AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: GCT

form_srcid: GCT

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.33.176

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: GCT

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'GCT%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/08/23 06:07:04, Link
Author: GCT
Henry J:  "Did any of those letters answer Lenny's questions?"

evopeach:  "It may come as big shock...."

So, can we assume that none of those letters answer Lenny's questions?

Considering the fact that Lenny's most famous question is "What is the theory of ID," I do think that whatever you think of Lenny, the question certainly has merit.  Can you answer that simple question?

Date: 2005/08/23 10:29:58, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,

Here is a definition of evolution:

What is Evolution?

That will get you started.

As for the definition of ID, there is none.  But, you seem to think there is.  Can you point us to one?  A link will suffice.

"1) Anyone who hangs their hat on an undefined singularity, cosmic egg, etc. and believes that the universe and all that we observe is the result of hydrogen gas chaotically swirling around, combining with minor constituents under the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them results in the human brain is so far removed from rational thinking, critical thinking, sound analytics and such that it engenders incredulity in the trained and reasoning mind."

Gee, it's so easy to state something in an absurd way and then argue about how absurd it is, isn't it?

"2) The text books on biology and other evolutionary biased sciences have contained so many totally discredited ideas, experiments, hypotheses and never corrected that it becomes crystal clear that the evolutionary community is untruthful, incapable of self disclipline, engaged in purposeful fraud for financial and power gain and is deeply flawed in principle as the evidence has shown."

Examples please, or is it OK for you to chide STJ for making assertions then turn around and do it yourself?

"3) The hostility toward all things metaphysical and of faith is so rabid and ill founded that it renders any attempt at mutual respect and transparency in the debate essentially impossible. The adherents are so dedicated to the agnostic, atheistic and egocentric philosophies of humanism and such that every thought and action are saddled indeed burdened by the baggage and continues the  hinderance of  effective, efficient,open and expansive approaches to true science."

This is outright refuted by the posters on PT (like PVM, Nick Matzke, Wesley Elsberry, etc. who are not atheists), scientists like Ken Miller, and many other theists who also ascribe to evolution.

Date: 2005/08/23 12:47:25, Link
Author: GCT
First of all, what are you trying to point out with those dictionary citations?  Are those supposed to be where your scientific definition of ID can be found?  Let me guess, they all say something like, "ID posits that certain forms of life are better explained by an intelligent designer than by a purposeless process."  Unfortunately the question was sort of a trick question, because ID has no scientific definition, nor can it.  ID is predicated on the supernatural, which lies outside of the scope of science.  But, hey, if you want to provide a link (which I did ask for so that I don't have to run all over the place looking for some book) to a good definition, or copy and paste it on here, go ahead.

I'll also note that you could not back up your assertions and you had nothing to say about the fact that many theists accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Your silence has been noted.

Date: 2005/08/23 15:34:30, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 23 2005,14:41)
GCT

I reply to cover several coments on the thread not just one individual ... see one of me ... lots of you. Its called efficiency of purpose.

Yes there are theistic evolutionists about 1-2% and they are mostly silent as to their reasoning for such.

1) They have faith in scripture, revelation, purpose.
That puts them in the camp of the psychologically disturbed according to the Lennyites.

2) Their God is powerless, harmless, inept, removed and a sort of pacifer. (not the God of the bible)

But hey for most people of faith this subject is less than an essential to a common understanding.

1-2%, that's it?  Wow.  And you paint them with such a broad brush as well.  That's quite impressive how dismissive you are of them.

I do have a problem believing that you can read Lenny's mind on this matter, however.

Also, your numbers are flat wrong.

Evolution Poll

Now, would you care to recant your 1-2%?

Date: 2005/08/23 16:50:09, Link
Author: GCT
51% of people who identify themselves as adherents of evolutionary theory agreed with the following statement:

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

That is theistic evolution.

51%, not 1-2%.

Not only have you made assertions that you can't back up, but you've been shown to be incorrect in your assertions.

You also still haven't backed up the assertions of purposeful fraud, etc.

Date: 2005/08/24 13:15:29, Link
Author: GCT
First of all, the fact that you can still argue that your 1-2% figure is correct is beyond the pale.  Where did you get that figure, out of your backside?  But, when an actual poll is shown to you, you still reject it.  Perhaps you should read the PT thread that recently went up on what is science?  The inability to correct errors after facts present themselves is a good indicator.

1. Answer to embryonic recapitulation

2. and 7.  Abiogenesis is (once again) a separate theory.  God could have zapped the first single-celled reproducing organisms onto the planet and evolution could have taken over from there.  It's really not that difficult to understand and honestly I don't know why you have such a problem comprehending that.  But, even so, if you are referring to the Urey-Miller abiogenesis experiments (I'm not sure of any Miller Fox experiments) the NCSE says this:

Quote
A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.


3.  Perhaps it would help if you specified how the fossil record is misrepresented?  This resource also might help you out.
Fossil Record resource
As for fossil frauds, I suppose you are talking about Kennewick man and Piltdown Man?  Perhaps you should peruse PT for those, considering the stories are not as bad as you seem to think.  For instance, Kennewick Man was never reported by the finders as being definitely a hominid, but that claim was made by news organizations.  Also, in all cases, it is scientists double checking other people's work that finds errors, not creationists.

4.  You will have to be more specific here, although I suspect you mean that science excludes god in an a priori fashion?  Nothing is further from the truth.  One is free to make hypotheses based on god, and if one can successfully navigate the scientific method, then it's all good.  If god is assumed to not be a part of the equation, that is an a posteriori assumption.

5.  SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.  If you think it does, then state your case.

6.  Simply because Dembski says there are codes in genomes does not make it so.  It is neither fraud nor misrepresentation to make an unwarranted jump to conclusions based on no evidence.

7.  Why would one dismiss the fossil record when we have found a lot of "missing links" over the years.  IIRC we have over a hundred different hominids from the fossil record.  That's quite a good deal.

8.  All proposals and experiments have ended in failure over the last 100 years?  That's news to everyone.  Even hard-core creationists like yourself grant that microevolution happens.  That doesn't sound like failure to me.

Date: 2005/08/24 17:05:00, Link
Author: GCT
Here is an article about a real, live theistic evolutionist for you Evopeach, plus a good dig at the DI.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html....24.html

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim of 1-2%.

Date: 2005/08/25 05:11:00, Link
Author: GCT
I wrote:

Quote
As for fossil frauds, I suppose you are talking about Kennewick man and Piltdown Man?


I should not have included Kennewick Man, however, but instead should have said "Nebraska Man."  So, Nebraska Man is the one I was talking about in the rest of the paragraph.

Date: 2005/08/25 05:28:03, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
The answers to poll questions often reflect the way the question is asked and certainly on the definition of terms. Since your term theistic-evolution does not appear in the poll the logical option is th e 1-2 % other.


No, it is NOT logically an option to use the figure that you pulled out of your gluteous.  You have yet to back that up, which is something you called "sophistry" and chided STJ for, but are using now.  That is called hypocrisy.

Besides, what is a theistic evolutionist?  I would say it is one who believes in god and also accepts evolutionary theory.  The 51% of people that accept evolutionary theory and say that god guided evolution would fit that definition.  This thread is titled, "Intellectual Honesty," which is YOUR title by the way, so perhaps you could show some and admit that your argument is flawed?

Quote
You restated the history of recapitulation.. is that supposed to be an answer as to why it was included as evidence of evolution (macro-evolution) through the 90's. It was fraudulent, purposefully misleading to young impressionable minds all to support an erroneous world view.


Um, perhaps you missed this section?

Quote
What textbooks say
For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel's drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context -- stating why Haeckel is wrong -- and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution. Guttman uses them in an explicitly historical context as well. Wells states that books use "Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them" (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true. Figure 10 shows Haeckel's drawings compared to the drawings in the textbooks reviewed by Wells. It can be clearly seen that a majority of the drawings are not "redrawn." Some textbooks show more accurate drawings; some use photos; only Starr and Taggart (and Raven and Johnson in their development chapter along with accurate drawings and photos) use what could be considered embryos "redrawn" from Haeckel. No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly "recapitulationist." In most textbooks, embryology is presented in just one or two paragraphs, making it hard to discuss all the complexities of development. At a high school level, the aim of the book is to convey some basic concepts of biology, not to confuse students with the complexity of a subject.


Really.  It wasn't that hard to find.  Admit it, you scanned the first couple sentences then stopped and decided there was nothing there, didn't you?

Quote
There are no uncontested transitional fossils yet even Dawin predicted there would be myriads of such yet worm tracks in mud and holes in he ground connect an unknown unimaginable first life forms to the complex invertebrates nothiong over a billion year span, then from invertibrates to vertebrates without a single transitional fossil... should be millions upon millions.


First of all, that's not what Darwin predicted.  He predicted that fossils would be hard to find and rare.  Also, there are transitional fossils before, during, and after the Cambrian period.  Perhaps you overlooked the Ediacaran fossils for instance?  I'm not going to do your homework for you, especially since I have already pointed you to a source for fossil record information at the NCSE.  Check out their other pages on the subject and check the talk.origins pages.  Just because you don't read it, however, does not mean that they don't exist.

Quote
Any one can read these facts if they will studey the words of the most prominent scientists since 1890.. you have to read the dissenters .. not the sychophantic true believers.


And those people are?

Quote
Miller to Fox to Urey all were 100 % failures in the origin of life experiments.


No, actually they weren't.  Urey-Miller was erroneous, but mostly because they didn't realize that the evironmental conditions that they set up were actually less conducive to life than what we now know.  So, if they could get life to form in conditions that were actually harsher than reality, then what do you think are the chances that life could form through abiogenesis?

Quote
Get real.


And your suggestion for doing that would be to read the Bible?  Do you have an alternative for evolution?  Do you have any evidence in favor of your alternative?

Date: 2005/08/25 12:56:18, Link
Author: GCT
The question is whether these people exist, not policy decisions.  Science is NOT decided by popular vote.  And, the poll that you brought with you only undercuts your assertions.

Quote
Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%

27% of Americans are theistic evolutionists according to this poll.  I would say that if 27% of all Americans are theistic evolutionists, then that means that your 1-2% figure is off.
Quote
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%

If we take this 13% to represent non-theistic evolutionists, then now the percentage of people who accept evolution that are theistic evolutionists is 67.5%, not 1-2%.  By trying to be clever, you have shot your own argument in the foot.

A main thrust of your arguments against evolution is that it is atheistic.  If over 50% of people who accept evolutionary theory also believe in god, then it cripples your argument.
Quote
Darwin did predict transitional fossils and stated that early on his excuse for not seeing them was the lack of exploration and such would be cured by time and thatif such did not emerge that would be a great difficulty to his theory.

Darwin did predict that some fossils would be found and that it would be a difficulty if no fossils were found, but he also said that he doubted we would find detailed transitional pathways.  We somewhere between 100-200 distinct hominid fossils, however, how many more do you need.
Quote
Don't point me to purely evolutionist propaganda sources

Those sources are starting points.  You can also do literature searches.  Of course, at least I bring sources with me, whereas you bring......nothing.  I believe you called that "sophistry."
Quote
Boy its great to have 3-4 of those Microsoft actives and retirees on the board at D.I. along with we lesser folks..

Are you saying that you are on the board of the DI?
Quote
No not the bible just detailed and honest reading of your own camps materials will do nicely.

So, your alternative to evolution can be found by studying more evolution?  Um, please clarify.  Also, in the past you have characterized the Bible as being accurate in the area of the origins of life, do you take that back now?
Quote
Anyone who can see or imagine any origin experiments that give a scintilla of demonstrable support for abiogenesis step forward and claim the Nobel prize. This is after 100 years of evolutionist activity now stated to be totally unrelated to evolution and unimportant to the debate by your team.... which is it dude?

Once again (and I have not equivocated on this topic at all, so don't act like I have) abiogenesis is separate from evolution!
Quote
Your ship is sinking fast .... Charles Titanic Darwin.

Is that like Dembski talking about our "Waterloo?"

Date: 2005/08/26 10:22:14, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Guess you missed those 55% who believe God created man in his present form and the 65% who think both views should be taughtin public schools.

Evolutionist filtering and claimed superiority and selective reading as usual...why am Inot surprised by your hubris and intellectual dihonesty... because I've seen it in action for 30 years.


My intellectual dishonest?  You've just got done moving the goal posts out of the stadium and I'm the one who is intellectually dishonest?  You made a claim that 1-2% of people who accept evolution are also theists.  I presented you with a poll that shows that your claim is wrong.  You came back with another poll that strengthened my position on the matter at hand.  So, the ball is still in your court.  Will you retract your erroneous statements or won't you?  You have been shown to be wrong and your refusal to accept that and your refusal to retract your statement shows intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.  Until you can admit your error, how can we have an honest discussion?  Admit your error and we can deal with the other issues.

Date: 2005/08/29 03:10:53, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
figurines made from 5% bone and 95% plaster of paris.


Oh, and here I point out another example of either your ignorance or dishonesty.

Plasters

Quote
Oh and those are all extinct apes, tree climbers, knuckle walkers


And yet another example...

Not all knuckle draggers or full humans

Ready to retract your statements yet?  Intellectual honesty requires it.  I've already retracted an error I made, do you have the intestinal fortitude to suck it up and retract your errors?

Date: 2005/08/29 11:44:20, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,

Forgotten about your claims that I've shown to be false?  Thought you could get by by just ignoring them?  Thought I wouldn't notice?  Where is your intellectual integrity?  When will you retract your erroneous statements?  Don't have the intestinal fortitude to admit your mistakes?  It's usually a sign of religious attitude when one can not admit mistakes.  When the data goes against science, science adjusts to fit the data.  When it goes against you, you act like nothing has happened, like a typical fundie.  Buck the trend.  Show us that fundies can admit mistakes.  C'mon, what are you waiting for?  Do you think that if you don't admit it that no one will see how you made up your figures?  How I've been bringing data to back up what I say, while your assertions have gone unsupported by anything, except your word (and the one time when you did bring data which only supported my position)?

Date: 2005/08/30 08:06:48, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
If it impedes your ability to continue rational thought then I agree that on a national poll my 2% under the general definition of "Theistic Evolution" they hold the number is larger.

But I stick to the numbers if you are talking about the so called evolutionary scientists, posters on such as this forum, writers in the field, debaters, office holders, etc. that is what has driven the education and public funding effort for 50 years or more and that I stick to 2%.


And you still have not submitted ANY justification for that 2% figure.  Once again, it seems that I have to do YOUR homework for you.

Theistic evolution poll

Now, before you get bent out of shape by the fact that I got it off of the NCSE site, this article came from the Washington Times.  Yep, the Times, which happens to be a very conservative paper.  In this conservative paper, we find 40% as the number.  You still haven't gotten your 2% figure.

Why do you stick to that figure so tenaciously?  Oh yeah, it's because your argument about why evolution is wrong is based on you being able to dismiss it as atheistic, and you can't do that if 40% of biologists believe in god.  Right?

Quote
You have a terrible blind spot when its comes to reviewing material submitted. The poll showed the overwhelming sentiment by people that the ID and IC etc. should be taught , that its good to have some debate and open controvesy, that  kids and adults do have brains and can sort it out and that ther is merit in the ID and IC schema.


Not at all.  It's not a blind spot, it's called sticking to the topic at hand.  You attempted to move the goal posts, I didn't let you.  If you are separately trying to argue that ID should be taught in schools because of a public opinion poll, then you've got problems.  Science is not decided by majority vote, it's decided by evidence and fact.  Evolution has it, ID does not.

Quote
Oh no not for you... science is not run by polls... you can't have it both ways and remain honest.


To try to equivocate the two notions of whether theistic evolutionists exist and whether ID should be taught in schools to what polls say, as you have done, is inane.  Plus, since you can't even admit that you are wrong about all the things that I've shown you to be wrong about, I think you have little room to impugn my honesty.

Quote
As for my approach that one need only consider the logical premises of evolution in toto ... dead silence or another denial I suppose.


No, it's called I have trouble holding a conversation with someone who can't admit to basic facts.  There is nothing wrong the premises of evolution.  There may be problems with your straw man characterizations, but that's why you have made your straw men to begin with.  It's much easier to knock down fallacious arguments than actually deal with the facts.  So, perhaps you can provide some evidence for ID?  Perhaps you can give us a scientific theory of ID?  We all know there isn't one, and even Paul Nelson admits as much.  Do you have enough intellectual honesty to also admit it?

Quote
Example: Behe was quite effective with the mousetrap thing... your origin people moronically missed the point in their rebuttal that reuse and portability are vital assets of the trap and if you remove the base and glue it or nail it to the floor that minor feature is lost. Laughable!!


What's laughable is your insistence that the intermediate forms of a evolving object have the exact same characteristics and features of the final product.  None of Behe's examples hold any water.  I point you to blood clots as one example.

Quote
Once the American people focus on the undeniable fact that there are two choices only: either God created the universe and all that is extant de novo or the universe arose from a quantum mechanical


You still have yet to prove that A) there are only 2 choices (being God or evolution) and B) that evolution and god are inherently at odds.

You also have yet to show any support for your assertion of 2%.  Your sophistry should be embarrassing to you.

Date: 2005/08/30 14:51:45, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
The 2% I speak of is the percentage of those who ascribe to the Biblical God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, the creation account therein though not literally in every case, those evolutionary scientists who hold to the God not some god.

Attempting to move the goal posts again?  It doesn't matter. the 2% you speak of is MADE UP.  You never quoted any kind of source for your number, so it is unsupported assertion and nothing more.  You are begging the question (logical fallacy in case you didn't know.)

Besides, what does it matter if theistic evolutionists are Christians or not?  Evolution does not necessitate atheism.  One is perfectly capable of believing that God, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or anything else guides evolution, because science does not pronounce on questions religious.  Science does say "random" mutations because that's the best that science can say, without moving into the religious realm.  You seem to think "random" equals atheism, when what that term really does is allow anyone who accepts evolution to hold whatever beliefs they see fit.

Now, do some beliefs run counter to evolution (and science in general?)  Yes, you bet they do.  But, in every case, it is because those beliefs make empirical claims about the real world.  When those claims are found to be false (like a universe that is 10,000 yrs. old or younger) is it science's fault?  No, of course not.  Science deals with fact and data, and the real world does not change according to a religion's dictum.

Quote
Your hatred of such people....

I hate these people?  Wow, that's news to me.  I'm glad you filled me in on that one.  (In case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.)

Quote
...your own experts are constantly in such disarray , betraying each others conclusions, having disparate views etc....

I am shocked, SHOCKED to find out that scientists disagree with each other.  Wow, I thought all scientists agreed with every other scientist on all things at all times.  The reality of the situation is that there are tons of disagreements in science, including in evolution.  That's how science works.  People come up with hypotheses, others argue, experiments are performed, eventually people come to a concensus based on data and evidence.  The method of doing this is called the Scientific Method, perhaps you've heard of it.  Nothing in the scientific method rules out God.  If you can come up with an experiment to test for God's existence, then feel free to do it.  In fact, people have tried similar things with prayer studies.  You are clearly barking up the wrong tree here.

Quote
of course anything to save face with the hoard you would punish you severly if you demonstrated an ounce of intellectual integrity

Yeah, you know we have weekly meetings to punish all those who don't toe the line or don't "beat their chests" hard enough.  I bet you would be good at doling out the punishment, you should attend sometime.

Date: 2005/08/31 00:11:14, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Gould:Nat. Hist. 85:30 "What has become of our ladder if we have three coexisting lineages of huminoid  A. africanis, robust australopithecines, and H. Habilis none of which are derived from theother. None show any evolutionary change during their tenure , none brainer nor more erect as they approach the present day".


So, now you are quote mining?  I'm really feeling the intellectual honesty now.

Gould quote explained and in context

Date: 2005/08/31 05:57:51, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
As to quote mining.. if you can prove the statements and quotes are incorrectly attributed, false, not to the point or otherwise go for it.

Already done.  You obviously didn't read it.

Quote
But the old switch aroo tactic is one that I attribute to 1st graders trying to use logic.

You are the one moving goal posts, not me.  Or, did you forget about your unsupported assertions?

Quote
See hydrogen gas ... black magic... wand waving... chaos,,, then poof the human brain... and then the fairy god mother said what wish do you evos want today.

Coming from the person whose idea is that "goddidit" is a perfectly reasonable explanation?

You'll notice that I asked you to explain why you think SLOT has to do with evolution.  Simply because you respond with dirision does not mean that you have met your burden of proof.  Will this be another set of assertions that go completely unsupported?

Date: 2005/08/31 10:48:02, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
So when you deny the possibility that such can be done in an original act by God you deny your very own abilities and planned actions to create.

Who is denying it?  I explicitly said that it was a possibility that God created all.  What part of that did you not understand?  The only problem with that statement is that it just isn't scientific because you can neither prove nor disprove it, thus rendering it useless to us in a scientific sense.

Quote
Not a very logical position to hold is it?

It is not illogical to look at the data and figure out how the natural world works, regardless of the presence or absence of the supernatural.  What's illogical is for you to deny the very mechanisms of science, considering you use them every single day.  Do you eat cardboard for lunch every day?  Why not?

Quote
...the operation of  SLOT.

SLOT does not "operate" on anything.

Evolutionary mechanisms can't violate F=ma either, would you say that, "Evolution is in principle only possible by these chemical  reactions and their so called modifications over time coupled with the physical processes and reactions also controlled by F=ma?"

Finally, have you found a source for your 2% figure yet?  No?  Of course not.  When are you going to admit that YOU MADE IT UP?  You lost intellectual honest points by making it up in the first place, but you are only making it worse by refusing to fess up, and EVERYONE can see it.

Date: 2005/09/01 05:40:07, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach, I see you forgot, once again, to back up your claim of 2%.  Please get around to that  promptly.  I'd hate for people to think that you have no credibility or honesty simply because you make up stats and then can't back them up.

Quote
Your response is precisely the intellectual dishonesty I am speaking to. Do you really think that you can persuasively deny the teaching and promotion of ER for several decades to our student population and the public at large by referencing a 2000 vintage book?

Um, Hyperion used your suggestion of looking in a textbook.  You can't complain when someone takes you at your word and then shows you to be wrong.

Quote
...it is of interest to note that man is th eonly creature that eats carrots and fish et al and converts those calories into conceptual thought and consciousness through a series of quite intricate processes.

Incorrect.  Animals are also capable of this.  Apes hold wakes for dead members of their families.  Monkeys conform to group dynamics.  Other animals show emotions.  If you are going to make this statement, you will have to back it up, because most people can look at their dog and see consciousness.  Of course, you won't back it up because you have yet to back anything up.

Date: 2005/09/01 08:13:42, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 01 2005,10:41)
By the way by reading this thread and those on other forums I can direct you to you would discover your camp distinctly saying the genetic code is not a code, there is no informational aspect to the cells replicative operations in DNA or otherwise its just chemistry. But such is typical ..four evolutionists and five opinions none of which is internally consistant or sensible.

Um, then bring it.  I've been asking you to back things up since the beginning.  Now, you are threatening to back up your claims?  Ooooo, I'm shaking.  You should have been backing your stuff up from the beginning.  So, let's see what you've got.

Date: 2005/09/01 12:42:10, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,

Number one, why did it take you so long to post your poll?  Were you sitting on it the whole time?  Is that intellectually honest?  Also, you are still making up numbers, but you finally found a poll that sort of backs up your claim.  Of course, this was a targeted poll on a specific group, not all scientists (yes, I'm questioning the methodology.)  Try this poll on for size, with it's larger sampling group, larger pool with which to pull from, and more recent date...

Contrary Poll

I've got three or four polls now with more widespread methodologies and you are still going to stick to your 2% figure (which you should admit you made up) aren't you?  In short, my poll is better than your poll, but that's not even the point.  Even if your 2% is closer to the actual number, at least I went off of actual evidence, which you did not do.  This thread was supposed to be about intellectual honesty, and whether your number is closer or not, the fact that you made it up and held to it with no justification shows you lack intellectual integrity.

Second, I looked at your nature article.  So what?  Perhaps you should explain what you find so scandalous in it?

Grammar lesson:  If you say, "A is illogical" and I say, "No, A is not illogical" I have not violated any grammar rules.  Do I make spelling and grammar mistakes?  Yes, I do.  Of course, with your sentence structure and spelling, I don't think you have room to criticize my mistakes.  Again, another example of your lack of integrity.

I never said SLOT was connected to evolution, in fact I still challenge that.  Evolution can not violate SLOT, nor can anything else.  Evolution also can not violate F=ma, which BTW happens to be the generic form of the equation and whether it is right or not, it demonstrates my point.  The fact that you have avoided the argument in favor of attacking my intelligence (ad hominem) shows, once again, your lack of integrity.

You do have one thing right.  I'm not the A team here, as I'm not even an evolutionary biologist.  You shouldn't really be asking for them though, because you can't handle me.  The thread has been about intellectual integrity and you have shown time and again that you lack it.  The funny part is that you think you've been clever in nit picking on this and that when all you've really been doing is showing your own lack of integrity.  In short, you couldn't handle the A team since you can't get past me with anything coherent.

Oh, and one last thing.  I thought you were going to direct me to somewhere that proves "my team" doesn't know anything about genetic codes, etc.  Was that more bloviation or can you actually back something up for once?

Date: 2005/09/02 05:44:50, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences;


Quote
the Nature poll of some 650 evolutionary scientists


Do I need to point out your outright falsehood in your two statements?  I probably do.  First, it was 517 members, as posted by you, not 650.  Second, it was members of the National Academy of Sciences, not solely evolutionary biologists.

You still have not admitted that you made up the 2% figure.  You are a liar.

I don't give a flying fig about what the "correct" form of F=ma is, because it is irrelevant to the topic.  You made the comment that SLOT "operates" on evolution.  I said SLOT is not relevant except in the same way that F=ma is relevant and invited you to explain how it is relevant.  You have yet to do that.  NOTHING (including evolution) violates SLOT, just as NOTHING violates F=ma, but neither law OPERATES on evolution and both are irrelevant to the topic.

Quote
You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.


You made the assertion that leading evolutionary scientists think the genetic code is not really a code.  I don't even know what you are getting at there, so I asked you to back it up.  I asked what leading scientists.  When you make an assertion and are asked to back it up, it is YOUR responsibility (your homework) to bring the relevant information into the discussion.  It is not my responsibility to go digging for some nebulous information that may or may not be what your nebulous claim is about.  If you want to convince me of anything, the onus is on YOU to present your arguments, not on me to dig around trying to figure out what your arguments are.

Your conduct has shown nothing but contempt and dishonesty.  If you think that dishonesty is the way to win a debate or score points in a discussion then you are meeting the criteria of a Creationist to a T.  That does not work here, however, since I actually value truth.  You will have to bring some truth with you and not a bunch of lies if you want to score any points with me.

Date: 2005/09/02 07:56:28, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
And while your sticking my trojan horse survey  (which you lapped up like a little tired puppy) up you b---- you might also pick somewhere else to post or at least another thread... I am tired of trying to teach you 5th grade chemistry and physics..  go get your whippings else where.


Ha ha, so I've already gone from third to fifth grade?  The funny part is that your poll is not a very good representative sample.  I also don't believe you were using it as a Trojan Horse, but you stumbled upon it after the fact and are now lying about having it all along.  Plus, you are still making up the 2% figure, whether we go by your poll or not!  That makes you a liar.

I challenge you on your characteristic of Azimov.  Show me where that is.

If you think it is demeaning to be in contact with me, then too bad.  You opened up this discussion and I joined.  You've shown nothing but dishonesty.  Instead of trying to lord over me, you might want to address that issue, especially since IT'S THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!

Date: 2005/09/02 15:44:37, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
F=ma

You liar.

There's no gsubc anywhere on that page.

Date: 2005/09/06 09:23:27, Link
Author: GCT
1 lb mass?  Mass is not weight.

The funny part is that I don't even care who is right (as I've already stated).  This is all sidestepping on your part because you've been completely unable to back up your arguments.  So, you resort to arguing about side issues and hurling insults in order to keep from having to back anything up.  That to me screams that you have nothing substantial at all to say, and to accuse others of deceit when you have shown nothing but deceit is the height of hypocrisy.

Date: 2005/09/06 10:56:59, Link
Author: GCT
As Wikipedia notes:

Quote
In physics, the newton (symbol: N) is the SI unit of force, named after Sir Isaac Newton in recognition of his work on classical mechanics. It was first used around 1904, but not until 1948 was it officially adopted by the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) as the name for the mks unit of force.

A newton is defined as the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared.


You can find it here.

Thus, showing that the units do work without your gsubc.  1N=1kg * 1 m/sec/sec.

Date: 2005/09/06 12:10:26, Link
Author: GCT
I stand by what I said.  Beyond the statement that evolution does not violate SLOT (as it doesn't violate F=ma which got us on that whole side topic) the two having nothing to do with each other.

Your gsubc is dimensionless, since N=kg*m/sec^2.

Before you go off on my understanding of science, make sure your own house is in order.

That said, it still does not matter to me.  All of this is side issue.  You have not brought one intelligent argument into this discussion which you started.  You have utterly failed to show intellectual dishonesty amongst evolution supporters while capably showing your own.  Doubtless, you will answer this with more evasion and more attacks on my intelligence, which will only demonstrate my point all the more.

Date: 2005/09/07 06:16:57, Link
Author: GCT
SLOT discussion

Funny, I don't feel cannibalized.  I also back up what I said.  You have not met your burden of proof.  I can also count your lies for you if you like, I'm already up to 4 or 5.  And, you continue to engage in ad hominem attacks.  Additionally, I see no mention of your gaffe over gsubc.  How is it that the units don't line up again, when your definition of gsubc is unitless?  The problem is that you are confusing weight and mass.  They are two separate things.  If someone gives you a weight, you have to convert it to mass.  If that weight is in lbs, then you must divide by 32.2 ft/sec^2 to convert to mass.  Perhaps that is where you got your notion of using gsubc?

I still maintain, that it's all irrelevant.  You haven't explained why SLOT is any more relevant to evolution than F=ma.  Plus, even if there is a free energy problem during abiogenesis, it does nothing to rule against evolution, since the two are completely separate issues.

Date: 2005/09/07 08:45:04, Link
Author: GCT
Debunking of incredible odds

Evolution separate from abiogenesis

So, which is it with F=ma?  Do the units work with gsubc or don't they?  If they don't, then how do they work when you add in a unitless entity?  Also, how does your example of:

1 lb = 1 lb * 32.2 ft/sec/sec work, considering you have a force on both sides, thus you aren't following the correct equation?

Quote
"Elementary my dear Watson... first one eliminates all the impossible explanations and whatever is left must be the truth"


Do you really want to go down that road?  Do you really think you can eliminate all possible explanations, leaving only god as the final solution?  That's an impossible task, since we can't know what all the possible solutions are.


Alan,
No worries on missing my argument, it's cool.  In fact, it's better than cool, because in that post you've done something that Evopeach would never do, and that is admit that you missed something.  That's a good example of intellectual honesty IMO, and something that Evopeach has been utterly unable to show us.

Date: 2005/09/08 00:58:54, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
You mischacteized my statement... typical intellectual dishonesty.


You lying sack...

Quote
1 lb force = 1 lb mass * 32.2 ft/sec/sec was my showing that one must use a constant of proportionality to get equality and correct answers.


Just for lying, I will show you how you are wrong.

lb force = lb mass * ft / sec^2

That's how the units are defined.  In standard or metric, your gsubc is unitless as you have defined it, so it is unnecessary in order to make the units match up.

Further,
1 lb mass actually weighs 32.2 lbs force.  You set up an incorrect equation from the start.

So, have I mischaracterized you?  No, I have not.  I pointed out your errors and corrected.  For you to accuse me of being dishonest is beyond the pale, especially since this is all a sidebar way for you to escape the argument that I made in the first place, which you can not answer and you have made that all too clear.  You have NOTHING substantive to offer.  YOU are the liar here, and it is disgusting when you accuse others of it, when I have shown you to be lying multiple times in the course of this one thread.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

Date: 2005/09/08 08:00:39, Link
Author: GCT
Interesting,
So, gc is 1, unless you change the units (not the actual system) and then it becomes some other value, even though the system didn't change, but the result somehow did.  Got it.  Moron.

Lie number 1 from you:
The 2% figure.

Lie number 2 from you:
Quote mine that I pointed out.

Lie number 3 from you:
Misrepresenting my position (multiple times, but I'll give you just one lie for it.)

Lie number 4 from you:
Asserting already debunked Creationist claims.

Lie number 5 from you:
Saying that you did not challenge anyone to look at any text book on modern biology and answer your questions.

Lie number 6 from you:
Saying that Wikipedia backs up your claim when it clearly did not.

Lie number 7 from you:
Falsely claiming scientists are frauds and liars without any evidence.

Also, evasions:
1.  Side bar on F=ma and totally ignoring the reason it was brought up.
2.  Threatening to bring mounds of quotes that were never produced.
3.  Talking nebulously about SLOT, but never backing up why it is a supposed problem for evolution.

I'm sure I could find more, but I'm just going off of memory.

Midnight Voice, I agree with you whole-heartedly.  The only reason I engaged this yahoo was to show that creationists can't make arguments without resorting to distortions, evasions, and outright lies.  I just thought it would be funny, especially with the ironic title of this post.

Date: 2005/09/08 12:34:45, Link
Author: GCT
MidnightVoice said:

Quote
You see I have a secret - I know the truth because I talked to God


Did you talk over the phone?  What's the number?  I want to call her up and see if she's free tomorrow night. :)

Date: 2005/09/09 06:37:43, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Sep. 09 2005,10:56)

I am keeping that to myself.  She is hot  :D

Hey MV, I hear she's got enough "love" for all of us. :p

Date: 2005/09/09 08:12:42, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
I'm greedy.  And I was naturally selected for a conversation.  It might evolve into something more serious.  

Hmmm, I can't beat that.  You win.  I'm gonna be ready to swoop in if it doesn't work out though.  I can handle being a rebound. :)

Date: 2005/09/30 05:48:47, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,15:28)
Thus within limited variation a purposeful designer would by necessity and as a consequence of prior creative choices preceeding life have to have common design elements for respiration, energy conversion, metabolism, waste elimination, sensory perception, movement and motion in a gravitational field.

The only other boundaries on such a designer would be his own character and sovereign intentions, that would be sufficient.

Evopeach,
Don't you subscribe to the Christian god as your designer?  Is not the Christian god omnipotent?

If that is the case, then why would the designer have limitations, necessities, and boundaries?

Date: 2005/09/30 05:54:10, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
Is the 6 day creation story literal or allegorical?

Date: 2005/09/30 08:13:51, Link
Author: GCT
Full disclosure:

The University of Evansville is a Methodist affiliated college and they endorse evolution.

Date: 2005/09/30 08:22:38, Link
Author: GCT
I ask a simple question and I get a rant.  Oh well.

So, if the universe was created in 6 literal days (24 hour periods) then you would say that the Earth is how old?  Astronomy, cosmology, physics, and other sciences say that the Earth is 4.8 billion years old or so.  Do you reject those sciences?  If not, why only evolution?  It is logically inconsistent to reject evolution based on its conflict with scripture (as perceived by you) but to not reject those other sciences for the same offense.  So, which is it?

Date: 2005/10/06 01:55:07, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 03 2005,08:27)
Saddle,

Is there a point?  Other than it seems to confirm my view that we understand very little about the inferent designed in capabilities of the genome for adaptation based on sensory information. Mutations play an insignificant and mostly harmful role when closely examined.

What about mutations in bacteria that allow them to become resistant to chemicals/drugs that we produce?  Are those mostly harmful?

Anyway, Evopeach, why do you not reject physics, geology, cosmology, etc.?  Those sciences MUST be wrong if the Earth is about 10,000 years old, so you should also be on websites dealing with those subjects and talking about how stupid they are.  Do you do that?  I'm assuming you don't from some of the things you've posted, and now I'm wondering why not?

Date: 2005/10/06 08:02:25, Link
Author: GCT
So, evopeach
Quote
I do criticize so called stellar evolution, cosmology, etc. to teh degree it proclaims evolution.

So, you only criticize that which deals with evolution?  Again, not logically consistent.

Date: 2005/10/06 08:44:35, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Midnight,

I am convinced you have a firm grasp of biology and such chemistry as relates thereto.

'You're just wrong is all.'

:p

Date: 2005/10/07 05:12:02, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
You've just admitted that you only have a bug up your backside when it comes to evolution.  So, why not those other sciences?  It's completely illogical to proclaim that the universe was formed in 6 literal days, but not protest the science that flatly contradicts that account.

Date: 2005/10/07 09:28:52, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
Quote
Because I have a highly intelligent mind that is schooled in logical, rational and supurb critical thinking skills.

So, you find it completely logical to throw out evolution and biology because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible, but not physics, cosmology, etc. that also conflict with your interpretations of the Bible.  Got it.

Quote
Finally, I would be amazed if  you conclude that God is bound to creating a universe that had to actually go through a billion year transformation in order to function.

This is jibberish.  The universe was functioning from its beginning, regardless of whether it was god who started it or not.  You are making the very unscientific assumption that humans were inevitable products of this universe and a goal, and thus you think it would be ridiculous to have the universe exist for billions of years before the goal of the arrival of humans.  Then, you have the gall to turn around and accuse us of not being scientific.

Quote
Questions like "Since God is limited to the same physical laws...


Didn't you not too long ago make the argument that god was constrained into making a common design?  I submit that it is YOU who puts limits on god, not I.

Date: 2005/10/11 04:56:47, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Unless one can demonstrate that life started there is no reason to believe the evolutionary story because it has no basis in fact, no underpinnnings...

Um, life did start.  I think we can be sure of that since we are both alive.

If you meant to say that we need to demonstrate abiogenesis before evolution can make sense, consider this:

I just traveled from New York to Los Angeles and told you about my trip.  But, I never told you about how I got to New York in the first place.  Should you tell me that my story of the trip from NY to LA has no basis and is a bunch of made-up lies and distortions?

Also, perhaps you could tell us how exactly you are coming up with your probabilities?  The weakness that Creationist probability arguments have is that they can't accurately define what the distribution is, so therefore we have no way of actually figuring out how probable the event was or was not.

Date: 2005/10/11 08:36:18, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 30 2005,13:48)
GCT,

Omnipetence is just one characteristc among many as with human personality. God is also consistently logical in His actions and would have a plan of action which in this case was the creation sequence from ex nihilo to the 7th day. He pronounced it good as in mature and perfect (prior to corruption and fall) as to operation and completeness. Thus any limitations or boundaries are self imposed so that for instance He cannot act to conflict with any of his characteristics. He cannot make imperfect plans which of His own choosing are flawed as opposed to results of actions permitted under free will which clearly cause enourmous problems and difficulties.

Thus the creation is logically consistent as portrayed and certain design choices naturally have to be consistent and complimentary it is actually a system of minimum complexity, maximum efficiency and remarkable reliability compared to our own creative efforts.

If your chief car designer made one line to burn wood, another coal, another diesel, another gasoline and another plutonium; one with three wheels , another with four, etc. would he be you designer for long.

Wasn't it Einstein who sad the universe is as simple as it can be and not one ounce less complex than it has to be.

Omnipotence means no boundaries.  Design choices do NOT have to be consistent with an omnipotent god.  There need not be physical laws of the universe either.  It simply does not follow.

Also, your contention about a car designer is flawed as well.  An omnipotent god does not need to worry about such things.  Of course, your contention also means that if we find examples of bad design, then your contention is wrong, correct?

So, let's talk about bad design....
Giraffe necks
Human eyes
Human reproductive canal

Those examples should get you started.

Date: 2005/10/12 00:37:58, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
My point still holds.

Every example you come up with to counter my story about traveling to LA is about the trip and the likelyhood of my account of how I got to LA, not how I got to NY in the first place.  Can I take it from your inability to counter my argument that you agree that abiogenesis is separate from evolution?

I doubt that all your examples of evos that came up with impossible probabilities are correct.  Support your assertion.  Show me where they came up with those numbers.  Additionally, I would say that even if they did, they are most likely wrong for the same reason that I enumerated above.  Whether a creationist does bad probability or a real scientist does it makes no difference.  Bad calculations are bad calculations no matter who does them.  I'd like to see what they did, however, to see if maybe they could change my mind.  So, let's see the references.

Date: 2005/10/12 02:29:21, Link
Author: GCT
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 90% of the universe was Helium after 3 minutes (or however long it took.)  Now, 25% of the universe is He, correct?

1.  What happened to the 65% differential?  Consider that He is very inert.

2.  How did the heavier elements form?

3.  Is the human brain made up of helium, or H, C, O, and N?

4.  In the second link provided by you, Evopeach, it says...
Quote
3 1/2 m
108K   End of Nuclear Reactions
neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He
Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei

How does this square with your assertion?

5.  If a hydrogen nucleus is not a single proton, what is it?

Date: 2005/10/12 05:10:25, Link
Author: GCT
So, Evopeach, you answered number 5, what about my other questions.  They were not rhetorical.

Now, I will once again point you to your own source that says...
Quote
3 1/2 m
108K   End of Nuclear Reactions
neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He
Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei

Nuclei, not atoms.

Date: 2005/10/12 05:18:12, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach, if you see me get off the plane that just flew in from New York, you can take it for granted that I was in New York, correct?  But, you would toss all of that out because I haven't told you how I got to New York in the first place?  That's what I'm asking you.  The route that the plane took to get from NY to LA is completely independent of the how and why I was in NY to begin with, is it not?  That's why we can divorce abiogenesis from evolution.  You are still arguing about the trip, not the beginning of the trip.

Let's try another example.  I wake up from an accident and I have amnesia.  I can't account for how I got into this world at all.  I can't remember my parents, where I was born, who I am, etc.  There's no record for me to account for all of that because I have no way to look up anything.  Do I now assume that I don't exist?  That I haven't lived some sort of life up until whatever age I am simply because I can't account for my birth?

Date: 2005/10/12 08:46:32, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2005,13:24)
After reading a few of evopeach's posts here, I wonder why anyone bothers responding to his posts. It basically has the effect of seriously degrading the S/N ratio of the discussion.

I've had some experience attempting to have a constructive debate with these guys who make ludicrous claims like there's a complete absence of transitional forms, there's absolutely no evidence for evolution, there are no examples of sub-optimal design, etc. etc. etc. Presenting them with evidence of their errors makes no impression; they either ignore your evidence, claim you don't understand the debate, change the subject, or just call you names.

It's entertaining for a while, but then it starts to get tedious.

I agree with you.  I only do this for the entertainment value.  When I get bored, I drop it until it's entertaining again.

Date: 2005/10/13 04:12:08, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
They just reply on hard nosed facts instead of dashed lines, plaster of paris and pseudo science approaches to math, statistics, thermo, pchem and such hard sciences.

More intellectual dishonesty Evopeach?  It's already been pointed out to you that fossils are not reconstructed from plaster of paris, unless there is already a complete fossil to model the incomplete one off of.  I know, because I'm the one that dug up the reference.

Date: 2005/10/13 04:58:31, Link
Author: GCT
From the Academic Credential thread, Evopeach wrote:
Quote
Pne more time for Eric and Julie who apparently can't read. I never, never implied that Helium was the abundant element in the universe except for the first moments in the BB theory and that is a matter of accepted theory unless you are one of the attendant idiots who believe that a proton is the same thing as a hydroden atom because electrons are not part of atoms and are actually illusory non-existant and unimportant particles.

If you do subscribe to the rather well established idea that electrons are necessary patrsd of atoms and not just the nucleus then you will read the several references or any reputable physics site on the BB and note that Helium was created as an ATOM not just an elementary particle and it preceeded atomic hydrogen (not just the nucleus proton). Hydrogen existed only as the isotope duterium and according to the same papers in lesser amounts than Helium. Lithium was a trace element.

Now very shortly after the "first few minutes" hydrogen atoms in toto were formed in enourmous quantity and still comprise 70% plus of all matter today.

If you can show me where I sais helium was the major constituent of the universe to day I will recant that , but you never will be able to do so.. period.

Electrons are part of the atom ... try to remember that fact.


So, a few things come to mind.  From your own source Evopeach,
Quote
The net result of the early nuclear reactions Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is to transform all of the neutrons, along with the necessary protons, into Helium nuclei plus traces of 2H (deuterium), 3He, 7Li, 6Li, 7Be.

Note the word "atom" is never used there.  In fact, they don't talk about the formation of atoms until 10^6 years after the big bang.
Quote
106yr
4000K  
Era of Recombination
nuclei & electrons "recombine to form atoms
Universe becomes transparent
[Note: the 6 in 106 above is an exponent in the original.]

Also, why does the human brain have to form from He, if He was replaced by H as the most dominant element?  H then was fused into the heavier elements, including C, N, and O, which ultimately all came together to make our brains.  Your argument is completely vacuous.

Date: 2005/10/14 00:26:16, Link
Author: GCT
Oh, but Eric, just read the Bible and all will be clear. :D

Date: 2005/10/14 04:13:55, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
Again, you have made the charge of fraud...back it up.

Let's also put the Bible under the same scrutiny, shall we?  I mean, you accept the Bible as the definitive word on how the universe began, where man came from, etc. so why shouldn't we scrutinize it?

Can you observe the events in the Bible?  Can you experimentally test the events in the Bible?  Can you review them?  Can they be repeated by independent groups?

The answer to all those questions is, "No."

Date: 2005/10/14 04:31:50, Link
Author: GCT
So, Evopeach,
If you reject evolution for those reasons, why do you not similarly reject Creationism/ID for the same reasons?  Where is your intellectual honesty?

Date: 2005/10/14 05:33:29, Link
Author: GCT
The Bible has not changed in how many years?  Do you not think that we have learned anything since the Bible was written?

Again, you have made the baseless claim that evolution equals atheism, which I once again challenge you to back up.

Tell me how Creationism/ID helps to benefit mankind.  How does one go about doing that using Creationism/ID.

As for the honesty of Creationism/ID, perhaps you have never seen the Quote Mine Project on Talk Origins?  What about the Index to Creationist Claims?  Of course, I know you have seen those and ignore them.

What you are really saying here is that you accept the Bible without any question, but if another idea comes up, like evolution, then it must be questioned until it is found wrong in your opinion, just so you can continue to follow the Bible without question.  That's not at all consistent.  You should hold all evidences to the same standard and I challenge you to do that with the Bible.

Date: 2005/10/14 05:36:28, Link
Author: GCT
You mean F=ma.

Date: 2005/10/14 07:39:02, Link
Author: GCT
Origins does not necessarily refer to the origins of life.  It could very easily refer to the origins of species.

The Bible has been around for a long time, that is true, but as soon as you start taking your science from it, you should put it under the same scrutiny as other science.  You are more than willing to scrutinize evolution, but not the "science" you get from the Bible.  I ask again, why is that?

You also admit that Creationism/ID does not lead to any benefit to mankind, I'm glad we can agree on that.  But, let's examine that a little more, shall we?  If these scientists that believe in creation are helping manking, but not because of ID, then it's safe to say that they are doing it while separating their religious convictions from their work, correct?  But, you want to do the exact opposite when you get your science from the Bible.  That, once again, is not logically consistent.

Date: 2005/10/14 08:45:17, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 14 2005,13:33)
Actually I have never taken a technical or scientific subject where the Bible was a textbook. The Bible is not a book of science primarily but where history impinges on science by necessity I suggest it is as well supported as general evolution. It simply does not speak to 99% of science period.

I do not agree that IDers and YECs theories have no impact on the results of thier work in science.

1) I have outlined elsewhere the impact of using the tols normally associated with systems design, analysis, debugging, securing etc. has been extraordinary in the genome project and subsequent outcomes. This is consciously or unconsciously the direct result of a design implication rather than a random walk through animal space, there could not be a greater dichotomy.

2) We would never waste time talent and resources on origin of life experiments over 100 years, space alien research, panspermia research but rather direct empirical science of understnading the marvelous designs and learning how to apply them to helping mankind.

3) It is the Bible's provence to lift the spirit and hope of mankind outside of science which is a large part of existence, actually.

Didn't your mommy teach you not to mistate other peoples positions?

In answer to:

1.  How does saying, "This is designed" lead to figuring out the genome sequences?  That's just ridiculous.

2.  You can't say that Creationism/ID helps mankind by....helping mankind.

3.  That only applies for Christians.  What about other religions?  Also, you are the one that is using the Bible as an accurate account of the origin of life.  Now, you say that it is only to be used as a way of lifting spirits?  So, now, where do you turn to for your backing of the origin of life story in the Bible?  Do you turn to the same Creationists that admitted under oath in Court that their "science" is based on the Bible?  Do you even see the circular reasoning there?

Date: 2005/10/14 13:41:44, Link
Author: GCT
You mean the part about the sources that didn't agree with you, or the part about how you wanted to introduce a unitless component in order to make the units in the equation line up?  How about the part where it was all evasion on your part from the beginning in order to avoid showing your inconsistencies?

We don't need to go down that road again, anyone can scroll back and see that my butt was not whipped on it, just like anyone can see that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Helium either.

Date: 2005/10/17 03:33:27, Link
Author: GCT
1.  Abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  I'm glad you are finally getting it.  Life arose, somehow, and evolution took over from there.  It's that simple.  That's not to say that abiogenesis is not a area of research that is worth studying, because it is, it is simply not part of ToE.

2.  You've already been shown links to papers and sites that talk about the transitional fossils.  Putting your fingers in your ear and shouting, "There aren't any transitional fossils" won't make it true.

3.  A)  You can't argue common design due to similarities and also argue that there are no similarities to support common descent.  B)  Examples please.

3.  (again)  Please define "code".  Until you define the terms that you are using, your complaint is wholly vacuous.

4.  Must we point out (again) the problems with your statistical ramblings?

5.  I would say that scientists that get their science from the Bible should not be taken seriously.  Since Creation Science has been shown to be based on Biblical literalism, it is not viable science.

Finally, how does one use ID to make cochlear implants?  Also, to say that random mutation should be used is to erect a blatant straw man.  But, it should be noted that through the process of studying evolution we learned about the processes that are necessary to make these implants possible in the first place.

Date: 2005/10/17 03:55:26, Link
Author: GCT
Um, try 1 link, not 2 (another lie I see.)  Also, it did not back up your position, as it used a completely different equation.

Date: 2005/10/17 05:09:10, Link
Author: GCT
I don't see that anywhere on wikipedia.

Even if I am being intellectually dishonest, let's consider a few things.  You never addressed the fact that this was all a side discussion from the beginning.  Also, the question was whether it was the general form or not.  Considering that text books use F=ma and that's the original form from Newton, not to mention that your form is only to make units agree, which is superfluous since you can also just change the units of the m and a variables, I would have to say that you are still wrong.  But, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you are right and I am just being stupid, stubborn, or whatever.  Then, you would have a single instance of intellectual dishonesty from me, vs. the numerous ones that you have displayed that have been expressly written out for all to see.  Yeah, I'm the intellectually dishonest one here......right.

Date: 2005/10/17 05:48:59, Link
Author: GCT
First, I'll note you had no rebuttals to any of the numbered points.

Second, are you trying to say that believing in ID instead of accepting evolution is what leads people to be able to perform science?

Also, we have tons of evidence of random processes that produce results and functional things.  You are one of them, unless you think that god or the intelligent designer went into your mother during conception and made a specific sperm with a specific set of genes interact with the egg that was there.

Behe's book has been thoroughly vetted and debunked.  To teach his "science" would be unlawful.

Date: 2005/10/18 03:29:58, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
You see the bickering about 10**-8 seconds for a week is just a red herring to circumlocute the original issue.

That's something you are definitely an expert in.  You are guilty of transference though.  It was you who made the original argument that Helium somehow became the human brain.  When it was argued that you were wrong, you persisted that you were right.  Now, you shift the goal posts and accuse us of evasion?  Typical fundie stuff, I shouldn't be surprised.

Quote
If thats too tough just explain the steps up to the supposed first replicator in detail or maybe the last steps from non-life to the first replicator.

That is outside the scope of evolution.  I suggest you look up cosmology and abiogenetic theories.  For a quick summary, however, I will offer that the heavier elements were formed through fusion (in stars) and the specific elements C, H, O, and N formed into self-replicating life amid the chaotic pre-biotic soup that was the Earth's surface.  From there evolution took over.

Date: 2005/10/18 04:43:14, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
The term, "Have developed" in no way imparts any sort of desire by the mice to develop it, thereby willing it to evolve.  That is a concept that is part of the ID/Creation crowd's lexicon.  What happens is that those mice who can better survive the environment pass on their genes to their offspring, and over many generations we see changes, such as the ability to survive in freezers.  It's called natural selection and you can look it up in any biology text.  You should probably have done that before you posted here

Quote
As for thick coats, my dog and my friend's horses routinely get thicker coats in the winter and shed in the summer. Is that evolution or is it a routine designed in adaptive capacity based on sensory response?

Do you really think that horses and dogs feel the air get cooler and decide to grow a thicker coat?

Quote
How about an observable example of macro-evolution say a bacteria becoming a mouse that can fly?

How about some realistic examples.  Try here.

Quote
Oh! And you forgot about the peppered moths!

I once again find myself pointing you to a source on this, thus proving that you do not read the links that I have provided you which shows a lack of intellectual honesty on your part.  Try this link on for size.


As for examples of evolution could we also include animals that become isolated on islands and grow smaller in order to adapt to the scarcity of resources?

Date: 2005/10/18 04:51:28, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
Your original argument was that Helium could not have become the human brain, which was agreed because Helium is inert.  Of course, we pointed out that it was not necessary for Helium to become the human brain because Hydrogen was, is, and forever has been more present than Helium.  Now, you are trying to say that all along you have been asking how Hydrogen could have become the human brain.  That is a textbook case of moving the goal posts and lying.  Plus, now you are mistaken that you haven't moved the goal posts and it has been pointed out.  If you persist in telling us that you haven't, then you will be lying about that as well.

Also, origins are separate from evolution and no, that is not intellectual dishonesty.  As I've pointed out to you quite a few times now, they are separate questions.  You still have not been able to answer my example of my trip from NY to LA.  If you have incontrovertable proof that I was in NY (just as we have incontrovertable proof that life arose somehow) and I show up in LA telling you how I got there, you can dispute how I got to LA, but the story of how I got to LA is NOT tossed out because you don't know how I got to NY.  Period.  Get over it.

Date: 2005/10/18 07:00:36, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
Look at this site.

Also, you have been completely unable to counter my argument about my trip from NY to LA.  Until you can do that, quit crying about how unfair it is that evolution is separate from abiogenesis.


Now, to have to show you your own quotes is just plain silly, but here goes:
Quote
I see no need to debate these various problematical and sometimes fuzzy sub-topics when one can easily illustrate the falsification of the theory and its complete separation from logic, common sense and scientific credibility by simply observing that its proponents to be logically consistent must accept and defend the proposition that helium gas over billions of years transformed itself through trillions of chaotic and random unguided, undirected and non-purposeful changes, iteration upon iteration, resulting in the human brain, its network of neurons, synapses, nerves and its capabilities of conscious cognitive thought, memory and self awareness.

That was from your original post that started this thread.  You clearly state that we had to defend how helium gas transformed itself over billions of years into the human brain.

Now, on to your goal-posted moved challenge:
Quote
How exactly does that change the argument that a universe composed 99% of helium, hydrogen and lithium waas the precise starting point for the natural, self-driven, random, chaotic processes that 14 billion years later resulted in the human brain and all the rest of life.

Note that now you are talking about Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium.  Now you are expressly allowing the inclusion of elements other than Helium.  That is moving the goal posts.  You are guilty.  The fact that you say you have not done it once again makes you a liar.  The fact that you are accussing me of intellectual dishonesty for pointing out your lies is just pathetic.

Date: 2005/10/18 07:07:36, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Do you deny that it is an absolute fact that many animals routinely grow heavier coats in winter and shed in the summer as a function of temperature? And no I don't think animals even think about such, period. It is a designed in adaptive capability in their genetic and central nervous systems just like body temperature regulation, hibernation, etc.

Your evidence that it was designed?

Also, you will have to define what you mean by "sensory basis."  I take that to mean that the animal is actively using its senses to pick up on the weather change, which changes its coat thickness.  Is that what you are trying to say?


We don't need to throw mice into a freezer to find out whether they survive or not.  The point is that you start with mice that are not native to freezers and you end up with mice that are.  We have observed this.  There weren't mice in there before, but now there are.  Are you saying that the intelligent designer came down and designed some mice to live in freezers?  What did the designer do to make mice able to live in freezers.  How did the designer do it?  How did we not notice some intelligent designer acting on mice right in front of us?

Date: 2005/10/18 07:13:33, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,12:06)
Peppered Moths and Such

The moths were moths before and after the experiments. There were both sorts of coloration before and after the experiements.

The sources refer to episodic malanism across several species around the world which by definition rules out the moths being some singular evidence of evolution,, even micro-evolution.

Natural selection cannot exist without mutational genetic change for it to act on and since there was no provable genetic change, merely a built-in sensory response to environmental change in their habitat, natural selection was not in evidence, unless you believe all predation is natural selection in which case most species have proven remarkably resistant to such.

Honk Honk Clara

No one claimed the moths were anything other than moths for the purposes of experiments on moths.  More straw men?  The moths do change colors with regards to pollution levels, please actually read the link before you make assinine comments like that.

You also can not make the claim that this is a sensory change, because the experiments are of generations of moths, not single moths.

Date: 2005/10/18 08:55:23, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,13:41)
eric murphy,

Does it bother you that with every passing day your entire world view is falling into complete disrepute among some of the most respected members of your community, that the teaching of ID is at least a 50/50 proposition within a few months, that with the changes in the supreme court such is even more likely?

Does it secretly bother you to be a member of a scientifically heretical cult that holds with censorship, blackmail, extorsion, persecution and misrepresentation of facts to cling to a paradigm that has not a single tenet that does not suffer from enumerable contradictions in evidence, lack of correlation between predictions and real observations and has no basis in fact for its theoretical underpinnings?

To be laughed at by such a band of little brainwashed mental midgets actually calls forth pity and compassion from the gifted and gracious such as I.

Have you ever had an original thought in your entire life or are you the Charlie McCarthy of the internet that you appear to be.

Falling into disrepute?  Because of your arguments?  That's a laugh.

Censorship?  We let YOU post here, while Dembski does not allow me or anyone else here to post there.  The DI does not allow comments on their blogs, and they delete trackbacks.

Blackmail?  "Extorsion"?  Persecution?  Back up those claims.

Misrepresentation?  The only misrepresentation I see is yours.  Witness also the numerous quote mines by creationists/IDists and the fallacious claims, all of which have been pointed out to you before.

Date: 2005/10/18 09:01:31, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach, doesn't your conscience bother you after lying so much?

Quote
Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms.

You specifically, repeatedly said Helium was the most abundant element in the universe and therefore the human brain must have come from it.  Now you are trying to weasel out of that and say that it was one of the three first elements, and you still haven't figured out how to read your own sources that specifically say that no atoms formed until 10^6 years after the big bang.

Quote
My point was and remains that regardless of which one or all of the three chosen no one can or will even attempt to answer the central and original question.. how did the human brain develop from any combination of the three... take you pick.. make it easy on yourself.

Lying again.  I gave you a cliff noted version of it.  Of course, I've also repeatedly said that evolution does not rest on whether life formed on its own or god zapped life onto the planet.  You continue to ignore my NY to LA argument.  What's the matter?  Can't you admit that you are wrong?

Date: 2005/10/19 00:08:17, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Wonderpants @ Oct. 18 2005,16:16)
Can we please just ignore Evopeach in this thread and come up with examples of everyday evolution, as per the original thread?  :)

Roger that.  Sorry that I engaged Evopeach on your thread Wonderpants.  In my defense, I did try to come up with an example of evolution to use.

Speaking of examples, I've seen lots of examples from agriculture, but unfortunately I can't remember any of them.  Perhaps someone else could add them to the list?

Date: 2005/10/19 00:21:22, Link
Author: GCT
Cogzoid, I agree with you.  Evopeach is not wrong, except that he claimed that I was wrong for not including gsubc.  If you were to go back and look at the discussion, I kept trying to say that it doesn't matter, especially because I was making a point, but Evopeach only wanted to quibble over gsubc, and not the original argument.  This all came about when Evopeach tried to talk about the second law of thermodynamics.  I said it has as much to do with evolution as F=ma, and instead of addressing that, he jumped on me, saying I was wrong and stupid and all kinds of things for not including gsubc.

Date: 2005/10/19 01:19:37, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
Quote
About 300 thousand years after the Big Bang, the Universe had cooled enough for electrons to be captured by protons and alpha particles to form atoms.

Still want to try and say that Helium atoms formed in the first three minutes?

Quote
In one post you say helium atoms or nuclei... no matter.. now you attempt to differentiate dramatically, yet apparently you can't tell the difference between 10**6 and 300,000 years, the generally accepted figure. I will take this as a measure of your scientific knowledge and integrity.. off about a factor of three.. at least.

Except I got the 10^6 figure from your source.

So, are you admitting that you can't answer my NY to LA example?

Date: 2005/10/19 04:57:54, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
And when people have a decided inability to express their views in terms of critical thinking skills I simply assume that sophistry tending to self-elevation, egomania and a general lack of intellectual capacity to discuss an issue in meaningful terms is the best they have to offer.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Date: 2005/10/19 05:18:32, Link
Author: GCT
Cogzoid,
See what I mean?

Date: 2005/10/19 07:16:49, Link
Author: GCT
Evopeach,
1.  My understanding of Newton's Second Law has not changed.

2.  My comment still stands.  SLOT has as much to do with evolution as Newton's Second Law.  ToE does not violate SLOT, and SLOT does not operate on ToE.

Date: 2005/10/19 08:43:00, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
See that part that says most notably HELIUM, right after the phrase .. form the nulcei of a few heavier ELEMENTS.

See that part that says NUCLEI right before the phrase ... of a few heavier elements.

Date: 2005/10/19 08:51:33, Link
Author: GCT
Plants and animals need energy to survive.  Wow, what insight.  We should be paying you for this.  What's your point?

Date: 2005/10/19 09:04:50, Link
Author: GCT
The process can not violate any of the actual laws listed.  What's your point?

Date: 2005/10/19 09:11:57, Link
Author: GCT
If you could read (your own writing no less) then you would see why I harped on the word nuclei, Mr. 'Helium formed complete atoms after three minutes and was therefore more plentiful than Hydrogen'.

Are you now admitting that no atoms formed before about 10^6 years (or 300000, it really makes no difference on a cosmological time scale)?

Also, let's examine my post.  Did I deny the use of the words helium and element?  No, they are in my post.  If I were denying them, I would not have typed them in.

Date: 2005/10/19 09:16:02, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (GCT @ Oct. 19 2005,14:04)
The process can not violate any of the actual laws listed.  What's your point?

Um, question answered.  What's your point?

Date: 2005/10/19 09:24:28, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
I really could care less about your opinions as I am quite secure in my own shoes.

Um, then why are you here?

Date: 2005/10/20 05:38:58, Link
Author: GCT
No, my answer demonstrates that I understand better than you do.

The processes you cite can not violate SLOT, nor can they violate F=MA, nor any other law.  I know what you want me to say.  You want me to say that SLOT "governs" the process, but that IMO would not be very precise.

Date: 2005/10/24 07:11:49, Link
Author: GCT
Let me second that!

Harvey Birdman is still good.  The evolution episode was definitely funny.  I'm looking forward to The Boondocks as well.

Date: 2005/10/24 07:20:00, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Swoosh @ Oct. 21 2005,19:33)
Wow.. whudathunkit.  EvoP actually made a polite witticism.  That list is pretty funny.

And to play devil's advocate against my own team here...

What exactly is the argument about?  Maybe I'm not reading this thread thoroughly enough.  But by my understanding, SLOT has to figure in to evolution at its most basic levels.  Random mutation.  Old age and death.  Digestion.  ####, anything you look at, as long as its made up of the particles of nature is subject to SLOT.  

SLOT has to figure in on both the formation and disintegration of biological (read: atomic and molecular) systems.  Call it the flow of heat.  Call it order at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.  Restate SLOT any way you like, but no matter what it must be recognized that evolution is a natural process.  All natural processes follow the laws of physics, so SLOT must be operative in that process.  We all die eventually, a natural consequence of SLOT.  Is there some technicality I'm overlooking here?

Now, EvoP might want to argue that SLOT is You-Know-Whose punishment for sin and all that other mumbo jumbo.  If he does so, he's back in quackville.  But otherwise, I have to say I believe he's correct here.

The problem is/was Evopeach was taking the position that SLOT is somehow a problem for evolution.  My position is that beyond saying that evolution does not violate SLOT, that the two really don't have a lot to do with each other.

Evopeach was also elevating the role of SLOT to be some sort of guiding principle that acts on things, instead of a law.  My contention is/was that SLOT does not act on objects, etc., but instead acts as a rule that can not be violated, much the same as F=ma.

Date: 2005/11/01 02:57:04, Link
Author: GCT
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Polls indicate only 9% of Americans believe in evolution


I want a source on that.

Date: 2005/11/01 05:10:35, Link
Author: GCT
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

By my reading of that poll, 9% accept in atheistic evolution, while 40% accept a theistic evolution stance.  That would seem to me to be 49% of the public accepting evolution.

Date: 2005/11/01 07:51:08, Link
Author: GCT
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Or it could be that high levels of wealth and personal contentment are causally linked?

Date: 2005/11/16 02:42:12, Link
Author: GCT
GoP,

Might I suggest that you go to South Carolina?

Christian Exodus

Date: 2005/11/16 07:12:27, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Mano a mano with the Wizard and Master, Queensbury style.


Mano a mano with "Goddidit".....How will we survive?

Date: 2005/11/16 09:27:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Well, if you want to spend your declining years in a tenement wearing a mustard-stained wife-beater, eating Kraft Velveeta slices in your underpants to the accompaniment of sirens, curses, and gunfire from outside your cracked window - go ahead.


I object.  I don't like mustard, so I highly doubt I will have mustard stains on my wife-beater.

Date: 2005/11/22 01:10:07, Link
Author: GCT
Awesome!  Thanks for the link.

Date: 2005/11/22 05:06:39, Link
Author: GCT
As someone who has read this thread from the beginning and largely stayed out of it, I'm throwing a flag on GoP right here and now.

The article, until presented is a non-argument and it is impossible to dodge a non-argument.

As for straw men, I've only seen them come from one side (GoP).  How does one create a straw man by debunking a straw man argument?  I.e. GoP you create a straw man and Hyperion debunks it, you are the guilty party, not Hyperion.

Date: 2005/11/22 09:27:33, Link
Author: GCT
:00-->
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 22 2005,12:00)
Quote
The article, until presented is a non-argument and it is impossible to dodge a non-argument.

 If you have read the thread from beginning to end, then how did you miss my three-part essay detailing my argument, consisting of:
1) Cash bribes to encourage emigration of people who hate our guts
2) Heavy immigration from Europe, Israel, and Northeast Asian countries to replace our departing malcontents
3) New legislation repealing all race laws
4) Letting the resulting freedom of association weed out the bad cultures amongst our remaining malcontents

 In addition, I proposed a test that anyone can do to verify that Hyperion's implications were false. Since you read the thread, surely I won't have to point out where, will I? And nobody took me up on this test.....hmmmm....veddy curious.
  Now you may think my plan is naive, fascist, counterproductive, whatever; that's your right. But direct your criticisms to the real model, not to Hyperion's paranoid misrepresentations of it. But you won't, and it's for the same reason that Hyperion didn't - the model is sound, rational, sane, and chock full of supporting evidence guaranteeing its success. Which explains the existence of speech codes. Can't let anyone see the posterior of General Butt-Nekkid.

The article, not the argument.

Date: 2005/12/21 02:49:02, Link
Author: GCT
It's too bad that evopeach isn't around, else some people would get to collect on a certain wager that I remember he wanted to make.

Date: 2006/01/10 07:49:13, Link
Author: GCT
DaveScot aint nothin' but a punk.

Did I just get booted?

Date: 2006/01/11 09:29:28, Link
Author: GCT
:03-->
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2006,12:03)
Carol Clouser and David Heddle often interject this notion into comment threads on Panda's Thumb. I find it a real head scratcher, but then I suppose any religious jew/christian/muslim would have to find scripture and science consistent in some way. So the question is: in what way.

For starters, I wonder if there's some internet archive of responses to all the commonly raised biblical, ahem, improbabilities: e.g. Noachian global submersion, the sun holding still (the earth's suspending rotation?) for Joshua, Methuselah living well into his 10th century...

I often wonder this myself.  Over on Heddle's blog (I travel there often for amusement and to argue, which affords me even more amusement) when this subject comes up, he generally dismisses it with something like this, "Oh, like that argument has never come up.  It's been refuted so many times that I don't feel like going into it again."  (Note: this is not a direct quote).

To his credit, he is running a series of posts that supposedly deals with squaring away inaccuracies between the Bible and science.  The first two have dealt with bats not being birds and the value of pi.

Date: 2006/01/11 09:42:42, Link
Author: GCT
Sir TJ,
I don't know him, I just read and laugh.  I can update this thread when he adds a new entry so that whoever is interested can surf over there and check it out if you guys want.

Date: 2006/01/18 05:12:40, Link
Author: GCT
I love how every time someone sees through their charade, they simply whine, "But he clearly does not understand intelligent design."  Yet, they are completely unable to articulate anything about the designer, what the designer did, how, when, anything at all.  It's either unsaid because of the implications, or these people are so incompetent that they can't get their "scientific" theory into the stage of hypothesis.  It's obviously the former, but I think the latter may be true as well (the incompetence part at least.)

Date: 2006/01/18 09:15:41, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 18 2006,14:28)
Well it would sure make God look like a goof ball if it turned out the intelligent designer was in fact a space alien or time traveler (as Behe suggest) and not God.

Someone should ask Luskin if it is not God, and in fact a space man, where does that leave God's role?

Did God create the intelligent designer or was it the other way around?

Also, does Intelligent Design Creationism Theory tackle the important question of whether or not we were designed in the intelligent designing space alien time travelers image or not?

That line of thought certainly opens them up to the charge of who designed the designer?  Are they willing to admit that an alien race could have evolved elsewhere then seeded us here?  If so, then why could we not have evolved?

Of course, they say the question of who designed the designer is off-limits, because they refuse to say anything about the designer.  How convenient.

Date: 2006/01/19 03:22:31, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 18 2006,17:05)
A bit beside the point, but is anyone else impressed with what a really bad writer this Luskin fellow is?  Presumably the Disco Inst must have hired him for something other than communication skills.

I don't know why you think he's so bad.  His job is to use science-sounding jargon, write in a complicated fashion, and try to emulate a scholarly person.  The BS might be apparent to you, but most people would sort of gloss over it and then think, "He uses big words, so he must be smart, and he must be right; plus he's talkin' 'bout god, so I'm all fer it."

Date: 2006/01/19 05:23:58, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 19 2006,11:16)
Q: Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

A: No. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/684

That's funny.  In a discussion with an IDer a couple days ago, the IDer went as far as saying that if we had ID around 30 years ago, we would now know what all the "junk DNA" is used for.  I had a hearty laugh at that one.  Turns out this person had been booted from UD even though he wholly supports ID and kisses Dembski's backside nightly.

Date: 2006/01/19 07:48:40, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 19 2006,13:04)
Quote
Is that lunatic preacher in the USA "Pat Robertson?"

I live in England, and until he was on the news for his remarks over Katrina, most people i told about Roberston thought i was making him up. In a country run by him i would have been burned for heresy years ago.

In a country run by Pat Robertson, only people who bowed down and kissed his feet (and paid him LOTS of money) would be spared from being burned as a heretic.

Date: 2006/01/19 08:53:45, Link
Author: GCT
Actually, DaveScot is right about one thing.  Dembski did axe some commentors before their first comment.  It happened to me.

Date: 2006/01/19 09:38:16, Link
Author: GCT
Russell, I think you misunderstood.

His writing sucks.  I totally agree with that.  What I was lamenting is that it's good enough for the intended audience.  You and I can parse his writing all we want and find all the mistakes, but the average Joe person that he is writing for probably won't.  The intent is to overwhelm the reader with big words and fancy-sounding language in order to intimidate the reader into thinking that the author must be very smart and therefore must be right.  At this, the Disco boys are pretty good, Luskin included.

Date: 2006/01/20 07:54:04, Link
Author: GCT
Russell,
Bruce Chapman sucks too, at least the stuff I've read that he's written.

Edit: And Jonathan Witt isn't the best writer I've ever seen either.

Date: 2006/01/23 07:17:43, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 23 2006,12:29)
I have read your posts on predetermination, although I have been told many times that all of my actions are selfish and sinful, i have never been told that this is all preditermined and there is nothing i can do about it. Is a good act then defined as one that is done in pursuit of god, or one that is done by someone who is preditermined to follow god?

I asked a similar question, that if a Christian runs into a burning building to save a child, is that action seen as good or bad and whether that changes if it is a non-Christian.  The answer was that all actions are bad.  Here's the actual quote:

Quote
Given that the bible says that in our fallen state all our righteous acts are filthy rags, and that nobody can please God--I would say that even the best acts of fallen man are tainted by sin, and that makes those acts of no merit before God.

Date: 2006/01/23 08:54:04, Link
Author: GCT
Here's my new theory...

They are trying to be like those exclusive night clubs that keep everyone outside with a velvet rope.  That way, everyone wants to get in because if you do manage to get in and appease the "bouncer" (DS in this case) then you get to say that you are part of the select few.

Date: 2006/01/24 07:37:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,13:16)
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?

You mention magical entities as not being a sophisticated enough explanation for life on earth. But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal. Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab? Why is art the rule rather then the exception? Magic? What did Arthur C. Clarke say about magic?

So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.

One another note, you might want to check out the movie "I (heart) Huckabees".

Date: 2006/01/24 08:07:33, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Charliecrs @ Jan. 24 2006,12:10)
Russel - I can easily argue that Evolution is a seat warmer for uneducated atheist /secularists who think they are some dignified smart people because they can be intelligent while rejecting the notion of a "G-d"... You know the type who argues that 'separation of church & state' is in the constitution. While @ the same-time have a lifetime membership to American united for sep. & church [curiously enough]. Uneducated because if they actually read the constitution they would of withdraw their membership a longtime ago.

Charlie

I know I may be troll baiting here, but I'd like to see you "easily" argue your case here, including the bit about separation of church and state.  If you decide to take this on, good luck, you'll need it.

Date: 2006/01/25 05:35:36, Link
Author: GCT
It only bothers him if someone brings it up in the comments on UD.

Date: 2006/01/25 09:17:10, Link
Author: GCT
I will also answer (unsolicited).  I keep a smile on my face and think that it's all for the greater good.  My (probably naive) hope is that somebody looking on that hasn't become a True Believer™ will see the dishonesty and tricks that the IDists employ and will be swayed away from their spurious arguments.  Plus, sometimes it's just fun to laugh at truly ignorant comments.

Date: 2006/01/31 07:22:31, Link
Author: GCT
One could (and some have) make the argument that they receive just as shabby a treatment by their religion, yet they keep going back to that.

Date: 2006/02/02 07:54:44, Link
Author: GCT
Boondocks rocks.
Stroker and Hoop rocks.
Robot Chicken rocks.
Moral Orel rocks.
Birdman, Aqua Teen, and Sealab still rock.

Squidbillies...not so good.
Perfect Hair...not good.
12 Oz. Mouse....sucks.
Tom goes to the Mayor....and sucks a big one while he's at it.

Date: 2006/02/03 09:31:44, Link
Author: GCT
Because they are so good with logic?

Date: 2006/02/06 04:38:38, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,14:14)
It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

Only the 6-day people believe in no kind of evolution at all.

Therefore, whether we believe that this entire shebang was frontloaded at the big bang, whether we believe every particle was predetermined at the start, whether we believe that there was relative freedom in how things turn out, whether the front-loader inserted one or several common ancestors, whether we think evolution is ongoing or has in fact finished -- all these are subarguments.

So if Puck is right that evolution is agnostic, or that evolution takes no position upon the genesis of first life or the universe for that matter, then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.

What you are describing is the differences between atheism and theism.  But, I thought this was about science, and not religion?  All science, evolution included, is about finding the natural explanation for things using natural methods.  It's called methodological naturalism.  It's an explicit admission that we have no supernatural methods and we have no way to figure out supernatural means or entities.  If you have a way of using a supernatural method or proving the existence of the supernatural, by all means provide it.

Also, if you want to be intellectually honest, you should not limit your criticisms to evolution.  By your definition, all science is atheistic, since no science includes god.

Date: 2006/02/06 04:44:40, Link
Author: GCT
I read that yesterday (I get the WaPo) and this part really stuck out for me...

Quote
Before the class, Crocker had told me that she was going to teach "the strengths and weaknesses of evolution." Afterward, I asked her whether she was going to discuss the evidence for evolution in another class. She said no.

"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution," Crocker said. Besides, she added, she saw her role as trying to balance the "ad nauseum" pro-evolution accounts that students had long been force-fed.

So, when they talk about "teaching the controversy" this is what they really mean.

Date: 2006/02/06 04:49:58, Link
Author: GCT
I ventured over to the ATBC page on UD and found this:

Quote
This is a place for me to send messages to the peanut gallery at After The Bar Closes since Wesley banned me there. Plus it just tickles my fancy knowing you ATBC clowns will have to type “darwinsucks” to get to it.

02/01/06 I’m still the blog czar. Whoever bet end of January just lost. As JAD would say “Who is next?”

02/04/06 Wesley Dingleberry discovers and bans unsecure/open proxies. Oh bother! Back to dynamic IPs to get around it.  

Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:50 am

How juvenile.

Date: 2006/02/07 07:16:33, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb 6 2006,17<!--emo&:0)
Yeah, I'm new here and I do not want to be annoying. Problem is the topic comes up all the time. I think its unavoidable because the core of this whole debate is about whether we live in a purely material universe or not. There's no way really to discuss ID or evolution as understood by many of its most famous proponents without taking atheism/theism into account.

My biggest interest is more philosophical, about the nature of reality itself, conscousness, and what human beings are doing with themselves. I see that it is very hard for most people to approach truth objectively because their emotions  color their motives.

To me it appears that there is a blockage in ability to communicate because for many on the 'scientific' side religion is repugnant to them. I find good reasons for that.
In my opinion, Christianity is stuck in the dark ages, and is only beginning to think about moving out. On the other hand, many in the scientific community, reacting to that primitiveness, are in a state of suspended animation in their ability to find more useful ways to think about reality.

That's what I'm getting at.  With evolution, you don't need to talk about atheism vs. theism, but with ID you do?  ID is dependent on having some sort of supernatural being (defined as such, since this being is responsible for "designing" the features of the universe and only the "supernatural" could be the designer of the natural.)  Since it is dependent on that supernatural entity, it is inherently in the region of religion.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also, you try to argue from personal incredulity, but what is more probable, the process called evolution that has multitudes of evidence, or the undefined process called ID that posits an entity that science can not provide any evidence for, by the own definition of the entity?  That's the thing.  God can not be proven or disproven by science, and there is no evidence that can point to god since all evidence simultaneously points to god and not god all at once.

Edit:  It seems that you think evolution must discuss religion, but that is only correct in cases where the religion makes empirical claims that are open to falsification by scientific inquiry.  Of course, in those cases it would not just be evolution, but physics and many other fields.  So, I ask you what is it about evolution that is more atheistic than any other field of science?

Date: 2006/02/07 08:12:27, Link
Author: GCT
That article by Jay Richards was one of the funniest that has ever come out of the DI.  So, if anyone wants to read it, here it is:

http://www.idthefuture.com/2005....an.html

Date: 2006/02/08 05:00:01, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 07 2006,17:47)
I do not think you have understood the complex specified information argument. The coin toss answer I've seen before as well. Look, every moment of your day and every item within it is unique and unrepeatable. So the chances of it occuring in just this way if predicted beforehand would be vanishingly small. The solutions we see in biology may not be the only possible ones, but they are extremely unlikely in comparison to the vast search space of random possible connections.

First, I want to say something about this.  You are making a mistake here.  When a mutation occurs, it doesn't really have the full range of all random possibilities.  A single mutation has a limited range of sample space.  There was already a discussion on this not too long ago.  Think of it like this.  If a line represents all the possible outcomes of an organism, then a single organism sits somewhere on the line.  A new mutation is only capable of shifting that organism's spot on the line by a minute amount.
Quote
No, I think it comes up with all of them. Darwinist evolution from the beginning was an attempt to get away from superstition and unexamined a priori acceptance of revealed scripture, yes, but it was also an attempt to do away with a need for God altogether, and the repugnance of the Christian God was a major emotional motivation. So from the beginning this was an attempt to explore the viability of a materialist worldview.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, but I fail to see how "Darwinist evolution...was an attempt to do away with a need for God altogether, and the repugnance of the Christian God was a major emotional motivation."  Are you suggesting that Darwin was somehow biased against the Christian god?  It's true that he had questions about his faith, but those manifested themselves after the publication of Origin and were the direct result of the death of one of his loved ones.  Nice try, but no such luck.

Quote
Well, the argument that we must ultimately rest upon a cause of nature I agree with, but ID itself needn't go that far.  The point of ID is that if the evidence points to a designer, we can't exclude it because we don't want it to be true.

Again, trying to have your cake and eat it too.  If ID is predicated on a cause of nature, then ID necessarily must show that that cause of nature exists, which is wholly impossible through science.
Quote
And if there is a supernatural being who caused nature then we are all dependent upon it, and if that is the case there are only two positions for the sentient being to take: awareness of it or unawareness of it.

But I fail to see how you will show this without engaging in circular logic.  There is no evidence for god or ID, unless you assume that god exists, but that would be fallacious.
Quote
Region of the spiritual.
You know what I like about this whole big drama? In which the scientists have wiped the slate clean in one fell swoop and said "Okay, let's start with what we know is true and work from there."
It's a beautiful thing to do. It was time to clean house. Now the physicists are getting more and more serious about consciousness. The God we end up with will not be the one we left behind. And thank God for that.

Once again, how does one scientifically test for god?  Besides, spiritual or religious realm (really they are the same) either one is outside of science.
Quote
Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail. It's all about Reality with a capital R and reality is all about detail.  What's more, I see no possibility of a universe without God. None at all.

First of all, as others have pointed out, there are about 150 years of peer-reviewed articles with evidence for evolution.  Second, IDists being "into detail" is simply not true as also pointed out to you.  Third, you are having cake eating problems once again in that you support ID because you see "no possibility of a universe without God" yet you want to claim that it is completely scientific.
Quote
In my opinion that is a clue about the immanence of God - that God is part of everything.

God is part of everything and also part of nothing all at the same time.  Everything is both evidence for and evidence against god all at the same time.  Can you cite one thing, just one that is strictly evidence for god that does not rely on the a priori assumption of god's existence?
Quote
About the branches of science - Yes, as I mentioned above, evolution tends to be more atheistic in that they have had from the beginning prominent proponents who have made this almost part of the platform. I believe the Cornell president said something about this, and someone else said that those who think evolution is compatible with religion have not understood evolution and so forth. But as I also answered, science itself is not a being with whom I can find fault. ID is simply against the tendency to refuse admittance to and to ridicule any but a materialist interpretation of evidence. This has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Evolution is not compatible with some religions, that is true.  Those religions are ones that hold that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 literal days.  Of course, physics is not compatible with those religions either?  Why, because those religions are making non-spiritual, empirical claims that are falsified.  Evolution and all science is based solely on the empirical.  This does not equate to atheistic.  ID, however, is not solely based on the empirical, because it is predicated on finding the supernatural.  The ID movement is not scientific, it is a religio-political movement centered on combatting atheism.  Their insistence on creating straw-man definitions of evolution that equate it to atheism speak to this.  You are even making the mistake of equating philosophical materialism with methodological naturalism.

Date: 2006/02/08 08:37:21, Link
Author: GCT
Because you guys can't agree on what a massless particle is, there must be a controversy.  I say we teach the controversy.  Furthermore, it has caused me to doubt massless particle theory (it is just a theory afterall).  In fact, there's not much proof for it and I just can't see how it could be possible.  I don't know of any flashlights that become massless when you turn them on.

Plus, masslessness is a naturalistic concept and necessarily atheist, so I must reject it in favor of the Flashlight Designer theory, which is far superior to your baseless, materialist suppositions.  FDT can scientifically tell you that god created the flashlight which is so much more detailed than your pathetic little massless particle nonsense.

Date: 2006/02/08 09:05:26, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 08 2006,14:59)
GCT,

I cannot compete.

-Dan

Forever more, I shall keep this quote and use it as evidence that even materialists doubt that massless particleism is true.  Want to join the list of scientific type people that reject massless particleism?  It's the fastest growing list of dissent from science in the country.  It grew by infinity percent today when I signed it.

Date: 2006/02/09 03:40:09, Link
Author: GCT
If I had a dime for every time Dembski declared that something would be evolution's Waterloo, I would be rich by now.

Date: 2006/02/09 04:17:32, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 09 2006,00:10)
Quote
And conversely, photons ALWAYS go the speed of light.  You are correct that the speed of light is different in different media, but photons never go faster or slower than that.
 This seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?

Will you sign my statement against the atheistic massless particleism that is running rampant through the atheistic scientific establishment?  Even their own defenders admit that they have no answer for my arguments.  Cogzoid said,
Quote
I cannot compete.

Renier said,
Quote
The "Flashlight Designer [Theory]" is a gem.

Even the dogmatic massless particleists are jumping ship to my new FDT.  Join up brother and together we can defeat the materialists!

Date: 2006/02/09 04:59:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 08 2006,15:40)
GCT,
About Darwin, I answered above but his daughter was not the only consideration. He specifically mentioned that Christian doctrine would send his father and grandfather to ####.
I wasn't saying ID is predicated on a cause of nature. Nature is predicated on a cause of nature. Id itself doesn't go that far.

Avocationist, there's a lot of rubbish in your post.

Even if ID stops before saying the G word, they are still pointing to god and saying, "goddidit".  I'm sorry, but that is neither scientific nor useful in the least.

Stop equating atheism and evolution, unless you will do the same for all science.  Science and evolution can not say whether there is a guide or plan to evolution, because there is no way to physically uncover a plan or guide.  That does NOT mean that science is atheistic.  It just means science is unable to comment on that nature of the argument.  You can include any god-belief you want and it has no bearing on evolution.  You can believe that god caused the correct random mutations for natural selection to select in order to create humans, and it has no bearing on science what-so-ever.  Science will not agree with you on that score, but it won't disagree with you either.  That does NOT make it atheistic.  If you continue with this line, then you should be intellectually honest and also say that physics is atheistic, as is chemistry and every other science.

Quote
I didn't say we must assume God exists, I said if God exists, we can either be aware of that or unaware.
Not scientifically we can't.

Quote
[quote]Once again, how does one scientifically test for god?  Besides, spiritual or religious realm (really they are the same) either one is outside of science.
Some people are saying that quantum mechanics has proved nonlocal consciousnesss, and that material reality cannot function without consciousness. If so, that would come quite close to a proof of God. One can say religion and spirituality are the same, but there's a big difference in assuming a coherent, unified universe held together by some sort of Universal Mind versus fundamentalist Christian dogma.[/QUOTE]
This is flat out wrong.  Who told you such rubbish?

Quote
[quote] you support ID because you see "no possibility of a universe without God" yet you want to claim that it is completely scientific.
I did not say I support ID because I believe in God. It may be that I am able to see the ID arguments because I am not prejudiced against them. I don't really care how evolution occurred, except that I don't see how I could ever agree with the metaphysical position of Dawkins or Gould. I find the kind of intervention that IC systems may require disturbing and hard to reconcile with my ideas of how God would work organically as a kind of Self-evolution via nature. I prefer front-loading, but maybe not. It maybe that the intelligence of the cell is just a reflection of the ongoing omnipresence of God in everything. If there is a life force (which I think there is) then why not a mind force?[/QUOTE]
No, you didn't say that, but you can't support ID unless you believe in god.

Also, your argument boils down to evolution = atheism because there are atheists who accept evolution.  Every science has atheists in it (ID doesn't, but it's not science.)  More rubbish.

Also, IC is a troubling concept, because the definition keeps changing.  Really the only definition that has stayed the same is that something is IC is Behe says it is.  It's also an impossible argument to prove.  Behe says that something that is IC is impossible to occur by chance, but he can't know that.  In order to know that, he would have to know all the chance occurances we know about, plus all the ones that we don't know about, which he can not do.

Quote
[quote]God is part of everything .. is both evidence for and evidence against god all at the same time.
In an odd kind of way, yes.  Do you see the humor in that?[/QUOTE]No, I don't see the humor in the fact that you think it is science.

Quote
[quote]Can you cite one thing, just one that is strictly evidence for god that does not rely on the a priori assumption of god's existence?
The one I gave earlier. The existence principle.[/QUOTE]
More rubbish.
This "existence principle" seems to be a variant on the misuse of Causality (i.e. everything that occurs or comes into existence has a cause, so the universe must have had a cause, therefore god exists.)  It is not evidence for god (in the scientific sense or otherwise).

Quote
[quote]The ID movement is not scientific, it is a religio-political movement centered on combatting atheism.  Their insistence on creating straw-man definitions of evolution that equate it to atheism speak to this.  You are even making the mistake of equating philosophical materialism with methodological naturalism.
 Despite that it is dedicated to the overthrow of the materialist worldview, it is also scientific. They are not mutually exclusive. And it is a little disingenuous for people here to insist that it does not teach atheism. I have spoken to many young people including my own and they have been taught a nihilistic worldview in school, one that they find depressing. Everyone needs to clean up their act. The Christians need reformation, and the evolutionists need to stop peddling atheism.[/QUOTE]
You prove my point.  You invent strawmen where evolution = atheism, but you can't come up with a reason why.  You also can't distinguish between evolution and any other science as to why it is more atheistic, except to say Dawkins and Gould, which is rubbish reasoning since there are atheists in all scientific disciplines.

Date: 2006/02/09 07:38:17, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 09 2006,12:06)
And old fashioned common sense conflicts with many Bibical myths such as no human being is going to survive 3 days and 3 nights inside the belly of a whale.  Common sense and a marginal understanding of human biology indicates no human being is going to live for 300 or 700 years.  And the world is not 6,000 years old.   Is common sense the enemy of faith as well?

Plus, when is the last time we saw a whale that was even capable of swallowing a human?

Date: 2006/02/09 08:22:30, Link
Author: GCT
Hey, Paley, why don't you post over at UD?  Or do you?  Have you gotten the badge of honor of being banned yet?

Date: 2006/02/09 08:45:45, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 09 2006,13:45)
GCT:
It's not me "continuing with this line." I have no argument with what you say and I will agree that all science is guilty of atheism if all branches' major proponents publicly insist that their branches prove that we do not need a God to explain our existence. You say science has no ability to comment or ability to discern god or purpose. Great. No problem. If your interpretation is correct then I have no beef with it. But tell it to Dawkins, and Dennett, and Mr. Cornell, and the Weisel 38. You can tell Gould too, but he's dead. Oh, and the guy who said that evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever devised.  Forgot his name.

So, evolution's defenders are not allowed to be atheist?  What about Stephen Hawking?  He's an atheist.  Oops, well I guess that there goes physics.  Physics is now atheist.
Of course, it makes it much easier for you to make this argument when you can ignore people like Ken Miller.  Yeah, he's no true evolutionist, just like he's no true Scotsman.
Quote
This is perhaps true. Although as I mentioned, there is Lloyd Pye and his interesting website. He believes all life here was instilled pruposefully by aliens, and I wrote and asked him what he thought of the origin of said aliens, and he replied that he works on what he can know and not on what he can't.

And he has not a shred of evidence for that.  Plus, where did the aliens come from?
Quote
ID is not a theory of life, or origins or mechanism.

Then, what good is it?
Quote
Yes, perhaps it needs to become that, for example by finding laws that govern the unfolding of life, but all ID says is we can detect design.

Which gets us where exactly?
Quote
Now, you insist that science cannot ever possibly address whether there is a God. But if there is no evidence that will ever satisfy you about something so humanly possible as design detection, then I guess you're right. I don't agree science will never address it. I don't say it will, I say it might. Because it might turn up in the next few decades that design in living systems becomes so obvious that no one can deny it, and it might turn up that we find out things on the nature of physical matter that require an origin, or something else I haven't thought of. That would be what I'd call an indirect evidence for the existence of some sort of godlike being.

Yes, it might turn out that humans are designed.  Happy now?  Now, how will you ever figure that out through science?  That's the question that neither you nor any of your ID buddies has any answer to.

First of all, it would not constitute evidence for any godlike being, even if we did discover we were designed.  Science is not about finding evidence for god.  Get that through your head please.

Second, it won't come to that anyway.  IDists refuse to make any statement about the designer.  Yet, in all cases of design detection we either know who the designer is or can make warranted assumptions about the designer.  So, yes, design detection is humanly possible and it happens all the time, but not when the designer is 100% completely unknown and unknowable.  Try again.
Quote
Well I disagree and I think they are well along the way to examing these issues. But you think we should give up because we just can't and that's that.

Yes, people should give up trying to prove that which is unprovable.
Quote
(Existence principle) "It is not evidence for god."
But of course no one has an answer to it, either.

So, anything we don't have an answer to is evidence for god?  God of the gaps anyone?

Also, we can't disprove god (through science) but you similarly can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I guess you should believe in His Noodly Appendage too.
Quote
We are on the verge of calling one another dishonest. I said a lot more than D and G. I said that it is pervasive in our academic culture and taught in school texts. I am pretty glad that you and Puck insist that this problem is overblown, but you've got your head in the sand and seem to be simply pretending that it isn't going on.

I'm not calling you dishonest.  I'm saying your arguments are rubbish.  If your religious sensibilities are hurt by the fact that science can not and will not recognize god then, quite frankly, too bad.  Part of the utility of science is that it will not try to recognize god.  When science did that, people tried (in the name of science) to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  How far did that get us?

Date: 2006/02/09 09:28:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 09 2006,15<!--emo&:0)
Well, well, well. I'm tired to death of hearing about arguments from ignorance. If we don't know, we don't know, and fantasizing ain't the answer. There is nothing invalid about telling someone that their proposal is utterly unrealistic. And we can't very well get started finding out what is realistic if we cling to said fantasy.

If someone in 1402 comes up with a green cheese theory of the moon, someone might have very good reason for disputing while admitting that they have no way with the tools of 1402 to get a handle on what it is made of. And the green cheese guy says, well you are making a negative argument, and what's your theory?

You should be tired of hearing it, because it is one of your arguments, and people are probably tired of pointing it out to you.

First off, if we don't know, we don't know.  I agree with that, so why do we have to say that it is god when we don't know?  Fantasizing that god is the answer is certainly not the answer.

Second, in your example, the analogy is flawed because that person would not have evidence to back the green cheese theory, while evolution has tons of evidence.  Also, it's not wrong to ask what someone's competing theory is, if they say they have one like IDists say they do.  The fact that they can't actually produce one is not my problem.

Date: 2006/02/13 03:36:20, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 09 2006,17:14)
Quote
Plus, when is the last time we saw a whale that was even capable of swallowing a human?



huh?

i can think of at least 2 species "capable" of doing so right off the top of my head.

sperm whale (eat giant squid, which are quite a bit larger than a human)

killer whale (eat seals and sea lions; equivalent or larger than humans in size).

however, to my knowledge there has never been a confirmed report of any whale species actually eating a human.

Sperm whales have been documented to actually ram and bash ships and sink them (happened rarely during older whale hunting eras).

Killer whales have attacked humans (almost all recorded attacks happened in sea parks).

Huh, try to be funny and see what happens?  I did not know about that.  Maybe I should have been more specific?  Like, what whale can swallow a human whole and not kill him?  Either way, my bad.

Date: 2006/02/13 07:27:19, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,12:56)
The problem is, this argument can easily be turned around. And it certainly seems to me that people who insist Darawinism is so obvious are glossing over the very good arguments against, which to my knowledge have never been answered because there exist no answers, and is every bit as blind as you think the other side is. You make the very good point that personal preference is a very strong, if not the strongest, cause for people to believe what they do. But if you think only the other side has that problem but not your own, then you may not have looked honestly.  

It strikes me as just as true that those who cannot see any problem with Darwinism, or who are scandalized at the thought of intelligent design, are "unable to overcome" their bias.

Let me repeat: to simply insist there are no really good causes for a rational person to doubt Darwinism seems like a form of fundamentalist thinking, which is to say, completely unable to see another point of view.

The problem for you is that we aren't discussing "another point of view."

As others have pointed out, you are engaging in Postmodernist thought.  The problem with that is that evolution has mountains of evidence that has been independently verified through many different lines of scientific inquiry.  ID has philosophical musings.

In essence you are walking outside, looking at a bright, blue, sunny sky and pronouncing that some people (whose god told them that the sky is red) see the sky as red and you agree.  When someone points out to you that the sky is indeed blue, that we can make measurements and show that it is blue, you reply, "Well, that's just your opinion.  My opinion is better (even though I don't have the requisite knowledge to make that distinction) and you are biased."

Like I said before, it's all rubish.

Date: 2006/02/13 09:44:54, Link
Author: GCT
I may be too harsh, but I want to point out the fact that Avo is ultimately rejecting not just biology, but other fields of science as well, that all independently confirm evolution.  In lieu of evolution, Avo gives us his personal incredulity and his religious sensibilities.  He tries to have his cake and eat it too.  He wants to claim that ID is all about science, yet can't separate the discussion from god.  Like I said before, it's rubbish.

Date: 2006/02/14 03:46:54, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 13 2006,17:05)
sorry, being a marine biologist, i simply knee jerk must correct errors in representations of sea creatures.

my apologies for stepping on your attempts at humor.

er, carry on.

No worries bro.  I'm glad to expanded my knowledge.

Date: 2006/02/14 04:29:55, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 14 2006,01:39)
I am not engaging in postmodernist thought. Someone made a remark about the behavior of IDists, and I pointed out that it cuts both ways. IDists consistently find the Darwinists impervious to evidence and rational argument, and to be motivated by dogmatic loyalty.

No, it does NOT cut both ways.  When the IDists actually present evidence (any evidence) then there might be a discussion.  Until then it will remain one sided, because ideas without evidence get no play.
Quote
I do not consider that "science is spreading atheism." Science itself is pure of intent. I consider that some scientists, and the field of evolutionary biology is overrepresented, are infusing their observations with a lot of materialist philosophy.

Who cares what the personal philosophies of scientists are, so long as those philosophies don't interfere with their work?  So Dawkins is atheist, so what?  Does it interfere with his work?  No.  So, Dembski is Christian, does that interfere with his work?  Yes, it does, and that's why we have a problem.
Quote
What other fields?

Paleontology, geology, medicine...
Quote
Now here is something for you folks to see. Your approach is one of skepticism, proudly so. And yet in this one area, the one which naturally and in most people gives rise to a healthy skepticism - that random chance has produced breathtaking complexity, consistently bringing about higher order without  any purpose or intent - in this one area you repeatedly attempt to shame nonbelievers and one another by this vacuous appeal to a discordant, hypnotizing notion thought up by Dawkins. That of personal incredulity. Of course I have personal incredulity, and lots of it. And the whole approach of modern science generally is to be skeptical and nonsuperstitious. I tell you, if the evidence is so damned good, why the need to remind people not to descend into personal incredulity? This is a group-powered shaming device and nothing more. Is this not a roundabout way of scorning those who lack faith? What does it mean to have blind faith in ancient, Biblical miracles of long ago and isn't it personal incredulity that makes many modern people doubt them? Don't you know this sort of thing is what causes the ID people to say Darwinism is in many ways similar to faith? And what makes you so sure you can escape human nature? What makes you so sure that having jettisoned religion that whatever it is in human nature that gives rise to the religious impulse won't find other avenues for its expression? And if you aren't capable of this level of self-inquiry and humans-in-groups inquiry, then you aren't sophisticated enough for philosophical endeavor, and are indeed naive. And if you think this is postmodernism, think again.

Skepticism is not bad, but your argument is.  You are acting as if your personal incredulity makes evolution incorrect or at least makes ID worth mention.  That is the key difference.  ID doesn't become worth mention simply because you are skeptical of evolution.
Quote
It can be separated from God but very often the topic comes up and I like to address it.

Well, stop.  If you want to address science, then come up with some science.  You haven't yet, but neither has any other IDist.
Quote
Science is not the search for absolute truth, science is the search for what is so.

You forgot the part about where evidence is necessary.  You also forgot about the part where we have to be able to actually test and verify that which we are studying.  God may exist or may not, but I defy you to come up with a way to figure that out scientifically.  Until you can do that, your arguments and all of ID is just a bunch of inane handwaving.

Date: 2006/02/14 07:35:46, Link
Author: GCT
It sounds a lot like an invitation from Dr. Dino.

It would certainly be humorous if someone posted over there something like this, "Check peer-reviewed journals X, Y, Z, etc. from about the years 1880 - present if you want evidence."

Date: 2006/02/15 07:53:44, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 15 2006,12:54)
So, this 'debate' challenge by whoever, seems to me they're itchin' to give TurboGoalposts v.3:16 a field-test.

v.3:16...priceless.

Date: 2006/02/16 05:37:31, Link
Author: GCT
And, that's the point.

Avo refuses to look at evidence that doesn't coincide with his preconceptions, or simply discards it.  He wants to believe the ID version, but they have no evidence, so he simply doesn't look at the evidence for evolution, and the evidence he does see he discards because "It's not convincing enough."  Then, he has the gall to bring up Occam?

Avo, when ID presents ANY evidence of the designer, let us all know.  Until then, your protestations are nothing more than sticking your head in the sand.  Actually, you are also maligning the evolutionary scientists that you speak about.  To you they are a bunch of impatient atheists that are so inept at their jobs that they can't see what you find obvious.  Could it be that perhaps you are mistaken about the vast majority of scientists?  Could it be that the brush you use to paint the 99.9999% of biologists that fully accept evolution is just a bit too broad?

Date: 2006/02/16 05:45:33, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 15 2006,16:58)
Nobody should suppose that creation scientists have no good arguments on their side, or that their every argument against evolution theory, (which I believe have been proposed since about 1860 and were not necessarily strongly religious in nature) must be different from ones an IDist might accept.

What matters is, can such questions be answered, and if they have not been answered in 30 years, does that somehow make the question irrelevant?

So no, this does not mean that ID = creationism.

Actually, it does.  If ID uses the same arguments as Creationists, then where is the separation?  All the Creationist arguments were born from the Bible, so I guess we know where ID gets its arguments from now, huh?

Oh, and all those arguments have been answered.  You might want to check out this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Date: 2006/02/16 07:10:37, Link
Author: GCT
Russell, I fully agree with you.  It's more sinister than that though.  See, it's materialist to assume that microgravity leads to macrogravity.  If you care about fighting materialism in science, you should join me in my crusade against the massless particleism that is rampant with these atheist scientists and their conspiracy to turn everyone into an atheist.  Will you sign my letter of dissent from materialist massless particleism?  It says that we are skeptical of the ability of massless particles to account for the complexity we see in electromagnetic phenomena.

Even massless particle adherents like cogzoid have admitted that their theory "can't compete" with mine.  Also Renier admitted that the "FDT is a gem" of a theory.  Join the list that has grown infinity percent this month!

Date: 2006/02/16 07:56:10, Link
Author: GCT
Of course it isn't Catholic.  It's atheist.

I know the truth.  I know that massless particles do not exist.  But, atheistic scientists have made these particles up to further their agenda.  Any Catholic physicist who says that massless particles exist is just a confused FDT advocate.

Date: 2006/02/21 02:36:26, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 18 2006,23:02)
Not as bad as the 2002 Nigerian Muslim Riots, also related to a newspaper. IIRC, somebody said something in a newspaper about Mohammed and beauty contests, and the blood started filling the streets. Several hundred died.

I thought it was because the Miss Universe pageant was supposed to be held in Nigeria, and the Muslim fundies decided it wasn't going to happen.

Date: 2006/02/22 02:28:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 16 2006,18:25)
Perhaps you ought to start looking for it. I am going to try to some extent, but I can't bring everybody up to speed.

Ha ha ha, if you can present evidence FOR ID, then you would be the first.  I'll be willing to put your name in for any science award you want if you can present any actual evidence for ID.
Quote
Oh my, your objectivity is showing.

And your subjectivity is showing.  When Dembski makes statements about how science must be consonant with Christ, then he has left the boundaries of science.
Quote
Paleontoogy is not considered Darwinism's strong suit, the field of geology would exist no matter what set of facts it turned up, and medicine is debatable.

Except that paleontology and geology both independently verify evolution.  So, by denying evolution, you are saying that the independent verification of those sciences are also in error.
Quote
It [evidence for evolution] looks like projection to me...

Only because you have a priori commitments to your god.
Quote
Oh, it was kindly meant. I wasnt singling them out in particular. It is human nature. There are two motives. One is ego: the desire to be right. And the second is what I mentioned above, the desire to quell the inner void, to convince oneself that one knows anything at all.

Which is why evidence is required.  The fact that you and your side can produce none vs. the fact that evolution has over a hundred years of accumulated evidence and peer-reviewed journal articles is a telling point here.  Do you think that one person's ego (or even a group of people) is what makes our genetic makeup so similar to that of apes?

Date: 2006/02/23 02:33:47, Link
Author: GCT
:03-->
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 23 2006,01:03)
GCT,

I know nothing of what Dembski may or may not say about his religious  beliefs. If I see it in context, I might have an opinion. I think science may prove to be consonent with God, but not with particular dogma or religion. If he privately thinks so and says so to a religious group, then that's his business. But as with all people, it is very hard to allow truth to be what it will be, if one has inner desires.

I see now.  What Dembski says about ID to a religious group doesn't matter, but if Dawkins professes a philosophical statement, then evolution is atheistic.  Nice double standard you've got going there.

Try these links: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html
http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2005....nt.html

Quote
You have twisted this. The projection had nothing to do with evidence, it was about your assessment of the behaviors of the ID crowd that I called projection. Such as being impervious to evidence.
The twisting was not intentional.  I did not get your point.  I will now answer your charge.

When the ID crowd uses old arguments that Creationists came up with 20+ years ago that have been discarded (and the adherents have admitted that they put the Bible first, science second) then, yes, I would say that's pretty strong evidence that the IDers are impervious to evidence.

Quote
Well, you must realize that the evidence you speak of is the same evidence that IDists are aware of, and it is no doubt why most of them accept evolution as a slow unfolding of life and one or a few common ancestors (some of them?) but they do not agree with all the interpretations of said evidence.

Oh, so IDists use the same evidence, but interpret it differently?  OK, let's examine this.  What evidence is there that any designer exists?  Seriously.  All Behe and Dembski, et. al. have done is say that it looks designed to them, so it must be.  That, however, is not how science is done.  I would expect them (at the bare minimum) to come up with some hypotheses and some tests of those hypotheses.  Care to enlighten us as to what any of those are?  What you are doing is making an a priori assumption that god exists and has designed us, and then you magically see the design that god did.  Unfortunately for you, everything and anything is evidence for that idea, and so it is completely useless to us and unscientific.
Quote
I don't get what you're saying here.

You made the statement that scientists accept evolution because they want to be right, that their egos obscure what you find obvious.  I was asking you if their egos are to blame for the fact that humans and chimps (and all mammals for that matter) share such genetic similarities.
Quote
I do not agree that paleontology verifies gradualism. But as for geology, I can only say that I never have thought all animals arrived at once or quickly. As Davison said over at his blog, it is the mechanism I have doubted.

Nice goal post move.  Considering that you haven't yet defined what you mean by "gradualism" and that that's not what I said or what I was arguing, I have to conclude that once again you are grasping at straws.  Paleontological finds as well as geology both verify the predictions of evolution.  We find wonderful transitional fossils at the time periods that make sense.  They all verify each other.  By denying evolution, you also deny those other fields of science.  Period.

Date: 2006/02/23 03:19:46, Link
Author: GCT
Behe's ideas are scientifically crap as well as logical crap.  As I've explained before, he is saying that there is no possible way that the flagellum could have evolved (he really means naturalistically BTW).  In order to prove that, he has to show that not only are all known mechanisms are inept to the task, and that all as yet unknown mechanisms of evolution are not up to the task.  Before he can conclude that the flagellum "poofed" into existence, he has to show that it could not have come about naturally, which is impossible to show.  The fact that you have bought into it shows that you have accepted the a priori assumption of god (and therefore violated science) and decided that it must therefore be true.

Now, before you protest that if god exists, then science must search for it because science searches for "truth."  You might want to define what you mean by "truth."  Science strives to best explain the world around us by the best means possible, which may be something quite different from searching for "truth."

Date: 2006/02/23 03:23:36, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Feb. 22 2006,20:45)
There is no way I could create a code like this.....

Therefore it must have been created by some designer?

Date: 2006/02/23 08:07:23, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2006,14:04)
is Uncommon Descent offline?

Or did they just go into a deletion frenzy and accidently delete everthing?

It seems to be working for me.

Date: 2006/02/23 09:31:41, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (FishyFred @ Feb. 23 2006,15:22)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/857

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

The only way it could have been better is if he had mentioned the impending Waterloo.

Date: 2006/02/27 01:28:05, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 24 2006,14:18)
Quote
I see now.  What Dembski says about ID to a religious group doesn't matter, but if Dawkins professes a philosophical statement, then evolution is atheistic.  Nice double standard you've got going there.
If Dawkins made a separate case of his atheism and spoke openly of his worldview only to atheist club meetings, it would be the same as what Dembski does. Dembski sees the difference between what is a scientifically viable statement to make versus one that is his inner worldview. That he hopes they do indeed coincide is only rational. Dawkins makes no secret that his atheist worldview is part of his evolution outlook. I cannot be sure but I think he has made statements to the effect that if (his) evolution theory is truly understood, it leaves no room for God and I happen to agree.

And you have this thing bass ackwards.  Dawkins says that evolution "allows" one to be an atheist.  You can not make the same claim of ID.  Now, which one is able to make a scientifically viable statement?

I still see this as a double standard.  Dembski teaches that science and Christ are completely intertwined, inseparable.  Yet, you take his word for it that he can separate the science and theology, even though his "science" is dependent on his theology.  Dawkins' science is not dependent on theology, else Miller would not be able to say that he accepts evolution.  What personal philosophy Dawkins exhibits does not change this fact.
Quote
The thing is, the antievolution arguments have not been discarded, and it doesn't matter how old they are. But if they put the Bible first, that's a problem.

So, you believe that there are good arguments that the Earth is only 6000-10000 yrs. old?
Quote
Well, I certainly think that they have done so. Again, you are assuming that the belief in God obligates seeing design, but that is not true for everyone so I don't think it is a strong argument.

First of all, please enlighten us as to which they are.

Second, you again have it backwards.  I've been arguing that belief in ID obligates belief in god.  The fact that I pointed to Ken Miller earlier as one who believes in god and also accepts evolution makes your statement ludicrous.  YOU are the one who has continually said that Miller must be a confused IDer because he can't believe in god and accept evolution.  YOU are the one who is pushing for god belief obligating belief in ID, not me.
Quote
Is the problem with our egos a result of animal nature? Probably. Not every one who doubts Darwinism thinks every life form was independently created. You know, there are certain body languages used by chimps that are used by humans, and the Catholic church comes to mind....

Nice story.  Now, answer my question.  You made the statement to the effect that people cling to evolution because their egos get in the way.  Is it our egos that account for the genetic similarities we see between us and apes, or other mammals.  In other words, it is not ego that caused these things to be fact.  It is fact that we have significant genetic similarities to apes, other mammals, even further down the line.  Ego has nothing to do with it.

Oh, and will you stop using the word "gradualism" without defining what you mean by it?

Date: 2006/02/28 01:54:11, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 27 2006,18:54)
You know I worked a lot this weekend and it is hard to keep up. Puck, you ask if I could tell something is designed if I was unfamiliar with it. We are familiar with what sorts of things we design, so even when we dredge up some unexpected artifact from the sea, we realize an ancient civilizaiton was repsonsible. But I think even on a strange planet we would be able to recognize the hallmarks of design.

Aren't there places in the world where shorelines have been altered and "designed" in order to protect natural habitats as well as human habitats?  Do you think that you or Dembski could walk along those shorelines and tell us what parts were designed, or pick out the "hallmarks of design" in those shorelines?  Without using the map of course....
Quote
Buying into the arguments for design does not mean one has an a priori assumption of God. Some people simply see a problem with the whole NDE ball of wax, or perhaps they just have too much personal incredulity, but the God part doesn't come first, and they may remain agnostic.

Contrary to what you said, how could one accept design and not accept god?  If one believes in cosmological ID, then it is utterly impossible, because a natural entity would not have the ability to "fine-tune" physics.  Even in biological ID, it is all but impossible.  How did some natural thing (alien, time traveller, etc.) create the flagellum, or anything else without having god-like powers?  How does this happen without any of us noticing?
Quote
I never said science should search for God. I said that science should acknowledge that there is the possibility that God exists, and if so, it changes all equations.

God may exist.  Happy now?  Of course, let's say that we all acknowledge that god may exist.  Does this mean that objects no longer fall at 9.8m/s^2?

The fact is that equations are what they are.  We have no way of knowing whether god exists or not.  If god does exist, then why would our equations change?  That just doesn't make sense.

Date: 2006/02/28 02:33:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 27 2006,23:38)
We live in the best of all possible worlds.  :)

No, we live in the world we live in.  In order to know that we live in the best of all possible worlds, one has to know what all possible worlds there are and then have some quantitative measure of determining that this one is the best.  I know you put a smiley after it, but it's a typical thought from the ID crowd.
Quote
If that were the only statement Dawkins made, you'd be right. I think he says more than that. There is nothing nonvalid about the statement that a system was most likely designed and not random.

There is nothing nonvalid about that statement, except that you can not produce any scientific evidence for it.  I'm also curious to know what you think the definition of "random" is.  If you think that "random" automatically means "no god" then you are wrong.
Quote
You have a good point that it is hard to separate one's science from religious or worldview. But you think Dawkins science is unchanged by it whereas Dembski's is. I don't agree. What seems to be going on here is that there is a great acceptance within the evo community (and indeed far more than I had expected) of theistic or deistic beliefs, so long as they are kept within a certain perspective. What I am saying is that ultimately either Dawkins is right and there is nothing but self-organizing matter, or the deck was stacked. Because if there is a supreme being of any sort then this alters reality at its very outset. Renier and Miller prefer a remote God who is separate from a system that he set up. I would have no argument with that as a possibility except it doesn't appear to be quite true - I don't see the system as being capable of evolving life all by itself, and from a mystical standpoint, a personal and limited God who resides in some particular spot but not in other spots isn't philosophically valid. In other words, I am arguing that all the cosmos is of an underlying unity.

Yes, the evo community is very accepting of theistic belief, provided that belief does not interfere with the science.  The evo community is also very accepting of atheistic belief, provided that non-belief does not interfere with the science.  The evo community and the broader scientific community accepts both Miller and Dawkins, because their philosophies do not matter when the science is involved.  Dembski is NOT accepted.  I'll let you figure out why.

If Dawkins is right or you are right, how will you figure that out with science?  The rest of your paragraph is all about philosophy.  You are trying to back up your "science" with philosophy.  I think you can see the error of that.

Also, I'd really like to know how if we all came to some realization that god exists that reality would somehow be altered.
Quote
What??? I have not looked into the age of earth arguments whatsoever and have no opinion. I am pretty sure that it isn't 10,ooo years old because the only persuasion which would think so is Biblical (dont know about koran, but I consider Islam a conflation of several local traditions extant at the time) and the possibility of the Bible being literally accurate is surely less than zero.

Well, that is one of the arguments brought up by the Creationist crowd, and something the IDers have generally refused to take a stand on.  I figured since you spoke about how the Creationist arguments haven't been defeated, that you actually knew what they were.
Quote
It seems to me you argued I believe in ID because I believe in God. I pointed out that people can believe in God and accept evolution. Therefore it is not so that I must be accepting ID due to my belief in God.

As to why Miller is a confused IDist, that is simply because while he definitely accepts a system similar to the one Renier described for us, nonetheless we are in a very different ballgame if there is a God than if there isn't one. Dawkins' reality is not Miller's. It is bizarre to be confused on that.

Now, I might start to get a little offended.  I'm offended that you think you can twist the arguments around and not have me notice.

It was YOU who said that evolution is atheistic.  Now, you say that people can believe in god and accept evolution?

Also, you do believe in ID because you believe in god.  Is it possible to believe in ID and be atheist?  No, it isn't.

What is also bizarre is the fact that you somehow think reality is different depending on whether one believes in god or not.  Do objects fall at different speeds depending on god belief?  Are the similarities between chimps and humans at different percentages based on one's god belief?  Does light travel at different speeds based on god belief?
Quote
I meant to say that ego gets in the way in human relations in many ways, including clinging to ideas with more than just facts for motivation. The genetic similarity between us and chimps is exxagerated I am sure, but whatever it takes to alter us from chimps to human is what it takes, nothing less and nothing more. Just the fact that we don't even have the same number of chromosomes would seem to refute the 99% estimate. I think the estimate in the end will be more like 95 or 96%. The whole chimp thing has little meaning to me. It's a code made up of the same stuff, arranged differently. You mght as well get upset that the same alphabet was used to produce Lolita as the Nancy Drew mysteries. We are made of the same stuff and the same code as squid. The whole planet is made of star stuff. We aren't chimps, we are the gods of this planet and it's time we started acting like it.

This has been addressed, so I won't belabor it.

I simply want to say 1) that once again you have maligned all evolutionary biologists as egotistical maniacs that can't see anything beyond their bloated heads, and 2) I am not upset that a masterpiece like Lolita shares the same alphabet that pedestrian works like Nancy Drew use, but I'm also not upset by the thought that we share a common ancestor with apes.  But, your explanation seems to say that since we are all made up of "star stuff" that Sol is also one of our cousins.

I'm not sure what you mean by "We are the gods of this planet and it's time we start acting like it."  What in the world does that have to do with science?

Date: 2006/02/28 08:47:05, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 28 2006,14:25)
"666 E Christ is Lord Street" might have worked better.  ;)

How dare you blaspheme an idea that is completely and in no way related to religion...at all....

Date: 2006/03/01 08:00:47, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 01 2006,13:29)
No one is arguing that such subtle forms of design are detectable. ID focuses on very complex systems, nothing like shorelines.

Do you honestly think that designing a shoreline is subtle and non-complex?  And, why can't the IDers detect the design of that?  If they can't detect that, then why do they think they can detect design in something that already has been explained by evolution?
Quote
I agree but my argument was that belief in god does not automatically mean one accepts ID. But belief in ID is difficult to reconcile with no God, you are right about that.

I'm glad you are finally admitting that evolution is NOT atheistic.  We can at least get that out of the way.  So, since it isn't atheistic, why can't you accept evolution and still believe in your god?

Also, if one must believe in god in order to hold a belief in ID, how exactly is that scientific?
Quote
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that in a mathematical sense. I simply meant that a universe with God is a very different one than without.

How?
Quote
Yes, but the arguments of a book like Nature's Destiny is that there is not another possible world, not one that can work anything like as well as this one.

And that is a specious argument for a couple reasons.  One, it's entirely possible that there are other worlds, or other universes that could create worlds with life.  Two, their definition of the best world is based on an Earth bias.  Three, (and this is a religious objection) why couldn't your god create a more perfect world?
Quote
Well, that is pretty much the way I take it. Now, if you take it that there was an initial setup so that the laws of nature would tend to lead to life, but that the process was random like a roll of the dice or perhaps like our weather, then I would not really consider that random. And even if a lot was left to chance, it is hard to imagine a highly intelligent God who can have made such a setup and yet not had a pretty good idea of what sort of life forms, and ultimately human-like intelligence would result. Was Miller's God totally surprised at the emergence of man? Did he say, Oh My, look at this!

And, like I warned you ahead of time, you are wrong.  Random from the scientific sense means that we can't determine or predict the exact time, location, etc. of the mutations that will occur.  We can also discern no plan.  It's non-causal.  That doesn't have any implications when it comes to god belief.  One is free to hold a non-belief in god and decide that it all happened naturally.  One could believe that god set up the initial conditions and let everything run on its own.  One could believe that god makes all the mutations happen and has a specific plan for letting things play out a specific way.  We just can't determine which, if any, of those is correct through scientific means.  So, we call it random.
Quote
It seems Alan Fox on another thread said that there is no developmental plan. I may have misunderstood him. He was saying that DNA codes for protein and that is all it does. Now, this was one of the main points in the infamous Meyer paper. We don't know a lot about how the body plans get realized in embryonic devlopment. He calls them epigenetic factors. I find it odd to simply state that there is no plan. I do think that science will ultimately prove whether species are capable of mutating into new species, and whether they are capable of generating new body plans in the ways described by Darwinian evolution.

This is your answer to how you can tell whether Dawkins or you are right about god through science?  Please.  Either way, science can not determine if humans are here by some plan, as I explained above.
Quote
It would mean everything and nothing at all.

This answer meant nothing at all.
Quote
Of course they can. We have Puck, we have Miller, and a couple of others here who confessed to belief in God. But ultimately, it can never, really, really be the same evolution that Dawkins thinks of.

So, you reject the notion that Miller is a confused IDist?  Good.  We've made some progress.

As for versions of evolution, as far as the science goes, it IS the same for Dawkins as it is for Miller and Puck.  Their philosophies differ, but the science does not.
Quote
Well, belief doesn't change reality. But reality itself is different if there is a God. The only difference belief in God would make to one's reality is that perception would be somewhat deepened, depending upon how much intent you focus upon it.

How is reality different if god exists?  God exists or doesn't, correct?  If we learn that god doesn't exist, does that change the reality of the world we were living in that didn't have a god?  If we learn that god does exist, does that change the reality of the world we were living in that did have a god?
Quote
I have not maligned evolutionary biologists as hopeless egomaniacs simply because I have pointed out that ego is an impediment to objective argument and slows down the progress of truth. I am not picking on any particular persuasion of humanity.

But, in reality you have.  You have basically said that biologists who have devoted their lives to studying evolution are a bunch of morons who let their egos get in the way, because they can't see what you find so obvious, which is the "fact" that evolution doesn't cut it, but some nebulous concept that can't be tested or even come up with a hypothesis is superior, somehow.
Quote
No matter how you want to interpret it, we are in charge here and we are head and shoulders above the other life forms, because of our intelligence. It is a quantitative difference, but not a qualitative difference.

That certainly depends on a lot of factors.  Certainly we are superior to all other animals in figuring out ways of killing each other.  But, I ask again, what in the world does this have to do with science?

Date: 2006/03/01 09:11:06, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
But when evolution as a whole relies on a large number of very fortuitious events, but insists on retaining the random and unplanned explanation, it does raise the incredulity quotient.

And which fortuitous events would those be?  If you think that humans were somehow destined, then you could perhaps say that everything that happened had to happen just as it did, else humans would probably not be here, so it must have been fortuitous, and the sheer probably of that is so astronomical that one would doubt how it could have happened.

Too bad that's not a good argument.  Scientifically, there's no reason to assume that humans were destined.  If one wants to take that philosophical leap, then one may invoke their god to explain how it happened.  Either way, it's not a good argument against evolution.

Date: 2006/03/02 04:56:59, Link
Author: GCT
BILL_DEMBSKI = 12 letters (include the space)
Assign a value to the letters in the alphabet such that A=1, B=2, etc.
WILLIAM averages to 12 (if you round up.)
INTELLIGENT averages to 12 (again round up.)
DEMBSKI_DESIGN = 14 letters (including the space again) but since the "DE" begins both words, only count each letter once and you get 12 letters.

Date: 2006/03/02 07:26:02, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 02 2006,10:56)
Assign a value to the letters in the alphabet such that A=1, B=2, etc.

Add up the letters in William and you get 79.
7 + 9 = 16.
1 + 6 = 7
7 = # of letters in William.
Add up the letters in Intelligent and you get 127, which is just 12 with 7.

Man, it all makes sense when you look at it like this.

Date: 2006/03/03 00:57:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 02 2006,17:07)
Extremely few ID people are agnostic. I suspect the one you have in mind, let's call him DanScot, is just lying. Jesus is the fuel of the ID movement.

I'll second that.

I've seen him on more than one occassion let his true religious feelings slip.  He has talked about the wonders of the Bible, the genesis story, how obvious god is, etc.

Date: 2006/03/03 01:58:11, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 03 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
This is very shi##y of you Russell. Let GCT go back and show where I twisted his arguments.

And I responded to this already...Here's what I said.
Quote
It was YOU who said that evolution is atheistic.  Now, you say that people can believe in god and accept evolution?

Also, you do believe in ID because you believe in god.  Is it possible to believe in ID and be atheist?  No, it isn't.

Back to what you said....
Quote
I think I already addressed this. comments like this make me think I am speaking with simpletons. Am I speaking with simpletons?

So, now you resort to personal attacks?
No, you didn't address this.  You simply made the assertion that the universe would be a lot different with a god than without.  The problem with your statement is the same problem that you have with a lot of your statements, namely a complete lack of evidence coupled with a complete inability to separate philosophy from real life.  You have NO CLUE AT ALL whether there truly is a god or not, and you have NO CLUE AT ALL how things might or might not be different.  No one does.
Quote
Why yes, I do. What did you have in mind? It sounded like a big landscaping project.

It's not simply a big landscaping project.  Your flippant dismissal is par for the ID course, however.  'ID only deals with complex things and shorelines aren't complex enough, blah blah blah.'  That is nothing more than a cheap rationalization for a "theory" that can't pull its own weight.  Good job, you've got the slippery evasion tactic down pat.
Quote
Because I have read books which have convinced me it ISN'T TRUE. It isn't because of my belief in God. The only thing about my belief in god is that I could never suppose that existence itself was anything other than directly related to said God.

And those books have lied to you.  You've also admitted that you haven't read the books that could convince you that it IS true.  In my opinion, that's some pretty bad scholarship you've got going on there.  Plus, you're convinced that ID is true, even in the face of no evidence for it, yet evolution is not true even though there are mountains of evidence for it.  Nice.
Quote
How is it not?

Because science does not presuppose god, that's why.  The fact that you can't even understand how an a priori assumption of god violates science means that you really have no standing at all in this discussion.
Quote
To the person who lives within a limited sphere of perception, there is no difference at all. But the universe itself, would be totally different. But you must realize there is no such choice- if there is a God it necessarily means that there is no other possible reality, never was, never will be and that all such talk is total fantasy. contrariwise, if there is no god then there is also no possibility or need of a god.

How would the universe be different?  You have no frickin' clue at all!
If there is a god, there's no other possible reality?  Says who?  God couldn't have made a different reality?  That's a howler.
If there is no god, then what does it matter if there is no need for a god?
Quote
I think the argument is not based on earth bias, but it can only make the argument if they assume that the laws of nature and the elements are as they are. It might be possible to have a completely different sort of universe, I suppose. What Nature's Destiny is saying is that the universe that we find ourselves in is a completely cohesive whole.

Yes, the argument is based on Earth bias.  The laws of nature and elements as they are?  If the universe had a slightly different law of nature, then the laws of nature would be different and then somehow less perfect?  If the bias isn't an Earth bias, then it is a present universe bias.  Either way, it's all claptrap.  They have no idea what possible universes there are/were/whatever, and neither do you.  Postulating about how this is the best possible universe of a sample population of 1 or infinity is nothing more than mental masturbation.
Quote
I don't think that is what people are taking away from their textbooks. But it is fair enough.

What people take away from their textbooks does not change the actual definition.  So, once again you are shown that evolution does not mean no god.
Quote
Hmm, I don't remember answering that specific question. I am saying that we will find out more about genetic expression, embryonic development, chromosomal rearrangements and so forth, and this, I hope, will put to rest some false ideas about how species can evolve through small random mutations.

So, you didn't answer my question, but you felt compelled to go on some tangent?  Nice.  Is that an attempt at obfuscation, or what?
Also, how do you suppose that we will find out more about the things you listed?  Will IDers do it?  Will ID lead us to answers to these questions?
Quote
If there is or isn't a God, all will appear exactly the same to your eyes. In that sense it is nothing. If there is a God this is a radically different situation. Supposing that you have a consciousness that animates and transcends your body, this will eventually make a big difference to you - that between life and nonlife. A God universe is ten trillion times better.

Again, you have no clue about this.  Having a god does not necessarily mean that we have souls and will transcend.  It does not mean that we will have life after death.  Where did you get the idea that a god couldn't create a universe where people live and die and don't have life after death?  Also, how does one determine that a universe with a god is ten trillion times better?  Once again, you've shown that you can't separate philosophy from reality, and that you make wild assumptions to come to your statistics.
Quote
It seems the one to twist words is you. First you say I believe ID because my belief in God requires it. I explain that I could work evolution into my belief in god and point out what has been pointed out by others here - that even people committed to evolution can believe in God. (But yes, I have indeed learned here that evolution is more comatible with belief in God than I thought it would be.) Now, Puck says that Miller disagrees with ID scientifically but accepts it philosophically. I still find that slightly incoherent. Also, what I understand of Miller is that while he thinks the setup had a tremendous amount of freedom to play itself out, he also believes in an interfering, omnipotent and omniscient God. Yes, I think he is an IDist. Just not of the tinkering sort.

Straddle the fence some more.  Twist my argument, then accuse me of doing it.  Nice spin.
Miller accepts evolution.  For you to insist that Miller is a closet IDist is completely specious.
(BTW, those "others here" that said one can believe in god and accept evolution...I'm one of them!  The fact that you imply that I'm arguing that one must be atheist to accept evolution, when I've specifically stated otherwise is completely intellectually dishonest.)
Quote
What I can't seem to get across here is that the divide is bigger between Dawkins and Miller than it is between Miller and Behe.

No, it isn't.  Dawkins and Miller have philosophical differences, but in the science realm they are much, much closer than Miller and Behe.
Quote
I was not speaking about a personal reaction to a belief. Why did you think I was? If there isn't a God all is material and ultimately will die out, perhaps never to rise again. Death is agony because one does not want one's consciousness to cease. Life is certainly fascinating, in a bitter way.

If there is a God then all in the universe is a direct emanation and part of that God, no one and nothing can be excluded, and consciousness is free to develop forever.

I wasn't necessarily speaking about a personal reaction either.  The universe is what it is.  There is a god or there isn't.  We have no idea.  We can't tell if there is a god or not.  Would any of the equations change if we found out?  No.  That's the point.  You have no idea whether there is or not, so you have no idea what would or would not change in the other condition (whichever that other condition is) were true.

Date: 2006/03/03 02:21:47, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 02 2006,21:46)
Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting “better” made us much, much weaker.....

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better?

[Emphasis mine]
What's all this talk about "better"?  What makes us "better" than other primates?

Scientifically, you can't make that statement.  I know you are quoting someone else, but you are using the argument yourself, and along with statements about how we are the kings of this planet or somesuch, I have to seriously wonder.  You seem to have some sort of superiority complex over the other animals on this planet, and you want to impart that onto the science as if it is part of a scientific argument.  Well, it isn't.  You might want to stop using it.

Date: 2006/03/03 02:36:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (PicoFarad @ Mar. 03 2006,05:13)
You can't be serious.  I've had to re-register here four times because some moderator removed posting privileges from older registrations.  I had to create a throw-away email address at hotmail to get registration confirmation because dodgeit.com was disallowed on the last go-round.  And finally I can't even read this site, to say nothing of posting comments here, unless I use an anonymous proxy because all my permanent IPs have been banned.

Care to enlighten us on why your permanent IPs have been banned DaveScot?

I seem to recall you making threats to the effect that you would hack PT.  It had nothing to do with your arguments and everything to do with your threats of criminal actions.

Date: 2006/03/03 04:58:45, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 03 2006,10:42)
The dum-dums are at it again. Sewell and Cordova are back, to once again abuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884#comments

Man, I keep forgetting about the 4th law of thermodynamics....

Date: 2006/03/03 05:20:42, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 03 2006,00:00)
Because I have read books which have convinced me it ISN'T TRUE. It isn't because of my belief in God. The only thing about my belief in god is that I could never suppose that existence itself was anything other than directly related to said God.

To expand on what I said above:

The books you've read that convinced you that evolution isn't true, were written by people who convinced themselves evolution isn't true because their god said so.  Their god told them evolution was bunk, so they went out and figured out how they could make convincing arguments that evolution is bunk.  Nevermind the fact that they formed their conclusion then looked for data....

But, by taking their word for it, you are basically letting their god decide for you that evolution is not true.  I don't know if that's better or worse than if your god told you it's not true.

Date: 2006/03/03 07:38:37, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (hehe @ Mar. 03 2006,12:58)
Yep. Denial is very real - like Holocaust denial or evolution denial. And pricks like DaveStalin want to put denial into public schools.

I believe DaveScot's second denial (using Steve Story's theory of second denial) is not Holocaust denial.  In fact, I believe it is the HIV/AIDS link denial.

Date: 2006/03/07 05:44:18, Link
Author: GCT
You might also want to try the statements made by the Dover School Board members.  I seem to recall something about how Jesus died on a cross 2000 years ago and putting ID in the schools is the least they could do for Him.

Date: 2006/03/08 01:15:08, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (sir_toejam @ Mar. 07 2006,14:53)
uh oh...

sounds like we need to have a "rename Dave" contest.

what are the rules?

does the new name have to include any part of his current handle?

DaveSLOT maybe?

Date: 2006/03/08 02:27:15, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (MDPotter @ Aug. 22 2005,20:37)
No, there is no 'there' there; from my reading people like Island at his anthropic-principle.org site are applying the 'principle' in exactly the manner the originator of the idea, Carter himself, warned against.
Just a pragamtic filter for scientific objectivity distorted into an amazingly silly idea draped in 'shiny objects' for the easily distracted.

Agreed.  Island seems to be under the silly delusion that he can prove the universe specifically created us in order to increase entropy, thereby causing the universe to expand, which was the goal of the universe in creating us.

If you are saying, "Huh?"  I was too.

Date: 2006/03/09 03:45:00, Link
Author: GCT
Now DaveSLOT thinks that Panda's Thumb drove these students to set fire to churches.  I just wonder if they violated the 2nd law in the process.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/901

Date: 2006/03/13 05:40:05, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 10 2006,01:0)
No need to repeat the last post - I have completely lost track of the thread of the conversation and if you think I have twisted your words you need to show how. Not that I expect you to do that level of research at this point, - but I did not know to what you were referring.

If you are not twisting my words, why do you ascribe to me arguments that I explicitly didn't make and in fact said the opposite of?
Quote
Alright, I'm guilty. I found it a bit frustrating that when I say the universe with God is quite different than without, that you took it to mean that the laws of gravity or something would be different.

And yet you still can't tell us how it would or would not be different...more on that later.
Quote
There is no separation of philosophy from real life.  What a bizarre thought. But of course, one can realize that one's philosophical opinions are more or less provisional. Which they are.

How is that bizarre?  You can philosophize all you want about any number of god-like beings, but it doesn't make them real.
Quote
You give up too easily. There might be a temendous amount we don't know, but we can surely surmise that if there is no God there is also no soul, no reincarnation or afterlife, no conscious intention behind the universe, that matter is the primary reality and things like intelligence are emergent properties of matter. Whereas if there is a God then something which has the property of self-existence and something like a universal mind would be the causal to matter, and that therefore all things are really one thing at their origin, and that something other than dead matter is the source of our existence.

That's all very nice, but you still have no clue which situation we are currently living under, nor which one would truly be better if the situation were reversed.  Further, how could we even tell if it were reversed?  If I currently have a soul, it's completely undetectable.  If god created the universe or not, we can't tell.  So, how can you "know" that the universe is vastly different with or without god?
Quote
No, you need to explain to me why you think a person or people altering a shoreline would be detectable as design.

Because it IS design.  That's the point.  If Dembski can't discern that it is design, then what good is his design filter?
Quote
Like Mayr's book? I am trying to read it, but it is very simplistic and makes bold statements with little detail. It is going over stuff that I have already read refutations of. But maybe it will get better. My main reason for reading it is to better understand why you guys think the evidence is so good.

I think you need a simplistic book (no offense) because your understanding of evolution is frankly not that great.  Don't forget that the "refutations" you have already read are a load of hooey that are based on religious arguments.
Quote
Remember, many of the mountains of evidence are data which are not in dispute, but the interpretation of that evidence, and certain extrapolations from that evidence are what is in dispute.

Ah, the old "I just interpret the empirical data to infer design" canard.  The problem with that, however, is that in order to "infer" design, you must first assume a designer...oops, it just becomes a circular argument.
Quote
Neither should science presuppose no God, and despite what Puck and some others have said, this is quite often out there in the public domain. Judge Jones said that there is a centuries old agreement against the supposition of God, and that ID invokes and 'permits' the supernatural. How can the supernatural not be permitted, and why must we call God supernatural? An a priori assumption of God does not prevent a person from doing perfectly good science, even in the arena in which it might matter, so long as they are willing to be proved wrong.

And, unfortunately for you, not assuming 'god' is not the same as assuming 'not god.'  Science must be completely agnostic on the issue, and evolution is, ID is NOT.

Also, I'll note that an a priori assumption doesn't preclude someone from doing good science, but it can't interfere with the science.  Oh wait, I've already said this.  Why must I repeat myself again and again just to have you repeat it back to me as if it's your argument?
Quote
I mean that a universe with a God is a different ballgame than one without. Whichever one we are in, it is the only possibility. If there is a God, it means that God caused existence and that matter could not have caused itself. If there is no God and matter is eternal, then God is an imaginary idea. I am not sure what you mean by couldn't God have made a different reality. I think that you mean couldn't he have made a different universe. I suppose he could but that is really a matter of detail - this type of story or that type of story. God IS the universe, whatever sort s/he morphs Itself into.

So what?  Oh, there is a flaw in your argument.  If there is a god, that does not preclude the ability for matter to have "caused" itself.  God may be nothing more than an observer.  Of course, you still can't prove that the universe would be different with or without god.
Quote
Given the elements that exist, they are all finely tuned and cannot be more finely tuned to produce life as we know it.

Where is your evidence?
Quote
Textbooks have stated, and the Weisel 38 have stated, that evolution theory proposes an unplanned and unguided process, and many or most evolutionists expect or hope that life itself was capable of self-assembly.

And you still don't understand what "random" means.  Uplanned and unguided AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN DISCERN (note the emphasis, because you really need to get this through your head!<!--emo&;)  Science can not tell about plans or intentions or gods, so as far as the limited practice of science can tell, we don't see a plan or guide.  That doesn't mean that science is saying that there is no god.  Also, note that no science talks about the planning and guiding from god, so we are back to you saying that all science is atheistic.  We don't really have to go over that again, do we?
Quote
You asked this: This is your answer to how you can tell whether Dawkins or you are right about god through
science?

And I answered this: I am saying that we will find out more about genetic expression, embryonic development, chromosomal rearrangements and so forth, and this, I hope, will put to rest some false ideas about how species can evolve through small random mutations.

And then you replied:  So, you didn't answer my question, but you felt compelled to go on some tangent?  Nice.  Is that an attempt at obfuscation, or what?
***********

Why not rephrase the question? You spend a lot of time accusing me of not answering or twisting words and I spend a lot of time wondering where we got lost. Perhaps if you included more than the final sentence in an exchange. If I don't answer right, clarify.

Fine, I will rephrase, although it was a very straightforward question.  If you refuse or evade this question, I will have no choice but to accuse you of such.

How will you scientifically test for god?

Is that clear enough for you?
Quote
I have no idea where your question came from - I do hold out the hope that science will prove something about consciousness such that it will make materialism untenable. Or perhaps some other types of proofs will occur. As it stands now, no one can prove God to another. The best one person can do is to help another one to expand their thoughts so that he can discover it for himself.

Then go figure out how to do that and run some experiments.  The fact that NO ONE has ever done that is pretty telling in this regard.  But, one of the reasons I asked is because IDists think that they can empirically prove god.  How will you do that?
Quote
As for who will be the discoverers of the limits of change through mutation, it doesn't matter. If IDists are in the minority, then it will likely not be them.

It's not because they are in the minority.  It's because they don't actually do any scientific experiments!
Quote
Perhaps not, but at least the possibility is there, whereas if there is no God, the possibility is most likely not there.

So what?  Really, I don't care if we have souls or not for the purposes of this discussion.  How can you scientifically test for that or show that we have souls?  You can't.
Quote
I think it is very likely that it is indeed impossible due to the nature of God and life that there is no such thing as a living being without spirit, in which case God couldn't create such a universe.

Anytime someone says "God couldn't" my stock answer is that you don't understand what omnipotence is (assuming you think god is omnipotent.)
Quote
The real number is not computable, so I picked a small number to illustrate.

Ten trillion is a small number to you?

Either way, you are right that the real number is not computable.  I'm glad you agree with me on that.  What you are incorrect about is whether that number must necessarily be above 1.  There is no logical imperative for a god-full universe to be better than a god-less universe.
Quote
Anyone who believes in God is an IDist. So there!

Tell that to the Christian posters here who support evolution, see what they say.
Quote
Of course I realize you are one of them - why do you think I implied you were not?

Because you felt the need to specifically restate my position as your own in some effort to win a debate point against me, thereby implying that it was NOT my position.
Quote
I guess I sort of wonder what to say to this. Certainly evolution papers and books talk pretty often about acquiring better and better adaptations. Like where Dawkins says that 5% of an eye is better than 6% of an eye. Is it better to have an IQ of 130 than 70? Sure, chimps have some better traits than we have, but the overall package is that we are an improvement....

Only if one assumes that humans are some end result.

Date: 2006/03/14 01:18:57, Link
Author: GCT
:02-->
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 14 2006,01:02)
Alright, this is pretty close to GCT's questions also.
We live in a universe. This universe may or may not have God. If there is a God then this God is the source of existence, because that really is what the definition of God entails. And not just a verbal definition.  The great question of causation is solved if there is an eternal and nonlinear being that is beyond notions of existence or nonexistence.

If there is a God then the way things have turned out for planets and life cannot be unconnected in some way to this God. And if there is a god then existence and the laws of nature come from this God so that random and unguided processes would not be adequate to produce our world. So by rendering intelligence meaningless, I mean the statement that even though there is a God, it looks like a universe might look if there wasn't one.
I'm not saying that the universe cannot appear material and nonspiritual to some people. I'm saying only one or the other is true and they are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, it means that not-god was never an option. Likewise, if there's no god, then such a notion is total fantasy, quite unnecessary, and impossible.

You lack imagination.  If there is a god, there is no logical imperative that this god is anything more than an observer.  We could still have arisen through chance or "not-god" processes.  There is no logical imperative that this god be about love.  There is no logical imperative that we have souls.  There is no logical imperative that god "caused" our universe or us or anything else.  That isn't to say that god isn't the 'cause' of all of this and we don't have souls, but there being a god does not necessarily entail that we do.

What is this "great question of causation?"

Now, simply because there is a mutually exclusive set of god or not god does not mean that the universe would be significantly different with or without god.  It is simply your perception of it that you think would be severly changed, yet the funny part about that is that it might not be changed at all.  You seem to think there is a god, but perhaps there isn't one.  Considering that we can't know, you still think there is one, and the universe hasn't changed, nor has your perception.

So, the real question is, how will you scientifically determine that there is a god?  ID says that it can be done.  How?  Evolution (and all real science) say that that question is off the table unless we can figure out a way of actually testing for god or not god.  Since we can't actually do that, then we can't say whether things were "planned" or not.  THAT is why we say things like, "Evolution is unplanned and unguided."  We say that because we have the implicit idea that it is unplanned and unguided AS FAR AS SCIENCE CAN DISCERN.  Once you get that thought through your head, you should see why ID is not science.

Date: 2006/03/14 07:18:23, Link
Author: GCT
Ha ha ha.  Thanks for the site Russell.  That's one of my favorite Python sketches of all time.

I'm seriously evaluating whether it is worth my time to engage Avo anymore.  It's amazing how I can come up with an argument that refutes her position, only to have her spit it back to me later on as if it is her argument and somehow strengthens her position.  It's mind-boggling.  Of course, I also like to solve Sudoku puzzles, so maybe I do just like wasting time.

Date: 2006/03/15 09:01:03, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 15 2006,14:47)
The thread title asks about a "post-ID" world?  What does that mean to you?  Since stevestory started the thread, it seemed to make sense to ask him what it meant.  And so I've asked and have yet to receive and answer.  Instead, I get silly responses that pertain to nothing being discussed.

Gee, I don't know.  Maybe it would help if you actually read the post that started this thread?  I mean, just a suggestion....

Date: 2006/03/20 03:04:23, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 19 2006,01:54)
I promise you GCT, you have not given me any great new insights.

I'm not surprised.  You seem impervious to education on things that you've already made an a priori judgement about.
Quote
as I already asked, if you think this has occurred, please show how it did. Use the quote feature, show the thread of you said, I said. Only then can I figure out where you went wrong.

Yes, it obviously must be where I went wrong, right?  One quick example, which I've already pointed out is where you chided me with the knowledge that one can believe in god and accept evolution, even though I had already used it to counter your arguments that ToE is atheistic.  Of course, then you still turn around and insist that Miller must be an IDist since he believes in god.  And, you continue to make comments about "materialistic reductionism" which say to me that you have not changed your position at all.  It is disingenuous of you to act this way.
Quote
The only thing I recall as far as me changing my tune at all, is that you have insisted that ToE is less unfriendly than I had thought to the possibility of God, which if true is fine.

If true?  You chided me with it after I used it to counter your assertion that ToE is atheistic.  You are really too much.
Quote
It's not about imagination. the great question of causation is how to account for the existence of anything. There is absolutely no way within your linear paradigm to account for the existence of matter. Something fundamentally other is going on. In order to get the label of God the being must deserve it. If there is an eternally existent being - then this being has already transcended the linear paradigm. And if this being had nothing to do with matter, then matter has also transcended the linear paradigm. yet matter cannot do so because matter cannot cause itself. And if matter has transcended the linear paradigm, then it is also worthy to be called God. Then we have two uncaused entitites in the universe, utterly different from one another. There cannot be multiple uncaused causes to existence.

This is so wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.

Which "linear paradigm" are you talking about that is "mine"?

Why can I not account for the existence of matter?

What must a god do to be "deserving" of the label and why is it necessary?

Do you even understand what it is you are talking about when you talk about things causing one another?  Who's talking about multiple uncaused causes to the universe?  And, once again, perhaps you might want to figure out what it is you are talking about when it comes to causality.
Quote
Perhaps not, but if God is about love, there is a logical reason why. And that reason is that as the one and only possible source of existence, all things have emerged from and are part of that God. Therefore, all is self. And self always loves itself.

So, I can assume that you love all of yourself unconditionally?  You don't wish you were a little smarter or better looking or anything else?  What you wrote here is claptrap.  You've made an a priori commitment to a notion of a loving god, and now you can't imagine one that isn't loving, so you make poor arguments as to why it should be so.
Quote
Of course it does. But you envision a kind of God which I think is untenable. You think I'm saying the universe will appear different if there is a God, but I rather think that the perception of God is not easy or obvious, and that the world won't look any different. The perception of God is of a different order. I guess the simplest analogy is that of a dog whistle. The dog can hear things outside your range. The perception of God is outside the range you are used to.

You bring empty philosophical ramblings that have no verification and act like they are true because YOU said so, and then finish with a crude snipe at me, nice.  Just because you think it is untenable does not make it so, just like with ToE.  Just because you have personal incredulity does not mean ToE is false.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate how you have the knowledge of the possible outcomes of the universe given god or no god in order to make the determination that a universe with a god is fundamentally different, let alone better.
Quote
ID doesn't say God can be scientifically proven. ID says it can be shown that beyond reasonable doubt that some systems could not have brung themselves into existence.

Then, they are wasting their time.  Even if systems could not have brought themselves into existence by any means we currently know, it would not lend evidence to design.  Sorry, but it's not either one or the other.  The insistence that it is one or the other is called setting up a false dichotomy, but you wouldn't engage in logical fallacy, would you?

Of course, if it wasn't god, then who was it?  Who could have designed "certain features of the universe" or "brought matter into existence" if not god?  You arguments are so transparent that I'd be embarrassed to make them if I were you.
Quote
Whether we can ever test for god or not god I don't know, but ID might be indirect evidence. But I don't consider it good indirect evidence, because lesser beings than God might have done the designing.

Oh really?  How do you find "indirect evidence" for god through science?  Hint, you can't.  But, if you figure out a way, I'll nominate you (or anyone else who can do it) for an immediate Nobel prize in any field you wish.
Quote
Now, you have said that because we can't test for God we can't say whether things were planned. You want evidence for god to be first. Well, it might not happen that way. And I don't see why you should it expect it to. Many discoveries, most perhaps, were found circumstantially first. Pluto comes to mind.
I really do appreciate your insistence that the term "unplanned and unguided" really means that evolution theory has no position on the matter of whether it was guided and planned or not, I'm just sort of surprised that this is so well hidden. i wonder why it wasn't put into the text books that way.

And, without presupposing god, how will you find that "evidence" for god?  Good luck.  As I said above, I'll do all I can to hook you up with a Nobel if you can do it.

And, as to the text books, perhaps you should read them.  Most of them have a section about science in general, which if read goes over most of what we've described and would help the reader to understand the context of the statements.  Some of the text books even go into explanation of the statement, gasp!

Date: 2006/03/21 03:05:16, Link
Author: GCT
I'm surprised that no one has taken Shi to task for these comments, so I will do it.

Quote
I am Okay with that but the data did not and cannot rule out a supernatural intervention in converting chimps to humans.  I am not saying there is a supernatural, neither do I rule it out.  For the current paradigm to rule it out is baseless without any sound jusitification whatsoever.  It is purely from self interest: so government funding would not be diverged from so-called science to invesitigating possible existence of a supernatural or the cause of religion.  To rule somthing out without any justification is not in the spirit of true science or seeking truth.

The supernatural?  Science does not rule it out.  Science is agnostic on the subject of the supernatural and religion.  Science can not measure it, so it necessarily does not concern itself with it.
Quote
I am glad you believe in some sort of God.  I am not religious but the possibility of God must be taken seriously before one can rule him out.  The current theory is based on no God.  What you and I should be working on is an alternative hypotheses that does not “ignore what we know, or contradict what we know, about this world'.  No one has proven that a hypothesis based on God will necessarily ignore 'what we know, or contradict what we know, about this world'.

The current theory is NOT based on "No god."  It is based on "We can't tell if there is a god or not, so we will remain agnostic on the issue."

As for hypotheses that are based on god, perhaps you could come up with one and actually test it?  You'd be the first.
Quote
Niels Bohr put it, the opposite of a fundamental truth is also a truth.  A particle is also wave.  I am inclined to belive that if the  no-God guided evolution theory is a fundamental truth, its opposite, a God guided evolution, is also a truth.  It is pointless for the two sides to argue.  What is needed is a unification of the two sides.

The argument only arises when people like you make erroneous claims about the atheistic nature of evolution.  If you could get it through your head that evolution is not atheistic, there wouldn't be a problem.
Quote
If we assume that most people are intelligent and honest, we must give our babe theory a second thought if 90% of the US population is not accepting it.  Blame others as non-intelligent and religious are signs of foolishness and weakness.

Appeal to popularity.
Quote
It has simply become impossible to follow for a non-specialist.  When a field becomes that complicated, it is a sign of weakness not strength.  It is time for a new perspective.  Beauty is simplicity and truth.  When a field lacks beauty and simplicity, it most likely has very little truth to it.

So, you would also advocate the overthrow of quantum mechanics?  If you think QM is not complicated....

I'll leave you with the words of Niels Bohr, who said, "Anyone who says that they can contemplate quantum mechanics without becoming dizzy has not understood the concept in the least."

Date: 2006/03/21 08:47:49, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (shi @ Mar. 21 2006,13:53)
So, by your logic, if the supernatural is part of the truth, then science and scientists will have no chance at all of discovering the whole truth.  If science only seeks limited truth, by what rights do scientists have in claiming that the scientific way is the way to truth.  Why do they imply that other forms of knowledge, like religion and mysticism, have less truth?  Why do they teach the layman to trust science and scientists?  Science is about things that can be measured repeatedly.  But nature is a lot more than that.  My thought in writing this note will never be repeated again in the future.  So my thought or mind is not a subject of science.  When the most important phenomenon of nature, consciousness, is not a subject of science, scientists should stop fooling the laymen that they should only trust science as their only way to understand nature.  Indeed, people are not that easy to be fooled and religion remains popular, even among scientists.

Cogzoid, improvius, and RG already handled this pretty well.

The only things I would add are to ask how science would investigate the supernatural and to once again point out your logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Edit:  And, Alan Fox, you beat me to the punch.

Date: 2006/03/22 02:23:44, Link
Author: GCT
Can't we scientifically look at the evolution of culture and morality and see from whence the immoratily of drowning children arose?

Date: 2006/03/22 08:25:36, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
8. Above you assert Faust as a play, but since the article uses the word opera, isn’t this more likely an adaptation of Charles Gounod’s opera “Faust”, which was adapted from Michel Carré’s play “Faust et Marguerite”, which was “loosely based” on Goethe’s aforementioned “Faust: Part I”?

It was a slip of the tongue. I know Faust as a story.

What?  Is this some sort of admission that he erred?  Oh, DaveSlot, say it aint so.

It aint so, but it is so that you're out of here - dt

Date: 2006/03/22 08:47:58, Link
Author: GCT
Maybe we should all take it easy on DaveSlot.  I mean, he may be the second coming.  Think about it.  He's petty and vengeful, he is infallible, and he can violate the laws of physics (simply by typing a sentence on a computer no less.)

Date: 2006/03/23 03:40:56, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (shi @ Mar. 22 2006,14:21)
Besides, I begin to suspect if you are capable of sound reasoning and judgement since you fail to see a fallacy that is plain obvious to anyone else.

Plainly obvious to anyone else...except the other posters on this board, including the ones who are biologists by degree and by trade.

Shi, if it is so obvious, why can't you explain it easily?  Why are you shown over and over that your examples are wrong only to have you come back with nothing to back yourself up besides unconfirmed assertion?

Date: 2006/03/27 03:15:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 27 2006,01:13)
Yes, I have come to see from you and others that NDE is more accepting of theism than I had thought. I should have prefaced my comment with "As you have pointed out..."

But, you didn't, did you?  No, you tried to act as if it were YOUR argument and that you would somehow win a point against me in debate by using it.  Considering it was not YOUR argument from the beginning, I think that is rather dishonest of you.
Quote
Yes, Miller is an IDist who disagrees with the likes of Behe on how and where God intervened. He definitely believes random processes are capable of producing a lot more than Behe does. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent he thinks God interfered on the quantum level (his hypothesis). Perhaps God directed mutations that way, which would be almost indistinquishable from Behe's position.

Ugh.
Go tell Miller he's an IDist.  See what he says.
Quote
What about my comments have been incorrect?

I wasn't pointing out where you were incorrect, but where you were inconsistent.  You admit that NDE is not in conflict with theism, then equate it to atheism.  It makes me think you are simply paying lip service and playing word games.
Quote
The one which is turtles all the way down, so far as causation events go.

Who said anything about turtles?  You are much closer to that than I am, insisting that things have a cause and all.
Quote
Well, please do.

Matter is.  End of story.  There is no logical need for a cause, and there is no scientific way of finding the cause that you think exists.  How do YOU account for matter?  You say, "Goddidit," which is completely scientifically useless.
Quote
A God must be the source of the universe and all existence. And that is necessary because if he can't, we need to find who/what can.

Says who (besides you?)  Why must god be the source of the universe?  Why can't god simply be an observer that has the power to interfere and does or does not?  Oh yeah, it's because you've already made your a priori assumptions about what god is and isn't.
Quote
If God is not the cause of matter/energy, then it has another cause than God. But God is also uncaused. Therefore, we would have two very different items, both uncaused. I consider this impossible.

The whole "everything must have a cause" argument is pretty bad.  But, I have to wonder why two uncaused items is not possible.  Again, I have to conclude it is due to your limited assumptions of who/what god is.
Quote
There is a difference between seeing lack of perfection in a being and rejection of that being or lack of support for that being. Even the Bible agrees. When Jesus speaks of the perfection of the Father, he gives the example that He sends his rain to the just and the unjust.

Thank you for proving my point.  Your reversal from the position that god is all about love is nice.
Quote
This:    The perception of God is outside the range you are used to.
was not a snipe at you. It is more or less the human condition.

I don't believe you.  You are saying that I am either sub-human or you are super-human.  Either way, I am less than you.
Quote
I'm saying they are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other both isn't, and cannot be.

Are those goal posts heavy?
Quote
Well, evidence that a system required design would be evidence against its random generation. Perhaps you are thinking of other alternatives than God vs NDE. One other alternative is interventionism, which thinks other beings, perhaps very old, perhaps even from a prior universe, or from a planet that got life going a few billion years ahead of ours, intervened here. I'm certainly open to other possibilities.

No, what you are describing is the dichotomy of design or not design.  That is quite different from the one that you have tried to set up with NDE vs. design.  In order to prove design by disproving NDE, one would also have to disprove all "not design" scenarios.  Considering that there is no positive evidence for design, this is the route most often taken.  NDE vs. design, however, is a false dichotomy.
Quote
Oh, well, if it is the universe itself we are speaking of, then I can't attribute it to any other than God. Why should I be embarrassed? I have never been embarrassed to say that in my view God is the primary reality.

If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to try to pass this off as non-religio/philosophical and scientific.  You admit that the designer must be god, but then try to say it is scientific in the same breath.  It's so incredibly transparent that only the true believers won't be able to see it.  I'd be embarrassed to be making such bad arguments.
Quote
This is an assumption on your part.

What, that we can't prove god scientifically?  It is an assumption, but an a posteriori one, which I feel justified in making.  If we were to make leaps in the scientific field that make it possible to study "god" then I would reconsider.  Until then, I will maintain that it's not possible.  Of course, the whole idea is a little contradictory on its face.  Science is studying that which makes the world understandable.  The existence of something that can completely alter existence or violate any physical law seems completely contradictory to what science is.  But, hey, keep your pipe dream if you want, just don't act like it's a reality at present time.
Quote
Consciousness research is a possibility. Quantum mechanics/string theory is another. And I think there are more. In my view, reality is all of a piece. One continuum, from God to a twig. As we get deeper into reality, we should find evidence, and it is far more likely that the evidence will be indirect than direct, for the reason that we don't have instruments to measure spirit. At least not now.

You say we 'can't' find scientific evidence for God, but if my view of reality is correct, it 'must' find evidence for God. Otherwise, science is fundamentally limited. So fundamentally limited that it can never get to to the bottom of our reality, more limited than I hope or can accept if I do not have to.

But, we don't have anything right now, hence ID is not science.  When IDists figure out how to measure "spirit" I'll change my mind.  Until then, they have to actually bring something to the table, and none of their pontifications or whining about being "unfairly excluded (even though they do no actual scientific experimentation)" is just not going to cut it.

Oh, and science is limited, that's part of what makes it work.  If we simply accepted "goddidit" as a potential explanation for everything, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Date: 2006/03/28 00:46:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 27 2006,17:37)
if he wants evidence of stuff before believing in it, that's what you should be trying to cultivate, not belief in fairies and gods.

I'm with Steve on this one.

Why abuse his trust?  He trusts that you will give him accurate information.  If you feed him lies about santa, et. al. and caused him to believe in it, he might trust you a whole lot less in the end.  Having a rational skepticism is a good thing, not something to be beaten back.

(Disclaimer: I don't have kids, so take this as you will.)

Date: 2006/03/28 04:14:41, Link
Author: GCT
Oh, this one is just too good...

Quote
Barry, although not to suggest your comment implies that ID does not point to a supernatural god, I believe that even an objective consideration of the facts, yes the facts, compels a conclusion that there must be a supernatural being behind ID. Also, who else/what else would be behind ID: Star Trek’s Borg, last year’s nobel prize winner for chemistry, physics or biochemistry? It amazes me that many, perhaps most in the heavy life sciences, like biochemestry for example, do not at the very least allow for the real possibility/likelihood of ID and that the ID was the product of a supernatural god. The biological facts are as follows: Every cell in our body (except for a few specilized cells) contains all of the genetic info to make a whole individual. All of this from the double helix that is DNA. All of the nuclic acids (of which there are 4 diffeent kinds in DNA) are ordered in a specific way along the DNA helix, so that when the signal comes for a transcription of the gene described by that sequence of nucleic acids (gene), via a very complex enzyme know as RNA Polymerase (of which there are more than 1 verisons) that via a biochemical signal attaches to the right spot on the DNA, and releases at the right point on DNA, so as to make the right messenger RNA that finds its way to the protein making ribosome, that then assembles the right protein by linking the right transfer RNA’s that makes the protein in the right way - just for starters. This explanation is nothing but a few word explanation of what is a stunningly complex and elegant mechanisim to create an organism, in all of its order. I am convinced by what I believe is an objective analysis, that even a not very engaged or deep analysis of this and all of the related biological processess that create (and maintain) an organism cannot be by the process of trial and/error, i.e. evolution. I think it is more likely that a Boeing 777 would spontaneously assemble itself somewhere in the universe than the mechanism for creation and maintainng life be the product of natural selection. Perhaps the biological process could be obtained by trial and error, but it would take much longer, just intuitively, than the 15 billion years (perhaps on the order of quadrillions on quadrillions of years) that the earth has been in existence, assuming that is a correct time frame for the earth’s existence. And there are many new biological processes being discovered and understood for the first time now, that add to the elegance and complexity of the biological mechanism. So I am absolutely persuaded, by even a limited understanding of just what is know as the “Central Dogma” in biology, very roughly outlined above, that life is the product of ID, and there is no ID that could create such a complex, inter-related biological processes for the creation of life other than a supernatural being. And with all of the elegance, order and beauty of the biological process it is no leap to conclude that the supernatural god must be benevolent. That is for another blog however. And if you consider the mechanisms of biological processes such as photosynthesis and energy creation for life processes, I do believe that those processes alone lead to the same conclusion that life must be the product of ID, and that ID can only be froma supernatural god.

Comment by mspeters — March 26, 2006 @ 6:37 pm

"Goddidit" is alive and well.

Date: 2006/03/28 04:25:11, Link
Author: GCT
But, if the child disbelieves in santa and you lie to him over and over until he believes it and use his trust in you to deceive him?  Maybe it does pose a good lesson, but I'm not sure I would be able to do that to my child if I had one.

Date: 2006/03/28 04:45:09, Link
Author: GCT
DaveSlot is still pushing the 'PT is responsible for burning churches' thing it seems.  There's some good gems in this as well.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/961

Date: 2006/03/28 07:15:17, Link
Author: GCT
I wasn't trying to imply that anyone was doing anything wrong to their kids, so if I've offended anyone I apologize.  It wasn't my intent.

In this instance, the child already disbelieves, i.e. the counterevidence is already too much to ignore.  I think at that point it is not only OK, but appropriate to discard the myth and not try to force-feed it into a child that has already seen behind the curtain.

Date: 2006/03/28 08:01:39, Link
Author: GCT
Apparently DaveSlot knows what Jesus's diet consisted of:
Quote
Ignorance of the history of various Buddhist sects is no excuse for denying it when it’s pointed out to you, Sartori. There are totally non-violent Christian sects too and Christ is all about non-violence - love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, thou shalt not kill, and etcetera are themes taught both by Christ and Buddha. Some Christians even insist that following Christ means you can’t eat meat because that entails killing. There’s no record of Christ ever killing anything. The most violent thing he did was curse a fig tree and he didn’t eat meat until (arguably due to translation issues) after the resurrection when he ate a piece of broiled fish to prove to his disciples he was truly risen from the dead and not an immaterial apparition. So you see, your initial claim that Buddhism is the only non-violent major religion is a crock of BS. -ds

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/963
Yup, cursing that fig tree was so much more violent than whipping the traders in the temple.

Date: 2006/03/28 08:06:31, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 28 2006,12:18)
I know. When I read this, I thought "Dave pulled the evilutionist arsonists card again WHAT" and immediately checked UD... but it turns out he doesn't try to support it this time: he just left it hanging, as if the facts hadn't disproved it and its mere mention would validate it. Dave's dishonesty at its best.

To me it looks like he is explicitly saying that the posters at PT are church burners.  At the very least, it is all "Darwin worshippers" who are church burners.  Judge for yourself:
Quote
March 27, 2006
Another Boner from the Church Burners
Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it’s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible. They’re their own worst enemy.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 9:38 pm

Date: 2006/03/28 08:23:03, Link
Author: GCT
What about the title, "Another Boner from the Church Burners"?

Date: 2006/03/29 01:05:20, Link
Author: GCT
Science can't say the FSM doesn't exist either!  Woo hoo!  FSM must therefore exist and is real and scientific!

Date: 2006/03/29 03:32:04, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
March 28, 2006
It’s Only Fundamentalist Christians They Hate
Arden Chatfield explains that the Darwinian narrative apologists don’t hate all Christians. That would be wrong says he. They only hate fundamentalist Christians and that’s okay because the fundamentalists, he explains, desire to enslave and dominate others.

Um, Arden, do you remember saying that you "hate" fundamentalist Xtians?  I sure don't.
Quote
And what exactly is your definition of “enslave” and “indoctrinate”?

Hmmm, I seem to recall you speaking about what you meant.  Methinks DaveSlot has proven that he can't read.
Quote
It also seems a bit of stretch for you to claim this is an attack on science. Attacks would be like burning down PZ Meyers’ laboratory in the dead of night like it was an Alabama fundamentalist Christian church.

And, once again he links the fires to PT, AtBC, and Arden specifically now.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/965

Date: 2006/03/29 04:43:12, Link
Author: GCT
I used to work with this guy who had an interesting experience.  He told me about how he was dreading going to Georgia (from MI) to visit his grandmother because she was so backward.  She thought that heaven and god resided above the clouds....or more accurately that the clouds were like the ground for heaven.

No one could travel above the clouds, because that's where god was.  Planes don't go above the clouds according to her.  Satellites don't exist.  Space flights and the moon landing, never happened.  She didn't think these things were hoaxes (at least not perpetrated by man) but that god induced some sort of hallucination to make us think we had landed on the moon.  Or, if you got in a plane, you would think you traveled above the clouds, then would be magically transported to your destination by god, without ever violating heaven's airspace.  If you called someone by satellite phone, you didn't actually talk to that person, but god would make both you and that person believe that you had the conversation you had.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:04:04, Link
Author: GCT
Arden, your comment will probably never even see the light of day.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:15:32, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,11:12)
Indeed, it still ain't there and no doubt never will be.

This is rather anticlimactic...  :p

Anyway, I'll try and post one more message there just to confirm that I'm already banned.

You probably aren't banned, per se, yet.  You are probably in a holding pattern until DaveSlot can come by and ban you "properly."

Date: 2006/03/29 05:44:56, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (improvius @ Mar. 29 2006,11:40)
:07-->
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,11:07)
Someday I hope TD will tell us how many followers a religion must have in order to make it true.

One assumes that this formula would also apply to things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabras, alien cow mutilations, etc.

Don't forget pumas.

(For all you Red vs. Blue fans out there.)

Date: 2006/03/29 07:19:19, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 29 2006,12:50)
Thought Experiment:
If i claim that socks disappear in the dryer because of a wormhole that dryers create...is that scientific

Everyone knows that it is due to sock gnomes that socks go missing.

Date: 2006/03/29 07:31:06, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,12:40)
Then someone named 'gandalf' starts ragging on me for unfairly stereotyping fundamentalists, patiently explains the incredibly important difference between fundamentalists and evangelists, and claims that of course Christians have no interest in passing laws against people of different beliefs. Sure. Whatever.

Maybe someone should point out to gandalf where the DI gets a large chunk of its funding *cough Ahmanson cough* and what that organization stands for *cough reconstruction cough*.

Date: 2006/03/29 07:51:11, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 29 2006,13:48)
If David Springer were interested and had passable PHP skills, he could change the way his install of WordPress operates. It just takes some hacking.

Of course has the skills.  He worked at Dell!!!!!11111

Date: 2006/03/29 08:05:42, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,13:57)
Well, DT posted my response, but with one of his peevish comments pre-embedded in it:

Quote
ME: "Calling people who believe in evolution ‘church burners’ isn’t ‘a popular politically driven caricature which has no basis in fact’?"

DT: As hyperbole approaches truth it becomes more difficult to distinguish between the two. If I called you all steaming piles of dung that somehow acquired vocal cords and learned how to speak you’d know right away that was hyperbole, right? I find it interesting that you don’t immediately recognize “church burners” as hyperbole. The Great Bard penned a line for this occasion (Dawkins would call this a meme so you can safely embrace it without ruining your rep): “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”. Another applicable idiom: “If the shoe fits, wear it” and yet another “The truth hurts”. Maybe you should stop protesting and acting so much like you’ve been hurt. Just a suggestion. -ds


So our pal DaveTard was just kidding all along!

Shoot, what do I have to do to get banned from that stupid site??? Accuse Dave of having been one of the people who sent a death threat to Judge Jones? I need closure!

So, if we protest then we don't recognize it as hyperbole and are therefore guilty.  If we don't protest, then that means that we are guilty too, because if it weren't true we would protest.

This reminds me of Catch 22.

Date: 2006/03/29 08:12:28, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Mar. 29 2006,13:58)
No, socks are the larval form of wire coathangers.  I have empirical evidence (taken from several households in which I have lived) that the rate of disappearance of socks is directly correlated with the rate of appearance of new wire coathangers.  My mother, who to my knowledge first discovered this phenomenon, has independently verified my findings in on-going research dating back to the sixties. ;)

Independent verification, schmindependent verification.  I have empirical faith in the sock gnomes.  Can you account for that Mr. Independent verification?

Sock gnomes are gifts from the benevolence of FSM.  Without sock gnomes, we would wear the same socks over and over for too long, which would thusly expose us to the elements.  Socks gnomes come and steal our socks, thus forcing us to buy new ones and protect ourselves from the elements.  Oh, and it also stimulates the economy, which FSM also benevolently supplies to us.  And because I believe all this, then that means it is empirical and therefore it is true and real.  So there.

Date: 2006/03/29 08:32:11, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,14:16)
Okay, I just poked the gorilla with a stick again. Let's see if this gets my ass booted out of there.

I can't spend all day on this. I have work to do and churches to burn.

(PS: Dave? That's hyperbole! )

If you really want to get booted, just say something like, "May you be touched by His noodly appendage."  That should do it, because you would be insulting Dave's favorite religion, which makes the baby Jesus cry.  And DaveSlot no like the baby Jesus cry!  DAVESLOT SMASH!

Date: 2006/03/29 08:36:45, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,14:20)
You make a compelling argument, but there's one problem; doesn't there need to be a certain number of people believing in sock gnomes in order to make them real? Are we sure we've crossed that threshold?

I wouldn't believe it if there weren't empirical evidence (whether it is measureable or not.)  So, therefore, only one person is needed, because that one person would not believe without empirical evidence, which thus proves that the empirical evidence exists.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:20:36, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Would you say it’s fair to characterize you as more likely to set a fundamentalist church on fire than someone who, all else being equal, doesn’t think the people who attend the church are out to enslave and dominate you? -ds

Actually, I would say that it's not fair at all, considering the people that DID burn down the churches were all nice little Xtian boys.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:25:51, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 29 2006,15<!--emo&:0)
No no no no....you are all just being silly
There is absolutely nothing scientific about sock gnomes....
bunch of creationist nonsense....

I have a verifiable scientific theory....its called DWT(Dryer wormhole theory)...
I verified it with extensive research...
this doesnt involve "mythical" or religious gnomes...
this is real science...

Oh yeah?

What can your DWT "science" say about a woman who throws away her child's sock only to find out that she can indeed find the sock's match in Sleeveland.  See, that's a one time occurrence, so your "science" can't say anything about it.  So, that proves that sock gnomes exist, because you can't disprove that they don't exist.  Ergo, my empirical knowledge of sock gnomes is truer than your verifiable stuff, because mine is "empirical".

Besides, my theory becomes more true as more and more people believe in it, because it means that more and more people are seeing the empirical evidence that can't be seen.

Date: 2006/03/30 00:57:46, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (qetzal @ Mar. 29 2006,20:34)
GCT,

The amusing thing is, that grandmother's beliefs are at least logically consistent, which is much more than can be said for the average ID advocate.

That's true, and much more intellectually honest than your run-of-the-mill IDer as well.

Date: 2006/03/30 01:48:50, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 30 2006,03:47)
blah blah blah

In response, I say, blahditty, blahditty, blah...

OK, now for the real stuff:
I fully endorse the "Put a sock in it" strategy.  I propose we come up with a "fundraising" document that outlines our strategy for gaining a "toehold" in the current scientific dogmatic paradigm that we can ultimately use to overthrow said paradigm and re-establish the cultural superiority of homosocksualness.  I propose we call it the "toehold document."

GOALS:
Governing Goals
-To defeat dogmatic non-socksualism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
-To replace non-socksualist explanations with the homosocksual understanding that socks are stolen by sock gnomes.

Five Year Goals
-To see SGT (sock gnome theory) as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of SGT.
-To see the beginning of the influence of SGT in spheres other than dryer science.
-To see major new debates in education, dryer issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals
-To see SGT as the dominant perspective in science
-To see SGT application in specific fields, including dryer anatomy, dryer application, and gnome physics in the dryer sciences, dryer history, gnome history, gnome trickiness, and gnome philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts
-To see SGT permeate our laundromatic, cultural, moral and political life.

Date: 2006/03/30 03:11:17, Link
Author: GCT
The newest entry by none other than WAD hisself is titled, "Evolution in free-fall."  Are we about to meet our "Waterloo" again?

Date: 2006/03/30 04:18:52, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,10:02)
LOL if i were an evolutionary biologist, I think I'd walk around wishing everyone Good Waterloo.

"Waterloo to you sir."
"And good Waterloo to you. How are you doing this fine Waterloo?"

That is a Waterlootastic idea.

Date: 2006/03/30 05:56:03, Link
Author: GCT
On the beer market post (which by the way is soooo behind, since that beer has been around for a while now) there's already a pretty good comment (for humor purposes at least.)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/973
Quote
It occurred to me as I read the comments of the brewmaster, the comments about how concerned he was about the separation of church and state, that this attitude of apparently deep concern is either a totally false pretended position, or a reflection of how very distant we really are from the dangers of a theocracy. On the one hand, people like him may just use the “we cannot blur the line between church and state!” platitudes quite cynically, knowing how silly it is, but employing the language to sound deeply concerned and thoughtful. On the other hand, if it is a sincerely held fear, namely that the mention of the concept of ID in schools truly violates the establishment clause, then this is so ludicrous that it hardly bears responding to. I read an article in Slate magazine this morning, a dear Prudence letter, actually, in which the writer was complaining about how difficult it is to have to listen to her rich friends moan and whine about how burdened they are by such things as three-week Italian vacations (too boring). This reminds me, in an essential way, of how annoying it is to listen to people moan and whine about how frightening it is to contemplate the threat posed by ID to the separation of church and state. They are the same kind of whine, in a way. In both cases you have people so completely glutted by what they have (riches:religious freedom) that they have completely lost any sense of perspective about what a more reasonable definition of suffering is. Three weeks in Italy, and the mention of the notion that nature might give objective evidence of being designed can only seem like suffering/persecution to the most objectionably spoiled human beings in recorded history. Have they no shame? And this is of course completely independent of the fact that ID is not a religion and for objective reasons presents no threat to the establishment clause.

I have actually had discussions with people who oppose ID for this same reason, and I have asked them to paint a picture of the slippery slope they envision. Never is there ever a single cogent picture emerging from these discussions of any kind of harm which could be seriously considered. It is truly bizarre. it must be a cynical argument.

Comment by tinabrewer — March 30, 2006 @ 10:44 am

I think it is suffering that I have to share my air with some of the people that post over there.

Date: 2006/03/30 07:26:28, Link
Author: GCT
"ID is completely science and has nothing to do with religion.  So, now that we got that out of the way, let's talk about Jesus."

Date: 2006/03/30 07:54:45, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 30 2006,13:26)
The thing is, and this goes to some other commentors as well (GCT), we've got a dividing line going on and it is not in the same place on this website as it is over at UD. The ID dividing line, and mine, is intelligent, purposive input or not.  That's it. So I put atheism on one side of the line and deism, theism, creationism, pantheism on the other.

I'm glad to hear that you are finally admitting that ID is nothing more than an attack on atheism.  See, science doesn't make claims that put atheists on one side and all others on the other, that's religion's job.  Thank you for so clearly pointing out that ID is just a religious argument.
Quote
In my understanding of "pure" NDE, which you and others say is wrong, it does conflict with theism. Now, you are telling me that NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God. But that is not really one theory. As I explained above.

When corrected about your misconceptions over NDE, you continue to hold to them.  Now, who was being open-minded?

Also, note that I do NOT say "NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God."  I say that NDE is neutral on the subject, so one is free to posit a god in the process or not.  ID can not say the same.
Quote
The problem is that we must understand the need for acausality, which defies our rational minds.

No, positing an irrational answer to a question defies our rational minds.
Quote
Unacceptable. Inadequate. Unless matter is God. About God, the simplest true statement is this:  God is.

Nice apologetics, and utterly useless for science.  Thanks for playing though.
Quote
Matter arises from God, either automatically, or as a choice.

Again, completely useless for science.  "Goddidit" will never be scientific or useful.
Quote
You need to really think about this.

No, you need to stop making limitations on the possibilities based on your limited imagination.
Quote
What reversal? I said God does not reject or fail to support all beings, whether they are right or wrong, and that this does not conflict with the need to attain perfection and lose imperfection.

Your reversal on "god is love".  Thank you, come again.
Quote
I'm saying that I have spend many years working on a better understanding of the nature of God, and that I had a significant breakthrough at some point, in my mid thirties. The instrinsic worth of every human being is exactly the same.

And, now you are denigrating my experiences.  I have spent many years working on a better understanding of the nature of god too and found it completely lacking.  The better understanding that I have come to is that there is no god.  But, I don't go around trying to force my opinion on others as if it were science.
Quote
What are you talking about? I have made the same point over and over.

Really?  I could have sworn that you said a universe with a god would be better or even different that a universe without.  Now you've been reduced to the dichotomy that either there is a god or there isn't.  It's easy to gain debate points when you try to present things that I've already agreed with as contentious points in your favor.  And, you wonder why I think you are dishonest.
Quote
So this is the same definition problem. Over at the design sites, this is precisely the dichotomy they are bucking.

Yes, and you and your ID pals are on the wrong end of it.  Over on the DI's blog where they complain about how people get the definition of ID wrong all the time in the media, they never mention the fact that they don't use the correct definition of evolution.  I wonder why that is.  Maybe because if they can pass evolution off as atheistic, then they can gain more points with the majority of Americans who are distrustful of atheists.  (Side point: any of that majority should come down to sites like this and see how you and your ID ilk argue and how I argue and see who is the one they should distrust.  I've been nothing but honest.  You, I'm not so sure can claim that.)
Quote
My discussion about God is philosophical. I don't think such ideas are antiscientific, but I am not trying to pass off my ideas as science.

Good, then you finally agree that ID is not science.
Quote
The author of the universe and life is God. I am not convinced about who wrote the DNA code. Reality is reality. That is what I can't seem to get across. You have just stated above that God and science are not to be spoken in the same breath. Look, if there is a God, IF--- then it does not conflict with science. It cannot.

That's right, and if there isn't a god?  It still can't conflict with science.  Why?  Because science does not deal with the supernatural.  ID necessarily needs god, and therefore isn't science.  Thank you for proving my point once again.  You're making this easy.
Quote
Do you realize that if God exists that it is already true? The existence of God may by realized as true in the future by particular minds, but if God is true, it is true now and was true all along. Therefore, it is silly to worry that the existence of God will make existence incoherent. And I do not think God does or can violate physical laws! It is a contradiction.

Yet, now you seem to be saying that whether we have a god or not, the universe would not change.  Hmmm, totally different from what you were saying before.  Either way, if you don't think god can violate physical law, then you don't have an omnipotent god.  Also, if god only operates through physical law, how will you discern that god is actually operating and not just the physical laws themselves?  Or, more accurately, how will science do this, especially without using your a priori assumption of god?  Answer, it can't and it won't.  Once again, thanks for playing.
Quote
Take that whole phrase, which is a useless meme someone fed you, and throw it in the trash.

So, you think "goddidit" is a good way for science to conduct business?  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.  Yes, I'm laughing at what you just said.
Quote
And read Bhodidharma. I prescribe Buddhism for you.

I'm fine, thanks.  I can take care of my own philosophical musings, and I am quite able to keep them out of science and not force them on others, which is more than I can say for you and your ID pals.

Oh, and by the way, check and mate.

Date: 2006/03/31 03:26:13, Link
Author: GCT
Red Reader is back, and as a new character:

Quote
(By the commentor formerly known as Red Reader)

Comment by GlennJ - Houston — March 30, 2006 @ 3:16 pm

I just want to make sure that his future idiotic comments will be correctly attributed to the right person.

Date: 2006/04/03 01:15:11, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 31 2006,12:57)
How about this...can God create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?

That's what I was thinking.

Ah dude, could, like, god make a burrito so hot that, like, he couldn't even eat it?

Date: 2006/04/03 01:41:34, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 31 2006,11:43)
GCT,

I acquiesce to all your accusations. But I am curious. What is your gender?

I'm not sure why that would be important, but my gender is "Mike Gene."  Just messing with you.  I'm male.

Hey, thanks for playing.  I'm glad that we could come to a solution about how ID is not only not science, but also religious apologetics.

Date: 2006/04/03 05:55:43, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ April 01 2006,18:25)
Aww, Poor Barry. It's soooo haaaard to be a christian in america today.

He should try being an atheist in the south. He'd go running home to Mommy.

From the same thread:

Quote
SChen

Let me know when you have an email address. You might want to try enlisting Governor Perry’s support as he himself has come out in favor of teaching ID. One word from the governor’s office would probably be all it takes to make this right for Professor Beckwith. The good people of the State of Texas wouldn’t like this one little bit if they’re made aware of it.

Comment by DaveScot — April 1, 2006 @ 6:34 pm

So, the governor should step in and "make this right for Professor Beckwith?"

Date: 2006/04/03 08:03:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
“When scientists have to continually look to nature to figure out how to do things well, doesn’t it become apparent at some point that we’re dealing with embodied intelligence?”

No. Why?

Comment by physicist — April 3, 2006 @ 11:20 am

Why? Because we mimic design found in nature. Isn’t part of that sentence the answer?

Comment by Doug — April 3, 2006 @ 11:34 am

(Emphasis in original)
Ah, how could we be so stupid.  See, we mimic nature, thus proving that nature was designed, and we know that it is designed because we continually mimic it.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

Date: 2006/04/03 08:59:02, Link
Author: GCT
From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/978#comments

Nostrowski wonders:
Quote
Thus, as always, ID detractors, from mild to malicious, from the front or the flank, must first pronounce their quarry idiots on whom they may then shower their burgeoning intellect. Tiresome, to say the least. Visitors with agendas who alight here, almost to a person, presume a confederacy of dunces only to be promptly hoisted on their own petard (anyone remember coiled computer cable guy?). Where are the thoughtful ID skeptics who can stand toe-to-toe without magnanimously stooping to dither with their “inferiors”? That skeptic, and that skeptic only, might deserve a Christian’s respectful attention.

Where are the thoughtful ID skeptics?  Um, maybe they've been banninated?  (Steve Story, I love that word!;)

Date: 2006/04/03 09:15:01, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ April 03 2006,14:07)
it's a ripoff word


I knew it sounded familiar, but I couldn't put my finger on it.  No me importa.  I still love it.

Date: 2006/04/04 01:06:34, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 03 2006,23:20)
The version I always liked was "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?"

EDIT: Oh shoot, GCT beat me to it...

Ha!  If you weren't so busy burning down churches, you might have had a chance.

Date: 2006/04/04 05:42:26, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/990#comments

Uh oh, don't look now, but our fiendish plot with the ACLU has been uncovered!  Foiled again!  I hope this doesn't lead to evolution's Waterloo.

Date: 2006/04/04 07:03:14, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2006,10:53)
I hear DaveScot has a list of 205 professors in America who are known to academia as being members of the ACLU, and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy of their universities.

That's all he has?  Good.  I was starting to think he had unearthed the whole entire secret plan, but he hasn't found us out yet, so it's still on.  Pass the word.

Date: 2006/04/04 08:21:22, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (steve_h @ April 04 2006,12:54)
do you mean degrees Kelvin...

Um, I thought we were talking about triangles, not photon energy?

Date: 2006/04/04 09:08:19, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 04 2006,13:34)
The following is one of 342 stories about "chance" events in my life on my
web site:

         I went to work one morning and turned to the mechanic next to me and said, "If God wanted to, he could turn the oceans into gas and look for someone with a match."  A couple of hours later I was listening to the radio when the news came on.  The announcer said that a Cuban refugee had boarded an airliner, thrown gasoline on a stewardess and threatened to strike a match.

Holy crap!  It's Nostradamus reincarnated.

Date: 2006/04/05 01:57:17, Link
Author: GCT
Dude,
If, like, you could have lunch with any three people, alive or dead, who would you have lunch with?

If, like, you were stranded on a desert island with only, like, three objects, what would you want those objects to be?

Date: 2006/04/05 02:21:45, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Seven Popes @ April 04 2006,20:45)
It proves that the lord or the designer loves lesbians most.

I've got to admit, I'm pretty fond of lesbians too.

Date: 2006/04/05 05:41:06, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (guthrie @ April 05 2006,10:35)
See!  You believe me!
Now, in order to stop the spider eating your socks, you must send me a cheque for £100.  That will pay for me to contact a handy spider-whisperer, who will help keep it happy and contented.

Or, you just send the sock gnomes after the spiders and let them battle it out for sock supremacy.

Date: 2006/04/05 07:16:59, Link
Author: GCT
I thought that was Big Gay Al.  Or was Gene the name of Stan's gay dog?

Date: 2006/04/06 02:06:14, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Spike @ April 05 2006,21:52)
It's really kind of funny when you hear people who think we should have freedom of and from religion, freedom of association and freedom of expression say we can't let people choose how to educate their kids because they might teach them something that we think is bullsh**.

Parents are well within their rights to home school their children.  So, what's the problem?

Date: 2006/04/06 02:20:20, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
I take it back. A practical benefit occurred to me.

As long as these ebola boys are playing with fossil skeletons they aren’t communicating their dreams of exterminating the human race to innocent young minds.

I guess every cloud DOES have a silver lining.

Comment by DaveScot — April 6, 2006 @ 1:50 am

So, now the evil Darwinists are not only church burners, but we all want to exterminate human life with ebola?  That site gets wackier every day.

Date: 2006/04/06 02:25:13, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Update 2: Ed responded again this time his lame excuse is the board didn’t have time to discuss rescinding the ID policy at the first meeting. This is lame for 2 reasons. First of all they campaigned on the issue of rescinding the ID policy. It had already been discussed and they made a promise to the voters they would rescind it. What were they going to discuss - whether or not to keep their promise? Second, the vote to rescind in the next meeting was 8-0. There was nothing to discuss in either meeting. They had all made a promise and there was no dissent. So once again, why didn’t they keep their campaign promise and take 10 seconds to make a motion and get unanimous consent? Keep trying Ed. When you get to the point where you agree with Manzari and Cooper your lameness will be cured.

I think DaveSlot stuck his foot so far in his mouth this time that he'll be cr@pping out shoes.

Date: 2006/04/06 09:07:14, Link
Author: GCT
Haven't you learned from our resident IDists here?  Nothing refutes ID.  Nothing you say or do will refute ID.  Nothing we can find will refute ID.  ID is Truth, and Truth can not be refuted.

Date: 2006/04/17 04:37:25, Link
Author: GCT
Just to divert the Thordaddy - fingers in ears - session for a second...

Quote (Spike @ April 06 2006,17:48)
I was trolling a little, I'll admit, but improvious and GCT came back with some pretty good answers.

GCT: The only problem is that homeschooling parents still have to fork over their hard-earned money to educate other people's kids. It would be much more just to only charge school taxes from people who want to send their kids to government schools.

Everybody has to fork over their hard earned money to educate other people's kids.  I don't have kids, but some of my tax dollars go towards education.  People who have 5 kids and similar income pay less in taxes than I do, so they are probably spending less on education than I am.  We, as a society, value education, and we therefore fund it.  We provide certain standards (that do indeed come from the government) that serve as benchmarks for what students need to learn.  If one wants their children to learn other things, then that person is free to homeschool.

Your alternative leads to disfunctional schools in poor areas, people who don't have kids or don't have kids in school not paying for education at all (and therefore a significant drop in education funding), and hardship for those families that have multiple kids, thus making those kids the victims of less education.

OK, you all can get back to watching Thordaddy flop around like a fish in the bottom of the boat.

Date: 2006/04/18 00:41:40, Link
Author: GCT
If I were to play devil's advocate here, could I come up with 5 reasons to accept ID?  Hmmm, maybe I should try...

1.  Um, goddidit.

2.  Evilutionists are just church-burnin', ebola-spreadin', atheists (and atheism is evil, evil, evil!;)

3.  Jesus loves you.

4.  I just can't believe that evolution could be true and my personal disbelief is stronger than any evidence you could come up with.

5.  Goddidit...and did I mention how evil the atheists are?

Date: 2006/04/19 05:46:11, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
Thankyou, corkscrew and Henry J for your polite answers.  I would think you other folks would also want to give polite answers if you want others to see the truth of your viewpoint ... just a suggestion!

Hey, lighten up, I was just joking.  Geez.

Quote
I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.  This is incredibly useful if you believe as I do that this God wants a relationship with the humans he created and will someday make a new world.  Of course, to arrive at all these conclusions requires much evidence from several disciplines ... science only goes so far.  But contrary to the mudslingers, there is excellent evidence available ... I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  Many organized religions have done a disservice to lots of people by making statements like this.

Perhaps you could tell us what evidence you have available and how you think it qualifies as evidence?  Note: I'm not attacking your religion, but it may be helpful to differentiate between what you see as "evidence" and what science can accept as "evidence."

Quote
1)  I see highly sophisticated, biological machines at every level in nature, macro to micro.

Are you sure of that?

Quote
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.

It has been said that more scientific advances come from "Oops" moments than from "Eureka" moments.

Quote
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the could be a designer.  The trick is to show some evidence for it.

Quote
6)  I'm skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says "that's just a religious book full of myths", but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis and I am struck by the accuracy with which it describes human behaviour.  I'm also fascinated with the apparent fulfilled prophecies which involve the rise and fall of major nations and also this incredibly influential person--Jesus of Nazareth.  To be sure, there are things I don't understand, but I'm not so arrogant as to write them off without evidence for doing so.  I know from history that multitudes of people have blindly accepted statements like "that book is just a myth" only to be proven wrong by some guy willing to work hard enough to really examine the evidence.  Of course, many DO turn out to be myths, but I have done my own thorough examination of the Bible, and I have not found it to be a myth.

Are you USAF?  I'm just wondering what country you came from where they told you the Bible was a myth.  In this country, we are inundated with Christianity and most don't have the stones to call it a myth.  Also, prophecies are tricky things, considering they usually take a measure of interpretation.  And, it would once again be useful to define "evidence."

Quote
7)  I put this (and some other factors ... admittedly, this is abbreviated) all together and in my mind and it all adds up to me to make a pretty good case that the Bible is literally true--complete with a real God, the Creation, the Flood, Moses, Jesus ... the whole deal.

This is logical fallacy.  If I factually report that a meeting took place at 5, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily factually report what happened at the meeting.  Because some details are correct, doesn't mean that god exists, caused creation in 6 literal days, flooded the world, etc.

Date: 2006/04/20 05:21:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 18 2006,12:13)
I tried that a couple days ago, but that fire-breathing T-Rex they have posted at the front gate scared the shlt out of me.

Well, if you knew anything about Dinoland, you would know what Dr. Hovind teaches about T-Rexes.  All you have to do is grab on to their little arms and pull, and their little arms will come right off with very little force.  That's how humans have defeated the dragons...I mean T-Rexes in the past.

Date: 2006/04/20 07:18:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (dhogaza @ April 20 2006,11:58)
heh heh ...

I've been banned with the COOLEST graphic!

OK, now I'm jealous.

Date: 2006/04/25 08:17:47, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2006,12:30)
I think the reason so many straight men are attracted by lesbiands is because they represent women having sex without other men around -- that way they don't have to 'compete' with males, plus they don't run the risk of seeing other men naked, which is something gay men do.

I wonder if it doesn't also have something to do with our culture.  We regularly regard men as being promiscuous, while women are supposed to be demure.  When we see 2 women together, we are seeing women act in a way that we've been taught is taboo, but gets at the secret fantasies of men to have a sexually adventurous woman.  So, we get excited by it.

Date: 2006/04/25 09:03:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2006,13:26)
You know, evolutionary biologists are all nervous wrecks, waiting for the impending Atomic Waterloos. To preserve their nerves, they try to distract themselves by publishing several thousand papers per year.

And by burning churches and releasing ebola on unsuspecting, innocent people.  Don't forget about that.

Date: 2006/05/15 01:25:20, Link
Author: GCT
I liked how they didn't just go with "Evilution" but added the "D" in there for "Devilution."

Date: 2006/05/15 01:32:09, Link
Author: GCT
"We want you to teach alternatives to evolution."
"You mean like Lamarckian evolution?"

Date: 2006/05/15 08:30:41, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (PuckSR @ May 15 2006,12:40)
"We want you to teach alternatives to Darwinian evolution"
"You mean Lamarkian evolution?"

You missed the best part of the joke....
IDists and Creationists constantly refer to Darwinian...
They dont realize that this distinction is unnecessary unless a competing theory of evolution exists(i.e. Lamarkian)...
another example would be Newtonian vs. Einsteinian physics

Good catch.  I was going off memory...faulty memory apparently.

Date: 2006/05/16 07:35:47, Link
Author: GCT
BarryA's newest is up and hot off the presses.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1124#comments

Eight comments already, and there's definitely some good stuff in there.  Like dt and this:
Quote
It’s time for you move along to another blog, John. You’ve been doing entirely too much regurgitating of trite evolutionist arguments we’ve all heard a million times and don’t care to waste our time refuting yet again....

Man, my irony meter blew up.  Yeah, it's the evilutionists who trot out the same old tired canards all the time...

Or, how about this from dt?
Quote
Well, I’m an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don’t even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds


And, more on his history at Dell:
Quote
I was one of a dozen engineers at Dell assigned to the patent committee. Once a week we met together with Dell’s patent attorneys and reviewed an average of a dozen patent abstracts submitted by employees around the world. We’d evaluate them for value to the company and patentability then vote on whether or not to pursue filing with the US PTO and a few foreign governments. The employees who submitted the patent abstracts were invited to present their patent in person and answer any questions we might have. I did this my last two years at the company and reviewed close to 1000 patent abstracts. About 30% of those we reviewed were approved for filing and almost all of those we approved were eventually granted patents. I’m particularly expert in two things only recently approved by the PTO for patenting - software algorithms and business methods. I personally hold patents in each of those areas. What particular question did you have? -ds


What will they come up with next?

Date: 2006/05/16 08:10:00, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,13:00)
   
Quote

...
If companies move from GMO to fully modified organisms(or lets say more that 50%), how will it be discussed in education - even at high school levels? They will eventually have to talk about identifying artificial design in living organisms. Since artificial design is not evolution, is this not a quandry for evolutionist?
...

Comment by Michaels7 — May 16, 2006 @ 12:06 pm


In what alternate reality would this be a quandry for evolution?

Right.  If us evilutionists have to admit that an organism was designed at some point because some company designed one, then we would have to admit that Jesus saves!

Date: 2006/05/16 09:10:17, Link
Author: GCT
Dont' forget the fact that they are fighting over some small bridge that's about two feet long and over a small ditch that is about half a foot deep.

Date: 2006/05/17 01:47:35, Link
Author: GCT
Don't you hate being right sometimes?

Date: 2006/05/17 04:27:44, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
To be fair, it is not only Darwinism or materialism which ranks peoples on earth according to value. The ancient Jews were the “chosen people”, and many a missionary in former centuries was motivated to lift people up from out of their primitive condition(s) and into the enlightenment of Christianity. it is only that the materialist uses as his measuring stick the attributes of the physical body, which cannot be changed at will (racism) and that makes his philosophy particularly detestable.

Comment by tinabrewer — May 16, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

Apparently all "materialists" (i.e. evilutionatheists) are racists.

Date: 2006/05/17 08:04:56, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ May 17 2006,12:27)
However in banning me, Dave Scot decided to edit my post, substantially changing its import, effectively misquoting me.

Ironic, no?

Do you have the original, unedited post?  If so, feel free to post it here so we can all see what DT has done.

And, welcome.

Date: 2006/05/17 08:28:38, Link
Author: GCT
They try so hard, and yet reading UD is still like watching a monkey hump a football.

Date: 2006/05/17 08:39:30, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 17 2006,13:35)
 
Quote (GCT @ May 17 2006,13:28)
They try so hard, and yet reading UD is still like watching a monkey hump a football.

Congratulations, you win Post of the Month for that.  :)

Freakin' sweet.

Date: 2006/05/17 08:43:24, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 17 2006,13:39)
Dembski is offering yet another cash reward:

   
Quote
Information-Theoretic Conjecture — $1000 Cash Prize
I’m offering the first person who completely resolves the following conjecture $1000 cash. I need a complete error-free proof and I need to be able to use it in my writings (of course, I’ll give full credit to the mathematician who proves it).

This made me wonder why Demsbki and the con men for jesus at the DI don't offer a cash reward for ANY legitimate scientific evidence for intelligent design.  Something that could be tested and such.  They could call the cash award something like the Nobel ID Prize or whatnot.

THAT is what Dembski should be offering to pay for, evidence that backs his unfounded and unscientific claims and not these stupid math games or offering to pay public teachers a bounty for breaking the law.

What they lack is evidence for IDC and not law breakers or math puzzle solvers.  THAT is where he/they should be offering cash prizes.

Ah, but you missed the most important part.

Dembski wants to use it in his writings.  That means that he somehow came up with this solution that proves ID and disproves evolution, and if someone can find a way to make the math fit (where have we heard of Creationists doing this before?) then it will prove to be evolution's Waterloo...........again.

Date: 2006/05/17 09:42:04, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (jeannot @ May 17 2006,14:30)
I thought there were dozens of top scientists at the Disco Institute. Why does Dembski have to hire a mathematician in order to prove ID?

I thought Dembski was a top mathematician.
</sarcasm>

Date: 2006/05/18 04:14:49, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ May 17 2006,22:16)
To remind you this was done in a thread the point of which was "ID people are very careful and honest their use of quotation".  Indeed the phrase "punctillious rectitude" was thrown about a few times.

Hence the reason I found it ironic.

Stick around and you will find that these guys are chock full of it.  They care not one whit for good debate or science.  They only care that what they know to be true (from reading it in some holy scripture) is accepted by all, no matter what the facts, science, and real world say about it.  If you think they are honestly in search of truth, take a look at afdave's threads on this site, or any of our resident trolls.  Then, look at the behavior on UD and see if you can see any difference.

Date: 2006/05/18 05:43:25, Link
Author: GCT
Patrick,
We all find it pathetic, that's why we read and laugh.

Date: 2006/05/22 03:31:23, Link
Author: GCT
How about this one...

You think that writing comments on a blog makes you a "Design Theorist."

Date: 2006/05/22 07:27:43, Link
Author: GCT
I can't believe that you all assume that those atheistic ACLU terrorists and their minions at snopes and truthorfiction are telling the truth.  They are obviously caught and now are trying to lie their way out of it.  They make the baby Jesus cry.

Date: 2006/05/22 08:28:48, Link
Author: GCT
Hoo Rah indeed.  God bless our troops, god bless America, god bless you DaveTard, and god bless your agnosticism as well.

D'oh!

Date: 2006/05/22 09:19:14, Link
Author: GCT
More from "agnostic" DaveTard:

Quote
The ACLU has certainly stood against prayer in public school even if led by students in extra-curricular settings like graduation ceremonies and football games. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind that the ACLU would love to do the same thing to prayer in the military. Prayers led by commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the Corps are common. The military builds and maintains chapels on military bases. They employ religious clerics whose job is spiritual counseling and leading worship services. Anyone that thinks the ACLU wouldn’t stand against that if they could get away with it needs their head examined. They simply know the American public wouldn’t tolerate it and the ACLU would be so harmed they might never recover as an organization. So they bite their anti-religious tongues in the interest of self-preservation.

Comment by DaveScot — May 22, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

Date: 2006/05/22 09:30:05, Link
Author: GCT
I have a feeling this comment might not stay for long:

Quote
The ACLU has taken many religious freedom cases including definding churches and conservative Christians, including Jerry Fallwell. The ACLU has also defended the right of students to form prayer and Bible study clubs in school and both are ubiquitous at least in the south.

None of the Marines depicted are forcing other people to pray. I can only assume that *they* are not being forced to pray, but are doing so of their own free will. Students are free to pray at any time during a football game or a graduation ceremony. They are NOT free to force others to pray or to force others to listen to them pray. I can never quite understand why forced prayer is so desirable. Certainly it pleases the person doing the forcing, but I can’t imagine that it would please God.

Comment by MrsCogan — May 22, 2006 @ 2:11 pm

Date: 2006/05/23 01:41:19, Link
Author: GCT
The last comments from the ACLU hates Marines thread.

Quote
4.  The ACLU has taken many religious freedom cases including definding churches and conservative Christians, including Jerry Fallwell. The ACLU has also defended the right of students to form prayer and Bible study clubs in school and both are ubiquitous at least in the south.

None of the Marines depicted are forcing other people to pray. I can only assume that *they* are not being forced to pray, but are doing so of their own free will. Students are free to pray at any time during a football game or a graduation ceremony. They are NOT free to force others to pray or to force others to listen to them pray. I can never quite understand why forced prayer is so desirable. Certainly it pleases the person doing the forcing, but I can’t imagine that it would please God.

The problem is that a student can’t lead a voluntary prayer at a football game or graduation ceremony because just hearing it might offend some poor sensitive thing that has to endure the horror of listening to it. I say it’s too bad. Hearing isn’t saying. They can cover their ears, not bow their heads, keep their mouths shut, or whatever. The real crime is denying the students who DO want to participate in the prayer. Evidently they don’t have any rights. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion not freedom from religion. I suggest you read it if you don’t believe me. -ds

Comment by MrsCogan — May 22, 2006 @ 2:11 pm

5.  Pray that strength prevail on the home front and we not cut and run as in Vietnam.

Comment by Rude — May 22, 2006 @ 3:00 pm

6.  Now that everyone is happy that this article isn’t a fabrication the comments are closed.  

Comment by DaveScot — May 23, 2006 @ 1:02 am

First, DT, there is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

Second, I love how he just declares that the article is not a fabrication and that everyone is happy with it.  What alternative universe is he from?

Date: 2006/05/23 02:52:00, Link
Author: GCT
From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1148#comments

 
Quote
“It’s almost as if cells have something akin to a computer program that becomes activated by DNA damage, and that program enables the cells to respond very quickly.”

That’s rich. They’re flabbergasted! Way to go evolution, you’re making us underestimate nature once again. And they still haven’t quite learned their lesson.

Hmmm, flabergasted?  Well, it's a little bit harder when we don't already have the answer (goddidit).
 
Quote
“However, they have been mystified by another group of genes whose expression is sharply affected by DNA damage, but which appear to play no role in repairing the damage itself.”

Any bets on how long it will be before we understand the role of these genes?

Comment by tragicmishap — May 22, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

Any bets that ID won't be at all involved in helping us understand the role of any genes?

Date: 2006/05/23 03:35:30, Link
Author: GCT
From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1148#comments again

Quote
“This research sheds light on the complexity of DNA repair, and offers an example of how the cellular process stimulates other pathways,” said David Schwartz

Hmmm, if I suggest that David Schartz’s work is supporting ID by suggesting that DNA repair is complex, do you think he’ll have to formally declare his committment to evolution in the next week or two?

Comment by bFast — May 22, 2006 @ 10:30 pm

I'm hard pressed to figure out how something can support a non-existant theory.  Oh, it's because something is complex.  Ah, I get it now.  ID just says that anything complex was made by god.  Now we know what the theory of ID is.

Date: 2006/05/23 04:31:45, Link
Author: GCT
On http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1146 there is more comedy.  I'll focus on the comments.

Quote
I’ve heard two evolutionary biologists describe chills going down their spine when they read the Dover decision. Sounds like faith to me. I agree with your statement, but it doesn’t look like what Jones said even goes against ID. “Free, rational inquiry”? Have we asked for anything else?

Comment by tragicmishap — May 22, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

Tragicmishap has been putting in some pretty inane comments lately.  I saw that (s)he is working towards tard status.

Quote
Typical Darwinian history rewritting. Soon they will say that there was no God believer among the scientists who gave a boost to modern science. Heck, don’t be surprised if people (Darwinists) tell you that Mendel (the Christian) was actually an atheist. Reading wikipedia one would think that Mendel’s research was based on Darwinism, yet according to Dr Jonathan Wells, Mendel’s work owes absolutly nothing to Darwinism.
Again we see Darwinism capitalizing on the sucess of true science (Mendel’s genetics).

Judge Jones follows the same path when he tries to tag the sucess and the influence of the Founding Father’s beliefs with the the Endarkment..errr.. I mean, the “Enlightment”, trying to separate it from the obvious Christians conections. One nation under God, and “rights given by the Creator” are NOT secular in anyway.

Comment by Mats — May 23, 2006 @ 1:32 am

Hmmm, so the next time that a case comes up against the pledge of allegiance, can we have your support Mats?

Date: 2006/05/23 05:54:08, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Fross @ May 23 2006,10:42)
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." –Mahatma Gandhi


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

Be carful or they, "Will taunt you a second time."

Date: 2006/05/23 08:33:09, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Wonderpants @ May 23 2006,13:29)
I think my brain starting bleeding after reading that Dumbski purchased the 'evidencefreescience' domain. Apart from the last word (or the omission of the word 'pseudo' before 'science', it's what he should call his blog.

Or how about "evidencefreereligiondressedupasscienceanddownwiththeatheists.com"?

Date: 2006/05/24 01:28:42, Link
Author: GCT
Oh snap.  Now Henry Rollins is pwning ID!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1152

Date: 2006/05/24 01:52:03, Link
Author: GCT
Ha ha...On the Rollins thread the posters at UD prove that not only are they ignorant of science, but of pop culture as well.

Quote
1.  Henry Rollins (born February 13, 1961) is an American rock music singer and songwriter; he has also been active as a storyteller, author, actor, poet, comedian, and radio and TV personality.

Stars in Jackass: The Movie (2002) - as himself (cameo)

Was the movie named after him?

Comment by idnet.com.au — May 24, 2006 @ 12:54 am

2.  Apparently it might as well have been.

Comment by crandaddy — May 24, 2006 @ 1:45 am

They should just quit.  Rollins is much smarter than all of them.

Date: 2006/05/24 04:21:50, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Faid @ May 24 2006,09:14)
Looks designed to me.

That is the criteria, no?

Date: 2006/05/24 05:33:39, Link
Author: GCT
From the Hefner Prize thread

Quote
Keeping some Darwinists around on these threads would help generate interesting,and lively, discussions, or has there been too much ugliness around here when dissent was given free reign?

Comment by apollo230 — May 24, 2006 @ 10:27 am

This is just funny.

Date: 2006/05/24 06:01:06, Link
Author: GCT
More from the Rollins Thread

Quote
Ha ha ha…
He referred to the ‘Christians’ reaction as “Fear based nonsense”. I could only imagine what he considers his little diatribe. So much bloviating and propaganda I would be embarrassed if I adhered to the general sentiment he was expressing.

It’s funny, because regardless of how knowledgeable particular ID proponents are if their field of study wasn’t biology they get disparaged with claims of, “yeah, but he’s a mathematician/lawyer/philosopher… what does he know about biology.”. I hope they are as critical with Rollins when he blabs on.

This is evolution…..TO THE EXTREME!!!!!!!

Comment by Doug — May 24, 2006 @ 10:54 am

Actually, Doug, Rollins doesn't need to know that much about biology, because this is about sniffing out religious bull****.  All he has to know about is how to sniff out BS.  I'd say that he's demonstrated he's pretty good at it.

Date: 2006/05/24 06:53:49, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2006,11:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 24 2006,10:34)


Keeping some Darwinists around on these threads would help generate interesting,and lively, discussions, or has there been too much ugliness around here when dissent was given free reign?

Comment by apollo230 — May 24, 2006 @ 10:27 am

Can we, uh, assume that Apollo is new to UD?

That's what is so funny about it...he's not new to the site.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:11:09, Link
Author: GCT
Agreed here as well.  Let's not start any more AFDave threads, unless there is some way to do it humorously.  If you can make us all laugh, then I might be open to it.  As it is though, he's not really funny.  He's just pathetic.

Date: 2006/05/24 08:50:04, Link
Author: GCT
For those of you who don't like trolling over to UD, but only like to get the synopsis of their IDiocy here, here's a comment that transcribes the Henry Rollins trashing of ID.  Link

Quote
Wow. That was quite enjoyable. Here’s the transcript:

“A new Zogby international poll shows that 69% of Americans support public school teachers presenting the theory of evolution as well as theories that are in opposition. If only there were any that didn’t have God somewhere in them. The theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking work “Origin of Species” published in 1859 has been championed by scientists ever since. And like evolution itself, the science of it, the gathering evidence and data is a ceaseless pursuit of scientists all over the world. In the theory of evolution there is no talk of God, and no Bibles are used. They’re not looking for higher powers, extra-terrestrials or anything else that could be found in the science fiction section because they are not dealing with fiction. As more is known and more is shown, Christian fundamentalists see their fingers being pulled off the steering wheel as their oppressive shackles are being more and more seen as fear-based nonsense. And so these awful people who favor abstinence only sex education as does the President of the United States seek yet again to put God into public school classrooms. First, it was the re-write of the Pledge of Allegiance, the addition of “under God” between “one nation” and “indivisible” which they insist sounds great. Actually, it sounds like a badly punched in edit that throws the rhythm of the piece way off and totally removes the power of the statement. Well, they’re back with the theory of intelligent design. It’s not much of a theory. It’s more of an over-fancified collection of sentiments basically saying that there are lifeforms and functions in them that are so complex only God Almighty could’ve come up with them, and we can just stop wondering and just start praising him. Now the foundation of intelligent design relies heavily upon an idea called irreducible complexity. The breathtaking stupidity of irreducible complexity is only outweighed by the complete lack of science involved. It is just intellectually lazy and cannot be tested or challenged. You can’t get God to come down to the lab and prove a fucking thing. You just have to believe, and science does not operate on faith. Faith is taught in churches. If you can’t prove it in the scientific world, you’ve got no game. These Christian fundamentalist psychotics are so power-mad they will stop at nothing. Willful ignorance, intimidation and suppression of information are their tools. Intelligent design, abstinence only sex-ed! The new Dark Ages are upon us! Hang on folks, this century’s gonna be a rough ride!”

Trascription note: Sometimes I was unsure of whether or not to use hyphens and periods, as he seems to be slightly less than competent handling the English language. Most of the periods would be better understood as exclamation points, but the last few sentences seemed to me to have added emphasis so I only used exclamation points there.

Comment by tragicmishap — May 24, 2006 @ 1:32 pm

Considering that Rollins is dead on, I find it funny that tragicmishap is reduced to trying to criticize Rollins' grasp of English, which is probably far superior to the vast majority of UD posters/commenters.

Date: 2006/05/24 08:54:09, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1151#comments

Quote
apollo230,
There are plenty of places on the web to observe and/or participate in what passes for ‘lively discussion’ of these issues (witness Larry’s blog, for instance).
When Dr. Dembski stated to Shalini


Shalini: You don’t seem to have quite the right spirit for our little band.

he demonstrated what he wants from this blog.

I, for one, am grateful that this forum exists as is and that I have been able to drop my two cents in at times - even when I’ve dissented.

When I want ‘lively discussion’ (read: to be called an “idiot”) I know where to find it.

Comment by Charlie — May 24, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
[emphasis mine]
He demonstrated that he wants mindless sycophancy?  Yep, that's what we've been saying over here for quite a while.

Date: 2006/05/24 09:33:44, Link
Author: GCT
They are on a roll over there...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1152#comments

Quote
He may be on to something. Physicists say for every zillion zillion universes, 1 would support life. ID folks looking at biology would prob say that if you had a ZZ of those universes, you could get one that would produce life. A ZZ of those would prob get intelligent life capable of understanding what’s going on around them, and then, according to gonzales, you might only need a ZZ of those to get ones who can see out into the universe to study it. So, for every zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion universes you’d get us. See, no miracles necessary!

Comment by es58 — May 24, 2006 @ 2:19 pm

No religion here, move along.

Date: 2006/05/25 01:33:53, Link
Author: GCT
From the second Rollins thread

Quote
4.  Somebody needs to quiet this guy down with a tire iron, for his own good.

Comment by mike1962 — May 24, 2006 @ 3:10 pm

Where's DT with a condemnation of that comment?  Plus, I'd like to see this guy try to tussle with Rollins.
Quote
5.  This guy is so hideous, if he was the last man on earth, I would wildly support abstinence. I’m proud to be one of those awful people harming children by teaching them self-control and praise of something higher than themselves. Let’s hope children of ID proponents will grow up to be less likely to flip people off than rabid Darwinists.

Comment by kathy — May 24, 2006 @ 3:28 pm

Hmmmm, maybe this should be posted on the child abuse thread?
Quote
8.  Now that tire-iron remark was uncalled for.

What he needs is some time with a Freudian therapist.
The therapist would explain the Oedipus Complex, and
our fearless patient would fly into a trademark rage,
quipping “YOU SICK F***! I’LL BASH YOU GOOD!”

He would then be a defacto Jungian, and start to ask
“Why is this happening now?”

At this *crucial* juncture, Billy Graham should appear
to him in a vision, and tell him to “chillax, dude”

Seeing the error of his ways, Henry Rollins would then go
on to become the greatest proponent of ID ever known.

A cultural-scientific icon of Arnie proportions.

Oh. Henry.

There, that’s better than some nasty old tire-iron, now isn’t it?

Comment by Collin DuCrâne — May 24, 2006 @ 4:00 pm

That's right, all you need to find ID is to find god (through Billy Graham no less).  No religion here.
Quote
14.  Rollins is hateful, intolerant and ignorant. Also, I could definitely kick his ass.

Dan

Comment by Dan — May 24, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

Yeah, right.
Quote
15.  I don’t know, Dan. Rollins, at least back in the 1980s, struck a pretty imposing figure:

Do you really think you could take him?

Comment by William Dembski — May 24, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

This may be the smartest thing WAD has ever said.
Quote
18.  Going back to the tyre iron, idnet:

A ‘tyre iron’ is quicker and generally saves the rest of us from the continued fallout while the traditional ‘Love’ is still working on his thick skin. Some people need tought love, I vote tyre iron love.

Yes it appears his left arm does seem to have grown back too. Maybe that’s why he believes in evolution?!? Who says there’s no such thing as benficial mutations - “Dude my arms just grown back!!!”. Unfortunately however the LSD from the 70’s seems to have taken it’s toll though, and instead of love and peace he’s spewing:

“@#$^@$^&#%^& #### fundamentalists Christians!!!!! Q#%@#^@$%^$%^ rant, rave, hiss, hiss $#^@$%&#$%&, They say I’ll burn in #### for all my tattoo’s !#$^@$#$#^&#%^&#%^ If I had my way I’d burn the lot @#$^%@#$^@$^ Free love is my god $#%**^@$@$%^$%… ID isn’t science @#%^@^$%@%I really wouldn’t know what science is if it bit me on the ass @$%$@%^ etc, etc, etc.

Tyre iron love all the way - DUDE…

Comment by lucID — May 25, 2006 @ 2:14 am

Again, where is DT on this one?

What a bunch of morons.

Date: 2006/05/25 01:40:34, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1148#comments

Quote
8.  That’s funny. A 19th century myth. As opposed to a 0th century myth.
Modern science doesn’t claim that “all these things are the result of chance and NS ALONE”. There’s a serious debate among scientists about the relative importance of deterministic (NS and unknown others) and non-determinstic causes of evolution. There’s no serious effort to disprove a designer. Many scientists are religious, including me, but scientists decide the plausibility of ideas on the basis of evidence. I’m sorry, but there is no evidence of a designer. That doesn’t mean there is no designer, it just means we can’t see him/her.

Anyone that prefers to think that a hideously complex self-replicating nanometer scale factory controlled by digital program code somehow managed to assemble the first copy of itself instead of coming about through intelligent design like every other machine quite frankly needs his head examined. Are you nuts or what? -ds

Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2006 @ 6:29 pm

So, anyone who doesn't believe in god is now insane according to the "agnostic" DT.  Way to go Dave.

Date: 2006/05/25 03:30:31, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1153#comments

Quote
22.  OTOH, you can do science without tattooed musicians of whom most people haven’t heard.

But this illustrates that the enemy of ID is not science but atheism.

Comment by tribune7 — May 25, 2006 @ 8:16 am

Um, but ID has nothing to do with religion, it's pure science.  Um, yeah, that's the ticket.

Date: 2006/05/25 05:45:09, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Renier @ May 25 2006,08:38)
GCT, are you insinuating that ID is religion??? DT would ban your a_ss in a split second :-)

Just ask Afdave. ID is not religion, it's eh... wel... uh... something else...

Quote
But this illustrates that the enemy of ID is not science but atheism.


Yeah that's why atheist Ken Miller fried the ID a_ss in dover... oh... wait...

Well, that's why the scientific community is not anti-ID.... oh... eh... cr_ap...

*bangs head *

Renier, of course it's not religion.  Just ask them, they'll tell you.  The fact that they can't talk about ID without having the discussion devolve into a religious treatise about how much Jesus loves you, how all evilutionists are atheists, and how science is unfair for being materialistic is completely coincidental.

Date: 2006/05/25 08:02:19, Link
Author: GCT
Maybe DaveTard thinks the group protesting the funerals aren't True Christians™, so the ACLU helping them is really just the ACLU helping a group that offends the True Christian Faith™ and therefore the ACLU is still evil.

Date: 2006/05/25 08:16:19, Link
Author: GCT
Stop the ACLU

Here's a particularly boneheaded comment:
Quote
1.  Please, DaveScot, do not associate ID with right-wing politics. ID is a matter whose importance transcends politics, and whose association with politics of either stripe only clouds the issues and makes for an easy guilt-by-association tactic by detractors.

Comment by jaredl — May 25, 2006 @ 12:53 pm

Why is it boneheaded?
1.  Asking DaveTard to stop associating ID with right-wing politics would be like letting the atheist liberal homos win.
2.  All ID has is politics.  The only traction ID can gain is through political (and religious, but I lump them together) means.

Date: 2006/05/25 09:28:14, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1160#comments

Quote
2.  jaredl is completely correct.

DaveScot, it might be a good idea to review the information which you yourself posted at http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/comment-policy/moderation/, which says, in part:

“This blog is for me (Dembski) mainly to get out news items ABOUT THE ID MOVEMENT and my work in particular.” (emphasis mine)

For those of us who may want the scoop on the latest hot-button right-wing political issue, there are plently of places on the web to get it. The rest of us are interested in ID. Please make an effort to stay on topic.

Comment by SteveB — May 25, 2006 @ 2:24 pm

Please tell me there's a banination coming on!

Date: 2006/05/25 09:45:22, Link
Author: GCT
Uh oh, more dissent on the anti-ACLU screed:

Quote
3.  Agreed. This blog’s value is in its focus and in what should be its example of excellence on its topic.

Comment by TomG — May 25, 2006 @ 2:32 pm

Although, I'm not sure how one can excellently focus on a non-existent theory, but whatever...

Date: 2006/05/26 01:27:19, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1157#comments

Oh man, here's a howler!
Quote
1.  “Good science identifies weak links in what is known.”
if evolutionary biology were quick to say, “we don’t know”as astro-physics is (with: dark matter, dark energy, the need for a ’string theory’, the conflict between Einsteinian and quantum physics) then I would fully respect its methodological naturalistic position. However, evolutionary biology only acknowledges one weakness — abiogenesis, and is always quick to point out that the riddle of abiogenesis will be solved soon. It is this unwillingness to say, “we don’t know” that has me question the integrity of that particular science. Evolutionary biology has moved far beyond methodological naturalism, and has made a philisophical committment to naturalism, a committment that I have not found to be supported by the evidence.

I know that I am an outsider, but as outsiders go, I am rather well read. I have not found compelling evidence for biological speciation, I have not found the essetial “punctuated equilibrium” to be credible, I cannot conceive of even deep time being anywhere near capable of producing some of the incredible complexity found in living organisms, I am compelled by the reality that evolution seems to have marched from the broadest taxonomical categories to the most narrow “in order” from domain, to kingdom, then philum, order, class, family, genus, then species. Might I add that Haldane’s dilemma merits being seriously addressed.

There are just as many gaping gaps of knowledge in evolutionary biology as there are in physics. The difference between evolutionary biology and physics is that physics “identifies the weak links in what it knows.” Physics is “good science”.

Comment by bFast — May 25, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Can we nominate bFast for some sort of IDiot award?  He seems to be saying that he find biologists to be too arrogant for him to believe in evolution.  If they were less arrogant, then he wouldn't have a problem with evolution.  That and a whole bunch of personal incredulity.

Date: 2006/05/26 02:10:30, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1157#comments

I'm giving all of you fair warning here, mind your irony meters.  Reading this comment could make them blow up.

Quote
3.  “Regardless of the number of simple organisms on this earth, and regardless of how many simple molecules are found on other planets, the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

Thank you Bryce Paschal I couldn’t agree more with any other statement on this blog. Also with the whole pan-spermia theory (Transfering problem A elsewhere does not help solve anything). I rather believe in God than putting my faith in RM+NS.

RM+NS=0 species

Comment by tb — May 25, 2006 @ 12:50 pm

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Date: 2006/05/30 07:02:34, Link
Author: GCT
Steve,
We both know that's not true.  They can also co-opt all the scientists' work and say that it supports design, they can call for the Waterloo of evolution, they can proselytize, etc.  There's lots they can do.

Date: 2006/05/30 07:56:15, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ May 30 2006,12:39)
Yay! My new ACME Ironometer 4000 with advanced overload protection just arrived. Lesseee.....put in the batteries...switch it on...turn it on lowest sensitivity....take it over to UncommonlyDense:

Ha ha ha...it seems your ACME Ironometer 4000 just met its Waterloo.

Date: 2006/05/31 02:25:26, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1168#comments

Quote
6.  I’ve read a number of different accounts of Flew’s purported conversion, and most seem to contradict each other.
As Doug notes, many athests have a stake in Flew and his earlier work. For that reason it seems clear that they are going to downplay the importance of things he has said recently. On the other hand, theists also have a stake in the matter. If Flew is really a theist of any sort, that lends a bit of extra credibility to our position.

So does anyone know what Flew’s current view is?

Comment by LowenheimSkolem — May 30, 2006 @ 1:27 pm

How does Flew being a theist lend any credibility at all to the ID position?  I thought ID wasn't about religion?  Oops.

Date: 2006/05/31 02:53:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 30 2006,23:46)
It makes me wonder too: how old is DaveScot?

Bob

Hey Bob, it looks like he heard you...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1168#comments

Quote
19.  For the peanut gallery at ATBC

Bob OH wonders how old I am. I turn 50 this year.

Some seem to think because I gave up atheism for ID 15 years ago that makes me a born again Christian.

I don’t get the connection. I’m not a reborn Christian. I gave up a positive disbelief in God for the belief that there might be a higher intelligence of some sort. I traded in atheism for agnosticism 15 years ago which is where I remain today.

Someone else in the peanut gallery thinks my admission means that ID is really a religion. The unspoken implication is that their admission means that they consider atheism to be a religion. I agree. At least for constitutional/legal purposes atheism should be considered a religion. Its practice should be protected by the 1st amendment freedom clause and its promotion by the gov’t restricted by the establishment clause. IMO it is getting the protection but its promotion is not being restricted. Eliminating any reference to God in gov’t is in fact promoting the godless religion of atheism. This is what makes ID such a hot political issue to me. The drive to get any mention of God out of gov’t has spilled over to such ridiculous extent that even a theory about intelligent design based on observation of hideously complex programmed machinery in living cells, a theory that has religious implications, is legally excluded from public education just because it has religious implications to some people. Meanwhile, the modern synthesis gets a free pass even when science luminaries like Richard Dawkins freely admit it has religious implications - “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Comment by DaveScot — May 31, 2006 @ 6:10 am

Whatever Dave, keep lying for Jesus, he likes that.

You gave up what you consider to be a religion (atheism) for something that you swear up and down isn't religion (ID) even though it makes you mad as h*ll any time someone leaves "god" out of the government, etc.  Yeah, you know, I'm just not buying it.  Not only do I have an irony meter, but I also have a working BS detector, or at least I did until I read this.  Thanks, DaveTard for blowing the meter off the thing.  Now, I'm going to have to buy a new one.

Oh, and before you get all Dawkins quote on our a$$es, you might want to understand what the quote means first.

Date: 2006/05/31 07:56:31, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1168#comments

I just found this comment rather funny:

Quote
“agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence”–I call this arrogant agnosticism. My father was a humble agnostic–he didn’t know but neither did he know that you cannot know.

Comment by Rude — May 31, 2006 @ 11:29 am

Date: 2006/05/31 08:05:04, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1168#comments

Oh man, it gets better.  In the very next comment DaveTard explains how the country was founded on the Declaration of Independence...

Quote
...In point of fact, how can any nation founded upon God-given inalienable rights not mention God and still be the same nation? -ds

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America....


Then, in the very next comment, someone tries to proselytize to DaveTard...

Quote
26.  Hello, Dave. Might I suggest that the reason you are still in the same place you were 15 years ago (namely an agnostic, convinced of intelligent causation, but unsure of a creator) is that you might be using the wrong “organ” to seek that knowledge out (namely your intellect, which is space/time limited) when your intuitive perception, the voice of your spirit, is what is at your disposal, by design, for such higher pursuits? Just a friendly thought…

How does one determine that a sense of spiritual connectedness to something larger than oneself isn’t an internally generated illusion? Like billions of other people I have feelings of being part of something bigger but there’s no way to measure or quantify what it is or where it comes from. -ds

Comment by tinabrewer — May 31, 2006 @ 11:37 am

Plus, DaveTard shows us that he doesn't really understand agnosticism, although he did just chide someone with the definition of it a couple comments before this.

Date: 2006/05/31 08:22:21, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (dhogaza @ May 31 2006,13:10)
I'm starting to think Dembski's totally lost it ...

Just starting?

Date: 2006/05/31 09:17:31, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 31 2006,13:30)
Slightly off-topic, I've always been baffled by people who talk about the 'Christian foundation' of the US and cite the tiny handful of times the word 'Creator' or 'God' is mentioned in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence as 'proof', even tho neither document ever mentions Jesus or Christianity.

And of course, this means they have to ignore the Establishment Clause, but we already knew that.

They also have to disregard Article VI.

Oh, and they have to disregard the fact that the word "Lord" only happens in the Constitution in the date.

Oh, and they have to disregard the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document on our country.

Date: 2006/05/31 09:27:09, Link
Author: GCT
Yay, more dumb comments!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1169#comments

Quote
8.  When intelligent and engaging people grapple with ID, we ratchet down the rhetoric. And we need more grappling with the claims science makes against faith that science itself can’t sustain.

It seems Darwinsists are claiming ID presupposes God exists, while Darwinsism claims it doesn’t presuppose anything about God. If you look at Darwinist claims, however, they presuppose God as the ultimate Straw Man–misrepresented so he can be handily refuted.

Comment by kathy — May 31, 2006 @ 1:48 pm

Kathy, you got us.  We are making a Straw Man of god so that we can refute god, even though science has nothing to do with god.  It's really just an atheist conspiracy.  Darn you for uncovering our attempts.

Quote
9.  Why is it that natural selection discourages inefficiency, but when one needs to argue against an intelligent designer one has no problem finding many examples of inefficiency in nature?

Comment by Mung — May 31, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

Wait, what was it Kathy was just saying about Straw Man arguments?

Date: 2006/05/31 09:34:58, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1168#comments

This is too good.  Tinabrewer is not done proselytizing to DaveTard:

Quote
28.  It might be an internally generated illusion, but one feels it nonetheless. This deep inner feeling, which is synonymous with intuition, is the “still small voice” (Gandhi again) which yearns for expression and exploration. The brain says things like “to measure or quantify” because that is its nature. The spirit says things like “bliss. beauty. eternity.” because that is its nature. Like anything, the spirit obeys the laws of creation. If one wishes to makes ones muscles stronger, one must USE them to lift things. If one wishes to make one’s intuition (and its associated insights) stronger, one must USE it. Its voice is so small because it so little used, and so grossly overshadowed by the very loud voice which says “to measure and to quantify”.

You can exercise the spirit but it doesn’t change its nature. It still comes from within while reality comes from without. Blurring the boundaries between physical reality and spiritual feeling has no benefit as far as I can tell. Indeed, it just seems to lead to quashing of the spirit. For instance, just about the time you get the spiritual feeling that God loves you your dog gets hit by a car in the prime of his life and you then wonder what sort of rotten God would do that to you. It’s best to keep the real and the spiritual in different compartments and don’t mingle the two together. -ds

Comment by tinabrewer — May 31, 2006 @ 1:03 pm

Poor DaveTard.  How does he let her in on the secret that he's really one of them?  She just doesn't seem to get it.

Then, there's a couple comments that may not last long:
Quote
29.  Re #28. I completely respect Tina’s opinion - but it is also rather a clear demonstration of how religious belief is based on a very different kind of evidence than atheism. An atheist restricts themselves to the intellect, and that is why atheism is not based on faith and is not a religion.

Comment by Mark Frank — May 31, 2006 @ 1:32 pm

30.  Re #24. Atheists are arrogant. Some agnostics are arrogant. How come believers are never arrogant for believing their particular God exists?

Comment by Mark Frank — May 31, 2006 @ 1:35 pm


Then, tinabrewer comes back for more and in the process demonstrates that she has no clue what Mark Frank just said:
Quote
31.  well said, Mark Frank. now what was that thing again with which the serpent tempted us? The “fruit of the tree of knowledge”? I can’t think of a better metaphor for enslavement to the bounds of intellect.

Dave: just about the time you think “what sort of rotten God would do that to [me]” all of a sudden you get a flash of insight from your intuition which says “maybe everything isn’t all about me, and my hopes and desires…”

Comment by tinabrewer — May 31, 2006 @ 2:12 pm

Date: 2006/06/01 01:03:13, Link
Author: GCT
What?

I thought Tiktaalik was a major discovery for Intelligent Design!  Everything is.  The objective fact that you can breathe means that Jesus loves you and that ID is Truth and if you athiest (sic) heathens don't wise up, you'll burn in hellfire for all eternity for not recognizing the Truth that goddidit and he loves you.

Date: 2006/06/01 01:35:07, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1168#comment-41104

I'm just going to put this one up, then sit back.  I don't think I need to say anything at all...

Quote
On the topic of religious faith and evidence… one musn’t overlook the powerful testimony of historical evidence. For example, there is compelling historical evidence which supports the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the attempts to explain this particular event away simply don’t stand up in light of the volumes of harmonious manuscript evidence that we have in support of it. In fact, there is more consistent historical evidence in support of Christ’s resurrection than there is of George Washington as the first President. There is the science of Textual Criticism which is used to determine the integrity of historical documents, etc… So, I would argue that legitimate faith is a faith based in facts.

And great point, Gil.

Comment by Scott — May 31, 2006 @ 3:16 pm

Date: 2006/06/01 01:58:25, Link
Author: GCT
I think Chris Hyland just nailed DaveTard...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1168#comment-41172

Quote
“As a former devout atheist I can attest to the fact that atheism is based on a philosophical pre-commitment, not reason or evidence.”

That may be true for you but most atheists I know say that they do not believe in God becuase they see no evidence for God. If they see evidence for a God they have nothing to gain by ignoring it.

“My father was a humble agnostic–he didn’t know but neither did he know that you cannot know.”

The question I always want to ask agnotics is are they agnostic to simply the supernatural or specifically the Christian God. If the latter does that mean there is a chance in their mind that they are going to ####?

It’s nothing short of incredible that any thinking adult can look at the world around them and not see evidence of creation. Equivocal evidence, sure, but evidence nonetheless. Atheism is positive belief that the universe is an accident without design. There’s no rational basis at all for that positive belief. -ds

Comment by Chris Hyland — May 31, 2006 @ 6:23 pm

There goes DT's "I'm an agnostic but you'd be crazy not to believe in god" thing again.  I think Chris got it just right.  I think DT is just agnostic toward the Xtian god.

Date: 2006/06/01 02:47:15, Link
Author: GCT
Breaking news!!!!11111

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1173#comments

Quote
...And a note to JohnnyB - I gave you the ability to publish articles just now. Something I’ve been meaning to do for a while now. Go to the meta-link for admins on the sidebar and all should be clear. I look forward to seeing your first article here.

Comment by DaveScot — June 1, 2006 @ 6:25 am

Wow, UD is getting another contributor.  What marvelous feats of stupidity will this new contributor bring to the table?  I'm all excited now.

Date: 2006/06/01 03:34:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Aardvark @ June 01 2006,08:30)
Who knows, I may still be playing the fool there right now?!?

Why?  Do they need help looking foolish?

Date: 2006/06/01 07:09:09, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1175

Wait, did I just read this right?  Dumbski (and no, it's not clever, but it's definitely descriptive in this case) complains about how he wants ID to be compared to SETI.  Then, he says that Michael Crichton hits the nail on the head when he talks about SETI.  So, what does Crichton say about SETI, well Dumbski has a link.  What does the link say you ask yourself...well, here is an excerpt...

Quote
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.


D'oh.

Date: 2006/06/01 07:55:27, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ June 01 2006,12:40)
I thought breathing showed that the second law of Thermodynamics was flawed.

I thought it was typing sentences that could violate the second law.

Date: 2006/06/01 08:23:10, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ June 01 2006,13:00)
But one has to breath in order to type sentences.

Touche.

How about this then?

Violating the second law of Thermodynamics proves that Jesus loves you.

Date: 2006/06/01 08:28:51, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (guthrie @ June 01 2006,13:01)
Just to make it more fun, the Crichton quote also seems to doom SETI forever as a non science endeavour, which as those of us who read the PT seem to broadly agree, it is.  They just dont use the Drake equation for anything.  Doesnt Crichton know anything about publicity and jumping to the wrong conclusions?

Hey, Crichton wrote "State of Fear" which you should know finally debunks this whole global warming thing.  Well, you would know that if it wasn't for the cabal of scientists trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Of course, that does seem to point to the reason why Dembski might associate with Crichton.  I mean, both are fighting the lying scientists that are misleading the public afterall.

Date: 2006/06/06 02:07:47, Link
Author: GCT
Slaveador is a big meanie

Quote
PS
An anecdote about Lynch: I quoted him last fall in a talk I gave at UVa at an IDEA meeting (mentioned here). Somehow, Lynch, 800 miles away was informed that I quoted him! He wrote me demanding I refrain from quoting him from his response to the article where I was featured in Nature (see Who has design’s on your student’s minds? and Lynch’s response ID or intellectual Laziness). Sheesh, does he have nothing better to do than police what is said at IDEA meetings (in Virginia) at schools 800 miles away from him (Indiana).

He gave the usual anti-ID diatriabe in his letter to me. I basically told him to go take a hike (engineers need not worry about reprisals from evolutionary biologists). I said that while we engineers are building space stations, evolutionary biologists are drawing phylogenetic trees that don’t even agree with each other, and these phylogenies may as well have been drawn up by kids with crayola crayons (I in effect suggested, “Evolutionary Biologists aren’t real sceintists”) . I then invited him to circulate my response to him to his Darwinist colleagues.  

Comment by scordova — June 6, 2006 @ 2:41 am

Crayola crayons?  I think he means "crayola crayon's."

Date: 2006/06/06 03:46:09, Link
Author: GCT
Now, I have hard evidence that they think that what they imagine is fact:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1175#comment-41750

Quote
49.  SETI looks for OSC (Ordered Sequence Complexity) in cosmic RF. It is a DSP.
SIDI would look for FSC (Functional Sequence Complexity) in genomic intron data.

I imagine the neo-darwinst reponse to SIDI success would be - “Oh, they are just finding the rejects in the junkyard of RM+NS”.

First they call us monkeys, now we are garbage cans. Who are these guys?

Comment by Collin DuCrâne — June 3, 2006 @ 9:04 pm

He imagines that we will call them garbage cans, so we must have.  That's kind of like DT imagining that we are church burnin' ebola boys, so we must be.

Date: 2006/06/06 03:56:22, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1175#comment-41853

Quote
But let’s take a closer look. If I understand things here correctly, what Shostak is calling a “simple” tone is as far away from being simple as something can get. In fact, it should be considered a highly complex structure. If I’m not mistaken, a ’simple’ sinusoidal wave can be constructed through the constructive interference of a number of electromagnatic waves differing in wavelength and amplitudes. The fact that ’sinusoidal’ waves don’t exist in nature is very likely due to all the ‘noise’ that exists in nature, ‘noise’ that simply never sums up in the proper way so as to form a ’sinusoidal’ wave. Now the EXPLANATION for there not being a ’simple sinusoidal’ wave found in the microwave band is that the only ‘noise’ that nature produces in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum is that coming from hydrogen gas. Thus, hydrogen has nothing to interfere with; and, hence, constructive interference in this region is therefore ruled out. Thus, the appearance of a ’sinusodal’ wave is, instead of being SIMPLE, is, in fact, too COMPLEX a structure to be created by ‘nature’ in that part of the EM spectrum; and the INFERENCE would then be that it had to have been PURPOSIVELY produced: hence, ‘intelligence.’ Sounds a lot like ID, doesn’t it?

Whaaaaaa?
One constructs a simple sinusoid with many complex sinusoids?
Whaaaaaa?

Perhaps he is thinking of an EM pulse?

Date: 2006/06/06 04:34:52, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 06 2006,09:02)
Quote
Even if global warming is caused by humans, I don’t give a ####, quite frankly. Either there is a god/gods/extraterrestrials overseeing this planet who will step in at some time (due to their OWN priorities and goals with regards to this planet) to prevent humans from screwing it up completely, or else there isn’t any such higher power, and life (and this planet, warm or cold) is but a collosal accidental joke anyway. Either way I am not worried about it.


Can one of my American friends tell me if this might be a general consensus among the very religious over there. If so I am very worried.

There is an element (AFAIK) that believes what this person said: that god will protect us or the rapture will come first anyway.  This person differs in actually seeming to entertain that there might not be a higher power, but quickly follows it with the old "No god = meaningless" canard.

That said, there are some evangelicals out there that are pushing for good stewardship of the Earth.  So, at this point I think there isn't a general consensus.  Of course, I think our president falls on the side of the former group, but let's not go there because I'll get upset.

Date: 2006/06/06 08:02:41, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Wonderpants @ June 06 2006,12:34)
What about Evopeach? He may not have been dumb as the others, but he compensated by being rude. And while stupidity is forgivable, rudeness isn't.

Actually, Evopeach was just as dumb as AFDave, but the rudeness sort of masked it, kind of like a diversionary tactic.

Date: 2006/06/06 08:54:14, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1178#comment-41948

Quote
11.  If I bring in a little outside disciplines here…

The materialist doesn’t really believe his materialism. He is like a mother who defends her wrotten child. She consciously believes her kid is wonderful and can do no wrong. When the principal calls and tells her her son has been stealing, she says “no, my son is wonderful.”

But you notice that she won’t leave her purse alone in a room with her son.

That is what the materialist is like. Every so often, the truth of what they subconsciously know sneaks out.

“It’s not designed. It’s not designed.” They not only deceive they self-deceive.

Comment by geoffrobinson — June 5, 2006 @ 9:05 am

All those evil athiest evilutionist just don't want to admit that there's a god and that ID is Truth, but they know it's True and subconsciously they stop being wrotten and realize Jesus loves them.

Date: 2006/06/06 09:00:22, Link
Author: GCT
Michaels7 is becoming one of my favorite fountains of IDiocy:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1178#comment-42013

Quote
Finally - you cannot reverse engineer a non-engineered process.

Oh, so if we reverse engineer anything, that means that it was designed?  ID has been proven.  We can all stop our dogmatic defense of Darwinism.  We have met our Waterloo.

Date: 2006/06/06 09:18:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Henry J @ June 06 2006,14:13)
Re "We have met our Waterloo."

But, which side were we on? ;)

Abba's side?

Date: 2006/06/07 01:58:40, Link
Author: GCT
I vote:  both.

Date: 2006/06/07 02:03:55, Link
Author: GCT
I'd like to vote "church" but only if it is burning.  Can the church be burning?

Date: 2006/06/07 02:50:54, Link
Author: GCT
PaV is on a roll lately...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1175#comment-42166

Quote
...That said, what SETI is doing is no more than taking humankind’s ability to reason and to project that ability onto putative alien creatures. What they’re doing is really that straightforward. So, how is that different from what ID advocates are doing? In fact, it is much more ‘reasonable’ to make the kinds of assumptions that IDers make than to make the kind that the SETI people are making. After all, we KNOW that DNA is a quaternary code. We KNOW it. We don’t assume it. And the code we see operating has tremendous simlarities to the binary code system that is used in computers. IDers aren’t ‘assuming’ that when you encounter DNA that there is an ‘intelligence’ present; they know that an intelligence is present–and one that operates in a similar manner to human reason.

...

But, mc87, the Bible says that ‘man’ is made in the image of God. Thus, human reason is on a continuum with the Divine Reason. Why do you automatically limit human reason to humans.

IDers know there is an intelligence present?  Then he references the Bible?  Nope, no religion here, move along.

Date: 2006/06/07 04:17:10, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1188#comments

Quote
7.  My point is simply that evolution is bunk. Genomes don’t evolve - they adapt. The complexity of the adaptation mechanisms are sufficient and reasonable proof of design.

When we include evidence that adaptation is managed in a way that defies the laws of thermodynamics, overcoming entropy istelf, we are getting at evidence of a designer exists simultaneuosly inside and outside of this universe. The topic of this thread even suggests ressurective abilities.

Acts 17:23-33 to me gives stunning insight to this debate, and the nature of ID. God is not unknown. He is the owner and manager (Lord) of all. We are his offspring. Physical death is reversible, but spiritual death (unbelief) is not.

My time on Mars’ Hill (place of struggle) coming to some sort of closure. I have learned I can uphold my faith, but also learned that this should not have to be a struggle.

I also have learned that there is only one place where faith is upheld without struggle. It is in the private place of the mind: the hill (colline) of the skull (du crâne).

I leave in love, and ask that you reflect on Philippians, chapter 2 verse 1. Thanks very much for your time.

Comment by Collin DuCrâne — June 6, 2006 @ 10:44 pm

8.  Darn deletion mutations - Philippians - Chapter 2 verse 11.

Jesus is Lord.

Comment by Collin DuCrâne — June 6, 2006 @ 10:49 pm

Nope, no religion here either.  Move along, nothing to see here.

Date: 2006/06/07 04:42:39, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Ladlergo @ June 07 2006,09:29)
*shakes fist* Why are the non-drinkers unfairly persecuted?

(Least detested: fruit liquor, or something that can be mostly ignored in a mixed drink.  I think most alchohol tastes like something I'd use to strip the paint off my walls.)

Agreed.  I also dislike the taste of alcohol.

Edit:  It's why I didn't vote.

Date: 2006/06/07 08:12:00, Link
Author: GCT
RBH also points out:
Quote
The exact quote PvM gave is included in a Dembski-authored paper hosted on Dembski’s site.

Link

Date: 2006/06/07 08:27:13, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2006,13:16)
GCT, you make me sick, with your tidal wave of lies and deceit.

I prefer "tsunami" myself.  It has sort of a liberal intelligentsia feel to it.

Well, your liberal homo-loving ass is outta here - dt

Date: 2006/06/07 08:43:48, Link
Author: GCT
So, how long until dt shows up and says something like, "Well, they would have quote-mined if they could, but they just got lucky, so the charge still stands, and they are a bunch of quote-miners over at PT."

You'll have to mine your boyfriends ass tonight because you won't be mining this website.  You're outta here - dt

Date: 2006/06/08 01:19:11, Link
Author: GCT
How long has "traditional" marriage been a union between one man and one woman?  I thought there were numerous examples in the Bible of men marrying multiple wives.  The Mormons were doing it here in this country not too long ago (and some still do.)  Isn't this appeal to tradition not even correct?

Date: 2006/06/08 01:43:09, Link
Author: GCT
I wonder if Dembski will now post a whole slew of things in order to push his embarrasment down the page and off the first page as quickly as possible.  It's been done before.

Date: 2006/06/08 02:10:21, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Aardvark @ June 07 2006,18:31)
I don't really know what crandaddy's trying to get at with this but I guess it has something to with design detection via intuition or something.

The fist picture is from here and is of a natural rock formation from Corriganville, which is apparently near Hollywood.

The second picture is from here and is of an Olmec (early pre-Hispanic civilisation) rock sculpture.

But, aren't they both designed?  As GilDodgen points out, the universe was obviously designed because of fine-tuning, so wouldn't that mean that both rock formations are the result of design?

Or, maybe they simply mean that we can discern design by humans, so we can infer supernatural design.  Does supernatural mean "god"?  I'm sure it doesn't.

Quote
5.  Well Gil, didn’t you know that since we know God doesn’t exist and is just a fairy tale derived from the evolution of human brain cells that therefore intelligent design cannot be true no matter how impossible to prove evolution is? It’s simple logic. You have: no god=intelligent design is impossible. That’s science and whomever doesn’t agree is anti science. Umkay? So it doesn’t matter if OUR ability to prove evolution is not very well documented, we have no choice but to believe it otherwise what else is there? Now go out and insist that everyone who doesn’t blindly accept evolution as de facto TRUTH is a fundamentalist who wants to make the world over into a religious totalitarian state…if you do that then the academic world will open their arms to you for a teaching or research position at the most prestigious universities in the world. So don’t be anti-science umkay? Be pro evolution and anti God…or else….doors will close.

Comment by mentok — June 7, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
Um....no, no religion here, move along.

Date: 2006/06/08 03:14:20, Link
Author: GCT
Hey, weren't the slippery slope and the traditional definition of marriage the arguments used against allowing mixed-race couples to marry?

Date: 2006/06/08 05:44:44, Link
Author: GCT
Dr. Bottaro also points out on the now infamous PvM vs. Dembski post that Dembski is repackaging his stuff so much that he can't keep straight what he has and hasn't written.  Bottaro also rightly points out that repackaging the same stuff in different publications without acknowledging the source is a no-no.

So, just another spot where Dembski has ceded the ethical high road.

Date: 2006/06/08 07:06:36, Link
Author: GCT
Oh boy.

On the dumb as rocks thread we've got not just CSI, but irreducible complexity as well...
Quote
14.  El Schwalmo: Concerning stones (an example of ‘one-generation-systems’) the decision is trivial: they have to acquire all complexity within the life span of one object. In this case it is easy to decide: designed or ‘chance’ (sensu ID). There is nothing to learn from this example for ‘many-generation-systems’, able to descent with modification.

A valid point, but this is where the concept of the “irreducibly complex system” comes in, which by definition IS a “one-generation” system. Here descent with modification fails.

There should be little argument of the above definition, however, those proposing multi-generation descent with modification cannot accept that any system truly is irreducibly complex (without the possible exception of co-option, which simply says that the system is derived from another system of nearly equal complexity used for a different purpose).

“Single generation” is the point ID makes. It is the hallmark of designed systems, even if you have a prototype to be further developed, it is generally a huge leap above any previous example. What is the precursor to the bacterial flagellum which had one or two fewer proteins?

Comment by SCheesman — June 8, 2006 @ 10:58 am

So, carvings made in rocks are irreducibly complex?  Huh.  But, it gets better.
Quote
16.  SCheesman, are there examples of irreducibly complex systems being designed/tweaked gradually over time? Witness the countless iterations of your car in previous generations, or the space shuttle, with near-constant engineering/re-engineering over the space of several decades.

Isn’t it true that an irreducibly complex system may have come about either gradually or suddenly? The key is not whether it came about as a single abrupt system or as a result of a long cumulative process. Rather, the key is whether the system as it stands exhibits specified complexity that is the hallmark of intelligence. There is no requirement that a designer, in the process of infusing specified complexity, must do it all in one fell swoop or not at all.

Comment by Eric Anderson — June 8, 2006 @ 11:47 am

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....It sounds like he's saying IC systems could evolve....Wait, that can't be true....D'oh!

Date: 2006/06/08 07:37:46, Link
Author: GCT
Great post Wes.

It made me wonder about something.  Besides the small cadre of people like Dembski, Luskin, and a few others at the DI, have we seen anything from people like Behe or Gonzalez lately?

Date: 2006/06/08 09:03:09, Link
Author: GCT
I'm famous.  Not as famous as Wes, but more famous than AC I would say (yeah, I'm the "kicker")...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1195

Quote
Over at antievolution.org Wesley Elsberry tries to write an obituary for ID. Arden Chatfield faithfully rewords and repeats his master’s hallucination in the next comment. The kicker is a cat named GCT who asks if anyone has heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately?

No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors.

What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery. Furthermore, to the same objective student, the initial assembly of said molecular machinery being assigned to random interaction of primitive chemical precursors doesn’t even pass the giggle test. ID is a given to anyone without a subjective commitment to a ludicrous contrary narrative.

As I’ve said many times before, there is only one prop still holding up the NDE narrative and that is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. It’s all political at this point and unfortunately for Wesley and his ilk he must convince a majority of voters that it’s his way or the highway. He’s failed utterly at that task and now we simply wait for the purposely slow moving wheels of the federal judiciary to move with the will of the people. Federal jurists have tenure so it’s a long process replacing those that have become unpalatable but a determined public will eventually have its way.

ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 1:34 pm

Didn't Bush, et. al. come out in favor of ID before the Dover ruling came out?

I love how he is reduced to saying that it's intuitive and a given, so long as you aren't a dreaded atheist.  But, ID has nothing to do with religion.  You just have to believe in order to get it.  And, I really love how he boils it all down for us about how it's all political.  Nice one DT.

Date: 2006/06/08 09:31:41, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1195#comment-42412

Quote
1.  Cute… this new strategy of the Materialistic Fundamentalists:

1. Create this pretense that ID is dead and that it’s central proponents have abandonded it. Use the interweb to spread the sham.

2. Point to the decision of an activist judge in a podunk Pennsylvania town and cite this as the nail in the coffin.

3. Perpetuate the canard that biologists are the only ones qualified to examine biological systems and make judgements about their origins.

4. Pray to the gods of Darwin that people don’t find about the last 30 years of scientific discovery in various fields (namely, the hard sciences).

Good luck, Mr. Dingleberry. You’re going to need it.

Comment by Scott — June 8, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

Ummmm, I'm right here...you could address "the kicker" too.  Jeez.  What do I have to do around here to get some respect?

Now, how do we pray to the gods of Darwin?  I thought all Darwinists were athiests [sic].

Date: 2006/06/09 00:59:02, Link
Author: GCT
American.

I would say English too, but I used to play soccer with some British guys and I couldn't understand a single word they said.  (One was from Birmingham and the other from southern Scotland.)

Edit:  And, I call it "soccer."  World Cup starts today!

Date: 2006/06/09 01:35:20, Link
Author: GCT
From the dumb as rocks thread again.

Quote
Second one, obviously. It looks like other objects we know to have been made by the natives he’s looking for. I don’t see why someone would have to result to the explanatory filter to make that conclusion.

Fine. Further investigation finds that the artifact was carved 300 million years ago. Presume there is no mistake in the date. Now what are your thoughts on its origin? -ds

Comment by Tiax — June 8, 2006 @ 10:33 am

Yeah.  And what if we found a pre-Cambrian rabbit?  Huh?  Then what?

Date: 2006/06/09 02:05:38, Link
Author: GCT
TD
Can you define for us "traditional"?

Can you define for us "traditional marriage"?

Can you tell us how your definition of "traditional marriage" is actually "traditional"?

Can you tell us how gay marriage affects you definition of "traditional marriage"?

Can you fill us all in on why this is not a case of equal rights and equal protections under law?

Date: 2006/06/09 02:58:37, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Renier @ June 09 2006,07:13)
Eh, GCT, I think Thordaddy has been banned, so it's no use asking him anything....

Like it was really any use before he was banned.  Oh well.

Edit:  I just like to bang my head against the wall sometimes because it feels so good when I stop.

Date: 2006/06/09 05:14:28, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ June 09 2006,09:38)
Thor's single-minded obsession with gays was pretty funny. You pro-homosexual atheist :-)

He should meet DaveTard.  They would probably hit it off fabulously.

Date: 2006/06/09 05:17:57, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1197

Quote
The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex.

More irony having this posted on UD.

Date: 2006/06/09 05:28:20, Link
Author: GCT
So, Dembski decided the best way to push his embarrassment over the non-quote mine affair was to publish right wing political commentaries?

Date: 2006/06/12 01:45:29, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1188#comment-42437

And, Michaels7 lets the cat out of the bag...again...He's becoming one of the best sources of laughter over there.

Quote
Collin, evolution worships the creature. True, ID does not state who the designer is, but that is a secular scientific principle that must be met for scholarship in this world. But if I were to make a tent and sell it like Paul and refuse to sell it to those who do not believe, of what profit is it to the House of the Lord? The message is not in ID itself and never was, but in individual testimony and always has been. The casting of the net was a mere realization of trust once the fish were caught. ID cast a large net, a 153 fish does not include all possible fish. Many creationist detest this part of ID. However the body of Christ is made of many parts. Should we do away with one to please the other? Who is to say how the Lord will call his sheep and thru whom will they be called? Each have gifts and are called by the will of the Father even at his timing and his ways, not ours. Is heroin a call? Not by us, but thru Him, all things are possible. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but ID was never my reason to believe. If anyone places their faith on such thin ice(creature design no matter how wonderfully created), they’ll fall thru.

Dave, I even heard some bulldogs were made in his likeness  

Comment by Michaels7 — June 8, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

Talk about a wink-wink, nudge-nudge moment.

Date: 2006/06/12 02:07:01, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1195#comment-42717

Talk about a glutton for punishment...

Quote
14.  We should keep calling it ID. That way, the darwinists can keep calling us IDiots as if this were some fresh and new idea–a metaphor for the darwinistic worldview if ever I heard one.

Comment by terrylmirll — June 9, 2006 @ 10:04 pm

OK, IDiot.

Date: 2006/06/12 03:35:32, Link
Author: GCT
The whole Ann Coulter Post is just friggin' hilarious.

I highly recommend that everyone read it.  There are too many funny comments to post them all.  DT admitting ID is just political.  Their embrace of Ann Coulter as a new ID defender (even though she only seems to be bashing Darwin, but I guess it's one and the same), talking about how Coulter doesn't have to use falsehoods like those liberal writers do, etc.  It's quite funny.

Date: 2006/06/12 05:19:38, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (k.e @ June 12 2006,09:12)
GCT urbanely says "It's quite funny"

Can I award you the "Understatement of the year award"

I graciously accept, but I really owe this to the IDiots over at UD.  I couldn't have done it without them and their IDiotic comments.

Date: 2006/06/12 08:04:03, Link
Author: GCT
Another DaveTard rant

Quote
Do you think it coincidence that high living standards and Christianity are found together while low living standards and Islam are found together? I certainly don’t. I’m not much of a Christian myself except in a cultural sense but I’m certainly not blind to the fact that the countries swept by the Protestant Reformation enjoy the highest living standards in the world today while those dominated by Islam, Hindu, and Buddhism have generally the lowest living standards. Christianity, democracy, and capitalism all travel hand-in-hand and together are a proven winning combination. The culture of the left in the U.S. has it all backwards. They want to punish success with high taxes and reward failure with government support. They want it okay to kill the innocent unborn and but keep alive the guilty adults convicted of heinous crimes. They want to drive all vestiges of the religion that made the U.S. the shining city on the hill out of the public sphere and replace it with the human secularism that caused the downfall of the Soviet Union. And people wonder why I hold so much contempt for the loony left… -ds

Christianity is the greatest thing since sliced toast....but I'm an agnostic.  An agnostic I say!  And those loony lefties, don't get me started.

You won't be getting started on this blog at all - You're outta here -dt

Date: 2006/06/12 08:38:09, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1198#comment-42643

Ha ha ha ha ha.
Quote
13.  DS
Do you really think its that simple? Christianity + capitalism + democracy = prosperity? During the Middle Ages the Muslim world was far more advanced and prosperous than Europe. It was largely the desire to procure goods from Muslim lands that drove the search for capital. It was Europe’s geographic good fortune to be the first to reach the wealth of the western hemisphere. It was fierce competition between nation states that drove a lot of the innovation in warfare, colonization, and general technology. The Reformation was invaluable in making Christianity more compatible with capitalism.
The resulting military domination held by European powers allowed global colonization and exploitation. India, China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and on and on were all dominated by Europe for centuries. You don’t think that this may have something to do with our respective places in the world today?
My miniscule narrative is an absurd over simplification, but it is much more telling then your formula.

As far as Canada goes size and wealth do have a lot to do with trade. We give them x amount of dollars for their goods. We are an extremely wealthy country with a high standard of living. They can by a certain amount of goods here or they can by much more elsewhere. This is not good or bad, right or wrong it just is. People lament the disappearence of manufactueing from the US economy but the reality is that the standard of living has rose at the same time. Certainly there were losers in the deal but life and history are not too concerned with being fair.

Do you really think its that simple? Christianity + capitalism + democracy = prosperity?

Yes. It really is just that simple. This isn’t the middle ages. And you’re wrong about trade balance. And now you’re back on moderation again for making me correct you twice. -ds

Comment by ftrp11 — June 9, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

Silly ftrp11, you should know better than to point out when DaveTard has made a fool of himself.

You won't be making a fool out of me anytime soon - You're outta here -dt

Date: 2006/06/13 03:35:31, Link
Author: GCT
It seems the new kid on the block at UD believes that revelation is a perfectly legitimate way of doing science...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1203#comment-43158

Quote
“but if it were then one of the first questions that would have to be addressed is “Who is the designer?”.”

The problem is that this is nearly impossible, though it may be possible to characterize the designer. Meyer, for instance, says that identity is a second-order philosophical question. I don’t know if this is necessarily so, but this is a reasonable statement given the commonly allowed evidence.

What is the name of the designer of Stonehenge? We may be able to characterize the designer from the evidence, but identify the designer wse cannot.

Now, I believe in revelation. So the answer of who the designer is Yahweh. But most scientists do not consider revelation to be a valid form of evidence, so the designer remains unknown. However, I think that revelation is valid within a scientific context, and I defend the idea here:

http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2006....nd.html

If you woulds like to see scientific work done from the perspective that revelation is a valid form of evidence, see here:

http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/008.pdf

Comment by johnnyb — June 12, 2006 @ 6:58 am

Where do they find these people?

Date: 2006/06/13 08:28:31, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2006,10:54)
Quote

Where do they find these people?


Dembski drives the bus around looking for the kids in the pro-tec helmets.


That is hilarious.

Date: 2006/06/13 09:44:00, Link
Author: GCT
For all the Coulterophiles over at UD:

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006....ne.html

Of course, Dembski also cuts-and-pastes without citing, but at least he does it from his own work.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:41:50, Link
Author: GCT
This DaveTard moment brought to you by UD, the 'Ann Coulter supports ID' website:

Quote
Does Coulter actually mention ID somewhere? The only thing she appears to be spokesperson for is anti-Darwinism. -ds

But, if that is true, then why does everyone on there seem to think that Coulter has written in support of ID?  Oh yeah, it's because ID is nothing buy anti-Darwinism.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:46:24, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1213#comment-43485

Quote
“If you lift a barb out of its context, she sounds like a ranter. In context, the barbs are a perfectly legitimate response to the demented positions that she deconstructs.”

I offer you, gentle reader, a selection of Anne Coulter “barbs” all out of context, all from just one chapter of her book (chapter 5), and invite you to imagine the context that makes them “perfectly legitimate”.

*************************************************************
“… all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women.” - Page 101
“One wonders how exposing anything about Cindy could discredit her more than the poor imbecile’s own words have. - page 102
“…Cindy Sheehan, with that weird disconnect between the viciousness of her comments and her itsy-bitsy, squeaky voice.” - page 103
“These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation …” page 103
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arrazzis, I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands death so much. The increasingly rabid widows …” page 103
“… the Democrats were able to ensure a whitewash of Clintons’ utter incompetence, cowardice, and capitulation to enemy regimes …” page 104
“Mostly the witches of East Brunsweick wanted George Bush to apologize for not being Bill Clinton. Like Monica Lewinsky before here, Breitweiser found impeached president Clinton “very forthcoming”.” - page 112
“Out of love for his country and an insatiable desire to have some-one notice his worthless existence, Wilson wrote a column …” - page 115
“He had been sent by his wife , Valerie Plame, a chair-warmer at the CIA who apparently wanted to get him out of the house.” - page 118
“For the really insane stuff you have to go to bush-league newspapers where reporters have all the venom of the big-city newspapers, combined with retard level IQs.” - page 119
“… the only provable conclusion of which is that Joe Wilson is a nut and a liar.” page 119
“… How does a publisher react to some pompous jerk who wants to call his book The Politics of Truth? - page 151
“The Democratic Party’s became Cindy Sheehan, loon.” - page 128
“The only sort of authority Cindy Sheehan has is the uncanny ability to demonstrate, by example, what body types should avoid wearing shorts in public.” - page 128
“Despite having a screwball for a mother, Casey Sheehan was a great American …” page 150
“There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats’ behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason… These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.” page 135
“… as long as Democrats are going to be jock sniffers for war veteran’s, let’s at least be equal about it.” - page 137
“I have a right to call Democrats blowhards, moral cowards, and traitors… they are liars and cowards and traitors.” - page 141
“Perhaps liberals will claim Moore is a “covert” agent with the CIA, - assuming a big, sweaty, behemoth like Michael Moore could actually be concealed…” - page 143

******************************************************************

Methinks that is going to take a LOT of context packed into a little 47 page chapter.

Quite an advocate you’ve got there.

Which of these do you imagine need context to be legitimate? -ds

Comment by DWSUWF — June 13, 2006 @ 11:50 pm

From the "ad hominem is wrong" DaveTard.

Date: 2006/06/14 07:51:41, Link
Author: GCT
Another Ann Coulter post

That makes about 7 different posts devoted to Ann Coulter on the front page alone.  So, my question is this:

If Ann Coulter really does turn out to be Man Coulter, would DaveTard have to kick his own a$$ for having homosexual tendencies toward what he thought was a woman?

No.....But I can kick your a$$ outta here -dt

Date: 2006/06/15 03:57:27, Link
Author: GCT
Ask him if he can make a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it.

Date: 2006/06/15 04:30:42, Link
Author: GCT
Sorry Renier, but burritos sure are tasty.

Ask him, "How are you doing?"

(For all the fans of the Tick cartoon.)

Date: 2006/06/15 04:38:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,09:28)
Now, if we're past all that, and someone wants to actually make the topic of discussion the evidence for and against evolution that's certainly great news.  If *I* am to be the topic of discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time.

You have that ability.  Anyone can start a thread.

Date: 2006/06/15 05:00:26, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1220#comment-43711

Sal isn't the brightest bulb in the bunch...

Quote
...DNA is classified as junk simply because scientist are ignorant of it’s possible function. This is an example of a pre-disposition to discourage the exploration of something that might have serious scientific value simply because of the Darwinian anti-design bias is pervasive in certain circles...

OK, so it's all those design theorists who are in the labs figuring out what functions those portions of DNA do, right?
Quote
...Here is a non-ID website with a better perspective:

www.noncodingdna.com
...

So, a non-ID website is investigating this?  Oh, so the junk label isn't really an impediment to scientific investigation at all, is it?  What a maroon.

Date: 2006/06/15 07:06:39, Link
Author: GCT
Could you ask him if he is The Intelligent Designer that I keep hearing so much about?

Date: 2006/06/19 04:28:55, Link
Author: GCT
Congrats.

I knew there was a reason your posts are so intelligent.

Date: 2006/06/19 07:00:39, Link
Author: GCT
Over on the missing link thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1227#comment-43928

Quote
Barry doesn’t miss the point and neither do I. If there are a plethora of missing links, which is what the chance worshippers always claim, it wouldn’t be big news when an ostensibly unique transition fossil is found. -ds

Wait a second......Isn't this the same dt that was chiding all the IDiots over there about how they shouldn't argue against common descent not too long ago?  He sure does put the "Tard" in DaveTard.

Yeah, and I'll put the "Outta Here" in "You're Outta Here" too -dt

Date: 2006/06/19 07:09:37, Link
Author: GCT
Oh, this is good:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1227#comment-44003

Quote
I would like you or any other proponent of ID to describe, in detail, how ID would address the problem of Avian Flu, based on the assumption that birds were “designed” at some point in the past much as they are today, do enlighten me.

Straw man. How on earth did you ever get out of moderation? No matter, you’re back now.

Comment by Leo1787 — June 16, 2006 @ 4:30 pm

Yeah, um, straw man.  Don't you know that ID doesn't have to answer to evolution's pathetic level of detail or something like that.  How dare you ask how ID actually works or how it does anything.  You're back on moderation, and if you didn't know that means you're outta here.  The banninator has spoken.

Date: 2006/06/19 07:31:15, Link
Author: GCT
Even more tardity from DaveTard...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1227#comments

Quote
31.  DS,

Your definition of important science seems to include only science that has a currently knowable and specific practical benefit to humanity rather than simply the satisfaction of answering a question. However, time and time again, important science according to your definition has been pursued without a direct connection to practical application.

Do you think Albert Einstein pursued relativity because he thought that one day we could harness this work for nuclear power ?

This comment shows that you do not have a serious view of how science works. Applied science, maybe, but not basic science.

Fair enough. I’ll give you an opportunity to present examples of practical value in any fossils from many millions of years ago. Have at it. -ds

Comment by bdelloid — June 16, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

So, DaveTard ignores the argument and challenges bdelloid to come up with some examples.  Surely that's the trump card, right?  I mean, there can't possibly be any examples if DT is unable to perceive of any.
Quote
39.  DS,

1) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/ONeill.html

2) Even if there was no presently known application, this has little to do with whether it is science or not.

I seem to have touched a nerve. Fossil collecting is at best a harmless hobby. What you found above is commonly called “the exception that proves the rule”. Thanks for playing. It was brave of you to try for surely you knew I was right all along. -ds

Comment by bdelloid — June 18, 2006 @ 8:28 am

Wait, bdelloid has an example, and points out the DT missed the argument?  Well, DT has an answer for that too.  See, it's just the exception to the rule, so he's still right and he still doesn't have to address the real issue.  What a maroon.

And you ass is going to be maroon once I kick it out of here (and your boyfriend is gonna think you're cheatin' on him you homo) -dt

Date: 2006/06/19 07:35:11, Link
Author: GCT
Um, GoP.  She doesn't look white.  Won't your KKK brothers look down on you for this?

Date: 2006/06/19 08:36:59, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 19 2006,13:14)
GCT: you're missing the point.  DS' original challenge:
 
Quote
Fair enough. I’ll give you an opportunity to present examples of practical value in any fossils from many millions of years ago. Have at it. -ds

And then, when it has been met, he responds with:
   
Quote
...Addendum for GCT at ATBC: The given example is a practical application for oil drilling in being able to easily date some strata with quick microscopic examination of the drill tailings. The subject of this article is a bird fossil and the practical application was in modern biology. Please explain how bird fossils millions of years old have any practical application that would vault their collection from harmless hobby into worthwhile science. Good luck. -ds


Yeah, good luck with those moving goalposts.

And you're moving as well.  Red card, and you're gone - ds

Bob

So, DT was wrong when he said that the example was an exception?  Oh wait, it isn't an exception at all now.

The funny part is the DT still danced around the original point.  In DT world, someone says that the answer should be A, not B, and DT comes back with, "Show me some examples of B."  I love it.

Date: 2006/06/19 08:50:05, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1228#comments

Quote
2.  Denyse may be right in her thought that these “people of faith” are just covering their butts, but it is also my experience that there are many many people who claim to belong to monotheistic mainstream religions yet still have what would appear to be strange ideas about God and the nature of reality vis-a-vis their claim of being a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc.

Let’s look at people like George Coyne or the people of the Templeton Foundation, or the large number of Christian leaders who support evolution. While they all claim to be Christian, their Christianity is not the Christianity of the mainstream Christian tradition. It is a Neo-Christianity. And I believe for the majority of them it is their theological views which are shaping their views on ID. If you see God as some kind of cosmic force rather then as an intellectual entity then you will see ID as impossible in the same way that atheists see ID as impossible. Then you might create some ridiculous psuedo philosophical, psuedo theological, psuedo argument to try and give off an aura of “knowing” or intuiting a higher religious “truth” then that of the caveman-like “fundamentalists” who foolishly believe God is an actual living thinking individual conscious person.

What I see in most people who claim to believe in God and who oppose ID is that they oppose belief in a God who is involved with humanity. People like Coyne or Teilhard De Chardin and many others see God as some kind of “love thing” which is evolving with the Universe. Others have a monist or almost pantheistic vision of God, rather then seeing God as a thinking feeling willing entity. God is not a person with a mind and with emotions, rather God is some kind of impersonal cosmic something-or-another. They may call themselves Christians but they are Christians in the same way that Mormons are Christians. They may incorporate some aspect of Christianity into their belief system, they may even be priests, pastors, bishops, etc. But in reality they claim to be Christian and take those roles out of duplicity, they seek to change the traditional belief system to suit their own. They lie openly in an attempt to convert people to their way of thinking. The ends justify the means to them. They see themselves as the rightful spiritual leaders of the ignorant masses. Therefore pretending to be Christian priests (Coyne and others) while preaching against Christian teachings doesn’t seem unethical and dishonest to them. “Scientists” pretending to be Christians are liars as well. They know it. They think they are fooling everyone.

Comment by mentok — June 17, 2006 @ 4:04 am

If you're against ID, then you're not a true Christian.  This has nothing to do with religion by the way.

Date: 2006/06/19 09:31:35, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1229#comment-44063

Quote
Going by the fact that archeology has validated every historical biblical claim it has ever examined, I am persuaded that all science will eventually concur with the Bible’s view on origins, and much else.

I wasn't aware that archeology had validated the global flood.

Date: 2006/06/20 01:05:05, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 19 2006,19:59)
Quote
He's right, conservatism is no more racist than liberalism, it's conservatives who are more racist than liberals.

Says the liberal, pontificating in the middle of his lily-white neighborhood....

A.C.
Quote
Why should we think you have any idea AT ALL what 'liberal tenets' are?

Because I was one.....

[gotta go home to my non-lily white neighborhood. See ya tomorrow!]

I think this is one of those, "I can't be a racist because I know a black person" kind of arguments.

Date: 2006/06/20 01:12:30, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (guthrie @ June 19 2006,17:14)
I would like to lodge a slightly tongue in cheek protest at calling Dave Scott a Springer spaniel.  The Spaniels I have met have been many times nicer than Dave, eager to please, helpful, and generally worth their keep.

They're probably smarter too.

Date: 2006/06/20 01:29:38, Link
Author: GCT
Anyone remember Avocationist's thread?  Well, here she is lying about her exchange here.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1229#comment-44234

Quote
“Theism allows both ID as well as a form of evolution in which God’s purposes in nature are accomplished in a way that is scientifically undetectable.”

I argued about this to no avail with some people at After the Bar Closes. It makes no sense, although many scientist-Christians like Miller adhere to it. If we posit that there is a God, then we cannot possibly say that our universe shows no evidence of it, for we live in a universe that must be caused by God and we have no way to know what a universe would look like or behave like if it did not have a God. Certainly, a Catholic like Miller believes in a God who has purpose, and how can that be compatible with a willy-nilly universe in which life and man may or may not have ever come about?

Apparently, Miller thinks God acts on the quantum level. That’s fine with me, but this is an utterly different scenario than the one posited by Dawkins type of evolutionist. Also, if that is the case, who can say what science will one day be able to detect? Considering how far we have come scientifically in detecting many, many things that were quite recently utterly undreamed of, it strikes me as odd to insist that God’s workings will be forever undetectable.

The most deeply incoherent part of this belief system is the assumption that although there is a God, everything looks just as though there wasn’t one.

Comment by avocationist — June 18, 2006 @ 12:25 am

So, now she says that she was arguing that we can't know what a universe without god would be like?  That was my argument against her assertion that we know a universe with a god is much better than a universe without a god.  Once again Avo has co-opted my argument and passed it off as her own.

I'd also like to point out her stupid comments about "science detecting many, many things that were quite recently utterly undreamed of."  How many of those things were attributed to god?  How many times did science detect those things and say, "Goddidit."

I'd also like to point out the stupidity of her last comment.  Considering that we can't know whether there is a god or not or what things would look like under other conditions, I find this remark to be incredibly stupid.

Date: 2006/06/20 01:45:35, Link
Author: GCT
Here is some breath-taking inanity from both Rude and DT.

Quote
Surely no responsible person can argue with responsibily managing resource consumption. But as for global warming—the folks here (near Hells Canyon) tell me how ferocious the winters used to be—most appreciate the warming trend. Also when one drives along a wilderness road, why is it that there’s always so much more vegetation along the road. I’m told it’s the CO2. If we’re truly to green the world we need more CO2 in the atmosphere. The rain forest is a steady state affair—as much CO2 is released as taken in. What we need are more forests, more vegetation, more population, more flesh. If the biomass of the planet is to increase we need that CO2. Sometimes I joke with my supremely concerned elite friends: Don’t knock the overweight masses. They’re just doing their part to stave off global warming.

OK, it’s a serious subject. But I don’t make public policy. However I do see all those nihilistic casualties of the Sixties: Darwinism is a fact, therefore why give a #### if this species goes down the toilet. What’s the diff, so many say. I won’t be here, and I won’t be there either.

That’s why we need to know more. A lot of global warming effects will be welcome. Who doesn’t want wheat and corn growing in Alaska and Siberia while bananas and oranges thrive in North Dakota? Flooding of coastal cities due to melting of glaciers and rise of ocean level is the main concern. But what’s the cost of moving away from the shoreline or building levees and how much time do we have to do it? If migrating away from the shore can be done over 1000 years then it’s a task whose cost can be ammortized into annual payments of next to nothing. This must be contrasted against the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions not to mention finding a way to enforce the measures around the world. And we have to have a real good idea of how much reduction in gas emission will slow global warming. Right now we don’t know if it would have any effect at all. The earth periodically goes through hot and cold cycles and has been doing it long before humans came on the scene. -ds

Comment by Rude — June 19, 2006 @ 2:24 pm

The real thing to consider here though is that DT seems to be going for a third denial, which is AFAIK unprecedented.  Steve, you might have to update your "Second Denial Theory" to incorporate this new data point.

Date: 2006/06/20 05:22:38, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1235

I could make so many comments about the moronity and tardity of this post and the comments that go with it, but I won't.  I'll instead just ask this question.

Is it ironic for IDiots who engage in projection as an everyday occurrance to accuse the other side of projecting, or is it just plain stupidity?

Date: 2006/06/20 07:29:25, Link
Author: GCT
It seems our Randy Magruder seems to be fitting right in.

Quote
Glen wrote:

“I didn’t write that you are YEC, I said that they were “YEC-inspired attacks.” See, none of your argumnents are new, but rather they come from YEC sources orginally, whether you know it or not.”

So they are messing with my unconscious mind, is that it? I think I know what it is that inspires me. Please do not presume to know my motivations or inspirations. Thanks.

“I’m waiting for any evidence that IDists/creationists do accept science across the board.”

Science, as defined experimentally, is not under attack in any way, shape or form. There are two fundamental questions being asked of evolutionists: 1. can it happen and 2. did it happen. Much time is spent trying to create mechanisms to answer #1 in the affirmative, and if you get a single positive hit, you use it as proof of #2. But by definition, if it COULD NOT happen, then it DID NOT happen. Similarly, if you propose a mechanism whereby it COULD happen, but the odds against it happening randomly are sufficiently enormous, you still accept it, and say that we are ‘arguing from incredulity’ if we argue that the odds are so long that it’s virtually impossible. But at the same time, your arguments against design are often ‘arguing from incredulity’ as well. It just puts both sides in the same boat. One has ‘faith’ in something occurring naturally in spite of overwhelming odds against, and the other has ‘faith’ in a design pointing to a designer. Science has nothing to do with it at that point. Science goes as far as it can, and where it leaves off, faith takes over.

You see faith being exercised all the time when someone like Dawkins refers to the first cell formation being a “happy chemical accident” or someone says: “we don’t know today, but science will tell us tomorrow”. That’s faith. Just because it’s not faith in a deity makes it no less a matter of faith.

Randy

Comment by rmagruder — June 20, 2006 @ 12:02 pm

It's the "Darwinism is just another faith" argument.  Yep, he'll fit in quite nicely over at UD.

Date: 2006/06/20 08:16:05, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 20 2006,12:59)
Randy says..

 
Quote
Actually, I’m opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out....


Preach it, Randy!

We know DT reads this over here, so how will he react to the fact that his new poster-boy just said ID is nothing but religion?

Date: 2006/06/20 08:24:55, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 20 2006,13:16)
I thought of something else.  Michael7 has some odd notion that organisms "fight against" mutations, while actual science is concerned about genetically-engineered salmon escaping and changing "natural populations".

Anyway, they all are rather uncommonly dense.

IOW, Michael7 has no idea what he's talking about.  Are you surprised?  Of course not.  These people can't even articulate what evolution is, but they know through revealed Truth that it is definitely wrong.  Who needs to know what you are fighting against when you have god on your side?

Date: 2006/06/20 09:00:50, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1235#comment-44591

Quote
“I would be very interested to know people’s perception of the ‘conspiracy’ of evolution.”

Chris –

It’s fairly simple to me. I don’t claim to know whether it’s a conspiracy or just institutionalized bad logic [this certainly wouldn’t be the first time this happened in science], but the complete disparity between facts, philosophy, and logic make it eye-opening to me.

How do symbolic coded systems arise without a mind?
How do multistep changes (not just tens or hundreds, but thousands) occur in at least semi-coordination by happenstance without a higher-order logic working them out?
How does one even infer universal common ancestry without knowing the mechanism of abiogenesis? In order to be certain that homologies are the result of ancestry, one would first have to recognize whether or not the pre-life causes would have produced that homology. In order to know that, you have to know the mechanism of abiogenesis!
How can the material create a mind?

All of these questions are just poo-pooed away by the community at large. The only place where they were even remotely touched as far as I’m aware was Michael Ruse’s “Biology and Philosophy” journal. The ID crowd is the only one even attempting to tackle the large-scale informational issues systematically.

The fact that these questions are ignored, and that potential answers to them from a theistic or even pantheistic perspective are forbidden by fiat, indicates that there is, if not an outright explicit conspiracy, a “cultural conspiracy” at play (i.e. — cultural forces that act the same as if there was a conspiracy — think about the “religious right” in America — these are the most uncoordinated group ever around, yet their shared cultural values make them seem like a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to outsiders). And then the whole Sternberg case was a case-study in this type of behavior from the biological community.

Comment by johnnyb — June 20, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

So, not only is there some sort of conspiracy, but "the ID crowd is the only one (sic) even attempting to tackle the large-scale informational issues systematically."  I didn't realize that sitting around complaining about conspiracies, bloviating about unobserved and unobservable designers, and plagiarizing old YEC anti-evolution arguments is what passed for science now-a-days, and the only science that is useful to boot.

Date: 2006/06/20 09:35:34, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ June 20 2006,14:31)
Quote
Michael7 has some odd notion that organisms "fight against" mutations...


I've seen this elsewhere, as well. There must be some creationist propaganda somewhere that is saying that even organisms being tested on believe in Jesus and are fighting "the good fight" against RM + NS. ???

I think maybe it comes from the, "Well, Darwin's finches' beak sizes reverted to normal after the dry spell (or was it a rainy period) so that proves that there's no macro-evolution" or something like that.

Date: 2006/06/21 00:44:07, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 20 2006,19:29)
(and I've whacked Jared Taylor on occasion meself)

Fighting the urge not to make a gay joke right now...

Date: 2006/06/21 00:47:57, Link
Author: GCT
It seems that instead of attack Hawking they would rather go after Pianka again.

Someone should tell Witt that he's way behind the times on this one.  Dembski already called DHS, like forever ago.

Date: 2006/06/21 01:59:24, Link
Author: GCT
Irony meter alert.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1236#comment-44644

Quote
Wheatdogg,

Its the little god of avoiding answers at all cost.

Let Glen and Panda answer the real questions he tried to deride and not answer.

If this is the state of evolutionary science, no wonder it takes judicial system to keep its doctrine in our school systems without allowing rebuttals.

Evidently, its empty rhetoric without any accurate experimentation and so all it can do is sidestep the real problems.

Children see thru this.

Comment by Michaels7 — June 20, 2006 @ 8:49 pm

Children can probably also see "thru" the fact that DT isn't allowing an answer.  How does one answer a question on a blog where one is not allowed to make any comments?

Michaels7 is really dense.  I'd vote for him as an all-star over there, except he's being overshadowed by DT on that thread.

Date: 2006/06/21 02:57:41, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1239#comment-44668

It seems Mr. Magruder has found his niche.

Quote
I think the thing that many Darwinists will glom onto is the notion that only Evolution makes into peer reviewed science journals. Therefore, if ID isn’t making it into those same journals, it is not science. Someone needs to seriously write an expose about how the peer process works, and if proof exists, how it has been corrupted by those who manage it to exclude any submissions by those who would challenge Darwinian orthodoxy. The Darwinists cling very tightly to their control over scientific publications. If that ground were ceded to the ‘enemy’, all would be lost for them. They would have to compete toe to toe, rather than hide behind the ‘no peer reviewed scientific articles’ canard.

Comment by rmagruder — June 21, 2006 @ 12:36 am

So, where are all these papers by ID proponents?  I'm sure they are putting out tons of papers, what with all the lab work they do proving god, er, I mean the intelligent designer and all.  With all those papers with their publishable results and data that can be recreated (tons of people experience revelation after all) it must be those evil Darwinists and their conspiracy to keep all those multitudes of papers out of the peer-reviewed journals.  Once again, we've been caught out.  We need to hold another secret atheist evilutionist cabal meeting to decide what to do now that incisive minds like Mr. Magruder have exposed us.

Date: 2006/06/21 04:49:59, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2006,09:43)
Good job, Randy.

Actually, that's DT's "resume."

Date: 2006/06/21 04:56:39, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1240#comment-44717

Oh, this is just too good.

Quote
Gil,

I love how Steve S lists off some of the key tenets of ID in a manner which suggests that these notions have somehow failed because, “Gahick! We Darwinists is still here tawkin’ bout how Evolution works!” Steve: the fact that you ignore, misunderstand & obfuscate the ID tenets you mention, doesn’t mean that they are impotent. It turns out that these hypotheses actually DO obliterate your Materialistic mythology. You just have to be intellectually honest. I know… that rules you out.

Silly atheistic simpletons.

Comment by Scott — June 21, 2006 @ 8:40 am

I'm reminded of Doug Moron's post about how atheists are necessarily intellectually dishonest because science can't prove god doesn't exist, but Christians are intellectually honest because science proves god exists.  Or something like that.  How would I know?  I'm just an atheistic simpleton.

Date: 2006/06/21 05:03:29, Link
Author: GCT
Everyone, turn off your irony meters.  None of them will survive the onslaught that is about to befall them.  From Dembski's forward that he wrote, come one of DT's greatest ironic gems.  You have been warned.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1239#comment-44723

Quote
tribune7: I think there are too many people who’re unfamiliar with aether and phlogiston to mention those by name. Astrology would be more recognizable and fitting but it’s already more or less contained by the nature-religion vessel.

Comment by DaveScot — June 21, 2006 @ 9:22 am

Yes, astrology.  The same "science" that Behe said under oath would also be considered science if ID were considered science.  UD continually amazes me with their ability to soar ever higher with the comedic value.

Date: 2006/06/21 05:14:40, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2006,10:08)
I think the argument was,

Christians can be intellectually honest because they don't have to ignore any evidence that god exists, because scientific evidence can't answer that, but atheists are intellectually dishonest, because they automatically have to evade any evidence that god exists.

The thing that really put it over the top was, the post in general was about the need to follow logic no matter the consequences, yet when this error was pointed out, he refused to accept it.

As I recall, that wasn't the only problem he had in there.  I thought the whole entire post was littered with problems.  Isn't that why we started calling him Dougmoron?

Date: 2006/06/21 05:24:38, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/896

Being one of the all-time great screeds on UD, I figured I'd put up the link for all one more time.  Here is Dougmoron telling us all that he's intellectually honest because science can't tell us whether there is a god or not, so he's free to objectively pursue it, but the atheist must be intellectually dishonest because science might prove god exists.

Quote
This concept of Intellectual Honesty is of profound importance to me – and not just as it applies to business, science, and engineering. As a Christian theist I am required by my philosophy and belief system to be honest – especially with myself. I can’t both be a Christian and tolerate Intellectual Dishonesty because the two are mutually exclusive, so I am required by my faith to view evidence objectively and follow it wherever it leads, no matter what, and that sits just fine with my faith in the existence of God. Since no scientific theory or data can prove or disprove God exists, no scientific theory can prove or disprove how he might act in the world - or that there is (or is not) purpose to any given thing, or intent to any given incident.

With that simple truth, I am able to put science ahead of philosophy on matters of scientific pursuit. My faith does not depend on the final scientific answer to any question. Indeed, my philosophy literally broadens the scope of possible naturalistic explanations. I don’t need to a priori reject any potential explanation because my personal philosophy allows any to be true. Said another way, science can neither prove nor disprove whether or not there is divine purpose behind natural processes, so I am able to accept as fact any scientific conclusion that the evidence leads to.

But there is a dilemma here: if it is my theism that allows me to be open to following the evidence wherever it leads and to be completely objective, then what of the pure materialist whose atheism does not permit him the same objectivity, especially if it were to lead to an answer his philosophy does not allow? To be honest to his chosen philosophy, he must be intellectually dishonest at least to the extent of a priori rejection of an infinite number of potential truths. He must put his philosophy ahead of science, and wear blinders that remove from sight any evidence that *might* point to it (his philosophy) being wrong. To offer a case in point: the offhanded rejection of Intelligent Design theory by the old guard Darwinians simply because it is not allowed by their philosophy, regardless of what the evidence might tell them. Most people would call that religion, not science.

There is another important aspect to consider here: because theism frees one to accept any naturalistic explanation that the evidence supports, theism also frees one to seek evidence that might support any theory one might contrive. No theory is out of bounds to a theist except one that cannot be supported by evidence. But the same is not true of a person whose philosophy precludes certain possibilities – his philosophy must necessarily preclude any attempt to seek evidence that might support the theory he rejects on philosophical grounds. He’s already decided the theory is wrong, so why even bother seeking evidence for it? But that’s really not so bad, is it? As long as he doesn’t prevent other researchers from seeking the evidence, there is not a problem. It’s when a scientist’s philosophy prevents him from considering evidence and causes him to try to stop others from considering it that we have a real problem on our hands. That problem is most definitely not science; most people would call it Fascism. And I would call our current state of affairs Darwinian Fascism - as part of our scientific community attempts to render even the slightest criticism of Darwinism illegal by judicial decree.

Date: 2006/06/21 07:35:10, Link
Author: GCT
He'll probably just complain now that your tone is derogatory or something.

Date: 2006/06/21 08:12:59, Link
Author: GCT
It should be pointed out that DaveTard also threatened to hack this site.

30 people Steve?  I think you are over-estimating.  It's probably much less than that.  Also, GWW was an evolution supporter, so it's not like people are banned for simply holding ID positions.

Date: 2006/06/21 08:33:49, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2006,13:15)
That's not an estimate, I know how many people have been banned, and 30 is approximately the number.
Quote
Also, GWW was an evolution supporter, so it's not like people are banned for simply holding ID positions.

I never said they were. I said they were banned for having mental disorders which prevented them from behaving constructively.

On the number, I'll take your word for it.  I'm surprised that it's that high.  You are 100% correct though that it pales in comparison to how many DT has "put in permanent moderation" at UD.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that you said anything about GWW.  I was simply pointing that out to others that might not know.  Sorry, I didn't really make that very clear.

Date: 2006/06/21 08:38:30, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1239#comment-44782

Quote
Yes, there really does come a time for Darwin’s funeral. So when folks like Berlinski and Dembski proclaim it—why not? R. O’Connor brings up old arguments but in a good spirit. Let me then, a dilettante in this informal venue, just say that there is no evidence whatsoever that microevolution adds information. It’s the new information that must be accounted for, and inherent variation or the loss of information just won’t do.

Is it illegitimate to extrapolate from the design in human artifacts to the design in biological organisms? We can study design in all its glory as it emerges from human agency. Biological design has all the hallmarks of human design. We cannot observe Darwinism in action—there is no evidence whatsoever that Darwinism can account for any kind of design.

The folks who usually shout the loudest about extrapolating from human design are the Deists. Their deus is by definition so alien from anything we can imagine that nothing attributed to it could ever be observed in our world. The Young Earth theory, even the tooth fairie, at least makes falsifiable predictions—Deism doesn’t. Nobody in ID so far as I know is against demarcation arguments that distinguish between “real science” and pseudoscience. There are no good arguments for calling naturalism science and theism pseudoscience.

Comment by Rude — June 21, 2006 @ 1:33 pm

Yup, because we can study human design, that proves that cells were made by a designer.  Oh, and how dare you call theism a pseudoscience.  Um, but there's no religion here.  None at all.  Move along, nothing to see here.

Date: 2006/06/22 01:04:09, Link
Author: GCT
I saw this in the paper and thought...man, that Bucky Kat reminds me of the IDiots.





Date: 2006/06/22 02:33:36, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 22 2006,06:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 21 2006,07:57)
Why deny ourselves the comedy?

I say let the man speak. :)

In the forlorn hope that there should be a place where consenting adults could meet and exchange views without the inconvenience of being banned at UD or AtBC, I set up this blogsite.

I hereby invite DaveScot and anyone else to post as they think appropriate.

I propose you make the first topic, "Gravity, the strongest force in the universe?"

Date: 2006/06/22 03:17:38, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 22 2006,07:38)
OK

This should probably be posted in the UD thread too.

Edit:  I went ahead and mentioned it there.

Date: 2006/06/22 03:24:22, Link
Author: GCT
Alan Fox created this blog for anyone to go over and debate completely unmoderated with anyone else.

Seeing as how he took my suggestion on the first topic, I thought it appropriate to post here.

DT, I know you read this.  You are also welcome to post on Alan's blog unmoderated.  I know the first topic will be very interesting for you.

Date: 2006/06/22 04:44:18, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1244#comment-44893

Does anyone else think that Michaels7 should be on some kind of all-star tard list?

Quote
False statements that people suddenly become dumb, lazy and unproductive in scientific fields are mere forms of intellectual snobbery and putdowns.

Its a psuedo-intellectual swipe of the heh heh, ahuh, heh heh heh Beevis and Butthead logic. Heh, eh, uhhh, they, snicker, snicker believe in God, snicker, snicker.

Beevis says, Dude, lets go get beer and watch all the Christians go to church. We can belch, fart, and laugh, heh heh, snicker, huhhuhhuhh.

Beevis yells across the road at Christians entering the Church… Hey Christian, who created the Dung Beetle?

Butthead joins in, yeah, heh, heh, did like, God, like Dude, did he strike the ground with lightning and suddenly Bamb! Dung Beetle Dude! Why would anything eat elephant dung Dude? eehh huh, huh, huh… snicker, huhhhuhhuhhhuehehehehe… uhhhhhhhh…. accccccchhkkkk, coughs, cough, ackkkk, Beevis, help dude, cough, cough, I, I’m choking!

Beevis panics! He crashes a beercan on Butthead’s face. Butthead still coughing, turning pale, falls to the ground, hands waving, feet flailing, passing out. Beevis does a knee drop to the belly! Nothing! Beevis stares and drinks his beer and begins to laugh at the colors of Buttheads face.

A Christian across the road, see’s whats happening, leaps to action, saves Beevis with the Heimlich Maneuver as he upchucks a lodged vancamp beenie weenie and beer onto the road.

Butthead had an epiphany while he was passed out on the ground. He saw utter darkness and red tailed demons with pointy horns and scary teeth(because this is the way media and artist portray satan even though the Bible itself does not). But then, he’s jolted and lifted up, he see’s a light, a small light at the end of a tunnel. He hears a voice beckoning him, saying, come away from the beenie weenie darkness Butthead, come away from beenie weenie land into the light Butthead, into the light of Design. The true light of God! For a moment he experiences purity, bliss and well being understanding fully all purpose of his being and others, before suddenly being jolted back again to life and light! This time with the Christians arms firmly wrapped around him after saving his life and the sun shining brightly in his face.

Dude! He says to Beevis, thats some wicked beer and beenie weenies he says. I saw the devil and I think I heard the voice of God. Beevis says, really? Cool, heh, eheh, uhuh, hey, man, choke me, choke me! I want to see satan! Snicker, snicker, eh eh heh, heh. Give me, give me, give me some beenie weenies!

Beevis laughs, Heh, ehhh, uhhh, wow Christian Dude, thanks… you Bible Thumpers are good for something…. saving lives…

The Christians says, we’re good at saving souls too….

Comment by Michaels7 — June 22, 2006 @ 12:21 am

He starts off trying to defend the idea that "goddidit" leads to scientific dead ends and somehow ends with "Jesus saves."

Date: 2006/06/22 05:12:40, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1248

Holy carp.  The researchID website is now up.  Now, they simply have no excuse at all for not putting up all the rejected papers they've been submitting to the peer-reviewed journals.

More likely, we'll see a whole bunch of papers that have nothing to do with ID, done by evolutionary biologists, that the IDiots will claim somehow supports ID.  That way, the IDiots still don't have to do any actual work; they'll just continue to leach off of real scientists and misinterpret the works of those real scientists.

Date: 2006/06/22 06:04:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2006,10:59)
Quote (GCT @ June 22 2006,08:17)
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 22 2006,07:38)
OK

This should probably be posted in the UD thread too.

Edit:  I went ahead and mentioned it there.

Darn, I was really hoping for a DT/JAD cagefight thread.  ???

I think Alan will make any thread you want, so hopefully he'll start one for that.

Date: 2006/06/22 08:49:24, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ June 22 2006,13:40)
Quote
http://www.uncommondescent.com/images/maystats.png

Panda’s Thumb is heading downhill since Kitzmiller v. DASD but we aren’t. In May we acheived a new record number of visits at 146,084 to bring our total number of visits to over 1.25 million in the last 12 months.

Thanks to everyone for helping to get our message out to a growing number of people!
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 8:45 am
Comments (4)


The weird thing is, I don't get the relationship of that number on the left hand side, to the number given in the text.

Shouldn't it also not really count if quite a few of those people are only going there so that we can get material to post here and laugh at them?

Date: 2006/06/22 09:40:53, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2006,14:18)
Quote (stevestory @ June 22 2006,14:15)
I'm just joshing you. If you were really using creationist math, you would have just made up some numbers.

Besides, if I was a UD spy, I'd be acting much more like Skeptic. "Golly, I can see the pros and the cons to Darwinism!  Actually, just the cons, because there are no pros, because Darwinism is all lies by the atheistic scientific conspiracy!"

Fixed it for ya.

Date: 2006/06/23 00:50:26, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Faid @ June 22 2006,14:52)
Quote (GCT @ June 21 2006,13:12)
It should be pointed out that DaveTard also threatened to hack this site.

Davetard can't even hack on firewood without losing vital parts of his anatomy.

Hilarious!

Date: 2006/06/23 00:53:55, Link
Author: GCT
Ichy,
I wondered that myself.

Oh, and here's today's installment.

Date: 2006/06/23 02:19:58, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1250#comment-45070

Quote
Dave, I have spread the word about this ID and this blog [included] on every internet discussion forum I participate in Indonesia. I just wonder if you have special data on visits from Indonesia
JS

Yes, by country Indonesia ranks:

June #21
May #25
APR #28
MAR #25
FEB #33

So since February Indonesia, relative to all other countries, has moved from 33rd most visitors to 21st most visitors. You’ve had quite an influence! Thanks!  

Comment by JS — June 22, 2006 @ 7:47 pm

So, does this prove that people in Denmark google ID 20 times more than Americans?

Date: 2006/06/23 02:22:42, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1251#comment-45071

Irony meters on full alert.

Quote
Like these people even know enough about the theory of evolution to say anything intelligible about it =P. i wonder why the Episcopalians don’t allow the Catholics to define their theology for them. What’s the difference? They are relying on what they think someone else knows rather than on what they know themselves.

Comment by Mung — June 22, 2006 @ 7:56 pm

'Nuff said.

Date: 2006/06/23 03:18:14, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1253#comment-45132

It's becoming irony day.
Quote
You have to understand that Ken Miller is a phony. He claims to be religious but is openly dishonest when it comes to presenting what he must know about one of the biggest controversies of the day. If he were an honest man, and I believe to be religious you have to be an honest person, he would publicly act differently.

To understand Ken Miller you have to understand he sells hundreds of thousands of text books each year, has a prestigious job at Brown and has many speaking engagements and receives a substantial financial reward from each. If he were to be honest about ID or Darwinism he would be ostracized in a nano-second and all his career and royalties would disappear. We know the game. So Ken Miller has made some choices.

Comment by jerry — June 23, 2006 @ 3:51 am

Written on the blog of a guy who asked for how much money just to testify in KvD?

Plus, all honest religious people must believe in ID, but ID has NOTHING to do with religion...it's strictly science....believe us....

Date: 2006/06/23 03:53:41, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Shirley Knott @ June 23 2006,08:25)
Somehow I always pictured airFarceDave as being taller and not quite so hairy.  But the slightly [sic] crazed look in the eyes, and the insane obsessiveness...  Got to wonder if maybe Darby isn't one of the target drone's neighbors...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

LMAO

Date: 2006/06/23 03:59:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (dhogaza @ June 23 2006,08:49)
The quote from Nature, of course, is...talking about all evidence supporting evolution in general.

So, you agree with Sal then?   :D

Maybe Sal could just put a disclaimer that Nature is not an ID supporter.  Then, Sal could misconstrue to his heart's content and not have to worry about it, because he clearly stated that they don't support ID.

Date: 2006/06/23 04:55:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 23 2006,09:35)
Quote
Written on the blog of a guy who asked for how much money just to testify in KvD?
Do you have a link for that?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/the_unintention.html

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/dembski_threate.html

In the first link, the author seems to recall about $100K, but Wesley cites a figure closer to about $22K.

Date: 2006/06/23 07:31:56, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1244#comment-45189

Quote
Like William Dembski, I use the internet to iron out kinks in materials I intend to publish and distribute, and thus, these sort of interaction are highly beneficial to me…

Sal is gonna start publishing papers...just like Dembski.  Wait a second.  Has Dembski published any peer reviewed papers?  No?  Well Sal, will you surpass the one whose a$$ you have your lips stuck to?

Date: 2006/06/26 04:48:10, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1253#comment-45386

I love it when they let the cat out of the bag.  Here, Joseph says:
Quote
The debate is about unitelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes (the anti-ID position) vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes (the ID position).

In that light if anyone accepts that life was the product of some divine Creation and we (humans) were the intent- that is ID.

IOW, as long as you believe in god, you believe in ID.  No religion here.

Date: 2006/06/26 07:24:50, Link
Author: GCT
I didn't know UD had a definition of ID.  It even comes with positive evidence!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/id-defined/

Of course, the positive evidence mostly consists of appeal to incredulity, but it definitely sounds more sciency than "goddidit".

Date: 2006/06/26 09:25:43, Link
Author: GCT
From the "Teach no Controversy" thread...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1261#comment-45630

Quote
I should also note that the anti-IDists could shut us down just by substantiating their claims. The fact that they shy away from the proposed bacterial flagellum experiment just further exposes their intellectual cowardice. That Judge Jones tried to tell IDists that it is their experiment to do just further exposes the sheer stupidity of those condemning ID.

Comment by Joseph — June 26, 2006 @ 8:38 am

Yeah, how dare those rotten evilutionists actually expect us to do experiments.

Date: 2006/06/27 02:37:21, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1249#comment-45648

Someone dares to tell DT that Scientific American is not a hard science journal?

Quote
ds: “ in a hard science journal“

Ho hum. Scientific American is not a “hard science journal”. It is a conventional magazine providing a roundup of science news for a scientifically educated readership.

I’m not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got. Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket. I’d rather see the thouands of ads for online casinos, low interest loans, and viagra than more of your tripe. Thanks in advance for your courtesy. -ds

Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2006 @ 1:08 pm

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Date: 2006/06/29 02:43:42, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (dhogaza @ June 28 2006,12:46)
Quote
 
I'm curious as to why the big bang is being lobbed at scientists. I'm relatively sure it was.. you know.. scientists who actually came up with that one. Is it another one of those "scientists did it but it's a victory for ID!" things?

Some believe that since the Big Bang postulates a beginning, it supports the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

I actually talked to a creobot lately that tried to argue that the Big Bang proved god, and that if I believed in evolution then I had to believe in a steady-state universe.  I was perplexed.

Date: 2006/06/29 02:54:55, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2006,13:44)
Might wanna check out Michael7's impassioned defense of the Dark Ages on UD.

This part is especially Tardy:

 
Quote
The same goes for the Dark Ages. This myth that Creationism was the Dark Age view of life is a wornout lie and easily rebuked.
The Dark Ages were dark precisely due to power of a few corrupt Kings, Tyrants and Thieves. Most in fact abused religion for the purpose of keeping themselves in power. Just like some Tyrants and Kings we know today? Hmmmm? And yet, most on the left do not care if millions are oppressed today by the same tactics.

You cannot blame the words of Christ for the failures of men.


Again, nice to hear it's all about the science and has nothing to do with religion or rightwing politics.

Wait...I thought the dark ages were dark because god hadn't given us electricity yet.  WTF?

Date: 2006/06/29 05:32:12, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1272#comment-45857

Quote
And speaking of ATBC and ignorant juvenile flame monkeys… they normally pounce on every word I utter but they’re mysteriously silent about these last few articles lampooning the hijinks of PZ Myers and company on Panda’s Thumb.

What’s the matter [church burnin’ ebola] boys, cat got your tongues?  

Comment by DaveScot — June 28, 2006 @ 9:16 am

Sorry DaveTard, but when you've got an overabundance of material, it's hard to keep up sometimes.

Date: 2006/06/29 07:54:17, Link
Author: GCT
Don't forget all the research that has to go into figuring out the mechanism so that the instructions can be written.  Oh, and the work that all has to be in place that allow that research to be done, blah blah blah.  I think in the end, they should just say that god is IC and be done with it.

Date: 2006/06/29 09:17:04, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2006,13:53)
Please note how I used my time machine to mock Alan Rhoda BEFORE he spouted:



http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1276#comment-45980

 
Quote


It’s not simply enough that there be an assembly mechanism and assembly instructions. The assembly mechanism also has to be able to “read” the instructions. That means we need to already have in place some type of chemical “language”.

Moreover, all this has got to be hereditable somehow.



Ps - I'm sure this one isn't satire because he's got a Jesustastic website.

I noticed that.  You must be an atheistic chance-worshipping sorceror.  When we get our jury of peers that love Jesus, we'll take over and then your church-burning ebola homo ass is gonna burn at the stake like all other heathens and Darwinian dogmatists.

Date: 2006/06/29 09:27:23, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ June 29 2006,14:00)
If the Intelligent Design nitwits seriously believed themselves, they'd be out looking for a Code Rewrite bunny, or alligator, or polar bear. But they aren't. Wonder why...

Um, it's not ID's job to match the pathetic level of detail required of evilution.

Date: 2006/06/30 11:03:55, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (2ndclass @ June 30 2006,14:04)
Actually, the real point is that Dave has completely lost it.

It's hard to lose what you never had.

Date: 2006/07/01 02:47:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (wheatdogg @ June 30 2006,16:35)
Wisely, they have decided apparently not to offer a web version of the mag. The TOC is just a teaser, so the unwary will actually pay $$ for a copy. Somebody, somewhere with deep pockets (and little media savvy) must be bankrolling this enterprise.

Paging Mr. Ahmanson.  Mr. Ahmanson please pick up the courtesy phone.  We need more dominionist money, stat.

Date: 2006/07/03 02:35:14, Link
Author: GCT
And, yet he makes another error in response to this comment.

Quote
In a previous post I told you to keep in mind the principle of presumption of innocence. If you’d done that you could have figured out who always has the burden of proof. Hint: It is NEVER the defendant. See if you can figure it out now.

-ds

No, sometimes the burden of proof is on the defendant, namely any time the defendant makes a positive defense.  Seems like a small point, but burden of proof is pretty big in the ID fight, considering that they think they have no burden of proof in showing that goddidit.

Date: 2006/07/03 03:53:54, Link
Author: GCT
Someone should fill Joseph in here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1281#comment-46120

Quote
IC is all about the mechanism of evolution- evolution having several meanings.

Bad mistake there Joseph.  IC doesn't propose any mechanisms.  Also, ID is not a mechanistic theory, therefore it doesn't have to meet the same level of pathetic detail as evilution.  Don't let the evilutionists bait you into trying to provide details.

Date: 2006/07/03 06:36:39, Link
Author: GCT
From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Quote
Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

Date: 2006/07/03 07:10:35, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,11:50)
Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)
From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

 
Quote
Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

Quote
And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.


I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

Well I'll be.  He does have a BS and MS in Earth Sciences, which makes him eminently qualified to tell all the biologists of the world what is wrong with evolution, but not as qualified as an Engineer or DaveScot.

Date: 2006/07/03 07:53:04, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 03 2006,12:13)
Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,11:50)
Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)
From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

 
Quote
Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

 
Quote
And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.


I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

IDers are in permanent denial about the lack of consensus within their ranks. Sort of a 'don't ask, don't tell' thing.

Well, that'll happen when you try to make a tent big enough to contain the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front.

Date: 2006/07/03 08:40:45, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 03 2006,13:32)
That's him sitting over there.  :p

Yeah, what can you say about a supposed science that literally has no opinion whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?

Or, which also cannot decide whether evolution a) never happened, b) happens a little, c) happens a lot, or d) once happened but doesn't anymore?

That is has nothing to do with religion and Jesus saves?

Date: 2006/07/05 02:35:20, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1284#comments

Quote
3.  Dave,
Not to hound you with this…. but write a book!

Comment by Doug — July 3, 2006 @ 3:44 pm

4.  I agree with Doug. You should write a book. I’m excited that Mike Gene is writing a book, but I think Dave Scott has just as much to offer.

Comment by Benton — July 3, 2006 @ 10:09 pm

Yes, DaveTard, write a book.  Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.  He can write a book that explains how gravity is the strongest force in the universe, how the evil ACLU used jury nullification to fleece the Dover school system, how Marines are being kept from prayer, how he violates SLOT every time he thinks, how Scientific American is the greatest journal of all and how he has become the expert of all by reading it, how engineers are much more knowledgable about biology than biologists, how homos and the ACLU are ruining this country, etc.  Any other ideas?

Date: 2006/07/05 03:18:54, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 04 2006,05:44)
From that awesome site:  
Quote
We are violated in our right to Liberty:

...

Sodomy is now legal and celebrated as "diversity" by order of the U.S. Supreme Court rather than condemned as perversion. Another usurpation of the rights of the States by the federal government.
Could someone explain to me how leagalizing sodomy violates Christians right to liberty?

No, it's all about state's rights.  See, the feds stepped in and usurped Texas's right to make gays illegal.  That usurps state's rights.

What's this about Massachusetts allowing gay marriage?  Well, we need a federal amendment!

Date: 2006/07/05 03:41:53, Link
Author: GCT
DaveTard comes through again to brighten my morning.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1283#comment-46429

Quote
The only real bone of contention is what can be taught in public schools and who decides. Schools need a “clean” ID text that delineates the reasons why current evolutionary explanations are insufficient and the various things that point to intelligent design being a better explanation for certain patterns found in nature. It’s unconstitutional to deny anyone participation in the political process because of their religious beliefs and it’s unconstitutional to try to tell them they can’t vote according to their religious beliefs. These are fundamental to the first amendment free exercise clause. Atheists are entitled to vote against teaching ID because it conflicts with their faith just as theists are free to vote for it because it is copasetic with their beliefs. The only thing that should actually matter is whether or not ID is itself religion. If it isn’t then its fair game. Establishment of bad science or wrong theories isn’t unconstitutional. If a school district wanted to teach that the earth is flat it would be a shame but it wouldn’t be unconstitutional. So does ID meet the legal definition of a religon? Not even close. -ds

So, if a community wants to teach that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that's fine because it's not religion.  They just aren't allowed to teach Christianity.  DT is quite the philosophic/legal/scientific mind.

Date: 2006/07/05 03:46:28, Link
Author: GCT
One comment further down DT again gives us hilarity.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1283#comment-46484

Quote
Mung,

The reconstruction of a genome for the common ancestor for mammals is currently in the works. I ran into a couple of folks involved with this at a conference recently. When complete, I’m certain it will be publicly available as a database. (My guess is within the next 6-8 months) As many have indicated–even here–common ancestry has solid support through genomic data. What is your idea for a test?

I read that humans and bananas have about 50% identical DNA. I didn’t check to see if it’s true but it sounds about right. Maybe when you’e done with that common mammal genome you can work on the common banammal genome. And if humans and bananas have 50% in common in their DNA isn’t that suspiciously supportive of front-loading as it suggests a huge common genome existed even before plants and animals separated? After all, only a few percent of either the banana or human genome are used for coding genes. Why on earth would so much of it be the same and preserved for what, a billion years (offhand I’m not aware of the best guestimate for plant/animal divergence)? -ds

Comment by great_ape — July 4, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

Banammal.  Awesome.

Date: 2006/07/05 07:25:05, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 05 2006,12:00)
Actually, I'm convinced the decline of films and general collapse of society over the last 25 years is the fault of the Police Academy movies.

And I have every bit as much evidence for this theory as GoP does for his.

Actually, it happened when they allowed Rhett Butler to say the word, "D4mn," as in, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a d4mn."  It was all downhill from there.

Date: 2006/07/05 07:28:19, Link
Author: GCT
So, are you trying to say that DaveTard is inconsistent in his claims to all knowledge of the universe that he gained through the hard science journal Scientific American?  Well, surely you still have to grant that he is the master of all scientific knowledge.  I mean, who else can violate SLOT with his keyboard?

Date: 2006/07/05 07:48:14, Link
Author: GCT
Ya know how creobots are always tryin' to say stuff like Darwinism leads to loose morals?  Well, now I think I can point to an example where Dembski's loose morals about plagiarizing himself has led to one commenter plagiarizing another.  See here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1290#comment-46413

Quote
Things that make ya go “hmmmmmmm”.


And, in the very next comment...

Quote
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Good question!


Note that the second comment was not in response to the first, but looking at the exact same quotation from the first comment.  I think we should attack ID from this standpoint, as it has obviously caused an amoral act, and therefore is leading to the downfall of society.

Date: 2006/07/05 08:12:04, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,13:08)
Because militant atheists, racists, and other malcontents justify their beliefs with evolution rather than chemistry or meteorology. As you know.

I realise you think you're brilliant and intimidating, but as someone whose spent his life arguing with Jewish people, I can tell you that you're an amateur when it comes to debating. Just thought you'd like to know.  :p

(emphasis mine)

Date: 2006/07/06 00:51:07, Link
Author: GCT
Alas, I have not yet read that book.  It's next on my list as soon as I finish Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science.  If I go on a reading tear and this thread is still around (not in the doldrums of pages long gone) I'll be able to comment more then.

As for atheism though, I will echo what others have said.  I am not depressed by my atheism.  The notion that one is here only as some job in order to get to heaven would be depressing to me.

Date: 2006/07/06 03:22:23, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1290#comment-46631

Quote
As a Christian I can reasonably believe that information does not require a physical/material medium. Is it coincidence that Shannon’s information system is a three-part system and the Christian God is a triune God (though not one of “parts,” just to be clear on that.) Otoh, it’s a material world, or so the saying goes.

Of course, I believe in revelation. So how does God impart information to human minds?

Ah well, I certainly would not accept it on scientific faith that “Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation.”

Comment by Mung — July 5, 2006 @ 5:23 pm


I thought they were going to nix the religion talk?  Oh well.  But, I do have to say, I love the talk about how the triune god matches the triune Shannon information system.  Next they'll be talking about how the triune god shows up in the "fact" that there are 3 states of matter.

Then, a couple comments down, I learned that ether really does exist, because Michelson-Morley didn't do squat (according to the greatest of scientific minds Avocationist)...

Quote
” It seems to me that information cannot be stored or transmitted without some material medium involved in the process.”

That is why the concept of an ether is making a comeback. There has to be a subtle field from God to matter. I had liked the idea in a new-agey kind of way, but on a forum was told that an experiment had done away with the ether idea. With great interest, I googled the Mitchelson-Morley experiment. Interesting read, but never did I think that this rather crude, tho clever, experiment actually had the capacity to address the kind of ether that we require.
According to a book I’ve got, physicist John Bell thought the primary substance of the universe was nonlocal (existing everywhere). And that David Bohm thought an invisible field connects all matter and events in the universe.

Comment by avocationist — July 5, 2006 @ 8:15 pm

Yeah, ether is making a comeback, right.  I hear bellbottoms are making a comeback too.

Date: 2006/07/06 07:20:14, Link
Author: GCT
I've just learned that the ACLU did meet with the Dover plaintiffs before the trial.  I'll bet that they were making secret plans to fleece the Dover schools system out of millions of dollars through jury nullification. - DaveTard

Date: 2006/07/06 07:31:59, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (guthrie @ July 06 2006,12:23)
Quote (GCT @ July 06 2006,08:22)
 Next they'll be talking about how the triune god shows up in the "fact" that there are 3 states of matter.

I thought we were up to 5 or 6 states of matter.
Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, Bose-einstein condensate, and I think theres a new one that i cannot remember.  

So does that mean that Hinduism is the one true faith?

Hence the scare quotes.

How many of the posters at UD know that though?  Probably very few of them.

Also, I had a creobot making that argument not too long ago.  He also pointed out how time is triune (past, present, future) how we live in a three dimensional universe, etc.  It made me laugh.

Date: 2006/07/06 07:42:45, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1283#comment-46749

Quote
Bill will comment whenever he feels like it and comments by him are clearly identified by his name. He’s just quite busy. In fact at one point he was going to close this blog because it was too time-consuming but I convinced him to turn administration of the blog over to trusted members.

Comment by Patrick — July 6, 2006 @ 11:25 am

Well, if this is true and Patrick is responsible I feel that we all owe him a giant round of applause and our thanks.

Thank you Patrick for keeping the inanity that we all love to laugh at alive.

Date: 2006/07/06 09:22:29, Link
Author: GCT
I came across this and thought that it fit in pretty nicely here.

Date: 2006/07/07 01:03:55, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 06 2006,16:44)
I hope people haven't got the impression that I consider atheism morally wrong or something (sometimes typing is a difficult way to communicate).

No worries.  I didn't get that impression at all.  I was just adding my two cents.

Date: 2006/07/07 02:44:23, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1285#comment-46895

Quote
I didn’t yell and it was the generic “you” not the personal “you”. If it’s personal I’ll add something about how your momma girlfriend wears combat boots so there’s no mistake. -ds

Oh, good. When I read all that gobledygook, it “sounded” in my head like you were mad at me. I’m glad you’re not, because you’ve been sooo sweet to me, here, in your emails, and at my blog. I like having you around, and I’d hate to ban “the Banninnator” HAAHAHAHA….

Hey watch it with the combat boot jokes, or I might make YOU my girlfriend, buster. -jb  

Comment by janiebelle — July 7, 2006 @ 7:14 am

With that stinging last line, maybe Dembski should give DaveTard's job to Janiebelle.

Date: 2006/07/10 02:10:13, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 07 2006,13:29)
Yeah, but I'd like to see Italy win it; I believe it would be their first championship.

Their fourth, actually.

 
Quote
Mr. Elliot, how are the playoff brackets determined? Is it based on a rigid point system (like the earlier standings) or is it more subjective? It seemed like Brazil got shafted by the playoff structure. But maybe there wasn't any choice.


The playoff structure is decided well before the tournament starts.  Brazil got into their bracket by being the winner of their group.  They had the misfortune of having to play France so early, because France actually finished second in their group.  I would not say that they were shafted, however, since you have to win your way to the finals, no matter who you play.

 
Quote
Anyway, have there been any gambling scandals associated with soccer/football?


Yes.  There was a scandal involving some referrees not too long ago in Germany.  Also, the current scandal involves Italian club teams.  No players have been implicated, however.

Date: 2006/07/10 03:59:12, Link
Author: GCT
Speaking of shooting fish in a barrel with high calibur guns...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1294#comment-47007

Quote
Darrel,

Quote
There is nothing enigmatic about thinking that the existence of a supreme being is not a scientific question.


This is ridiculous. You are promoting a religion akin to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is at least incompatible with Christianity. If Christians accept your definition, it would be equivalent of inviting in the Trojan horse. This is the kind of invective accusation the atheists use against the Christians. I wouldn’t be surprise if the people who promote this kind of religious belief are actually atheists disguised as Christians, just to mislead the gullible.

Your assertion also fails as a scientific method. Why? Would you please explain how you can scientifically affirm the premise that ”The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question”? And can you empirically prove that ”A supreme being stands outside of nature?” Can you define multiverse as ”a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature”? Which part of the 11th dimension is inside nature as we know it?

Comment by teleologist — July 7, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
(emphasis in original)

I don't think I need to comment on the tardity here, it speaks for itself.

Date: 2006/07/10 04:27:36, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2006,09:14)
Quote


Scientists in general need to be kept on a tight leash. Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery. Christian scientists as well will do unspeakable, completely unChristlike things to animal subjects that just makes me want to put the heartless SOB’s in a cage and do the same things to them so they can see how it feels. Christ, son of God or not, set an example we should all try to live by and he never caused any living thing any pain - all he did was help and heal.
Comment by DaveScot — November 1, 2005 @ 12:22 pm


Except when he killed that fig tree that didn't produce fruit (when not in fig season)?  Or the time he let 2000 demons possess some pigs and kill them?  Or the time he went and literally whipped the money changers in the temple?

DaveTard's grasp of theology is about on par with his grasp on science.

Date: 2006/07/10 04:35:54, Link
Author: GCT
Oh, this is classic.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1294#comment-47136

Quote
Watching the ID/evolution debate as I have since high school (I’m 23 and a college graduate), I’ve noticed that it’s always the opponents of ID that end up talking about religion. I don’t blame them. They have nothing else to talk about.

Comment by tragicmishap — July 8, 2006 @ 3:05 pm

What makes it even funnier is that it's sandwiched between 2 comments where the authors are quoting scripture at each other in a theological debate.  You can't make this stuff up.

Date: 2006/07/10 05:47:46, Link
Author: GCT
And, I forgot to mention that DaveTard has had to tell the troops to stop talking religion, at least twice now.

Date: 2006/07/10 06:42:17, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2006,10:53)
I suspect this crush is just another one of Paley's sillyass PR moves to distract us from his inability to construct a coherent argument or indeed to say anything that makes sense. If you assume GOP is a big joke, it suddenly falls into place.

Fixed it for ya!

Date: 2006/07/10 08:17:14, Link
Author: GCT
Raving lunatics?  Cool.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1301#comment-47171

Quote
Question 2: If code can be written to infer intent then why can’t code be written to infer design since design and intent are inseperably linked?

Question 3: How is this science different than the “non-science” of design detection? I don’t see any difference.

These are the 2 questions I want PZ Myers and the raving lunatics at the Panda’s Thumb to answer. I know they read this blog so let’s see if they can provide some coherent answers. Not holding my breath though.

Comment by Lurker — July 8, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

So, my counter question is that if design and intent are inseparably linked, how can ID detect design not only without intention, but with intention and design completely separated?  Isn't that the point that we've been making for years now, that it's not enough to say it's designed without making any inferences about the designer?  That in cases of forensics that we already know who the designer is, so we are able to make certain assumptions, but that they are trying to decouple the two and that is why one is science and the other isn't?  That whole post smacks of cognitive dissonance.

Date: 2006/07/11 01:24:46, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (blipey @ July 11 2006,01:23)
Quote
Richardthughes   Posted on July 11 2006,01:14wait for the spin..

[URL=http://wired.com/news/technology/0,71173-0.html?tw=wn_index_6


Well, since we can obviously design things based on nature, nature was obviously designed by intelligence that knew I wanted new drug delivery methods.  Easy.

then move next door to a crack house, 'cause you're outta here, homo. -dt

Plus, anything that we can reverse engineer means that it was engineered in the first place.  So, since we can use these critters, that means they were designed.

Date: 2006/07/11 03:18:08, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1305#comment-47251

Quote
Without the same sort of preconceptions and prejudgements that characterize Darwinian views (i.e., an unfounded precept that “it can’t have happened”), the science of History–yes History is a science–verifies the reports of the Resurrection, that the physical bodily resurrection of the person named Jesus of Nazareth did in fact occur.

Ancient literature including but not limited to the New Testament histories and the flow of history itself, especially the history of Western Civilization, are inextricably intertwined and unexplainable if the Resurrection did not occur.

Without the blinders of preconception, the Resurrection is a staggering event.

Comment by glennj — July 9, 2006 @ 10:16 am

It's comments like this that make redreader so dear to all our hearts.

Date: 2006/07/11 05:28:32, Link
Author: GCT
It's funny that liberals are all homophobes and racists and all that.  I mean, just look at the white supremacists.  They must be liberals.  Nice consistency GoP.

Date: 2006/07/11 05:39:55, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1292#comment-47542

DaveTard clears things up so nicely here:

Quote
If ID is not an argument against evolution itself, then it would be an argument for evolution itself, or it would be an argument that says nothing about evolution itself.

If ID is an argument, then it has premises and at least one conclusion. If evolution is an argument, then it also has premises and at least one concluson.

Premises are normally bolstered with evidence. If two opposing arguments use conflicting evidence, or lack evidence, then surely there is opposition of one argument to the other.

Saying that ID is not an argument against evolution itself, it seems, throws doubt on the overwhelming evidences, which support teleological inferences, which support ID arguments.

Evidence of one viable, transitional form weakens the ID argument. Continuing lack of that evidence destroys the putative certainty in the evolution argument.

Presumably the evolution argument conclusion is that the prime mover is step-at-a-time, whereas the ID argument conclusion is that the prime mover is all-at-once. Again, the argument of one reasoning is against the argument of the other reasoning.

ID is an argument that says certain patterns in nature are best explained as the result of intelligent agency and that some of these patterns are visible in living things. If your definition of “evolution” precludes any possibility of intelligent agency being involved at one or more points then ID has an argument with it. If not then there is no argument. -ds

Comment by eebrom — July 11, 2006 @ 8:59 am

So, ID says that evolution might have happened or not.  Something might have happened or not.  We're just really sure that god had something to do with it.  No religion here, move along.

Date: 2006/07/11 07:46:46, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 11 2006,12:13)
Now that you've brought it up, I've always found the liberal obsession with hate groups a little weird. I suspect part of the problem is that they see their secret thoughts in hate literature. Look at the condescending way liberals treat blacks; they refuse to hold blacks to the same moral standards as whites (don't believe me? Then show me, for example, the white person who could get away with calling New York "hymietown" and still be treated as a moral figure within liberal circles.) It seems the attitude is, "Well, we don't expect as much from black people." Look at Jared Diamond, who spends a whole book claiming that all people are equal, except whites (who are inferior). Look at where most liberals live. I could go on, but I gotta catch an appointment.

Well, that makes perfect sense.  The hate groups who profess how much they hate liberals are really less racist than the liberals who protest them.  And, liberals protest them because they see their secret thoughts in the hate literature.  Plus, liberals condescend toward blacks somehow, although I'm not sure how, especially because they denigrate whites in a book.  The best part is that this comes from a person that earlier in this thread talked about how non-racist he is then followed it up with a generalization about Jews.

Oh, I just read on the news that down is up and up is down.

Date: 2006/07/12 02:14:43, Link
Author: GCT
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 11 2006,18:48)
Quote (Louis @ July 11 2006,02:53)
Ghosty,

Who said anything about gay sex or homosexuality? Honestly, the places your "christian" mind goes to!

A crush doesn't have to be sexual, what of platonic love? What of simply admiring and loving someone? Who said anything about you wanting to have sex with Eric? Tsk tsk Ghosty. With your pictures of nice muscley wrestler men and your rapid denial of homosexual desires (despite no such accusation) methinks thou doth protext too much.

Well, several studies have shown that people with strong expressed anti-gay views tend to be the most aroused by watching gay porno clips.  I.e., they themselveshave strong homosexual tendencies.

I wonder if Paley falls into that category, as well.  He certainly does seem awfully obsessed with what people do with their penises.

You are obviously a homophobe.  Any atheist evilutionist liberal who even says anything about gays is really a homophobe who hates gays (and blacks) and is just feeling guilty about his own hate, so he tries to act like he's tolerant.  GoP says so, it must be true.

Date: 2006/07/12 02:35:55, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (guthrie @ July 12 2006,05:06)
And, to really  minimise entities, all you need to do is posit a universe set up by a designer right from the start, with the correct universal laws to ensure that life will arise some time, somewhere.  This is I think how a lot of people view it; how come Dave cant get his head around it?

That would be to minimize entities while still keeping the designer in play.  If you truly want to minimize entities, you go about science the exact way that it has been done which resulted in evolution.  Wow, what a concept.

So, DaveTard (and I know you read this) how does that fit into your Occam's faux pas?

Date: 2006/07/12 03:22:24, Link
Author: GCT
BarryA who loves to talk about his honesty in using quotes uses a quote mine (big surprise.)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1292#comment-47604

Quote
Russ asks: “If there is little or no evidence of transition in the fossil record, and Darwinists’ defense for this lacuna is that fossilization is rare, then would it be fair to state that paleontology doesn’t have much to offer in proving Neo-Darwinian Evolution?”

The answer is “yes.” Mark Ridley says: “In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist 90 (June 25, 1981): 830-1, 830-32.

Comment by BarryA — July 11, 2006 @ 9:47 pm


Of course talkorigins already has it covered here.

Date: 2006/07/12 04:02:18, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ July 12 2006,08:47)
Dave posts again on JanieBelle's blog.

http://udoj.blogspot.com/2006/07/wow-how-appropriate-is-this-post.html

And to do some quote mining of my own, he had this to say:
Quote
Lesbians are HOT

DaveTard the homo-hatin' homophobe said that lesbians are hot?

Date: 2006/07/12 07:58:58, Link
Author: GCT
Is it just me, or is Ghosty resorting to the third grade tactic of, "I'm rubber, you're glue.  Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."

Date: 2006/07/12 08:24:54, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1309#comment-47681

Quote
It is just sci-fi, I know. Darwinists like to brag about science and how the imaginations of Star Trek has been brought into reality through science. However, for some reason they seem to avoid the issue of consciousness and the inability for materialistic science to explain the existence or the imagined power that it has.

Comment by teleologist — July 12, 2006 @ 12:21 pm

Those darned Darwinists and their science.  Stop doing science you darned Darwinists.

Date: 2006/07/12 08:47:47, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2006,13:30)
Quote (GCT @ July 12 2006,13:24)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1309#comment-47681

 
Quote
It is just sci-fi, I know. Darwinists like to brag about science and how the imaginations of Star Trek has been brought into reality through science. However, for some reason they seem to avoid the issue of consciousness and the inability for materialistic science to explain the existence or the imagined power that it has.

Comment by teleologist — July 12, 2006 @ 12:21 pm

Those darned Darwinists and their science.  Stop doing science you darned Darwinists.

Well, DaveTard has already gone on record as stating that paleontologists don't accomplish anything worthwhile.

I just can't imagine what would motivate him to say something so nonsensical!  ;)

It was teleologist, not DaveTard.

Date: 2006/07/13 01:34:35, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2006,14:05)
Quote (GCT @ July 12 2006,13:47)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2006,13:30)
 
Quote (GCT @ July 12 2006,13:24)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1309#comment-47681

     
Quote
It is just sci-fi, I know. Darwinists like to brag about science and how the imaginations of Star Trek has been brought into reality through science. However, for some reason they seem to avoid the issue of consciousness and the inability for materialistic science to explain the existence or the imagined power that it has.

Comment by teleologist — July 12, 2006 @ 12:21 pm

Those darned Darwinists and their science.  Stop doing science you darned Darwinists.

Well, DaveTard has already gone on record as stating that paleontologists don't accomplish anything worthwhile.

I just can't imagine what would motivate him to say something so nonsensical!  ;)

It was teleologist, not DaveTard.

No, I meant the comment about paleontology [sp?] not producing anything important was from DaveTard.

I think it was last month. Better still, if memory serves, it was in one of his boldfaced comments inserted into someone else's comment. So it gets double boorishness points.  :p

Sorry.  I thought you were saying something to the effect that you aren't surprised that DaveTard would say something as stupid as what I quoted because of what he said before.  Of course, I wouldn't be surprised either, but I wanted to make sure credit was given where it was deserved.

Date: 2006/07/13 01:42:26, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (wheatdogg @ July 12 2006,23:00)
The peanut gallery jumps all over the e-mail, mocking it for using big words, being "smarmy," and suggesting that such petty details don't belong in a book written for a lay audience. I mean, what? Did they (and Dembski) miss the implication that Dembski, not to mention Coulter, apparently know nothing about biology? Or is reading between the lines beyond these crack intellects honed by years of watching Star Trek and reading SciAm?

Answers: no and yes.

Date: 2006/07/13 04:36:42, Link
Author: GCT
"The Wrath of DaveScot?"

Date: 2006/07/13 04:42:24, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 13 2006,09:39)
Quote (GCT @ July 13 2006,09:36)
"The Wrath of DaveScot?"

http://whatsnewkhan.ytmnd.com/

:D

Awesome!

Date: 2006/07/13 04:50:49, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1310#comment-47696

Quote
This is another example why the controversy isn’t at the level of how eyes and wings and feathers and immune systems and flagella could have evolved. The specification for all these things and much, much more are contained in single microscopic cells. That’s why the ballyhooed 150 years of acceptance of Darwinian evolution is irrelevent - it was based on vastly incomplete knowledge of the nanometer scale machinery and information that drives all of life. Even today we have barely scratched the surface of this nanotechnology marvel that is the DNA based living cell. All previous bets are off. The modern synthesis can best be described as obsolete - a patchwork quilt of ad hoc hypotheses propping up a failed theory worse than the epicycles used to keep alive the theory that the earth was the center of the universe.

Comment by DaveScot — July 12, 2006 @ 1:13 pm

Yup.  150 years of confirmatory data; just throw it away because cells are, like, way complex and some stuff.

Date: 2006/07/13 07:57:52, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2006,12:46)
I still want to know how PolyTard handles the cognitive dissonance of his beloved Scientific American ridiculing Intelligent Design.

"Oh, well, they're brilliant and authoritative on everything except that."

He said recently that he stopped his subscription and vowed never to subscribe again.  But, he convinced his wife to renew his subscription for him for Valentine's Day so that he could continue to receive it and read it without the guilt of sending them any money...or some other non-sensical thing like that.

Date: 2006/07/13 08:43:43, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 13 2006,13:01)
Quote (GCT @ July 13 2006,12:57)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2006,12:46)
I still want to know how PolyTard handles the cognitive dissonance of his beloved Scientific American ridiculing Intelligent Design.

"Oh, well, they're brilliant and authoritative on everything except that."

He said recently that he stopped his subscription and vowed never to subscribe again.  But, he convinced his wife to renew his subscription for him for Valentine's Day so that he could continue to receive it and read it without the guilt of sending them any money...or some other non-sensical thing like that.

Link me up, Baby!

I could do with a giggle.

I'll have to search for it, which may have to wait until tomorrow.  I have taped Tour de France coverage to watch.

Date: 2006/07/13 08:50:41, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 13 2006,13:49)
The DS Valentine comment:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1304#comment-47346

Thanks for the assist.

Date: 2006/07/17 05:54:18, Link
Author: GCT
I know this is from Fox News, but is this a car that runs on water?

Date: 2006/07/17 07:19:25, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 17 2006,10:57)
If you don't think that the statement doesn't apply to Darwinism, then keep going down the list, but if you think it does, then click on the link to find a bonafide mainstream article which knocks your straw man to pieces. Enjoy!

Um, if I don't think it doesn't what?

Date: 2006/07/17 07:25:31, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2006,12:01)
Quote (GCT @ July 17 2006,11:54)
I know this is from Fox News, but is this a car that runs on water?

No.

Why not?  Is it just that water is the supplier of hydrogen which is what is actually used to power the car?  I'm not trying to be flippant or contrary or anything.  I just saw your post and remembered seeing this video and wanted to ask.

Date: 2006/07/17 07:30:42, Link
Author: GCT
How did we miss this little ditty from DaveTard?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1307#comment-47859

Quote
Why would a biologist be considered an expert in design, digital information systems, and factory automation? Sorting out where different critters belong in the phloygenetic tree is really little more than stamp collecting. All the action is in reverse engineering the machinery of life at the molecular scale. Engineers are the experts at reverse engineering. Who cares what happened in the distant past? That’s water under the bridge. Everything important is in living tissue and we don’t need to guess about how it works when we can reverse engineer it. -ds

Yup, paleontology and biology are both nothing more than stamp collecting, and we've never made any advances because of evolution.

Date: 2006/07/17 08:56:58, Link
Author: GCT
Jim Downard writes Dembski an email to ask about his involvement with Coulter's book.  Dembski posts it and calls Jim smarmy.  Dembski's little fan club all make their pokes at Downard*.  So, Jim Downard writes another email and Dembski posts it again.

(*edited to read "Downard" instead of "Dembski".)

Here is what Downard said:

 
Quote
Dear Bill

You take “all responsibility for any errors” in Coulter’s evolution chapters. Your words, not mine. Coulter has written what she has written. Either you are willing to defend each of her published assertions, or you may repudiate them. You have done neither.

Thus the questions I asked remain. As amply evidenced by her prior works, Coulter can get confused entirely on her own. But it is also legitimate to wonder to what extent her published antievolution statements due to your proud tutoring?

In my effort to resolve this point, I apologize for having employed specific terminology in my letter as though I were communicating with someone who was scientifically literate. My mistake. I wish I could avoid such highfallutin language, but unfortunately words actually mean things, and it is occasionally necessary to use them when the subject is something that directly relates to them. Much like those symbols required for precise discourse in the math biz. You remember that.

Perhaps I should have kept things on the melodramatic level of your blog buddies. “I take umbrage, sir! I am an insufferable smart ass, and refuse to accept demotion to mere smarminess. A duel at sunrise. Choice of weapons, scholarly pen.”

Once your brain cools down from that “host of terms and concepts” that came to your mind whilst reading my annoying affront to your repose, what I had to say about what Coulter had to say is readily available to you at Talk Reason. Should you feel disposed to defend any statement or repudiate them, in whatever venue you may elect, don’t let my smarminess stop you.

In the spirit of those popular competition shows on TV, I will even throw down a challenge. See if you can get to your response before I get to the substance of it. Topic: the “mammalian developmental biology” I put on my list. Clue: it was sandwiched between dentary bones and Probainognathus. And with due apologies to lucID, this involves real developmental biology, nothing “imaginary” about it. As it happens, though, unless you mentioned the information to her (which I suspect you could not have), Coulter didn’t get to be wrong here because of anything she might have heard from you. She could only have got her misinformation from one specific source, written by someone known to you, who was objectively familiar with it, but didn’t write of it either because they didn’t recognize its significance (or did, and suppressed it).

Finally, I do appreciate the way in which you elected to respond to my email. By posting it in the public domain for all to see, without answering any of its points, and by the rib-nudging grunting of your commentators, you illustrate very neatly the depth of care and studiousness you are capable of contributing to scholarly discourse.

In the words of “The Closer”: Thank You.

Jim (Insufferable Smart Ass) Downard

I think Dembski really got pwned on that one, especially since he was dumb enough to post the reply.

Oh, and here's DaveTard's take on it.
 
Quote
Jim writes like a girly man.

‘Nuff said.

Comment by DaveScot — July 15, 2006 @ 1:59 am

Wow, DT.  You're such a tough guy.

Date: 2006/07/17 13:46:05, Link
Author: GCT
Steve, fair enough.

But, if they are correct that they could make a car that uses no gas, but instead uses water, what would you call that?  I guess there would still be an electrical reaction needed to separate the H and O gas, so would it be an electric/water hybrid?

Date: 2006/07/17 14:00:35, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ July 17 2006,14:27)
Quote
Dembski's little fan club all make their pokes at Dembski.

...pokes at Downard.

Fixed it.  Thanks.

Date: 2006/07/17 14:10:36, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Faid @ July 17 2006,19:00)
The same example you provided (the Portuguese thing) puzzled me for a while, too.
I finally reached to this conclusion:
dave thinks he is a Champion of the Lord Almighty. His holy task is to do the Lord's will; in this Endeavour he has a blank card. He can lie and distort and deceive all he likes, about any subject he likes: Since he does it against the heathe- the poor secular minds deceived by Satan, his victory (his imaginary, magnificent Victory that is bound to come upon us eventually) nullifies any 'misconducts' made to achieve it. Otherwise, it's a defeat: And defeat of any sort for the Champion of God is just not acceptable.

I don't think he sees it as a blank card to lie and distort.  He probably thinks that the Lord Almighty wouldn't allow him to be wrong, so he's incapable of lying.

Date: 2006/07/18 01:01:08, Link
Author: GCT
He's trying the same tactic that another group tried when they felt like not paying their taxes.  It's all for money.

Date: 2006/07/18 02:03:36, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ July 18 2006,04:31)
Quote
I only have time to go through the comments in the administrative windows which list them in order received on the whole site. I can respond in that window quickly by appending at the bottom of the comment. If I have to drop out of that window to do it another way it will take too much time.

Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I’m going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I’ll just be a regular user once more.

I could actually hear DaveTard sniffling and whimpering while I read that.  I even think I saw an electronic tear fall on my screen halfway through.

DaveTard sounds like a girly man complaining there, doesn't he?

Date: 2006/07/18 02:26:14, Link
Author: GCT
Here is a funny animation about teaching Creationism is schools.  The kids make the teacher look like a complete moron.

Date: 2006/07/18 02:56:43, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (k.e @ July 18 2006,07:49)
Is the Tardi di tutti Tardi a rampant closet case? GoP should take note!


Hehehe
GoP to DT....bend over and I'll let you feel the all powerfull creator.

DT to GoP ...ooooh you big bad boy.

They both know they want it. Closet queens.

They could get together with Thordude and have a gay pride parade in the closet.

Date: 2006/07/18 04:32:34, Link
Author: GCT
I for one am sad that we won't get his catchy little "homo" insults at the end of posts anymore when he bans people.

How can we lose the baninator?  How?

Hopefully DT will not have his wittle feelings hurt too much and will stick around to tell us more about his superior scientific knowledge.  I know I've learned so much from his parsing of Sci Am.

Date: 2006/07/18 04:45:11, Link
Author: GCT
I know this isn't related to the baninator being demoted, but anyone remember that guy that made no sense, Hereoisreal (or whatever his name was)?

He's on UD now.

See it here.

Quote
Bill,IMO, the best proof of ID is symmetry, not IC.
Sciene has never found two snow flakes alike, although 100 % have, by chance, symmetry, like every living thing.
Science has never found two grains of sand alike nor do any have, by chance, symmetry.
In 100 % of my observations, chaos is natural. Order is mind made. So I accept that as truth.
Btw, did you know, two sour apples make a pair?
If I can be of help in this matter E me.

Zero

Comment by Zero — July 15, 2006 @ 11:18 pm

I see he's still not making any sense.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:11:16, Link
Author: GCT
DaveTard was the soul of UD.  Was.  UD has become so much more though.  Who was it that talked about how Darwinists can't have intellectual honesty because the science might point towards god, but Xtians can because the science can't point towards or away from god?  Dougmoron of course.  See, there are other gems in there, and I for one welcome Denyse to the fold.  She's shown herself to be quite the tard, so I don't think we will see too much of a drop-off.  The regular tards like Michaels7, redreader (glennj), etc. will still post and they have been responsible for much hilarity, so I think we will all be OK.

Date: 2006/07/19 07:33:20, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 19 2006,11:14)
Wow, in retirement, DT's getting all reflective 'n shit:

(See here)

 
Quote
My goal has always been to entertain. I'd rather put a smile on your face than a thought in your head. And in your case the latter might be nigh on impossible anyhow and I'm nothing if not a realist. I even told all the other blog authors at UD my strategy was going to be a page from Howard Stern's success story - whether from love or hate people will keep coming back to hear the next outrageous thing you're going to say.

On starting my own blog, I dunno. Sounds like work and that's something I try to avoid. Besides, what better place than right here could a Howard Stern fan find himself?

Dont' worry DaveTard, you haven't put any educational thoughts in our heads, even while you were violating SLoT.

Date: 2006/07/20 05:57:55, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 20 2006,10:46)
Denyse's first post:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1335

and she gets a book plug in there. [Book, not butt, Steve S!]

No sexual preference or religious jibes, Kids!

Quote
1. This blog solicits and welcomes vigorous argument, backed by facts.


Well, that'll be a change.

Date: 2006/07/21 05:16:21, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1340#comment-48839

Quote
3.  “Here’s one question that intrigues me: Why do some life forms not evolve, or so little that it hardly matters? The coelacanth and the cockroach come to mind, but there are others, including common ferns and cycads. Surely these life forms experience genetic mutations and changes in their environment.”

Come to think of it: What is ID’s explanation for this apparent lack of evolutionary change?

Comment by ofro — July 21, 2006 @ 9:48 am

4.  Question: “What is ID’s explanation for this apparent lack of evolutionary change?”

Answer: Redesign (technological evolution) itself requires design, and lots of things are designed so well in the first place that they don’t need to be redesigned.

Comment by William Dembski — July 21, 2006 @ 10:02 am

So, does that mean that we have had design moments every time a new species appears?  Man, that designer has had to do A LOT of redesigns.  There is no way that god is THAT incompetent.

Date: 2006/07/21 06:47:00, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1338#comment-48863

Quote
ftrp11

You write, “You are trying to portray those evolutionists as not believing that the fossil record provides sound proof for evolution.”

Absolutely untrue. Look at my comment again. You will see that I offered the quotations with absolutely no commentary of any kind or nature whatsoever. I am not trying to “portray” anything other than what the evolutionists said. I let them speak for themselves. You can believe the evolutionists believe something other than what they wrote or that they believe something about topics on which they were not writing, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Comment by BarryA — July 21, 2006 @ 11:14 am

BarryA has been in the quote mines again, and when called on it, he comes back with that he isn't making any commentary, so putting up quotes out of context is fair game.  Let the reader make the inference that he wants by not putting up the whole entire passage.

So, either he is making no argument, in which case why even post at all, or he is making a specious argument using quote mining.  Good job BarryA, way to hold to that intellectual honesty that you were chirping about the Creationists having when quoting those darned evilutionists.

Date: 2006/07/21 06:50:34, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ July 21 2006,10:49)
I have said this a thousand times and I'll say it again, I am astonished when I read the idiotic things Dembski writes.  More perplexing is the fact that his followers fall for it.  They don't fall for it, they eat it up.

And, of course Tactiturnus is falling all over himself trying to explain it all away.  'See, talking about a design being good or not has nothing to do with purpose.'  Yeah, right.

Date: 2006/07/21 07:07:05, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (2ndclass @ July 21 2006,12:03)
GilDodgen:    
Quote
On the other hand, I would argue that proponents of intelligent design theory have met the above-mentioned standard of scientific integrity. They simply assert: “Based on the evidence, we believe that an inference to design is scientifically justified, but we can draw no conclusions from that evidence as to how, why, where, or when design was implemented. The design inference is open to refutation through the demonstration of detailed materialistic mechanisms that can account for it.”

So IDers have no burden to show "how, why, where, or when design was implemented," but evolutionists are required to demonstrate "detailed materialistic mechanisms."  And Gil says this with a straight face in a post about integrity.

It's not ID's job to match evolution's pathetic level of detail...or something like that.  WAD said so.

Date: 2006/07/21 07:10:14, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1341#comment-48876

Quote
“So are you saying Darwinists have less integrity and are more dishonest than IDers? Does that violate Denyse’s Rule 2: Here we critique the argument, not the person. Therefore, we don’t do personal abuse or cussing.”

They aren’t critiquing the person, but rather their *methods*. Attacking a person would be something like, “you’re an idiot”, or “you’re a jew”, or “you’re a communist.” Attacking the methology (such as a person ignoring evidence or absense thereof and positing imaginings instead, etc) is not attacking a person, but their method, and of course, is fair game.

Comment by mike1962 — July 21, 2006 @ 11:50 am

The new theory of ID: if you can say it with a straight face, then it's true.

Date: 2006/07/21 07:14:23, Link
Author: GCT
Taciturnus is defending Dembski's idiotic remark about redesign, so let's see how he is doing...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1340#comment-48875

Quote
mr xplct my lst: qstns f qlty r nt bynd D, bt qstns f prps r. “Ws t dsgnd wll?” cn b nswrd mprclly. “Why dd h dsgn t tht wy?” cn’t b nswrd mprclly. Y nd t sk th dsgnr.

Dmbsk dd nt ddrss th prpss f th dsgnr, bt nly th qlty f dsgn n nswrng th qstn bt vltnry chng.

Ths qstn: “why wrn’t thy dsgnd wll ngh n th frst plc?” s nt smthng D ddrsss.

Chrs,
DT

Comment by taciturnus — July 21, 2006 @ 11:48 am

Oh, not so good.  The first visible victim!

Oh, and note that his initials are DT.  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Date: 2006/07/21 07:50:06, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (dhogaza @ July 21 2006,12:42)
Lawyers lyin' lovingly for the lord.

Wow, try saying that 10 times fast.

Date: 2006/07/21 08:08:37, Link
Author: GCT
And, the disemvoweled posts are mysteriously gone.

Date: 2006/07/21 08:13:49, Link
Author: GCT
The plot thickens:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1340#comment-48892

Quote
From moderator Denyse: For Ofro and anyone else wondering, all the vowel-free comments have been deleted.

Anyone who fancies that sort of thing can sell the skills gained to publishers of game books.

People who prefer private or idiosyncratic languages can start their own blog for free at Blogger.

This blog is for posters in conventional English.

Comment by O'Leary — July 21, 2006 @ 1:08 pm


The Church Lady is clueless.

Date: 2006/07/24 05:34:34, Link
Author: GCT
From the latest Black Knight thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1348

Quote
3.  If we consider the body as being Philosophical Naturalism, the head as the evolutionary Media, and the leg as the surpression of scientific evidence against Darwinism in public schools, then we can say that we are in stage IV. Darwinism is not “officialy” defeated yet, but, just like the Knight in picture IV, it’s just a matter of time until the scientific evidence “chops away” the other leg (surpression of evidence, AKA “We don’t allow for critical analysis of the theory of Evolution”).

Something we need is a “visual mark”. Communism was “officialy” dead when the Berlin Wall was destroyed. Saddam was “officialy” rejected by the Iraqis when they brought down his statue. We still need something like that to declare Darwinism dead. I sugest that the British Christians remove Darwin’s body from Westminster Abbey and put his body somewhere else. Saddly, since there is a 4-5% church attendency in England, and since many churchian leaders are “burning incence to Darwin”, I don’t think that will happen any time soon.

Comment by Mats — July 23, 2006 @ 9:10 am

Yeah, let's pull up old Chuck's remains and throw it in the ocean.  That's just like tearing down the Berlin wall.
Quote
4.  We’re in stage V, most certainly. As long as we can’t offer a logical proof for ID, the materialist will continue to retreat ever more deeply into the depths of ignorance and pure chance–and mock and taunt us all the while. The Black Knight is an outstanding analogy for our situation!

Comment by crandaddy — July 23, 2006 @ 2:12 pm

Yup, because you can't offer a valid proof for ID, us materialist evilutionists have to retreat...wait, what are we retreating from?

Oh the tardity.

Date: 2006/07/24 07:28:40, Link
Author: GCT
Over at the latest piece by "Moderator Denyse", our own Chris Hyland has the first comment, where he says

Quote
To change this ID needs to start doing good science, which will probably involve some people breaking the sincerity rule, but if they produce good science then they’ll get away with it.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1350#comments

The responses?

Quote
“To change this ID needs to start doing good science”. This statement is bollocks.
What I’ve seen time and again is a complete non-examination (or misrepresentation) of the actual science in the publication and a sharp dismissal of the scientist as practicing ‘bad science’ simply for critiquing the supernatural powers of almighty evolution in support of ID. At this point absolutely nothing put forward by an ID’st will be regarded as ‘good science’ simply because it is at loggerheads with the ruling theory of the day. Outstanding work and scientific insight is lambasted and misconstrued because it doesn’t tow the monkey line. The only constructive/ non-adhominem critiques I’ve seen of ID work is by Michael Ruse.

If you need examples simply do a quick search for reviews of Behe’s black box or Dembski’s No free lunch. Evolutionary critics don’t even TRY to properly understand the arguments and see the point the writers make but endeavor to discredit the work forthwith.

Comment by lucID — July 24, 2006 @ 9:41 am

How dare you actually ask us to do science!
Quote
I still don’t understand what the anti-IDists want IDists to do- For example do they want someone like Dr Behe or Minnich to go into a lab and design a bacterial flagellum?

Isn’t it “good science” to make observations and (at least) attempt to understand what is being observed?

To me science is our search for the truth, ie the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge. Therefore it would be “piss-poor” science to exclude ID just because, especially given what is accepted…

Comment by Joseph — July 24, 2006 @ 9:55 am

No thanks, we would rather just cherry pick other scientists' work and b*tch and moan about being excluded, even though we don't actually do any work.

Date: 2006/07/24 09:38:09, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1350#comment-49373

Quote
ofro wrote:

“It would be great if ID-inclined scientists would latch onto ideas generated by the Darwinists’ findings. Search the (peer-reviewed) research literature for new principles that will convince the establishment. The PNAS paper you quoted is a perfect example: there were no experiments that required extensive research funding.”
Meta-analysis certainly does have its place in origins biology, and science in general. Meta-analysis doesn’t truly drive science forward though. Secondly, for a meta based paper to be published usually requires that one has a good scientific reputation in the respective field. Not just anyone can compose a meta analysis and get it published. The authors of this PNAS paper had the support of Harvards Marc Kirschner, a member of the National Academy.

Secondly, I don’t know where you get the idea that this research didn’t require “extensive funding.” Grad students have to be paid, the costs of publications have to be paid, and it’s likely that a portion of the PI’s salary is dependent on grant money. In fact, the paper very clearly states:

“We thank the Ben May Charitable Trust and the Tauber Fund for grant support.”

So this research doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It was funded by a couple of different organizations and has the support of a National Academy member.

Instead, the authors researched the literature, or, to quiote them, “by manual inspection of the literature, we have compiled a list of such “responsive backup circuits” in a diverse list of species”. I am still waiting.

Comment by mattison0922 — July 24, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

Whine, whine, whine...oh, no one will fund us in our efforts to do ID science.

What about the DI?  How come they don't use any of their vast funds to do research instead of PR?

Oh yeah, and what about the Templeton Foundation which offered them money to do research on ID?  Oh, I forgot, they couldn't actually do any research, so they didn't get any funding.

Date: 2006/07/25 01:24:14, Link
Author: GCT
Same evidence, different interpretations?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1344#comment-49412

Quote
StrangeLove,

Posting stuff from Talk Origins or Panda’s Thumb isn’t much of a response…most of the ID proponents here at UD are QUITE familar with those sites.

Comment by Patrick — July 24, 2006 @ 7:51 pm

Yup, we don't want to hear about no arguments from them fellers because we already know they make us look like idjots, so don't be coming around here with that stuff.

Date: 2006/07/25 01:35:01, Link
Author: GCT
I didn't think it was possible, but UD has sunk even lower.  They've allowed Davison to start posting again.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1350#comment-49422

I would quote it, but it's the same crap he always spews.

Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I wonder how long Moderator Church Lady will let him stay.

Date: 2006/07/25 02:01:51, Link
Author: GCT
July 25, 2006
More Logical Fallacies

Appeal to fact is a powerful technique if one has an indefensible position. For example, here is a way that one can argue against ID:

Quote
ID is incorrect.
Here are the facts.
Therefore, ID is incorrect.


Around 2003, Shallit and Elsberry put together a paper attempting to refute ID’s claims. They did not succeed in their attempt, but in the process they left behind a legacy in the art of using facts.

Facts should not be used in an argument against ID, because it is a logical fallacy called "appeal to fact" and therefore ID is correct and their arguments are wrong.

Filed under: Intelligent Design - scordova @ 8:00 am

Date: 2006/07/25 05:25:07, Link
Author: GCT
Oh, this is good.  Now, they are posting Davison screeds.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1353

Quote
July 25, 2006
“How Has Darwinism Persisted?”
The incorrigible John A. Davison offers insight into why the naked emperor still lingers:


Quote
Darwinism has persisted because it failed to recognize the nature of first causes. It is only natural to assume that results had causes and it is the duty of the scientist to find and reveal those causes. At this science has been incredibly successful. Many examples are presented in medical science with the discovery of the causes, treatments and cures for hundreds of diseases. All of Chemistry has been revealed from the consideration of how atomic forces have caused molecules to have the structure and properties that they have. This is analytical science and it is great science.



I like titles presented as questions because that is what science is really supposed to be all about - answering questions. One cannot answer a question until it has been posed.

I have used this technique in the past with “Is evolution finished” and most recently, also in the current issue of Rivista di Biologia, “Do we have an evolutionary theory?”

You will note that I choose my words carefully. I do not question that it has persisted because that is self-evident, but rather how has that been possible?

I have the answer and here it is in abbreviated form.

Darwinism has persisted because it failed to recognize the nature of first causes. It is only natural to assume that results had causes and it the duty of the scientist to find and reveal those causes. At this science has been incredibly successful. Many examples are presented in medical science with the discovery of the causes, treatments and cures for hundreds of diseases. All of Chemistry has been revealed from the consideration of how atomic forces have caused molecules to have the structure and properties that they have. This is analytical science and it is great science.

But does this approach have limits beyond which it cannot DIRECTLY proceed? This is another very critical question and I will answer it with a resounding yes.

Those limits are met when we attempt to identify the causes of the tools with which we proceed.
I will use mathematics as an example. Mathematics has rightfully been described as “The Queen of the Sciences.” Without math there could be no science, at least a science as we know it.

So here comes the moment of truth as it were. What is the cause of mathematics? More accurately we should ask - what WAS the cause of mathematics because it has always been there just waiting to be discovered. That discovery began with the Pythagoreans and continues to this day.

Mathematics has no discernable cause does it? Now what does this all have to do with evolution? It has everything to do with evolution because both ontogeny and phylogeny, like mathematics have no discernable cause.

And so we come to the answer to the question posed in my title.
Darwinism has persisted because it assumes a detectble, discernable cause, a cause which never existed. It even claims to tell us all about this non-existent cause. The cause is random changes in genes (mutations) coupled with nature acting to select which of these should survive. These two processes, genetic variation and selection, have been the sole means by which organisms have evolved.

Now what is the actual tangible evidence to support this model? That is another very good question by the way. That is what science is all about, asking questions and then trying to answer them. In this case the answers that emerge are very clear.

Natural selection first of all is very real. Its effect is to prevent change rather than to promote it. This was first recognized by Mivart and then subsequently and independently by Reginald C. Punnett and then Leo Berg.

So you see there are really two reasons that Darwinism has persisted.

The first I have already presented. It assumes a cause which never existed. The second reason it has persisted is because it has also assumed that no one ever existed who questioned the cause which never existed.

Like mathematics, both ontogeny and phylogeny never had exogenous causes. Both are manifestations of the expression of preformed pre-existent blocks of highly specific information which has been released over the millennia as part of a self-limiting process known as organic evolution, a phenomenon, my opinion, no longer in progress.

Everything we are now learning supports this interpretation which I have presented in summary form in my recent paper - “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.”

I would appreciate any constructve feed back, positive or negative which might be forthconing. I always like to try my ideas out before committing them to hard copy in a scientific journal.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

Filed under: Intelligent Design — Scott @ 9:29 am


I saved it here, because it appears that it didn't last very long.  Poof, it's gone.

Date: 2006/07/25 05:29:54, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1350#comment-49479

Quote
Chris Hyland wrote:
If current researchers are operating under false assumptions,…

I don’t know any researchers who go into the lab operating under the assumption that all of life’s diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via some blind watchmaker-type processes. I also know there isn’t any predictions that premise can make- especially given Dan Dennett telling us “there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.”

I have also read “evolutionary” papers. I fail to see how any of those papers support the assumption that all of life’s diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via some blind watchmaker-type processes.

Comment by Joseph — July 25, 2006 @ 7:09 am

Actually, Joseph might be on to something here.  Why don't the IDiots figure out what the designer's plan is and tell us what mutations to expect as per the design?

Date: 2006/07/25 08:06:32, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (guthrie @ July 25 2006,12:31)
Maybe everyone here knows, or maybe Dembski doesnt know, but TANSTAAFL usually means "There aint no such thing as a free lunch".  So nice naming by someone being ironic, even more so that they were banned afterwards.  
:D

Actually, I didn't know that.  Thanks for the heads-up.

Date: 2006/07/25 08:11:10, Link
Author: GCT
Wow, the Davison thread is back up.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1353

No comment necessary I think.

Date: 2006/07/25 09:02:49, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1352#comment-49545

Quote
I would say that those “Christians” who have taken a stand against ID are under the Darwinian spell. I guess they see ID as a threat for their long-stand with Darwinism.

This comes no surprise since, according to one of the leading voices in the AnswersInGenesis.Org ministry, the majority of people who contact them with harsh and accusative remarks are………………professing “Christians”.

Comment by Mats — July 25, 2006 @ 1:58 pm

The Darwinian spell?  Is that like a hex?

Date: 2006/07/26 01:37:00, Link
Author: GCT
The ID people are not so sure what to make of this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006...._a.html

Date: 2006/07/27 03:59:06, Link
Author: GCT
In the latest religious war thread...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1358#comment-49721

Quote
As far as Dr. Van Till’s assertion “If natural causes are inadequate, then the form-imposing intervention of some non-natural Intelligent Designer must have been essential (wink,
wink, we don’t say who the Designer is, but you know who we mean)” goes, well, he is correct. This is the view of many evangeical Christians. Does this permit the conclusion that ID is therefore somehow merely a religious perspective, or that teaching ID is paramount to teaching a particular religion? NO! Just because I, as an evangelical Christian may “wink wink”, that doesn’t mean that many other IDers are anything but Christian, are anything but religious. How large must the community of people who are not part of a particular religion and who accept an assertion be before the assertion is no longer associated with the religion in question. If this and similar forums are any example, I would say that at least 25% of the IDers are not particularly “Christian.” Further, it seems that the most qualified IDers, those with degrees in the biologies, are less likely to be Christian than those of us who are not so qualified. As such, I find the painting of ID as a fundimentally “Christian” “folk-science” is, well, the excrement of the male bovine.

Comment by bFast — July 26, 2006 @ 1:29 pm

Yup, Dembski, Johnson, Moonie Wells, Behe, Luskin, etc....not Xtians...

Besides, just because everyone knows the designer is god doesn't make it religious, right?

Date: 2006/07/27 08:46:25, Link
Author: GCT
Witness the gematriculator.

This handy website will go and check other websites to see how good or evil those websites are.  I tried this with Dembski's site and found that antievolution and panda's thumb are both more to the good than uncommon descent.  Ha ha.

Date: 2006/07/27 09:13:27, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ July 27 2006,11:37)
What the prescribed course does, instead, is to distance the person from Satan's dominion, and to lay a conditional foundation upon which God can act.

Shouldn't an omnipotent god be able to act at any time?

Date: 2006/08/01 05:37:10, Link
Author: GCT
More from Borofsky on "Teach the Controversy"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1370#comments

Quote
8.  Like it or not at this point in time legally ID is religion and religion can’t be taught in science class. “Teaching criticisms” or “teaching the controversy” appears to be just regurgitating 40-year-old creationist arguments. The Supreme Court has struck down teaching those also because they are religious arguments.

Probability arguments have been around for many decades. They are meaningless.

Comment by MrsCogan — July 31, 2006 @ 2:09 pm

9.  We basically have to take two views of this whole “religion” debate. If we define religion as “belief that an active higher power has given up morals to follow, a belief system, and an afterlife” then ID certainly is not a religion as there is no defined nature to the designer, only that he/she/it exists.

If, however, we define religion as something that defines where man came from, why man is the way he is, and possible solutions on how to solve man’s problems (such as war, famine, etc), then even then ID only falls into the first two categories as it does not really offer a solution. In this case though it could possibly be defined as a “religion.” However, so would Darwinian evolution as it also explains where man came from and the problem of man (and such Darwinists, as Richard Dawkins, explain that the abolition of religion will solve many of our problems). Thus, what is currently in the status quo would also be defined as a religion.

What you, Mrs Cogan, are attempting to do is use rhetoric and the famous, “ID is Creationism is a cheap suit” argument. Unfortunately for you, it is highly unfounded. Creationism teaches that the Judeo/Christian God created the world in seven days for His glory. ID teaches that the world evolved over time but also had some intelligent designer either beginning the process or guiding the process. THe two actually contradict each other as ID requires progression of time whereas Creationism requires instant creation.

Larry - the problem with those is that they still bring up questions that are highly unanswered…ID would only aid in providing an answer (and yes, providing more questions) or at least another alternative theory that is scientifically based. Why is ID science not allowed in a science room?

Comment by Joel Borofsky — July 31, 2006 @ 9:06 pm

Now he's obliterated the big tent too, because ID contradicts Creationism!  Where did Dembski get this guy?

Date: 2006/08/01 09:38:11, Link
Author: GCT
Yeah, there is so much to poke fun at in poor Joel's comments.  I think he will fit in nicely.

Date: 2006/08/04 01:50:23, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stephenWells @ Aug. 03 2006,18:55)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 03 2006,17:49)
yeah, but it sure was a cool looking monster though.

When all is said and done, isn't that really the important thing in a monster movie?

Eh. It was better when it was a menacing shadowy presence skulking in the darkness. The more visible it became, the more risible also.

Though points to the movie for having the heroine squish a mutant bug with a huge biochemistry textbook.

Although it suffers from the same problem with science, the book is much better than the movie.  It's much more gripping.  If you can overlook the science errors, it's a pretty good read.

Date: 2006/08/04 02:23:21, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 03 2006,23:46)
 Oh, BTW, now our beloved DT is saying we're not chivalrous:

     
Quote

At any rate, girls, the noteworthy thing is that NONE of your erstwhile ATBC "friends" have stood up in your defense. I guess chivalry IS dead in some circles. ATBC is a snakepit where nothing is below them and making fun of retards and cripples is considered great sport. What a bunch of weak little boys. These would be the kind that pee their pants in Marine Corps boot camp or claim to be queer in order to get medical discharges.


He totally forgot the churches and ebola stuff. I feel sad now, like all our efforts were for nothing.  :(

Did DaveTard just chastise us for making fun of "retards"?

Also, we spend pretty much all our time making fun of him.  So, did he just admit to being a "retard" and a cripple?

Date: 2006/08/04 08:00:09, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 04 2006,12:20)
Could JAD pull it off ?

No.  He's not computer savvy enough (he only has 1 entry on his blog) nor is he sane enough.

Date: 2006/08/07 02:59:23, Link
Author: GCT
Jehu hasn't been around that long, but he's already amassing quite a bit of tardness...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1389#comment-51156

Quote
Apollo230

“If a hypothesis posits the existence of a dis-embodied creative force which is billions of years old, then it clearly qualifies as an extra-ordinary claim, and therefore people will seek compelling proof. Therefore, those who wonder why intelligent design meets such resistance should not be scratching their heads why.”

That is complete nonsense. If natural causes cannot be proven to create the universe, life, and everything we see then God wins by default. Everybody knows this. Anybody who claims otherwise is kidding themselves. Christians have pointed this out with great success for two thousand years. It also why athiests are such a miserably small minority of the population. This is why arch athiest Richard Dawkins has made the very feeble claim that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest.” All ID has to do is show that Darwinism cannot account for biological life and the game is over for the athiest. No more intellectual fulfillment.

BTW, since evolution cannot account for abiogenisis and evolutionists know this, Dawkins claim that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest” is falsified. It is not possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest.

Comment by Jehu — August 3, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Date: 2006/08/07 06:00:07, Link
Author: GCT
In talking about the chromosome fusion in the transition between ape and man, Joseph has a wonderfully thought out question...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1401#comment-51928

Quote
I know what the (alleged) evidence is. And again, why, in ALL the generations of primates, hasn’t this event repeated itself? Or why hasn’t this type of event happened to other chromosomes in the human lineage?

[emphasis in original]
Yeah.  I mean, if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Date: 2006/08/07 08:15:46, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2006,12:12)
Josh at Thoughts from Kansas has a few posts about the Uncommonly Dense.

http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2006/08/paranoid-idolators.html

http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-are-odds.html

 
Quote
What are the odds
In response to a Dembski-ish post on the Wedge Document, I left a comment saying (I forgot to cut-n-paste, so the details may differ):
 
Quote

   My favorite part of the Wedge document, written 7 years ago, is where it says "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

   Also where it sets these 5 year objectives: "Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion); One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows; An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US; Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities; Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view; Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences"

   How's that going?

We'll see if the comment stays online.

Care to guess if that's still online?

Well, it appears that the comment has been posted, for now at least.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1407#comment-51926

 
Quote
15.  My favorite parts of the Wedge Document are the parts where (7 years ago) the authors explained that “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.” They then set 5 year objectives: “Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion); One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows;An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US; Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities; Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view; Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences”

How’s that all going?

Comment by jgrr — August 7, 2006 @ 10:32 am


Edit:  Beat me to it SteveS...darn my computer lag.

Date: 2006/08/07 08:24:42, Link
Author: GCT
On the newest post by PaV we learn that design must be true because we can understand biology.  No, really, I'm not making this up.

Quote
A conclusion that I draw from my reading is this: if biological life developed via evolutionary algorithms, then we shouldn’t be able to figure it out. Conversely, then, if we can figure it out (which we are doing more and more of each day), then we’re looking at something that was designed.


I guess it's fortunate for us that not all biologists are as dense as PaV.

Date: 2006/08/08 02:16:08, Link
Author: GCT
It doesn't look like Josh will be there for too long.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1407#comment-52037

Quote
31.  
Quote
As for a new cell type, check out the work of Lynn Margulis in the ’70s and ’80s on the endosymbiotic hypothesis, and various examples of endosymbiosis at work. I suppose it really isn’t RM or NS, but it sure is within the mainstream of evolutionary biology.


*BUZZ* wrong. Want to try again by providing a paper which details confirmed evidence of how non-teleological Darwinian mechanisms have produced novel cells, tissue or body plans?

Think before you answer, or it will likely be your last answer at this blog.

Comment by Scott — August 7, 2006 @ 7:59 pm

32.  Are you saying that a cell with mitochondria wasn’t novel? The endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria is well documented and if you don’t think that qualifies as a “non-teleological Darwinian mechanism” then it falls on you to explain why. The link I provided shows that the mechanism operates in the wild in a way that appears to be non-teleological, and is consistent with what I and Lynn Margulis understand as “Darwinian.”

Or are you saying that a Hatena with an eyespot (inherited from an endosymbiotic Nephroselmis) isn’t novel? Or just denying the link to the origins of mitochondria and the eukaryotes (a “novel cell type” if ever there was one)? Can we compromise and call it a novel body plan at least?

On the other hand, 7 years ago the DI promised 100 publications and 30 books. Surely one of those 130 books and papers has a credible ID explanation for the origins of “novel cell types,” etc. Perhaps you could point me toward the ID experiments that have tested an ID hypothesis about that explanation. Not just what it isn’t, but what it is, please.

Comment by jgrr — August 7, 2006 @ 9:22 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if Scott, who is doing his hardest to be the new DaveTard over there, just deletes this comment and kicks Josh out.  Kinda like he did recently to MsCogan (or something like that) where he deleted her comment (which was pretty embarrassing for him) and left a picture of a thumb with the words, "You're outta here."

Date: 2006/08/08 04:28:34, Link
Author: GCT
And Dembski is purging more people from the list:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1412#comment-52051

Quote
Olegt: I’m not entirely happy with the spirit you bring to our discussion. I’m removing you from the user list. Good bye.

Comment by William Dembski — August 7, 2006 @ 10:38 pm

What was olegt's crime?  You be the judge.
Quote
What exactly a talk-show host brings to the discussion of supposedly biological issues? The right moral perspective?

Comment by olegt — August 7, 2006 @ 4:51 pm

Date: 2006/08/09 02:41:56, Link
Author: GCT
Olegt ain't the only one gettin' banned recently.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1410#comment-52161

Quote
This thread is now closed. I\’m going to have Joel go through this thread and remove anyone who was getting out of line. Since, Farshad, you thought slowness in moderating was something to exploited, you\’ll be the first to go. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — August 8, 2006 @ 12:50 pm

So, what did Farshad do?  He expressed an opinion that Israel aren't the saints that other posters made them out to be.  He was then called a moron (or something like that) and accused of being a sympathizer of terrorists.  He then posted links that he felt backed up his case and said that Hezbollah were no more right than Israel and that both sides were to blame for the fighting.  I guess Dembski didn't like the way the thread was going and I'm certain he doesn't like Farshad's politics on the Middle East.

Date: 2006/08/09 02:49:57, Link
Author: GCT
More banninating...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1417#comment-52135

Quote
2.  Denyse - I think your post is interesting but it is basically a polemic (and I’m not entirely sure what your point is). Firstly, what’s so wrong with some evolutionists forming a committee to promote further education of their opinions? It’s a fairly common thing to do in academic circles and is just a way of organizing people into action. Sure “committees” do have negative connatations but in some settings they actually are very effective. Besides, I’m sure that the Discovery Institute also has various committees too and I don’t think anybody sees anything so wrong with this?

As to the two interesting analyses, I was hoping to see some actual criticism of the science of evolution, but these analyses seem more political in comment. As to evolutionists using the ‘design’ word, I don’t think that in of itself means anything - I suspect it is more of an indication of the weakness of language and that as human beings we tend to view the world in very anthropic ways. I work in information technology and we do this all the time — e.g., the system “created” a new file, “the system won’t talk to us” etc. Should evolutionists be more careful of their language - absolutely, but the occassional use of the ‘design’ word should not get IDers all in a titter.

Finally, just because the American public has not “accepted” evolution after 125 years I think is besides the point. The real issue at hand to be considered is “is evolution good science” and “is there sufficient reason to consider evolution is a theory” (and I use this word in its proper sense, not the popular sense. Peer review does not extend to the general populace.

Comment by timcol — August 8, 2006 @ 10:15 am

3.  Diegopig: Reach chapters 1 and 2 of THE DESIGN INFERENCE. Also, for my scholarly work, as opposed to cultural commentary, look at www.designinference.com
Diegopig & Timcol: You’re both out of here.

Comment by William Dembski — August 8, 2006 @ 12:14 pm

The Diegopig comment isn't even there anymore, and timcol isn't rude in his disagreement.  Dembski just doesn't like dissent.

Date: 2006/08/09 09:33:28, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 09 2006,14:24)
amazing

Quote
#32

I didn’t see comrade’s post, but anyone that goes by the name of comrade can’t have anything good or intelligent to say. Bill, I’m glad to see you (or someone) back cleaning up the thread. Frankly, I’m not interested in the thoughts of anti-ID folks. I understand their arguments, have read their books, listened to their lectures, etc. I come here to read your thoughts and others that are, at a minimum, intriqued by Intelligent Design. Thanks for keeping the thread readable.

Comment by Barrett1 — August 8, 2006 @ 9:38 pm

#33

Barrett1: We try to run a clean blog!

Comment by William Dembski — August 8, 2006 @ 10:26 pm


and

Quote
#25

I haven’t done any scientific study on the topic of “sexual selection”, but it seems totally bogus to me.

It seems that the most ugly critters seem to be overpopulous while the more “eye-friendly” ones are rare.

Comment by Ryan — August 8, 2006 @ 6:47 pm

I'm not sure why you would find either of those amazing.  "Comrade" conjurs up visions of soviet Russia, which was obviously a god-less, hedonistic place and therefore non-good and non-intelligent by definition.

And, the fact that one can bloviate about how something is wrong without knowing any of the science behind it is their standard operating procedure.  They don't know much about evolution, except that it is wrong.

Date: 2006/08/10 03:27:36, Link
Author: GCT
After tossing back a few too many last night, I vomited on my floor at home.  The next morning I came out and noticed the most interesting orange color.

It's the gratuitousness of such interesting color in my vomit that leads me to rebel against materialism.

Date: 2006/08/10 05:12:00, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1422#comment-52406

Quote
Now, it is _possible_ to have a theory of evolution which is compatible with ID. But it is also possible to have a theory of evolution that is compatible with young-earth creationism. “Evolution” as the term is used by the scientific establishment, usually refers to the materialistic one that, as pointed out in the link above, assumes (either consciously or unconsciously) a specific view of abiogenesis. Also known as neo-Darwinism.

Comment by johnnyb — August 9, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

It's possible to have a theory of evolution that is compatible with YEC?  Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Date: 2006/08/10 08:00:47, Link
Author: GCT
Steve S, get ready to be amazed again.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1426#comment-52560

Quote
I have not read any of the 58 articles/books that were put down in front of Behe nor do I feel capable of understanding most of them without a lot of guidance on what particular terms might mean. But I do understand human behavior and I know that just about every biological process has been written in such a way that a mother can understand. Which is a phrase that the lawyer in the Dover case used when talking to Ken Miller.

So understanding human nature and knowing that the immune processes could probably be written in a less technical way so all of us could follow the logic I have come to the conclusion that the 58 references do not support the evolution of the immune system. Why, because if they did then someone would want to pile on and shove it in our faces that here is a well documented and scientifically accurate description of a process that proves Behe a fool. But if they did so then their interpretation of the 58 documents would be on paper where their logic and accurate interpetation could be challenged.

Since no such document has arisen and knowing the mindset of Darwinists, the only conclusion is that the 58 documents were a giant bluff.

An additional point. If sometime someone comes along and provides a thoroughly documented description of the Darwinian evolution of one of the examples of IC, then so what. I will say nice job but there are hundreds of these IC cases and just because you have shown 1 of several hundred has been solved does not mean that they all will be. Maybe they will be but solving one does not eliminate the objection. Now if they solved a large number, say over 50% of the examples, then it would be time to admit that IC may be just a God of the Gaps argument but till then there is essentially nothing but gaps with not even one solution.

Comment by jerry — August 10, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

Date: 2006/08/14 02:24:20, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 13 2006,02:20)
speaking of face-face 'discussion', one bit of over-obvious wisdom I can impart from personal experience:

Never argue with a crack addict.

for any reason.

ever.

er, unless you don't mind immediate physical violence.

Here's another one.

If you are about to get into a fight, take off all your clothes.

No one wants to fight a naked guy.

Date: 2006/08/14 05:12:21, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 11 2006,22:51)
This should win an award; it is sublime.  May I suggest the "It Smacketh of Truthiness" award?

Wow, thanks.  But, I can't take all the credit.  I'd like to thank the tards over at UD for providing me with so much material to work with.  I couldn't have done it without you guys!

Date: 2006/08/15 03:29:49, Link
Author: GCT
This post was pretty funny, especially this little tidbit:

Quote
As you note, Judge Jones’s decision seems not to be providing the mileage for neo-Darwinists that they might have expected. It seems to me, however, that the issue is not fundamentally legal. Dennett, Dawkins et al. are losing not in the court of law but in the court of public opinion, and that’s where I’m focusing my attentions. For instance, I’m starting a website (www.overwhelmingevidence.com — not yet up and running), modeled on myspace and xanga, to bring high school students together to resist neo-Darwinism and promote intelligent design. They’re the ones who are being disenfranchised by Dover v. Kitzmiller and, insofar as they have religious sensibilities, spat on by Dennett and Dawkins. The contempt of these individuals is quite remarkable, and they seem oblivious to what a turn-off they are to the vast majority of the American public.


But, the real hilarity is in the very first comment:

Quote
Keep going Dr. Dembski!

I’ll keep praying for you to take down NDE and expose it for what it is, in hopes one day that you can bring ppl like Dr. Shermer back to our (that is Christ’s) side  

Comment by jpark320 — August 10, 2006 @ 11:33 pm

It's just too good.

Date: 2006/08/15 05:10:42, Link
Author: GCT
In the thread where they discuss Luskin's whinings about how ID is unfairly treated, we get the lawyer talking about how science should be put to a vote.

Quote
9.  Who gave Karl Popper the authority to set the epistemological ground rules for all of the rest of us? I feel like the peasant in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. The peasant asks Arthur, “How did you get to be king? I didn’t vote for you.” Similarly I don’t recall voting to put science in a box marked “falsification line of demarcation – do not open.”

I ask this question because the federal courts have literally given Popper’s philosophical musings the force of law in their Establishment Clause cases. In a democracy such as the one in which we live, shouldn’t there have been a vote on this?

Back to Python: Arthur explains to the peasant that he became king when the Lady of the Lake gave him Excalibur. To this the peasant replies, “Just because some watery tart threw a blade at you doesn’t mean you have supreme executive authority. True power comes only by a mandate from the masses.”

Do the American people know that a German philosopher’s epistemology has been grafted into their fundamental law through the federal courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment? I doubt it.

Comment by BarryA — August 11, 2006 @ 3:07 pm


Then, if that isn't bad enough, we've got Sal shooting himself in the foot.

Quote
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) may have significance as we build quantum computers. However, Barrow and Tipler have shown that even if MWI is true, it would not negate an ID inference.

One of the reason their stealth ID classic, Anthropic Cosmological Principle was frowed on by many in the ID community was partly because of their support of MWI. However, I’m glad to see that they have by and large been invited to ID’s big tent of late, with Tipler appearing in Bill’s book, Uncommon Dissent. However as I poitned, out MWI would not negate a design inference any more than a parallel processing Quantum Computer operating in parallel universes would imply the Quantum Computer was not designed. If the universe is structured this way, that is a parallel quantum computer (which I doubt personally), it would still not negate a ID inference.

Regarding Multiverses, it strikes me as pure speculation. At elast MWI has some theoretical support, Multiverses on the other hand are speculations. But even if there are Multiverses, Paul Davies rightly pointed out, the problem would still remain, why would there be Multiverses rather than none at all? One could easily argue that Multiverses were part of a design as well! A regress to an ultimate cause would not be negated even if MWI or Multiverses are true.

Comment by scordova — August 11, 2006 @ 3:26 pm

(emphasis in original.)
Apparently Sal's too dumb to realize that the criticism is that ID can't be falsified, so it's no wonder that MWI would not negate the ID inference.  One could easily argue that anything is part of the design set out by god....er, I mean the Intelligent Designer.

Date: 2006/08/17 04:51:02, Link
Author: GCT
On the thread where Dembski gets duped by a parody...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1454#comment-53913

Quote
25.  Parody is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish from reality on all sides of the evolution/design dialogue. Many arguments from Darwinists who believe chance is sufficient to explain all the wonders of the universe border on parody. Conversely, this site appears to have its own individuals pretending to be IDists but are really just parodying the ID position. Obviously, the commentor “Joseph” isn’t serious, but trained scientists like Inlay and Bottarro argue with him anyway.

Comment by HodorH — August 16, 2006 @ 11:17 am

Joseph isn't for real?  If that is true, I know I was fooled.

Date: 2006/08/18 07:30:47, Link
Author: GCT
That whole series of threads on the GAs are golden for comedy.  Sal is complaining because Thomas's program was written on a computer, so it's obviously intelligently designed.  Oh, and he also objects that you can't randomly go and change lines of code and still have it work, so obviously Thomas is inserting design into the algorithm.  I especially liked when Sal insisted that it doesn't count unless you can change the fitness function to look for longer length answers and still get the shortest possible length.  I mean, this is classic stuff.  I think Sal is really going for the stoopidest UDer award.

Date: 2006/08/21 04:22:34, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 20 2006,11:27)
His 6 most recent publications, all in the Revista di Biologia, have garnered a total of 13 citations, but (again with full credit to the wonders of ISI), it turns out that all but two of those consist of Davison citing himself.

That's not at all surprising, considering that he quotes himself in every post he makes.  How tedious.

Date: 2006/08/21 07:58:05, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 21 2006,12:51)
Quote
If it doesn’t get deleted by the PT censor-police when they wake up and put on their uniforms this morning someone please pass the oxygen as I’ll be feeling faint.


(Shakes previously working Ironymeter)

Dangit.

Don't turn your new one on just yet.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1478#comment-54856

Quote
JohhnyB

I was cleaning out off-topic comments from this thread and accidently deleted your comment. My sincere apologies. You’re one of my favorites here and I consistently enjoy everything you write. Wordpress doesn’t have an “undo” button. Again, I’m really, really sorry.

Comment by DaveScot — August 21, 2006 @ 10:05 am

Oh, it's irony on so many levels.  He hits a fellow fundy with friendly fire while doing exactly what he accuses PT of doing.  I, too, am glad that the Tard is back.

Date: 2006/08/22 05:33:03, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2006,09:31)
Davetard opines:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1485

 
Quote
Dave has proven beyond a doubt that intelligent agents can construct useful trial and error algorithms


For soemone who claims technoliteracy, calling GA's "trail and error" shows a massive shortfall in understanding.

Is it 3? No
Is it 6? No
Is it 2? No
Did I say 3?...

GAs could (and do) help technical minds understand the power of evolution. Either Dave's worldview clouds his thinking, his thinking is somewhat lacking for a super genuis polytard, or both.



UD - keeping the web SCIENCE FREE

UD is also keep the web (or at least their corner of it) dissent free for the most part.  Well, at least the threads that DaveTard has control over.  He's deleted scores of messages already, with no comment or anything.  He probably came back just for that reason.  Not being the banninator probably left him feeling empty inside.  Poor, poor DaveTard.

Date: 2006/08/22 09:00:21, Link
Author: GCT
Wow, DaveTard in his rise back to stardom remembers us, the little guys.  It almost brings a tear to my eye.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1485#comment-55181

Quote
29.  It has been fairly pointed out at the Panda forum After The Bar Closes that Dave Thomas’ technique is not pure trial and error.

This is true. Each trial is not necessarily a totally random guess. After the first trial the child’s game of “warmer/colder” is employed to evaluate the trial results and solutions that are warmer are preferred over those that are colder as the starting point for the next trial.

Sorry guys, but GAs are still child’s play. Real programmers don’t give hoity-toity names like “Genetic Algorithm” to ways of finding answers that just about every child invents on his own recognizance without being taught. That’s just a really lame attempt by greenhorns to appear smart and innovative. I’m trying really hard to avoid being mocking and contemptuous in my reincarnation here but you church burnin’ ebola boys fellows at ATBC are making it difficult. I can only bite my tongue so much before it gets bit clean through, if you get my drift, and I think you do.

Comment by DaveScot — August 22, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
[note:  the italicized portion is actually struck through in the original...I just don't know how to do that here.]

Of course, it's the same old dimwit.

Date: 2006/08/22 09:25:29, Link
Author: GCT
And, some tardity from Sal's latest thread on the GA topic...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1481#comment-55167

Quote
The problem with the CSI angle as I see it is that you still cannot detect design vs accident by mathematics alone if one’s philosophy is wrongheaded. The concept of information originator and information receiver is irrelevant when one accepts the idea that an *infinite* variety of combinations are possible within the universe, or multiverse. The problem with the MET-only crowd is not their science, even though it is limited, and doesn’t explain what they think it does. The problem with them is their philosophy, which is ridiculous. They embrace a methodological meterialism a priori (which usually turns out to be a philosophical materialism in disguise), and then skip along with the notion that matter *can* combine in just the right way to get the self-replicating process going, and then *can* reproduce and develop along the lines MET suggests. Talk about calling the blue sky a different color. They deny the sky is even possible, let alone blue. There’s no use trying to convince someone that the sky is blue if they don’t believe a sky is possible.

[emphasis mine]
No comment necessary I think.

Date: 2006/08/23 01:38:32, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (2ndclass @ Aug. 22 2006,18:47)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 22 2006,18:19)
and again, from here

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1484#comments

someone let this comment (#11) slip by

     
Quote
It is a sad state of affairs when a supposed scientific site(which this claims to be) can only sustain that illusion by excluding all who disagree.

I came here to discuss the theories you have put forth, but a few minutes reading disabused me of the idea that debate and exchange of ideas are welcomed here.

Mr. Demski had an opportunity to widely diseminate his views in Kansas, but he was a no-show(and certainly not worth 200 dollars an hour). At least Behe had the courage of his convictions and testified(even though the plaintive’s lawyer cleaned his clock for him).

Don’t worry, I won’t be wasting my time here any more, your words and deeds indicate this is not a site in search of knowledge, but one for the stroking of Dumski’s ego.

Grumpy


Double ouch!  Looks like someone at UD is trying to embarrass Dumbski!  Wonder who??   ;)

Whoa!  Watch for a gang of UDers dog-piling Grumpy, mocking him for saying "Kansas" instead of "Pennsylvania" while ignoring the substance of his comment.  Dembski will comment, sending Grumpy on his way, and leaving Grumpy's comment intact to demonstrate the ignorance and boorishness of Darwinians.  DaveScot will comment defending the board's censorship practices.

Well, we did get this from lucID...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1484#comment-55298

Quote
13.  Grumpy thanks for not wasting your time here

we certainly won’t waste our time reading your comments either  

(for the record only people who write very poor and unscientific posts get booted)

Comment by lucID — August 23, 2006 @ 2:50 am

Yup, only "very poor and unscientific posts" get booted.  Riiiiiight.

Date: 2006/08/24 03:37:03, Link
Author: GCT
Oh DaveTard, I see you've grown some humility...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1491#comment-55596

Quote
4.  I wrote a cribbage AI 20 years ago that people swore cheated. It’s still on the internet available for download at cardandboardgames.com It doesn’t cheat. I simply wrote an expert system that made the same decisions that I would make in any given situation. That alone made it a good competitor. I then improved on mother nature by leveraging what a computer is good at - calculating odds precisely and quickly. As each card was exposed I calculated the odds of where remaining cards would be. This would not be possible for a human unless some kind of savant like Rainman but it’s certainly not cheating. Think of it like card counting at blackjack in vegas only more complicated. I didn’t take any card into consideration until it had been legally exposed during normal gameplay. This made the program virtually invicible after playing it enough times for luck to average out so skill level can become evident. I could still whip the snot out of it but that’s because I knew exactly what it was thinking and that’s enough of an advantage to nullify the card counting.

Comment by DaveScot — August 23, 2006 @ 11:14 pm

So, if you had made a patent application and then reviewed it yourself, would you have approved it?

Date: 2006/08/28 02:52:18, Link
Author: GCT
The Washington Post also reported this little tidbit:

Quote
Harris campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Marks would not answer questions about the Harris interview. Instead, she released a two-sentence statement.

"Congresswoman Harris encourages Americans from all walks of life and faith to participate in our government," it stated. "She continues to be an unwavering advocate of religious rights and freedoms."


Yeah right.

Article link

Date: 2006/08/28 06:56:32, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 28 2006,00:33)
OT:

right now, on CN:

Brock Sampson flashes back to when he met "Sgt." Hunter S. Thompson.

Classic.

Brock Samson is a god.  There's your intelligent designer right there.  The new season of Venture Bros. has definitely lived up to the hype!

Go Team Venture!

Date: 2006/08/29 07:32:11, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Aug. 29 2006,11:47)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1526

   
Quote
When we visited the zoo the other day, my wife snapped this photo just outside of the Panda play area. I guess when they put together the verbage for the sign, they neglected to consult Gould because I didn’t read “looks jerry-rigged” anywhere on there.

Does anyone else think that Scott is most likely the secret love child of DaveTard and JAD?

Date: 2006/08/29 07:52:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2006,08:28)
The whole thing'll just make your mouth hang open-
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1521

Here's a good tidbit from it too:

Quote
Barash objects to drawing a line between humans and other life forms: “It is a line that exists only in the minds of those who proclaim that the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature.”

There, you see. It is as plain as daylight. Barash is NOT making a secret of his aim to denigrate humans and there is NO big philosophical conundrum. If you can read a newspaper, you an understand what he is saying.

Yup, if you say that humans are animals, then you are denigrating humans.  No religion here, move along.

Edit:  Plus, this comment from a member that needs no introduction since his tardity has been feature quite a few times before:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1521#comment-56763

Quote
5.  I don’t think Barash has the aim of denigrating humans, rather in his mind and in the minds of many others they believe that they are liberating humans from the shackles of mentally restrictive foolish religious beliefs. They don’t see themselves as warriors for materialism, rather they see themselves as enlightened beings ministering to the deluded fools who believe in fairy tales whose beliefs are harmful to human society. They believe they are actually helping humans and human civilization in general.

That’s why they are so arrogant. They feel they have truth, justice, and the american way on their side and that anyone who disagrees with their views are just deluded and beneath them. Of course there are exceptions to this rule i.e people like Ken Miller, but who knows? He may just be an atheist who pretends to be a theist in order to promote evolution in some convoluted plan of divide of conquer.

I really don’t think many serious evolutionists get seriously introspective on their motivations and philosophical vision. Some of the more mentallu unbalanced evolutionists may have wacky ideas about using darwinism as an all purpose lens with which to view the world, but most are content to not be philosophical at all. How can they be philosophically minded when anybody who is philosophically minded and not insane and a darwinist would be faced with an overwhelming cognitive dissonance? The reason they are not faced with an overwhelming cognitive dissonace is because they are either unphilosophical in their mental outlook or they are mentally disturbed.

Comment by mentok — August 28, 2006 @ 6:43 am

Yup, we is all unphilosophical or we is insane to be living in such cognitive dissonance as to actually believe that the evidence we see wasn't planted there by some trickster god or something.

Date: 2006/08/29 08:16:53, Link
Author: GCT
I'm happy with the way it is also.  I like the fact that it is pretty lax.

Date: 2006/08/29 09:35:30, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1521#comment-56966

Quote
22.  John I don’t think that you are correct in saying that most ID supporters support common descent. Common descent has no provable evidence to support it, it is really nothing more then a speculation based upon homology…which for evolutionist is based on…common descent. So what we have is circular reasoning. I would venture to estimate that most ID people belive in common design not common descent. As to your concern that ID supporters should try to find common ground with evolution in an attempt to get respect, that is really not possible. Evolution theory is supporting countless careers and reputations besides it being a social and political tool for those who wish to attack religious beliefs. The evolutionst camp do not want compromise they want total dominace, any evolutionist who has compromised is attacked by the evolutionist camp because they see ID as nothing more then an attack on them i.e their careers, reputations, social views, political views, religious views.

Anyways there is really very little room to compromise on anything. The problem evolutionsts have (most of them) is of allowing the conception of a designer to have scientific credibility. That is their concern. They aren’t concerned about proving evolution, they are concerned with allowing “supernatural” concepts (god) legitimization. Without their changing of that view there is no room for compromise, they will not allow compromise on that subject. ID is professing that a designer exists, without that there is no ID. So the two camps cannot reconcile because they have diametrically opposed views on what should ne considered science. Since ID extols that which is vehemently not allowed by the evolutionst oligarchy, ID therefore becomes public enemy #1 to them.

Can this change? Sure, but it will take some serious soul searching by the evolutionst camp, otherwise they will not change for a while. The simplest way to disprove their basal paradigm (no desinger allowed because a designer doesn’t exist) is to press on the origins of life. That is where we got them and it is the weakest link in their chain. It is easy to prove that the earliest life forms could not have come about due to random natural causes. Once they accept that as truth (which they hate more then anything to confront because it shakes them to their core) then their whole artifical demand that only metaphysical naturalism is allowed as “science” (i.e absolute truth) will be done away with.

Comment by mentok — August 28, 2006 @ 8:41 pm


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1521#comment-57037

Quote
27.  John I don’t know how well read you are on evolution or ID so I will try to respond as if you are not well read on these.

In fact the origins of life have been proven to be impossible by random natural events by numerous people, the information is not some hidden secret, it is well known. Even the building blocks of life (the right types of amino acids, proteins etc) cannot come together by random chance, what to speak highly sophisticated machines (cells). This should be obvious to any scientist who studies the data. So do they admit this even though it is so obvious, well yeah, a few of them. Fred Hoyle for example, but he proposed life must have been brought to earth possbily by aliens. Others propose life coming on meteors. Of course any type of theory like those are still faced with the same problem i.e. how did disorganized matter form extremely complex replicating bio-machines on any planet? Hoyle compared the chance of that happening to that of a 747 jet being built by a tornado going through a junkyard. In fact the chances are even smaller. It would have to be a 747 that self replicated being built by a tornado.

Anyways it doesn’t seem to matter for most evolutionsts. Even Hoyle makes a copout by ascribing life on earth to ET’s. Most evolutionists don’t give any or much thought to this major blow to their ontology, nor do all the problems of evolutionary theory seem to dent their confidence. Why? They do not believe they can be wrong. They know that evolution is true and the only thing they care about is telling us how nature points out how evolution sent this species in one direction and that species in another. They don’t question the actual possibility and probability of evolution being able to occur according to the basic rules of the scientific method. They pretend to do that in order to take in gullible uneducated peoeple, but if you watch them closely and you are educated in the same areas as they are you will see them simply provide a bunch of irrelevant or outdated “facts”.

Now this is not news to ID people, the whole “emperors new clothes” scenario of the “mainsteram scientific” establishment is written about all the time in all the ID books and websites. Does any of it seem to matter to ardent evolutionists? Seemingly not. I presume it is because they cannot see what is obvious to so many because they cannot accept the possibility of ID. They claim ID is unscientific, but in reality their real objection is they cannot accept even the possiblity of ID regardless of the science. We know this because the science is so overwhelmingly on the side of ID but still they cannot comprehend simple provable facts, This is probably because they a complex which blocks their ability to comprehend truths which are so totaly transformative to their ontology.

I don’t “hope” that darwinism will simply go away. The proofs against darwinism have been done over and over by very qualified people, the problem is the “scientific establishment”. They are not using the same thought process as an average person, so an average person can comprehend what ID authors have been saying while the “establishment” have been getting more and more upset. They have hysterical blindness. How do you deal with people like that? I wouldn’t waste my time on them so much, they cannot see. Sure stuff should get into peer reviewed journals, but it’s not like the information isn’t already easily available from numerous scientists which cutterly demolish the “modern” scientific ideal of science as metaphysical naturalism and evolution as the be all and all of life on earth.

So ID has already proven itself. You can lead a horse to water…

Comment by mentok — August 29, 2006 @ 2:18 am


Mentok deserves some sort of tard award for this.

Date: 2006/08/30 00:24:47, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2006,14:21)
1) thanks to the five people who noticed that I asked these comments to be emailed to me.

Sorry bro, but I didn't see any reason to email.  I don't have any concerns or any reason not to just say my opinion here in public.

Edit:  I.E. I thought you wanted them on email simply for privacy sake.

Date: 2006/08/30 07:45:48, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2006,14:44)
Mentok on the other hand...we might have the next AFDave on our hands...

"We take the mind.  We don't ask for it, we take it."

Date: 2006/08/31 05:54:14, Link
Author: GCT
And DaveTard gives us a daily double!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1528#comment-57447

Quote
63.  DaveScot: “For brevity I use the phrase novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans.”

Zachriel: “You would consider then that humans and chimpanzees are only differing as to microevolution, as they have the same cell, tissue, organs and general body plans.”

No. I see human/chimp difference as a gray area. Novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans are large milestones that evolution somehow obtained. Why bother with lesser steps when the big steps are easily delineated and in need of explanation? In other words, if you can demonstrate that RM+NS has the capacity to generate novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans then I will concede it can do lesser things.

In actuality I want it demonstrated to me how RM+NS created the DNA/ribosome combination and if that can be done I’ll concede RM+NS’ creative power to accomplish everything that followed. But since DNA/ribosome is subject to the but that’s not part of Darwinian evolution I instead pick the milestone events that followed to avoid the argument over what “evolution” entails.

Comment by DaveScot — August 30, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

64.  Zach

It seems that what you ask is that by demonstrating the theoretical ability of RM+NS to generate small beneficial changes that I then accept a huge extrapolation that many small things add up to big things. I do not accept that extrapolation. It’s too large a leap. You can make high pile of rocks one rock at a time but you can’t pile them so high that they reach the moon. Small things don’t always add up to big things.

So I make the very reasonable request that the big things be demonstrated. If it can’t be done then it can’t be done and as honest inquirers into the nature of things we need to admit the limits of our knowledge and not make up narratives out of whole cloth and treat those narratives as axioms in a grand pretense that the limit doesn’t exist. I don’t know that what I ask cannot be demonstrated. All I ask is that until it IS demonstrated we don’t teach our children that sole narrative explanation in a vacuum devoid of criticism or alternative explanations.

Comment by DaveScot — August 30, 2006 @ 12:34 pm

"Show me abiogenesis or show me something that evolution doesn't actually say.  Until then I will continue to appeal to incredulity."

Date: 2006/09/01 03:34:06, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2006,05:39)
Quote (improvius @ Aug. 31 2006,21:39)
I... I just don't know what to say anymore.

At least they let your comments see the light of day.  I signed up and submitted my first comment at about 8 PM last night:

 
Quote
Jerry says:"As hard as you insist there is no religious implication in ID other than there was someone who did it. Who, what the person did or, how they did it or why are not the province of ID. Is that hard to understand?"

Well, yes it is.  I am struggling to get my arms around ID here and am not succeeding.  As near as I can tell in the short time here, ID seeks to detect design through something called Complex Specified Information. People can apparently assign values of "No CSI. Duh!" and "Alot of CSI. Duh!" by visual inspection, but don't seem to stray away from the extremes and actually calculate CSI on anything that is less than already obvious.  That is, I suppose, a start, but until you get away from the extremes I am struggling to see the explanatory potential.

Now you say that you don't seek to know who the designer is, what processes he used, or what his motivation was.  Okay, fine.  But, if you don't seek the designer or to understand his method or motive, and don't apply CSI in a rigorous way to discover his handiwork, I don't see any paths to new knowledge here.

Never saw the light of day.

It seems to be there now.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1530#comment-57817

Date: 2006/09/01 03:47:52, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 31 2006,18:35)
By the way, k.e., nice Pinafore parody. Mmm...Vodka.

Agreed.  Although, I thought it came from Penzance?

Date: 2006/09/01 04:40:44, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 01 2006,08:40)
Dumb question:  with moderation, do comments get posted in the order they are submitted,or the order that they are approved?

I believe they post them by the date/time they are submitted.  So, if you have a post that languishes in the moderation queue for a couple hours and some others post after you that aren't moderated, your post will appear before their's on the screen when your post is finally approved.

Date: 2006/09/01 05:17:33, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (improvius @ Aug. 31 2006,21:39)
Holy crap, I dove in just for one day and already the stupid is simply unbearable over there.  I think "Jerry" wins today's award for the most mind-bogglingly absurd post.

Jerry is on fire lately.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1534#comment-57883

Quote
39.  Great_Ape,

I had more respect for you till you asked your silly question. The origin of the designer is off the table in the debate. You know as well as I the game that is being played. If you get an ID proponent to admit that somewhere in the distant past the designer had to be either God or designed by God then you and others can huff and puff and yell and scream “There I told you so, ID is nothing more than creationism or some other religious doctrine” and then you can use this admission and the court system to banish any hint of it in the education system.

We all know that this debate revolves around what the courts will say. Right now one side has the upper hand and is fighting desperately to keep their advantage while the other side is throwing embarrassing information at them. If it weren’t embarrassing then the tone would be much different. The abiogenisis question is the most emabarrassing one but there are many others.

So ID cannot mention anything about the designer. In truth they are only developing a discipline that tries to detect design and keep it to that. And this is by design. They do not say “who, why, what and how” the design took place. Only that design events did happen. But why can’t people limit themselves to that discussion. Because they know if the average person thinks about it they may make some different judgments then are currently being made. So those who support ID get the incredibly persistent and often obnoxious insistence that ID is religious based.

Comment by jerry — September 1, 2006 @ 8:54 am

Jerry is trying to usurp Mentok as the stupidest poster.  It truly is a race for the bottom isn't it?

Date: 2006/09/15 08:17:13, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2006,20:52)
Vintage DaveTard:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1578#comments

     
Quote
...Plunge asserts he is an outspoken atheist but he sure sounds like an outspoken agnostic to me. I find it a little irritating that atheist and agnostic are commonly conflated because that throws me into the atheist camp when in reality I am simply unsure one way or the other - in a no man’s land between theists and atheists.


emphasis mine

I've never understood how DT can be an agnostic (Edit: it originally read "atheist").  I mean, doesn't he know everything?  Isn't his IQ somewhere around 1,983,435,234,234,654 or something like that?  I mean, if you can score a 6800 on the SAT doesn't that mean you know all?  So, why doesn't he know if there is a god or not?

Date: 2006/09/18 09:45:29, Link
Author: GCT
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Date: 2006/09/18 09:52:02, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyzStoxnTKs

The above video is proof that all computer stuff is intelligently designed.

And, if you need any more proof of ID:

Date: 2006/09/21 01:00:35, Link
Author: GCT
If you don't believe in ID you will go to h3ll.  Isn't that proof enough?

Date: 2006/09/21 05:53:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Sep. 21 2006,09:54)
The publicity would be awesome and it would bring to light the numerous lies and distortions that the mirror site(s) prove exist at UD.  Just the kind of publicity the ID movement needs :-)

Would it qualify as a tidal wave of lies and deceit?

Date: 2006/09/21 05:58:41, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Sep. 21 2006,10:34)
And why is Dave Scott, Super Tard, Chief ID Lap Poodle and Budding Intellectual Law Expert so profoundly stupid and uninformed?  I thought he was the smartest man on Earth?  

Plus, he worked at Dell, so what he says about how the computer works MUST be right.

And he did patent applications so he is a master of legal issues.

Oh man, we are is so much trouble.

Date: 2006/09/21 07:14:39, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 21 2006,10:54)
Re "If you don't believe in ID you will go to h3ll.  Isn't that proof enough?"

Not if the "proof" doesn't occur until after it's too late to do anything about it. ;)  :p

I hope you like warm climates heathen. ;)

Date: 2006/09/21 10:18:39, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 21 2006,14:55)
The difference between an actual tangible thing and its design marks the fuzzy line.

That's only because of your dogmatic, Darwinian, naturalistic assumptions.

Date: 2006/09/26 03:20:17, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Sep. 24 2006,09:07)
In the UK we convert them into indoor climbing walls...

As a climber myself, I think this idea could make me think twice about burning the church.

Date: 2006/09/28 03:31:48, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 27 2006,15:15)
Heddle slams Jonathan Wells at UD:

 
Quote
I am so anachronistic. I remember those days when we settled scientific debates by actually going into the lab (you know, those places where people where the long white coats and use equipment) and doing science. I know, it does seem rather ridiculous by the methods championed here. Clearly the modern way is to write op-ed pieces or popularized books that declare victory anytime a new record that may be problematic, or at least can be cast as problematic, is added to the experimental database. In days of yore what we used to do (you’ll get a kick out of this) is to see if the current theory can explain the new data and if it could not we would either modify it or, if it was beyond saving, we would jettison it. Is that a gas or what? But I understand that since this takes time and work it is much more efficient just to accumulate short-term political mileage while we can.

Comment by David Heddle — September 27, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

Yeah, and he's been banned for it.

Date: 2006/09/28 09:10:58, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2006,14:04)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,17:56)
Heddle is swiftly punished for pointing out the emperor's lack of clothing:

   
Quote
23. William Dembski // Sep 27th 2006 at 4:51 pm

David Heddle: I don’t like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I’m now booting you from this blog. Goodbye.

Comment by William Dembski — September 27, 2006 @ 4:51 pm


Dang, maybe we should invite him HERE? He's certainly brighter than GoP or ROB.

He was here (PT, actually) for two years. For two years he repeated the same broken ID argument:

1) Physical Constants have certain values
2) ??????
3) Design!

We're only enjoying him at the moment because he still has enough scientist in him to see the fraud and deception of the ID leadership.

It reminds me of the underpants gnomes on South Park.

From wiki

Quote
The gnomes
The Underpants Gnomes are a community of underground gnomes who steal underpants, notably from Tweek.

The Underpants Gnomes have a three-phase business plan, consisting of:

1.  Collect underpants
2.  ?
3.  Profit!
None of the gnomes actually know what the second phase is, and all of them assume that someone else within the organization does. This mocks the lack of solid business plans within many Dot-com bubble companies founded during the period before this episode aired. The three-step business plan has become a recurring joke on websites like Slashdot, Fark, Genmay and 4chan, with various things substituted for the first step.

The Underpants Gnomes also appear in another episode, "Red Sleigh Down"; in it, they appear as Santa's elves; it is explained that they work on their own for most of the year, but assist Santa during the Christmas season.

Date: 2006/09/28 09:36:07, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2006,14:24)
that was exactly the point. A halfway decent fine-tuning argument would be something like

1 the value of the CC is x
2 the odds of randomly getting x is y (y is very tiny)
3 therefore it was deliberately set to x.

That argument is still broken ten ways to sunday, but it's better than Heddle. Heddle admits he doesn't have 2, but doesn't care. He argues that the fact that CC isn't something it's not means design. I've turned his words over and over in hopes of finding at least a logical, if wrong, argument, but there's not one.

Ah, but remember it's not god of the gaps.  It's god of the details.  That's another of his.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget the "sensitivity" argument.

Good fun.

Date: 2006/09/29 07:17:37, Link
Author: GCT
Actually, I'm concerned with all pseudo science and how it is misused.  I got into it through the Creationist/evolution issue simply because of the religious aspect of it (the old Creationist canard that evolution = atheist) because I see their attacks being aimed not just at science, but at my beliefs (or more accurately lack of beliefs) as well.

Date: 2006/10/02 05:50:27, Link
Author: GCT
Underwhelming Evidence?

That way the acronym would be UE.  It's like it evolved from UD.  Kinda the same way that Dembski talked about changing ID to IE if they lost in court so that he could keep peddling the same BS, but get away with it because no one would realize that he had just changed the name.

Date: 2006/10/02 08:32:56, Link
Author: GCT
On one of the Gil is an idiot threads

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1666#comment-66208

Quote
40. russ // Oct 1st 2006 at 10:01 am

Tom English // Oct 1st 2006 at 7:12 am

bFast,

You’re a great example of why I can’t make ID-NDE into a litmus test of the decency of a person. Thanks for your posts.


Tom, this is a bit shocking. I’ve been to Pandas Thumb and seen the sneering insults that are smattered about. But it never occured to me that belief in ID-NDE might be a litmus test for “the decency of a person” (I know it’s not your litmus test, but apparently the idea occured to you).

The only realm in which I see this kind of litmus test for decency is liberal politics, in which liberals often believe conservatives are evil, but conservatives generally believe liberals are merely mistaken or foolish. Since I believe you identified yourself as a college professor (i.e. someone toiling deep in the heart of political liberalism), that explanation for your comment to bFast seems to fit. Am I mistaken?

Comment by russ — October 1, 2006 @ 10:01 am

[Italics above mine to separate out the quoted portion.  What russ quotes is italicized.]

Yup, Panda's Thumb = liberal politics where all Conservatives are evil.  Yet, the Conservatives all think liberals are just mistaken, like when they support the terrorists by not supporting Republican bills.

Date: 2006/10/02 08:59:29, Link
Author: GCT
I kinda like Glen Davidson's idea of e = "evangelism".

Date: 2006/10/03 08:43:21, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,10:56)
I usually prefer to discuss the scientific issues, but Uncommon Descent is becoming Uncommonly Silly.

Is becoming?  Oh, that point is long since passed.

Date: 2006/10/04 05:00:49, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2006,01:24)
Heddle's been pretty quiet the last few days. I have a feeling he's about to launch a big shell at the S.S. Dembski. The tiny speedboat Cordova will try to throw itself in the way, but in the end, both are headed for Davy Jones's Locker.

Steve you prophet.

http://helives.blogspot.com/
It's long, so I won't quote the whole thing.
Quote
The first time Dembski booted me


When Dembski booted me from his blog, he wrote:
David Heddle: I don't like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I'm now booting you from this blog. Goodbye.
Several people asked me to comment on the list from which Dembski booted me prior to banning me from Uncommon Descent. I didn't respond, deciding instead to think about how I could answer carefully. You see, the list asks members not to reveal posts (unless the author grants permission) and not even mention the list by name. I want to respect that.

Simply acknowledging the existence of the list is not revealing anything, especially since Dembski already announced that he threw me off.....

Apparently ID has a fight club.

Date: 2006/10/04 05:25:07, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 04 2006,10:14)
Quote

Several people asked me to comment on the list from which Dembski booted me prior to banning me from Uncommon Descent. I didn't respond, deciding instead to think about how I could answer carefully. You see, the list asks members not to reveal posts (unless the author grants permission) and not even mention the list by name. I want to respect that.


I assume that 'Overwhelming Evidence' is the List That Dare Not Speak Its Name?

I've never seen this, where does Dembski ask people "not to reveal posts (unless the author grants permission) and not even mention the list by name"? What rationale do they give for that?

I assume that's to try to prevent embarrassing shit from coming up in Google searches. Nice.

That's funny that Dembski tells people not to mention it in their blogs, since only pro-ID people would honor that rule, which essentially means that only anti-ID people will mention it. Which will, of course, influence Google searches...

I don't think this is a public site he is talking about.  It sounds like a private site that only pro-ID people get invited to.

Date: 2006/10/04 08:00:41, Link
Author: GCT
Don't forget Sal Cordova, DaveScot, Larry Fafarman, etc.  C'mon, we can't leave those luminaries out.

Date: 2006/10/05 09:14:18, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Shirley Knott @ Oct. 05 2006,13:59)
The ethics are very simple -- highly unethical, but simple:
If it is for the glory of God or the sake of an immortal soul, it is acceptable no matter what other standards of behavior might need to be violated.

Few things in life are more contemptible than Christian attempts at morality -- and how could it be otherwise for a religion explicitly founded on the acceptance of child abuse?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Exactly.

Just ask our resident AFDaveTard.

Date: 2006/10/10 01:15:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 06 2006,15:54)
Heddle was all

Quote
The next time I got into trouble (with the same people as it turns out) on the list was fairly recently, at the beginning of September, but still before Dembski became moderator. Ironically, I got in trouble along with Dembski.


I wonder who was moderating the list before Dembski took over those duties....Who in the ID movement is authorized to publicly (well within a secret society) scold the IDiot Savant of Design Detection?

The Designer was moderating.

Date: 2006/10/10 01:35:30, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2006,20:26)
Yea, and it was good.

"Before I accepted Jeepus...it was like there was an emptiness inside. Once I accepted him, it was like my tank was instantly full. If I didn't have Jeepus, what would stop me from randomly driving over people? Now that I have him, I happily await The Recall, where we will all be whisked through the gates of the Holy Factory.

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.
Many Jeeps will persist in comfortable oblivion about the Junkyard ... until it is too late."

Actually, Carrie Underwood teaches us that Jeeps accepting Jeepus can drive themselves, but their tanks won't be full.

link

Date: 2006/10/13 03:56:03, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23)
No.

Thank you.

Although the fact that he isn't off the deep end in regards to climate change was a nice surprise, his posts in relation to biology are simply annoying.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Date: 2006/10/13 08:02:59, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Oct. 12 2006,07:19)
Quote
Personally, I’ve always been more worried about what’s going to happen when the Maya Calendar expires in 2012.

Link

???

So, is DaveTard saying that Dell intentionally mislead customers into thinking Y2K was a problem so that they could profit off it?

Date: 2006/10/18 01:23:08, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 16 2006,13:26)
Looks like one of ID speeches got cancelled when they realized he would be talking about, well, intelligent design.

I'm not surprised.  What surprises me is that they wanted him to talk at all.  His argument is non-sensical and really just boils down to a god of the gaps argument.  Why the NHAS would want to hear a talk about god of the gaps is beyond me.

Date: 2006/10/18 08:28:54, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 17 2006,10:24)
That retraction will be included in the paper on CSI that Dembksi publishes in a math journal.  IOW, don't hold your breath.

It could happen.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1708#comment-68620

 
Quote
10. William Dembski // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:48 pm

Allen: Pardon me for not being impressed with the threat of having a course “delisted.” As for being willing to argue the evidence and its interpretation, please refer me to any of your writings in which you lay out the positive case for evolution (why you are a believer) and your refutation of ID. URLs will be fine. As for evolutionary theory being so much richer than strict Darwinism, this holds little water with me, especially since most attempted refutations of ID look to the power of natural selection (have a look at my intro to UNCOMMON DISSENT — the book — in which I spell out why Darwinism is the core of evolutionary biology). Oh, please stop the whining about ad hominems — you seem to give as good as you get. Finally, Baylor and I have patched up our differences — I have good colleagues there in a number of departments and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit.

Comment by William Dembski — October 14, 2006 @ 11:48 pm

[emphasis mine]

I expect an impending Waterloo for evolution to be forthcoming.

Edit:  Oops, I hadn't read the whole thread through when I posted.  Keiths beat me to the punch.

Date: 2006/10/19 02:11:03, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 18 2006,09:40)
GCT,

I don't get you. A while ago you came on my blog and we engaged in, if I recall correctly, reasonable discussion. Then you came over here and reported how stupid I was. Then you come back to my blog and complained that I no longer seem to want to debate with you. A while ago you downloaded the church-version of my cosmological ID talk and declared something to the effect that it was "pretty good" or "not bad" and then come here and engage in trash-talk.

Trash talk?  I spoke the truth.  If your talk is nothing but apologetics, which you claim your ID to be, then why would a scientific organization want to have you speak?  Do they need to be saved?

Further, I said the same thing on your blog where you would see it and be able to respond.

I thought your talk was not bad for the good visuals and the fact that you would be speaking to a church.  Apologetics for a church is the correct location.
Quote
Now, why would the NHAS want to schedule my talk in the first place? Well because the officers of the club thought it would be interesting. Not all talks at scientific venues are about hardcore science. Check any seminar or colloquium schedule at any physics department and you'll typically find one or two talks a year that are not hard core science. My talk has to do with cosmology, there is a lot of science in it, especially in the higher-level version—the only thing that makes that part of it not a "real" science talk is that none if it is my research, I'm just reporting it.

That and your apologetics where you say that all this leads to god.
Quote
Secondly, you would have thought that, if they were so sure that my talk was easily refuted rubbish, then for amusement purposes it would have been fun to send me whimpering away in defeat.

Maybe because it isn't worth the time to defeat such easy arguments?
Quote
But to the point—I dispute that you can support your assertion that the cosmological ID I talk about is "God of the Gaps."

And I've pointed out to you many times why you are wrong, but oh yeah, you don't debate me on your own blog, so you just run away every time I point it out.
Quote
"We know a lot about how stars would, to the point where we know it is extremely dependent on the levels of various nuclear excited states and on the instability of Be[8] and also on the ratio of the electromagnetic to gravitational force strength" is either right or wrong, but it is not God of the gaps. And if it is right, my stating that for me it points to a creator is also not "God of the gaps" but a theological conclusion, one that is based on the existence of data, not the absence of data.

It's semantic word games.  "We know a lot about the values of the constants and how they interact.  But, we don't know the why at all.  Well, since we don't know, it must be god."  Hence, god of the gaps.  It's just a different gap.  You can play your little semantic games, but it doesn't change the fact that that is what you are doing.

Oh, and why are you slumming over here?  I thought we were all liars, illogical idiots, and godless PZ worshippers.  I notice you still haven't stepped back from that nice little attack of yours.  How very Xtian of you.

Date: 2006/10/19 02:50:58, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 18 2006,09:42)
[insert expletives here]
I've done some googling, and found that the essay i referred to above is basically an edited version that the numpty produced several years ago.  Contrast this:

Quote
The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.


With:
Quote
Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.


All they've done is remove overt references to the flood etc.  Argh!  Lenny, you are so right.  
This will make writing a letter to the Times about errors in their website rather easy....

OK.  So, if the world is only 6000 years old and horses have gone through all these changes "in kind" then why have we not noticed horses (and other animals) changing so rapidly and so much?

Date: 2006/10/19 03:32:23, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 18 2006,20:05)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 18 2006,20:45)
It's all about the "O"    ;)

(obscure reference to stupid US TV commercial, I'll explain if anyone asks)

The most annoying series of commercials ever.  I don't know why, but they make me feel like I need a shower.

I just hope Zero doesn't offer to show us his "O" face.

Date: 2006/10/19 09:26:02, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,10:10)
Ogee,

Nope. Suppose, after painstaking theoretical analysis from the best theoretical physicists, it was determined that some constant S had to be within .001% of its measured value for life to be possible.

The cosmological ID argument is: if there is just one universe, then it's amazing that the actual value falls in that range.

So, any value that is within .001% would make life possible?  So, a value that is .0005% off of the current value would be OK?  A value that is .0005000001 would also be OK?  Gee, that sort of leaves us an infinite amount of values to choose from.  That doesn't sound like it's too selective to me.

Quote
Note: it says nothing about the source of that value, be it a possibly from a low probability random draw or of unit probability resulting from a fundamental theory. As I have said elsewhere, the fundamental theory that predicts the value of the constants doesn't make it any less remarkable that they fall in the lucky range—in fact it is a more elegant design argument.

Weren't you just bashing Dembski for the same thing?
Quote
You are also wrong about multiple universes not falsifying [not used in a rigorous sense] cosmological ID as I argue for it. If you detect another universe, I would immediately have to stop arguing that the fine tuning of our universe is evidence for design. Clearly the better explanation is that  we just, quite naturally, arose in one of the fertile universes and so we expect ours to look fine tuned. That would be a slam-dunk rebuttal of cosmological ID.

Apart from the fact that you have trouble with the meaning of the word "falsify" weren't you just arguing on your blog that the designer could be an alien from another universe?

Date: 2006/10/20 06:22:14, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,16:35)
GCT,

       
Quote
So, any value that is within .001% would make life possible?  So, a value that is .0005% off of the current value would be OK?  A value that is .0005000001 would also be OK?  Gee, that sort of leaves us an infinite amount of values to choose from.  That doesn't sound like it's too selective to me.


Are you really making that argument? I certainly hope you are joking. If I said that a constant had to be within 1 part in 10^100 of its measured value, would you really argue that "that's not so selective because an infinite number of values could fit in that range.¨  Is that really what you are saying? If so I can hardly believe it.

That's part of the argument.  The other part is that neither you nor I know the restraints of the value at all.  Making a probabilistic argument when you know jack is what is a joke.  One could say that a value of some constant can range between 1 and 100, but it has to be between 1 and 1.00000001 in order to allow life, and that makes it sound like life is rather unlikely.  There are, however, infinite values still allowed in infinite universes where life would be allowed.  To make it even worse, we don't know whether the value is really between 1 and 100 or whether there are limits to the values at all.  Your argument is worthless.

Quote
       
Quote
Weren't you just bashing Dembski for the same thing?


Nope. In either case I say the designer is God. It's just a question of whether he picked the right constants or imposed the fundamental law that produced the constants. What I bashed the IDers for was some combination of  a) calling it science when it isn't b) not doing any science given that you claim it is c) hiding behind the argument that the designer doesn't have to be God--which is hiding behind a technicality and d) using unsavory methods for getting ID into the public schools. And maybe some other things that I don't recall at the moment.

Right, but when you say that the best inference is to Cosmo ID, and that Cosmo ID says nothing about the source of the fine tuning...well, it's basically what Dembski is saying.
Quote
Yes I was saying the designer could be an alien from another universe--that just a special case of saying fine tuning could be explained by multiple universes. Short of the alien announcing himself, it would be the worst possible explanation, because why invoke an alien (or God) when you can just let the large sample size of universes explain why some are fine tuned. In any case, cosmological ID as I preach it is dead. As I'll describe it (for the gazillionth time) fine tuning + one universe --> God designed the universe. Multiple universes negates that argument, and if you find an alien who designed the universe, it would negate it even more brutally.

DH:  Yes, Cosmo ID demands one universe, but it could also be an alien from another universe that did it and Cosmo ID explains that too, and no I don't see the contradiction in that.
Quote
I think you are confused by the different approaches. Biological ID says: the flagellum looks designed so that someone designed it, God or a super alien. Cosmological ID (as I preach it) says: God designed the universe.

Then, why hide behind such things as, "It's the best inference we have based on the evidence."  What you really mean to say is, "I believe in god, therefore I believe god designed the universe."  By shrouding everything in a scientific veneer, you try to give credence to your beliefs, and end up doing the same as Dembski.

Date: 2006/10/25 02:41:07, Link
Author: GCT
Speaking of Dawkins, I got to see him last night at a book signing in DC.  He talked and then took questions.  One questioner asked him about how he explains the complexity of DNA (ugh) and another actually tried to challenge him with Pascal's wager (double ugh).

Anyway, I got him to sign The God Delusion and Unweaving the Rainbow.  I told him that I enjoyed the talk and like his books, but he really lit up when my gf told him that she loves his tie (the one he wore on the Colbert Report actually.)  Apparently his wife painted the tie for him and he was very excited to talk about it.

Date: 2006/10/26 01:43:30, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 26 2006,04:57)
OK, so Dimbski posts a transcript from a book signing with Dawkins, which he purports to be shocked at.  Dawkins, in effect, says that, yes, in a sense if we follow through the logic of determinism, we would have to blame atoms for the the terrible things people do.  BUT, he acknowledges that we feel like we are free, that he doesn't have a philosophical solution to this problem, and it's a contradiction, a grey area, that he just has to live with.

I was at that talk and was rather surprised that Dawkins answered the way he did.  I would have thought that he had heard similar questions before and had thought about it.  Perhaps he has, but meant that he hasn't come to any sort of conclusion.  At least he was honest about it, which is more than WAD can say.

Date: 2006/10/26 05:11:55, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1739#comment-71574

Quote
43. Mats // Oct 26th 2006 at 6:46 am

There are MANY inconsistencies in Dawkins’ world view, and this is just another. He uses “science” and “logic” and “reason” but he fails to explain how is it that his atheistic worldview justifies such abstract imaterial universal concepts. Dr Greg Bahsen showed that clearly in his debate with Dr Stein, some years back.

Comment by Mats — October 26, 2006 @ 6:46 am

Because you can't use rationality unless you irrationally embrace god?

Date: 2006/11/03 05:27:35, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 03 2006,08:26)
Quote
If atheists/scientists/materialists love Darwin so much then why don't they go around executing the weak?

With all the time spent wrecking the careers of IDists and preventing them from doing any ID research (or even submitting any proposals for doing so), where would Darwinists find the time to also execute the weak?  There are only so many days in the materialist week.

Don't forget burnin' churches and spreading ebola.  They don't call us the Church Burnin' Ebola Boys for nothing!

Date: 2006/11/06 04:23:28, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 05 2006,15:38)
It would be a good idea, I think, to compile a "greatest hits" of UD over the last year or so: all the idiocy and cluelessness, all the venom and, above all else, all the naked religiosity.  Before it gets disappeared.  A pamphlet which presented the true face of ID would be a great weapon against "let's just teach the controversy," "There is nothing religious about ID; it is a scientific theory, supported by the scientific arguments of, er, scientists doing science" crap.

I nominate the following:

DaveTard falling for the marines praying hoax.  Also, when he told us all that gravity is the strongest fundamental force.

Dembski accusing others of quote mining him, only to be shown that he did indeed write that which was attributed to him.  Also, when he called DHS on someone.

GilDodgen and Sal for anytime they've said anything about any GA.

And Doug Moron when he told us that Xtians can be intellectually honest because science can't point to or away from god, but atheists must be intellectually dishonest because they must ignore all the science that points to god.

Date: 2006/11/22 12:45:12, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2006,16:31)
Quote
Date: 2005-05-19 14:05:46, Link  
Author: DaveScot
Sorry about multiple postings. I thought maybe the name DaveScot was no longer usable and I'd have to start numbering my incarnations. I thought wrong. Make a note of it. I think that's like the second time since lunch I've been wrong about anything.

I went ahead and fixed that for DaveTard.  I expect he will thank me any minute now....

This does remind me of something though.  I worked in a fast food joint the summer after my freshman year of college just to earn some cash.  I worked with a guy who was a Jehova's Witness and claimed to have an IQ of 198.  He was incapable of admitting error too.  In fact, he thought that with an IQ of 198 that it was only possible for him to be wrong on anything twice in his whole life.  The parallels are striking.

Date: 2006/11/22 12:54:03, Link
Author: GCT
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006....ws.html

Yup, the DI just picked up Larry Caldwell to write complaints for them.  Awesome.

Date: 2006/11/30 05:45:12, Link
Author: GCT
How dare those gubmint bastards throw Hovind in jail.  The Founding Fathers didn't pay taxes.  Just because the Founding Fathers actually had a grievance about government representation and Hovind is just trying to fleece the rest of us so that he can be rich doesn't make a difference.  This man is being persecuted like all good Xtians in this atheistic government.

And, how can you say that Hovind is a danger to anyone?  Just because he has a cache of guns larger than some militias that had to be confiscated doesn't mean he is at all dangerous.  Just because this situation might turn into the next Branch Dividian if he's allowed out doesn't mean he is at all dangerous.  More persecution!!!!!11111!!!11

Date: 2006/11/30 12:14:35, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 30 2006,12:03)
From the Tards that braught you "Activist Judges!":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1823



Quote
Wikipedia Hatchet Jobs on ID Leaders
by DaveScot on November 30th, 2006 · No Comments

Oh yeah, I saw those materialist wikipedia guys and the secret "athiest" conspiracy cabal last night.  They love Sternberging IDers.

Date: 2006/12/10 13:21:53, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,12:21)
News flash: Atheists don't give away their money. Atheists don't believe in charity. We're a bunch of horrible monsters.

Got that? Write it down! :angry:

Oh, so maybe I should cancel my trip to Goodwill that I had scheduled for today.

Quote
So why don't they line us up against a wall and shoot us already?

I hereby take my leave of this thread, because I have no further interest in visiting UD or reading what they have to say. I don't need their crap. Besides, I have a final to work on.

Just unbelieveable. If I want emotional abuse I'll move back to good old North St. Paul.

See you guys.


The trick is to not get mad at their inanity.  The trick is to laugh at the foolishness that gets displayed.  To laugh at the sheer utter tard that spews forth from them, and realize that they don't even know how tardalicious they are being!  That just makes it all the better.

Date: 2006/12/12 22:05:11, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Jake @ Dec. 12 2006,10:41)
Recently Ive noticed more and more that the ID crowd have basically stopped producing new mathematical models, critiques of evolution etc., and have focussed more and more upon selling the ones they already have. In this respect they remind me very much of the YECs. Once a critique has been written, no matter how bad it is and how quickly is is evicerated, that critique is considered unimpeachable and totally correct in all but perhaps very minor respects. Criticism is all but ignored.

I reckon they feel they have all the arguments they need by now, and simply have to keep repeating them until people finally get it.

Wait.  ID had new critiques of evolution?  When did this happen?

In all reality, the idea has always been that they have all the arguments they need (all the old Creationist arguments) and they just have to keep repeating them.  It's been their whole schtick from the beginning.

Date: 2006/12/12 22:15:46, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2006,15:34)
Quote (GCT @ Dec. 10 2006,13:21)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,12:21)
News flash: Atheists don't give away their money. Atheists don't believe in charity. We're a bunch of horrible monsters.

Got that? Write it down! :angry:

Oh, so maybe I should cancel my trip to Goodwill that I had scheduled for today.



Because the stingy atheists didn't donate clothes for you to buy, eh?  :)

Well, the lord don't bless us disbelievin' atheists with wealth, so we gots ta gets by somehow.  I guess that since I don't believe in the lord, maybe I should just go out and steal what I need....and burn a church too, right?  Church Burnin' Ebola Boys (and Girls) unite!

Date: 2006/12/13 14:25:44, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 12 2006,23:47)
If I mix tofu and chicken, am I safe...?

I think you are safe regardless.  For the rest of us, we might want to have steak...rare....as bloody as possible.  Now that's manly food.

Date: 2006/12/19 08:29:45, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 14 2006,12:02)
P.S. GCT,

   
Quote
For the rest of us, we might want to have steak...rare....as bloody as possible.  Now that's manly food.


I have questions:

If we get the steak and rub it on the soy protein does that make us bisexual?

I think the steak is there to counteract the gayness.  Bisexuals are clearly sexual deviants that choose to be different simply because they want to rebel.

 
Quote
Does having two school bags make me bisatchel?

Hmmm, that's a tough one.  I think it depends on how you wear them and if they are color co-ordinated to your outfit or not.

 
Quote
Or if a reigning monarch has two advisors does that make them bisenechal?


No, I think it makes him an anti-semite. :p

Date: 2006/12/27 18:18:18, Link
Author: GCT
I think we should call Bill O'Lielly and alert him to this problem.

Date: 2006/12/27 19:03:15, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 27 2006,17:29)
Next time, Christmas harpy will *fart*. If that's what they want.
But what those jokers really deserve is an SBD*, and I don't know how to pull that one off.  :D

*delivered anonymously by definition

Or you could have sent this poem:

Quote
About Farts.....
A fart can be quiet,
A fart can be loud,
Some leave a powerful,
Poisonous cloud

A fart can be short,
Or a fart can be long,
Some farts have been known
To sound like a song.....

A fart can create
A most curious medley,
A fart can be harmless,
Or silent, and deadly.

A fart might not smell,
While others are vile,
A fart may pass quickly,
Or linger a while......

A fart can occur
In a number of places,
And leave everyone there,
With strange looks on their faces

From wide-open prairie,
To small elevators,
A fart will find all of
Us sooner or later.

But farts are all bad,
Is simply not true-
We must not forget.......
Sweet old farts like you!


[ripped off a joke listserv]

Date: 2006/12/30 17:16:54, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 30 2006,14:25)
Quote (phonon @ Dec. 30 2006,13:59)
Then Cordova seems to have let that one in one ear and out the other. Must have had a banana in it.

Wait.  I thought the banana was designed to fit in the hand...

Has anyone else ever thought that the whole banana in the hand was really an argument born from wanking?

Date: 2006/12/30 17:59:26, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 30 2006,17:32)
Quote
Argumentum ad masturbatum?

That would be spanking the monkey.  Which surely involves a banana.

Creo-bots have hands that fit around bananas, almost like they were designed that way.  So, I guess creo-bots are a bunch of wankers?

Date: 2006/12/30 19:28:08, Link
Author: GCT
Quote
Dembski predicted in April 2006 that evolution would be dead in ten years. I keep a countdown at my blog.


That's actually a step backward for him.  He's been talking about how evolution has already met its Waterloo for years now.  (Hence the ABBA jokes that arise from time to time.)

Date: 2006/12/31 07:59:31, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 31 2006,05:12)
Meanwhile, over at overwhelmingevidence

 
Quote
I think we also need to start from established facts, and not as the evolutionists do with their wild conjecture: For example, we know that Noah was able to resuce two of every kind of land-animal that existed at the time and that all these kinds of animals produced the species we have today.

Thanks for helping me start the day off with a great laugh.  I'm glad I wasn't eating breakfast when I read that though, else I might need a new computer.

Date: 2006/12/31 08:06:14, Link
Author: GCT
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 31 2006,01:56)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 30 2006,23:20)
As a result of this undeserved regeneration, he now understands the Bible in a way that is inaccessible to us, the unchosen.

How the #### does Heddle know that he's one of the Chosen Ones, anyway?  Did God mail him an advance prepaid ticket to Heaven, or something?

Or is Heddle just arrogant, self-righteous, pride-filled and holier-than-thou (literally) enough to simply assume that he MUST be one of the Chosen Ones, since he is so, ya know, holy and all . . . .?

Don't get him started on his ability to determine who is and is not a true Christian.  Apparently, he has the magical ability to hold forth on that topic, and pronounce anyone as not a True Christian.  And, when you point out the No True Scotsman, he has the magical ability to point out that it's not true since he really can tell who is a Christian and who isn't, since some obscure passage of the Bible shows the apostles rebuking some guy for trying to buy the gift of god.  (Acts 8)

Yeah, if ya'll figure that one out, let me know.

Date: 2007/01/01 09:12:51, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (heddle @ Jan. 01 2007,08:11)
GCT,

I’m sure it doesn’t matter to you, but by opinion of you has degraded from one of the more interesting critics to perhaps the most dishonest. There is nothing on the thread to which you refer that remotely sates that I claim to be able to tell who is a true Christian.

Bullsh*t.  You claim to be able to tell if Fred Phelps is a "True Christian."

Quote
When anyone: I, the church, or any other Christian states: X is not a Christian--in spite of his claim to the contrary what is being stated is that it is by our actions that we are to be known, and your actions (e.g., Fred Phelps) are so contrary to Christ's teachings as I/we understand them, that, as instructed by the bible in such cases, we will treat you as a non Christian.


Translation:  Even though I just said I can't tell who is a true Christian, I can.  Nevermind the fact that it is all based on my ad hoc definition and my personal interpretation of scripture.

Quote
No, I don’t claim to be able to tell who is a true Christian. What I claimed was: we are instructed to judge people by their fruit, and if there is no evidence and especially (as in the case of Fred Phelps) there is counter evidence, then treat them as if they were not Christians. This is what excommunication, a practice with crystal clear biblical support, is all about.


First off, quit contradicting yourself.  Second, it is only by your very possibly faulty interpretation that Phelps is not acting in a "Christian way" as defined by your interpretation.  It's circular logic at its finest.  Last, do you have the ability to excommunicate?

Quote
In the Corinthian Church (1 Cor 6) there was a man sleeping with his father's wife (his step mother, it appears.) Paul instructed, by letter--excommunicate him. He wrote: "And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present." It wouldn't matter if the man claimed: "But I am a Christian--this makes us happy and I'm sure God wants us to be happy! I am a Christian!"

For disobeying a cut and dried letter of the law.  Does it mean that the person wasn't a True Christian?  It just means that he was cast from the Church, but it doesn't touch on what he had in his heart.  If everyone who broke some law (sinned) were cast from the Church, there would be no Christians left.

Quote
And, by the way, Paul didn't add: "And only I, as an apostle, can make this sort of judgment." On the contrary, he scolded the church for not having already acted on their own.

I'm sure GCT would have spoken up for this man: he claims to be a Christian, who are we to state otherwise?

I would certainly wonder how anyone could tell what what was in his heart if they claimed to have that ability.

Quote
On that basis I claim that Fred Phelps (our example) is not a Christian, and should he not repent I fully expect that he’ll rot forever in he77. But I could be wrong, as I stated in that thread. However, based on biblical instruction, I am going to treat him as a non-Christian until such time he demonstrates the fruits of the faith he claims.


Or until he acts as you self-righteously know he is supposed to act based on your self-evidently correct interpretation of the Bible.

Quote
Of course, the real problem here is not that you’re offended that I don’t think Phelps is a Christian; the real problem is that it is so convenient to have Phelps labeled as a Christian—so much easier for you to attack Christianity if its representatives include Phelps.

And you have it completely backwards.  You are embarrassed of Phelps, so you try to dissociate yourself from him instead of dealing with the problem.  If you are unhappy with his actions, why don't you do something about them, instead of just trying to disown him and wipe your hands clean?

Quote
Tell me, if a moderate Moslem were to say that the 9/11 terrorists were not “true Moslems” would you charge him with the “True Scotsman” Fallacy?

Yes.

Quote
Will you go on record that the 9/11 terrorists are just as much "true Moslems" as any other person claiming that faith?

I will go on record as saying that I think it is a logical fallacy for Muslims to simply try to disown the 9/11 attackers.

Quote
I’ll reuse the True Scotsman vignette from that threat: [snipped for brevity and to save some of Mr. Heddle's dignity]

And, I'll repeat that that is a straw man.  That is not my argument, that is not the sense that I use the No True Scotsman fallacy, and that scenario has never even come close to happening.  And, you dare to call me the dishonest one here?  You might want to check out the log in your eye before trying to remove the splinter in mine.

Date: 2007/01/01 20:12:46, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 01 2007,15:42)
(Also, "What would we see if Uncommonly Denyse was shrunk to the size of a paramecium?)

She would gain tremendous strength proportional to her body, and would become queen of the parameciums.  She would then get them to do her bidding and help her overthrow evilution.  However, her inability to be clear on any topic would confuse the parameciums, and the carnage would be great.  They would have trouble picking out the atheist scientists from the True Christian scientists and there would be huge losses on both sides.  But, the Telic Entity that can not be named would step in and we would finally see evilutions Waterloo.

Of course, the irony is that if evilution were right, we would be able to change her into a paramecium and set these things in motion.  So, because we can't do that, evilution has already met its Waterloo.

USA!  USA!  USA!  (fart)

Yeah, and your mom farted while I was on her last night homo - DT [fart]

Date: 2007/01/02 19:17:49, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 02 2007,18:41)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2007,15:17)
It's because we're sexier.


MUCH SEXIER

Not you though, Arden.

That's not what your mom said last night.

And the night before that, and the night before that, and the night before that...

Well. You get the idea.

Now, if you'll excuse me, there's uh, someone I have to see. Back tomorrow morning.

(You homo.)

:angry:

PS: HAWT!

Arden,
You forgot that a proper comeback must have a fart in it.

(fart)

Date: 2007/01/08 17:49:57, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 08 2007,07:33)
Does Davetard even think before he posts? Or is he just pleased to see his magnificent words all neatly typed on the screen?

150 IQ my asss.  :p

He just likes violating SLOT I guess.

Date: 2007/01/08 19:35:52, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (lkeithlu @ Jan. 08 2007,17:53)
On the other hand, will someone teach me how to put quotes in the cute little boxes?  
:p

The easiest way if you are quoting someone is to go to their comment and look in the upper right.  There should be a "quote" button.  Click and enjoy.

Date: 2007/01/09 16:38:49, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (lkeithlu @ Jan. 08 2007,21:14)
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 08 2007,19:35)
 
Quote (lkeithlu @ Jan. 08 2007,17:53)
On the other hand, will someone teach me how to put quotes in the cute little boxes?  
:p

The easiest way if you are quoting someone is to go to their comment and look in the upper right.  There should be a "quote" button.  Click and enjoy.

Like this? I can't see it in the preview, but I hope it comes out right. Thanks for the help!

No problem.  Glad to be of service.

Date: 2007/01/12 16:57:39, Link
Author: GCT
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2007,16:49)
Mentok's mentalist diatribe:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1948#comment-85184

Here's the bit I like:

 
Quote
Schools are not just about education, they are also about indoctrination.


YES! Indoctrinating with fact