lack of training in logic and information. That’s what perpetually leads them astray into nonsense. [my emphasis]

I've considered this same issue several times in the must accept Darwinism to be true to make these assertions.  Isn't that what you accuse creationists of doing?  Starting with a conclusion and making the evidence fit?

Date: 2007/06/10 01:04:40, Link
Author: Ftk
Doubtful....sounds hideous.  Far too kinky for my taste.  I don't need snakes to get off...

Date: 2007/06/10 08:19:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Hmmm...I thought you did.  Don't you post as George Cauldron?  Maybe bad.

Date: 2007/06/10 08:28:26, Link
Author: Ftk
No, I'm not going to "make a list".  I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position.  I read most of what was posted.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?  

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.  

You wade through all the crap at kcfs, I'm certainly not going to spend my time doing that.

Date: 2007/06/10 11:26:11, Link
Author: Ftk
Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.

Why indeed.  What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?  Are you all tone deaf (or I guess blind, in this case).  

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?  What was I supposed to do when they were posted to support the topic being discuss?  Ignore the link and move on?  Cripes, you people are unbelieveable.  I can't honestly say that I didn't understand a word of what I read.  That would be lying.

Of course I'd be better off starting with the basics, but shoot, I've been reading the basics in these forums for almost 3 years now.  I'm find that I already understand much of the stuff I'm reading in Dave's textbook because I've been involved in this debate for so long.  

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

Date: 2007/06/10 11:36:41, Link
Author: Ftk

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.

Date: 2007/06/10 11:46:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Arden, this will make you happy...and set you up to rip me even further.

I'd have to pick A.  I read them at the time because they were posted to coorespond with something being discussed.  I certainly don't remember the titles or authors of any of them.

Let's make this even easier for you.  I am a simple layperson who does not work in any field of science.  I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.  The science room is obviously out, and the churches aren't going to touch the subject with a ten foot pool except to say that, yes, a designer exists.  


Date: 2007/06/10 12:00:05, Link
Author: Ftk
Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:

You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.

WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]

Date: 2007/06/10 17:58:30, Link
Author: Ftk
If birds evolved from dinosaurs, we'd expect to find feathered dinos -- and we do.

Do we?

Date: 2007/06/10 18:44:23, Link
Author: Ftk
Blipey wrote:

He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is. And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do. You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.

Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...

1.  An evolutionist predicts a “novel idea” due to the notion of common ~descent~, whereas the creationist  predicts a “novel idea” due to common ~design~.

2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities, though they disagree as to why that is.  We also know that before Darwin, similiarities were already being classified, and there would be no reason why those classifications wouldn’t have continued to be updated as further research took place.

Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?  The taxol example doesn’t make sense to me, and that may just be because I’m dense (have a ball with that one Lenny - make sure to post at least 15 separate comments to cover your response).  Or it could be that I don’t understand how evolution can predict which tree to tap without having researched and classified the trees by their similiarities and grouped them as such.  I don't know why one wouldn't try to group them with other trees that they share the most common traits with unless they believed that the similarities were due to common descent.  That's just a matter of organization and classification.

Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent, look into a crystal ball and predict exactly which tree is needed and use this knowledge to propose novel ideas without researching and classifying all the trees first?

Date: 2007/06/10 19:22:59, Link
Author: Ftk
But HOW do you "dig into this sucker"? Take the bacterial example. You want to know if those bacteria that live at high temps and pressures are using similar electron-transfer systems, compared to the soil-dwelling bacteria. You don't have to grow those hydrothermal vent bacteria (which require growth conditions which not easily achievable in a lab). You can take a small sample of DNA from a deep-sea probe and use DNA primers based on sequences found in other critters (like soil bacteria, or plant chloroplasts), and examine their genes to see if similar sequences are found. That technology is based on common descent. Post facto, a creationist knows that the DNA sequence approach works, so he/she would use it too. But IF that creationist had not been exposed to the scientific facts and methods generated by those who work in the real world of common descent, he/she wouldn't know enough to do that. He/she would probably have to grow those bacteria in the lab, isolate their enzymes or do metabolic experiments, rather than just look at the genes. Trust me, that is a lot more work to get the same answer, if you ever get there.

You say if a creationist were not exposed to the "real world of common descent" he would never figure this out.  How in the heck do you know that?  At Darwin’s time, they wouldn’t be able to figure this out either.  Isn’t it due to research on similarities between organisms that led to this type of advanced technology and information?  Couldn’t common design push one to research these issues as well?  

What would be a creationist prediction for globin genes in icefish? Be honest with yourself and you would predict that they wouldn't have any, no need for 'em.

But, aren’t we talking about microevolution here?  I don’t think it would be impossible to predict this type of example because we know that evolution is an empirically sound fact at the micro level.  

[I’m sorry for pushing this Dave.  But, I don’t get it.  Maybe we should go private, because I’m having trouble concentrating on your posts due to people throwing all kinds of other crap at me as well.]

Date: 2007/06/10 21:11:47, Link
Author: Ftk
But Wesley makes a good point on the other thread devoted to you (don't you feel special, fighting a two-front war here?).

No, I'm having severe dejavu - kcfs all over again.  Scenario goes like this...back and forth, back and forth, until I'm finally told that I have to go back to school and major in two or three areas of science in order to understand anything further.

If I choose not to take that route, I must trust that the scientific community is 100% correct about these issues and that although, as you said, much of it is speculation, it simply cannot be dismissed because “"micro-yes, macro-no" is like saying that the sun comes up but doesn't go down.”  If I cannot understand that particular “fact”, then I can never, ever, ever understand or “do science”.  

Oh, and I must agree that creationists can't "do science" because they reject this speculation as being fact...even though it's speculation.

I must go find something very strong to drink now...strong and mind numbing.  I will think about this again tomorrow and try to wade through all the darts in order to find some that are worth thinking about and responding to.

Date: 2007/06/10 21:31:12, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,21:14)

No, I'm having severe dejavu - kcfs all over again.

of course, you won't bother to think of the real reason why that might be.

why two completely independent groups of people reach the same conclusions about your knowledge of the subject of the ToE.

why two completely independent groups might think your knowledge of basic biology is lacking.

no, likely you'll chalk it all up to some sort of conspiracy against you.

sad, really.

Oh, I know exactly why both groups question my sanity and poke fun of me on a consistent basis.  Both groups are militant supporters of Darwin.  

There are only a very select few of us who are fool enough to enter these domains.  We are evidently individuals who have a very high tolerance for pain.  

Both groups also consist of primarily anti-religious folks who think the world would be much better off without religion,  and many are also activists in regard to political issues concerning religious matters.

There are usually always a few people in these forums who are TE's, but they're pretty quiet.  You can pick them out right away.  They're usually much more polite and well behaved.  Of course, that would probably exclude myself due to my sailor mouth.  I picked up that bad habit in evil secular public schools. :p

Date: 2007/06/10 22:11:41, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2007,21:47)
Ftk, I'll try to help.

ID is not science nor should it ever pretend to be.  It is philosophy pure and simple.  Because of the complexity, beauty, wonder, etc and the very fact of existence screams an intentional act and thus a designer.  This is a very old argument and to learn more about it I would suggest you read Paley and Swinburne.

While there is nothing wrong with these arguments they can not be tested and that is the cornerstone of science.  ID has it's place but it's not in a science classroom.  Science must deal with that which can be measured, observed, tested, duplicated and so on.  I think you can see the difference.  Now don't get me wrong.  Science is not about Truth.  Science is about what can be tested and measured and observed TODAY and the conclusions that are reached are subject to change based upon that which is tested and measured TOMORROW.  Sometimes the name of science is misused and you are told it is about Truth but you are correct to reject that fallacy outright.

There are many problems with the theory of evolution but the most notable is the way it is potrayed on both sides.  My advise is if you have questions simply ask them.  Someone here will answer them constructively and as for the rest ignore it.  By that same token you can expect to be ignored (or ridiculed) if you make statements that you can not backup.  Just as you get offended, to many here when you make those statements you are attacking their religion.  In the end we're all big boys and girls and that's just the price we pay to play the game.

Thank you, Skeptic.  That is helpful, and I'm not in total disagreement that perhaps ID should be taught somewhere other than a science classroom.  I feel this way basically because of the intolerance coming from those who oppose it based on their philosophical beliefs.  

I'm not out to make war, and I don't like the fact that these issues are furthering the chasm between those who realize that that there is an ultimate designer who is responsible for nature and those who reject the notion.

But, I do think that ID should be considered somewhere so that students are not left with only a materialistic view about life.

Where do you think ID belongs?  IMO, it does not belong in the churches for a variety of reasons.

Date: 2007/06/11 07:49:58, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 11 2007,07:41)
Quote (skeptic @ June 11 2007,07:28)
I truely believe more than anything that the animosity on the religious side comes from the manner in which science has been presented to them, namely with arrogance, condesention and hostility.  Given a different presentation style and the result is completely different but then most on this side view religious people with contempt and arrogance.  Don't get me wrong, this doesn't exonerate the religious community but the burden of teaching lies with science.

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. As has been pointed out before, there are literally dozens of scientific theories, all doubtlessly taught with the same level of "arrogance, condescention (sic) and hostility", which somehow don't get these folks excited. Why is that? Is it possible that they don't even think about science at all until some preacher fills their head with falsehoods about it? If so, how, exactly, is that the fault of anyone else but the preachers, and the unthinking masses who accept those lies?


You might want to remember that those coming out to bat for your side have more at stake in this particular area of science as well.  So, they DO approach this particular topic differently than other areas of science as well.

Let's see...for starters, there have been a whole batch of "new atheist" books popping up everywhere.  It's not just the "preachers fill[ing] heads with falsehoods".  Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Dennet et. al. are every bit as deceiving as you may think preachers are.  

You also need to look at yourself and realize that when you completely reject all conversations about religion as foolish and unimportant in this debate, you are destroying your own case in this respect.

Date: 2007/06/11 08:01:35, Link
Author: Ftk
as far as where ID belongs, it belongs in philosophy courses and courses presenting a historical perspective but not to offer students an alternative to materialism.

I don't have a problem with that.  Do you think these anti-religious folks would back off and allow it to be taught in those type of classes?

Date: 2007/06/11 08:55:51, Link
Author: Ftk

Why then do you suppose it's not being taught in philosophy classes yet?  Do you think ID proponents are opposed to this option?  

I think it's an extremely important inference that our students need to consider and understand without the negative & deceptive rhetoric, and if it is outlawed in the science classroom, why not take it to the philosophy class?

Date: 2007/06/11 09:49:03, Link
Author: Ftk
Why is it that only one of these is controversial? Is it because of the arrogant condescending, and hostile teaching methods, as skeptic would have us believe? If so, can you, or he, please explain why germ theory etc. (and science, in general) are off the radar for 99% of the public?

Because, Dave, quite obviously this particular issue merges with theological and philosophical issues, unlike the others issues.  And, no, it’s not because of the arrogant condescending, and hostile teaching methods of your average school teacher.  The condescending and hostile environment comes from groups like the NCSE and other volatile groups that are just as “hostile” as the far right religious groups.  CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THE PROBLEM STEMS FROM BOTH ENDS OF THE RELIGIOUS SPECTRUM?  Can you not see that you yourself hold bias in regard to these issues as well?  

If you can't explain that on the basis of the teaching methods, we need to look for another hypothesis. Mine would be that evolution is seen by some as a threat to their religious beliefs, and therefore gets mentioned in pulpits and Chick tracts and lots of places. In the course of those discussions it is necessary to lie about evolution and its implications. I won't take your bait about Dawkins et al.; the point is that lying is bad, and pointing to another liar does not exonerate any liars.

Okay, Dave, you need to WAKE UP.  Seriously.  There is no one “lying” in the pulpits or anywhere else.  They believe what they put forth.  So, if they are wrong, it’s not deliberate.  And, to refuse to acknowledge the part that Dawkins, et. al. plays in this deliberately burying your head in the sand.  The other side thinks that Dawkins et. al. are a bunch of liars as well - I don’t.  I believe that they support their true beliefs on the topic just like the preachers from the pulpit do.   The point is that BOTH sides believe the other to be devious liars so it’s kind of ridiculous for you to make a statement like evolution is “seen by some as a threat to their religious beliefs”.  While that may be true, those from the opposite end are just as threatened by the notion that evolution may not answer the question as to how everything in nature came to be.  They base their philosophical and faith beliefs on this “fact”, so anything opposing it brings about as much tension and repulsion to them as it does to those who believe their religious beliefs are threatened by evolution.

Scientists have no use for lies, or liars. Lies in science get ferreted out by other scientists, and liars get shunned. So these lies by religious folks are not tolerated, and yes, some scientists might even get "hostile". But that hostility is caused by the lies on the other side; it is not, as skeptic claims, causal in the generation of the original resistance to the facts of evolution and the explanatory power of evolutionary theory.

Do you think I’m a liar, Dave? After getting to know me a little, do you actually think I’m lying?  

All I have said is that I won't discuss religion in the same forum as science. I know a bit about science; I don't know enough about religion to be useful in any discussion. I only know that if my religion required me to ignore reality, I would find another religion, since reality will always be there, and there seem to be plenty of essentially indistinguishable religions to choose from.

Since you don’t “know enough about religion to be useful in any discussion”, then you’ll really never know whether it may be that your views on science are causing YOU to ignore reality.  And, if you really believe that there are plenty of essentially “indistinguishable religions” out there, and if any religion will do, then, in essence, you are satisfied (without doing the research) that your belief that there is no real truth to be found in religion is correct.  So, personally, I think your lack of education on the topic of theology may have helped form your opinions about the “reality” of your own scientific views.

Date: 2007/06/11 09:52:36, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2007,09:11)
Quote (Ftk @ June 11 2007,09:55)
Why then do you suppose it's not being taught in philosophy classes yet?

Apparently you've never had a philosophy of science class.

No, I haven't, Steve.  So, expand on that comment.  Are you saying that ID doesn't belong in a philosophy of science class, either?

Date: 2007/06/11 10:10:35, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave wrote:

The difference is that one side can PROVE that the other is lying...

No, Dave, one side cannot PROVE anything...again, you are confused about "how science works".

Date: 2007/06/11 12:32:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 11 2007,12:27)

Are you saying that ID doesn't belong in a philosophy of science class, either?

For something to show up in "philosophy of science", it would need to have some connection to the topic, wouldn't it? IDC's only approach to Ph.Sci would be as an illegitimate attempt to wedge in bogus arguments in K-12 instruction, which could make for about 30 seconds of talk noting it among other populist antiscience positions.

Otherwise, you simply have the historical interest of design arguments. Once you're done covering the 19th century, though, there isn't any further need to discuss it in the Ph.Sci class. There's too much real philosophy of science to cover to make Fuller's "affirmative action" for IDC work in Ph.Sci.

Pretty much the response I expected.

Okay, what about a new class with a combo philosophy of science/philosophy of religion/science related subject matter?  Other special topics are covered as separate classes on occassion.  Maybe we need a whole new area in which to cover ID at the university level.

Date: 2007/06/11 12:33:36, Link
Author: Ftk

I tried to pm you, but your mailbox is full.  I'm wondering why I can't start a poll.  Do you have to be a moderator to do so?

Date: 2007/06/11 12:51:40, Link
Author: Ftk
Why is it that no one is allowed to critisize religion without being well educated about every little detail, yet someone who is, by her own admission, rather ignorant about science in general, can make such bold critizisms of something she knows little to nothing about?

I have no problem with people people questioning religion.  I wholehearedly advise it.  I'm not completely ignorant about science, but I realize that there are many here who know more than I do.  That's pretty much why I hang out in these forums and blogs.  To get the views from both sides.  

You're right though, I'm not particularly fond of nasty criticism.  I try to ask honest questions and I don't usually get nasty about it unless I'm being outwardly provoked.

By Dave's own admission, he is not well versed on the subject of religion nor does he have much interest.  But, he has deemed religion as the cause of the unrest in this debate. Seems one would want to investigate more into the reasons why religious folks believe the things they do and whether it may actually be possible to find truth through religious teachings rather than reject the notion entirely and fight those whose beliefs are as strong as his own in regard to how a person can find "truth".

Date: 2007/06/12 13:35:36, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Kristine @ June 11 2007,22:52)
Girls! (Uh, and boys...) Who would you rather be kissed by?

The soundrel?

Or the activist judge?


Hmmmmm... :)

This one...

[yes, yes, I know I have a million questions to address on the other thread, but I don't have time to play today.  I'LL BE BACK...]

Date: 2007/06/12 22:16:13, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave wrote:

Oh, and if you're still there, FtK - What predictions about globin genes in icefish could a creationist make, and what is the basis for those predictions, based on the observations that icefish have no red blood cells and no hemoglobin?

Sorry for the delay Dave.  I’m having a seriously busy week at work (and home).

I’m not sure that the icefish is the best example for basing your assumption that it is a necessity to adopt the Darwinian mindset in order to make predictions.  It seems to me that we are discussing microevolution or adaptation of a particular species of fish to it’s environment.  

You had asked:
If all you had was the observation that the icefish has no red blood cells and no hemoglobin, what would a creationist predict about the globin genes in that fish?

At Carroll‘s lecture at KSU, he mentioned that the DNA record tells us what was lost, modified, and gained through evolutionary mechanisms of the icefish.

From my review link above, I wrote that Carroll relayed the following in this regard:
A key loss was their globin genes. In other Antarctic fish, there are two globin genes located in their DNA which account for their red blood cells. But, in the Ice Fish, there is only a remnant of one of these genes left. So, although they have had an entire loss of red-blood cells, there is this remnant part of the gene which accounts for red blood cells we find in other fish, yet it has no function in the Ice Fish and is left “rotting” within their DNA.

Then there is a modification to their tubulin genes which has aided in adaptation to the cold habitat they live in, and a key invention (gain) would be an antifreeze gene which arose from preexisting DNA code.

Carroll tells us that the DNA record shows how species are created and that earth and life evolved together. Shifts in lifestyle are reflected in DNA of pertinent genes, and Darwin's principles of natural selection aid in these changes.

Now, I’d have to be honest and say that I believe an evolutionist and a creationist would predict the same thing...due to the fact that we know that adaptation of creatures to their changing environment is supported with empirical evidence.  This had been observed before Darwin’s time.  

Since virtually all other vertebrates (and especially other Antarctic fish) have red blood cells, it would seem quite probable that whatever ancestoral fish the icefish adapted from had originally had the gene which accounts for red blood cells.  I’m not sure why a Creationist would not be able to predict this.  You have to try to remember that Creationists do not disregard the mechanisms of evolution in the least.  

But regardless of their prediction, both the creationist and the evolutionist would have to confirm their assumption with evidence taken from the fish.  They might be right, they might be wrong.  I’m not sure that evolutionary predictions are ALWAYS correct in regard to what they believe they will find due to the Darwinian mindset.

You wrote:
And, more importantly, what would be the mechanistic basis for that prediction?

Well, duh, the mechanisms would be those of evolution.  Got no beef with creationist does.

Certainly if you know that the icefish's globin genes are present but inactivated, you can try to make some hand-waving speculative rationalization about how they were designed that way.

Design doesn’t have to provide a mechanism in this particular example because what we know about adaptation of organisms to their environments is enough to make a prediction.  I believe you’re correct in saying that design does not have a mechanism, but it is an entirely different subject matter than what you are trying to compare it with here.  It doesn’t negate evolution, it only questions how far evolution is able to account for everything we observe in nature.  

There is no reason that scientists should not be allowed to question the extent to which evolution can explain everything we observe in nature unless they are able to provide a new mechanism to replace evolutionary mechanisms.  We already know evolution is supported with empirical evidence, so that‘s a senseless demand.  

But evolutionary theory predicts the right answer, and has a mechanism to explain it - descent from some ancestor (macroevolution, horrors! that had good globin genes, mutations that inactivate them, and selection in an extreme environment. See the difference? One paradigm can't predict but can allow for observations, the other paradigm both predicts and allows for observations, and also allows a deeper understanding of the biology of the critter.

Nope, don’t see the difference.  Again, creationists have never rejected or questioned evolutionary changes which allow organisms to adapt to their environments.  Creationists use evolutionary mechanisms to explain and predict these changes just as evolutionists do, and they are not riding on the backs of evolutionists because we were aware that organisms have the ability adapt to their environments before Darwin‘s time.  But, at the macro level, we do question just how far an organism can evolve.  Common descent is an historical inference that is not supported with enough empirical evidence to be considered a “fact”.  

Bottom line is that the ToE is a “fact” to a point, and then it becomes nothing other than speculation.  Everything that is important to science is based on microevolutionary changes.  Macro - whatever...maybe, maybe not.

Date: 2007/06/13 08:21:10, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (blipey @ June 12 2007,23:43)
Ftk, are you saying that icefish have always been just about they way they are now?  Except that maybe they have an inactive globin gene?

Do you not seriously see the explanatory power of a nested hierarchy and common descent?

You avoided answering Dave's question.  He asked you what predictions about the globin gene in icefish would a creationist make?  You gave no answer?  Why?

I ask you "what explanation does a creationist have about this globin gene"?  What repeatable process leads to this observation?




I do see the explanatory power of microevolution, but the "nested hierarchy" is supported by empirical evidence only to a certain point. The rest is a crap shot.

I thought I did answer Dave about predictions....same as evolutionist predictions.  They'd predict to find a remnant of the gene that produced red blood cells because virtually all other Antarctic fish have them.

The explanation that the creationist has about the globin gene is that the gene is found in all other vertebrates, so it only makes sense that the icefish at some point mutated and due to it's environment, fish with this mutation flourished through natural selection.

Date: 2007/06/13 08:27:54, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 13 2007,07:16)
FTK, in one of the innumerable dissections of Behe's latest "work" I find the paragraph below (talking about predictions of Evolution)
Another was made by Neil Shubin at the University of Chicago: that transitional forms between fish and amphibians would be found in 370-million-year-old rocks. Sure enough, he discovered that there were rocks of that age in Canada, went and looked at them, and found the right fossils. Intelligent design, in contrast, makes no predictions. It is infinitely malleable in the face of counterevidence, cannot be refuted, and is therefore not science.


Do you have any counterevidence to this point? I.E a prediction that creationism makes that can be tested?

Oldman, I'd have to take some time reading about that particular find before I made any further comments.  

I realize that evolutionists predict to find various "transitionals" in particular areas of the fossil record, but there is also so much that they don't find, so I keep an open mind about these "transitionals".

Date: 2007/06/13 08:32:48, Link
Author: Ftk
BTW, FtK, do you deny that transitional fossil sequences exist?

Wesley (that's my son's name too by the way),

I'm not ignoring your question, I'm just trying to find the time to carefully articulate my response so that there is no confusion as to my meaning.  Finally had a chance to get to Dave's question last night, so hopefully I'll find time to put something together for you late tonight.

Date: 2007/06/13 18:06:46, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (JohnW @ June 13 2007,18:05)
Quote (blipey @ June 13 2007,17:37)
Quote (Henry J @ June 13 2007,17:29)
Yowza. Wouldn't wanna meet that guy in an alley... (Or anywhere else, for that matter.)

Yeah, that is if he really existed.  I'm all for Ftk telling me how this couldn't possibly be evidence that dinos are ancestors of birds.

Could be Cretaceous, could be Bronze Age.  I'm keeping an open mind.


Date: 2007/06/14 15:07:26, Link
Author: Ftk
Hey, argystokes, I just noticed it's your birthday today.  HAPPY BIRTHDAY!  You're only 24?? Sheesh...just a pup.

Have a good one...

Date: 2007/06/14 16:19:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Icky, sweetie, I thought your plan was to ignore me...not a very good start, big guy.   I've been trying to make it easier on you by not posting so much lately (that and of course I'm busier than hell).  

But, I do owe Dave & Wesley a response when I get a chance.  Perhaps I'll just PM it to them.

Oh, and btw, I don't think bdays are trivial.  Not everything important in life has to center around science!

Date: 2007/06/14 16:47:03, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2007,16:22)
Icky, sweetie, I thought your plan was to ignore me...not a very good start, big guy.

actually we were discussing the value of ignoring you as an experiment, but I saw no agreement on methods as of yet.

care to guess as to what the results might be?

what would you do if we completely ignored you?

Well, first off Icky, you need to remember that I was lured in here.  I didn't even know this site existed until I started getting numerous hits on my sitemeter from this particular forum.  

Second, I'm just one of those people who has a really hard time watching people say stuff about me that is completely incorrect without mentioning that fact to them.  I have no idea how other people can allow you guys to rake them through the coals without comment.

Third, I tried to get out of here early on, but people kept bringing up stuff from my blog that I couldn't just let go by without comment.

So, certainly if everyone would stop commenting about what I blog about, I'd have no reason to post here unless I wanted to bring up a particular topic to get a viewpoint from the opposition.

My own experience has been that it is of great benefit to allow people who oppose my views to post at my blog (if they are civil).   I also enjoy discussions with those who reject my views because I believe it's more productive to engage in dialogue with the opposition rather than merely preaching to the choir.  I've also found that there is a lot of confusion from both sides as to what those they oppose actually believe.

KCFS pretty much ran off everyone whose views they opposed, and there's not much going on over there anymore.

Date: 2007/06/14 17:44:43, Link
Author: Ftk
And don't ask me any questions I don't like.  Or refrain from calling DaveScot names.  And asmit that atheism is the same as science....

You poor angry little creature.  I've gotten after DaveScot several times now for making remarks about other people.  I've allowed anyone who has asked good questions minus the ridicule to post them.  And, I've NEVER stated that atheism is the same as science.

You're just a tad ticked because I won't let your nasty little jibes go through moderation anymore.  Guys like you are the reason why I keep sticking my head in correct statements like the one you just made.

Carry on, luv...I'll just keep correctin' ya.

Date: 2007/06/15 07:25:59, Link
Author: Ftk
Oh, good grief.  The reason why I haven't responded yet is because I've had more than enough experience in these bizarro world forums to know that as soon as I respond, there will be endless darts thrown at my post that I will want to address.  

I don't have time this week....busy at work & I'm planning a 70th birthday party for my mother-in-law and expecting about 80 people at my home this weekend.  Needless to say, it takes some serious time to prepare for that many people.

Short answer Wes...No, I don't deny that transitional fossils exist.   Good 'nuf?  If not, you'll have to wait until next week for me to expand on that thought.

Date: 2007/06/15 09:16:38, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2007,07:53)
It always amazes me that some people are so awed by these “transitionals”. Here too we have varying interpretations of these creatures, yet mainstream science only allows consideration of one interpretation. Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not. Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“.

Humes certainly doesn’t mention the lengths that somes scientists have gone to in order to produce a “transitional”. Hoaxes abound, and recently even the famous paleontologist, Richard Leaky, has tampered with fossils to make them appear more like transitionals.

I also find it interesting that scientists are so enamored with these supposed “transitionals”, yet to this day we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature. Consider the evolutionary changes that would have had to occur in order to explain different body types and the evolution of vital organs.

I guess I still just wonder why we insist that this is a transitional versus merely an adaptation within the ape species.

Although Darwin expected to find many examples of these gradual, unbroken sequences of transitional fossils, they haven’t been found. So, instead of acknowledging that this is indeed a very real problem for the ToE, advocates of the theory came up with additional theories like Punctuated Equilibrium.

And then, of course, there is that dratted problem with all those missing links...
But, we must not question the evolutionary “fact” that birds evolved from dinos...

"whats" "with" "all" "the" "scare" "quotes" "ftk" "?"

FTK, I don't understand how one the one hand you say you accept "transitional" fossils and yet can still say "we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature." Both statements cannot be true.
What do you think the transitional fossils are exactly, if not evidence of macro evolutionary changes? Evidence of the designers whims maybe?

EDIT: How can you say "No, I don't deny that transitional fossils exist" and "Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“." and keep a straight face? You've just said you accept they are transitional fossils (otherwise you'd have just said "nah, they are fossils alright, but transitionals? never") so are you saying even though you accept they are transitional we should teach students otherwise?
You never cease to amaze me FTK.

Well, I guess that all depends on your definition of "transitional". :p   It also depends on how many just so stories you're going to have to tell in order to get your students to believe that what you're telling them is a "fact".

You might also note in the first quote you mentioned that I wrote:
Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not.

I stand by that statement in regard to most of the issues in this debate.  The various interpretations of the "facts" should be allowed to be considered by everyone -- not hid under the rug due the fear of the "scientific community" of their precious theory being questioned.

Date: 2007/06/15 13:29:39, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (jujuquisp @ June 15 2007,10:02)
Dembski is such an ass.  Now he's making fun of people's appearances?  I'm sure Jesus gave him prior approval to do it.  These guys are more ridiculous than anyone could ever imagine.  Pathetic.

ROTFLMAO!!!!  Are you serious?

The posters here make it their mission in life to make fun of people and their appearances!  

Shoot, I actually got after Dembski once for the puppet show thing with JJ, but I'll never do that again after being exposed to this particular site!  

So, are you saying that Jesus would think it is bad to rip people apart and make fun of them?  Do you think it is bad to do that to people?  Or are you saying it's completely okay to treat people like dirt unless you are a Christian because Christians have this thing about morals.  

Always cracks me up with someone mentions Dembski's "street theatre" when, in truth, he rarely does that kind of thing.  OTOH, you people make it a daily occurance.

Weird.  I guess you're admitting that morals are in the eye of the beholder, and as long as the crap is being slung from your side, it's okay...because you guys don't believe in that Jesus guy...morals are relative.  You can do and say whatever you want.

Date: 2007/06/15 13:47:46, Link
Author: Ftk
Jesus does NOT think its bad to rip people apart and hurt them.  After all, he sends all the ones who don't kiss his ass to hell for an eternity of punishment.

How in the hell do you equate believing that He was sent to earth to suffer and die for the sins of all, and in turn we are merely asked to accept the gift with "ass kissing"?  That's it - that's ALL the "ass kissing" we have to do.  

Hideous request, isn't it?!!  Horrible!  Devastating!  An impossible request!!

Date: 2007/06/15 14:05:30, Link
Author: Ftk
Oh, BS, Stephen.  Dembski has nothing to be ashamed of at all.  Even if DaveScot is a jerk to some of you at times, I can't imagine that he is actually the one who turned this place into a pit of spewing ridicule toward those you disagree with.  I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously?  Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views.  Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from.  

Know what else?  I don't think you were ever probably as strong an ID supporter as you believe you might have been.  If you were, you'd consider Behe's new book with more interest.  From what I've always understood about Behe, he believes the same thing you and Wesley supposedly believe.  That there is a designer, and that common descent and evolution are pretty much "fact".

It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here.  That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that.

You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually cabable of.  Why the fear of trying to find out?

Date: 2007/06/15 14:17:33, Link
Author: Ftk
FTK -  Accepting the "gift" as you say, is the tip of the iceberg, or, put it another way, it's a wedge to somewhere I don't choose to go.

No, it's not the "tip of the iceberg".  It's the whole shebang.  If it's not, then I'm headed directly to hell.  I've screwed up time and time again...part of life.  Heck, I could make a list of the stuff I did just yesterday that was pretty shitty.  We all recognize the crap we do that is immoral and may lead to problems in our lives, and that's the point - we inherently know what is expected of us.  

That is why Christ did what He did for us.

That doesn't mean that I just go out and screw up continuously then ask for forgiveness and go back to it.  I recognize it and try to stop because I know that is what He would have me do.  Stopping has always made my life much easier...not because of guilt or fear of God's "wrath", but because the "rules" were meant as guidelines as to the best way to live a happy, healthy life.

Date: 2007/06/15 14:31:38, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ June 15 2007,14:13)
ROTFLMAO!!!!  Are you serious?

The posters here make it their mission in life to make fun of people and their appearances!

The difference, dearie, is that we're the G.D. peanut gallery. Look at steve's avatar, fer chrissake. This thread exists for the purpose of making fun of the people we disagree with. Public figures have no recourse against satire, and fools like DaveScot, Cordova, and Dembski, like it or not, have asked, begged, to become public figures. Be careful what you ask for.

But Dembski is (nominally) Jerry Coyne's peer, and he's making juvenile smears based on possibly the least relevant topic available --his personal appearance! In what is (again, nominally) an academic dispute! I don't think you have an appreciation for just how pathetic that makes Dembski look to serious scholars. He knows that he's a laughingstock, clearly. Anyone with any degree of dignity as a professional academic would refrain from such japes in public.

So, just what are you saying, ftk? That Dembski's position is equivalent to one of us nobodies on the nets, making jokes and blowing off steam? Fine. Then why does anybody give an effing Falwell for the tard? He's just another poo-flinging idiot with a laptop and an axe to grind, so shut up.
Or, are you saying that Dembski's outings into street theater, however rare, make some valid contribution to the discussion? That you think Jerry Coyne's appearance is a salient point, worthy of consideration?

How you manage to be so self-righteous while not even maintaining a coherent point is beyond me.


Are you saying that Dembski should be held to a higher standard because he is an academic and a serious scholar?    Holey comoly, buddy.   So, you're saying that all the posters here are just a bunch of dopes?  What about those who post at PT?  Dopes as well?  I've seen some real wing dingers posted over there that are filled with ridicule and personal attacks.

When Dembski writes papers or articles, I've never seen him act unprofessionally.  He wrote about the topic in question on his blog, just like everyone else writes crap about people on their blogs.  Look at PZ's blog for God's sakes.   Guess you're saying he's an unprofessional shmuck as well.

Personally, I don't like it when Dembski pulls this stuff, but he doesn't hold a candle to the guys from your side.  And, I can't imagine it's easy to just let you jerks blast him continuously...take a look at LOLcreationists for just a very small taste of what I'm refering to.

If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it.

Date: 2007/06/15 14:38:04, Link
Author: Ftk
As for my ID strength of support. I wanted to believe in God (I still do) and thought on first glance that ID had something to offer. So I swallowed it. If you do not believe me why not try this. Actually follow the evidence. Do that and you will not support ID for long.

Hold the phone here a second.  Are you saying that you don't believe in God?  That you merely "want" to believe in God?  So, you were looking toward ID to give you the proof you would like to find in order to believe in God?  That may answer a few questions I initially had about you.  

If you're looking toward ID to PROVE God, then you're right, you're looking in the wrong place, IMO.

Date: 2007/06/15 15:15:55, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 15 2007,14:40)
And you will keep coming back here forever, if it takes that long, to tell us that you don't care what we think of you. Is that it?

No, I keep coming back here to correct you merely because I think you should be aware of what I actually think or believe.  I also find places like this quite's always been intriguing trying to figure out why some folks reject a creator.  Totally illogical idea, if you ask me, but none the less fascinating to explore.

For what it is worth, I happen to agree with you that criticising Dembski for making fun of how someone looks is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  But, I have to say that I am forming a less-than-charitable opinion about why you stay here.  Just the other day you made the following statement:
Second, I'm just one of those people who has a really hard time watching people say stuff about me that is completely incorrect without mentioning that fact to them.  I have no idea how other people can allow you guys to rake them through the coals without comment.

Third, I tried to get out of here early on, but people kept bringing up stuff from my blog that I couldn't just let go by without comment.

If our little den of iniquity here is so insignificant, you might want to ask yourself why you can't just ignore us?Why is it so important to address the inconsequential opinions of the participants here?

Beats the heck out of me.  I guess I find some of the statements relayed here so fascinatingly illogical that I can't help but jump in.  And, sure, reasonable lurkers are going to realize that the stuff you say about me personally is just said as a tactical maneuver to ridicule me because I'm an ID supporter.  But, sometimes I just enjoy pointing out the errors you relay about me and my POV.

Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from.  

Let me guess. We all hate Christians and we have to make fun of them because we are afraid they are right?  And if any of the participants here claim to be Christians, well, they obviously can't be true Christians.  Have I got that right?

No, I don't think you make fun of Christians because you "are afraid they might be right".  I have no doubt whatsoever that you aren't "afraid" in the least that you might be wrong.  Obviously, you are all damn sure you are right beyond any doubt.  That is what is so fascinating about many of you.  How you can believe that is beyond me.  

And, I have no idea if the Christians here are "true" Christians or not.  Certainly not for me to judge....nor do I care.

It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here.  That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that.

Wait a second.  I thought ID was about design detection?  When did they change?  Can you forward me the memo?
You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually capable of.  Why the fear of trying to find out?

As long as I have been here, I have never detected any fear about "finding out" from any of the participants, theists and atheists alike.  What I see, though, is a dedication to the process of science and ire at those who co-opt the good name of science to serve a theological agenda.

You're "dedication to the process of science" is what I call a truth stopper.  Ya want to possibly get to the truth, or do you want to hang on to something that is only "fact" to a point because you refuse to consider anything that might tamper with the materialistic point of view?  

And, you want to know who I think fears the discovery of those mechanisms the most?  Dembski and his crew, that is who.  ID is only about design detection.  The identity, motives, and methods of the Designer are completely off-limits.  They can't get away from that question fast enough.

It's not that "they can't get away from that question fast enough".  It's that they know, as everyone else does, that you can't scientifically test the "identity, motives, and methods" of the designer.  We consider that when studying theology.

Date: 2007/06/15 15:24:18, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 15 2007,14:44)
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:38)
As for my ID strength of support. I wanted to believe in God (I still do) and thought on first glance that ID had something to offer. So I swallowed it. If you do not believe me why not try this. Actually follow the evidence. Do that and you will not support ID for long.

Hold the phone here a second.  Are you saying that you don't believe in God?  That you merely "want" to believe in God?  So, you were looking toward ID to give you the proof you would like to find in order to believe in God?  That may answer a few questions I initially had about you.  

If you're looking toward ID to PROVE God, then you're right, you're looking in the wrong place, IMO.

I was saying that I want to believe in God. I thought that ID had scientific evidence of God and ID was found wanting.

My belief in God is not scientific and it is probably not what you would call belief.

Rephrase. I want a loving God to exist. I hope one does. But that is not a scientific claim/belief. It is religious. There is a difference.

Okay, that makes more sense to me.  

I certainly don't look toward ID to "prove" the existence of God, and if that is why you feel deceived, then I guess you have ever right to feel that way.  Though, I don't think that even the ID proponents are in this to "prove" that God exists.  I don't think that science can ever "prove" something like that.

If you really "want a loving God to exist" and are interested in searching for evidence of His existence, you're have to consider history, archeology and theological issues to look for further clues to His existence.  Science is a small piece of the puzzle.

Date: 2007/06/15 15:35:41, Link
Author: Ftk
Does theology have more than one putative agent as its subject?

Certainly one should consider evidence for all the "agents" before deciding if there is one or more in particular that is supported with sufficient evidence for belief.

That is why, again, ID has nothing to do with religion.  There are many beliefs out there and Design inference  certainly can't prove any of them.

Date: 2007/06/15 15:39:39, Link
Author: Ftk
I think you have missed the point Ftk. ID deliberately lied. Does that not bother you? It bothers me.

"Intelligent Designer deliberately lied".  How so Stephen?  What on earth do you mean by this statement.  

If you think that ID was proposed to prove God, then you're just wrong.   It can't do that.

Date: 2007/06/15 15:45:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Icky wrote:

Denial, deny, denialism, therapist, mess, projection, etc., etc.

Gosh Icky, are ya trying to say that I'm in denial?  LOL...

Date: 2007/06/15 15:50:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 15 2007,15:45)
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,15:39)
I think you have missed the point Ftk. ID deliberately lied. Does that not bother you? It bothers me.

"Intelligent Designer deliberately lied".  How so Stephen?  What on earth do you mean by this statement.  

If you think that ID was proposed to prove God, then you're just wrong.   It can't do that.

No Ftk. When I used the term ID, I meant the political movement caled ID. I was claiming that the political movement called ID deliberately lied. I stand by that. They did. They are liers.

How so, Stephen?  Because there are ID proponents out there who speak in churches, etc. about ID?  You must know that evolutionists speak in churches and claim that TE is a religious position as well.

Eugenie Scott has said she'd rather have a preacher with a backward collar preaching about evolution than a biologist any day.  Nothing underhanded about that, is there?

What exactly to you mean by that statement?

Date: 2007/06/15 16:10:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Because for something to be science requires empirical evidence. might want to rethink that statement.

ID is no different than Darwinian evolution in that sense.  Inference, luv, inference...

Date: 2007/06/15 16:16:57, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (argystokes @ June 15 2007,16:13)
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:10)
Because for something to be science requires empirical evidence. might want to rethink that statement.

ID is no different than Darwinian evolution in that sense.  Inference, luv, inference...

uh huh. And what would empirical evidence against ID look like?

(Steve, you ought to move this whole conversation to the appropriate thread)

"(Steve, you ought to move this whole conversation to the appropriate thread) "

Oh, holy crap, don't do that!  I've got to many others topics I have to address already.

Okay, I'm outa here until my party is over...

See ya Monday!

Date: 2007/06/21 11:42:59, Link
Author: Ftk
I am English but I live in Chicago....I live in a loft downtown.

Does that mean we can crash? ;)

Depends on the weekend.

Mercy...I’m in.  


On second thought, I should probably stay as far away from Richardhughes as humanly possible...though maybe he’s as “ugly as a mud fence”.  In that case, maybe I can make it.  God knows I need a vacation...

Date: 2007/06/23 09:30:10, Link
Author: Ftk
I'll be back, but I've been reading...lots.  

I started to answer Wes's question, but decided to read through talkorigins section on transitionals (again) before I did, and then I went back to several books I have that clearly point out the numerous issues with missing links.  Then Behe's book came in the mail, and since I know he considers common descent viable, I thought I'd read more about his views on the subject.   I kinda got caught up in his's really quite interesting.

So, I have about 5 books spread out in my bedroom that I keep bouncing back and forth to in the late evening.  

Oh, and my oldest had one heck of a ball game last night.  They are placed first in their league at the moment and the game last night was more exciting than watching the world series.  They won 16-14 in a real nail biter.  

So, I've BEEN BUSY, and haven't had time to put anything together.  Today we're going to the pool, so that pretty much screws my chances of putting anything together today unless I find some time this evening.

Sorry....summers are insane around here, but I plan on posting something about transitionals on my blog and I'll post it here as well.

Date: 2007/06/23 10:54:35, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, Steve, here's the fast answer...

I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.  Goodness knows, there have been many "transitionals" that have been proven hoaxes or misunderstood.  In regard to common descent, there is so much more to consider than looking at a series of fossils and saying "hey, cool, that proves I was the byproduct of an ancient microbe".  

So, at this point in time, I believe that we are no where near the point of saying that the relatively small amount of "transitionals" we find in the fossil record is "proof" of common descent.  DNA seems to be the key to understanding more about common descent, so I'll wait for further research to answer the millions of questions that are still being asked before I believe that the naturalists creation myth is actually a fact.

Good enough?

Date: 2007/06/23 11:00:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.


Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta are hollering.

Date: 2007/06/23 17:27:11, Link
Author: Ftk
Let me guess: Answers in Genesis has all kinds of good evidence, too, if only we have eyes to see. Right?

AIG has some interesting information to consider just like other creationists and evolutionists.  I'm not sure what you mean by “if only we have eyes to see”.  If you’re referring to having to be a bible believing Christian to see, I have no idea if that is a problem or not.  I’m not big on AIG due to the fact that sometimes I think they are a bit mean and close minded to some things.  In fact, I don’t think any one particular theory is “fact” or much better than the others.  I think the facts probably lie somewhere in the middle.  

FtK, you don't see how lazy and dishonest this looks?

Well, sweetie, I’ve tried to explain that I’ve been reading a lot on this subject and wanted to be more explicit with my response, but everyone is so terribly impatient and said that I didn’t need to take so much time.  I still plan to write something up for my blog, but I’m really enjoying just taking my time and reading about a lot of this stuff again.  It’s terribly interesting.

Ian, Oldman listed some of the predictions for you, and I assure you that Walt’s theory offers everything that you had questions about, but it’s quite indepth and if for no other reason than just for kicks, you should consider reading the book.  The entire thing is on line, but the book makes it easier to page back and forth between different topics.  One doesn’t have to agree everything that Brown puts forth, but he certainly makes you think before blindly accepting the conclusions of the ToE.  

If you showed me a model for the flood that not only expects one or two things that could exist even without the flood, AND deals with how Noah et al weren't boiled alive, or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out I might regard them as being something other than a ridiculous notion dreamed up by people who are afraid of the slightest possibility they could be wrong.

As far as being “boiled alive in the flood”, I did call Brown about that once, and he spent quite a bit of time explaining “supercritical water” to me and the experiments he‘s done in regard to SCW.  I took a lot of notes at the time, but I have no clue where they are now.  Here’s a link that touches on the topic.  

As far as ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., I did consider that issue as well and I remember looking into the “problem” and wrote something about it at KCFS eons ago, but again...lost in memory.  I’ll try to find the link if I get the time.  

I’m not a Brown groupie as slpage would have everyone believe.  It’s just that the man is the closest I’ve come to someone who is interested primarily in the science rather than the political shit that goes on in this debate.  He keeps to himself, posts his entire book on-line so people have full access without having to give money to “charlatans”, and he doesn’t spend any time pounding the pavement trying to do away with materialism.  He’s been working 20 years on the scientific issues in this debate, and he’s very interesting to talk to.  I've questioned him several times, and he's always been patient and polite.

Date: 2007/06/23 18:12:00, Link
Author: Ftk
You don't have to immerse yourself in research materials to discover what you already believe.  

Just check a box:

- Yes. I believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.
- No. I don't believe that transitional fossil sequences exist.

Yes, I believe that transitional fossils do exist at the micro level.  I don't believe that "all fossils are transitionals" as many evolutionists claim.  I don't believe that fossil series can explain how vital organs evolved from one body type to another.  Also, there are soooo many other things to consider in regard to macroevolution.  Just one such example of *many* would be animal instincts, which I believe to be something that defies evolution.

For example, a newborn kangaroo is barely a half inch long and weighs less than a gram, but despite the fact that he lacks the function of his eyes, ear, and hind legs, he immediately makes his way from his mother's womb, across her abdomen and attaches to a nipple inside her pouch.  That's like a newborn baby crawling the length of a football field and finding it's mother's breast in less than three minutes.  How the hell do you explain how this came about through intermediates in situations such as this?  Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

Yes, I know, I suffer from personal incredulity.  Sigh...nonetheless, at this point in time, I do not believe that we have the empirical evidence to claim that macroevolution is a fact.  It’s based on historical inference and A LOT of speculation.  It seems that it is okay to base ideas on speculation as long as it is in regard to the ToE, but creationist theories are expected to be backed with solid empirical evidence to even be considered.  In my mind, it certainly seems that these common descent stories are every bit as mystical as anything I've ever read in Genesis.

Your scramble to research the question is really an admission:

- I really don't know whether they exist or not.

No, actually it means that I like to read about this stuff, and since I have three new books on these topics, I thought I’d take some time to do so.   But, in a sense, you are correct because, IMHO, I don’t think that any of us really know for sure if transitionals exist which can support common descent to the extent to which scientists claim they can.

Date: 2007/06/23 18:24:25, Link
Author: Ftk

You're right, I'm dense.  I don't get your point.  

It's not that I don't think AIG makes some very good points in regard to the scientific issues in this debate.  It's just that they seem to think it's their way or the highway and everyone else is simply and utterly wrong and going to hell.  That reminds me of the attitude that the "scientific community" (ie. NCSE) takes in regard to these issues - excluding the part about hell of course ;).

I'm just saying that I believe the bottom line is that these questions will have to be solved by what we can gather from the empirical science - not what we infer based on blind faith or ridiculous speculation.

Date: 2007/06/23 18:28:55, Link
Author: Ftk
I don't know, Icky...I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example.  And, of course, we all know that there are endless examples such as that one.

Date: 2007/06/23 18:51:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,18:35)

do you think a 2 foot wallaby and a 5 foot red roo look very different from each other?

Relatively speaking, wouldn't the two examples be somewhat similiar?  I'd expect the baby wallaby would be smaller than a joey.  But, maybe not.  Also, we're talking instincts, not changes in structure.  I don't think I'd find it particularly odd for a joey to carry on a mutation that changed the structure of it's leg, for example.

Date: 2007/06/23 19:06:04, Link
Author: Ftk
sigh...Ian, which "post" do you want me to address?  Are you refering to one comment specifically, or I'm I supposed to go back and answer everything?  Sheesh..I don't have all evening to sit here.

Date: 2007/06/23 19:14:20, Link
Author: Ftk
[quote=Ichthyic,June 23 2007,19:00][/quote]
so behavior and morphology are quantitatively different in your mind?

Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.

somehow a very minor change in behavior, like crawling a tiny bit farther, it a harder thing for evolution to produce than the loss of a couple of toes, the extreme lengthening of metacarpal bones, etc?

I don't know if it's so much the "crawling a little farther" that is the biggest obstacle to explain.  It's the initial way that the *instinct* started to evolve that puzzles me.  From the beginning, how did this instinct come to be?  

you have some mighty odd notions there, kiddo.

"Kiddo"?  Didn't I read somewhere that you're 43...only one year older than me?  Maybe I have you confused with someone else.  Not that I particularly mind being called kiddo ;) .

Date: 2007/06/23 19:30:05, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,18:13)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?

Yes, Ian, I understand that "seems" is not a valid argument.  I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".  I'm not making a scientific statement by any means.

I think your quantum mechanics question is similiar to the standard gravity comment.  And, sure, you have a point, but I think there is much more research that will be done that will answer many of these questions we currently have about common descent with more accuracy.  So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations.

Date: 2007/06/23 19:51:55, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:18)


Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.

as both Ian and I keep asking...


Well, because I believe I somewhat understand mutations and from what I understand and have observed, most seem to be negative to the organism.  But, in rare cases they can be beneficial.  I can see how a mutation could change morphology, but when considering abiogensis (which I know I'm not supposed to think about in regard to the ToE), I have a really hard time with accepting that instincts, or examples of symbiosis, or almost unbelieveable migration patterns, or the evolution of the mind are all a product of evolution.

Isn't it natural to question these issues?  I mean, they seem so much more improbable than examples like the ones I always hear at evolution lectures.  I swear, when I went to listen to Eugenie Scott at KU last year, I felt like I was sitting in a 5th grade science class.  She went on and on about natural selection and white and gray mice.  Same with Sean Carroll's lecture at KU...again, very simple (in my mind) examples of microevolution which seem quite viable, IMO.

have you finished reading that basic biology text Alby sent you yet?

No, I'm not "finished".  I've been using it as more of a reference book as I work my way through the other two books I've been reading.  

do they give the impression that behavior is more or less subject to selection pressures or drift than morphology?

I don't know, I'll have to see what the books says about evolution of the mind, instinct, etc. etc.

Is it more or less remarkable that a newborn joey can find its mother's teat than a newborn puppy?

Not terribly, it's just a much longer trip to it's goal.

Date: 2007/06/23 20:12:17, Link
Author: Ftk
See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise.

However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.

Well, I don't think I gloss over anything and I've truly been listening contently for years to people who have "weighed up the evidence" personally.  I guess I've never been one to bow to authority if they are basing their "evidence" on speculation and just so stories.  I'm skeptical of the tales, and in the same way, I frequently question creation and ID theories.  I've written or called several authors and personally questioned their work.  

Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.  But, just like any other person considering these issues, it's my right to question what's thrown in front of me.  I think it's absolutely foolish to accept all the aspects of the ToE as fact at this point in time.

In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.

I don't need "every conceivable piece of evidence", I'd just like to see more than what we have currently.  And, I believe that *most* scientists, in general, have absolutely no clue as to what creation science actually entails.  Most of the stuff I see written about creation science is laughable and completely inaccurate.  I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever.

Date: 2007/06/23 20:22:21, Link
Author: Ftk
Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation".

Date: 2007/06/23 20:27:36, Link
Author: Ftk
Good grief, Ian.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and answer all those questions.  I've answered several already.  

And, you were all in a tizzy about boiling water killing all of life on earth, but I haven't heard a peep about the answer I provided for you.  You went right on to another question..and another.  

It doesn't matter how many questions I address, you'll just bring up something else without even giving consideration to the ones I've already answered.

Date: 2007/06/23 20:35:05, Link
Author: Ftk

You wanted predictions, I gave you predictions.  Read about them thoroughly and give them consideration before jumping right on to something else.

You wanted to know why everything wasn't "boiled" in the flood, and again, I gave you something to consider on the subject.

You could spend hours in regard to just these two issues if you followed all the links and read about each in detail from the site I provided.  

Have a ball.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:06:09, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.  

Just relax...and if you're really serious about this, you've got to read the whole entire book to get a clue as to where the man is coming from.  I know that is asking a lot, and I don't expect you to ever get through it.  But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there for many reasons.  His work would be a good starting point if you want to actually call yourself "open minded".

Date: 2007/06/23 21:28:14, Link
Author: Ftk
Heavens no, I don't think that what you're reading is evidence for creation.  Goodness, you haven't even, maybe that will help give you an idea of what his book covers.  The first part is merely an introductory, and then he goes into his points against evolution.  Part II is where he introduces his theory and how it may provide an explanation for many other observations about planet earth.

Seriously, the whole site will take hours to go through.

Date: 2007/06/24 11:55:06, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,11:20)
FTK, simple question. Do you agree with
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats.



Would you mind posting the link to that quote? I believe what he's saying is that if macroevolution has occurred, we might see some of these transitions still slowly occuring over time.  We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.  

The cat/dog is an "example".  

If you've read all Brown's work, it's obvious that he knows enough about biology to realize that a cat and a dog cannot breed and create a cat/dog "blend", if that is what you are implying.

He's trying to give an "example" of how things would have occured and what we should still be seeing if macroev. was "factual".

Date: 2007/06/24 12:03:44, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,06:17)
Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.

Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.

Date: 2007/06/24 12:13:40, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,12:05)


We never witness macro changes - can't even make them happen.

So, where exactly are the peer-reviewed articles that show that colchicine and overpressure fail to induce polyploidy, and always have failed to do so? I seem to have missed those.

Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?  I don't think it would be the cause for new morphological characteristics.

Date: 2007/06/24 12:16:41, Link
Author: Ftk
Icky gets all huffy...

close the book.

LOL...why?  It's really interesting, and it makes me think about things from a different perspective.

Date: 2007/06/24 15:52:24, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2007,13:28)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,12:03)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 24 2007,06:17)
Earlier (in this very thread I believe) I found a prediction from that website, something like the Oort cloud does not (could not) exist. I posted a section from the relevant wikipedia article noting a couple of objects that have tentativly been assigned as Oort cloud objects.

One prediction seriously damaged. No comment from FTK.  

No matter what we find, or what we disprove, it will never be enough to convince FTK.

Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.

All science in tentative. Unlike the bible, eh?

Hi Richard... :)

I'm not sure what your point is.  Science is tentative...there are different interpretations of the bible and how literal we should consider it's history.  

And, no, I don't guess one can go back and rewrite biblical history, so I don't imagine it's "tentative".

Your point?

Date: 2007/06/24 16:01:46, Link
Author: Ftk
There is the well-documented case of Hyla versicolor, for one.

I’m sorry...I don’t know what Hyla versicolor is, and I’m short on time right now.  Maybe someone can give me a quick explanation?

And then, if FtK had bothered to even glance at the second link I provided, she would have known that the topic there was various fish stocks.

You’re right...I didn’t check out the link.  I’ll try to get to it later tonight.

Now, there might be some quibbling about "new morphology". What tetraploidy does in orchids certainly presents heritable change that is linked to differing morphology. Only creationists want evolution to have mechanisms that can be directly equated to "poof!".

I certainly don’t need “poof”, but some empirical evidence for macro changes would be helpful.  Can you show me some pictures of exactly what you are talking about when you refer to orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.  I glanced at the link and saw some orchids, but I’m not sure exactly what the changes are that are taking place.

I’ve got to get to another ball game (believe it or not) and want to address Ian real quick, so sorry I haven’t taken more time to read your links.

Date: 2007/06/24 16:11:35, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,13:35)
After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.

Tear them apart like paper, huh?  Okay... good for you.  But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.    You're the one who didn't believe creation scientists have anything to offer whatsoever.  You can read the entire book, or close it and move on (Icky would prefer that).  But, I assure you it gets much, much more interesting, and regardless as to whether you think it's a bunch of bunk or not, it will get you thinking.  If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.

If you make it to section II, I hope you have a good memory because reading from the site is a little complicated as all his theories kind of interrelate.  I had to read the book a couple times to pick up on how much he’s put into considering the bigger picture and how he feels the flood could be accountable for how our earth looks today.

[ps..I like to start sentences with "And".  I don't care if it's poor grammer or not.  Like Lenny, I have my little quirks.]

Date: 2007/06/24 16:22:28, Link
Author: Ftk
Ian, it's not "just this book".  It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years.  When I took biology, there was so much I never even thought of questioning, but after reading info. from both sides of this debate, I could not possibly consider common descent a "fact" in the sense that the "scientific community" wants it to be taught.  

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught...including common descent and the whole shebang, but certainly we should be considering the massive amount of questions still haunting the theory.  I 'd never even thought about some of the stuff I think about now in regard to the theory.  I just learned what was provided me and didn't question it much.

There is the bigger picture to consider.

Crap...I've got to go to the game.


Date: 2007/06/24 19:01:16, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,16:25)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:22)
Ian, it's not "just this book".  It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years.  When I took biology, there was so much I never even thought of questioning, but after reading info. from both sides of this debate, I could not possibly consider common descent a "fact" in the sense that the "scientific community" wants it to be taught.  

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught...including common descent and the whole shebang, but certainly we should be considering the massive amount of questions still haunting the theory.  I 'd never even thought about some of the stuff I think about now in regard to the theory.  I just learned what was provided me and didn't question it much.

There is the bigger picture to consider.

Crap...I've got to go to the game.


So, what do you think motivates the scientific community to keep the mass of questions quiet? Why do you think they aren't doing this research themselves?

Also, finally, why aren't the creos doing any research?

Hon, I don't think there is a mass "conspiracy" from the scientific community to keep creation scientists or IDists quiet.  My belief is that most scientists, in general, don't give these issues much real thought at all.  

I believe the core groups such as NCSE, etc. are thoroughly and completely convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that evolution (microbe to man) is a fact.  They truly believe that creationists and IDists are lying, cunning con artists.  They feel it is their mission in life to put a stop to these fiends who are out to "stop science".  

And, why would anyone doubt them?  

The majority of scientists are materialists, so when a place like NCSE tells them that the only reason why people doubt evolution is due to fanatical religious beliefs, they would have no reason to question it.  And, truth be told, some religious groups get quite loony about this topic and go off the deep end (ie. Hovind), which doesn't help matters.

Certainly, biologists go nuts about the topic because it hits so close to home and they believe their entire world would fold if common descent were not a "fact".  Heck the textbooks base everything on this "cornerstone" of science.  But, in reality, I still see very little necessity in believing that every organism on the face of the earth evolved from a flippin' little microbe.  

Gosh, I keep looking in this textbook Dave gave me and staring at that little microbe and the series of pictures that supposedly respresents how that little sucker looked when it started on its evolutionary journey.  

I'm wondering if someone threw some pixie dust on it to get it to be able to do something that resulted in everything we observe in the world today.  I mean, color me impressed...ya got nothing...then miracuously a microbe starts rolling around...somehow natural selection kicked in....then a mutation occurs (sounds miraculous to me)...WOW! something changed a little...time goes by...amazing change occurs reproduces itself for some reason (though how that happened is a complete mystery}...little changes occur over time in the byproducts of the microbe...etc., etc., etc. until we end up with the most amazing designs in nature that one could ever conceive of....all the result of a tiny little BLOB and the mechanisms of evolution.  

Sorry, but the chances of me accepting this senario as fact are quite slim.

Oh, and "creos" do research, you'll just never find it in anything considered "mainstream".  Just keep reading...

Date: 2007/06/24 19:22:27, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,16:52)


I’m sorry...I don’t know what Hyla versicolor is, and I’m short on time right now.  Maybe someone can give me a quick explanation?

Before, you said:


Isn't polyploidy limited to flowering plants?

Hyla versicolor is a tetraploid species group that is not a plant, therefore illustrating that your notion of what polyploidy might be limited to came from ignorance, not knowledge.

You know what, Wesley?  This doesn't explain much to me.  You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm, I'll give you that point.  I don't know squat about this particular topic, so briefly explain.  You don't need to start a whole new thread...just tell me what you're trying to get at and how it is evidence for common descent.  Try to talk in laymen's terms if possible.

Also, you didn't provide any pictures of orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.

Date: 2007/06/24 19:27:36, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,19:13)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
Sorry, but the chances of me accepting this senario as fact are quite slim.

This shows a huge problem with you being "open minded". How is this "open minded"?

Now, I consider myself fairly open minded, IF I was to be shown a huge mountain of evidence, then I would have to go towards believing that. On the other hand you HAVE been shown the evidence, and you just dismiss it with "I can't believe it". How is this productive?

Incidentally, if the creos do research WHY isn't it published in the mainstream? I mean, if it's proper research then there would be no need to print it anywhere but the recognised places, and since you (rightly) dismiss the idea of a scientific conspiricy as sheer lunacy, what prevents them from publishing in, for example, Nature or even New Scientist (my personal pop science mag of choice, no idea how good it is, but I like it)?

I said "quite slim", Ian.  Just like the chances of you ever accepting biblical history as somewhat accurate is "quite slim".  

I may not have all the facts, so I keep delving into this stuff.  Something tells me you may not have all the facts in regard to what you think is complete bunk in regard to biblical history, but I doubt you're still open minded or even considering the possibility that you might be wrong.  

I consider myself to be open minded just as you consider yourself to be.  So, let's just leave it that, shall we?

Date: 2007/06/24 19:49:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Also, why didn't you answer my perfectly reasonable question about publishing?

Oh, come on Ian, creation science is completely at odds with everything evolutionists have put forth for a 150 years.   The chances of getting anything that even mildly resembles creation science or ID is so slim it's ridiculous, and the peer review process would be a joke.  Jeez, look what happened with the Steinberg incident... and that paper wasn't such a big deal, yet Eugenie about blew a gasket!

This is why Brown doesn't submit his work to be published.

As an addendum, why do you come on as a hidden user FtK? I'm really curious, because I don't understand why anyone would want to come on as hidden, especially if they are going to start posting.

Well, the truth about that is really quite embarrasing.  On days that I have the time to do so, I spend an ungodly amount of time on evolution/creation websites and blogs.  It's a bit of an obsession, so I worry that someone might consider my habit a mental health issue and try to get me institutionalized or at least heavily medicated.

Date: 2007/06/24 19:58:41, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 24 2007,19:52)

didn't you JUST get done telling us you didn't think there was any conspiracy involved?

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.  Why would they?  Minds are set irregardless of the questions plaguing the theory.  The alternative would be to actually consider creation and ID theories seriously, and obviously guys like you are not going to be open to that.

Date: 2007/06/24 20:00:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Sorry, gotta go again.  I'll check back in about 2 hours or so.

Date: 2007/06/25 00:45:54, Link
Author: Ftk
Wow, I just got back from camping in Wyoming (pictures to be uploaded later), where we saw lots of neat critters, including moose. I found myself wondering how Noah handled (and fed!) those quys on the Ark.

I don’t think it’s as miraculous an event as one might think, but hell will freeze over before I discuss that one further.  I’ll tell ya one would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.

What is the difference between what you say in this comment, and what a theistic evolutionist would say?

You must have linked to the wrong comment...I don’t see anything in that post that has anything to do with what a TE might say.

And if you get time, please let us know some examples of unwarranted "speculation" that you found in that college-level intro biology book.

I wouldn’t even know where to begin.  On second thought, I’ve mentioned one of them on this thread already.  The picture series of a little microbe evolving on it’s own...get real.

I consider myself to be open minded just as you consider yourself to be. So, let's just leave it that, shall we?

At the risk of derailing this thread (again) into a discussion of religion, I think a couple of things need to be pointed out. Please understand, FtK, I am NOT asking you to discuss religion; I AM asking you to reflect on why nobody here (except yourself) considers you to be "open-minded".

Please contrast how you approach issues of religion and science. In your religious views, you apparently believe, based on what you have heard from authority figures (unless, of course, you are fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, Geek and other languages not including Portuguese) several totally illogical and unsupported things. Those would include the notion of a creator God who made humans and then got very irritated when they disobeyed his commands. To show his irritation, He did many harsh things not only to the sinners but to all of their descendants. But to prove His benevolence, He decided to send himself (aka his son) to tortured and killed in order for him to be able to forgive the descendants (who were not guilty of the original crime). Back off a bit from that stuff and ask yourself

1) Is that logical?

I’m not so sure that God  “did many harsh things” to “show his irritation” when “people disobeyed his commands” in the way that you seem to believe it panned out.    Free will exists, and though most of us inherently know good from evil, we are tempted on a daily basis to fuck up.  Regardless of whether you believe this is due to evolutionary causes or free will provided by the Creator, it’s a fact.  We obviously need rules given as a reminder as to how we should behave.  Judges, courts, laws, etc. exist even today so I don’t know why it is so odd to think that God would not provide a set of laws and guidelines to follow that would aid in leading a productive life.  Obviously, the mistakes that we make even today affect us and our descendants, and it seems clear that God pointed this out several times to the people of fuck up, your actions are going to affect others besides yourself.  

Yes, God sent His son to be tortured and killed for the sins of all believers.  We all sin irregardless of whether we were in the garden or not.  I think of God as a father figure, and any loving father would lay down his life for his child.  I’m not sure there is a greater love than that which a parent has for their child.  This ultimate sacrifice is something that on a human level we can understand and appreciate.  Perhaps that is why God chose this particular scenario.  

We can certainly question whether the creator should have come up with a more “logical” plan, but if there is an ultimate Creator and we are allowed the free will to lead our lives as we see fit, it wouldn’t matter what His ultimate plan entailed....there would always be those who would believe it to be illogical, unfair, or insane.  

And, please don’t think for even one second that I haven’t considered all of these issues before.

2) What is the factual and verifiable evidence for that story?

Mercy....where on earth would I start.  I guess the problem for me is that after searching endlessly for evidence for and against this “story”, I simply can’t reject it because the evidence that supports scripture is stronger than  the arguments against it.  If you want me to share that evidence, you’re in for a very long ride.  It would also mean that I would have to further address my views about religion (which is something you have stated several times you do not want to discuss).  If you want me to point you to several good books on the topic, let me know privately.  I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to occur.

Contrast that to your attitude about science. You refuse to accept the positions of authority figures, despite the reality that their positions are backed by both logic and factual, verifiable evidence.

Dave, there is no “logical, factual, and verifiable evidence” for the blob story.  You can give me examples of simple microevolutionary changes for eternity, but that doesn’t give me verifiable evidence for a blob being accountable for the information and complexity we observe in nature today.  

Is this double standard evidence for "open-mindedness"? How can you apply two entirely different approaches to these areas, and retain any credibility when you claim to be open-minded???

I guess I could ask you the same thing.

All we are asking for is consistency. If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical in all arenas.

Back atcha again.  You’re certainly skeptical about religious beliefs while admitting you don’t have much background on the topic.  Yet, you unquestioningly accept that all aspects of the ToE are supported by logical, factual, and verifiable evidence.

BTW, I question religious claims in the same way I question scientific claims.  I took a very in-depth look at biblical history with a group about 5 years ago and questioned my instructors to no end.  

NB - Please don't use this as a jumping off point to discuss your religious beliefs.

Goodness no, I wouldn’t do that.  I certainly wouldn’t want to have to make you consider how close minded you are about matters that don’t pertain to science.   In other words... Dude, do you need a mirror?

Date: 2007/06/25 00:55:10, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,21:16)


You know what, Wesley?  This doesn't explain much to me.  You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm, I'll give you that point.  I don't know squat about this particular topic, so briefly explain.  You don't need to start a whole new thread...just tell me what you're trying to get at and how it is evidence for common descent.  Try to talk in laymen's terms if possible.

Also, you didn't provide any pictures of orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.

I haven't noticed that explaining things in terms FtK understands actually makes any difference in FtK's behavior. So it seems to me that the point to be made is that FtK is an unreliable source of information.

Nor is the point something about the broad topic of common descent. What is at issue in this exchange is FtK's flat assertion that macroevolutionary change doesn't happen and that humans cannot even induce such changes. As it turns out, humans have multiple ways of inducing precisely the sort of changes that FtK asserted cannot happen and cannot be approached by humans. Confronted with that news, FtK further questioned whether polyploidy happened outside of flowering plants, a clear digression, but one with a clear empirical counterexample.

Even some cursory web browsing starting with "hyla versicolor" as a search phrase reveals quite a number of sources that explains what tetraploidy is and how H. versicolor is related to its parent species. That work has been done, and is readily available. Many of those pages offer the bibliographic data for the peer-reviewed articles that examine this example of vertebrate tetraploidy. So unless FtK wants to come to some sort of arrangement for her tutelage (I accept PayPal), I will give the demanded free tutorial (which will be ignored) a pass.

Yes, I provided no picture book showing differences in orchid morphology when comparing tetraploid daughter species to diploid parents. Of course, this information is so commonplace among orchid fanciers and geneticists (Dr. Henry Wallbrunn, my genetics professor, was both) that finding explicit information of a tutorial nature online is a bit challenging. That still doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

Yes, FtK, you do know squat about this topic, and anyone listening to your claims that macroevolutionary changes don't happen and humans can't even induce such was ill-served by you. Yet I have heard nothing concerning retraction of the false claims, nor anything that would indicate that you will not be offering the very same falsehoods tonight, next week, or whenever you might find it convenient to do so. Instead, we have what appears to be an example of intellectual extortion, 'Tutor me; take up a bunch of your time, or I'll feel justified in continuing just as I have, and may do so anyway.'

Yeah, okay Wes...whatever.   I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.  

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

How many years did you say you worked for NCSE?  The attitude must be a prerequisite.

Date: 2007/06/25 08:24:07, Link
Author: Ftk
I read the links Wes provided...I didn't comprehend how those examples can produce changes in morphology...simple as that.  I asked for an explanation in laymen's terms, but I guess that was too much to ask.

So, then I lost my temper because I do not appreciate Wes's attitude.  He seems to believe that it is okay to belittle anything or anyone who questions the ToE, yet when someone does the same to him, he cries foul.  

It is irritating as well that he seems to condone behavior like that displayed by Lenny Flank.  As a major contributor to a science forum, it would seem that he would try to keep guys like Flank at bay.  

So, I apologize for the excessive use of the work "fuck" in my posts last night.  It was late and I was irritated with the attitude.  I was trying my best to explain that I don't see how these examples explain how macroevolution is responsible for the immense changes that had to take place in order for a microbe to produce the design we see in nature today.  I guess that is something that I should not question, but merely accept.

Date: 2007/06/27 15:01:32, Link
Author: Ftk

I'd have to say that 95% of all your posts directed toward me had the smell of troll attached.  Why do you expect people to treat you with respect when you confront them with utter contempt in every sentence directed toward them?  Confront people in the way in which you would like them to carry on dialogue with you, and you might notice that the "trolls" don't seem as trollish.

Good luck with finding the perfect "pasture".  Just remember that in this debate one rarely sees a conversion.  We simply cannot fathom how the other side can possibly perceive these issues in the way in which they do.  The better option might be trying to find a way to live with each other without literally tearing each other apart.  

Just a thought...I'll be going back to my blog now to swat at the gnats (ie. trolls).

Date: 2007/06/27 15:29:01, Link
Author: Ftk

I guess I'm having an Icky moment.  Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.

There's really no point in dialogue on these topics because it does nothing other than stoke the fires.  Answer one question, up pops another...there's no end to it (from both sides).  We're never going to see eye to eye.

This just isn't productive, and I'd be better off spending more time with my family than wasting my time here.

But, if Richard sticks around, I'm might be compelled to chime in from time to time... ;)  I really have no idea why I am so attracted to that cute little tard hat.

Date: 2007/06/27 15:42:16, Link
Author: Ftk

What would be the point of just you and I discussing these issues?  If you have a problem with something you find in the book, you'll need to get input from the others.  I don't mind reading what they have to say about Brown's stuff, and I try to just skim past the numerous troll comments.  But, there is no sense in me defending him.  His notes do that for him.  If you don't agree with his biggie.  I've questioned him numerous times and have actually gone straight to the source on several occassions.  Perhaps that might be an option for you because I certainly don't have the education in science to pretend to be Brown and defend everything he's written.

I hope you don't think that I believe Brown's work to be "fact" and above all other theories out there.  I just enjoy reading his work because it is very thought provoking.

Date: 2007/06/27 15:53:20, Link
Author: Ftk
That's why I have a blog.  I can vent, I can converse, and, yes, I can moderate.   I don't think you understand how many inane comments I get on my blog.  Many times I also get the same type of comment from several people.  

I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?  I don't like it when I look back and see stuff that I've written when I'm frustrated, and there is no point in getting to that point.  Nothing is accomplished by it.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:07:43, Link
Author: Ftk
sigh...Ian, I only saw one comment from you in moderation and it was in reference to being irritated that I didn't put through a previous comment of yours.  

Did you by any chance post under a different name the first time?

Date: 2007/06/27 16:10:41, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 27 2007,16:06)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?

You consider it better to wring all the spontaneity out of people communicating?  Maybe it would be more pleasant if everyone played the parts you script for them?

Hey! It just occurred to me that Blipey is an actor.  I'll bet he'd have no problem reading his part and hitting his marks.  


Spontaneity is one thing, insanity, OTOH, is something I'd rather try to steer clear from.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:18:03, Link
Author: Ftk
There was something with a 101 attached, but it wasn't Ian.

Look, try again when the spirit moves you and I'll probably let your stuff fly.  The thing is, Ian, that I'm not all that sure how serious you really are about dialogue.   You question me, then someone here slams me, and then you join their band wagon immediately.  I don't care if you disagree with me, but someone who is seriously interested in civil conversation wouldn't join in the slaughter as well.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:48:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, Ian, I put you through.  I remember that comment, but I don't remember your name attached.  I deleted it because I've answered it so many times, I grow weary.

I deleted about 5 other comments that were content free, but of course put Richard's comment through.  Not much there to work with, but it's just impossible for me to ignore him. :(

Date: 2007/06/27 18:21:28, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Mike PSS @ June 27 2007,18:05)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,18:04)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,16:48)
Ok, this made a whooshing sound as it went over my head:

Right handed?

try wikipedia instead. Interesting stuff as it goes.

Although a final explanation is in "dispute" as the Wiki article claims there is no direct issue regarding the chirality of biologic systems OR in organic chemical synthesis involving chiral forms.

Brown's personal increduality not withstanding.  Brown presents some paragraphs of actual, factual statements interspersed with some doozies.
If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes,they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. {wrong, there exist organic chemistry reactions that have shown that chiral molecules can be selectively formed}
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety.  The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero. {wrong; there exists chiral molecules whose L- and D- melting temperatures are different, also solubility, also reactivity with other molecules;  QED}
Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life. {wrong, see above}
Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. {strawman; chirality is hard-wired into the fundamental chemical pathways of all life (possibly since the first lifeform), a single or even multiple mutation could not "switch" an organisms handedness}

I'm sure if pressed I could produce documentation that supports my rebuttals of Brown.  But I'm not sure I'm writing this to "prove" Brown is wrong.  Only to show that someone like myself has been exposed to numerous scientific papers and books that contain these rebuttal points.  And if I, a lowly engineer, has this knowledge then I find it VERY interesting that Walt Brown has NOT considered all these contradictory facts in his write-up.

Almost every page of Brown's book represents a lack of professional scholorship.  There is little or no effort from Brown (and many other creationist authors) to address ALL the facts that exist.  It's fine for someone to say "I don't know." but for some reason on certian subjects all we get from creationist authors is "It must be this way regardless of what the science says."

Now why do they take that stance?

It is interesting that creationists are always expected to provide "proof" and address "ALL the facts that exist", yet evolutionists fall back time and time again on the pat answer:  "give it time...anything is possible over millions and millions of years".  We're then told that we suffer from personal incredulity.  

BTW, Ian, if you ever come across something that you believe is an outright lie, please consider confronting Brown yourself before making the assertion.  He is always willing to explain his position further, and we can both carry on a discussion with him in a 3-way phone conversation.  He has suggested that in the past.  That might be kind of fun...I do have a thing for English accents. ;)

Date: 2007/06/27 21:59:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (csadams @ June 25 2007,20:32)

Arden Chatfield's opening post:  
Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?

Did this ever happen?

Was Albatrossity2's question ever addressed by FtK?  
Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true.


Hey Cheryl,

Almost missed your delurk.   There must be a whole peanut gallery of kcfsers out there enjoying watching ftk getting smacked around a little....just like the good 'ol days, huh?  

The only thing I mentioned to Dave was the cute little illustration of the microbe popping out of nowhere and evolving all by it's own little self.  

If you want an itemized list, it might be a while.  This site is typical of every other evo site out there.  Answer one question, 20 new ones are thrown back at you.  If I have time to answer one of those, the other 19 cry foul.  If I answer the other 19, 50 additional new questions pop up.  Sigh...

Hey, you wouldn't happen to know who might have posted my picture here a while back, would you?  I can't imagine you doing something like that...

Date: 2007/06/28 07:12:52, Link
Author: Ftk
FtK - In case you hadn't noticed, your entire post is a waste of space.

Oh, the irony of that statement.

Btw, Dave, for a guy who doesn't want to bring up religion, you sure do get your jabs in about those who believe in God.  I'm guessing you're into talk about religion as long as it's content free.  Again, the irony.

Date: 2007/06/28 07:34:25, Link
Author: Ftk
What is the difference between your explanation of the genesis of icefish globin genes and an explanation that would be given by a theistic evolutionist?

That would depend on how far you go back in the evolutionary story.  A TE would tell you that there is absolutely no indication that a Designer is necessary for the process....they merely believe in that ultimate designer on *faith*.  There is no difference between a TE and an atheist except a feeling of *faith* that there is a divine creator.  

I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference.  So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design.  

Next question will be:  What is that evidence?  And, I will pass on that question because ID advocates have been giving ample evidence that the comos did not arise on there own from absolutely nothing.  That is illogical.  I've also already stated that science is not the only means we have to conclude that there is a divine cause of our existence.  

Please provide examples of unwarranted speculation that you have found in the Campbell textbook, with page or figure numbers for each ecample.

Now?  Good grief, I'm on my way to work.  Dave, the book states verbatim we arose through common descent from a minimicrobe, and bases everything in the book on the creation story of evolution.  The whole book is based on speculation big guy...plain and simple.

Date: 2007/06/28 08:00:49, Link
Author: Ftk
The problem is, Oldman, that for every bit of inference or speculation you put forth that you feel supports common descent, there is also a mountain of evidence against the notion.

Date: 2007/06/28 13:03:05, Link
Author: Ftk
I guess I proved my point (again).  I answer one of Dave's questions and approx. 12 more popped up.  Let's see...where to begin?  

Sigh...I think I'll wait 'till the weekend when I actually have time to take the questions seriously.  But, I have no idea which questions to start I try to use my "telepathy" and answer people who I think might sincerely want to discuss the issue, or do I just start picking off each question from the start of the thread?  That would probably take my entire weekend to get through.

Hell, maybe I'll just close my eyes and scan through with my cursor and wherever I stop, I answer that question.

Or, better yet, maybe I should join Icky in greener pastures.

Date: 2007/06/28 13:37:03, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ June 28 2007,13:20)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 28 2007,13:45)
I am personally familiar enough with fundatics (my sister married into a family of them)

I've had relationships with a wide array of women. Rich, poor, smart, dumb, beautiful, ugly.* The only deal breaker is, No Fundies. Fortunately, I've spent the last 8 years of my life in college towns (Raleigh, Durham, and now Chapel Hill) so that's not a problem.

* (friend of mine used to say, "big, small, short or tall, I Love Em All)  :p

ie. Steve's post:  Holy crap...dude, you are missing out.

The rest of you are full of BS.  I've answered questions, and I've given you a whole freakin' book to consider.  Ians been asking questions about it, and I haven't seen answers to all his questions.  The ones you do answer, you just cut and paste.  Can I cut and paste?  Would that be okay?  Seems whenever I cut and paste, I'm called on that too.

You want me to spend hours researching and giving you *my opinion* on these issues.  So, you'll have to wait until I have time.  

Blipey...bite me.  You're nuts, you know that?  You've left so many posts on my blog, I'm starting to worry about you.  Seriously.  Do actors have that much spare time on their hands??

Date: 2007/06/28 13:59:19, Link
Author: Ftk last time, luv.  I will get back with you this weekend.  

Oh, and Blipey, please, please refrain from your endless buzzing at my blog.

Date: 2007/06/28 21:31:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Hi Brady.  

What's the it getting boring over there at kcfs?

Honey, I've posted that Brown link here at least twice now.  

Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, you've been keeping up with my posts, so what's your problem?  Obviously, from that link (which, again, *I* posted here before Brady did), you must realize that it was a debate thread that lasted over 3 months.  OBVIOUSLY, I talked with Brown throughout that time period.  Hell, I set the thing up with him for goodness sakes.

I've also stated several times that I've called him in the past to question him about various issues in his book.  

No, I don't know him personally.  I've only had phone and email conversations with him.  I get absolutely nothing by suggesting to others to read his work, and everything is on-line for all to read (free of charge).  

The reason I suggest his stuff, as I've said a million times before, is that I believe it is THOUGHT PROVOKING.  Other creationists have not put together such a comprehensive outline in regard to the issues in this debate (to my knowledge).  

You wrote:
How many times has Browns Book been revised by Brown in response to new findings?

At the start of the debate he mentioned in a post that if anyone found errors, he would certainly like to know about it and would make changes if necessary.  Personally, I believe that is the honest thing to do, don't you?

I remember at least twice where he did make changes...usually only a word or two for clarity.  Once it REALLY pissed someone off that he made a change, and to this day, I'm not sure why he was so thoroughly livid because one would think that if there was something in his work that was wrong or unclear, it should be changed.

Another person pointed out something that was unclear and Brown changed it as well.  That particular person told me privately that he was impressed that Brown changed the wording when it was pointed out.

Crap, now Dave is going to go off the deep end because I've answered a few questions here without pulling out his biology textbook and making an itemized list of speculative information contained within it.  

I'm going to be in big trouble for that... :(

Date: 2007/06/28 22:04:03, Link
Author: Ftk
I answered Dave's question about the icefish...  

Microev. = supported by empirical science....common descent = loony speculation.

Ftk = microev....  TE's = loony speculation.

fish are fish...microev.

fish can adapt...microev.

fish evolves into a one legged jackrabbit...looney speculation.  

[please, oh please be aware that the last line in this post was sarcasm.  Yes, I realize that fish and rabbits are not on the same branch of the evo tree...they are merely long, long lost cousins.]

Date: 2007/06/28 22:27:38, Link
Author: Ftk
I did stay in school, luv.

And, as I've stated in the past, Noah's ark has nothing on the fairytale mystical world of common descent.

Oh, look!  Out of the primordial ooze there arose from thin air a tiny little microbe making it's way out of the lovely ooziness.  Dang, that little microbe is growing a tale...or something.  Now it's mystically dividing and producing little minimicrobes!  Far out.  All of a sudden something happens...why, it's a mutation!!  Then the almighty natural selection works on that little rascal until he is better suited for his environment than his little brothers and sisters.  This beautiful little story rolls on until something as intricate as the human brain arrives on the scene.  

From *nothing* to a universe of expansive complexity beyond anything that we can imagine or even come close to completely understanding, and the *illusion* of design is everywhere.

Amazing...I don't know of any fairytales that beat that one.

Date: 2007/06/28 22:48:22, Link
Author: Ftk
How's that Lithium therapy going?

ROTFL...actually I think they were trying to pass off a placebo and I was one of many guinea pigs desperate enough to order something advertised off the internet.

After a couple of bottles, I realized that my obsession with these websites was still in full force.  I certainly had high hopes of kicking the habit though.  

But, this time I didn't park here on my own accord.  Richardhughes lured me in here!

Date: 2007/06/28 23:05:48, Link
Author: Ftk
Well, there he is now!  RF, that last drive by was the infamous Richardhughes who lured me in with his seductive ways.  

He's dangerously appealing to females, and if he had not lured me in here, I wouldn't have to be scanning the internet for more effective OCD medication.

Date: 2007/06/29 07:57:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Um, excuse me Mr. Freaky Flank, but didn't you say you were going to refrain from this thread?  Looks like I'm not the only one who needs to be medicated, luv.

Actually, if we could induce you into a coma that would be ideal.

Of course, if Richard keeps flashing those pussycat eyes at me, I'm not going to be able to concentrate on what's being said anyway.  

sigh...Sorry, Ian, but your thread is taking a dive rather quickly.

Date: 2007/06/29 07:58:21, Link
Author: Ftk
Lenny is a weirdo.

Date: 2007/06/29 07:58:57, Link
Author: Ftk
I'm practicing posting Lenny style.

Date: 2007/06/29 07:59:29, Link
Author: Ftk
I wonder how many separate posts in a row I could accumulate before Steve would ban me.

Date: 2007/06/29 08:00:05, Link
Author: Ftk
Evolution is dead, dead, dead.

Bwha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Date: 2007/06/29 08:00:52, Link
Author: Ftk
Lenny is the antichrist...

Date: 2007/06/29 08:01:29, Link
Author: Ftk
I don't like Lenny's avitar.

Date: 2007/06/29 08:02:34, Link
Author: Ftk
Lenny the loser makes me barf.

Date: 2007/06/29 08:03:07, Link
Author: Ftk
Mimicking Lenny makes me feel like I'm a 3rd grader.  Creepy.

Date: 2007/06/29 09:31:46, Link
Author: Ftk
Hold the phone here a sec.

Ian, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!  Today is my sister's birthday as well.

You can't possibly be only 20 years old though are you?  Is that an error, or am I reading the calendar incorrectly.

Wes:  Honey, sometimes an example speaks louder than a polite request.  It doesn't seem that polite requests are heeded in this envirnoment as we can see from Lenny's resurfacing.  Ian was quite polite in his request for civility, and Lenny stated that he would refrain from his usual tactics.

Something else you might think about Wes...Lenny posts 5 posts in a row on a regular basis and you seem to have no problem with it.  I've never heard you call him on it or refer to him as acting childish.  Yet, when I attempt to make a point by acting in the same childish manner, all of a sudden you recognize the behavior for what it truly is.
Examples sometimes switch on the light...

Date: 2007/06/29 09:54:47, Link
Author: Ftk
1 Difference is Ftk that Lenny hardly ever ignores questions or refuses to back-up statements with evidence.

Oh, baloney.  Earlier somewhere I asked if he'd share his personal faith beliefs and he stated that it was none of my business.

btw, I will be answering as many questions as I have time for this weekend as I stated previously.  I need to go back through the threads and find the ones worth addressing.

Date: 2007/06/29 10:18:58, Link
Author: Ftk
Are you freaking serious, Wes?  He does it all the time.

I most certainly will not waste my time with this crap - and, you call yourself a moderator???!

Ian, wherever you are, maybe we can find another forum to discuss whatever you want to talk about??

This is BS...

Date: 2007/06/29 10:25:59, Link
Author: Ftk
No, I don't want to be banned, but go ahead if that is what you feel is necessary.  I merely pointed out what a jerk Lenny was being.  Sheesh!!!  What the heck is wrong with you Elsberry?  Why should I answer anything with your minions popping in and treating me like complete crap after every post?

If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up!

Ian, it looks like I'm on my way out, so just suggest somewhere else to go, or you can visit my blog.

Date: 2007/06/29 10:38:31, Link
Author: Ftk
Unbelieveable.  I was trying to MAKE A POINT.  There is no way in hell I'm going to spend my time going back and point out Lenny's numerous attempts to screw up the conversations.  Did he post exactly eight in a row anywhere?  Maybe not, perhaps the most he posted in a row is 6.  SO WHAT?!  I was making a point. are a complete jerk.


Date: 2007/06/30 09:04:25, Link
Author: Ftk
I told Elsberry privately that I'm done here, but evidently he's not going to relay that to his "minions".  

I will not be "retracting" anything.  Actually, Lenny should be apologizing to Ian and I for not keeping his word and staying off the thread.

The thing is, that I'm not familiar with anything that Lenny has ever said that is so terribly enlightening.  I'm only familiar with him from this forum and comments I've seen on occassion at PT.  From the time I started posting here, he's offered absolutely nothing but snide remarks...virtually no science involved.  So, if he is some sort of science wiz master, I've never been subject to his words of wisdom.

Ian and I have found a private venue in which to discuss various issues further.  

Don't worry, I won't cry martyrdom in regard to my departure.  I'll let Elsberry off the hook so he won't be accused of using the "banninator button".   It's time to go anyway because I've scanned through some of the threads here where other people from my "side" have tried to reason with you folks, and it's futile.

Nice meeting all of you though.  It's been interesting.

Bye Richard... ;)

Date: 2007/09/22 15:51:39, Link
Author: Ftk
Two, four, six, eight
Let’s get on with this debate!

Was just released from the pariah fort
So I can cheer for Supersport!

So, stop your evasion...
or admit to creation.

This is what you’ve waited for
don’t you dare show him the door!
[Wes...see! I “substantiated that claim!!”]

I’ve found I seriously suck at rhyme
perhaps I should consider mime.
[copyright to Kristine]

Gooooooo Supersport!
[And, isn’t he a cutie?!]


[Does seriously outstanding cheerleading jump (for a 42 yr. old)...

....arrrrggghhhhh*%##@ !!...

...lands on "expansive backside"]

Gosh darn it!  It’s, like, really difficult to do my jumps in these freaking heels, Richard Hughes!!!!

***She’s  baaaaaaccccccckkkkkkk!!---Wes released me from teh piranha pinata pimento pariah cage!***

Date: 2007/09/22 16:12:42, Link
Author: Ftk

My golly gosh I've misssseeeedddd you!


Date: 2007/09/22 17:11:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 22 2007,16:23)
So this is supersport?
He looks smarter than he is. You two are buddies, eh?

I don't know him personally...if you were paying attention, his picture was posted on this thread.

We did PM each other a couple times from the pariah cage.  That place seriously sucked!...stuffy, cold, lonely.

Date: 2007/09/22 19:05:15, Link
Author: Ftk
I see Afarensis is wearing the scarlet letter too.  Jeez freaking louise, are there any sciencebloggers that aren't atheists?  Is that a prerequisite??!

Date: 2007/09/22 19:15:31, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 22 2007,16:20)
Hey Ftk,

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue.  Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question.  Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong.  In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?

Blipster, just because you don't like or agree with a person's answer doesn't mean they didn't give one.

And, dude, I am all about substantiation this time around.  Here are just some of his answers...

Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here

Now, here is what I want to know.  Why was he banned??  Isn't it Wes who made the "I'm with the banned" buttons?  Don't you guys complain *all the time* about Davescots banning policy?  What the heck is going on around here?

Wes, are you going to address this, or are you going to pull a Lilley??

Date: 2007/09/22 20:12:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (hooligans @ Sep. 22 2007,19:44)
Hey Ftk ,

Can youfind out what Dembski's take on his pantsing at OU is?


I find it a bit odd that you guys are so interested in the OU lecture.  It's not like it's the first he's done.  Shoot, I attended his lecture at KU last year.  Darwinists lined up in droves at the mic that time as well.  Dembski didn't blog about that lecture either that I remember.  

Does he blog about every speaking engagement?

Date: 2007/09/22 20:21:29, Link
Author: Ftk

Hi Richard... :)  



Date: 2007/09/22 22:26:00, Link
Author: Ftk
Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around".

Holy smokin' monkey...then the ToE is in a whole lotta trouble, no??

Date: 2007/09/22 22:39:29, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 22 2007,22:12)
FTK - You're back! You're giddy!

I already commented on your expulsion, but won't again because Wesley sends raptors to pluck your scalp when you do.  

It always was love-hate, you and AtBC, now same as it ever was. A few rascals here turn you on (and turn on you) more than any 10 creationist stuffed shirts. They stir your soul, and you stir up AtBC, and both keep spinning long after the party's over. What IS that?

Here's a little advice. Just get with real evolutionary biology and come over to the dark side. You just KNOW you WANT to. You'd be able to argue from a position that actually has basis in science, you'd leave behind that nagging worry that you've committed thousands of hours to studying abject horseshit, and would no longer be associated with the phony psychotic trollery of the likes of supersport. You can even remain a committed Christian and hang out at your church.

We'd still pull your pigtails, but it wouldn't be in a mean way.

Well, Bill, you are one of only a couple people who understood my Lenny parody.  Thank you for that.

As far as coming over to the dark side, I have a much more difficult plan in mind.

I'm going to drag the whole lot of you out of that swamp that's foggin' your minds and into the light....

Now relax, while I work my magic...[God knows it's going to take a friggin miracle to pull this one off.]

Date: 2007/09/22 22:43:07, Link
Author: Ftk
Is there a list of science.bloggers?  I'll have to go check one of there sites and see if there is a link to all of them...just wondered how many there were.

Date: 2007/09/22 23:21:27, Link
Author: Ftk
Yeah, yeah, I meant ScienceBlogs...silly IDiotic me.  I'm gonna go try to find me a theist out of that bunch...anyone wanna place bets as to whether there are any?

Date: 2007/09/22 23:35:49, Link
Author: Ftk
I said I'm looking for a theist....personally, deists don't cut it in my book.  I'm doubtin' Ed's seen the inside of a church for a while.  If MarkCC is Jewish, you'd win...never heard of the guy.  I'll have to go check it out.

Date: 2007/09/23 14:50:41, Link
Author: Ftk
I made a suggestion to Steve that might be kinda fun.  

Wesley was interested in pulling in some creationists to beat up on, and Steve was insistant that they should be "intelligent", "educated" creationists (for a change).

I had to kinda giggle at that because the only creationists you folks would deem "intelligent" would be those who you can convert to Darwinism.  I figured an "intelligent creationist" would be an oxymoron in Darwinese.

So, I suggested letting AFDave, SS, and I all post even on the same thread.  That might be fun, huh?  20 or so to 3, rather than 20-1?  

So, whatcha think?  Fun times, no? :)

Date: 2007/09/23 16:10:24, Link
Author: Ftk
Come on, would be a blast!  Are ya scared of having to address more than one of us at a time??


Date: 2007/09/23 17:14:07, Link
Author: Ftk
Hmmm....well, here's the thing, Bill.  If you get bored, you wouldn't have to participate.  Perhaps we won't be discussing the age of earth.  Perhaps, we'd merely like to understand how you people believe that man originated from a primordial sludge walking microbe.  

Personally, I thought SS was asking some very good questions.  His OP is something that I wonder about all the time, and nobody seriously addressed the question.

Isn't this forum titled "anti-evolution".  Shouldn't you be confronting those who are "anti-evolution" and help us become believers?  Even if you think there is no hope for us, lurkers will surely profit from the dialogue...right?  

Steve, let SS back was unfair to ban him, because regardless of that quote you found, he is a creationist. That was pretty darn obvious, and I'm sure you realize it.  So, that leaves me to really question why you banned him.

Date: 2007/09/23 17:15:10, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 23 2007,17:05)
But would "pariah" status be better or worse than "parahna" or "paranha" status? :p


Hardy, har, har...

Date: 2007/09/23 19:15:18, Link
Author: Ftk

Date: 2007/09/24 22:19:01, Link
Author: Ftk
You have the attention span of a two year old are too lazy to continue an argument that you aren't smart enough to finish.

ROTFL...while that may all very well be true, I fail to see how SS answered questions any differently than the rest of you did.  Your answers were replete with a bald-faced assertions unsupported by evidence, opinions, speculation, and goodness knows that Dave is world famous for providing a lame piece of evidence that supposedly provides irrefutable *facts* for the question being asked, and then immediately turns the tables from defense to offense by slamming back a question and harping on it indefinitely because he knows that the question he is asking cannot be supported with empirical evidence any more than the one he is trying to answer, as if somehow that makes his answer more believeable.

Date: 2007/09/25 09:19:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Off Topic:

Dave, hey, I was planning to scoot out of work early today and come up to KSU to listen to Miller's lecture on MN, but I'm just too busy to take off early.  

Why the heck didn't they schedule it for the evening?  Don't you have some pull around there?  Get them to schedule this stuff in the evening so I don't have to take off work....

As for your last post, it'll have to wait...yes, yes, evasion, blah, blah, blah...whatever.

Date: 2007/09/25 09:36:51, Link
Author: Ftk
I know he's a Christian, Dave....I've met him in the past.  And, believe me, it's absolutely *killing* me not to be able to get out of long is he lecturing?  Hour?

Date: 2007/09/25 20:56:34, Link
Author: Ftk
Hi Blipey,

You posted your comment to my blog this morning, and I put it through because it's a fair question.  

I wanted very badly to attend a lecture at KSU this afternoon, so I worked my tail off so that I could take off early to do so.  I left for Manhattan at 2:30p and got home around 7:00p.  Then I fed my kids, and I'm still prodding them to get their homework done.  My time was limited it evasion or whatever, I simply don't care.

I can't point you to the data you want because I just don't have the time to dig.  I can't imagine that Behe has written two books on this subject and not worked through data in regard to the reverse engineering of the flagellum or other molecular machines.  I also know that many mainstream scientists have considered how molecular machines could have evolved, so ID advocates are not the only ones working on this particular problem.  

I have yet to read Behe's new book in it's entirety due to time restraints as well...I'm about a quarter of the way I can't tell you if he provides what you're looking for in it either.  Even if I had read the whole book, I'm merely a lay person, so I simply don't have the background to discuss this subject and would have to refer you to someone else anyway.  

The reason why I find it difficult to carry on a conversation with you is because your only interest in me is to stop me.  You've stated in the past that you believe I'm a detriment to the state of Kansas, and it's people like me that you intend to highlight as ignorant, wrong, etc., etc.  

Everything you post at my sight comes directly back here, where you then proceed to moan and groan whether I respond to your posts or not.  It's a no winner.  If you haven't noticed, you're about the only one that keeps resurfacing this thread over and over.  Just let it go.  

I'd consider talking to you privately about some of these issues, but I know you have no interest in that because when I tried that in the past, you posted our private conversation publically, so I no longer trust you.  For you, it's all about taking me down, not carrying on a meaningful conversation.  I don't want to waste my time on that kind of nonsense.

Date: 2007/09/25 21:13:40, Link
Author: Ftk
So breaking the smaller number out of the larger number turns every problem into doubling and adding small numbers.

That's pretty much it.  My youngest learned this way initially, and then he also had to memorize all his addition and subtraction facts.  

They started out memorizing their doubles and then they'd "double plus"...

So 5+7= 5+5+2, because they know 5+5=10 and you count up 2 from 5 to 7.  So the sum = 12.  


6+9= 6+6+3, because they know 6+6=12 and you count up 3 to get from 6 to 9. So the sum = 15.  

I think it just helps them think about it from a different perspective.  It's helpful to some and others prefer to toss them off by memory.  Like I said, he learned both.

Date: 2007/09/25 21:18:56, Link
Author: Ftk
Can you substantiate that claim?  

Look, Dembski, no doubt, reviewed Behe's work before it was published.  Dembski's a bit of a math wiz, no?  Or, is math another one of those subjects that only Darwinists are capable of understanding?

I have trouble believing that Behe has no concept of the math he is putting forth.  But, God knows there will be no convincing you people of that.

Date: 2007/09/25 22:12:52, Link
Author: Ftk
ROTFL....!   :D

Date: 2007/09/25 22:26:23, Link
Author: Ftk
Since we're all relying on "experts", I guess we're really up a shit creek without a paddle.  Which "experts" are ya gonna go with... ???

I will say though, that science is advancing to the point where the complexity we are finding in nature “is something akin to shell-shock”.

Date: 2007/09/25 22:32:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 25 2007,22:18)
There's another humorous thing about FtK turning to Dembski as an authority to support Behe's math.


As an interesting aside, IDists, when they're quoting Dembski, like to talk about the No Free Lunch theorems. The NFL theorems are based on the idea that landscapes really aren't smooth - that they don't have uniform properties that permit a search strategy to work. Behe's argument totally contradicts that - the kinds of landscapes that must be considered to make NFL work totally devastate Behe's idea. )

FtK, if I tell you that Behe assumes landscapes are continuous and differentiable, and Dembski's NFL notion presumes they mostly aren't, does that mean anything to you? Have you had calculus?

No, Steve, I haven't taken calculus.  Honestly, I struggled with math, so I'm screwed in that respect.  It pisses me off to no end, because when I have to consider the math in these discussions it's like trying to decipher another language.  

Go me apart for that admission.  I'm very resilient.

Date: 2007/09/25 22:56:35, Link
Author: Ftk
If you want to understand why Behe's assumption of continuous and differentiable functions is incompatible with Dembski's assumption of mostly undifferentiable functions you need some basic understanding of functions and calculus.


FtK, if you want to convince us Behe's math is good, and you don't understand Behe's math, first of all, how could you possibly imagine you can succeed, and second, shouldn't you be a little less certain that Behe's math is any good?

First of all...I have no intention of trying to convince you that Behe's math is good.  I'm saying that I'm not going to take your word that his math is poor, nor am I going to rely primarily on the opinions of those who reject every aspect of ID.   That would be silly.

*If* Dembski and Behe's work conflict with one another in some aspects, I'm certainly not going to reject the theory as a whole.  Those who hold to the Darwinian paradigm often come up with conflicting data as well.  That doesn't mean that they toss their work into the garbage...they continue looking for answers to those aspects of their work that are still in question.

Date: 2007/09/26 07:39:51, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 25 2007,23:09)
So you can't understand that Behe's arguments are bogus, because you don't know much math. That's why he wrote the book for the lay community and not the scientific community. We know math. His stuff won't fly with us. What's sad is that you won't listen to mathematically literate people who can explain why his book is bogus.

Steve,  understanding full well your "ignorance" angle, I realized before I even said it that you would run with my admission that I'm not a math wiz.  Knowing that, I was still honest.  

Secondly, Behe did not write his book to pull one over on the "ignorant" masses.  Perhaps you've not noticed all the reviews on the book that have been forwarded by *scientists*?

The scientific community, whether they'd like to admit it or not, is a bit obessed with Behe/Dembski and their "ilk".  I don't doubt for a second that the grand majority of the people who read Behe's book have a very strong background in science & math.

In fact, I was talking to Stephen Elliot at my blog a while back, and he said he doesn't even read the books on ID, because he doesn't have the background in science to understand them.  He just take the word of you *experts* that it's all crap.  So, like I say, most of the people who read those type of books no doubt have a fairly decent background in the topics being discussed.

Also, Behe has stated numerous times that there is not a chance in hell of his work getting published.  He's even provided proof of that through coorespondence with publishers.  All the ID advocates acknowledge this problem, so they publish their science in books for all the world to read.  Scientists obviously take their work as seriously as they would any scientific paper published in a peer review journal.  They go over it with a fine tooth comb.

BTW, I may not be a math wiz, but I have an uncanny knack for spotting bull shit a mile away, and I've run across lots of it from your side of the tracks.  That's why I don't always take what you "experts" write as fact. :)

Date: 2007/09/26 08:01:41, Link
Author: Ftk

If Behe et. al. were not on to something big here (like a scientific revolution!), there wouldn't be umpteen blogs, forums, lectures, conferences being set up by scientists to take them down.  If it was trash, it would be ignored altogether.  It's also *very* telling that the GRAND majority of those scientists fighting it tooth and nail are hard core materialists.

Date: 2007/09/26 08:51:05, Link
Author: Ftk
Can't imagine why my answers might be "scatalogical and disjointed"?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I am trying to answer to several arrows being thrown my way?  I've never posted to a thread in these forums where I haven't been targeted *immediately* by endless questions from numerous people at a time.  That often makes it difficult to answer everyone unless I quit my day job altogether.  

Perhaps that is why I have a soft spot for Richardhughes.  Right from the start, he reminded people that I'm just a lay person and that you should throw one question at me at a time rather than use me as open target practice.

That is why I suggested that perhaps we talk privately where I could give you my undivided attention.  But, you have been such a thorough jerk to me from the very start and perceive me as some ominous enemy.  When you decided to share our private conversation, I pretty much gave up on you altogether.

Dave:  I have plenty to say in regard to your last post, but I'm going to save that for a post at my blog.  I'm trying to get started on it, but I doubt I'll have it completed until this weekend.

Date: 2007/09/26 08:54:46, Link
Author: Ftk
Anyway, their attitude to knowledge, to the world around them, to this falsely dichotomous team allegiance makes rational discourse with them impossible. Demonstrably.

Funny, I pretty much feel the same way about you Louis, that's why I strive to ignore most of what you post.  Your attitude is by far one of the worst I've found here.  Rates right up there with Lenny.

Carry on...

Date: 2007/09/26 09:23:59, Link
Author: Ftk
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]<br/><br/>As to your attitude, Louis, the words arrogant, condescending prick come to mind, but I'm too polite to say that out loud.


[You can pass me that bottle now.]

Date: 2007/09/26 09:54:16, Link
Author: Ftk
Steve...did you delete my post to Louis?


Materialist = believes that matter is all that exists.  No designer - no design - no specific purpose (notice that I'm not saying that they believe there is NO purpose at all)...just what is *is*, and *initially* all that we observe in nature today was due to an accident.

Is materialism "bad"?

No, and I think it can actually push science forward in many instances, but it provides only one view in regard to the subject of origins and other areas of science.  Just as it gives science a shove in some instances, it can also keep it from moving ahead by dogmatically refusing to consider anything that does not fit tight within a materialist frame of mind.  So we may be stuck with theories that are incorrect because we cannot consider the evidence that might point to a more truthful or accurate explanation.

I WANT **BOTH** VIEWPOINTS TO BE OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION.   I've NEVER supported the notion that the materialist view should be reliquished in any way.

Checks and balances...

Date: 2007/09/26 10:15:52, Link
Author: Ftk
Louis, I said that it was ****initially**** the result of an accident.  Did you miss that?

If the universe was not ****initially**** the result of an accident, then you must believe that there was a purposeful designer.

Which is it?

Date: 2007/09/26 10:29:05, Link
Author: Ftk

I'm of course guessing, but I'd bet the teacher told them that she was looking for them to answer the equations in a double plus format.  My kid's teacher was pretty specific about that.  I can't imagine she'd just count it wrong even though the answer was correct, unless she was asking for this format specifically.  

As Steve mentioned in his post above, there are many ways to get to the sum of an equation, and I believe this gives them practice in this respect.  I doubt she's insisting that this is the only way that it can be done.

Date: 2007/09/26 10:36:16, Link
Author: Ftk
Sigh...too many arrows.

Guys I've got to get back to work...seriously.  Argystokes, you're find on the agenda when I pop back in here tonight.


Date: 2007/09/26 17:51:39, Link
Author: Ftk
In case you may have felt that seismic tremble in the Tard Force...

ROTFLMAO!!  Yes, may the force be with you... :p  :p

Glad to hear you're trembling should be. ;)

LUV YA DAVEY!!!  I was going to track you down yesterday when I was at KSU, but it was getting late and I had to get home.

[Be back later to address argystokes...gotta take my kids to midweek classes at church, and unlike those I hear complaining at pz's blog about their parents dragging them to a church they hated, my kids LOVE midweek (although they didn't like it at our last church.)]

Date: 2007/09/26 21:28:20, Link
Author: Ftk
As promised....time for Argy:

How do you tell when someone highly trained in a subject is bullshitting about that subject, when it is a subject that you admittedly don't understand?

Here’s the deal...there are plenty of subjects that even you geniuses haven’t mastered, so in many cases we’re in the same boat.  Those scientists involved in this debate all specialize in certain areas of science, so there are many issues they aren’t qualified to address competently either.  

When I first fell into this debate, I’d never been involved in forums, blogs, chat rooms, etc., and honestly I was scared shitless to pipe up and say anything for fear that I wouldn’t have a clue what they were talking about nor how I would address their responses.  I found out that it wasn’t nearly as difficult as I’d feared.  I know that PZ gets irate when I say things like “biology isn’t rocket science”, but in this day and age, we have *everything* we ever wanted to know or learn right at our fingertips.

Most of the discussions going on at the blogs and forums dedicated to the ID/Evolution controversy are really not terribly difficult to understand, and if there are terms or subjects that I’m unfamiliar with, I just look them up.  

Having said that, certainly I’m not qualified to consider the math being put forth from a guy like Behe and decide whether it’s “good” or “bad”, and I don’t claim to.  OTOH, I’ve watched these forums long enough and I understand enough to know that there is a lot of miscommunication, misunderstanding, different interpretations, talking past each other, etc., etc.  When I read things that I fully understand, I see that these types of problems exist as well as some people just basically BSing their way through a discussion.  So, just because I may not understand the higher levels of math doesn’t mean that I don’t understand anything about this debate.  

What I’m getting at is that when I see BS being flung in regard to things I do understand, I question those same “experts” in the areas that I don’t fully comprehend.

Clear as mud?

Date: 2007/09/26 21:46:21, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave, Bill and Jack:

You've made very good points...many of which I agree with, but there are several things that you refuse to take into consideration, and I'm going to post a fairly lengthy post at my blog in this regard soon.  I'll try to address the main ideas of what you've put forth in this particular discussion.  

But, like I said, I won't be able to get to it until this weekend some time.  My guys are planning to go pheasant hunting, so I might have the better part of Saturday to blog to my heart's content. :)

Date: 2007/09/26 22:24:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Dear Richard,

I answered the question, thank you.

And, hon, I don't accept everything my side says without "question or thought".  I have spent ENDLESS hours considering both sides of the issues, and that is why it is very important to *ME* to push that *both* sides get a fair shake in the classroom.  I believe that it is very important to study every single aspect of the ToE, and I'd never support removing any of it from the classroom.  So, please do not conflate my support of ID with wanting to do away with evolution or any other theory that is near and dear to your heart.  

That is another reason why you won't see me promoting my "personal opinions" as you seem to want me to do.  I've been honest in saying that I lean toward a young earth perspective, but I cannot by any means say that my opinion is correct because, as we've been discussing, I don't have the background to make those type of claims.  That is why I believe it's important to understand both sides of these issues...and that is what I'm teaching my kids as well.  They'll understand both sides, which in the end, will probably put them ahead of game rather than hold them back.

Date: 2007/09/26 22:30:51, Link
Author: Ftk
Blipes,  calm yourself.  I answered the question.  It's not a yes or no question.

BTW, I'm outta here because I'm not about to listen to your whining all night long.

I'm open to private messages if anyone is interested, but I've got better things to do than listen to the blipster.


Date: 2007/09/26 23:15:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, this is getting ridiculous, so I'm going to try one last time.

The question was 'How do you tell when someone highly trained in a subject is bullshitting about that subject, when it is a subject that you admittedly don't understand?'

I said:

"What I’m getting at is that when I see BS being flung in regard to things I do understand, I question those *same* “experts” in the areas that I don’t fully comprehend."

Trying to Translate:

PZ is a supposedly a biology wiz master.  At times (rarely because he's usually talking about religion) he'll post about some aspect of biology that may be over my head, but that I can detect from the conversation that he is relying, in part, on speculation.

Now, PZ, IMHO, is off base on many of the things that he claims to know or believe about religion and other issues that aren't related to biology.  So, when he's talking about scientific issues that may be over my head, but that I can detect have an aspect of speculation or inference to them, then I question his ability to keep his bias from his science in his area of expertise as well.

Math is a different bird altogether, so you won't find that I make any claims that I can spot BS when the discussion centers around that subject.  I just said that I was not going to rely on Steve to tell me that some "expert" he knows is unquestionably correct in saying that Behe's math sucks.

Date: 2007/09/27 07:53:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, I'm realizing that this dialogue on how to spot BS is probably the most asinine conversation I've ever been involved in on-line.  I mean, come on, how the bloody heck would I ever convince Darwinists that *I* can spot BS.  Lordy...


Honestly, of all people, I believe *you* have taken many of the issues I will be blogging about in regard to MN into consideration.  

I do believe you are more interested than some in trying to find some common ground.  But, I'm not sure that you will ever change your method of teaching others about these issues.  Though, I could be wrong.  I've watched you mellow considerably throughout the years, and I think the amount of time you've put into monitoring all these discussions has led you to be a bit more sympathetic to the other side.

Above all, I appreciate the fact that you can treat your opposition with respect.  That really helps keep the lines of communication open.  Thanks.

Maybe you can work on KSU Dave in that respect... ;)

Date: 2007/09/27 08:21:48, Link
Author: Ftk
Hey, Dave, you really need to lay off the "ftk thinks science=atheism".  That is such a crock of bull it's not even funny.  If I thought that science=atheism, I wouldn't be so freaking exciting about the stuff I learn through science, neither would I be pushing my two boys to take their science class more seriously than all the others.  My oldest loves science and asks me questions all the time.  

Don't conflate my concerns about atheists *using* science to deem God non-existent and my love for science as a whole.

Date: 2007/09/27 08:32:53, Link
Author: Ftk
RBill writes:
The contrast between this effort and the baroque armchair bullshit of the Walt Browns and William Dembskis of the world could not be more clear.

This kind of crap used to send me into orbit, but I've grown quite accustomed to the arrogance and ignorance from mainstream scientists in regard to creationist work.

No doubt you're somewhat familiar with Brown's work, but to accuse him of "armchair bullshit" is pushing the limits here.  Brown has spent endless hours in the field, and I know this because I've had conversations with him about his work in this respect.  His most recent theory in regard to the Grand Canyon required an extensive amount of research in the field over the years.

Have you *ever* considered coming down off you high horse of arrogance and pick up a phone and talk to some of these creationists you so loath?  Perhaps your view of them is not as accurate as you would like to believe.

I can tell you long as you "mainstream" scientists refuse to take creationists somewhat seriously, and continue to treat them like dirt you'd like to scrape from underneath your shoes, the public is going to continue to view you as a bunch of arrogant assholes.

Date: 2007/09/27 08:56:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Jack, what I'm saying is that I plan to address this issue as well in my post about MN.  I think it is related.

What it comes down to is this.  I understand all the mumbo jumbo science talk about what can or cannot be considered "design", what is or is not an "accident", whether the "rain that fell yesterday" was designed or not.  I get it.

Here's the bottom line though...99.9% of the people in the world at some point in their lives contemplate the origins of our universe.  When you take all the information we've learned about science and consider the *first cause* of our magnificent complex existence, we have only two avenues in which to look toward.  Either there was a designer or there was not.  Simple as that.  If the universe was not the ultimate result of a designer, the only other option is an accidental event which resulted from nothing.  Nothing became that first something.

So you can frame these topics in any way you wish, but you're not going to get around the ultimate question.

MN and what science can and cannot detect is of course an important element here and that is what I plan to blog about when I find the time.

Date: 2007/09/27 09:10:11, Link
Author: Ftk
When he [asks "How old is the earth" what do you say?

The same thing I tell the rest of you...10,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old.  He understands many of the arguments from both sides, and I've told him over and over to remain open minded to both.  There is so much we have yet to learn about many of these controversial issues.  

When he asks "How did Noah get all those animals on the ark" what do you say?

I explain it to him from the viewpoint of many competent creation scientists.  We also talk about the numerous ancient stories regarding the worldwide flood.  He understands that some type of massive flood occured, and he also realizes that many believe it was a local flood.

When he asks "I'm scared of going to hell and burning for all eternity, like the preacher man said I would" what do you say?

Well, no "preacher man" has ever told him he's going to burn in hell for all eternity, and he's never asked me a question like that.  But, he has asked several times about what will happen to people who either don't believe in God, reject Him, or have no knowledge of Him.  

I tell him the same thing every time.  "I don't know, and that is not for any of us to judge.  God is the ultimate judge and as the ultimate creator of all of us, he will know our hearts and judge accordingly."

Date: 2007/09/27 09:47:03, Link
Author: Ftk
It's also possible that the universe never "began" as you understand it.

I've considered that as well.  The big bang was a huge ordeal just like the issues in the ID/evo debate because materialists had pretty much convinced themselves that there was no beginning (though many theists reject the big bang as well) which put them in a better position.

As it stands, science holds that there was a beginning......though that could ultimately change again as science is always correcting itself.  No doubt Dawkins et. al. are working furiously on their multi verse theories with hopes to put an end to the silliness of believing the illusion of design is actually *design*.  God knows we don't want to actually follow the evidence where it leads. *eyes rolling*

Date: 2007/09/27 10:09:42, Link
Author: Ftk
This is what is wrong, and what ftk doesn't get: an "accidental event" is not the only other option.  One other option (out of several) is that there are metaphysical entities, forces and laws (analogous to what we find within our universe) that cause universes to happen (analogous to the forces which cause it to rain.)

I am well of aware that many people hold this belief, but ultimately how did these "forces and laws" originate?  You must be implying that they were ever present, which would conclude that there was no beginning to the universe...but, that these "forces" were swirling around other there until which time something purposefully sprang forth which led to our ultimate existence?  

Is that what you're saying?

Date: 2007/09/27 10:14:04, Link
Author: Ftk
I don't think its being driven by Dawkins and I don't think he's doing anything in that realm.

Well, he was certainly excited about it at his KU lecture.  He's positive they will come up with a natural answer for the origin of the universe fairly soon.

Date: 2007/09/27 10:26:46, Link
Author: Ftk
So, you don't answer your kid's questions either?  That's kind of a jackass thing to do.  If he asks HOW, you just BS him around and never give him an answer?

Hey, Blipey, you really don't want to go there.  You REALLY don't.

Don't you for *one* second tell me that I don't answer my kids questions.  My kids, their lives, and their education is the most important thing in my life.  

It is interesting that this is coming from a guy who goes to his trusty forum members to bitch about how his nephew is learning math, although he has NO clue as to what the hell he's talking about.  

It's also interesting that you and your sister didn't just GO TO THE TEACHER first and question her about his grade and this teaching method rather than immediately complaining that what she's teaching seems idiotic.

My point being that most of you people NEVER GO TO THE SOURCE.   You just demonize the source and rely on your own interpretations rather than ever come in direct contact with the *source of evil* in order to carry on meaningful discussions about these issues.

Date: 2007/09/27 10:32:14, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, blipes, I've had enough of you *again*.

Later, folks...

Date: 2007/09/27 10:43:31, Link
Author: Ftk
By the way, I think it's great Blipey tried doing a little research about a particular method of teaching before pestering the teacher about it. They've got enough on their hands.

That would be BS right there.  Detectors buzzing...

He can research all he likes, but he shouldn't condemn the concept before he knows what he's talking about.  

And, it certainly wouldn't be "pestering" the teacher.  My kid's teachers were thrilled when parents actually took the time to be concerned about their child's education.

Besides that, if she were paying attention in the first place and talking to her child about what he was learning, she'd have understood the method from the start.

Date: 2007/09/29 12:43:29, Link
Author: Ftk
For some reason, I can't seem to make the poll tab work, so I'm just going to ask here:

Where does Intelligent Design belong at the University level?

A.  In Science Classes
B.  In Philosophy of Science
C.  In Religion Classes
D.  As a separate study (via groups like the IDEA clubs)
E.  It doesn't belong at the universities at all
F.  It should only be discussed outside of the school setting in churches, synagogues, etc.
G.  It should be wiped off the face of the earth.
H.  Other

Date: 2007/09/29 19:23:42, Link
Author: Ftk
The type of behavior I found in that article is equivalent to paedophilia, IMHO.

Date: 2007/09/29 20:11:59, Link
Author: Ftk
Yeah, pretty much...because the poster is not the extent to which these perverts play and the behaviors they endorse.

Date: 2007/09/29 20:51:53, Link
Author: Ftk
Considering the sexual acts they seem to be promoting and the fact that these type of acts are usually for gratification only with no intent to form a loving, caring relationship with another person, YES...I do.

Date: 2007/09/29 21:04:58, Link
Author: Ftk
You might also note, Bill, that the referenced article on paedophilia was not about penetrating the next door neighbor's five year old.  It was about lowering the age of "sexual consent" to 12-16 years old.  "Consenting adults children".  

Dutch will allow paedophile group

A Dutch court has turned down a request to ban a political party with a paedophile agenda.

Judge HFM Hofhuis ruled that the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party (PNVD) had the same right to exist as any other political party.

The PNVD was formed by three paedophiles in May, prompting outrage in Dutch society.

It seeks to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and legalise child pornography and sex with animals.

"Freedom of expression...including the freedom to set up a political party can be seen as the basis for a democratic society," Judge Hofhuis said in the ruling, according to the Associated Press news agency.

"It is the right of the voter to judge the appeal of political parties," he said.

The ruling also noted that the party had not committed a crime.

PNVD's opponents had sought the ban, arguing that children had the right not to be confronted with the party's platform.

Date: 2007/09/29 21:24:00, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 29 2007,21:08)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,22:04)
You might also note, Bill, that the referenced article on paedophilia was not about penetrating the next door neighbor's five year old.  It was about lowering the age of "sexual consent" to 12-16.  

Too late for that, FTK. You're on record stating that sexual behavior between consenting adults of the same gender is a crime equivalent to an adult male vaginally penetrating a five year old girl. Indeed, you are on record stating that a person creating a leather-themed poster mocking your favorite messiah is an equivalent crime.

Are you now backing down from that assertion?

No, no, no, Bill.  You're spinnin' luv.

I said, the type of sexual behavior they are engaging in and promoting (read all of the links and articles) is equivalent to your penetration scenario.  There is a difference (I would hope) in that the 5 year old is not consenting...which would constitute rape.  

I believe the *sex acts* involved in both are equally vile.  The consent factor is a different issue.

Date: 2007/09/29 21:35:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Also, Bill, I never mentioned the poster in my original article (although it is disgusting), and it's not just as simple as saying that it's no biggie because it's "sexual behavior between two *consenting* adults".  

It's the mockery and irresponsible behavior being promoted in regard to sex.  Sex is not just a game or a competition as to who can get the raunchiest or how many partners one can accumulate.  It's something special and beautiful.  That you seem to condone this behavior says a lot about you.

Date: 2007/09/29 22:07:22, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 29 2007,18:41)
I voted other, and agree with Henry J: as a current event in political science in regards to the larger "worldview war" being promulgated by many in the fundamentalist right.

Jack, why is the "fundamentalist right" responsible for the "worldview war"?????

What about anti-ID atheist activists like PZ, Harris, Weinburg, Dawkins, Hitchens, Scott, Forrest, et. al.   Are they not equally responsible for this "worldview war"?  They are all scientists who have written books or articles which are often best sellers that promote science as a sword against religious belief.  (I realize that Scott & Forrest refrain from outwardly stating that religion is a hinderence to society, but they base their atheism on science as well).

That's the biggest gripe I had with Miller's speech the other day.  He lamblasted the "fundamentalists" for trying to use science to support their religious beliefs, yet not ONE mention of the antics from the "New Atheists" or whatever they want to be called.  

They USE science as their basis for atheism (which is a faith belief regardless of what any of you will admit).  Many of them have actually use terms like "war on religion", "The God Delusion", etc.  

That certainly comes across in the classroom regardless of whether the professor says one word about his atheist leanings.  PZ stated once that he tells his students at the beginning of his class that no one will be graded any differently regardless of their beliefs in regard to evolution or their belief or disbelief in God.  

But he also mentioned that he will work darn hard at getting through to them how ridiculous their faith in God is considering what we know about science.

The "worldview war" cannot by any means be attributed to the "fundamentalist right", and we must remember that the fundamentalist left have complete control of our classrooms at present.

The rights of religious people have all but been completely striped from the schools, yet atheists would like to see even more taken away.  Even the cross necklaces being worn by the teachers are at risk of being ripped off and trashed (I've seen this complaint mentioned several times at PZ's palace).  

Do you think this behavior is helping the culture war?   Do you think this is helping science?  It's turning it into a three ring circus!

Date: 2007/09/29 22:18:32, Link
Author: Ftk
Hey, man, what can I say...I've been trying to put together the post on MN, but it's getting too long and I was getting bored with trying to cut it back.  So I figured I'd come in here and shake things up a bit. ;)

Date: 2007/09/29 22:43:50, Link
Author: Ftk
It's my business when my kids are subjected to this's everywhere (and I'm not merely talking about the homosexuality in those links...there's much more there than that), and to just turn a blind eye to it is not helpful.  It only allows the problem to escalate.  When people are promoting that kind of crap, we should stand up and say it's wrong.  Period.  I can't stop them and don't plan to, but I'm going to call a spade a spade.

It just makes sex a joke or a game rather than striving to make it something special that leads to a loving family and vile free lifestyle.  In the end, it's pretty obvious that people who stay away from those kinds of perversions are happier and much healthier.

Date: 2007/09/29 22:47:38, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 29 2007,22:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,21:35)
It's something special and beautiful. .

I imagine that's how gay folks think about it too.

Hmmmm.....what I saw on those links didn't look like loving monogomous homosexual life styles.  Perhaps you should dig a little deeper into those links.

Date: 2007/09/29 23:01:26, Link
Author: Ftk
Well, I should certainly HOPE not.  But, then it doesn't appear that homosexuals are known for sticking to a monogamous relationship:

Few "gay" relationships last longer than two years, with many homosexual men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. Source: Pollack, M. " Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A.Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, N.J., Jason Aronsons Inc., 1991), pp.124-25.

50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.

In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. " Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women " (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)

Another large survey found that only 7 % of male homosexuals had been in a relationship that had lasted more than ten years. Source: K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report, (New York: Summit, 1979), pp. 339-40.

Homosexual author Seymour Kleinberg: "The prodigiousness of sex really depends deeply on change, and promiscuity is the easiest kind of change for gay men." Source: Seymour Klienberg, Alienated Affections (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1980), p. 171.

In a 6-month long daily sexual diary, gay men were averaging somewhere around 110 different sex partners per year. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K., " Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980; Vol. 302, pp. 435-38.

A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexual could be classified as monogamous or even semi monogamous (having ten or fewer lifetime sexual partners). Source: Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., Hammersmith, S.E., Sexual Preference, 1981, pp.308-9.

Extreme promiscuity has in fact been a common occurrence among homosexual males for a long time. Back in 1982, homosexual author Dennis Altman even admitted: " now there is a move toward claiming that this (promiscuity) is part of a different, perhaps even superior, way of managing sexual relationships... (t) he assumption that it is desirable to have frequent and varied sex partners is increasingly seen as a positive part of gay life style." Source: Dennis Altman, " The Homosexualization of America, The Americanization of the Homosexual, (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1982) pp. 16-7.

Promiscuity seems to be the nature of the beast...and, why promote homosexuality by having "gay parades" etc., where participants seem to get off on wearing outrageous attire or acting like loons, rather than featuring loving, caring, relationships.

Date: 2007/09/29 23:32:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Do you actually know any gay people, or are you only familiar with the cartoon images your church feeds you?

Of course I do....3 of my cousins are gay (one died of aids), as well as the brother of my closest friend.  Those are just the closest ones I know.  

BTW, homosexuality rarely comes up at my church.  It's mentioned in passing in sermons probably no more than a couple times a year and it's certainly not the topic of the sermon.  

Wonder what'll happen if one of FTK's kids turns out to be gay?

I'd love him every bit as much as I would if he were heterosexual.  Just because I don't agree with someone's lifestyle or something they adhere to which I heartily disagree with doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike them.  I can disagree with a person and still love them, you know.  It's not that difficult (for me anyway).

Date: 2007/09/29 23:48:13, Link
Author: Ftk
Fascinating. You traffic in the most bigoted stereotypes about gays, despite your gay relatives.

I don't know what's so fascinating about it.  The cousin who died from aids was a flight attendant and quite promiscuous.  

The other cousin decided she'd had enough with men (had been divorced - has two sons), so she chose a women the second time around.  They dog men all the time.  We were actually going to go to their place today for dinner because they want my husband to help them build a deck, but he was working on another project today so we didn't make it over there.

The third cousin lost her Dad when she was ten and her Mom was an alcoholic.  She had a boyfriend when she was younger, but then had a couple relationships with women, and now seems to be in a stable homosexual relationship.

My friend's brother lived in NY for a time, and had a boyfriend who was screwing around on him with quite a few other guys and he was scared shitless he might have contracted HIV.  Luckily he didn't, and he ended up moving back to Topeka.  He's a hell of an actor an singer...really fun to watch.

I don't condone the lifestyle, but I certainly wouldn't turn my back on someone or hate them just because I don't agree with their choices.

Date: 2007/09/30 08:00:10, Link
Author: Ftk
Bill, you are intent on putting words in my mouth, so I will refrain from further conversation with you on this subject.

Date: 2007/09/30 08:10:59, Link
Author: Ftk

No I do not think that it is always a choice.  But, what I have witnessed has obviously been different that Arden's experience.

It seems obvious in some that they have characteristics of the oppposite sex.  My sister-in-law's father is gay, and he seems *very* feminine.  When she was about 10 he left them due to his homosexuality.  Evidently, he had tried to carry on a heterosexual relationship for a while, and it didn't work.  

So, although we do not know whether there is in fact a "gay gene", I would not doubt it.  But, I've also seen in some cases that homosexual tendancies can be altered through therapy, yet in others it can't.  

So, bottom line...yes, I think there may be a genetic factor involved, but I also strongly believe that some choose the lifestyle due to circumstances in life.  

Our next door neighbor (at our last house- he was in high school at the time), mentioned that the lastest sex game was that some of the girls he knew would get wasted and screw around with each other for kicks.  Now if that doesn't lead to conflicting ideas about your sexuality, I don't know what does.

Date: 2007/09/30 12:34:55, Link
Author: Ftk
Ya think just maybe it's because I live in a place where gays are pretty much allowed to live normal lives withtout harassment, while you live in an area where church morality has the wonderful effect of making gays far more closeted and ashamed, and thus far less likely to live normal lives?

Well, seems to me that in the areas where homosexuality is embraced with open arms we find the gay parades and the crap going on like what was described in the original links.   Give an inch...take the mile.  

Homosexuals are free to indulge in whatever form of sexual relationship they feel works for them...I won't stop them, but neither will I vote for gay marriage (that's my right).  I will also call a spade a spade when I see homosexuals or heterosexuals indulge in perverse displays of sexual behavior. What is acceptable for some I'm sure is all relative (that whole evolutionary concept - no absolutes - right and wrong depends upon present society norms), but it is my right, as much as anyone elses to voice my concerns as to what results from considering sex as merely casual indulgence.  It's much more than that, and those who don't take it seriously often have a very hard time forming healthy, stable, lasting relationships with one person.

Date: 2007/09/30 12:38:12, Link
Author: Ftk
And, Arden, I don't "hate" people.  Why would I hate homosexuals?  Because they have a different set of values than I do?  That would mean that I "hate" all of you as well.  We disagree on many important issues about life.

Do you honestly think I "hate" you?  If so, what have I said that makes you feel that way?  Are disagreements a sign of hatred to many of you?

Date: 2007/09/30 14:59:08, Link
Author: Ftk
PS, I'm not gay, so I'm not accusing you of hating me.

Tho it's kind of interesting that you made that assumption.

lol...sometimes I wonder why I even try...

Arden, I never made the assumption that you’re gay.  I said:

"And, Arden, I don't "hate" people. Why would I hate homosexuals? Because they have a different set of values than I do? That would mean that I "hate" all of you as well. We disagree on many important issues about life.

Do you honestly think I "hate" you? If so, what have I said that makes you feel that way? Are disagreements a sign of hatred to many of you?"

What I'm saying is that I disagree with many of the things you people do and say just as I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle.  I don't "hate" homosexuals anymore than I "hate" any of you.  We what?  I love every one of you just like I love people I know who are homosexual.  I can't think of anyone I "hate".  Hating people is depressing, but loving is easy and it feels good.

Date: 2007/09/30 15:04:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 30 2007,13:47)
Hey FtK, which Republican candidate for president are you favoring?

I don't think I'm voting in the next election.  It will be the first time ever that I didn't vote in a Presidential election.  But, I'm sick to death of our political system and all the corruption.  None of the candidates especially impress me.

Who are you voting for?

Date: 2007/09/30 15:18:47, Link
Author: Ftk

Are you telling me that you believe that homosexual behavior is never engaged in unless a person is genetically attracted to the same sex?

Get out much?  I've watched several programs...20/20 type stuff, where they were talking about casual same sex encounters that had nothing to do with sexual preference but rather gratification.  

One night they had a group of black men of whom most were married, who said it's pretty normal in their particular society to engage in sex with other men just for the sex alone.  They're out partying or whatever and just go with the flow.   It's pretty prevalent in some circles.  The reason the show was on was that these men wanted to bring this behavior to light because several of them had contracted HIV and had passed it on to their wives.  

The interviewer was kind of shocked at how common this was.  Get a little alcohol or drugs in your system and you're used to grabbing some chick you pick up for the night...why not just a guy?  Same outcome...probably less strings attached.

Date: 2007/09/30 15:48:10, Link
Author: Ftk
You really need to check back over your previous posts before you claim you never said something or other.

Any, you might actually read the whole post rather that pull a quote out of context.  Kay?  You did it twice now.

Date: 2007/09/30 16:18:56, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave, what I'm saying is that we may initially grow up with feelings one way or the other, but that "temporary twiddling" or other social situations may lead to questioning preferences over time depending on how intense that "twiddling" gets.   Or, some may not be as choosy when it comes to just a casual fling.  You'll notice that many actors/actresses are known for flipping back and forth.  It just depends on the acceptance of these behaviors.  Personally, I think casual sex of any kind is harmful to establishing long lasting relationships...which leads to the breakdown of the family and children drifting from one home to the next on a  regular basis.

You need to remember that I firmly stated that I believe for some people, they are attracted to the same sex at a very young age...this could very well be due to a genetic factor...or, it could be and environmental factor in some instances.  There are no absolutes here.

Date: 2007/09/30 16:27:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 30 2007,16:13)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 30 2007,15:07)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,08:10)
So, although we do not know whether there is in fact a "gay gene", I would not doubt it.  But, I've also seen in some cases that homosexual tendancies can be altered through therapy, yet in others it can't.  

So, bottom line...yes, I think there may be a genetic factor involved, but I also strongly believe that some choose the lifestyle due to circumstances in life.

FTK's responses suggest that she is ignorant of the huge literature on the the emergence of gender characteristics during fetal development, particularly the "masculinization" of the mammalian brain (in males) in-utero by means of androgens. There’s many a possible slip ’twixt the cup and the lip in this process, resulting in a variety of combinations of degree of brain masculinization and outward gender. No one "chooses" this array of characteristics. Some cultures recognize the existence of three or more genders, reflecting these possible combinations.

Some DO choose to moralize about the consequences of these otherwise neutral biological facts, however.

My goodness, you love the ignorance card...use it non stop don't ya.

Funny you chose to use it in this situation as your quote from me included this:

So, bottom line...yes, I think there may be a genetic factor involved.

So, I agree with what you said.  I also mentioned earlier that my sister-in-law's father is extremely feminine and I would guess that there may be a biological factor involved in many cases.  One of my cousins has many masculine features and she is gay.  So, I get it, luv.

But, I'm also stating that some do make a choice, and some engage in the behavior for kicks.  

You guys would argue with me even if I completely agreed with you.  I'm outta here....better things to waste my time on in the real world.

Date: 2007/09/30 19:10:36, Link
Author: Ftk
So IF fundamentalist Christians were not trying to subvert science, do you really think that scientists would care what fundamentalists do in the privacy of their church basements?

Just WOW!  This is pretty much exactly what I'm getting at.  As long as those of you who loathe Christianity (and that's becoming more apparent from you, Dave, as the days go by) see that we keep our beliefs hidden in the basement rather than considering it as a method in which we seek knowledge (or truth), then you'll allow it (though only if it's confined to our basements).  But, as  soon as we contemplate what we know about history, archeology, science and other method of knowledge which support our beliefs, then you're on the war path.

Christians are not trying to "subvert" science.  In fact you can keep your freaking science class free from open inquiry and consideration of the vast complexity of nature for all I care anymore.  

It's funny that only *1* person suggested that ID be taught at IDEA clubs...that would be because it's probably the only place that it would be taught honestly.  Personally, I'm beginning to think that IDEA clubs are probably the best place for discussions on the topic.

And, I have no idea how you can blame Christians for "subverting" science....they have played a major role in the surge toward the advancement of science throughout history.

Absolutely NO ONE is inserting magical beliefs into the classroom.  You are being so dishonest in this respect.  ID considers the increasing complexity that we are finding in nature... it does not teach religious concepts.

Even Francis Collins, who is no friend to ID states:

In any event, lots of basic biological beliefs are going out the window these days as new discoveries come so rapid-fire that the effect is almost more disorienting than illuminating.

The discoveries have one common theme: Cellular processes long assumed to be "genetic" appear quite often to be the result of highly complex interactions occurring in regions of DNA void of genes. This is roughly akin to Wall Street waking to the realization that money doesn't make the world go 'round, after all.

"It's a radical concept, one that a lot of scientists aren't very happy with," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. "But the scientific community is going to have to rethink what genes are, what they do and don't do, and how the genome's functional elements have evolved.

"I think we're all pretty awed by what we're seeing," Collins said. "It amounts to a scientific revolution."

The closer we are to realizing that life is not merely an accident or a chance/random event or the cause of "mystical metaphysical forces that have always been in existence but will always remain entirely undetectable" (which I considered sophisticated atheism or scientism in *some* cases), the harder you all fight.

For many reasons, not the least of all being the idea that there is a higher source of intelligent that has created us to live in a certain way which is in harmony with the universe he created, is repulsive to you.  

What you are all doing it causing needless clashes between science and religion.  ID presents no harm to science, in fact it's pushed science to new heights.  

And, the fact that none of you even consider for one second the harm that the PZ's of the world are contributing to this problem says a lot about your real reasons for being in this debate.  He has also "subvert[ed] science by inserting a tenet of [his] faith into science education", and the only way we are going to one day stop this increasingly volatile culture war is to acknowledge that there are those on each side who are using science to ward off either atheism or religious beliefs.  It's got to stop, and we've got to allow academic freedom to prevail regardless of philosophical or religious beliefs.

Seriously, there has to be a meeting of the minds here.  Things are never going to change otherwise, and if any of you actually believe that materialism or theism will one day prevail against the other, then you're living in a fantasy world. Both will always exist, and we've got to deal with it by working together to find middle ground.

Date: 2007/09/30 19:20:01, Link
Author: Ftk
So if the fundamentalists would keep their noses out of my business, I could afford to ignore them, and vice versa.

How exactly will ID be a detriment to "your business"?  You teach biology.  Giving an honest description of ID in a section of your course is not going to cause any problems to science whatsoever.  It only ticks you off that you might have to teach something that is in opposition to your philosophy about life.

Get over it....

Teachers who believe there is an ultimate designer teach concepts about science and evolution that they may not agree with on a daily basis.

Date: 2007/09/30 19:42:42, Link
Author: Ftk
(Which makes your earlier statements equating consensual homosexuality and child rape even more bizarre).

Okay, Bill, let me try this one more time.  Please excuse me if I have to get just a wee bit graphic here, kay?


My link was about lowering the age of consent that was being supported by a group of questionable individuals who it seemed were not necessarily interested in monogomous, loving relationships with said teens (or animals for that matter).

Now, I was not taking into consideration the consent issue with the five year old, I was talking about the sex act old man vaginally penetrating a five year old is sick...part A does not belong in part was not designed for that.  

In a similiar fashion, said homosexual male sticking his penis in another man's anus is sick, IMHO.  Again, part A does not belong in part was not designed for that.

Now, I will retract the part about the non-consenting child being equivalent to the consentual gay adults.  It was not what I had intended to agree with in that conversation, but apparently you and others took it that way.  So, I would certainly agree raping a child would be even more perverse than two homosexuals sticking parts where they don't belong.

Now, I completely understand that none of you agree with me, and that is fine.  I'm not about to stop anyone from sticking their private parts wherever they want to stick them...vaccum cleaner hoses, pencil sharpeners (for you littler guys), car mufflers, whatever....BUT THE PARTS WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT!  Got it?  Good.

Oh, BTW Bill, I do still love you just like I stated on my blog. ;)

Date: 2007/09/30 19:49:35, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2007,19:29)

working together to find middle ground.

I find it difficult to take that seriously.

And, coming from you, I don't doubt that for even one second.  You're all about us & them.  You, sir, are a detriment to science, this debate, and world peace.

Carry on....I realize there is no stopping you.

Date: 2007/09/30 21:33:35, Link
Author: Ftk
ID is being promoted by liars.

No one would work so hard at supporting something that they know to be patently false, and that is what you are saying here.  It is almost impossible to believe that you can honestly think that ID supporters are "liars", but that does explain your inability to consider some of these issues for what they really are.  

Now, I will say that I do not believe that even the most militant atheist scientists who are in this debate, such as Dawkins and PZ, are "liars".  They certainly believe what they say to be true, as I believe everyone in this debate does.  But, you refuse to take into serious consideration the different views and the depth of these issues from the viewpoint of your opposition.  For you, it's all about religion "trying to subvert science", and you simply cannot wrap you head around any other explanation here.  

You are so convinced that there is no way of detecting whether our universe is the result of an ultimate designer, that you have decided to fight the idea with ever fiber of your being and hopefully ban religious thought to the "basement" of churches.

If you *really* believe that Behe, Dembski, and people like myself who promote ID are liars, then I don't really see any point in discussing these issue with you further.  We'll have to find some other topics to explore.

Date: 2007/09/30 21:59:24, Link
Author: Ftk
[edit]: BTW, I don't know if anyone here as ever mentioned this to you before, but the lights of contemporary biology tell us that these parts weren't 'designed."

No kidding...nothing was designed "in light of contemporary biology".  

Bill, the bottom line of what I was trying to get at is that the way these homosexuals were carrying on is not healthy.  I was specifically refering to the behavior in the link I provided.  Although I do not condone homosexual behavior and I wouldn't support gay marriage for a variety of reasons, what was portrayed in that link is a completely different matter than what a monogamous homosexual partnership would look like (hence the title of the post - Homosexuality gone wild).  And, you might consider that even many secularists recognize the problems associated with legalizing gay marriage.  

I also take back the bit about parts and where they should end to thinking about that as I was driving home a bit ago, and realized that even heterosexuals get a bit creative with their "parts".  ;)

Date: 2007/09/30 23:00:50, Link
Author: Ftk
One delusion is that IDC is all science and doesn't rely upon religious underpinnings. It is the wrong way to look at it. What has mattered in the past and will continue to matter in the future is what the content is. That content has demonstrably been old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments, without exception having precursors in religiously motivated antievolution.

I believe you might be the only one suffering from delusion here.  Quotes like that either show your extreme bias or your ignorance in regard to the advancement of science.  

Obviously, you're not ignorant, so your bias is really heavily displayed here.  Science has advanced to such a point that in the past, ID was merely a philosophical notion about watches and watch makers.  

Within the last decade such astounding advances to science have been made that the design that was contemplated in the past can be seen with our own eyes.  Molecular machines are a small part of the picture of design.  The intricate complexity we are discovering in nature is simply mind boggling.  Hopefully, Paley's ghost is around to enjoy the fulfillment of his belief that a watch maker does exist when we consider these new discoveries in the field of science.

Date: 2007/10/01 08:04:55, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 01 2007,06:14)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,21:33)
If you *really* believe that Behe, Dembski, and people like myself who promote ID are liars, then I don't really see any point in discussing these issue with you further.  We'll have to find some other topics to explore.

Get over the basement thing; it was a figure of speech.

And yes, I think that the evidence is very clear that Behe, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, et al. are lying about lots of things. In Behe's case, that was PROVEN in court at Dover. I don't care when they lie about their theology (e.g. Wells' notions about Moonieism): I do care about it when they lie about science. And when they lie about how science can be done (e.g. telling us that we can detect the supernatural but conveniently forgetting to tell us how to do that), I care a lot more. As someone pointed out, if it is so simple, why don't they just do it and go collect their Nobels?

I think that you find it "impossible to believe" that all of us consider them to be liars not just because you believe the lies, but because you WANT to believe the lies. Open-minded, indeed.

Open your eyes.

The only thing that was "PROVEN" in the Denver court is that Darwinists & their media spin a fine story.  Their interpretation is biased beyond belief.  

The astrology canard and the "stack of books" alone shows the length to which the Darwinists will go to spin a good story for the outcome they'd prefer.  Could this spinning be considered lying?  Nah, I think they're so caught up in their little world that they actually believe their interpretation of Behe's words to be true.   Bizzare and sad actually.

I'm guessing a lot of this type of behavior will become more clear to the general public this coming February sometime around Darwin's birthday. ;)

Date: 2007/10/01 19:56:28, Link
Author: Ftk
I think it was also proven that when Behe asserted, as an expert on the subject, that the evolution of the human immune system was mysterious and not well-studied, he was wrong. When a pile of papers and books on that very subject was placed in front of him, and he admitted that he had not read them, he was PROVEN wrong about the human immune system.

As Wes noted, if you claim to be an expert, and then expound nonsense on that subject, you are obviously lying about one thing, or the other. Or both.

Open your eyes.

From here.
As far as the “stack of books and articles” presented at the trial, Behe took it as bad courtroom theatre. He said that the “stack of books” we always see in pictures was staged because pictures were not allowed to be taken in the courtroom. So, obviously, this was an antic to try to make Behe look foolish.

Behe said that current studies do not provide evidence that the immune system has been explained by evolutionary mechanisms, so he was certain that this older material piled up in front of him did not contain anything that would explain it either. In the trial, he referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision. He said the 2005 article on the immune system used words like “may have”, “appears to be”, “probably”, “might have”, etc. etc. It was speculative information, and if that were true in 2005, then obviously earlier papers wouldn’t have added anything more pertinent to the discussion. The papers in question do not address how random processes explain evolution of the immune system... they simply assume that they do.

Jones also made the statement in his decision that Behe said, “Those papers were not good enough”. In fact, Behe did not say this. Those are the words Eric Rothchild tried to put in his mouth while Behe was on the witness stand. Behe actually said that they were wonderful articles, that they were very interesting, but that they simply don’t address the question as he posed it. They address a different question.

Behe said that he seems to find himself following Ken Miller around correcting these issues that Ken keeps relaying to the public. Apparently, Richard Dawkins uses these same words (“those papers were not good enough”) in his latest book, The God Delusion. So, both Miller and Dawkins are relaying inaccurate information and the scientific community is eating it up and using it against him as well.

Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science.

Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.

Behe made the comment that some of the things that came out of the Dover trial were “surreal distortions”, and he seemed to be frankly shocked at how much information was inaccurately relayed in Jones’ final decision.

Also, please read this link which provides further information and verbiage from transcripts in regard to the immune system and astrology canards.

Date: 2007/10/01 20:54:41, Link
Author: Ftk
I'm really sorry to hear about your friend, Steve.  The whole thing sounds awful.  Hopefully she'll heal quickly, and it's nice that you live close by in case she needs anything.

Date: 2007/10/02 08:19:22, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL...I rest my case.  Blind....twisting, spinning, and moving goalposts continuously.  If someone from my side is talking about one thing, your side will look right past that issue and conflate it with another.

I'm wasting time here....I can't believe there could possibly be even one inquisitive open minded lurker out there who has not been repulsed and turned away by the way you people twist, spin and carry on.

Dave, you need to be honest with yourself and try to separate your disgust with Christianity from your concerns about science.  If you can get past the former, you'll realize that science has nothing to fear from ID.  

Nothing whatsoever.

Oh, and before I leave, perhaps you could point out to the readers the peer reviewed papers that address specifically how random processes explain the evolution of the immune speculation, no assumptions, no "might have", "we suspect", "it could be that", etc., etc., etc..  

Provide for us the exact evolutionary pathways in which the immune system evolved, and tell us why these conclusions are unquestionable and above reproach.

Date: 2007/10/02 10:00:25, Link
Author: Ftk
?????????????? It's like trying to talk to someone who doesn't speak your own language!

Dave, can you not see from our conversation that what you are accusing Behe of is not what he was talking about at the trial?

Please, *please* re-read our *entire* conversation again.  I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.  I do not see where Behe has lied, so you'll have to specifically point it out to me.  

If you can point to the information from that "stack of books" that provides empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive in regard to the evolutionary pathways that are responsible for the evolution of the immune system, please do so.  

That was his point!  We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.  Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.

There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said.

[Carlsonjok, I hope you laid down some big cash on that bet, because your a winner!]

Date: 2007/10/02 10:48:34, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:25)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,10:00)
That was his point!  We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.  Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.

There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said.

[Carlsonjok, I hope you laid down some big cash on that bet, because your a winner!]

We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information.

Yet you assume your religion is correct based on much much less. You will claim there is strong evidence for your belief. Stronger then the evidence for the evolution of the immune system? I doubt it.
Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system!  

Conclusive evidence? Even law courts use a "balance of probabilities". Do you need a DVD of the immune system evolving before you will believe?

Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.

Have you ever wondered what "on the shoulders of giants" really means? I doubt there will ever be unquestionable empirical data regarding the evolution of the immune system. Unless we invent a time machine of course.

Evolution says we have a good idea of how something happens.

FTK says "that's not good enough. Until you can give me a DVD video of it evolving, I believe that "intelligent design".

FTK, is it your contention that your religious belief is more strongly supported by available empirical evidence then is the evolution of the immune system?

How does any of this relate to the accusation that Behe is a liar? Is there something substantial in your post that provides evidence of this?  

I really think there is something wrong with some of you that you honestly can't seem to understand what was going on in that trial.  Behe didn't lie, he was brutally honest about the subject of the immune system.  How you can't see that is simply troubling.

Date: 2007/10/02 11:07:09, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?


Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

Date: 2007/10/02 11:56:51, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,11:15)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?


Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

How did he know that if he did not read them?

ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory.

Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time.

Date: 2007/10/02 13:10:43, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,11:59)
Nope.  That's a pretty good question.  In fact, it cuts right to the point of this discussion.


Please continue to ignore this very simple question.'s really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.

I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles.

Also, blipe, you might consider what the general public thinks when they hear about this silly "stack of books" antic.  Obviously, this was staged as court room theatre in an attempt to run with it to the media.  The books were there and ready to be rolled out.  Now, everyone knows that Behe would not have read every single ancient document in regard to the speculation as to how the immune system evolved.  But, obviously, he has read more than just the most current papers on the topic.  He's been discussing the issue for years.

No doubt he had read several of the articles found in that stack, but like everyone else in that courtroom and probably every scientist in the country, he would not have read all of it, and it *certainly* wouldn't be necessary to support his case.  

The whole episode was very sophomoric...

Date: 2007/10/02 13:48:03, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave you quoted Miller refering to what Behe said:


Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller))

I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says.  I have caught him relaying so many inaccurate statements that it's very hard to take him seriously without doing indepth research to be sure he is quoting or relaying information accurately.  

Are those page numbers from one of Behe's books where he makes this statement, or are those the page numbers from Miller's book where he makes this statement about Behe?  

It is difficult to believe that Behe would say "...natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin".   I'm thinking there is more to this paraphrasing from Miller that is vital to the conversation.

So those are the goalposts.  Behe wrote something in 1996, and reiterated it on the stand in 2005, to wit, "There are no natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system; it is irreducibly complex."

That would be a honest statement.  There are no known natural "explanations" for the evolution of the immune system, there is *speculation*, *assumption*, *inference*, yada, yada, yada.

I'd also like to know where you pulled this particular quote from as well because I can't imagine that Behe would say "it IS" IC.  He's usually pretty careful about stating his speculation that something is IC rather than implying absolutes.  But, it could very well be that he made a slip somewhere...courtrooms are stressful places.

Date: 2007/10/02 13:57:05, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2007,13:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10)'s really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.

But How would you know they already solved it without reading the articles? They tend to make their claims *in* journals. By your logic Behe could never know because he doesn't review the works in which progress is made...


I never said he doesn't keep updated on the articles about the immune system.  Are you actually trying to argue that Behe has *only* read the most current article on the topic?  As I said, he's been discussing this topic for years....quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.

But, the point *again* is that if the current articles are still trying to find answers then the articles from the past have certainly not provided the answers either.

Okay, you guys simply *cannot* be this dense...are you just fucking with me?

Date: 2007/10/02 14:07:43, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, let me see if I'm understanding your assumption correctly.  You're telling me that, though Behe has been considering the IC of the immune system for near a decade, he has only read one paper on the paper from 2005?

Holy buckets of monkey shite, you people really do think that IDists are insane.

Sigh.... :(

Date: 2007/10/02 14:10:53, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave those two quotes are entirely different.  One is written as an absolute, the other is not.

I don't have Behe's book at the sister has it in hopes to read it when she finds the time.

Date: 2007/10/02 14:14:37, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:09)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

Or perhaps they are just honest, and you cannot bear to come to that realization.

Date: 2007/10/02 14:32:08, Link
Author: Ftk

As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.

Applying a dose of AtBC vulgarity, that quote translated by the voice of a true Darwinist would be as follows...

[high pitched whine]

"Crap... I really, really want to figure out how in the bloody hell my majestic and all powerful evolutionary mechanisms can account for the infinite complexity of the immune system (among many other highly complex systems and machines within the human body).  

I am simply frustrated beyond belief that I cannot figure it out so that I can put a muzzle on these damn ID theorists once and for all."

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]

Date: 2007/10/02 14:36:40, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:33)
A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

Under oath, Behe said    
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

Link here.
And then he goes on to say lots of other things about evidence and frameworks and perspectives that got blown apart during the cross-x.

I think that the evidence is pretty clear that Behe said, and certainly believes, the characterization of him in my previously cited goalpost 1. If there is evidence to the contrary, it has yet to be divulged here.

Again, that quote is true, Dave.   If you can prove otherwise, please do so.  Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

Edit:  You might also note that he is speaking of the present... he's making no claims about what may be discovered in the future.

Date: 2007/10/02 15:13:14, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2007,14:39)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:36)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:33)
A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

Under oath, Behe said      
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

Link here.
And then he goes on to say lots of other things about evidence and frameworks and perspectives that got blown apart during the cross-x.

I think that the evidence is pretty clear that Behe said, and certainly believes, the characterization of him in my previously cited goalpost 1. If there is evidence to the contrary, it has yet to be divulged here.

Again, that quote is true, Dave.   If you can prove otherwise, please do so.  Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.

Proving someone never said something is a bit like proving the designer isn't there...

Rich, I'm not asking him to prove a negative in regard to what Behe said.  

I'm asking him to show me evidence from the papers and books ("the stack") that provide the empirical evidence to support the supposed explanation that the immune system evolved through evolutionary mechanisms.  

If it's speculative, you can certainly not say that the system has been hasn't.  

Natural selection cannot explain the system (present not future tense)...we need much more data and research before anyone can come even close to making a statement like that.  

And, sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but these systems are extremely complex and as each day passes, due to the advancement of science and what we are learning about these systems, they are getting harder and harder to explain by evolutionary methodology than we ever imagined.  Evolution needs
more adequate mechanisms.

Maybe you guys can work on that...

Date: 2007/10/04 08:26:53, Link
Author: Ftk
Nice, Dave.  You're becoming nastier by the least we're getting to your true nature.

FYI, some of us actually work for a living as well as have a family to spend time with, and don't have the time that you seem to have to spew your disgust with Christians who don't keep their faith beliefs confined to their basements.  I'm quite appalled at the time you spend here at AtBC.  It's a wonder your students get any attention from you at all.

I actually have 3 different articles I'm working on that require research that I've simply not had the time to do because I have a real life that calls continuously.

And, honestly, I don't see any of you writing (in your own words) about science either.  You just sit back and wait for someone from my side to do so, and then provide an extensive amount of juvenile and hateful comments about what they've written.  

This is not a "science forum", it's a place where supposed "professionals" can gather and act like complete sophomoric jerks (and get off on it).

I can't imagine your students would be impressed with your actions here, but then again if they are being taught by the type of folks we find in this forum, the behavior one finds here is probably becoming the norm for them as well.

And, Dave, your obsession with me and what I write is a tad off the charts if you ask buzz off please.  I can understand Blipey's obsession because he seems to be playing with only half a deck, but you should have better things to do with your time than monitor my every word.  You won't be changing my opinions in regard to the ToE, because I *seriously* think there is something wrong with you people that you can't see how ridiculous your "facts" are.

Date: 2007/10/04 09:52:37, Link
Author: Ftk
And speaking off getting off, what is it that keeps drawing you back here?  It is pretty obvious that you don't like anyone here and you don't care what they think of you.  So, why not leave and spend time in that real life that is constantly demanding your time. Why is it so important for you to be here?

I ask myself that daily....I find myself posting in anti-ID forums and blogs alot, and I continuously berate myself for doing so.  

I just *cannot* get past many of the things that all of you believe and say about science and religion.  Some of the things you take as fact in regard to scientific issues are *clearly* speculation and you regard them as irrefutable facts.  I just can't seem to get past it.

And, then we have the atheist aspect of the issue, and's simply bizarre that people can truly believe that the universe is the product of intelligence whatsoever.  Who can possibly believe that when considering the vast complexity of the universe??!  

So, I believe it's the incredible sense of unbelief in what many of you believe that summons me back to these bizzaro world forums.  

It's also the fact that no matter how *hard* I try to be friendly and talk about issues in a respectful manner, I'm thrown against a wall and berated continuously.  It blows my mind that both sides are not able to conduct themselves in a more respectful manner toward one another and carry on civil discourse.

Date: 2007/10/04 10:28:28, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, someone just posted this at my blog:


bible bob said...

A friend of mine recognized those picutures[sic] you posted.

Apparently that[sic] want to OUT you at the anti evolution site.

Okay, that is more than a little scary and a bit threatening if you ask me.  My picture has already been posted here, and I DO NOT WANT personal information posted at this forum for obvious reasons.

Wes, Steve and whomever, please be aware that personal information about me and my family may show up here and I want it removed as quickly as possible please.  

I'm posting this publically in hopes that it was ward off said person from doing something that is so unethical.

Edit:  It's scary that someone would want me to shut up so badly that they'd threaten to post personal information about me or my family.

Date: 2007/10/04 10:47:59, Link
Author: Ftk
Funny...that coming from you blipey, because at my blog you are continuously suggesting that I go private again.

I took down all personal photos at my blog...

ie.. Dembski's doubt the admin and regents addresses are common knowledge and listed on the internet.  But, I don't condone what he did and was very glad to see an apology put forth in that regard.

My personal information is not public and I want it kept that way.  The way some people talk to me online, I really don't know what some of them are capable of.  Just the other day someone was madder than hell at me for letting Skatje's comment go through moderation because they believed I was writing comments for her and using her name.  I wasn't, but this person was HIGHLY pissed off at me, even though I was honest about the entire situation.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:03:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Hold on just a freaking second here.  YOU WERE AT THE MILLER LECTURE????  AND, YOU RECOGNIZED ME AND DIDN'T INTRODUCE YOURSELF???????!!!!!!

Color me freaked out.  I swear to God I did not recognize you, and I certainly looked around for you.  I didn't see anyone that looked like the photo on your site, although it's been a while since I looked at it.

There were only 20 people in the room for goodness sakes, did you think I was trying to ignore you????!!!!

Do I seem like the type of person who would see you in the room and ignore you???!!!!???????????????????

Why would you not come up and say something?

If you remember me saying here somewhere, I was going to try to find you since I didn't think you were at the lecture...why didn't you just tell me you were there?

What is UP WITH THAT???!!!

Where were you sitting??  The only person I thought might be you (but didn't resemble the picture) was the other professor who introduced Miller, but someone told me his name was professor Clark.  The only other person you could have possibly been was a gentlemen sitting with a woman a couple rows up....he seemed much taller and a tad younger than I expected you would be.  He didn't look like your photo at all.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:16:36, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2007,12:08)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,12:03)
The only other person you could have possibly been was a gentlemen sitting with a woman a couple rows up....he seemed much taller and a tad younger than I expected you would be.

Therefore you were not there


I didn't say he wasn't there....I'm saying I seriously did not recognize him.  If he's 6'4" he had to be the guy only 2 or 3 rows up.  If that is so, then he needs to change his picture on his website because it doesn't look like him in person.  

Dave was that you???????!!!

I feel like an idiot...honestly...I feel really bad that I didn't know that was you.  I had thought you'd be there because you talked about it, but you weren't at the Carroll lecture so I thought perhaps you were just promoting the lecture but were unable to attend.  

God...I'm a doofus.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:20:26, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 04 2007,12:12)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,12:03)
The only other person you could have possibly been was a gentleman sitting with a woman a couple rows up....he seemed much taller and a tad younger than I expected you would be.  He didn't look like your photo at all.

That was no gentleman.

That was me. I asked the question about how to discuss the issues of methodological naturalism to someone who viewed this not from a science viewpoint, but from the aspect of a culture war.

And your surprise here is, well, surprising, since I sent you an email about the talk (your AtBC message box was full) the morning afterward.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!  Well, don't get a big head here, but you are a much better looking gentleman than the picture on your website depicts.  

I cannot believe that was you, and I wish to God you'd have said something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Weren't you proud of me that I held my tongue and was polite?  I'm not Abbie/ERV, that's for sure.  

I am absolutely stunned here, and I apologize again...good grief!

Date: 2007/10/04 12:22:26, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2007,12:11)
FTK already knows who I am.

Don't ya FTK?  Should I?  Now you're starting to freak me out.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:39:31, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 04 2007,10:56)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,16:47)
The way some people talk to me online, I really don't know what some of them are capable of.


Oh you paranoid moron! You really need to look in the mirror, lady.


Easy for you to say you psycho freak*...I don't see you posting your personal information about yourself and your family.

*I've had it with the name calling directed at me from Louis.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:50:59, Link
Author: Ftk
Oh, and Dave, I didn't get a PM about the lecture the day after....since my mailbox was full, I guess that's not surprising.

....still freaking....

Oh, and I'm still going to post a review of the lecture, but I keep thinking of more things I want to write about, and it's getting longer and longer, so I'm trying to decide what to trash.  I'm entirely too verbose when I get on a roll....

Date: 2007/10/04 12:56:03, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, I just reread your post and you said you sent an email...I swear I did not see an email from you.  I'm going to check my junk email now to see if it went there from some reason...

...still freaking.


Date: 2007/10/04 12:58:48, Link
Author: Ftk email from Dave.

Date: 2007/10/04 13:39:14, Link
Author: Ftk
I discussed the Behe episode for half a day... we've beat the discussion into the ground.  There comes a time when the discussion starts going around in circles and becomes a waste of time.  

Of course Behe didn't know what was in every he said, he hadn't read all of them.  But, that's not the point, as I tried to relay in the thread in which we were addressing the issue.  

Honestly, I think you're all loopy that you don't understand that scientists have not figured out how the immune system evolved.  They've broken down different parts of the system and have offered various senarios as to how it "may" have evolved, but no one can possibly suggest that there is empirical evidence to support the notion that the immune system as a whole has evolved through NS&RM.

I'm not squirming, I merely think you're all off your rockers.  Now, I could understand if you admitted that no, we don't have the answers, but we have a lot of speculation that may turn into something more in the future, but people here seem to think that Darwinism is a "fact" and that NS&RM can explain everything we observe in nature.

That is ludicrous, IMHO.  

Date: 2007/10/04 15:37:36, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 04 2007,14:46)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 04 2007,12:34)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 04 2007,12:12)
That was me. I asked the question about how to discuss the issues of methodological naturalism to someone who viewed this not from a science viewpoint, but from the aspect of a culture war.

Let me apologize up front for interrupting the freak-out fest, but I am curious what the answer to your question was?

Sorry that I haven't been back at the computer to enjoy this; I had to got to some meetings where we discussed how to indoctrinate students with atheistic notions, destroy or dismantle websites of faculty members who have religious leanings, and swill baby blood. Typical faculty meeting here, really.

Re Keith's answer to that question, it was not surprising, and I have to say it jibes with my experiences too. Let me see if I can do it justice. Basically he said that most people who have swallowed the Kool-Aid about science=atheism, or methodological naturalism=philosophical naturalism, are probably just unaware of the fallacious nature of those beliefs. The leaders of the movement probably are aware, but are in too deep to be extricated. But the vast majority of the minions who buy into the culture war mindset haven't really thought about it too deeply, and it may be possible to reason with them. But it may take a lot of time, and patience.

That works for me. I have had plenty of students in my intro biology class (which routinely enrolls 800 students, predominantly freshman students, from Kansas, predominantly rural Kansas, etc.) tell me that they couldn't accept evolution because it was promoted by atheists. that seems to be the most common complaint; I have had very few tell me that they have difficulties understanding how protein translation evolved, or mitosis, etc. Complaints about the scientific details are incredibly rare in these interactions, alas; it is almost invariably about how they think that evolutionary theory somehow threatens their religious beliefs.

So I ask them if they think that most scientists are atheists, and they invariably answer in the affirmative. Then I ask them how many scientists they actually have ever met, and the answer ranges from zero to 1 (me). I ask why they believe something about scientists if they have little or no direct experience with scientists, and the honest ones will admit that they heard it from a clergyman, or in Sunday School, or from some other religious spokesperson. At that stage you can just appeal to logic; why do you believe something for which you have no direct evidence? What if I showed you evidence that contradicted this unfounded belief? That approach makes it pretty easy; I can find lots of religious believers among the professors in my Division.

For some kids this works. They really have no huge intellectual investment in those false notions; they can think for themselves by the time they hit college. For others, not so much. They resist the logic, fearful of the imagined religious ramifications.

But, as we have all learned here, it's not about the science. So that makes it tricky; you don't want to even give the appearance that you are trying to get them to change or abandon a religious belief. What's important is to get them to understand that you don't really care about those beliefs; people with a vast array of religious beliefs (or none at all) can learn about science, and, even more importantly, contribute to science. If you can get them to the point where they understand that religion is completely irrelevant here, you feel like you have made some progress.

Gag...seriously.  Back to those damn religious freaks trying to put a stop to science again, Dave?

Reminds me of what the guy who introduced Miller said at one point....he accused IDists as *wanting* to stop scientific exploration.  What a crock.

Your students have no cause to question what you teach in class because it's based on microevolutionary facts.  You can extrapolate that evidence as much as you like, but it is far, far, from "fact".  Many aspects of evolution are based on historical science, which I'm not sure even belongs in the science classroom.  There is no way to test or repeat macroevolutionary assumptions.  We have never witnessed macroevolutionary changes, so it seems insane to present them as "fact" in the science room.

If your students ever do decide to research deeper than what they get from their *freaky religious advisors (as you would have us believe)*, they'll find that there is much, much more to these issues and much less evidence for Darwinian evolution than they ever imagined.

It's going to be hard for you to convince me that your philosophy about the origins of life do not have an impact on your opinions in regard to the issues in this debate.  It's also interesting that the gentleman in the back of the room was very irritated with the religious issues that get tangled in this debate as well.  All of you show extreme hostility toward those who don't agree with your "facts" and you beat the religious drum constantly.  Now, how I'm I suppose to ignore this fact and pretend it has no impact on your science....especially since you'd prefer that I keep my religious beliefs in the church"basement"?

And, again, I apologize for not recognizing you.  It wouldn't have killed you to at least say hi.  I seriously don't bite.

Date: 2007/10/04 15:42:29, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 04 2007,13:52)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,13:39)
Honestly, I think you're all loopy that you don't understand that scientists have not figured out how the immune system evolved.  They've broken down different parts of the system and have offered various senarios as to how it "may" have evolved, but no one can possibly suggest that there is empirical evidence to support the notion that the immune system as a whole has evolved through NS&RM.

This is exactly where the lack of a common language is getting in your way.  But, I would suggest, isn't that you aren't understanding the folks here. Rather, I don't think you understand Behe.

Behe's statement was that there was no possible naturalistic explanation for the blood-clotting cascade.  Now to meet Behe's challenge, all that has to be shown is that there is a possible naturalistic explanation. It isn't necessary to show that the offered explanation is what actually happened, only that it was a possible pathway.  That is what was done.

So, you are correct in the sense that scientists may not have completely explained the blood clotting cascade.  But you think that is what Behe was looking for, when it wasn't.

Before I address this, I'm going to have to go read the portion of the transcript in regard to this disscussion again, because I've never heard Behe talk in absolutes before.  I've seen him speak twice and read many articles and books by the man, and he doesn't verbatim say that there are NO POSSIBLE natural explanations for molecular machines, the immune system, etc.  


Date: 2007/10/04 16:31:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 04 2007,16:10)
Hmm... FtK wrote:

Gag...seriously.  Back to those damn religious freaks trying to put a stop to science again, Dave?

Reminds me of what the guy who introduced Miller said at one point....he accused IDists as *wanting* to stop scientific exploration.  What a crock.

There is no way to test or repeat macroevolutionary assumptions.

*shakes head*

Okay, me.  What I should have said was that you evos have been trying to find something, *anything* that you can claim is an example of a macroevolutionary change taking place in nature...something we can empirically detect with our own doesn't exist.  

Please keep working on the theory...I wholeheartedly support you doing so, but at the same time, I believe that when we're talking historical science, you cannot close the door to the inference of design.  

If Dembski had been given a chance at Baylor, perhaps  you would all have been surprised about the output...then again, maybe not.  But to gag IDists and not allow them to receive grants, etc. from mainstream sources is a mistake on your part.  It supports every single thing that is being said about Darwinists.  

I actually feel for you guys when "Expelled" comes's not going to be pretty.  You'd be wise to set Dembski up with whatever he needs and let him flourish or fail.

Date: 2007/10/04 16:52:54, Link
Author: Ftk
Including the part about eating babies?

Honestly, I didn't realize that atheists eat babies until I arrived at this site..... :O

Date: 2007/10/04 17:19:50, Link
Author: Ftk
gain, Templeton. The DI. Lots of Dominionist money there. Not being used. Why?

Lots of private money being contributed to creationist research as well, but that certainly isn't going to get them published in mainstream journals.  

Most scientists have not clue one what creation science actually entails...I've talked to several who have no stake in this debate and they are clueless....simply don't have the time or desire to look into it further.  Most are just too busy.

The ones who are informed or interested are also seriously put off with religion in general as is quite obvious here at this forum as well.

Date: 2007/10/04 18:07:39, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave again...
An objective reader might come to the conclusion that I was, as per my job description, trying to educate them. Not convert them, not stop them, not condemn them to eternal damnation, but EDUCATE them. Read the words, please.

Again, the religious angle and the arrogance factor.  Everyone who questions the extent to which the mechanisms of evolution are indeed capable of reaching are in need of you to educate them.  

Also, notice that I have not once asked you what your religious faith beliefs are, I have not tried to convert you, nor have I talked about condemning anyone to hell.  I most certainly do not believe that if evolution is a fact, that God does not exist, nor do I believe that one need reject evolution in order to be a Christian.  I know many Christians who are evolutionists.

I, personally, believe that the gaping holes in the theory are too numerous to dismiss, and the fact that Darwinists are working SOOOOO hard at keeping ID at bay has thrown up red flags all over the place for me.

Many of my students have indeed decided to "research deeper". Some of them worked in my lab, and got their names on peer-reviewed publications, helping to contribute to the fact-based literature that you want them to ignore. Some of them have gone on to higher degrees (PhD or MD) and made additional contributions to our knowledge base. As far as I know, exactly none of them have gone over to work for AIG, or the DI, or for Walt Brown. Another prediction of ID gone awry, I think.

When I mentioned “researching deeper” I was referring to throwing themselves into this debate and listening to all the arguments from both sides and actually learning about creation science or ID from someone who advocates the theories.  Why would they ever even consider contemplating other theories or working for a creationist when they are told by their professors that creation scientists and IDists are “liars”.  

“His hostility (and mine), as has been pointed out to you before, is directed toward those who deliberately mislead others about science, those who lie about science. The fact that they seem to all be Christians in this country is unfortunate (mostly for you), but that is merely a local phenomenon.”

“Ignorance is something that I am trained to correct; lying is something I am trained to detect.”

Again, this is probably the only reason I still try to carry on conversations with you.  This bit about calling us “liars” on a consistent basis tells me that you really have no clue what you are talking about.  Your extreme hostility toward IDists is obviously because you believe them to be filthy "liars"....and, obviously you feel that way about me as well.  

You think that I ignore reality based on religious beliefs and lie to others in regard to these issues.  That, above all, is what I think keeps pushing me to post here about these issues.  I simply cannot understand how you can actually believe that we are all “lying for Jesus”.  That just makes no sense, whatsoever!!!  Why lie for something we must apparently (by your belief) believe is untrue?

Date: 2007/10/04 18:37:42, Link
Author: Ftk
No, the antecedent of "them" is "students," not "everyone." It's his job to educate students, isn't it? Do you really think that you are fooling anyone but yourself when you engage in such blatant dishonesty?

I'M NOT BEING DISHONEST.  He's told me several times that his job is to educate and he's not only talking about his students.  He's also talking about the general public in regard to these debate issues.

It's not that I don't appreciate his effort to's just that he is targeting the wrong issues.  He's convinced that Christians who question how far evolution can be considered "fact" are "LIARS" and out to deceive and convert the public to Christianity as well as lead them to believe that science = if every realm of science relies on the "fact" that Darwinian evolution is true.

Date: 2007/10/04 20:23:59, Link
Author: Ftk
What you need to understand, FtK, is that liars in science are very toxic as well. The damage done by the Korean scientist who faked his data about stem cells was tremendous, both to the progress of the science and to the public perception of the science. The damage being done by Behe, Wells, Dembski et al. is incalculably worse than that.

Okay, now I'm seriously beginning to question your sanity.  How you can compare the two situations simply blows my mind.  I had **no idea** you felt this strongly that guys like Behe, Wells and Dembski were that horrendously dishonest. :O

[excuse me while I pour myself a drink...I just simply can't believe this.]

Deep breath....

Okay, so let me get this believe ID to be THE most dangerous idea to science since, well, since Darwin's theory of evolution.  

I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom how on earth ID is that detrimental to science.  I simply can't.  It just isn't that threatening.  It's merely an inference based on can't harm science, and it certainly cannot stop scientific inquiry.  That fear is only in the minds of the ultra paranoid.   It might possibly require that scientists reconsider many aspects of the ToE that they had always assumed to be "fact", but checks and balances are healthy, not a detriment.


I really had no idea you felt so strongly that everyone who supports ID is merely lying for their religious faith beliefs.  I guess I just don't understand why someone would lie for what they seemingly know is a lie.  That would be completely insane.

Date: 2007/10/04 20:40:19, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 04 2007,19:06)
I am curious about your answer regarding the ID journal, FTK. Why, indeed, is no one publishing in it? That kinda blows the whole "ID can't get a fair shake" theory, dontja think? Could it be that there isn't anything to publish? It's not like "darwinistas" are refereeing that journal.

Why would they bother publishing in a private journal?  What good would it do?  Aren't you the same people who keep demanding that the only way creationists will be taken seriously is to get published in mainstream journals?

Creationists have no choice but to publish in private journals....they've been thrown off the island so to speak because they have the audacity to consider ancient historical documents that give us clues as to how the universe may have been created.  Can't do that...!  In this day and age that's considered religious apologetics regardless of the science involved.

ID is a whole different ball of wax, and I have no idea why you all feel it is such a threat to science.  It's not, so relax.

Date: 2007/10/04 20:56:13, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 04 2007,20:42)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,20:40)
Why would they bother publishing in a private journal?  What good would it do?  

What harm would it do? At least the research would be out there..

Richard,  creation science is out there in the private sector...what good is keeping it private doing them?  You've admited to never reading any of it... most people haven't.  Until fairly recently, most people had never even heard of the advancements in creation science, and it's been around for years.

Heck, I had never in my life heard of creation science until about 3 years ago.  

The same thing would happen to ID if they did not make an effort to go mainstream...and you all know I'm correct.  I didn't even know they had a private journal until I read it here.  Who the hell would ever know about ID or take is seriously if they just quietly worked away for no reason other than to discuss the theory amongst themselves?  

They have to go mainstream....there is really no other choice, and Dembski/Roberts were almost there!  But, look what happened?  DARWIN POLICE...again.  If Eugenie and her minions would just put a sock in it and relax, they realize that ID just isn't a threat to their precious field of science of which they base their entire worldview upon.

Date: 2007/10/04 21:03:41, Link
Author: Ftk
Arden, we're talking right past each other, and I want to go do something else rather than sit here all night.

When I talk about "creationists", I'm refering to "creation science".  When I talk about "IDists", I'm talking about ID.  Two ENTIRELY different concepts.

Creationists do publish in private journals and I've posted some of them at the Q&A at my blog.  They've also published books on the subject...Walt Brown, etc.  They can't go mainstream....not allowed...considered Christian apologetics even though the subject matter is scientific.  They are screwed.

ID is not based on's based on science.  They have to go *mainstream* or they might as well hang it up.  Each time they are almost there, they are shut down by Darwin's little helpers.

Date: 2007/10/04 21:08:15, Link
Author: Ftk
You know, when you say stuff like that, it's like you *want* people to laugh at you.

Yeah?  Well, you won't be laughing when February 2008 comes around.  

The Darwin thought police have made one two many unfair arrests lately, and it's going to come back to haunt them very, very soon.

Date: 2007/10/04 21:12:20, Link
Author: Ftk
Richard. no offense, but you really have *no* idea what you're talking about.  

Until you actually bother to read several books in regard to Creation science and then read books on Christian apologetics you'll never understand either or the difference between the two.

Date: 2007/10/04 21:24:06, Link
Author: Ftk
Dave, obviously, you believe what you wrote in your last post (see I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is a "liar"), but I must say that I BELIEVE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS SERIOUSLY DELUDED... almost to the point where I feel sorry for you.  To be that freaked out by the notion of intelligent design that you honestly believe it to be the stopping point of scientific advancement is truly off the charts - crazy.  

Shoot, everyone else around here seems to think ID's a worthless has been theory, yet you believe it has the capability of putting an end to the advancement of science.

Yes, I think you've truly lost it.  

BTW - yes or no:  Do you believe that I am a liar?

Date: 2007/10/04 22:00:52, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 04 2007,21:28)
I think I deserve an answer first here. Well, deserve isn't the appropriate word, but I have been patient. I want to know about the journals. Are "private" journals peer reviewed? Cuz, my interpretation of "private" includes most academic journals, which are. Unless I am misunderstanding the term "private" as applied to the ID journal?

Oh, and Feb 2008.
I am very curious. Do I need to sell all my stuff? What day in February? I hope it is before I have to submit 4th term grades.

Of course the private journals are peer-reviewed...many times even by Darwinists.  I know Walt Brown's theories are peer reviewed by evolutionists, but obviously, he's never going to get them accepted in mainstream science's freaking creation know -- the stuff those hideous, money thirsty "liars" theorize, that accusation would seriously get Walt Brown giggling.  Believe me, he's not in it for the money...dig a little and you'll understand why I say that.

When I use the word "private", I mean Creationist or ID journals --- not mainstream science journals.  Unless theories are published in "MAINSTREAM JOURNALS", they are assumed to be pseudoscience and completely ignored by scientists in general.

Date: 2007/10/04 22:30:31, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (ck1 @ Oct. 04 2007,22:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:03)
Arden, we're talking right past each other, and I want to go do something else rather than sit here all night.

When I talk about "creationists", I'm refering to "creation science".  When I talk about "IDists", I'm talking about ID.  Two ENTIRELY different concepts.

Creationists do publish in private journals and I've posted some of them at the Q&A at my blog.  They've also published books on the subject...Walt Brown, etc.  They can't go mainstream....not allowed...considered Christian apologetics even though the subject matter is scientific.  They are screwed.

ID is not based on's based on science.  They have to go *mainstream* or they might as well hang it up.  Each time they are almost there, they are shut down by Darwin's little helpers.

So what are IDists doing to gain the respect and acceptance they seek?  

Can you point to their labs and to specific peer-reviewed research results?  Do they attend scientific conferences?  Have they submitted papers containing data based on ID to mainstream journals?  Why have I never met an ID proponent in my 30+ years as a scientist?

Or are they too busy making movies?  Writing books for popular audiences?  Giving talks in churches?  And complaining about their status as outsiders?

What?'re not familiar with what happens to people who submit to mainstream journals?...Meiers/Sternburg

To people who advocate ID and apply for tenure at a mainstream universities? ....Gonzalez

Who try to submit to mainstream journals and get turned down because their papers question certain aspects of evolution?...Behe

To those who question Darwinism in academia?...Crocker

Who get an ID friendly lab up and running until the Darwin police arrive at the scene?...Roberts/Dembski

Why haven't you met an ID proponent in your 30+ years as a scientist?  Because current ID advocates have only been around for about the last 10 years or so, and anyone who is even remotely sympathetic to the inference had better keep their mouths clamped shut about it if they want to receive want a decent job in the field of science.


Date: 2007/10/04 22:53:23, Link
Author: Ftk
Appologies if my typing is a bit dodgy, I'm more than a tad drunk.

I thought you said you didn't drink...figured you were more into weed than alcohol.

Date: 2007/10/04 22:55:59, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (jupiter @ Oct. 04 2007,22:52)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2007,22:17)
Hey FTK, feel free to come over to IIDB and defend Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory during the Flood.

Right now we're talking about Walt's claim that the asteroid belt was formed when huge chunks of the Earth were blasted into space by 7 mile/sec superduper hypersonic steam. :O

Last week we were discussing the physics behind Walt's claim that the continents moved over 2700 miles in a single day (or well over 100 mph! ) during the Flood 'drift phase'.

We've been trying to get the great man himself over to defend his, er, 'theory' himself, but he refuses unless he gets complete editorial control over what he is asked.  He wants to declare "that's a strike" to any question he doesn't like, and if he gives you three strikes you're out of the discussion.  :D  Sounds like a fair minded scientific approach to me, doesn't it to you? :D

The only YEC who promised to defend Brown's work, our own AFDave, won't come anywhere the thread.  Dave might be as scientifically illiterate as a box of rocks but apparently he's not a complete fool.

How about it FTK - you game?

FTK, you mentioned Walt as one of your authentic scientific authorities. Please read up on why his theories violate all known natural laws, nine ways from Sunday and twice on the Sabbath.

I've already been over there reading....what a freaking circle jerk.  Nope, I won't be chiming in at atheist central any time soon.  Atbc is about the lowest rung I'm comfortable with.

Date: 2007/10/04 23:08:31, Link
Author: Ftk
We've been trying to get the great man himself over to defend his, er, 'theory' himself, but he refuses unless he gets complete editorial control over what he is asked.  He wants to declare "that's a strike" to any question he doesn't like, and if he gives you three strikes you're out of the discussion.  :D  Sounds like a fair minded scientific approach to me, doesn't it to you? :D

Oh, btw, that's not true.  I've read the agreement and talked to him about it in the past.  Any questions in the written debate are allowable unless it has anything whatsoever to do with religion.  He wants a *strictly* scientific written debate that would eventually be published...not a worthless discussion on the internet with a group of gang banging atheists.

The flood has been documented by virtually every ancient most certainly does not have to be approached from a religious or biblical standpoint.

The agreement is at his website for everyone to read...just go to the index.  I've got to get some sleep people.  Later...

Date: 2007/10/04 23:13:53, Link
Author: Ftk
Of course I don't understand everything they're talking about, but they're all over the place and certainly not keeping to topic nor taking into consideration everything that is written on the various topics.  They're cherry picking.  

They can blather all they want, but until one of them has the balls to agree to the written debate it's worthless to watch them acting like jerks.

Date: 2007/10/04 23:27:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 04 2007,23:12)
'The flood has been documented by virtually every ancient most certainly does not have to be approached from a religious or biblical standpoint. '

A flood. At each location.

Is it just me, or does the "all nations have a flood story!!!!" thing fall down in two places?

1. If everyone died, who wrote the stories?

2. Didn't people almost always live on or near flood areas, because of the fertile soil?, not a flood at each location. Put down the bottle.  I'll try to make this simple for someone who is inebriated.  

One flood...a few survivors...story passed down orally  throughout the generations...history of the flood is eventually told in other areas of the world as people migrate to other areas...stories become slightly modified as time passes, and people forget certain aspects of the event.

The stories are quite simliar if you take the time to read them, and obviously for the story to be told not everyone could have died...many of the ancient stories tell of a family of approx. 8 people surviving the flood.

Date: 2007/10/05 21:54:01, Link
Author: Ftk


I'm not going to spend hours looking for those posts.

I did not say that anyone was going to SUE anyone for wearing a cross necklace!  I said that I've heard it mentioned more than once that some people are pissed about teachers wearing cross necklaces, and for that matter, I've heard them complain about teachers having symbols of faith on their desks as well.

Granted, I spend *way* to much time in atheist forums, and that has definently tainted my views in regard to many of these issues.  As I've mentioned in the past, before I came upon these on-line debates, blogs and forums, I thought that the concerns I heard on Christian radio were promoted by highly paranoid Christians and turned a deaf ear to what I considered ridiculous.

But, after being in the trenches, I've seen *exactly* what they were refering too.  And, yes, thank God this type of hatred toward Christianity is still held by relatively a minority of people, but nonetheless it is quite disheartening to watch atheists as well as hateful Christians going at each other like they're at war.

But, evidently nobody cares or worries about these arguments turning uglier as the years go by except me...the "concern troll".

BTW, Jack, you're teaching in the state of *Kansas*...somehow I doubt that many parents here are that terribly disgruntled about the freedom of religious expression.

Date: 2007/10/05 22:22:14, Link
Author: Ftk
FTK and creo's in general (including Dembski and other IDers too) were raised incorrectly.  FTK et al were raised to blindly accept a fairy tale.  They don't question, they obey.

Nothing blind about what I believe, j-dog.  Some of the most brilliant individuals throughout history believed strongly in God, and their beliefs led them to explore His creation.  Christian scientists were leaders in the surge toward scientific advancement.  Their belief in God didn't hinder their exploration.

Perhaps scientists have been "raised incorrectly" in their science classrooms.  They are innundated with a fairy tale that they cannot shake because, although the facts aren't there, they blindly accept the just-so stories.  

You're not a scientist J-Dog...yet you *blindly* follow the "experts".  

It is astounding to me how volatile you are toward the Christian faith.  Your wife, as well as your family, are Christians, and here you park yourself on a daily basis contributing to as much disrepect and vulgarity toward the Christian faith as you can possibly muster up.  

Was your wife brought up incorrectly?  Does she believe based on "blind faith".  Do you consider her a complete moronic idiot?

I assure you that I do not base my belief in God on blind faith...what is the point of a faith with no basis in evidence??  Unfortunately, many people refuse to consider the evidence....since Jack is here I'll use him as an example.  He told me once that he's never even read Christian apologetics because he believed that arguments in this regard were "sophomoric".    

When reading *many* of the posts that I find here, it is so obvious that the majority of you have no clue as to the evidence that supports the Christian faith.  You don't understand that you are coming at so many issues from such an entirely opposing angle that you can't see the forest through the trees.  

You also seem to believe things about Christianity that I have never experienced except through 20/20 type television programs, and you seem to consider a Christian upbringing equivalent to "Jesus Camp".  Evidently, many of you have had some really nasty experiences with Christians and that is unfortunate.

BTW, you may be familiar with a quote by Albert Einstein:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

AMEN brother.

Date: 2007/10/05 22:47:37, Link
Author: Ftk

Perhaps you should come live here for a while to see what it's really like.  Most of the hype is media based, and the science squabbles are led by the Darwinists.  If they were not so dogmatic and would lay off those who ask questions, there would be no need for the Discovery Institute in the first place.  

My kids get absolutely NO RELIGION WHATSOEVER at their schools...none, except in history class if they're discussing social norms, etc. of various nations.

They do say the pledge, so every day the only thing that is remotely related to "God" are the words "under God".  THAT IS IT.  How on earth is that worse for an atheist that what you had to endure throughout your school years????!!!!  You make no sense to me.  

My kids can't even have "Christmas" programs.  They're now called "Winter programs".  The last few years they avoided having programs around Christmas altogether so that there was no issue with the religious aspect of the holidays.  My youngest had his a few weeks after Christmas, and his chorus teacher is an atheist so they had a "save the earth" theme.  How anyone can fear religion influence in America is seriously beyond me.

And, perhaps something you haven't considered is that it might just be the surge of atheist fury and insistence to knock God out of everything in society that has pushed Christians to show more concern over the years.  

I'll say AGAIN, that after reading endless atheists sites, I think there is cause to worry.  The hate being churned up at those sites is simply horrible.

Date: 2007/10/05 22:54:25, Link
Author: Ftk
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 05 2007,22:23)
I know this is against the nice-nice code, but it has to be said.

Einstein was a deist, dumbass. Swing and a miss.

Please do not call me a dumb ass you shit head*.

Do you honestly think that I don't know that Einstein was a deist, you asshole*?  After being in this debate long enough, believe me, you hear about the faith beliefs of virtually ~every~ famous scientist.

His being a deist doesn't change the sentiment in the least, you moron*.

So take you arrogant condescending name calling and shove it* up your ass*.

*I seriously do not know how you people can talk to others like this on a continuous basis.  It doesn't feel good at all.  It makes me feel like a real shit.  Maybe that is why you people are so grouchy and nasty all the time.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:01:38, Link
Author: Ftk

Why is it that you deleted my post but not Ian's????

Date: 2007/10/05 23:12:32, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 05 2007,22:33)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 05 2007,22:23)
I know this is against the nice-nice code, but it has to be said.

Einstein was a deist dumbass. Swing and a miss.

I think you may have missed a fairly important comma there, Ian.

Well, since my last post disappeared, let's try it again.


I am not a "dumbass", you prick*.  Believe me, after being in this debate long enough, you learn about the faith beliefs of~virtually~ every famous scientist.  How anyone can be in this debate for 4 years and not know that Einstein was a deist is beyond me.

If you weren't such as moronic* idiot*, you'd realize that Einstein's being a deist makes no difference whatsoever in regard to the quote I provided.

Now, quit being such a condescending, arrogant, asshole*, and learn how to treat others with respect even if they disagree with your opinions.

*I have no idea how some of you can continuously call people names like those I used above.  It makes me feel like a real shit to treat people like that.  Maybe that's why many of you are so no longer even know or care to know how much better it feels when you treat others with respect.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:15:50, Link
Author: Ftk

Care to show me where I claimed that Einstein was "one of my own"?

Also, please show me how it matters what Einstein's faith beliefs were in regard to that quote?

You people would look for a fight regardless of what I said.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:23:05, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, let me see if I've got this straight, Ian....

You'd rather be in a school environment where they sing hymns to God, say prayers to God, and live under the Church of England, than to have to utter those two nasty words, "under God", in a national pledge each day.

That is certainly odd, IMHO.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:27:45, Link
Author: Ftk
In all honestey[sic], I'm ot[sic] arrogant, nor am I a prick.

And, in all honesty, I'm not a dumbass...

..nor am I a "liar", Jack.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:51:24, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 05 2007,23:20)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 05 2007,23:15)

Care to show me where I claimed that Einstein was "one of my own"?


You said this:

BTW, you may be familiar with a quote by Albert Einstein:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

AMEN brother.

The implication here is that that AE quote is somehow indicative of Einstein feeling the same way as you about science and religion ("brother"), or about religion. I wanted to make sure you didn't hang on to that idea, since it's ridiculously misleading.


Also, please show me how it matters what Einstein's faith beliefs were in regard to that quote?

Um, he makes a remark about religion which you cite approvingly, and his 'faith beliefs' are irrelevant???

Whatever you say, lady.

No, Arden.  That is what you read into what I said.  I was defending myself against J-Dog's assertion that Christians were "brought up incorrectly".

I then went on to explain that I do not base my religious beliefs on faith *alone*, but rather my faith is based on strong evidence.

Einstein's quote is very relevant in this regard.  Science without religion is quite lame...that line between science and religion is fascinating and without consideration of both, science is DULL and wrong headed, IMHO.  If there is a creator of the cosmos, everything we are exploring is the result of it's ultimate design.  

If I had come upon these debate issues early in high school, I'd no doubt have decided to major in some field of science.  That's probably impossible for you to understand, but when considering the astounding complexity in nature and realizing that scientists haven't even scratched the surface as to what is yet to be learned is exciting.  

My teachers and professors taught the "facts", and I don't remember them ever sharing or getting terribly excited about what we don't know or understand (which is the most interesting to contemplate).  Questions are what keep things interesting.  Dogma is boring and stifling.  When considering the astounding complexity of the human body alone, it shines a whole new light on learning, IMHO.  

I also shared this quote...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

...because it tied in with what I was saying in regard to my Christian beliefs...I believe "religion without science is blind".

Basing a religious belief on faith alone is ridiculous, IMHO.

Date: 2007/10/06 00:05:07, Link
Author: Ftk
Hey, Bill, let me ask *you* think I'm a liar?  

It seems everyone around here this week thinks I'm a liar.

Date: 2007/10/06 00:18:54, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2007,00:08)
Before I tell anyone if I think they are a liar, I want to say that atheism is just a religion, based on faith, and you can't prove it or anything. Same for Darwinism. But religion is not faith, it is based on evidence, and based on everything I read on the internet and plus from some reliable sources. So atheism is a religion, but religion is really evidence based, and scientific, which makes it a faith, so my faith in no-God really is scientific. These are more reasons to call someone a prick, and so is faith, and I'm getting ready to do that. But, as I said, I am not a prick, so that stops me.

Just a contemptible old fool., now, Bill.  I didn't say that religion is not based on faith....I said my religious beliefs are not based on faith **alone**.  Atheism is a faith belief.  Nobody can make an absolute statement like "there is no god" without a heavy heaping of faith.  

Now, I wouldn't necessarily consider agnosticism a faith belief...but, that of course depends on the definition.  God knows, there are endless definitions for all of these labels.

Darwinism is based on faith, but evolution is based on facts to a certain point.  Got that? :)  

Oh, and I only called Ian a "prick" because he asked for it.  Now, I must go repent for being such a bitch.  

SORRY, IAN!!!!  I was just trying to make a point, kay??

Date: 2007/10/06 00:27:13, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 06 2007,00:09)

I think you've got it backwards.  Science is not about complexity.  Science tends to reduce seemingly complex phenomena to simpler causes.

So, if we don't use the tools of science to explore the complexity of nature, what then would we use? [please note sarcasm]

Everything about nature is complex, and we have slowly chipped away at understanding that complexity throughout the centuries.  That *is* what science is all about.

When we say something is complex it usually means we don't understand it.


We understand how the human body's complex, no?

Date: 2007/10/06 00:55:00, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (dochocson @ Oct. 06 2007,00:23)

Your beliefs are not based on evidence. They are based on what you were taught. Then what you were taught has led you to interpret things that you see as "evidence".

Here's a hypothetical:

Take a population of say, 1,000,000 people. This group has had no teaching regarding religion or science (a blank slate, if you will).

Over time, I would wager that they would develop some sort of religious belief, probably a deity or two. Probably develop a creation myth of some kind. The odds on this religion even remotely resembling yours are extremely small.

On the other hand, I would expect them eventually to develop a body of scientific knowledge that closely reflects our own.

Why would this be? I'll give you a hint: It has to do with what we can test as opposed to what we simply believe.

Oh really???  

You talk with such authority on the subject.  What are your beliefs?  Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic?  How is it that you were brought up without bias which in turn kept you free from incorrect interpretations of the issues of both religion and science?

Something else you might consider is that perhaps your example may not be comparable to reality.  What if initially there was no "clean slate" like your example suggests, but that oral tradition relayed a history that was painstakingly documented and are still held by the largest three theistic religions...each being supported by the same ancient history yet branching off at a point?  Granted there are many religions, but if you do some research, most are not based on evidence, but rather faith alone.

BTW, we cannot test much of what Darwinism suggests is "fact" either.  

Oh, and what Christian apologetic books have you read?  Just curious.

Date: 2007/10/06 09:44:26, Link
Author: Ftk
Sigh...Bill the reason why I don't address *every* question is because every time I come to this forum, there are questions stacked up that would take me days to thoroughly answer.  Can't anyone understand that?  I pick through and address some that stand out or I'm interested in, and I literally have to let most slide by.  

I see several I'd like to get to, and some that I will ignore because they're ridiculous.  One such question is oldman's HIV/ark scenario.  I don't know if he's even serious.   If the creationist view of the flood is close to being correct, those few survivors wouldn't have to be carrying every deadly disease that was every know to man.  

Are you just being sarcastic?

Obviously, our bodies breakdown and RM, in my mind, would certainly have to be the factor that led to this disease.  

Honestly, I haven't thoroughly read through the Abbie/Behe arguments because I was just so floored at the venom being spewed that I truly figured that she felt she had her back up against wall.  When people act like that in debate, I'm just not sure what on earth is going through their heads.  

The name calling was so intense, it was hard to get to the meat of what the heck they were talking about.  And, chances are, I'd have not understood all of it anyway.  I pretty much bailed around the time when she called Sal a "cottage cheese dripping pussie".  At that point, I honestly questioned her sanity.  

I would certainly think that HIV is caused by random mutation and the breakdown of the body, but it doesn't look like anything I've ever considered as being a positive form of information that would lead to the type of macro changes that would need to occur in molecule to man type scenarios.

I think it was Bill who asked why I was here?  Well, I'm here pretty much for the same reason I wander around other atheist sites.  Honestly, I'm interested in getting to know some of the posters on a more personal level and try to understand why they believe the things they do.  

Wasn't it Kristine (and I believe Jack agreed with her) that it is quite interesting to get to know the people in this debate and the reasons why they believe what they do.  I personally believe that as strongly as most of you believe that Christians are indocrinated into the faith, I believe that applies to everyone in this debate.  

Obviously, many of you take as "fact" things that simply just are not "facts".  You believe in your position as strongly as I believe there is a God.  In the *end*, and after considering all the evidence, many of your "facts" are based on faith.

So, I guess I just like getting to know people and trying to figure out how they come to the conclusions they's interesting.

Am I trying to change anyone's opinion?  Certainly not...that is obviously never going to happen.  Are any of you going to change mine?  Probably not, although I've learned a lot about science due to my participation in these debates, and considering the individual personalities of many of the posters is quite interesting as well, IMHO.  Perhaps I should have gone into psychology.;)

Now, I haven't even read all the posts written since last night, but I'll try to get to them later.  I'm going to go help my husband build a spec house he's been working on...he has a deadline to meet.  He's an architect/general contractor and I usually get hired (or rather conned into helping) toward the end of each job.


Date: 2007/10/06 13:37:34, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (csadams @ Oct. 06 2007,12:38)
On Question Avoidance
May 10, 2005


I guess I misread you. I'm a little disappointed. It seems to me, your not really interested in science or understanding Nature. You ask questions, but your really not interested in the answers. No amount of data or evidence will convince you that scientists understand anything when it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Or The Brown monstrosity, 2005-2006:

76 pages of twisting non-answers.  Each morning, FtK would cut/paste another section from Brown and avoid answering the questions posed by the folks at KCFS.

Unfortunately, it looks like the same behavior [added in edit: of ignoring questions] is being repeated here.  

Too bad.  FtK has an immense capacity to learn, but for some strange reason seems to be unwilling to do so.

And, endless statements like that is why it is ridiculous to spend time answering ALL the questions directed at me.  It doesn't matter how many I answer...I'll always be told that I'm not interested in learning unless I agree with everything you said.  I thought science was also about open inquiry and considering speculation for what it is rather than shoving ideas down people throats and claiming that they are "facts".

So, I come in and hit a few that I find I said.  I also find people sue me.

I also think there is something seriously wrong with blipey.  He lists 30 some odd questions that he has "stacked up" and at the same time says that I'm lying about stating that every time I address or answer one question 3-5 more show up immediately.  

I answered OLDMAN's question about HIV to the best of my knowledge, but that was apparently a non-answer as well.  I honestly have no idea what you people expect from me.  So, if you don't accept my answer to his question, then you're right, I'll guess I'll never be able to answer a question at this forum.  It's funny, but that is one thing I was rarely accused of at KCFS.  We conversed at length about many issues, but I don't remember being told that I wasn't answering a question right after I'd answered one.

CSadams says I'm not interested in learning merely because I disagree with some of the things you people perceive as "fact".  That is *really* sad, imo.  

So, what you're saying is that if students question some of the "facts" you teach them in class, then they are not interested in nature or science.  That's certainly one way to turn a kid off of considering a career in science.  My teacher thinks I'm an idiot and have no interest in nature because I question some of the speculation she puts forth as "fact".  I certainly hope your students don't question your vast knowledge, Cheryl!  

No amount of data will convince me that molecule to man is a "fact" because the data IS NOT THERE (though it is *certainly* a viable theory and should continue to be explored to the fullest, but there are vast problems with the theory as well).  Scientists like yourselves who are not able to admit that fact are turning people away from science like gangbusters.  Your philosophical or religious beliefs get in your way as much as mine do!  

I certainly believe that scientists know much more than I do about these issues, but I also know that those involved in this debate are highly emotional about the religious and philosophical angles as well.  There is no difference between myself and the rest of you in this respect.  

Your conclusion that I'm "unwilling to learn" is a fallacy.  I've learned so much more about science from these debates than I ever did in school.  Your gripe with me is that I question your "facts"...hence, I'm evidently not capabe of learning a thing about science, nor am I *truly* interested.

And, many of the things that were discussed on the Brown thread were subjects that scientists are still striving to understand...yet, since they have come up with *possible scenarios*, we are to believe that these mysteries have been solved.  Possible scenarios do not equal unquestionable conclusions, and they do not mean that we stop looking for those answer from *every* possible angle.

[Going back to work now....had to come home to pick up some windows...siding a house...later]

Date: 2007/10/06 17:06:42, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, let's start with the first five and see how many questions are immediately thrown back.  If there are less then two, I'll answer the next five.  But, not immediately because I would really love to finish up my Miller lecture post at some point in time...I'm also taking my kids to the fair tonight.  And, I'm sorry, but some of these questions are a waste of time.

1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?


2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?

No, I believe they would....that is why I was giving them the warning that someone may be listing personal information about me.  I wanted them to be alert to that happening.  I know Steve has been busy and Wes is not always here, so I just wanted to give them a heads up.

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?

I have not checked into that so I do not know.  I would assume that most do not.  I also don't know if Dembski posted all of their home numbers or whether some of the numbers were through the university.  I honestly did not pay that much attention to the post because I figured it was useless to contact any of them anyway.

You might remember that I got after Dembski once in regard to a proposed Dawkins skit.  Something else you might think about is that he is the target of ridicule on a daily basis from scientists throughout the nation.  This site alone is pathetic in that regard.  You make fun of everything about microsoft paint him into the most ridiculous poses, you make fun of his clothing, etc., etc., and yet you have the audacity to get after him when, on rare occassion, he does the same thing or makes some similiar mistake.  

So, no, I do not think he should have posted those numbers, but it was quite clear that he was very upset with what happened at Baylor and he had reason to be.  Sometimes we do things we regret when we hit a certain point of frustration.  Put yourself in his shoes for just a second....would you go through what he has for the last 15 years if it was all for a lie and to make a bit of cash on the side?  Only if you were crazy.  Same with guys like Gonzalez.  Would you take the chance of being denied tenure and never getting placed in a decent position despite your qualifications just to write about something you don't even believe?  These gentlemen are not liars....if they are, then they are as stupid as you make them out to be.  Nobody would put up with all the crap that they have FOR A LIE.  Also, notice that Dembski apologized, regardless as to whether you believe it to be sincere or not, he recognized that he was wrong and said so.  

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?

I believe I answered that on this page or the last page.

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?

!!! This question is ridiculous.  Obviously, he wouldn't, and I'd have to ask Behe if he was every allowed to go through every book and article one by one and make two separate piles of what he had and had not read.  But, I tried desperately to explain in an earlier discussion that just because we have theories about how something *may have* occurred, that does not mean that all the questions have been answered nor should they be regarded as "fact".  Is there a book or article somewhere that I can read that tells me from start to finish how the immune system evolved through evolutionary mechanisms?  And, do you believe that this article or book can supply us with enough facts to safely say that the answers in regard to the evolutionary pathways that led to the evolution of the immune system is no longer in question?  Is it safe to say that the immune system, in fact, slowly evolved over millions of years from the initial starting point of a mere lonely, simple microbe?  

Okay, 5 questions answered, and I'll be counting how many are thrown back at me.  I'll have to add those to "the stack".  Something else you might consider is that often I don't answer questions because if I answer one, I have 5 other people asking why I'm not addressing theirs!  

Oh, and one other thing...initially I came here only to correct things that were said about me and my blog that were incorrect or misleading.  I didn't come in here to discuss science or answer questions.  I've seen how nasty and unfair you are to people, and I really didn't want to waste my time.  

For instance, I was not planning to post here this weekend, but then Jack came in and wrote that he didn't believe something that I wrote.  When people say things like that, I take it to mean that they believe me to be lying.  I have a serious problem with that because I am NOT a liar.  

I thought with Lenny gone, perhaps I could convince some people that I'm not evil incarnant, but blipey's determined to fill Lenny's shoes, so it will still be difficult to carry on conversations when I have to deal with guys like him and Louis.

Date: 2007/10/06 18:30:52, Link
Author: Ftk
UGHHHHHH!  Okay, can we just lock this thread for a bit because at this point, I've hit frustration again because there are SEVERAL issues I'd like to address from both Bill and Jack, but if everyone else chimes in, I won't know what to start with first, and I'll probably end up just going back to the list and pick off the next five.

Jack - I've not read your whole post because I'm on my way out the door to go to a local fair with my family, but I had really wanted to go on with our previous conversation and actually had several things written on microsoft that I was going to share with you, but what I was writing had a lot to do with my thoughts after the Miller lecture so I was going to try to tie that up first.

Is there some way we can just stop right here for just a while so that guys like Blipe and Louis don't come in here and spew everywhere?  Just give me a bit, okay?

Date: 2007/10/06 18:41:39, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, I can see that I'm going to be bombarded and my request for time out is going to be ignored.

I'll try to answer the next 5 questions on the list when I get back late this evening.

Date: 2007/10/06 18:58:08, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2007,18:46)
I say, OK, a surcease on the questions for now.

But, FTK, you've selected this venue. The bombardment you endure here results from the fact that you have ventured into a board populated by numbers of professional scientists (and many others who associate themselves with their efforts) and declared your belief that one of the most secure and well supported scientific theories of all time - one with consilient connections across a large number of scientific disciplines - is completely unsupported by evidence, a position that you must have known would be greeted as both false and provocative.

What did you expect?


"Okay, I can see that I'm going to be bombarded and my request for time out is going to be ignored." Take note of the times at which posts appear. Example: JAM's challenge was posted just two minutes following yours asking for a break, was likely in preparation for a considerable time, and I'd wager posted without JAM having seen your nearly simultaneous request.

What I expect is that if you really want me to answer your questions, you allow me to without the bombardment.  I cannot thoroughly address questions or rebuttals to my answers if they become endless.  That is what causes me to just give can't be done because I have a job and family.  And, I don't like to give short answers because that only leads to confusion and more questions.

I'm off to the fair..

Date: 2007/10/07 01:24:43, Link
Author: Ftk
Okay, at the moment, I’m going to focus on Bill’s post *only*....if anyone else makes comments regarding this response, I will ignore them regardless of how long they complain about me not answering *their* questions.  If Bill has something further to add in regard to the content of this post, I will respond to him **only**.  

I have a remark about your thoughts about Behe, in response to your statement (quoted above). It is a point made here before, but it is worth repeating, and what you have said misses this important point.

You stated "just because we have theories about how something *may have* occurred, that does not mean that all the questions have been answered..." But in the instance of Behe's DBB argument vis irreducible complexity, demonstrating that something may have occurred as a consequence of natural selection does, in fact, refute his argument. At least with respect to the standards of argumentation that govern the community with which I identify.

As a layperson, this is an area in which considering the “standards of argumentation“ of the scientific community really make little sense to me.   If Behe’s arguments in regard to IC are refuted  merely because scientists may have a scenario that might possibly aid in further clues about the evolution of the immune system or said molecular machine, then it seems to me that Darwinian evolution is unfalsifiable in this regard.  Behe talks a lot about the “edge” of there a point in which the mechanisms of evolution are simply not a viable solution in connecting all the dots.  That is what I believe Marks and Dembski were contemplating in their work at Baylor.  

As a shopworn example: Behe argued that the flagellar mechanism is irreducibly complex because no evolutionary pathway to such a complex mechanism, attained solely by means of natural selection, is even logically possible. That is the heart of his argument vis irreducible complexity. However, others have described at least one such logically possible pathway, involving exaptation from secretory mechanisms. Whether that pathway actually occurred in evolutionary history is an independent question relative to Behe; Behe is saying that no evolutionary pathway is logically possible, yet possible pathways have been proposed.

Behe’s personal opinion, after years of contemplation and research, is that the IC of the flagellum “cannot be attained solely by means of natural selection” (along with the other mechanisms of evolution).  That is the conclusion that he has come to, but I’ve never heard him share his opinion as an absolute.  He encourages the scientific community to prove him wrong, and they have heartily risen to the challenge.  There have been several “possible” pathways proposed, and Behe has responded to each proposal (as far as I know).  

In the discussion about the stacks of books, from what I understand, some of you were saying that what Behe meant was that there were “NO” possible evolutionary pathways for the evolution of the immune system, yet this is never what I believed him to be suggesting.  

If you are correct in your assumption of his position in this respect, then he must have the IQ of a monkey, because I would certainly think that most people know that the immune system has been explored, as well as realize that scientists have been considering possible evolutionary scenarios for years.   If, by chance, there were someone out there who had absolutely no knowledge as to what scientists may or may not have considered in regard to the immune system or molecular machines, they would be able to go to their computer immediately and stick a few words in their search engine and pull up articles in this regard.  

You would think that Behe wouldn’t be dumb enough to lie to his readers about this issue, nor while on trial would he relay this type of information because obviously someone would call him on it.  Why would an intelligent man like Behe make a dishonest statement that he knows scientists will jump on ?  It doesn’t make sense.

I personally believe that, first of all, he was trying to relay that these scenarios are speculation, and secondly he was considering that these evolutionary scenarios seem to assume the power of NS and fly past explaining how *initially* NS & RM gave rise to such a complex system.  Scientists look for those pathways within the already formed systems and consider how they could have possibly functioned independently before the entire system evolved, but they don’t necessarily address in any real depth how the immune system evolved from other species solely through natural selection (though I could be entirely wrong because I’ve not read the stack of books myself).   

Hence Behe’s position is refuted - and will stand as refuted whether or not we can ever articulate the actual evolutionary pathways that have lead to cellular phenomena such as the flagella and the immune system. After all, these are phenomena that occurred in the very deep past, and evidence that would confirm one specific model or another may never be obtainable. But Behe isn't arguing from that evidence - he makes an argument vis the logic of natural selection. The scientific community quickly demonstrated that his logic was incomplete, and that is where it stands.

Well then, in that case, the evidence for the evolution of the immune system does not seem to pass the test of long as scientists keep going back to the drawing board and considering various scenarios and provide us with enough just so stories, then the question as to whether RM&NS can truly provide the means by which the immune system or the flagellum actually evolved will never really be answered nor will they be able to be refuted, because scientists will merely move on to the next scenario.  We will have no choice than to resign ourselves to Darwinism regardless of whether the mechanisms are as powerful as Darwinists suggest or not.

Since certain systems and machines “occurred in the very deep past”, your statement that “evidence that would confirm one specific model or another may never be obtainable” is true, and that seems to set them within the same parameter as what scientists might be able to consider in regard to the inference of design, IMO.

Now, Bill, be easy on me because it’s very late, and I’m exhausted.  But, I wanted to get this post written tonight because I will be out most of the day tomorrow.

Date: 2007/10/08 08:00:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 08 2007,06:38)

I hadn't realized you would be responding to me, and *ONLY* me, telepathically. I wasn't monitoring that channel. Please resend.


Good morning, Bill....

Perhaps, you didn't read this sentence of my last post:

Now, Bill, be easy on me because it’s very late, and I’m exhausted.  But, I wanted to get this post written tonight because I will be out most of the day tomorrow.

Sunday was quite busy for me, although I did read your post early Sunday morning and thought about it on and off throughout the day.   I'll try to jot down my thoughts when I get some time....

I apologize, but I'm not one to just ramble something off when I'm trying to answer a question or respond to an important post.  It is vital that I'm as articulate as possible so that I'm not misunderstood.  

I'm also trying very hard to ignore this fat man who is no doubt legion, because legion does not like ftk.  Also, reading that Dave is quite fond of Hitchens is extremely disturbing.  I guess I just keep hoping that Dave will at least try to understand those from my side of the debate, but every time he opens his mouth lately, my hopes seem to completely shatter...keep religion in the basement....Hitchens is reasonable?  Goodness sakes alive, it just gets worse all the time.  

So, I'm trying to get past the nonsense and focus on the important issues, but honestly, when I read posts written by a Kansas biology professor who supports Hitchens, it literally gives me a sinking feeling in my stomach and leads me to further believe that his motives have much more to do with his philosophy about life than his concerns about science....though he seems to be competely and utterly blind to this fact.

So, as you can see, I do get easily distracted by the other posters, but I will now try desperately to concentrate on your post alone.

Date: 2007/10/08 09:03:06, Link
Author: Ftk
Excuse me, Dave, but why then did you relay this story?

And, why, after telling us about this gentleman’s approval of Hitchens, did you write:

So I thought I should let you know that there are indeed some reasonable Kansans out here. They can read, and understand, and even recommend a book on atheism to a stranger on an airplane.

Do you understand why it is very hard for me to continue to believe that you are being honest?  I did not put any words in your mouth.  You reported what this genlemen said, and then wanted the readers to know that they should be glad that there are “indeed some reasonable Kansans out there”.  

Why do you continue to try to weasel out of things that you are implying?  And, if you really wanted me to “concentrate on answering those questions” rather than continue in what you proclaim to be “shoddy tactic” , you would BUTT OUT OF THIS THREAD and quit making comments that you[ b]know[/b] are going to irritate me.  You didn’t need to write that post in the first place other than to imply that your airplane buddy is a “reasonable Kansan” because he suggests reading atheist books like Hitchens (of all people).  Obviously, using the term “reasonable Kansan” is a slam to me as my blogsite holds that name.  

Bill, I apologize, but this kind of stuff frustrates me to no end.  I WILL be addressing your last post sometimes today.

Date: 2007/10/08 19:09:15, Link
Author: Ftk
Bill, I apologize for the delay.  You wrote:

This is the heart of the issue, and in my opinion you are not quite characterizing Behe's position accurately.

As you know, Behe's argument in Darwin's Black Box revolved around the logic of "irreducible complexity." To paraphrase his argument: "within the black box of cell biology we find biological structures of such complexity that they could not have been assembled gradually, stepwise, by natural selection. Those systems are entirely non-functional until fully assembled; because intermediate steps are non-functional they cannot have conferred adaptive advantage, and therefore could not have been selected for. Hence natural selection is incapable of assembling such irreducibly complex structures."

In short, Behe's main assertion was that, at least for these few irreducibly complex structures, there are NO POSSIBLE evolutionary pathways that may be traversed solely by means of mutation and selection.

Okay, thank you very much for discussing this with me without all the name calling, etc.  This dialogue has been very beneficial in helping me understand why some of you seem to think that Behe was lying.  I believe the confusion centers on something that also leads to endless accusations of quote mining.  Darwinists seem to assert that if there are scholarly articles published in regard to possible evolutionary scenarios for a particular organism, system, or whatever, that it is heresy for an IDist to suggest that the explanation is speculative.

As you stated above, you believe that since Behe has stated that natural selection is incapable of assembling IC structures, then he is being dishonest because many scientists have written papers in which they contemplate *how* these structures *could possibly* have evolved through natural selection.  

As far as my previous comment that I don’t believe that Behe makes “absolute” statements, I will have retract that claim, because he does state that the mechanism of NS is not capable of producing IC systems like the flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, etc.  And, I’ve often heard him say, when asked why he has not conducted further research in trying to negate his conclusion, that he wouldn’t conduct that type of research because “it would not be fruitful”.  So, he believes that NS, in fact, cannot explain molecular machines as well as other highly complex systems.  This is not a surprise to me, and I should have never suggested that he doesn’t talk in absolutes in the first place.  My point is that although he obviously believes that NC is incapable of many things, he doesn’t suggest that Darwinists shouldn’t continue in further effort to negate his assertion, and as we have seen, many have tried.  

When I first heard Behe state that he would not conduct further research in regard to how NC could aid in the evolution of the flagellum, I thought “gee, why not?”, but after thinking about this for a while, the answer became quite clear.  After years of research, reading, contemplation, as well as writing books and articles on the subject, he truly believes that further research would result in a waste of *his* time.  

Please consider his response in the following way for just a moment:  Most of you are not willing to teach ID in schools because you believe it to be wrong headed, just as Behe believes further research on his part would be in vain.  Or, consider a creationist asking you to work with them on research supporting a young earth...this is something that you would not participate in because you would believe that your research “would not be fruitful” in supporting a young earth.

One type of research that and ID supporter would be interested in would be what we found taking place at Baylor before the shit hit the fan.   Marks was interested in using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do.  

There is also the issue that Behe, I believe, tried to explain several times in regard to the testimony, and that is something I mentioned in an earlier post....”evolutionary scenarios seem to assume the power of NS and fly past explaining how *initially* NS & RM gave rise to such a complex system. Scientists look for those pathways within the already formed systems and consider how they could have possibly functioned independently before the entire system evolved, but they don’t necessarily address in any real depth how the immune system evolved from other species solely through natural selection“.

I believe that the following from the Kitzmiller transcript might also provide an example of what I’m trying to get at:

Behe:  Yes, that's right. Professor Miller showed these two figures from Davidson, et al, and from Jiang, et al, Jiang and Doolittle, and said that the suggestions can be tested by detailed analysis of the clotting pathway components.

But what I want to point out is that whenever you see branching diagrams like this, especially that have little names that you can't recognize on them, one is talking about sequence comparisons, protein sequence comparisons, or DNA nucleotide sequence comparisons. As I indicated in my testimony yesterday, such sequence comparisons simply don't speak to the question of whether random mutation and natural selection can build a system.

For example, as I said yesterday, the sequences of the proteins in the type III secretory system and the bacterial flagellum are all well-known, but people still can't figure out how such a thing could have been put together. The sequences of many components of the blood clotting cascade have been available for a while and were available to Russell Doolittle when he wrote his essay in the Boston Review.

And they were still unhelpful in trying to figure out how Darwinian pathways could put together a complex system. And as we cited yesterday, in Professor Padian's expert statement, he indicates that molecular sequence data simply can't tell what an ancestral state was. He thinks fossil evidence is required.

So my general point is that, while such data is interesting, and while such data to a non-expert in the field might look like it may explain something, if it's asserted to explain something, nonetheless, such data is irrelevant to the question of whether the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection can explain complex systems.

Q. So is it your opinion then, the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex?

A. Yes, it is.

Bill wrote:
This is essentially a claim about the logic of selection. Behe did not argue merely that we have yet to empirically demonstrate the existence of such evolutionary pathways; he argued that pathways paved to these structures by natural selection cannot exist. Therefore Behe himself set the bar for the refutation of his assertion: to show that he is wrong, one need only show that one or more such pathways could exist utilizing only the resources of natural selection. It was the strength of Behe's claims that dictated that this is sufficient for their refutation. Plausible evolutionary pathways have indeed been described for structures Behe characterized as irreducibly complex (e.g. bacterial flagella) based upon known phenomena that Behe ignored, such as scaffolding and exaptation (cooption). Behe's image of "parts being assembled" has also been shown to omit important elements of the model proposed by natural selection. He may dispute that these pathways would actually work, but he doesn't get to decide that. The scientific community does.

Okay, this again helps me better understand your position, but *to me* (as a lay person looking from the outside in) this issue seems trivial, and does not imply that Behe is a liar, IMHO.  Behe truly believes molecular machines  cannot be explained by the mechanisms of evolution.  The best example is the flagellum, and there have been several papers written trying to refute his claim, and he has offered rebuttals.  At this point in time, from what I have been able to discern, it does not seem that the mysteries surrounding the evolution of the flagellum have been solved.  

And, as I stated in my earlier post (which you did not comment on):

the evidence for the evolution of the immune system does not seem to pass the test of long as scientists keep going back to the drawing board and considering various scenarios and provide us with enough just so stories, then the question as to whether RM&NS can truly provide the means by which the immune system or the flagellum actually evolved will never really be answered nor will they be able to be refuted, because scientists will merely move on to the next scenario. We will have no choice than to resign ourselves to Darwinism regardless of whether the mechanisms are as powerful as Darwinists suggest or not.

Since certain systems and machines “occurred in the very deep past”, your statement that “evidence that would confirm one specific model or another may never be obtainable” is true, and that seems to set them within the same parameter as what scientists might be able to consider in regard to the inference of design, IMO.

So, in conclusion, although there are scientists working at evolutionary pathways that could exist, it doesn’t make Behe a liar to suggest that they are contemplating what he believes to be an impossible feat.  So, although there is a loophole here in which Darwinsts can assert that Behe should have been more careful with his wording when considering what the plaintiff’s lawyer could do with his words, I do not belive him to be a liar.  I cannot imagine anyone with his knowledge of the subject purposely implying that there has been *no* research done in regard to the possible pathways that could explain the evolution of the immune system, he just believes that they are speculative and riddled with problems.  As I said earlier, he would have to be a moron rather than a liar to make the assertions that you seem to imply, because he was making this statement in front of scientists who know better.  Why would he make a statement that he *knew* he’d get called on?  

Okay, no doubt, you’ll have something to say about this post, so I want you to know that I may not be able to get back to you until tomorrow night sometime.  I’m off to the store right now, but perhaps I may find the time to pop back in here late tonight.

Also, consider that at some point, we have to peacefully agree to disagree on a few things.  I don’t think the objective should always be to try to *convince* the other person that they are wrong, or to play up to the lurkers by trying to make each other look stupid, but rather we should be trying to understand one another and not immediately assume that the other person is a liar, evil, stupid or deluded.  You contemplated at one point whether I was still open minded to the more questionable aspects of evolution, and I will say that I am as probably as open minded to those areas of evolution as you are open minded to ID or creationist theories.  Fair enough?

[Please forgive any typos, etc.   My kids have been distracting me to no end while I've been writing this because they want my computer to play Runescape.  The little stinkers need to get a job and buy their own flippin' computers.]

Date: 2007/10/08 22:38:02, Link
Author: Ftk
Bill writes:

If what you say is accurate, you have heard Behe declare is that he is not interested in the scientific investigation of his OWN hypothesis. The essence of the scientific method is to utilize one's hypothesis to generate unique predictions regarding future empirical findings - predictions of sufficient power and specificity that upon its disconfirmation one is compelled to modify or discard one's model. Instead, as you describe it, Behe simply assumed that his proposed model is true and walked away from actually researching that proposition.

FTK, that is not science.

He has provided predictions in regard to future empirical findings...he predicts they “won’t be fruitful” (lol!).

Kidding aside, it seems to me that the man has broken down the flagellum in every way imaginable and he’s saying, hey, NS just ain’t gonna ‘splain it.  So, from what I have gathered, the ID camp has been contemplating this “edge” of evolution, and as I stated in my last post, Marks/Dembski were “interested in using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do.”

It seems to me that this type of research could aid in offering further predictions in regard to ID, or it may negate some of the assertions that ID proponents have made.  I would certainly be guessing, but chances are quite high that Behe would eventually be involved in this type of research in some capacity if it every gets off the ground.  But, again, I believe that this must take place within mainstream science...not in the basement of the Discovery Institute, or it will never be considered anything other than pseudoscience.  If Darwinists continue to censor this type of research the way they have in the past, the public will become more and more skeptical about evolution.  

Now let’s turn the tables for just a second.  Darwinists assert that these complex systems that Behe considers IC are the product of Darwinian evolution.  They continue to propose various scenarios in regard to how these evolutionary pathways *may have* evolved.  But, I have yet to see anything proposed that would falsify their claim that these systems arose through evolutionary means.  What specifically would disconfirm their assumptions or compel them to modify or discard their theory that the mechanisms of evolution are responsible for the rise of these systems?

And, FTK, I think you need to re-read my post, because this passage tells me that you did not understand its central point. Behe has argued that there exist structures for which an evolutionary origin (in the standard sense) is IMPOSSIBLE (his argument regarding irreducible complexity.) His argument is therefore refuted if it can be demonstrated that an evolutionary origin IS POSSIBLE, and this has clearly been demonstrated. It may be trivial in the larger scientific scheme that Behe's argument has been refuted, but it is fatal to his model as described in DBB, and hence for that phase of intelligent design.

I did understand your central point, and the problem here is that evolutionists believe that anything “is possible” in the sense of what the mechanisms of evolution can accomplish.  So yes, in that sense, Behe would will always be refuted in this regard.  

One cannot argue with personal credulity, and I have yet to see what could possibly falsify proposed evolutionary pathways for these complex systems.  If one hypothesis is refuted, it’s merely back to the lab to look for another “possible” explanation.

Also, I apologize for implying that you deemed Behe a liar.  I was absentmindedly considering what other posters had said in this regard, which is something that I should not have done.  As I mentioned in a previous post, this is a poor way to conduct oneself when trying to carry on dialogue with a specific person.

Again, I am truly sorry.

Date: 2007/10/09 00:40:17, Link
Author: Ftk

Regardless of whether  this is “how science works“, by your own requirements, evolution is still a poor example of good science because as you have stated, it is vital that theories offer:  “predictions of sufficient power and specificity that upon [their] disconfirmation one is compelled to modify or discard one's model“  You also wrote “Instead, as you describe it, Behe simply assumed that his proposed model is true and walked away from actually researching that proposition.”

Evolutionists assume that evolution is TRUE, just as Behe assumes that the flagellum is IC, and although evolutionists continue to  put forth theories and attempt to solve the illusion of complexity found in the flagellum, each time a theory is refuted, it’s back to the drawing board.   It is not possible to falsify the theory.  There is no means by which to falsify the claim that the the flagellum arose through the mechanisms of evolution.  As I asked previously and you stated this would be vital to making ID a legitimate theory, “What specifically would disconfirm their assumptions or compel them to modify or discard their theory that the mechanisms of evolution are responsible for the rise of these systems?”  How many modifications would it take before they consider discarding their attempts to confine the research to evolutionary solutions and consider a different scenario?

There must be an answer to this vital question, or by your standards, evolution is a poor example of “how science works”.

It also seems to me that evolutionists never retract their claims when they state that the IC of the flagellum has been refuted.  Ken Miller goes around the country stating that Behe has been refuted in regard the the IC of the flagellum.  This is simply not true, and Behe has responded to these of today,  the evolutionary pathways of the flagellum have not been sufficiently explained.  Is this another one of those misunderstandings of “how science works“, and Miller merely puts forth that Behe has been refuted because *attempts* have been made in this regard.  If that is the case, his statements are extremely misleading.  He makes it sound as if the flagellum has, in fact, been explained by evolutionary means.  It sounds like no further work need be considered in this regard.

BTW, from an evolutionists standpoint, what are the “unique predictions regarding future empirical findings - predictions of sufficient power and specificity " when considering the evolutionary pathways of the bacterial flagellum?

Date: 2007/10/09 18:08:48, Link
Author: Ftk
LOL...were you the one who wrote that??  Good grief..I thought that was Blipey.  I can't imagine why you would believe that I thought there was something in that article that suggested that Koonin would support a 6,000 yr. old earth or information about a "diety".

I'm guessing you were joking around, but it's hard to tell sometimes.  Some comments in which I believe the poster is just trolling for kicks turn out to be posters who are deadly serious! Go figure.

Hey, Bill, I started a response earlier today and got side tracked.  I'll be back home tonight around 9pm, so hopefully, I'll get my next post to you before you go to bed tonight!  


Date: 2007/10/09 22:57:04, Link
Author: Ftk
Bill wrote:

This response tells me once again that, although you claim to understand my description of the refutation of Behe's claims for IC, you simply don't.

Recall the logic of my argument:

- Behe states that it is IMPOSSIBLE that certain objects (those he calls irreducibly complex) have arisen stepwise by means of natural selection. He suggests the bacterial flagellum as an example. You have acknowledged that he made this absolutist claim.

- Therefore, once it has been demonstrated that such pathways are POSSIBLE, Behe is refuted.

With me so far?

- Ken Miller has described a model of the origination of the flagellum that argues that the flagellum incorporates many structures and proteins that originally evolved for other purposes (e.g. the secretory pump) and were subsequently exapted or coopted into the flagellum, and has presented considerable evidence supporting that assertion. His model may be, but is not yet necessarily, correct. Whether or not it IS correct, it describes a POSSIBLE series of selectable, step-wise events leading to the evolution of the flagellum that surmounts Behe's assertions regarding well-matched parts, all needing to be present for functionality, etc.

- Therefore Behe's argument that it is IMPOSSIBLE that this structure could have evolved in a stepwise manner IS REFUTED. Behe is wrong: it IS possible. Because of the high standard that Behe set in making his argument, he is refuted on his own terms. Because of the strength of Behe's claim, it isn't necessary that a complete account of the evolution of the flagellum be produced in order to refute those claims. Behe's assertions that particular proposed pathways don't work, even if correct, do not change the fact his thesis regarding IC is refuted in the instance of the flagellum. All these proposed pathways need to be is possible, and Behe is refuted. Whether they are also actual is NOT RELEVANT to the refutation of Behe - although this question is obviously important to further science.

In response to your first sentence above, you are incorrect in asserting that I “simply don’t” understand your description of the refutation of Behe’s claims about IC.  You quoted me as follows...

It also seems to me that evolutionists never retract their claims when they state that the IC of the flagellum has been refuted. Ken Miller goes around the country stating that Behe has been refuted in regard the the IC of the flagellum. This is simply not true, and Behe has responded to these of today, the evolutionary pathways of the flagellum have not been sufficiently explained.

...but, you should have included the rest of the paragraph where I stated:

Is this another one of those misunderstandings of “how science works“, and Miller merely puts forth that Behe has been refuted because *attempts* have been made in this regard. If that is the case, his statements are extremely misleading. He makes it sound as if the flagellum has, in fact, been explained by evolutionary means. It sounds like no further work need be considered in this regard.

So, it may not have been as clear as I’d hoped, but as I implied above, in your opinion,  Miller refutes Behe's claim because Miller has provided a *possible* scenario to the problem that Behe says is impossible to attain.  And, as you have stated, Behe will always be refuted in this regard due to his indication that evolution of the flagellum is not possible.

The problem that I see with this is that, as you have stated, “His [Miller’s] model may be, but is not yet necessarily, correct. Whether or not it IS correct, it describes a POSSIBLE series of selectable, step-wise events leading to the evolution of the flagellum that surmounts Behe's assertions regarding well-matched parts, all needing to be present for functionality, etc.”  So, as I have been implying endlessly, ultimately there is no way to falsify the assertion that the flagellum arose through evolutionary processes, because another scenario will always arise.  

Let me also say, that from a layperson’s view, the way Miller presents this information seems highly misleading.  He should work MUCH harder at trying to explain this in the terms that you are suggesting because it comes across that Behe is being dishonest, and that the evolution of the flagellum has, point blank, been explained.  End of subject.  

Here was my impression, as a layperson, after coming back from Miller’s lecture in Sept. 2006:

He [Miller] also said that the bacterial flagellum has been determined to have arisen through evolutionary processes. He proclaimed that Behe’s book is outdated because of this fact. This is sheer nonsense, as I’ve read the responses from the DI regarding this bogus claim.

He made no attempt whatsoever to try to explain this in the same means that you are relaying to me now.  Nevertheless, as I stated before, this angle is positively trivial.  Behe has refuted several of the models that have been proposed for the flagellum.  So when, if ever, do Darwinists consider that they may have to make serious modifications to their theory or discard it?  As I indicated at my blog today, it seems that some scientists have begun to not only acknowledge the problems with evolution, but rather than conveniently ignore them, they are considering different  scenarios.  So this is very positive, IMHO.  [Please, please note that I fully understand that Koonin still supports evolution, and that he is not arguing for ID or a “6,000 yr. old earth”. *eyes rolling* ]

The rest of your post was in reference to the assertion that there are no predictions in regard to Behe’s IC of the flagellum, but that Miller’s particular model offers a prediction that can be falsified.   As I got to thinking about what I stated earlier in joking, it seems to me that it would actually be a legitimate prediction for an IDist to state that the evolutionary pathways for various molecular machines or complex systems will not be attained.  We should also consider predictions in regard to junk DNA... IDists have been predicting for years that “junk DNA” is not junk.   It’s packed with valuable “information”.  ID theorists may have some work to do yet before scientists will accept the theory as “scientific“, but I think they are heading in the right direction in what they are trying to get started at Baylor.

And, again, in regard to falsification....Darwinism is as unfalsifiable as Darwinists proclaim ID to be.  Various hypothesis may be falsified, as in the Miller example you provided, but back to the lab they go.  Regardless of how inane the experimentation may eventually become, there will always be another scientist looking to *make it work*, unless more scientists like Koonin, who I referenced in an article above, start looking to enhance the theory in other ways.   Even then, it appears to me that we will be stuck with Darwinism in one form or another forever, because in the end, personal credulity plays a major factor when considering things that we want to believe occurred, but will never know for certain that they actually have.  As you stated in a previous post...

After all, these are phenomena that occurred in the very deep past, and evidence that would confirm one specific model or another may never be obtainable.

There’s the rub.  Darwinism may be wrong headed,  but since mainstream science believes it’s the best we have, and we’ve tied it in so tightly with the the teaching of mainstream biology, it would be heretical to even question the extent to which evolutionary mechanisms can actually be deemed effective.  

And, unfortuately ID is out (at the moment) due to Judge Jones' proclamation that, although the theory could be correct, it’s “not science”, it's "religion".  Although, *religion* and *religious implications* are two completely different matters, and he conflates the two.

Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it leads, but unfortunately, since ID implies that there was a designer responsible for our existence which may be connected with the natural or supernatural world, we’ll never be able to explore that inference more thoroughly unless we keep research confined to the church....or better yet, confined to the basement of the church.

Let me just say again how much I have appreciated your tone throughout our discussion and your willingness to discuss these issue without the nonsense.  Seriously...much appreciated.

[edit: clarity/grammar]
[second edit:  clarity in regard to JJ's proclamation]

Date: 2007/10/10 13:07:50, Link
Author: Ftk
Hi Louis,

Speaking on behalf of my piranha alter ego, I'll more than admit that I succumb rather easily to a fisherman eagerly waving the bait, but there are many issues much more pressing for me to address than to try to carry on a conversation with someone who is already convinced that they know my every thought and objective in regard to this debate.

PS:  Bill, to me, it appears that we’ve about come to a standstill.  If there is anything that you feel I have not addressed to your satisfaction, please let me know.  Otherwise, I’m going to go back to finishing up my lecture review.  Upon completion of that review, if Jack is still interested, I’ll return to his discussion request next.

Date: 2007/10/10 13:48:49, Link
Author: Ftk
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 10 2007,13:18)

Here's what's really interesting about the topic of PZ's post that spurred that comment.

[climbs up onto her soapbox]

Ever notice how PZ takes every opportunity to highlight those bloggers who rant hysterically about IDists...specifica