AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: IanBrown_101

form_srcid: IanBrown_101

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.138.180

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: IanBrown_101

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 'IanBrown_101%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/04/18 06:47:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Well I first became aware of the ID/Creationism movement because of my studying politics. By reading the works of american political commentators, and browsing the web to research, I discovered that there was a strange movement who seemed to out and out reject science.

However I only really started getting interested when, in my love of all things totally insane, I discovered Crank.net, and began my browsing of the Talk.Origins website (although my internet supplied by the university wouldn't let me join the actual newsgroup, for some reason), and from there to Panda's Thumb, then on to here.

I've been browsing here for a few months now, without joining up, and decided that a lot of lurking might enable me to learn a few things, as well as discover the do's and don'ts of AtBC. I am, sadly only an interested layman, but one who is curious to learn more about ID before it sinks into the mire completely.

Date: 2007/04/18 06:55:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (guthrie @ April 18 2007,06:53)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 18 2007,06:47)
as well as discover the do's and don'ts of AtBC.

Do's:  
Make fun of clueless creationists

Dont's:
Randomly insult people and use pages of swear words.

I also noticed:

Don't:Try to engage a creationist in a real debate. They aren't interested

Date: 2007/04/18 06:59:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I'm aiming for a BScEcon in International politics, but sadly my current level is only A-Levels. I presume that's US High School equivalent?

Date: 2007/04/18 16:47:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I'm just surprised he hasn't accused the shooter of being an atheist, since an agnostic like him just knows we're all evil mass murderers who worship the twin gods of Darwin and Dawkins.

Date: 2007/04/18 17:05:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 18 2007,16:55)
Quote (Faylen @ April 18 2007,16:53)
Hey, if Debbie Schlussel can continue to assert a muslim terrorist connection despite the evidence, imagine how much easier it must be for the UD crowd.

That and soccer and MJ...

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2005/06/michael_jackson.html

Wow, I never knew that my love of football meant I hated the US and all of the population. My eyes are opened and now I can see! Praise the LORD!

Date: 2007/04/18 17:31:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 18 2007,17:28)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 18 2007,16:47)
I'm just surprised he hasn't accused the shooter of being an atheist, since an agnostic like him just knows we're all evil mass murderers who worship the twin gods of Darwin and Dawkins.

He'd be surprised to know that the shooter's family belonged to a conservative Christian Korean church.  NPR did a story about the Korean community in the young man's hometown.

Ah, but they clearly weren't REAL christians. You should remember that he knows EXACTLY who is and isn't a Christian, being an agnostic and all...

Date: 2007/04/19 08:08:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (argystokes @ April 19 2007,00:15)
Quote
But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters.  

Hmmm...

Yep, growing like gangbusters all right.

Anyone else notice the Similarity?

Date: 2007/04/20 21:05:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

And, for the record, the problem I have with the global warming movement is the hysteria and the utter lack of perspective.

Just what "Lunatic left" do you see?

I am correct in saying you come from the US, yes?

If this is incorrect I do appologise, but if it IS correct may I inform you there IS no left in the US at all. Just varying shades of the right wing and a few centralists who get branded as "Left" because everything else is so skewed.

Sure, there's one or two leftists in the legislature, and a small number within the electorate, but they have sod all voice, because anything even SLIGHTLY approaching REAL left wing politics is shouted down as being communistic. As a student of international politics I've studied US policy in detail, and the closest thing you EVER had to a left winger since the second world war was JFK, and he got shot.

Date: 2007/04/21 04:26:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,22:29)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 20 2007,21:05)
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

And, for the record, the problem I have with the global warming movement is the hysteria and the utter lack of perspective.

Just what "Lunatic left" do you see?

I am correct in saying you come from the US, yes?

If this is incorrect I do appologise, but if it IS correct may I inform you there IS no left in the US at all. Just varying shades of the right wing and a few centralists who get branded as "Left" because everything else is so skewed.

Sure, there's one or two leftists in the legislature, and a small number within the electorate, but they have sod all voice, because anything even SLIGHTLY approaching REAL left wing politics is shouted down as being communistic. As a student of international politics I've studied US policy in detail, and the closest thing you EVER had to a left winger since the second world war was JFK, and he got shot.

You and Lenny should have a wonderful conversation.  Just to be clear, though, today JFK would be a centrist republican not a lefty.

That's my point exactly.

Anyway, tell me how many years you've taken to studying American politics, please. I'm fascinated to hear it.

In the UK we have a political philosophy called Socialism. I spoke to a fair few of my friends across the pond about this and virtually all of them said it was just communism under another name. ####, one person I spoke to said the NHS was communistic. Anything even remotely left is considered "Liberal" even though thats a severe abuse of the word, and the politicians who say they are liberal are mostly fence sitters, or come from places where the right wing is really, really weak.

Date: 2007/04/21 06:14:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (guthrie @ April 21 2007,05:00)
Ian, I doubt you can call yourself a liberal commie in your sig- the two positions are mutually exclusive.

Thats the point. I've taken the insults that get thrown at left wingers like myself to the extreme.

Date: 2007/04/21 06:19:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 21 2007,05:04)
Quote (skeptic @ April 20 2007,20:36)
Lenny, I always find it amusing when I listen to your rant because in my world the threat to personal freedoms and individual autonomy comes from the lunatic left.  How ironic.

Just a quick question for you, "Skeptic":

To the nearest one hundred, how many people have the, uh, "lunatic left" in the US imprisoned indefinitely without charges, without habeus corpus, without judicial review, based on secret evidence obtained through torture?

Now now Lenny, that's a LIE created by the commies who run the media (apart from good ol' Fox) in the fair country of the US of A, where everyone is happy and there's no undercurrent of xenophobia or anti-left wing sentiment AT ALL.



Too much sarcasm?

Date: 2007/04/22 08:06:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Let's play a little game. It's called "would the Germans have overrun the UK had it not been for the US?"

Simply answer the question to see if you win a special prize!

Date: 2007/04/22 08:11:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,00:52)
Quote (stevestory @ April 21 2007,23:15)
Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2007,12:25)
Steve, you're kidding, right?  Kicking this to the wall?  Certainly seems to be different standards being applied here.

Referring to some people here as 'you raving morons' violates the respectfulness requirement. Pretty cut and dried.

If someone's doing that to you, you're welcome to send me a PM alerting me to the offense.

"Raving morons" is a term of endearment and a statement of the philosophical stance.  "Morons" reflects the blind regurgitation of unsubstantiated data to support this "raving" hysteria.

"Moron (psychology), a psychology-related term for a person with a genetically determined mental age between 8 and 12"

Gee thanks Skeptic, I'll have to remember to pay you a kind compliment as well.

Date: 2007/04/22 08:41:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Sadly Lenny, your guess was, I believe, wrong. A few Americans who didn't like the stace of the US at the time joined volunteer fighter corps, and flew in a number of mission defending British soil, along with Poles, Norwegians, French and many other nations who had been overrun.

But in essentials, you were right, so you're prize is...getting to make fun of Skeptic some more.

Date: 2007/04/22 21:50:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2007,19:51)
The question is whether "In God we trust" constitutes establishment.  I will say no and I assume most here will say yes.  What a shock.

I don't know how tolerated these are, but here goes.

Date: 2007/04/25 07:19:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
What about the democratic socialists Lenny?

Date: 2007/04/26 00:55:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I think he should be invited here. Who needs to go anywhere else when the stupid comes to you?

Date: 2007/04/27 20:14:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Fir gods sake all these bad tree puns have got to stop!

Date: 2007/04/28 09:28:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Personally I can't wait to get to 12, 14 and 19.

Date: 2007/04/28 14:14:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 28 2007,10:20)
IanBrown_101:

 
Quote
Personally I can't wait to get to 12, 14 and 19.


Yeah, I'm enjoying Skeptic's side debate with Lenny and even <gasp> Louis.

I just wish that whoever Lenny's quoting from would trim an adverb here and there. "Warned ominously"? Author also seems attached to the "learned said", which drives creative writing teachers nuts.

So what's your background? Just curious.

What mine?

Well in science I have a Biology A-level, and after that it's pretty much a casual interest that's been present throughout my life.

In regards to my self as a person, I used to be a christian (not a fundie by any stretch, nor even a regular church goer) and even went to sunday school. After a while I began questioning my faith and sice then have become an atheist, and am very happy with my outlook, which isn't a religion, nor  does it have any special warm fuzzy feeling for me. It's just how I see the world. I'm currently at university studying for a BScEcon in International Politics.

Date: 2007/04/29 22:46:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ April 29 2007,22:03)
The problem with the term Postmodern is like the problem with all superlative names. If you call something New Technology, what do you call its replacement, years hence? I think an example I saw was Supercollider. What do you call its successor? Ultracollider? What about the Ultracollider's successor? You run out of superlatives pretty quickly.

And this whole thing about postmodernism and moral relativity is basically a fiction sold to people who haven't been inside a classroom lately. Because if you have been, it's kind of hard to believe that professors are all value-neutral hippies commanding students to just do what feels right. I graduated college in 2005, and I can't recall one instance of a professor taking an absurdly nonjudgemental position. It's just a political move, smearing whole institutions with the occasional whacko news story.

Now, are you saying that the prevalence of postmodernism and moral relativity is the fiction, or do I have the wrong end of the stick?

Oh, ad what's wrong with moral relativism? (Not that I'm accusing you of attacking it)

Date: 2007/05/01 22:16:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 01 2007,20:18)
DS and FtK reinforce each other's scientifically-based opinions about global warming, after Dave notes that April was unseasonably cool in his part of the galaxy.

He needs to get out more, perhaps head to (gasp) France, or England, where ScienceDaily reports that April was the warmest on record in northern Europe, based on weather records dating back 350 years...

Of course, gathering actual data beyond the end of his nose would be completely out of character for DS, and FtK probably is still wondering how to spell "piranha", so her research efforts are being employed elsewhere.

Here in Wales it's been ridiculously hot for ages. We had a period of cold damp weather (about a week) just after a month of unseasoable heat, and it's getting hot again. Has been for the past week or so.

Date: 2007/05/02 23:47:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ May 02 2007,22:04)
I don't think we can lay the Divine Right of Kings at the feet of Christian Europe as it certainly predates that in concept at least back to ancient Egypt and maybe before.

I'm just curious as to how this helps your point, or damages Louis' for that matter.

Date: 2007/05/04 21:34:36, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 04 2007,21:30)
Quote
Rupert Murdoch bought MySpace and is positioning himself for the Wall Street Journal, but who owns him? Anyone?


hmm, that's a good question, actually.

who is behind the mass media conglomeration that's been happening over the last 20 years?

Is it really all just a reflection of the conglomeration that's been happening across the board, or is there something else going on?

I thought about this for a while, and really can't see any particular group or individual behind it, which suggests it might indeed just be reflective of the way profits are being generated through consolidation over the last decade or so.

the biases in the media were always there, they just become more obvious as fewer and fewer companies are involved.

that was my conclusion, anyway.

Don't you kow? It's those damn atheist Jews in the Illuminati trying to form a New World Order to supress all us god fearin' Jesus lovers.

It's all a conspiricy....

Date: 2007/05/08 23:52:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 08 2007,19:49)
2) What's this crap with me paying your way? You lefties....always looking for a handout. Be a man and do it your own damn self. Trust me, you'll feel better in the long run -- it's called tough love for a reason.

COMING SOON to a Paley near you:

MORE imbecilic politically motivated trolling.


Why oh why is he not yet banned?

Date: 2007/05/09 23:33:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,22:57)
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,21:26)
 
Quote
But it is abundantly clear that none of what is said here has ever had the slightest effect on him...


There you go again...there is no one more informed than myself and my sciency buddies.  Everyone must conform, or we write them off as ignorant loons.  They simply don't listen....screw 'em.

That approach isn't going to get ya anywhere, Dave.

I think people like you and Dave Scot are the ones who most urgently need to 'get somewhere'.

A quick lesson, FTK: knowledge is meaningful. Being well informed is BETTER than being ill-informed. A person who is educated about a subject KNOWS MORE ABOUT IT than a person who is not educated about that subject. The opinions of ignorant people are WORTH LESS than the opinions of informed people. Not all views are valid -- some views (most) are just flatass wrong. And no amount of whining about people being 'mean' or having 'bad attitudes is going to somehow make ignorance as good thing, or make ignorance as good as being knowledgeable.

It's really pathetic that you claim to know what's good for school children and yet you don't understand this.

I think "scary" is a better word than "pathetic" to be honest.

If some whacko came up to me offering to teach my (hypothetical) kids that the stars are pots of jam stuck on a black tablecloth, and the evidence he had amounted to:
"I don't agree they're balls of gas, the jam theory is just OBVIOUS"
I'd probably kick his sorry arse back to the loony bin from whence he came.

Ftk, I seriously don't understand how you think that you are in any way qualified to judge what is science and what isn't. I know I'M not qualified, and as far as I can tell I know as much (if not, as I suspect, more) than you do. I'm merely an interested outsider on the side of science against irrational celebration of ignorance.

Date: 2007/05/10 22:53:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, I'll bite. WHAT historical accuracies are thrown away by some theistic evolutionists?

Date: 2007/05/10 23:17:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,23:02)
Well, that would depend on the TE.  They all believe different things from what I can tell.

Fr'instance...Some believe that Adam and Eve are figurative characters who lend to a moral lesson for readers, yet biblical geneologies include these figures as historical as does Josephus in his accounts.

There are lots of little issues like this to consider.

So, basically, they aren't ignoring historical accuracies, they're deciding which bits the Bible says are historical are correct or not.

Ergo, they don't ignore anything historical.

Ergo, what you said was either badly phrased, or total claptrap.

Date: 2007/05/10 23:55:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,23:09)
Quote
yes, he is, but just as usual, you purposefully miss it.


Elaborate....how is he making his point?   What is Ahmanson up to?  Solid evidence please.

I think my brain just melted.

Date: 2007/05/11 00:00:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,23:59)
Quote
I think my brain just melted.


Sorry to be the cause of that, but I just don't think that a donation is enough to create a evil Christian reign of terror.

Ignoring the grammatical error, what the hell does that sentance actually MEAN?

EDIT: Oh, no sorry. My brain melted at the thought of you insisting upon evidence. The irony was too much for it.

Date: 2007/05/27 01:08:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 26 2007,23:06)
it would have been an ugly situation to be in, with the Red Army parked on the English Channel.

Considering the British Africa campaign (eventually) gained ground and forced back the Africa Korps without the help of the US, it isn't really feasible to say the Red Army would have been on the channel. Closer, yes, but on the border? I don't think so.

Unless you refer to non military involvement by the US, in which case we would have been fucked.

Date: 2007/05/27 12:33:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101


[edit: With many thanks to GCT for the idea]

Date: 2007/05/27 12:44:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 27 2007,02:15)
without those supplies, England would have been in trouble.

Please stop saying England, it gives the wrong impression.

Date: 2007/06/10 06:10:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,00:05)
Sigh...creationists do conduct experiments, research, and make valid predictions in which some have been confirmed.

Oh please, say you have some evidence for this, and then say you'll show us, please?

Unless I'm missing something, this isn't possible, since they cannot make ANY predictions.

NOTE: It's only valid if the evidence is in some area pertinent to the evo/creo debate, especially biology.

Date: 2007/06/10 18:55:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,18:30)
FTK needs to realize that ANY theory purporting to better explain extant and historical variability and speciation MUST include a mechanism, otherwise there is nothing to test.


if you want to propose:  goddidit as the mechanism, then you have do define exactly HOW goddidit.  If you propose a designer to be god, you have to explain the mind of god, basically.

Don't you see you secularist closed minded fool?! The mechanism is DESIGN!

Date: 2007/06/10 19:53:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,19:26)
Quote
 How in the heck do you know that?  


150 years of observation of lack of advancement on the creationists' part?

But FTK says creationists have made actual predictions, and performed experiments that showed those predictions to be correct, she said so.

Surely FtK, such an upstanding bastion of truth and knowledge wouldn't make that up? So come FtK, provide us with these creationists, their predictions, and the subsequent experiments.

Date: 2007/06/11 09:13:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I'm afraid I may start to sound like Lenny here, but FtK, you DID insist that creationists had done some research based on predictions they made.

Please, enlighten me, a humble layman with a reasonable science education. What predictions, and what research?

Date: 2007/06/11 20:02:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 11 2007,09:13)
I'm afraid I may start to sound like Lenny here, but FtK, you DID insist that creationists had done some research based on predictions they made.

Please, enlighten me, a humble layman with a reasonable science education. What predictions, and what research?

Now, if I'm stepping on anyones toes, or acting out of line, like the proverbial loose cannon, please tell me, but I simply can't wait for an answer to these simple questions, and gosh darn it, I don't have them.

So put up FtK, dazzle me with the science of Gish, or some other creationist "luminary".

Date: 2007/06/12 13:07:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ June 12 2007,12:59)
Quote

Davison has been very banned. I am not privy to exactly why, and haven't asked, but I would guess the answer is something like "relentless insanity".


And I guess the problem is John Davison's concept of prescribed evolution you are so afraid of. An idea of directed evolution is something darwinists hate at most. They somehow feel deep inside that mystery of life can't be an outcome of random mutation&natural selection. To supress their conscience they only  bawl as if at a football match. Yet darwinists have no arguments - see this thread  or One blog a day where John is participating.

It is also weird that folks here mentioned insanity. It looks here like in a cage of fools. Many of darwinists are probably ventilating here their atheistic frustration from their senseless life.

Also the literary surrealistic woman dividing her time between oriental dancing and neodarwinism is a curious case.

So I would reccomend that John Davison should be let in, becasue his opinions are sound and his concept of evolution shed light on evolutionary process.

Oh, run along and play child.

I say child because of how simplistic and, I have to say, silly, your arguments are.

Another thing dawns on me, WHAT exactly is wrong with being an atheist?

Date: 2007/06/12 15:52:29, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ June 12 2007,15:41)
Quote

And since that was a moderation decision, further discussion of it here can be considered excessively annoying immediately. If you think you have the extraordinary evidence in hand, communicate that via PM or email, not in discussion threads.


This is really very interesting. The name and topic of this thread is as far as I see  

Topic: JAD was banned again from UD..., Can we let him post here again?


So what is this topic about?  Does "Can we let him post here again" mean in neodarwinian newspeak that any darwinists here can denigrate John Davison whenever he likes but adressing the topic itself is somehow excessively annoying ? And must be adressed via PM or email, not in this discussion thread ?

The thread is old, and the decision was made a good while ago. A few people have ventured that he should be allowed back since then, but the moderators banned him for a reason, and he's not coming back.

Date: 2007/06/15 10:54:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (BWE @ June 15 2007,10:43)
Have you actually read Kipling? How about "The Butterfly Who Stamped"?

You keep using that phrase. *Cue Inigo*

"You keep-a sayin' that word. I don't think it means what-a you think it means"




Of course, FtK thinks that's;


"absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable!"

Date: 2007/06/15 10:59:03, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 14 2007,12:47)

Now THAT is magic.

Date: 2007/06/18 05:10:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Not A Monkey @ May 29 2007,08:14)
I am curious to know what you feel about Young Earth Creationism.

I personally think that any consideration that leads us away from the literal word of the Bible is a form of satanism.

Why is your bible the right one? How can you be so sure it's correct?

Why shouldn't we all believe in Wotan and Thor instead?

Date: 2007/06/19 04:15:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Henry J @ June 18 2007,22:41)
Re "Why shouldn't we all believe in Wotan and Thor instead?"

If Xena didn't kill them off too while she was doing in most of the Greek Gods...

Henry

Too true. Although I reckon Hercules and Iolaus might have stopped her.

Date: 2007/06/19 10:43:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 19 2007,07:34)
Quote

It met its designed end Nov 26 last year, 2:06 am.


That page says "1996".

Where do you get your time-warps from?

Date: 2007/06/21 19:17:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ah, straight to hell. Still, I hear the barbeque is good there.

Date: 2007/06/21 19:24:04, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Steverino @ June 21 2007,19:21)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 21 2007,19:17)
Ah, straight to hell. Still, I hear the barbeque is good there.

I hear they make a bitchin hot sauce there!

Not much beats some good barbequed food and hot sauce.

I loved the "do you care?" question I got when I got told I was going to hell.

Date: 2007/06/22 18:58:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ June 22 2007,18:45)
You guys seem threatened by a movie.  Why?

Oooh, he ALMOST had it!

Well no, he didn't.

Unless I'm being completely insane here, I'm thinking this is less be threatened, and more thinking it looks like it sucks.

Sorry skep, no speedboat for YOU.

Date: 2007/06/22 19:24:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I simply can't let this slide into oblivion, as FtK has SO many questions I'm sure she'll be RARING to answer.

Date: 2007/06/23 05:24:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2007,23:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 22 2007,19:24)
I simply can't let this slide into oblivion, as FtK has SO many questions I'm sure she'll be RARING to answer.

I think FtK is trying very hard to ignore us...

Of course she is, but if she ever comes back here, she'll always have these questions waiting just so we can remind her what a lying disingenuous person she is.

Date: 2007/06/23 10:03:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Date: 2007/06/23 11:32:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,11:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,10:03)
I wouldn't mind hearing about those creationists who made predictions then found them to be true as well, if you have time.

Ian,

Start with this link.  I believe the index will take you to predictions.  I don't have the time or the patience to discuss this issue with you because irregardless of what I point out, you will reject it without even reading or considering it thoroughly.  You're mind is already set.

Gotta go...kids are hollering.

Can't find any.

I find some predictions that it says that evolution makes, and then asserts that they are not true, and I find some predictions of something called hydroplate theory, which I believe is something to do with the flood. Other than that I find no evidence for any predictions, which I find...odd, since they claim predictions have to be made.

Maybe I'm just not looking.

Oh, and by the way, I do not like how you assume that I will instantly dismiss everything without looking, my name is NOT Behe. If someone can produce a good case for ANYTHING then I will listen. I listen to the cases of people who's ideas are diametrically opposed to mine a lot, it's called discussion, but in order to consider these points of view I do require evidence, for which I have seen none even remotely presented for any biblical literalism.

If you showed me a model for the flood that not only expects one or two things that could exist even without the flood, AND deals with how Noah et al weren't boiled alive, or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out I might regard them as being something other than a ridiculous notion dreamed up by people who are afraid of the slightest possibility they could be wrong.

Date: 2007/06/23 17:01:36, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Henry J @ June 23 2007,15:48)
Ian,
Re "or even how the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and various others somehow didnt have their civilisations damaged by being totally wiped out"

Picky, picky, picky... :p

Oh, I know, I should just take it on faith, right?

Date: 2007/06/23 18:10:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,17:27)
As far as ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., I did consider that issue as well and I remember looking into the “problem” and wrote something about it at KCFS eons ago, but again...lost in memory.  I’ll try to find the link if I get the time.

Now, I don't know if it's just a brit thing, or even just a me thing, but seeing "problem" written in quotes makes it look like you DON'T think the fact these civilisations continued despite being totally underwater and also dead is a problem for the flood.

Even if the rest of it were explainable, the fact that these people didn't die shows clearly the flood could not have covered the earth.

Date: 2007/06/23 18:13:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?

Date: 2007/06/23 18:53:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:28)
I don't know, Icky...I think there is a big difference between losing a few toes and the joey example.  And, of course, we all know that there are endless examples such as that one.

But what reason do you have to think that?


Oh, and please adress my post, I know I disappeared, but my computer went very strange, and I had to restart it.

Date: 2007/06/23 19:08:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:06)
sigh...Ian, which "post" do you want me to address?  Are you refering to one comment specifically, or I'm I supposed to go back and answer everything?  Sheesh..I don't have all evening to sit here.

The one you ignored, where I mention quantum mechanics. You know, the last post I made, the one where, I would assume, most people would look first. Incidentally, why did you sigh? I only asked you once, and I did it in a way that would make Lenny Flank explode if he tried to be that polite, so why react like I'd be spamming you every three seconds demanding a reply? Unless you want the lurkers to think we're harrassing you, building on a martyr complex which I honestly don't see at all, not one little bit.

I don't have all evening either, in fact it's already 1 in the morning over here, so don't be alarmed if I don't sob for you and your hardships with running out of time.

Date: 2007/06/23 19:12:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:10)
careful Ian, next you'll be hearing her rendition of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"

Hah, I've had someone on a forum I used to be on who was a FAR better martyr complex than FtK (which I'm not at all implying you have FtK, no siree, not one jot. You wont hear ME saying you have some need to be harshly done by because it feeds both your own psychosis and also your feeling that you are right and we're not only wrong but mean)

Date: 2007/06/23 19:18:48, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:15)
see, FTK, Ian understands satire.

hmm, I wonder if teaching someone to recognize and appreciate irony and satire is like trying to teach science to a creationist?

meh, a thought for another thread...

sorry, go ahead Ian.

Well I've been brought up with satire. Satire from Private Eye, from shows such as HAve I Got News For You etc. I learnt it from an early age, and I'm glad, because it sure as hell helps liven up some of the most dry, boring subjects for my degree.

Date: 2007/06/23 19:20:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:18)
Quote

Well, yeah, I think there are some things that would be much more difficult to explain in regard to common descent than other things.


as both Ian and I keep asking...

Ah, a long time, main contributor notices me, suddenly I'm the belle of the ball!

(Note to anyone reading who has had major brain surgery go wrong, this is more of what we humans call "humour")

Date: 2007/06/23 19:36:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,19:30)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,18:13)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,18:12)
Natural selection seems like such a far fetched explanation for surviving through these incredibly complex situations in which intermediates would have to evolve through.

THIS is why everyone thinks you are talking bollocks. You cannot say that "seems" is a valid argument.

Incidentally, I don't know what the evidence is for quantum mechanics, so does it therefore not exist?

Yes, Ian, I understand that "seems" is not a valid argument.  I'm merely stating why I have difficulty accepting the ToE as "fact".  I'm not making a scientific statement by any means.

I think your quantum mechanics question is similiar to the standard gravity comment.  And, sure, you have a point, but I think there is much more research that will be done that will answer many of these questions we currently have about common descent with more accuracy.  So, like I've said many times in the past, I'm not locking into the mindset of the "scientific community" without hard empirical evidence, and I'm certainly keeping an open mind in regard to other explanations.

I may be getting this wrong here, but I THINK you have misunderstood my quantum mechanics comment.

See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise. However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.

In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.

Keeping an open mind does NOT mean accepting that everything is equally valid, that is called being a fence sitting pig ignorant who tends to hmm and haw like Alain De Botton, and pretend they are really so much better than the closed mided people on either side of the fence, because they've yet to understand that a massive mountain of evidence from practically every field of science is not equal to "I just can't see it".

Date: 2007/06/23 20:12:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,19:55)
Ian seems to have a genuine interest, so you can continue on with him.

Well I certainly would like to see some of these fantastical claims she keeps making.

Plus I really, really want the answer to the Egyptians thing. It's a question that I've always wanted to get a reply to.

Date: 2007/06/23 20:15:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:12)
Quote
See, I don't personally know about any evidence for it. Not got a clue, physics being most definately not my thing, but I do understand there IS evidence for it, and that it wouldn't be a valid theory otherwise.

However, you who seem to gloss over a lot of evidence for evolution by simply stating "I don't know, seems a bit dodgy to me" are clearly NOT listening to the people who have seen, and weighed up the evidence, and think that you have to personally view every single piece of evidence, or the theory falls flat.


Well, I don't think I gloss over anything and I've truly been listening contently for years to people who have "weighed up the evidence" personally.  I guess I've never been one to bow to authority if they are basing their "evidence" on speculation and just so stories.  I'm skeptical of the tales, and in the same way, I frequently question creation and ID theories.  I've written or called several authors and personally questioned their work.  

Certainly, I'm in no position to draw any conclusions from what they've told me.  But, just like any other person considering these issues, it's my right to question what's thrown in front of me.  I think it's absolutely foolish to accept all the aspects of the ToE as fact at this point in time.

 
Quote
In addition to this you seem to want every concievable piece of evidence, even where none exists, and since there isn't every single possible little change between animals in the fossil record, to pluck an example from the air, you think this somehow makes all the nonsense handwaving done by creationists equally valid to evolution.


I don't need "every conceivable piece of evidence", I'd just like to see more than what we have currently.  And, I believe that *most* scientists, in general, have absolutely no clue as to what creation science actually entails.  Most of the stuff I see written about creation science is laughable and completely inaccurate.  I think most scientists just listen to the ridiculous rhetoric being spewed from anti-creation groups and disregard creation science without any consideration whatsoever.

1. So how much evidence do you think there is?

2. How do you know there is this amount?

3. How much more is needed?

4. Why do you think you cannot draw a conclusion yet?

4.B. Assuming the above is related to the evidence for creation, explain, at least roughly (remember, I'm no scientist either) what it is.

5. What exactly IS creation science then?

6. What happened to all those Egyptians et al who lived happily under water whilst also dying?

Date: 2007/06/23 20:25:03, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:22)
Well, nice talking with you Icky.   And, yes, I understand the irony of my statement from your point of view.  You believe that creation science is "infered" on "blind faith and ridiculous speculation".

Because it does seem to be. Hell, I'm new to this, and still have some small part of me that can be convinced, but it's yet to be touched.

Date: 2007/06/23 20:29:29, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:27)
Good grief, Ian.  I'm not going to sit here for hours and answer all those questions.  I've answered several already.  

And, you were all in a tizzy about boiling water killing all of life on earth, but I haven't heard a peep about the answer I provided for you.  You went right on to another question..and another.  

It doesn't matter how many questions I address, you'll just bring up something else without even giving consideration to the ones I've already answered.

1. Where did you answer any of them? (bar the water one, which wasn't in that list) You told me you HAD answers, and either couldn't remember them or were going to get them, and then.....

2. I didn't see much evidence, maybe I missed it. I'll give it another go.

Date: 2007/06/23 20:36:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Hang about, whilst not on the topic of the boiling water thing, I did look at this: Linky

Now, I may be jumping the gun, but is this supposed to be evidence? If it is, it just amounts to "Ohh...look at the pretty! Therefore:God" Which is neither evidence, nor rational.

Date: 2007/06/23 20:37:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,20:35)
Ian,

You wanted predictions, I gave you predictions.  Read about them thoroughly and give them consideration before jumping right on to something else.

You wanted to know why everything wasn't "boiled" in the flood, and again, I gave you something to consider on the subject.

You could spend hours in regard to just these two issues if you followed all the links and read about each in detail from the site I provided.  

Have a ball.

Ok, but while I'm reading them, do you mind, and I'm being very civil here, so don't cry persecution on ME, digging up all that stuff on those pesky Egyptians, since that is something I've always wanted answering?

Date: 2007/06/23 20:42:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, I've hit a snag already.

"Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity."

This is...well, I don't know what the fuck it is, but it isn't evolution.

Date: 2007/06/23 20:43:36, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates."

This is EVIDENCE to you?!

[In order to not get a lenny flank esque mass of posts, I'll add my next point here as an edit]

Ok, page christ only knows but it's not far, and what do we have here? Abiogenesis? What the hell does that have to do with evolution FtK?

[edit no. 2]

Ok, this is getting really repetative. He keeps making claims, but doesn't support them at all. By his logic, I can show the evidence that black is white.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:12:48, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:06)
LOL....Ian, sweetie, you've really gotta calm down.  I thought Lenny was the only one around here who freaked on every sentence he confronts.  

Just relax...and if you're really serious about this, you've got to read the whole entire book to get a clue as to where the man is coming from.  I know that is asking a lot, and I don't expect you to ever get through it.  But, Brown is one of the more respected creation scientists out there for many reasons.  His work would be a good starting point if you want to actually call yourself "open minded".

Numero uno, I am not freaking out. I'm aghast you think any of the first slew of pages contains evidence. I've got to here and frankly, I don't see it getting better.

Numero dos, I think it's pretty clear that he is one of the people who doesn't much like evolution, and thus, he should provide evidence against it. Sadly, I can't see any, and without blowing my own trumpet too much, I'm very good at reading between the lines, and it's still not showing up on my radar.

Numero tres, I am open minded enough to accept any evidence, and so, if the creos start showing some I'll take it in. They will need a lot of it to change my mind about evolution, but if they can provide it, I will change my mind. THIS is being open minded, NOT "Well, someone disagrees with you, so suddenly everything you say needs to be compared on a level field to them".

Date: 2007/06/23 21:16:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors"

Oh boy, this is really, really wrong.

I mean, this is so wrong it's gone past being simply incorrect, and into a weird other dimension of wrongness.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:26:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:24)
Ian, the Index of Creationist Claims says about a very similar argument, "It is hard to see how even creationists can make this argument..."

I read that too (but did not steal from it, so no lawyers please). In fact, I ended up here because of talk.origins, or rather, the archive.

I don't think I'm totally ignorant, but I'm certainly no scientist, so I come here to learn about evolution, to learn about how creos work, and to learn about the elusive evidence they say they have. I don't hold out much hope for the evidence, but hey, if they have it, boy do I want to see it, since it'll blow my atheism out of the water, and that I want to see.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:28:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 23 2007,21:27)
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,10:54)
Okay, Steve, here's the fast answer...

I would say that it is damn hard to believe that we can say "transitionals" should not be questioned, unless you are talking about small changes within certain body types.  Goodness knows, there have been many "transitionals" that have been proven hoaxes or misunderstood.  In regard to common descent, there is so much more to consider than looking at a series of fossils and saying "hey, cool, that proves I was the byproduct of an ancient microbe".  

So, at this point in time, I believe that we are no where near the point of saying that the relatively small amount of "transitionals" we find in the fossil record is "proof" of common descent.  DNA seems to be the key to understanding more about common descent, so I'll wait for further research to answer the millions of questions that are still being asked before I believe that the naturalists creation myth is actually a fact.

Good enough?

I'm mildly curious as to, uh, why on earth you think anyone should pay the slightest attention to what you think, FTK . . . . . ?


Since, ya know, you don't actually know anything that you are talking about, and all . . . . .

Hush now Lenny, I'm reading through the er....wonderful evidence FtK sent to me. I wonder if I will get any answers to my reactions to the....startling content.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:29:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 23 2007,21:28)
Heavens no, I don't think that what you're reading is evidence for creation.  Goodness, you haven't even started...here, maybe that will help give you an idea of what his book covers.  The first part is merely an introductory, and then he goes into his points against evolution.  Part II is where he introduces his theory and how it may provide an explanation for many other observations about planet earth.

Seriously, the whole site will take hours to go through.

He doesn't seem to have any points against it though.

I mean, I concede I may only be in the intro bit, but so far he's just said that things are the way he says and then moves along.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:34:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Now, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but (I have split these up by numbers to make it easier to read):

"1. They show design.

2. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs."

1. This is the ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

2. This is a lie, isn't it?

[addendum]

"If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats."

Where the hell is he pulling this from?

Date: 2007/06/23 21:38:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
For goodness sake Lenny, leave it alone would you? I don't disagree with what you're saying but I actually want her to reply to me, and she might not do that if she thinks you're the only one posting.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:44:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:43)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,22:34)
"1. They show design.

1. This is the ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

"They show design" might be part of a PHEPH error, but by itself those three words aren't. 'course, I've been awake too long, so i could easily be wrong.

it's more the context they were in. Essentially he was saying that since things show design, they must be designed, which, I believe, is AHEPH.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:45:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 23 2007,21:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 23 2007,21:38)
For goodness sake Lenny, leave it alone would you? I don't disagree with what you're saying but I actually want her to reply to me, and she might not do that if she thinks you're the only one posting.

All she's gotta do to shut me up is . . . well . . . answer my questions.  (shrug)

well she's answering mine, (sort of) and I'd rather she continued, because this is getting....interesting.

[edit] Make that VERY interesting.

Date: 2007/06/23 22:03:38, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,22:00)
It's green. If that looks phallic to you, you need to get to the doctor.

:p

Both arguments have weight. Let's teach the controversy!

Date: 2007/06/23 22:09:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,22:06)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 23 2007,20:55)
I'm convinced you never will, which makes this whole excercise more an issue of cruelty on my part as I'm pretty sure at this point the only reason I have for continuing to pose questions to you is to laugh at the continuing irony of your answers.

There's a bit of an ethical dilemma inherent in this site. We censor almost nothing. This is not just because we're a great bunch of guys, but because frankly, when the creationists talk, they make creationists look stupid. This is useful to us. It's nice to have a creationist around making basic, Bio 101 type errors. (and Physics 101, and Geo 101, and Information Theory 101...) and also, we're entertained by it. Letting someone make a fool of themselves is not the most ethical thing in the world. On the other hand, they're doing it voluntarily, so we're not really culpable. It's a muddy issue that nags at me.

Frankly, unless they are goaded into it by someone being uncivil, I think it should stand. If someone doesn't want to make a total arse out of themselves, they don't have to say anything. The moment a person speaks, they give themselves up for ridicule and mocking.

Date: 2007/06/23 22:19:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
This book is really really weird. I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it.

Date: 2007/06/23 22:32:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Mike PSS @ June 23 2007,22:29)
Keep up the work Ian.
I waded through that site also (in an ongoing "dialouge" with AFDave).  Your picking up more BS than I did, probably because I would just skim past some of the more inane comments as boiler plate.

Thanks for the support, and don't worry, I'm going to read the whole damn thing. I may have to depart soon (it IS 04:34 here) but I'll be back tomorrow. I've got ALL of tomorrow, and I read QUICKLY.

I'm not going to let this drop because if I actually find some evidence for creation (I'm not holding my breath) then I'm going to damn well post it here, and have it as my MSN name so EVERYONE can see the holy grail has been found.

Date: 2007/06/23 22:35:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Another 'gem':

"Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease."

Frankly, I'm lost for words.

[Edit] The fun never stops with Walt Brown.

"Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer." False dichotomy surely? "Either miricle or designer"

(go easy on any spelling or grammar mistakes I might make, I'm REALLY tired)

[another edit] I appologise for the amazing growing posts, but I feel compeled to say that this book is the most gripping thing I've ever read. Even if I am having to listen to Crockett's Theme on continuous loop to stay awake.

Date: 2007/06/23 22:53:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
The last one had enough edits, so here we go again, hop on board the merry-go-round.

"18.   Vestigial Organs

Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors.a They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs.b For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths.c Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened. "

I'm running a competition based on this post. It's called spot a logical fallacy. Note, not THE logical fallacy, just one of the many contained in this "page" of the "science book" I'm reading (note to FtK, if this all seems harsh, it's because it's FAR to late for me to be totally pleasant).

{special edit}

"Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells.a The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms."

OUTRIGHT LIE.

Date: 2007/06/23 22:56:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Right, that's it.

It's 05:00, and I'm going. I'll be back tomorrow.

Date: 2007/06/24 03:57:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Well, since I was somehow still awake at 5 am, if I started acting strangely, blame that instead.

Personally I can't wait for some kind of reply to all this, in the meantime, I'm going to continue with my trudge through the Walt Brown book. Although if people want me to shut up about all (hell, I can't even be bothered for that. Most) of the things I find, a quiet word in the ear via PM would be appriciated.

Date: 2007/06/24 04:01:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial."

Wow, and guess what? Even more DON'T! We're sure learning something here, but don't ask ME what it is.

Date: 2007/06/24 04:48:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, I'm not sure what to make of this.

Any help?

Date: 2007/06/24 06:22:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"The chemical evolution of life, as you will see in the next few pages, is ridiculously improbable."

The word "so?" springs to mind.

"If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system."

This is hammering a square peg into a round hole, I believe. Insisting that something must be just so without actually KNOWING what the hell you're talking about.

Date: 2007/06/24 13:35:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.

Date: 2007/06/24 13:46:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I've done it!

I know where Walt Brown gets his science from!

Look Around You!

Date: 2007/06/24 16:00:29, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,15:52)
And, no, I don't guess one can go back and rewrite biblical history, so I don't imagine it's "tentative".

It's pretty pointless to rewrite fiction.

Oh, and don't start sentances with and.

Date: 2007/06/24 16:09:07, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:01)
and want to address Ian real quick, so sorry I haven’t taken more time to read your links.

Anything specific?

Date: 2007/06/24 16:14:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:11)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,13:35)
After taking a break from sifting through Walt Brown's book, I feel I should pursue some more, since FtK seems to want me to read THE WHOLE BLOODY THING rather than show me the relevant parts.

I must say FtK, I'm not impressed so far (page 32, or section 32, or something) and apart from the one section in which I'm not familiar with the science, I've been able to tear these "arguments" apart like they were paper.

Tear them apart like paper, huh?  Okay... good for you.  But, you've only barely skimmed the surface.    You're the one who didn't believe creation scientists have anything to offer whatsoever.  You can read the entire book, or close it and move on (Icky would prefer that).  But, I assure you it gets much, much more interesting, and regardless as to whether you think it's a bunch of bunk or not, it will get you thinking.  If you don't read the whole thing, many parts read at a glance will make no sense at all.

If you make it to section II, I hope you have a good memory because reading from the site is a little complicated as all his theories kind of interrelate.  I had to read the book a couple times to pick up on how much he’s put into considering the bigger picture and how he feels the flood could be accountable for how our earth looks today.

Trust me, I'm going to read it all. I've only skipped over one bit, and that was the preface (I wanted to get to the meat of the book, so to speak) and it certainly is an eye opener.

What I can't understand is, how is this evidence to you? I mean, you must know that there are obvious challenges to a great number of the things in the first 30 sections, so how does this persuade you evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be? You could be right, but how the hell this book leads you to that answer, so far, I don't get..

Date: 2007/06/24 16:17:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ June 24 2007,16:15)
Quote

Let me rephrase : what would explain the frequency of a heritable color in a species, if not the reproduction rate of the allele coding for said color?


Obviously I am not here on a trial. You didn't answered my questions and you didn't discussed my posts. The only things you are able to do is giving new and new questions in very arrogant way. This is not discussion.

Quote

I'm waiting.


Feel free to wait however long you like.

What do you want answering?

Date: 2007/06/24 16:25:29, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:22)
Ian, it's not "just this book".  It's tons of books, articles, and internet sites I've read over the years.  When I took biology, there was so much I never even thought of questioning, but after reading info. from both sides of this debate, I could not possibly consider common descent a "fact" in the sense that the "scientific community" wants it to be taught.  

I have absolutely no problem with evolution being taught...including common descent and the whole shebang, but certainly we should be considering the massive amount of questions still haunting the theory.  I 'd never even thought about some of the stuff I think about now in regard to the theory.  I just learned what was provided me and didn't question it much.

There is the bigger picture to consider.

Crap...I've got to go to the game.

Later.

So, what do you think motivates the scientific community to keep the mass of questions quiet? Why do you think they aren't doing this research themselves?

Also, finally, why aren't the creos doing any research?

Date: 2007/06/24 17:57:05, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 24 2007,17:52)
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,16:11)
Like Lenny, I have my little quirks.

FTK, I do seriously think you're obsessed with me.  What are you, in love or something?

Or is it just that I give you what you really want deep down inside ---- food for your massive martyr complex?

Says the man who posts a ridiculous number of times in a row to a woman he knows won't answer?

Why do you waste your time Lenny? For gods sake calm yourself down.

Date: 2007/06/24 19:13:05, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
Sorry, but the chances of me accepting this senario as fact are quite slim.

This shows a huge problem with you being "open minded". How is this "open minded"?

Now, I consider myself fairly open minded, IF I was to be shown a huge mountain of evidence, then I would have to go towards believing that. On the other hand you HAVE been shown the evidence, and you just dismiss it with "I can't believe it". How is this productive?

Incidentally, if the creos do research WHY isn't it published in the mainstream? I mean, if it's proper research then there would be no need to print it anywhere but the recognised places, and since you (rightly) dismiss the idea of a scientific conspiricy as sheer lunacy, what prevents them from publishing in, for example, Nature or even New Scientist (my personal pop science mag of choice, no idea how good it is, but I like it)?

Date: 2007/06/24 19:18:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 24 2007,19:17)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,17:57)
Says the man who posts a ridiculous number of times in a row to a woman he knows won't answer?

That, of course, being the whole point.

As I've noted before, my questions make their point whether FTK answers or not.  I don't need her cooperation.

Indeed, her continuous refusal to answer, only reinforces my point.

But, for whatever reason, she IS replying to me.

Date: 2007/06/24 19:35:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:27)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 24 2007,19:13)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:01)
Sorry, but the chances of me accepting this senario as fact are quite slim.

This shows a huge problem with you being "open minded". How is this "open minded"?

Now, I consider myself fairly open minded, IF I was to be shown a huge mountain of evidence, then I would have to go towards believing that. On the other hand you HAVE been shown the evidence, and you just dismiss it with "I can't believe it". How is this productive?

Incidentally, if the creos do research WHY isn't it published in the mainstream? I mean, if it's proper research then there would be no need to print it anywhere but the recognised places, and since you (rightly) dismiss the idea of a scientific conspiricy as sheer lunacy, what prevents them from publishing in, for example, Nature or even New Scientist (my personal pop science mag of choice, no idea how good it is, but I like it)?

I said "quite slim", Ian.  Just like the chances of you ever accepting biblical history as somewhat accurate is "quite slim".  

I may not have all the facts, so I keep delving into this stuff.  Something tells me you may not have all the facts in regard to what you think is complete bunk in regard to biblical history, but I doubt you're still open minded or even considering the possibility that you might be wrong.  

I consider myself to be open minded just as you consider yourself to be.  So, let's just leave it that, shall we?

Why should I believe biblical history? It makes no sense, has no evidence and therefore has absolutely no grounding in reality. I don't care if Jesus was real or not, but anyone who says the flood occurred had better come up with some damn good evidence.

Also, why didn't you answer my perfectly reasonable question about publishing? I can honestly tell you that I've never read creo stuff before (bar a few bits and pieces here and there, and the insane dribblings of AirFarceDave) and I will continue to be completely and relentlessly polite to you, so you will have no need to call me on my actions.

As an addendum, why do you come on as a hidden user FtK? I'm really curious, because I don't understand why anyone would want to come on as hidden, especially if they are going to start posting.

Date: 2007/06/24 19:56:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 24 2007,19:52)
Quote
The chances of getting anything that even mildly resembles creation science or ID is so slim it's ridiculous, and the peer review process would be a joke.


didn't you JUST get done telling us you didn't think there was any conspiracy involved?

I have to say, the man has stolen my answer.

Date: 2007/06/24 20:07:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 24 2007,19:58)
[quote=Ichthyic,June 24 2007,19:52][/quote]
Quote
didn't you JUST get done telling us you didn't think there was any conspiracy involved?


I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.  Why would they?  Minds are set irregardless of the questions plaguing the theory.  The alternative would be to actually consider creation and ID theories seriously, and obviously guys like you are not going to be open to that.

They would do it because they would love to shoot it down in flames. If they COULDN'T shoot it down in flames, they would love it because it shows them the new way to do research, a new paradigm to comprehend and to wonder at.

Date: 2007/06/25 04:25:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 25 2007,00:45)
I’ll tell ya one thing....it would be one heck of a lot easier to come up with an explanation for the Noah scenario that to believe that a freakin’ blob is responsible for everything we observe in nature today.

Yes, because all that evidence over 150 years in practically all fields of science can easily be dismissed by the cunning argument about how a boat that couldn't even come close to holding all the animals and would have sank right away into flood waters that would have had a tricky time getting there managed to do it all because of one man and his family.

Remember though FtK, I'm being polite, I may take slight jabs at you, but this is the same kind of barbed remark I get from you, and you did it first, so no calling foul. I would like to propose a deal, I will read whatever stuff you send me IF and only if you can give me an explanation, or at least send me to somewhere that can (and I don't just mean "read this book, it's in there somewhere) explain how the Egyptians, Assyrians and all the other civilisations apparently contemporary with the flood were not drowned, and also managed to avoid being noticed by the all seeing god.

Date: 2007/06/25 10:56:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 25 2007,09:27)
What was the name of the Pharoah whose reign and life ended when he drowned in and his realm was destroyed by the flood.

Mentuhotep IV. I presume it must be since he seems to fit what I believe are the generally agreed dates of the flood (roughly at least)

Died 1991 BCE. His death even signalled the end of the 11th dynasty. Unfortunately he was immediately replaced by Amenemhat I, who began the 12th dynasty.

Whoops.

Date: 2007/06/26 15:03:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
What, no FtK in a few days?

Maybe she's been waiting for me to reappear with further discussion of Walt Brown's ebook train crash. Well, sadly FtK I haven't been able to read any more, my net went down, and it's just back, but never fear, oh pirahna one, I shall continue where I left off.

Date: 2007/06/26 15:15:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 20 2007,19:43)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ May 29 2007,09:45)
Quote (Not A Monkey @ May 29 2007,08:14)
I am curious to know what you feel about Young Earth Creationism.

I personally think that any consideration that leads us away from the literal word of the Bible is a form of satanism.

I personally think that any consideration that ignores the mountains of evidence provided by the scientific community leads us to a definition of stupidity and willful ignorance.

Yeah, and Satanism!  I think it is time we call a Satan a Satan.  Creationism is evil lies that are contrary to scripture and so that must mean that creationism is from Satan.

Now exactly WHICH satanism are we talking? Proper, LeVeyan Satanism, of that devil worshiping nonsense? I cannot abide the devil worshiping nonsense.

Date: 2007/06/26 15:28:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,15:14)
I'm willing to let it slide, 'cause it's just so damn funny, but really, she gives piranha a bad name.

piranha make far better decisions about what to attack beforehand.

Oh I do hope she doesnt take it as a breakdown in civility, I'm rather enjoying the conversation with her.

Date: 2007/06/26 16:10:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (blipey @ June 26 2007,16:05)
Quote
I'm rather enjoying the conversation with her.


I do rather think I'm going to have to look up conversation.  It must not mean what I think it means.

I do wish that she would have an actual conversation with anyone sometime.  It might be truly entertaining.  But, she just can't get herself to talk to anyone.  All the people she already knows and shares a worldview with don't really provide conversation--just reinforcement, not the same thing at all.

Of course, all of us who treat her as a piranha aren't worthy of a conversation because she's already said everything that needs to be said to us (though where she might have said these things will remain enshrouded for eternity).  She even closed down a conversation that jc and I were having at her blog because she didn't like the way it was going.  JC being, ostensibly, on her side and behaving so strangely that even Ftk realized he was hurting the cause, it was time to close it down, despite her pet peeve of civility not being a problem in the thread.

It's sad to think of going through your entire life and never having a real conversation.

I used the word because there wasnt anything else that seemed to fit.

Date: 2007/06/26 16:14:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:04)
well, if you wanted to, you could start another thread, and politely ask the rest of us to keep out of it.

I'd bet most of us would respect that.

Frankly, I don't care about most of it, it's just the occasions when the thread gets away from me a bit. (In all honesty, I might need the help, I'm certain there are answers to all of the stuff in the book, but I don't always know them myself, such as the one I commented on on one of the previous pages.)

Date: 2007/06/26 16:16:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:15)
your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.

Jason Statham? It's not. It's captured BBC reporter Alan Johnston.

Date: 2007/06/26 16:19:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (jeannot @ June 26 2007,16:18)
Well, it seems that we still don't know the role of coloration in fungi.  Closely related species often have some very different colors (in Boletus) for instance. This is puzzling.


VMartin may be right after all.  :p

I spot a potential quote mine...

Date: 2007/06/26 16:24:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:18)
heh.  crosspost.

probably would have figured it out faster if I had bothered to read your sig.

*doh!*

Hah, well it doesn't matter.

Ok, anyone explain what this is all about? (The "letter" thing, I mean is it real, or just an excersise in futility?)

Weird Walt Brown Letter thing.

Date: 2007/06/26 16:31:07, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:25)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:14)
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:04)
well, if you wanted to, you could start another thread, and politely ask the rest of us to keep out of it.

I'd bet most of us would respect that.

Frankly, I don't care about most of it, it's just the occasions when the thread gets away from me a bit. (In all honesty, I might need the help, I'm certain there are answers to all of the stuff in the book, but I don't always know them myself, such as the one I commented on on one of the previous pages.)

as an alternative then, you should feel free to post a thread entirely about Brown's book, where you can freely pose any questions you have about what it says.

never know, somebody around here might have something interesting in response, beyond the standard response from the Talk Origins Archive (which you should always check first, btw).

I know that Deadman and others have taken time out to specifically research in gory detail a lot of the claims in Brown's book during their "discussions" with AirheadDave both in this forum and on dawkins.net.

asking FTK to explain something in Brown's book is no more productive than asking her to explain something in the basic biology text Alby sent her.

IOW, if you have real questions, you're wasting you time asking her for answers.

See, thing is I do look in talk.origins (it was how I found my way here, in fact) but occasionally. VERY occasionally, they don't have the goods on something, so I ask around here. (Although admittedly, I do bring things up here if I want to hear what she has to say)

Of course, I also wish to hear FtKs opinion on it, whether she thinks these claims are any good, what happened to the Egyptians (no FtK, I haven't dropped that one yet, you said you had answers, I want 'em), and what drugs she thinks Walt Brown was smoking, because it IS only fair, and I do make sure I hear both sides of an argument. If one side is pitifully weak, of course, I expect it to get crushed, and my opinion will go to the one with more to back it up.

Date: 2007/06/26 16:55:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,16:41)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:16)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:15)
your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.

Jason Statham? It's not. It's captured BBC reporter Alan Johnston.

Who was the previous avatar?

Tut tut, that was Robert DeNiro.

Date: 2007/06/26 16:56:43, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:24)
 
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:18)
heh.  crosspost.

probably would have figured it out faster if I had bothered to read your sig.

*doh!*

Hah, well it doesn't matter.

Ok, anyone explain what this is all about? (The "letter" thing, I mean is it real, or just an excersise in futility?)

Weird Walt Brown Letter thing.

do a search on "evolutionary algorithms" over on PT and on Pharyngula to find this discussed in MANY threads.

be warned: this will end up launching you into a far more complex discussion of actual algorithms quite rapidly.

bottom line: In the case of the link you posted, Brown is just using yet another mistaken argument based merely on incredulity, in this case his incredulity of the amount of base pairs found in human DNA.

I think there is a tangential thread on PT looking at the issue of genome size, that you might want to check out as well.

of course the issue of information and how creationists constantly misuse it wrt to genetics is covered in the TO archives:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

likely you will also find direct reference to the idiotic model Brown tries to use in the link you provided as well.

...and genetic algoritms are covered as well:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

It wasn't the argument I was curious about, it was the "conversation" itself.

Date: 2007/06/26 16:59:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Henry J @ June 26 2007,16:58)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:10)
I used the word [conversation] because there wasnt anything else that seemed to fit.

Maybe "exchange of comments"?

I like it. Very politician.

Date: 2007/06/26 17:06:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,17:04)
Quote
It wasn't the argument I was curious about, it was the "conversation" itself.


oops.

Again, no worries, I was just wondering if it was a real conversation, or if it was just a made up load of rubbish to show what scientists "really" think and say etc.

Date: 2007/06/26 17:09:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,17:08)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:55)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,16:41)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,16:16)
   
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,16:15)
your avatar kinda reminds me of that actor from the "Transporter" movie series.

Jason Statham? It's not. It's captured BBC reporter Alan Johnston.

Who was the previous avatar?

Tut tut, that was Robert DeNiro.

Really?

From what film?

I believe it was The Godfather Part II. I may be wrong.

[Edit] I wasn't.

Date: 2007/06/26 17:11:05, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (silverspoon @ June 26 2007,17:09)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,17:06)
Again, no worries, I was just wondering if it was a real conversation, or if it was just a made up load of rubbish to show what scientists "really" think and say etc.

A creationist insurance salesman recounts a conversation with an unidentified biologist. Sounds awfully suspicious--- don’t you think?

Check out the guys web site.
http://www.ontherightside.com/

That's EXACTLY what I thought.

It does seem to have a genuine reference, but the whole thing looks dodgy.

Date: 2007/06/26 17:14:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, can't find anything on TO, but this looks awfully suspicious to me.

This IS nonsense, isn't it?

Date: 2007/06/26 18:40:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Finally, a thread I am an EXPERT in.

Space Mutiny (actually used on MST3K)

Starcrash (features the Hoff)

Space Raiders.


[Addendum]

Mutant on the Bounty

Battle Beyond The Stars.

Time Burst: The Final Alliance

Arena

I'm sure I can come up with a few thousand more soon enough, I just need to remember the names. (I've seen ALL of these. I even own a few)

Date: 2007/06/26 18:51:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ah christ, only one?

My brother, a mutual mate and I spend one evening per week watching films like this.

It's really funny, unless you think about how much time we're wasting.

Date: 2007/06/26 18:53:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,18:47)
actually, you only get to pick one favorite, but feel free to list all those you found enjoyable.

also, I should specify that although the title is bad "sci-fi", the horror genre is also included.  pure fantasy is right out, though.

Quote
Saran-wrapping their enemies and chasing each other around on floor polishers.


yes, that one does indeed sound interesting.

I have my own personal review of Space Mutiny.

Hell, I've reviewd Starcrash as well. They are possibly my favourites, but it's so hard to choose.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:07:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (improvius @ June 26 2007,19:04)
This really is the ultimate bad sci-fi film

I'm sorry, but until you've seen half of the films I listed you just don't know bad sci-fi.  :D

Date: 2007/06/26 19:12:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Sod it all, if it's allowed (technically not sci fi although it DOES have robots) THIS is my pick. I must say though, basic knowledge of the greek myths is needed, just so you know just how badly they got it wrong.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:18:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Mister DNA @ June 26 2007,19:16)
I'd like to nominate R.O.T.O.R.; calling it a low-buget rip-off of The Terminator and RoboCop doesn't begin to do this "film" justice. It's amazing that Joel, Crow and Tom Servo never got their hands on this one.

If you need a token kaiju flick, I'd like to nominate War of the Gargantuas, if only for the song, "The Words Get Stuck In My Throat".

Oh god, R.O.T.O.R is horrific. (How many of these fucking films have I watched? What the hell is wrong with me?)

Date: 2007/06/26 19:20:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
May I present yet ANOTHER bad post-apocalypse movie: Equaliser 2000

The bad guys wear baseball umpires gear. Yes, you read that correctly.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:22:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ June 26 2007,19:15)
Tonight's dish: Cashew Chicken, basically following this recipe.
Minus the peanut oil. (allergic) And plus about a tablespoon of cayenne pepper.

And to drink, Foster's Lager.

Sounds pretty damn good.

I'm rather a whizz in the kitchen, if I do say so myself, and I love making my own curries. Get yourself a recipie book, look at what ingredients go with what, then add what you like.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:25:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 26 2007,19:22)
Doesn't Star Wars: The Phantom Movie deserve place on this list, given ratio of quality/money spent? And because of that kid who plays Manikin Skywalker?

Sadly I don't think so (I actually quite enjoyed it, but it was rubbish compared to the original trilogy). While you make some good points, the quality of other actors, special effects and the fact that anything with lightsabers is cool (except this.) means that the films listed are a step above and beyond.

WAY above and beyond.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:28:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
These are supposed to be FUNNY bad films, right?

If not, I nominate this as the single worst film ever made.

I also nominate this as the worst big(ish) budget film. (Everyone loves it, WHY?)

Date: 2007/06/26 19:33:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Didn't he go on a trip somewhere? New Guinea or something.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:37:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,19:33)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,19:12)
Sod it all, if it's allowed (technically not sci fi although it DOES have robots) THIS is my pick. I must say though, basic knowledge of the greek myths is needed, just so you know just how badly they got it wrong.

Technically, Hercules as a character is based on a fantasy premise, but if the movie puts Hercules in dire peril of destruction from horrific(ly bad) robots... it probably would make the cut if the movie is more about the robots than it is about hercules.

again, Joel is the final arbiter, I can only make suggestions.

Quote
These are supposed to be FUNNY bad films, right?


only if not intentionally so.  otherwise they would be comedies.

Put it like this. Daedalus (who in this is a WOMAN) makes robots and sends them after the titular hero. Much mirth ensues. Frankly it's a combination of fantasy, sci-fi and mythology. Very dodgy mythology.

If that isn't allowed, then I'll have to go back to the drawing board....

Date: 2007/06/26 19:41:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,19:39)
sounds like it takes a fantasy concept and mercilessly slaughters it with bad robots.

*thumbs up*

Theres only three robots (sadly) but the bad guys DO invoke "The power of SCIENCE!!!!11!1"

It's dreadful, it really is, but hey, you have to laugh.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:43:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, unless I think of another film, I think that if Hercules isn't allowed, Star Crash is my pic.

It has a spaceship with PLATE GLASS WINDOWS for crying out loud!

Date: 2007/06/26 19:46:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (silverspoon @ June 26 2007,18:53)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,17:44)
Maybe it's stories like this that lead Joe G the Maytag man to claim that most scientists don't believe in evolution anymore.

That sounds like good old Joe G., always good for a laugh.
He once told me the giant gas planets in our solar system were placed there to protect earth from asteroid bombardment. When I asked him how that squared with all the evidence of impacts on the earth he went into hand waving mode. I’m glad to see his entertainment value is still top notch. FTK should take lessons from him. Maybe she already has?

Hmm, who is this Joe G of whom you speak?

Date: 2007/06/26 19:49:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,19:46)
Quote
It's dreadful, it really is, but hey, you have to laugh.


that's actually very close to what the slogan is on the t-shirts we give away at the marathon.

It's just a shame I'll be dying later than everyone else (assuming I don't get ill, or have an accident), because you'll start without me.

Incidentally;

Quote
address your pathetic whining.


Pathetic LEVEL of whining, surely?

Date: 2007/06/26 19:52:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,19:50)
incidentally;

don't call me Shirley.

Oh no, any minute now someone is going to mention "automatic pilot" and we won't know where we are.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:55:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ah, Pataks are rather good (I also like Sharwoods).

I believe Phaal is about as Indian as Chicken Tikka Masala (invented in Glasgow no matter WHAT the people from Birmingham say), since I've seen a variety of things mentione as being "traditional" although the name might be real, the sheer pointlessness of the sauce is probably not.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:58:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (khan @ June 26 2007,19:56)
Quote
Battle Beyond The Stars.


I recall watching this on TV; truly bad cinema.  A few years later I read the review in the local TV guide and it was referred to as a 'spoof'.  When it's so bad it's funny, pretend you meant it that way.

And then there's "Frogs"
http://imdb.com/title/tt0068615/  
Featuring Sam Elliot without a mustache.

It isn't a spoof. No Roger Corman film was a spoof, trust me, I've seen LOADS of them. In fact, a large number of his space ones feature the same spaceship.

If you can't afford special effects, reuse the crappy ones from your last movie, no one will notice!

Date: 2007/06/26 20:00:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"Why are there evolutionists? It appears that not one can defend the position. IOW it appears that the position of evolutionist rests almost entirely on faith."

The first thing I saw. After blue. LOTS of blue.

Date: 2007/06/26 20:06:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JonF @ June 26 2007,20:05)
The "Elephant in the Room"thing, which he got from The Biologist, is also meaningless. If it's true, I can understand the lack of attribution to the real name; but without such attribution it's just a fairy tale.

Thank you, that is what I was after.

Date: 2007/06/26 20:08:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Never really tried their curry paste, but I'd be willing to chuck it in any curry I do.

I've never heard of Larich...I don't think I've seen their stuff on sale over here.

Date: 2007/06/26 20:15:12, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I've never actually tried Sri Lankan cuisine.

I'll tell you what is good though, Nepalese. It's simply the greatest food I've ever had. Hot and spicy, yet full of flavour, and with milder dishes to help tone the really hot ones down.

Date: 2007/06/26 20:16:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 26 2007,20:14)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 26 2007,19:27)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 26 2007,19:22)
Doesn't Star Wars: The Phantom Movie deserve place on this list, given ratio of quality/money spent? And because of that kid who plays Manikin Skywalker?

yes, sadly, while i agree the writing, directing, and acting were b-grade movie quality (worse?), the ultra-high production values tend to eliminate this one from contention.

curse you George Lucas.

curse you to heaven.

Though we might have to borrow the Jar-Jar character for use as an usher (and for torture during intermissions)

Not to press a point, but I was thinking the squandered money and technology and superb production values were EXACTLY what made the movie so unbelievably BAD.  Unlimited resources and they come up with THIS piece of crap? On THESE hallowed grounds?

(Not to mention the bizarre ethnic caricatures.)

I can see where you're coming from, but it's really not that bad. I can honestly say that without feeling ashamed, because when you see some of the dreck nominated by the good folks in this thread, you'll be wishing to see Ep I to get clarity.

Date: 2007/06/26 20:21:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Well, there's a few "asian" restaurants/takeaways in Aberystwyth, which is handy, and theres a Nepalese restaurant/takeaway in Nuneaton. In fact, I'm getting food from there to celebrate my birthday on Friday. Christ.

Date: 2007/06/26 20:24:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ June 26 2007,20:22)
I used too much water, I think. The sauce was a little too loose and globby. It tasted good, though. The oyster sauce, which I'd never known of until tonight, was the perfect flavor. Next time I'm going to crank the heat up, though. Probably by adding a habanero, though all this talk of indian food and red chilies, has me thinking I should go with those. But is red chili the name for them, or is there a more specific name I should look for in the grocery store?

Depends on the store. If it's a fairly comercial place (I know they all are, but you know what I mean) red will probably be enough, but if you want a specific heat, or are going to a proper asian/indian store, then you may have to look up names. I know of a few, depends on how hot you want them to be.

Date: 2007/06/27 10:21:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 27 2007,08:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,19:12)
Sod it all, if it's allowed (technically not sci fi although it DOES have robots) THIS is my pick. I must say though, basic knowledge of the greek myths is needed, just so you know just how badly they got it wrong.

Did you see when Hercules went to New York?

Hercules in New York

Reminds me of a clip I saw from a movie with Arnold
Schwartzenegger as a cowboy with a ridiculous dubbed
voice.

It isn't as bad as the Hercules I picked. Trust me. Even a very basic knowledge of greek myths will mean this film will shock you with just how bad they mess it up.

Date: 2007/06/27 11:55:07, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,11:24)
SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week.

Oh, she found it.

I'm taking the bait.

Date: 2007/06/27 12:19:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,12:18)
Another "psychologist"  with very nice nick "Rev. BigDumbChimp":

 
Quote

JAD is a Joke and the fact that you're his lapdog makes you one as well. He's growing increasingly insane and ...well... the fact you can't help but wag your tail in his shadow says alot.


I would like to congratulate you for another deep "psychological" insight (darwinists are not only brilliant scientists but also prominent linguists and psychologists as we see here) but I am afraid you are only projecting your own dismal situation to John and me. But it is O.K. - darwinists project humans relation also to animal kingdom seeing everywhere "struggle for life", "evolution in action" and "mimicry".

Oh christ, hear we go again....

Date: 2007/06/27 12:25:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.

Date: 2007/06/27 12:32:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ June 27 2007,12:31)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:25)
That's interesting....Your comment has made it through, yet mine was even more polite, and yet it's yet to appear.

Women love cavemen.  What can I say dude.

Well, maybe it was a bit daring, I mean, I asked her a direct question!

Date: 2007/06/27 12:41:35, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I left a "comment" asking her why I wasn't making it through (after all, as far as I can tell, I posted before J-Dog) and that a reply would be much appriciated.

Maybe she's ended the polite conversation we were having? Shame, I was just enjoying myself.

Date: 2007/06/27 12:44:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
One post in from AirFarceDave and already I spot THIS:

Quote
WRITTEN RECORDS ARE THE MOST ACCURATE FOR DETERMINING EVENTS OF THE PAST


Wow, what a fucking moron, pardon my french.

Date: 2007/06/27 12:51:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (BWE @ June 27 2007,12:50)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,12:44)
One post in from AirFarceDave and already I spot THIS:

 
Quote
WRITTEN RECORDS ARE THE MOST ACCURATE FOR DETERMINING EVENTS OF THE PAST


Wow, what a fucking moron, pardon my french.

Yep. This in a debate which he titled :

Dendrochronology: Circularity or Valid science?

Serious tard. Serious.

I have to wonder if he REALLY believes this. I mean, does he therefore believe that Britain was once filled with giants, who were driven out by Brutus (yes, that murdering one) and was then named Brutusland after him?

Christ almighty.

Date: 2007/06/27 13:09:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 27 2007,13:07)
Quote

Oh christ, hear we go again....


only if you want to.

I'M not touching it, but SOMEONE will. They always do.

Date: 2007/06/27 13:57:43, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Henry J @ June 27 2007,13:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,10:21)
It isn't as bad as the Hercules I picked. Trust me. Even a very basic knowledge of greek myths will mean this film will shock you with just how bad they mess it up.

Worse than what the Hercules and Xena TV series did to Greek mythology, Bible chronology, not to mention actual history?

Henry

The Greek Gods live on the moon, the universe was created by Pandora's JAR exploding....shall I go on?

Date: 2007/06/27 15:04:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ah, it's a sad thing to see you going, fair thee well at whatever other blogs you head out to.

Date: 2007/06/27 15:07:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Hey FtK, you seem to be on, so hows about explaining the non existance of my posts on your blog.

Or mayhap you just want to go back to the Walt Brown book, I can do that if you like.

Date: 2007/06/27 15:22:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
If this seems excessive, well get rid then.

So FtK, shall we continue the discussion of all that evidence in his book, and a few other things you mentioned. Now, in order to keep this civil, I vote that all comments should be on topic, and polite, from BOTH parties.

Whaddaya say?

For Wes.

Date: 2007/06/27 15:31:04, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:29)
Ian,

I guess I'm having an Icky moment.  Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.

There's really no point in dialogue on these topics because it does nothing other than stoke the fires.  Answer one question, up pops another...there's no end to it (from both sides).  We're never going to see eye to eye.

This just isn't productive, and I'd be better off spending more time with my family than wasting my time here.

But, if Richard sticks around, I'm might be compelled to chime in from time to time... ;)  I really have no idea why I am so attracted to that cute little tard hat.

So what the hell was the point of the post?

Why do you seem to want a discussion with J-Dog about it?

This isn't a particularly hostile forum FtK, just because the members are tired of seeing the same stuff over and over again doesn't mean they're nasty men. Anyway, to take an ID blog at random, if I WERE to comment on UD, for example, I would be banned quite qickly for not toeing the party line.

However, if this were not true, then yes, I would still comment. What is the point of just talking to people who think the same as you? Gets boring surely?

Date: 2007/06/27 15:43:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I didn't say it was just going to be us, but I figured this would be a good place to locate this discussion.

I don't think you accept it as fact, no, but I also fail to see what's so thought provoking.

Date: 2007/06/27 15:53:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:51)
FTK, you've always said you wanted civil discussions, here's your chance. We've agreed we'll back off and play nice on this thread.

Go for it. Conditions should be ideal.

Quite. Indeed, while I'm certainly not going to allow this to become a just the two of us situation, I'm thinking the majority of people will be at least a bit more in the background. Hell, I bet even Lenny will agree to be restrained.

Date: 2007/06/27 15:55:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
That's why I have a blog.  I can vent, I can converse, and, yes, I can moderate.   I don't think you understand how many inane comments I get on my blog.  Many times I also get the same type of comment from several people.  

I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?  I don't like it when I look back and see stuff that I've written when I'm frustrated, and there is no point in getting to that point.  Nothing is accomplished by it.

So you think I'm looking for blood or something?

That I DON'T want a civil discussion? I've been looking for one for a while now, and I thought I might have found it.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:08:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 27 2007,16:06)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?

You consider it better to wring all the spontaneity out of people communicating?  Maybe it would be more pleasant if everyone played the parts you script for them?

Hey! It just occurred to me that Blipey is an actor.  I'll bet he'd have no problem reading his part and hitting his marks.  

ACTING!! THANK YOU!!


Spontaneity makes baby jesus cry.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:09:04, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:07)
sigh...Ian, I only saw one comment from you in moderation and it was in reference to being irritated that I didn't put through a previous comment of yours.  

Did you by any chance post under a different name the first time?

Nope. I posted three, including the complaint one, all adressed as IanBrown_101. It IS possible I made a typo, so maybe IaBrown_101 or something similar might have cropped up, but nothing that wasn't at least somewhat close to me.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:12:29, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:10)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 27 2007,16:06)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:53)
I also know many of the commenters and even though sometimes someone might put through a comment that sounds civil, I know that the person has no interest in civility whatsoever.  In that case, I won't even put the first comment through because, in the end, I know where the conversation is going to end up.  A good example would be Blipey.  I recently read a conversation between him and Joe G. that was seriously freaky.  Why let conversation get that out of control?

You consider it better to wring all the spontaneity out of people communicating?  Maybe it would be more pleasant if everyone played the parts you script for them?

Hey! It just occurred to me that Blipey is an actor.  I'll bet he'd have no problem reading his part and hitting his marks.  

ACTING!! THANK YOU!!


Spontaneity is one thing, insanity, OTOH, is something I'd rather try to steer clear from.

Ah, AirFarceDave banned on your blog is he?

Just my little joke...

Date: 2007/06/27 16:21:03, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:18)
There was something with a 101 attached, but it wasn't Ian.

Look, try again when the spirit moves you and I'll probably let your stuff fly.  The thing is, Ian, that I'm not all that sure how serious you really are about dialogue.   You question me, then someone here slams me, and then you join their band wagon immediately.  I don't care if you disagree with me, but someone who is seriously interested in civil conversation wouldn't join in the slaughter as well.

I just retried. Honestly, I don't think I've particularly joined in on any slaughter. Gentle mocking, yes, but then I gently mock EVERYONE, so get used to it.

If I have joined in a huge massacre, I appologise. I like joining in on jokes, if I find them amusing, but I doubt there will ever be malice behind it, since I really do want a civil discussion. I might call something you SAY ridiculous, laughable etc, but I'm not sticking the knife in, I'm just being somewhat blunt about it. I appologise for that.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:31:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I'm surprised she hasn't joined in here, I mean, it's going to be civil, and if anyone does play up, then I'll ask politely for them to go away.

Date: 2007/06/27 16:48:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, this made a whooshing sound as it went over my head:

Right handed?

Date: 2007/06/27 16:53:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,16:48)
Okay, Ian, I put you through.  I remember that comment, but I don't remember your name attached.  I deleted it because I've answered it so many times, I grow weary.

I deleted about 5 other comments that were content free, but of course put Richard's comment through.  Not much there to work with, but it's just impossible for me to ignore him. :(

That's fine FtK, I'VE never had it answered before, and so long as I don't just get a "fuck off" or similar response, then all is well, and discussion can continue.

Date: 2007/06/27 17:07:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2007,17:04)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 27 2007,16:48)
Ok, this made a whooshing sound as it went over my head:

Right handed?

try wikipedia instead. Interesting stuff as it goes.

Cheers. I'll give it a go.

It's not too bad so far.

Date: 2007/06/28 17:52:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,18:21)
BTW, Ian, if you ever come across something that you believe is an outright lie, please consider confronting Brown yourself before making the assertion.  He is always willing to explain his position further, and we can both carry on a discussion with him in a 3-way phone conversation.  He has suggested that in the past.  That might be kind of fun...I do have a thing for English accents. ;)

Mrs FtK, are you trying to seduce me?

Well, I'll certainly consider confronting him if I feel if he's lied, and I do, but I would be interested in finishing the book first, so I can do one big conversation rather than a few small ones.

Date: 2007/06/28 17:53:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (RF Brady @ June 28 2007,16:34)
There was a 1954 classic called "Them" about ants that were exposed to atomic bomb radiation and mutated to gigantic size. It starred James Whitmore and James Arness (Marshall Dillon from "Gunsmoke"). In addition to the usual hero stuff as they burned Them up with flame throwers, the movie provides an interesting commentary on 1950's era male chauvinism.  :p

But that is a brilliant film.

Therefore, it doesn't count.

Date: 2007/06/29 04:12:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,22:27)
Amazing...I don't know of any fairytales that beat that one.

Ignoring the fact it isn't a fairytale, I'd have to say the ark one trumps it.

Date: 2007/06/29 08:52:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 29 2007,08:46)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2007,08:17)
You do realize that impersonation is also not a talent you actually possess, right?

But her point is well made.

Lenny did say

 
Quote
I'll just sit here and quietly giggle to myself.


Have at it.


It didn't last long, did it?

This is true. While FtK is being somewhat...childish in her methods, her point is a good one.

Lenny, sod off out of it, ok? theres plenty of other places for you to do this (another FtK thread for example) if you wanted to do some serious discussion, then fair game, but otherwise, go away.

Date: 2007/06/29 11:06:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ June 29 2007,09:31)
Hold the phone here a sec.

Ian, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!  Today is my sister's birthday as well.

You can't possibly be only 20 years old though are you?  Is that an error, or am I reading the calendar incorrectly.

Wes:  Honey, sometimes an example speaks louder than a polite request.  It doesn't seem that polite requests are heeded in this envirnoment as we can see from Lenny's resurfacing.  Ian was quite polite in his request for civility, and Lenny stated that he would refrain from his usual tactics.

Something else you might think about Wes...Lenny posts 5 posts in a row on a regular basis and you seem to have no problem with it.  I've never heard you call him on it or refer to him as acting childish.  Yet, when I attempt to make a point by acting in the same childish manner, all of a sudden you recognize the behavior for what it truly is.
 
Examples sometimes switch on the light...

Thanks, and no, you didn't read it wrong, I'm only 20, merely a young pretender here. Still doing my batchelors degree even!

Date: 2007/06/29 11:11:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up.

Date: 2007/06/29 11:48:29, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,11:14)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:06)
Thanks, and no, you didn't read it wrong, I'm only 20, merely a young pretender here. Still doing my batchelors degree even!

1987. Jesus Christ, I started grad school two years before that. Ouch.

Anyway, celebrate in proper style! What do people do for fun in Aberystwyth?

Sadly, I'm not there. It's actually a really good little town, got just enough nightlife for me (I loathe clubbing, but love pubs and bars).

Date: 2007/06/29 11:53:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,11:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:11)
I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up.

In defence of Lenny. He has been fighting this battle for over 20 years. After only about 4, I am getting a tad bored with the same claims being made by creationists (even though I once believed them) being made years after they got refuted.

The "whack'a'mole" analogy is pretty right-on.

From experience: Some creationists are probably being honest in finding those claims as convincing. However, after a few posts if they stil claim those refutations of evolution are relevant, they have not followed any links at all.

Oh, I'm not denying that, and goodness knows I hate to feed a potential martyr complex, but I think, for once, if you cut through the hyperbole and shrieking from FtK, what she says is, in essence, true. Lenny has reasons for what he does, don't get me wrong, but FtK is, for once as far as I can tell, being civil, and I think that banning her would not only feed the potential complex, but also be an error in judgement. I feel that FtK should be aloud to talk to anyone she likes on here, since she certainly is responding to people (albeit only vaugely and sporadically) and only clams up when people go on the offensive (as she interprets that).

Since I was civil, and tipped my hat to her, metophorically speaking, she's responded to me in the exact way I expected her to, and while I'm not impressed with Mr Brown, it has been a learning curve for me, which is all I really wanted. I honestly don't think that FtK is in the wrong, as long as she calms down and admits to hyperbole in her damnation of Lenny.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:03:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,11:59)
It's too long for my signature, but this is fabulous.  It's too bad that Ftk hs decided that it's a good time to be banned; she's just hilarious.

The following is her chide of Ian Brown for needing evidence:

Quote
How did it fail? Why type of evidence are you looking for? Are you one of those atheists who needs a direct conversation with the big guy himself to actually believe He exists?


See, EVIDENCE for god doesn't need to be face to face.  Yet, evidence for ToE needs to happen in her kitchen and it has to be of the kinds turning into other kinds type.

Sometimes I just get stupider reading her posts.

I don't disagree with that. Evidence for God could be a whole lot of things (I submitted a post about a few of the things to her, hasn't got through yet), and I've never seen any of it.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:06:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:03)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:53)
Oh, I'm not denying that, and goodness knows I hate to feed a potential martyr complex, but I think, for once, if you cut through the hyperbole and shrieking from FtK, what she says is, in essence, true. Lenny has reasons for what he does, don't get me wrong, but FtK is, for once as far as I can tell, being civil, and I think that banning her would not only feed the potential complex, but also be an error in judgement. I feel that FtK should be aloud to talk to anyone she likes on here, since she certainly is responding to people (albeit only vaugely and sporadically) and only clams up when people go on the offensive (as she interprets that).

Since I was civil, and tipped my hat to her, metophorically speaking, she's responded to me in the exact way I expected her to, and while I'm not impressed with Mr Brown, it has been a learning curve for me, which is all I really wanted. I honestly don't think that FtK is in the wrong, as long as she calms down and admits to hyperbole in her damnation of Lenny.

Ftk always sounds civil. I also do not want her banned.

Ftk only sounds civil though. She has made a shed-load of claims here and consistently fails to back them up.

If Ftk gets banned over the reason Wes posted it is her fault and only her fault. She has the choice to either back the claim or retract.

You are being civil to Ftk but I have seen no evidence so-far that it is reciprocated. Yes, she sounds polite, then fails to answer (with evidence) questions regarding her claims.

Sorry for derailing your line of inquiry, but as soon as Ftk answers a question (with substance) of yours, I will STFU.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think she's being weasly as well (sorry FtK, but you are), however I dont think being weasly is a huge crime. It's annoying, and I would rather she answered, but to one such as I, where most things are a learning curve when it comes to psuedoscience (I had virtually no exposure to it, apart from quack medicine nonsense) any response she gives is top notch. As long as she answers a couple of questions at a time, in some way, even if it is just "read this" (let's not forget the constant stream of "read talk.origins") then I am happy with it. There's only one question I absolutely want her own 100% no faking or diverting opinion on, and if she answers that, I'll be more than pleased.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:11:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:02)
Ian,

Happy birthday!

And to all people curious as to what one can do for fun in Aberystwyth......

....well let's just say it involves sheep.*

Louis

*It's the end of the week, I have no intention of being original!

Hey hey hey, I'm half Welsh you know!

Date: 2007/06/29 12:14:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:10)
FTK is civil?

Since when is accusing people of being full of BS with no basis in evidence and accusing basically the entirety of the scientific establishment (which disagrees with her drivel) of being deliberately blinkered atheist stooges trying to suppress the Truth (TM patent pending) civil?

Oh she doesn't say "fuck" very often (if at all), but if people's standards of "civil" are so horrendously low then I am unimpressed.

Civility in a discussion involves a bare minimum of honesty, good natured give and take, and some vague attempt at intellectual rigour. FTK has demonstrated nothing resembling civility. If she were genuinely curious then why hasn't she taken up the myriad polite AND civil offers of questions answered and topics discussed? Why is she continually bleating about "darwinist/atheist" persecution and refusing to support even the simplest claims she makes?

Civil? Fuck off! ;-)

Louis

To be honest, I never claimed she was civil to eveyone, or to anyone but me. I personally take her not just refusing to answer everything and claming up totally muttering (or yelling) about "those darned atheists" to be at least somewhat civil. She does answer (some of) my questions, and as long as she continues to do so politely then I shall continue to state she is civil to me.

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:22:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:18)
Oh and Ian,

You're 20. It's your birthday. It's Friday. You're (apparently) sober.

{Louis raps Ian across the nose with a rolled up newspaper)

Bad student! No! No!

If you are not horribly drunk and vomiting copiously into a gutter accompanied by some form of traffic cone within the next three hours I am going to be very disappointed. Don't make me come up there!

Louis

I have no money, and the local nightlife where I am (back home, oh joy) you're about as likely to get hammered drunk as you are to get hammered otherwise.

Plus, I don't actually LIKE getting so drunk I vomit. It's really not appealing.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:26:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:22)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:14)
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:10)
FTK is civil?

Since when is accusing people of being full of BS with no basis in evidence and accusing basically the entirety of the scientific establishment (which disagrees with her drivel) of being deliberately blinkered atheist stooges trying to suppress the Truth (TM patent pending) civil?

Oh she doesn't say "fuck" very often (if at all), but if people's standards of "civil" are so horrendously low then I am unimpressed.

Civility in a discussion involves a bare minimum of honesty, good natured give and take, and some vague attempt at intellectual rigour. FTK has demonstrated nothing resembling civility. If she were genuinely curious then why hasn't she taken up the myriad polite AND civil offers of questions answered and topics discussed? Why is she continually bleating about "darwinist/atheist" persecution and refusing to support even the simplest claims she makes?

Civil? Fuck off! ;-)

Louis

To be honest, I never claimed she was civil to eveyone, or to anyone but me. I personally take her not just refusing to answer everything and claming up totally muttering (or yelling) about "those darned atheists" to be at least somewhat civil. She does answer (some of) my questions, and as long as she continues to do so politely then I shall continue to state she is civil to me.

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.

Ian,

All granted, however perhaps, Lenny's more exciting proclivities aside, dear sweet FTK started out this way. Accusations, persecution complex, avoiding questions she cannot answer, advocating evidence free relativist drivel, failing to support her claims, assuming bias where none exists etc all came from poor, persecuted FTK BEFORE Lenny's latest bout of rampant intolerance.

You're also not the only one who has been (almost without exception) civil and polite to FTK.

Louis

I didn't see her beginings, so I cant make a claim on that. It would not surprise me one bit if this were the case, but I can't answer.

The thing is Louis, she has, up til now, be civil back. The minute she starts a screaming match/tries to accuse me of something I didn't do etc. I'll be right on ahead cheering Lenny all the way past the finish line. She hasn't yet, so I remain hopeful at least *I* can learn something about the other side's mindset, if nothing else, from FtK.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:27:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:24)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:22)
Plus, I don't actually LIKE getting so drunk I vomit. It's really not appealing.

{GASPS}

But but but but but

{Too shocked to even comment}

Louis

I honestly don't see whats fun about it. I've done it before, I didn't like it.

If you want more reasons to be shocked, I loathe clubbing, and think that the people who are excessively loud all the time even in residential areas should be taken out and shot.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:37:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:36)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:27)
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:24)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:22)
Plus, I don't actually LIKE getting so drunk I vomit. It's really not appealing.

{GASPS}

But but but but but

{Too shocked to even comment}

Louis

I honestly don't see whats fun about it. I've done it before, I didn't like it.

If you want more reasons to be shocked, I loathe clubbing, and think that the people who are excessively loud all the time even in residential areas should be taken out and shot.

Define "excessively loud".

Louis

P.S. Clubbing is awful. Except when horrendously drunk....wait I think I see a link!

The kind of people who walk along the street shouting "oi, ya fucking bastartds" etc.

Effectively, really, really drunk people.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:46:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:21)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.

Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).

But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?

I believe that like myself, you are from the UK and this seems (on 1st impression) like an honest discussion. It aint. The ID/Creationist side have been outright lying for decades. You will see.

TBH. It shocked the hell outa me once I realised how bloody dishonest they are.

Oh god no, I dont think the creos are anything but lying and/or deluded wierdos who feel so insecure in their beliefs they feel they have to force them on anyone and everyone, and then claim the other side are doing exactly that.

I just think SOME of them are, or at least can be, civil.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:49:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:40)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:26)
The thing is Louis, she has, up til now, be civil back. The minute she starts a screaming match/tries to accuse me of something I didn't do etc. I'll be right on ahead cheering Lenny all the way past the finish line. She hasn't yet, so I remain hopeful at least *I* can learn something about the other side's mindset, if nothing else, from FtK.

Disapproving of FTK's lack of civility in discussion does not equal cheering of Lenny.

Cheering of Lenny equals cheering of Lenny.

Again, how is FTK's conduct "civil"? I'll agree it's "polite" and that "polite" can be a subset of "civil", but I think FTK has been far from "civil".

You'll learn plenty about the creationist mindset from FTK, I wish you only the most wonderful things in your researches! Try to appreciate that others might have learned a few things too.

Louis

Oh, I do understand all of that Louis, I wasn't saying that disagreeing with FtK was support of Lenny, but that if FtK were to brush me off, I WOULD support Lenny, as I feel I would be right to do so.

I think she IS being civil (and note the next two words carefully) towards me. She DOES answer the questions (frankly, from what I've seen of creos, any response AT ALL should be considered a bonus) even if they are in a diverting way. I just think that since she's been civil (at least in some respects) to me, she shouldn't be lambasted as being a vile evil liar in total. She isn't. She just is (rightly or wrongly) to a few of you.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:52:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:43)
So really, really drunk always equates to really noisy and the shouting of rude slogans? Wow, I never knew that. It makes me wonder what I have been doing wrong all these years.

Might I suggest you delicately remove the bug from your arse and be just a *leeeeeeetle* less sanctimonious? You never know, you might realise when someone is making a joke.

Louis

I dont equate really drunk people to being loud ALL the time Louis.

I just experience it, and so it's starting to become an association, I've been around my friends at uni while they've been stupifyingly drunk and they are rarely, although occasionally, loud as hell. I just dislike the typical brash drunkard who seems to make up a good portion of the student population, they irritate me, and I don't like them. I don't think they SHOULD be shot, I just feel that they should be quiet some of the time. It's often the same repeat offenders.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:56:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,12:54)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 29 2007,12:21)
             
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:14)
...

She's not the easiest person to talk to on this, but if I had someone like Lenny hurling a huge spew of posts at me everywhere I turned up even if he did have good points, I'd be pretty defensive too.

Fair point.

Lenny can be a tad anoying (at first).

Opposite reaction here.  The schtick was funny at the start. It wasn't until after the fifth time through the complete repetoire, that it started to get annoying.
           
Quote
But does he say a single thing that you would dispute?

Actually, no.

Here is my opinion on this whole deal.  It looks like a therapy group having a competition to prove who has the worst case of OCD.   FtK is right about one thing when she says she knows how this will turn out.  Let me summarize:
       
Quote

START

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity  - "Okay, then what about this specific case?"
FtK  - "I addressed that 3 years ago at the KCFS forum.  Go look it up"
Albatrossity  - "Why should I do your work for you?  Tell me now in your own words?"
Oldman - "While you are here, show me the proof of design?"
FtK - "No time now, I have to go to work/go to a ball game/fix dinner/Read Icons of Evolution again"

WAIT 1 DAY

FtK - "There is no proof of common descent - only wishful thinking."
Albatrossity and Oldman (in unison) - "What about our questions?"
Arden - "Yeah. What about their questions?"
FtK - "You athiest meanies!  I'm out of here!"
Lenny - "Bye. Don't forget to take your big bucket of martyrdom with you."

WAIT 4 DAYS

Blipey - "She ran away again."
Lenny- {Shrug}
FtK - "I'm not afraid of any of you. I'll answer your questions this weekend."
RTH - "HUBBA HUBBA YABBA DABBA DOOO"
FtK - {swoon}
Albatrossity - What about my common descent question"

GO TO START


Have I missed anything?

No, that's a pretty fair covering. I think you have it all.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:58:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I feel I may have irritated Louis, which was not my intention, I like Louis, I liked Louis before I signed up here.
I think the main problem here might be difficulty with communication. I don't much like using smilies, and therefore, I rarely do, so everything I say looks kinda....blunt, and looks like I really meant to say it. Appologies for anywhere where I was not being clear, I don't disagree with you Louis, if someone really does say all drunks= loud idiots, they ARE sanctimonious.

All rugby players on the other hand....

Date: 2007/06/29 13:25:03, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (RF Brady @ June 29 2007,13:16)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:27)
Quote (Louis @ June 29 2007,12:24)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,19:22)
Plus, I don't actually LIKE getting so drunk I vomit. It's really not appealing.

{GASPS}

But but but but but

{Too shocked to even comment}

Louis

I honestly don't see whats fun about it. I've done it before, I didn't like it.

If you want more reasons to be shocked, I loathe clubbing, and think that the people who are excessively loud all the time even in residential areas should be taken out and shot.

You obviously didn't do it correctly - keep trying until you get it right. Let's see... you're 20 now... you ought to have mastered it by the time your social security kicks in :p

Nah, just don't see the attraction of spewing your guts out.

Getting drunk, now THAT is a different story...

Date: 2007/06/29 17:17:33, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (mitschlag @ June 29 2007,16:50)
Shame on you all.  No wonder FTK is aghast.

And Ian, happy birthday and all that!

But what's the point of this FARCE?

Read the whole freakin' goddam Brown book already before you start a thread about discussin' it.

*Sheesh*  *Sigh*  *Etc*

Not having the massive science education, I occasionally need help working out what the hell Brown is talking about. Therefore I set this up as a "what the hell is THIS about then?" area.

I shall try to be more perfect in future, and shall give myself 200 lashes with the cat right away.

(Note, the last bit is sarcasm, please don't make me use smilies)

Date: 2007/06/29 20:46:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ June 29 2007,20:36)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,12:58)
All rugby players on the other hand....

Hey now!  My daughter's a Rugby player, and she will kick your behind for making fun of Rugby Players!  :)

Happy BD!

Ah ha, I was of course in jest. Although it IS a fact that the male rugby team will always be the first to put on womens clothing for absolutely no reason...

Of course, I rather enjoy rugby, I've recently been getting more interested in it (union of course, not that leauge stuff.) same as with that most dreadfully English of sports, cricket.

Thanks for the well wishing, although where I am, it hasn't been my birthday for almost 3 hours.

Date: 2007/07/01 10:12:35, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (BWE @ June 30 2007,17:04)
But the freeloader has to keep on laying eggs to get the free ride.

Nah, just the promise of the eggs will do.

Date: 2007/07/01 20:02:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Just finished (re)reading Going Postal, by Terry Pratchett, which is excellent.

Also reading The God Delusion.

Date: 2007/07/01 20:04:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Remember, Portugese must be a bastard child of the French and Spanish "families".

Date: 2007/07/02 05:18:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2007,15:10)
Dunno about having a dinner consisting of nothing but rice.

I mean, it'd seem a bit, uh, incomplete without SOME attempt at vegetables or protein. Seems like kind of a kwashiorkor diet.

Sorry. I've always wanted to use the word 'kwashiorkor'.

I did it for three months.

All I had was rice, pasta, various spices and hebs and such, and occasionally a bit of meat or something that someone left for me. Oh, the joys of having exactly £0.00 in the bank with 3 months of uni to go.

Date: 2007/07/02 06:16:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Bloody hell.

"Religion and science are simply forms of control that were created by the ruling elite long before you were born. And thus, it is a shame that after being born on this planet, you were raised on either of those two lies."

Good grief.

Date: 2007/07/02 06:18:07, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Oops, slightly screwed up the title there.

Date: 2007/07/02 09:47:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Simply the greatest diagram I've ever seen:

Date: 2007/07/02 15:24:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ July 02 2007,15:13)
Quote

Boletus is a good example. The ruselas are a different story but not one that your comments are displaying evidence of comprehending. Do you have access to a library? Do you have a brick?


. You have never any idea that such an anti-darwinian example exists because it has never been mentioned in english language as far as I know.

But but but....that means you can't have stolen this from Davidson!

Date: 2007/07/02 15:35:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 02 2007,13:42)
Am I the only one at ATBC who doesn't really like Princess Bride?

[cringes under anticipated hail of bottles and rotten fruit] :O

Heresy!

Date: 2007/07/02 15:52:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ July 02 2007,15:42)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 02 2007,15:35)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 02 2007,13:42)
Am I the only one at ATBC who doesn't really like Princess Bride?

[cringes under anticipated hail of bottles and rotten fruit] :O

Heresy!

HERSHEY!


Ah man, that stuff is rank....



Much better.

Date: 2007/07/02 17:55:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ah, sadly I'm on water tonight, or I would love to join in.

Date: 2007/07/02 18:36:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 02 2007,13:54)
Check it out. Legendary loon-about-town Larry Fafarman shows up at Tara's blog, proudly declares his crackpottery,

 
Quote
I am both a holocaust revisionist and a Darwin doubter.


...and is completely ignored.

Must piss him off no end.  :p

What's eating Sensor? What the hell is he trying to say?

Date: 2007/07/02 19:19:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 02 2007,19:10)
Quote
the IDURC is proud to name Mr. Casey Luskin, a graduate of the University of California at San Diego, an honorary recipient of the Casey Luskin Graduate Award.


Wha?  ???

Well, unless that's a mock award created by someone online, that's one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Date: 2007/07/03 06:21:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,06:14)
When I read this my thoughts were:

"Dude! If I were American I'd be pissed"

Well actually, those weren't my thoughts precisely, I was translating them so our American friends could relate better to them. Just FYI, what I actually thought was:

"Golly gosh! Those colonial chappies have a bit of a rum administration. Mind you, we've just had a transfer of power that borders on the hereditary, but then being a monarchy we like that sort of thing. I wonder if it's possible for that Bush fellow to make the corruption and nepotism of his government any more obvious. Why not simply come out and actually ADMIT to being wrong over Irq etc? After all this action is basically a signal that this was the case. I wonder when he'll pay Her Majesty the 200 odd years of back taxes the upstart owes her."

And Obama apparently doesn't want him impeached!

I'd love to be able to comment from a position of smug superiority, but we have a government that has reduced scientific funding in real terms (i.e. per researcher. The amount of money has gone up, the amount of researchers has gone up more than the amount of money, the amount of bureacracy has gone up enormously, so the money per researcher is less), quite literally destroyed civil liberties so that we are less free now due to "terrorism hysteria" than we were during the second world war, ruined the health service with bureacracy, put more knee jerk legislation onto the statute books and more spin and lies into the media than the two previous administrations combined, taken the country to war on a demonstrably falsified mandate against international consensus, refused to change a 19th century inspired and obviously flawed foreign policy, and is determined to intervene in people's personal lives to an unprecedented degree.

Louis

Now now Louis, the NHS isn't a lost cause yet. It's sinking, sure enough, but it CAN be saved. Also, let us not forget it was the milk snatcher who started the rot, like so many things. (I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate)

Date: 2007/07/03 06:44:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,06:29)
Oh I know the NHS isn't a lost cause yet, none of it is, well perhaps except the civil liberties. The trend is towards further restriction, a greater "Little Britain" mentality. I despair.

Oh and don't think it's party political btw (I'm not a party political person, I prefer to judge each action on it's meirts. Something called "the evidence", which is a weird concept in politics 'twould appear). Blair's govt has fucked up things I care about (scientific funding [see most recent Nature for example] and civil liberties).

I am no fan of Lady Thatcher, I AM however a fan of Dennis Thatcher, mainly for comedy reasons. Anyway, New Labour have been the best centre right, conservative government any Tory could have hoped for (apart from the fox hunting ban perhaps!). My uncle, who is a Tory stereotype of the most pernicious kind, loves Blair. Everything he could have wanted has come true! He might grumble a bit about taxes occasionally but he is vastly better off under this "Labour" govt than he was under the last "Tory" govts.

Vote Looney (or Liberal!) it's the only serious choice.

Louis

Personally I'm old labour. Very old labour. Like, I'm roughly in line with Ken Livingston, old Labour. As in, I'd bring in higher taxes and tell people that, and funnel money into science, the arts, education and the NHS. I'd rob from the rich and give to the future, as it were.

So I vote the most  left leaning party there is (or will, when theres an election) Lib Dem.

I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once:

"Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people".

and

"So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza."

Date: 2007/07/03 10:02:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17)
J-Dog,

Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) was known as "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" because she had various education policies (not least of which was the cessation of free school milk for kids) that were less than wonderful.

Louis

In the same way that cancer is "less than wonderful".

Date: 2007/07/03 11:48:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,11:07)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21)
(I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate)

Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise.

What was wrong with Callaghan?

Date: 2007/07/03 11:51:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
For my lunch I cooked some sausages (Richmond, cheap but tasty) and cooked them with onions, spices (cumin, chilli, black onion seeds, corriander), lime juice and yoghurt. It was delicious.

Date: 2007/07/03 12:20:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,12:10)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,11:48)
 
Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,11:07)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21)
(I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate)

Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise.

What was wrong with Callaghan?

Well, he was nothing special, but my point was that "best PM since before Thatcher" means "better than Thatcher or Major".  I've seen unicellular pond life that would have been better than Thatcher or Major.

True. I liked Callaghan though.

Date: 2007/07/03 18:21:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,13:26)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44)
...

I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once:

"Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people".

and

"So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza."

That would probably depend upon where you live.
If you was a resident of the Falkland Islands or some parts of Eastern Europe you may just have a different opinion.

I aint claiming she was perfect. Just that your POV may depend upon geography.

Oh, the falklands was a great victory.

Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces.

Date: 2007/07/03 20:20:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,20:13)

Deep Fried Mars Bars??!!??

Yep. Nothing says "Welcome to Scotland" like a snack that can cause you to have multiple heart attacks. They also do  deep fried pizza and deep fried haggis.

Addendum. A mars bar here is a Milky Way over across the pond, for those who don't know.

Linky.

Date: 2007/07/04 09:27:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,09:20)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,18:21)
...
Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces.

I have not heard about that. Are you certain that the defence forces where halved imediately before the invasion?

Even if true, why would that be an invitation to invasion?

I don't consider Thatcher to be evil BTW. She had some bad policies and some good ones. You probably don't remember the state of the country before she came to office. We had a shedload of problems back in the 70's.

The forces were removed not long before the attacks.

How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open.

No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that.

Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace.

Date: 2007/07/04 09:59:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,09:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:27)
The forces were removed not long before the attacks.

How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open.

No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that.

Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace.

What forces where removed and when? I still don't see that (if true) is an invitation to atack. When was the Falkland Islands part of an independent Argentina?

BTW. Not everyone (even in the UK) hated her.

Under Thatcher some things got worse but some things got better. IMO she was not an evil person.

I do remember some of the stuff that happened in the 60s-70s here. Power cuts, 3 day weeks, people in full employment requiring benefits to live, food and fuel shortages etc.

TBH the main topic here is beyond my comprehension as I am ill-informed of the detail.

Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it?

I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like).

I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)?

Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE.

Date: 2007/07/04 10:33:33, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:25)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:59)
Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it?

I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like).

I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)?

Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE.

Well some good stuff.
In 1978 a lance corporal in the British army earned so little that he would be getting welfare payments to support a family. Now a lance corporal had on average served more that 3 years in the army. Yet still required welfare to support a wife and child.

In the early 70s late 60s my mother used to go to every single shop in town before purchasing food so that she could save a penny or 2 on each item. Cash was tight.

Those things changed under Thatcher's government.

You still haven't shown evidence that the FI defence force was cut in half yet. Why not? I am not dissputing it BTW, you may be correct, I just aint seen evidence.

Now as to "invitation". Since when is a reduced guard = to an invitation? If I guard my property with a fully loaded 2 barelled shotgun then take 1 cartridge out is that an invitation to tresspass on my property? I don't think so.

Why would an Argentine claim to the Falklands be legitimate?

If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it.
If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string.

I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion).

Date: 2007/07/04 11:02:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:47)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,10:33)
If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it.
If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string.

I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion).

Oh, I don't mind staying civilised. Despite what I have said I am not a Maggie fan. I just do not see her as evil. The country she "inherited" was a mess and some things improved under her government. Not everything BTW.

As to the FI defence, take your time. I just do not recall the defense being weakend imediately prior to the invasion. IIRC the marines on FI was twice the normal amount at the time of the invasion (still only about 2 platoons BTW).

No, you did not state that Argentina had a legitimate claim. I had just implied that is what you meant from previous (indirect) comments.

Ah, my bad, it was AFTER the start of the invasion. The defence was small to begin with (FAR too small) and they invaded without provocation, so we pulled out THEN.

Appologies for the mixup in the timeline.

Date: 2007/07/04 11:06:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:54)
Quote (guthrie @ July 04 2007,10:34)
Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.  

What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.  

The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil.

Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule!

What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint.

Some good points.
I don't really want to say that Thatcher was perfect, she wasn't.
I do think that reducing the power of the unions was good thing though. I am saying that as a member of a strong union BTW. But in the 60s-70s Unions where spoiling the country IMO.

I agree that a working person should earn enough to suport a family, but they should have to do productive work.

Agh! I am sounding like a Thatcher fan. I am not. I just do not accept that she was evil and was plotting to make life worse for everyone in the working class.

I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did.

She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry.

Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell?

Date: 2007/07/04 11:08:43, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:32)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 04 2007,10:04)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 04 2007,09:57)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,20:20)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,20:13)

Deep Fried Mars Bars??!!??

Yep. Nothing says "Welcome to Scotland" like a snack that can cause you to have multiple heart attacks. They also do  deep fried pizza and deep fried haggis.

Addendum. A mars bar here is a Milky Way over across the pond, for those who don't know.

Linky.

Interesting. Scotland sounds a lot like places here in the south eastern US.

There's a very good reason for that.

Then again. I do believe that the people now known as Scots originally came from Ireland.

The Irish came over and took Scotland from the original people there and the Welsh took england, then left as everybody else invaded as well.

Date: 2007/07/04 11:10:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Boo, down with the colonials! Damn rebelious upstarts, don't know whats good for them....

Date: 2007/07/04 11:54:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,11:25)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:06)
I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did.

She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry.

Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell?

I think that the blame is missplaced. We had virtually no (internationally) competitive industry before she became prime minister.

BTW. Don't bother with skeptic as I doubt he/she will bother to give a honest answer.

We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel.

Date: 2007/07/04 16:07:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:54)
We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel.

I would like a point by point account.
I can remember life being much worse for working people in the 60s and 70s than in the late 80s. Maybe I am mad and remember things wrong.

Tell me explicitily how Maggie Thatcher was worse for the working* class than the Labour governments (or indeed conservative ones) from the 1960s or 70s!

*I actually mean working class here. Not parasites.

Who said anything about the working class specifically?

Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made.

Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote:

"Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000"

An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION.

While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day.

Here's another choice quote:

"She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government."

Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures.

Date: 2007/07/04 16:45:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"a dead end theory."

I wonder what is so dead end about it?

Date: 2007/07/04 16:50:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,11:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:08)
The Irish came over and took Scotland from the original people there and the Welsh took england, then left as everybody else invaded as well.

Then the Romans followed by Vikings and related people and then the Normans. I guess the English are a right mixed race. Cool.

I prefer to be a mongrel than a pure-breed.

You missed out the Angles and Saxons from what is now Germany, the Netherlands, etc.

Between Rome and Viking invasions, by the way.

Date: 2007/07/04 18:05:05, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25)
I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus.

IMHO

Does absolutely EVERYTHING on this board have to be about science? No, I don't believe it does.

Date: 2007/07/05 06:37:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,22:47)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,16:07)
...
Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made.

Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote:

"Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000"

An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION.

While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day.

Here's another choice quote:

"She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government."

Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures.

What is the poverty line? Would you consider a person that has access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty?

Privitisation wasn't universally bad. At least 1 business going private was a good thing. The telecomms area was a major bonus to it's customers by going private. On the whole though I do agree with you on that point. Water, power and the railway should have stayed in public ownership.

Mass unemployment was very worrying. That was in the early years of her government though. Things did improve.

Manufacturing declined because we was uncompetitive. It was cheaper to buy imported goods rather than UK manufactured ones and so that is what most people did. It is sad that British manufacturing has dropped drastically but how would you have prevented that happening? I can only think of a few unaceptable ways.
1)Reduce British workers wages and working conditions to make UK products cheaper.
or
2)Ban imported goods.
or
3)Impose a huge tarrif onto imported goods that threatened UK ones (effectively the same as number 2).

VAT. Is that a tax that the UK has any authority on? I am not certain but thought VAT was a EU tax.

Your rose tinted spectacles are worrying to me. My family were at their richest in the 80's (as far as I can tell) and THEY hated Thatcher, because they could see what she was doing to the people less well off. You must have been in one HELL of an ivory tower.

No, because that isn't what the poverty line represents. The poverty line is the minimum level of income one needs to be able to get an ADEQUATE standard of living. Anyone below the line DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING. So what if it's worse than Ethiopia? This ISN'T Ethopia, and there should be a damn good standard of living, for 5 million more people from the previous decade, this reality slipped away.

"Mass unemployment was very worrying. " As has been mentioned, not to her government it wasn't. The rich were getting richer and we were in a boom. A BOOM I tells yer! But because it was unsustainable it collapsed. Mass unemployment became even WORSE during this time.

At the time it was a UK determined thing, because it was brought in after consulting the EU. The 80's was a great time if you started out rich. If you were poor, it got worse for you. A lot worse.

Date: 2007/07/05 06:42:33, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ July 05 2007,04:28)
Some darwinists here denigrated  John Davison and me using all sort of abuses and lies. But you are somehow very sensitive to honor of people you are brownnosing, aren't you?

CITE. Please.

Date: 2007/07/05 10:37:04, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2007,07:55)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,06:37)
Your rose tinted spectacles are worrying to me. My family were at their richest in the 80's (as far as I can tell) and THEY hated Thatcher, because they could see what she was doing to the people less well off. You must have been in one HELL of an ivory tower.

No, because that isn't what the poverty line represents. The poverty line is the minimum level of income one needs to be able to get an ADEQUATE standard of living. Anyone below the line DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING. So what if it's worse than Ethiopia? This ISN'T Ethopia, and there should be a damn good standard of living, for 5 million more people from the previous decade, this reality slipped away.

"Mass unemployment was very worrying. " As has been mentioned, not to her government it wasn't. The rich were getting richer and we were in a boom. A BOOM I tells yer! But because it was unsustainable it collapsed. Mass unemployment became even WORSE during this time.

At the time it was a UK determined thing, because it was brought in after consulting the EU. The 80's was a great time if you started out rich. If you were poor, it got worse for you. A lot worse.

I don't think that I lived in an ivory tower. You may think that but I don't. Both my parents went to work throughout most of my childhood. Apart from 1 year of unemployment I have worked since Sep 1978.

You have not explained what you consider to be poverty. Do you consider someone that lives in a house that is heated and can afford adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty? I don't. Within my lifetime workers did not have the standard of living that some people on welfare in the UK enjoy now. Why do you think that a person living in the UK automatically deserves a standard of living that is higher than a citizen of Ethiopia? Don't get me wrong, I want a higher standard of living for everyone than that, but why would someone deserve it?

You think that mass unemployment was a deliberate choice by Thatchers government. I don't. I think it was mainly due to a changing World market. Sure, some of it could be down to specific conservative policies but I doubt that the explanation is as simple as just that.

VAT: I will concede as I don't know much about it.

During most of the 80's I was working abroad and came back to visit about 2-6 times per year. Each time I returned there seemed to be more cars on the road and more leisure facilities which makes me think that things got steadily better for most people.

Ok, firstly, the ivory tower thing was a little bit heated and seemed to imply I was having a go at you, I wasn't I was having a go near you, not the same thing.

Secondly, YES I consider someone in the UK without adequate living standards is in poverty, even if they have shelter and heat, why the hell don't you? Do you REALLY think there's no poverty in the UK? Don't you consider the inability to provide an adequate standard of living compared to the UK expected standard to be poverty? If not, why not?

Thirdly, I didn't mean they DESERVE it, just that, since the UK is a far richer country they SHOULD deserve an adequate standard of living, and should EXPECT one, as opposed to Ethipoia, who deserve one but probably don't have one, and are less likely to expect one.

I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral.

They got better for the rich, and worse for the poor. The fact you cannot accept this, and think that just because a large number of people suddenly had more cinemas and such like means the UK was A-OK is, to me, really, really REALLY disturbing. You only saw a small part of what was happening. If you are in a room where 100 people are having a party and 5 are being tortured you might be forgiven for thinking that pretty much is having a good time there and things are generally fine, but if you don't bother to look in the rest of the house and see the 400 being tortured before you claim "so I think the whole house is absolutely fine" then your opinions are tainted.

REALLY tainted.

I never saw any of this first hand, but my family did and they've told me the good and bad that they saw. I've studied this and seen a fair amount of good, but also a whole lot of bad. Believe me, if you really look without simply stating "Nope, what I saw suggested it was sunshine and roses" then you'll see that away from the affluence, there was a whole lot of trouble.

Date: 2007/07/05 11:42:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,11:40)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37)
I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral.

Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price.

That's true enough. I don't think the milk snatcher cared one jot about anyone but herself.

Date: 2007/07/05 12:43:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Hang on, is it just my ignorance, or are non-expressed genes totally different from DNA in dead material?

That IS what VMartin is arguing is the same, right?

Date: 2007/07/05 12:51:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Oops, I forgot to wish you a happy birthday too. Well, better late than never.

Date: 2007/07/05 12:54:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2007,12:52)
Cheers Ian / Ed.

Did Alan Johnson send you a thank-you card?

Ah-ha, no, no he did not.

Date: 2007/07/05 13:12:35, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Forgive me if this is old news, but I've just dicovered a wonderful video on youtube here.

The song being "Tribute to Kent Hovind" by another youtube user, while priceless in itself, is enhanced by the fantastic cartoon that has been made for it.

Date: 2007/07/05 13:22:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Blasphemy is better for atheists, it gets the message across and we dont have to worry about being punnished for what is effectively a victimless "crime".

Date: 2007/07/05 18:37:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
" It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country."

This bit is where you are leaving me baffled. You seem to be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the poor people during the Thatcher era. Things did not get better, I even showed stats to show this, and yet you continue to say "well I saw things go well".

I think this may be fairly comparible to the attitudes of some creos who claim no evidence for evo based upon a few hoaxes. When shown other evidence they go back to "Well I don't see it".

Just because there are ameneties does not mean they are used by, or CAN be used by everyone.

WHY do you not see someone who does not have an adequate standard of living to be poverty? I don't understand why you think these people are suddenly sunshine and roses because they're better off than most of other places. YES the poverty in, for example, Ethiopia is worse than British or American or Canadian poverty, but that doesn't mean that the first world poverty is magically no longer poverty because there are a few really frighteningly basic services available.

Just because someone has a roof over their head doesn't mean they have a house worth living in, just because they CAN eat doesn't mean they have good food. Just because they have clothes doesn't mean they are really that good.

"Margaret Thatcher made two significant contributions to poverty in the UK. She massively increased it, leaving at the end of the Conservative tenure one in three children living in households with less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty). Then she said it did not exist."

My particular favourite though:

"Margaret Thatcher's politics created the social and economic problems which governments today must address. She may still live in the dreams of the nostalgic right, but the rest of the world has moved on."

Date: 2007/07/05 18:38:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2007,17:59)
Optimally, we'd have some creationists around with science degrees. Someone who could give us an actual workout. Problem is, there aren't many such people.

How many are there?

Date: 2007/07/05 18:49:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 05 2007,18:43)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,18:38)
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2007,17:59)
Optimally, we'd have some creationists around with science degrees. Someone who could give us an actual workout. Problem is, there aren't many such people.

How many are there?

About 700, modulo the cranks and the folks who sign on without realizing what the DI is up to.

Ah, the list....Yes, I forgot about the list.

Pity they don't talk about Project Steve when they bring up the list, I think.

Date: 2007/07/06 12:42:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2007,23:29)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,18:37)
" It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country."

This bit is where you are leaving me baffled. You seem to be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the poor people during the Thatcher era. Things did not get better, I even showed stats to show this, and yet you continue to say "well I saw things go well".

I think this may be fairly comparible to the attitudes of some creos who claim no evidence for evo based upon a few hoaxes. When shown other evidence they go back to "Well I don't see it".

Just because there are ameneties does not mean they are used by, or CAN be used by everyone.

WHY do you not see someone who does not have an adequate standard of living to be poverty? I don't understand why you think these people are suddenly sunshine and roses because they're better off than most of other places. YES the poverty in, for example, Ethiopia is worse than British or American or Canadian poverty, but that doesn't mean that the first world poverty is magically no longer poverty because there are a few really frighteningly basic services available.

Just because someone has a roof over their head doesn't mean they have a house worth living in, just because they CAN eat doesn't mean they have good food. Just because they have clothes doesn't mean they are really that good.

"Margaret Thatcher made two significant contributions to poverty in the UK. She massively increased it, leaving at the end of the Conservative tenure one in three children living in households with less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty). Then she said it did not exist."

My particular favourite though:

"Margaret Thatcher's politics created the social and economic problems which governments today must address. She may still live in the dreams of the nostalgic right, but the rest of the world has moved on."

My Bolding
That is what I have a problem with. Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty.

Examples: If living costs stayed as they are at present and nobody earned less than £100,000 per anum but the average wage was £300,000 you wold be classing people (earning as much as £149,000) as living in poverty.
Yet if nobody earned more than £120/year and nobody less than £80 poverty would not exist.

EVen if this were true, and I'm struggling to understand why, I think it quite....illuminating, that you're totally ignoring all the stuff I'm putting forward about Milk Snatcher and just banging on about what poverty is.

Irrespective of whether you think the poverty line is poverty or not, did the figures rise, yes/no?

If yes, is this a good or bad thing?

Did the economy suffer under Thatcher, yes/no?

Did Thatcher crush the powers of unions, yes/no?

If yes is this a good or bad thing?

Did Thatcher completely destroy what was left of the british primary (eg mining, farming etc.) economy, yes/no?
(by destroy I mean remove it as a truely competative sector)

Did she destroy the British secondary economy, yes/no?


Tally up the results, if you have more yeses than nos what does this tell you?

Date: 2007/07/06 15:31:44, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"Wether that is a good or bad thing is irelevant unless you can come to a concrete statement about what poverty is."

Bollocks. It proves that the number of people who were poorer in real terms increased. THIS. IS. NOT. GOOD.

It is also not meaningless.

"I don't think that the economy suffered because of Thatcher."

Then you're dreaming, frankly. I study this sort of thing, and the economy suffered a dramatic hit during the 80's, now let's think who was in power.....

"Did thatcher destroy any part of the economy? I am uncertain but tend to believe that she just stoped UK tax money bailing out failing uncompetitive industries. " Then you're wrong. The industries weren't doing well, but Thatcher tried to squeeze all the money she could out of them, and when this made them unprofitable (due to, you know, there being millions less workers) she scrapped them.

"So in conclusion, I believe that on the whole Britain improved in the 80s for most people."

Then you don't have a clue.

Date: 2007/07/06 15:33:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
My god, they even spell the site "Kidz".

Date: 2007/07/06 15:39:43, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Oh man, I can't link it, but the picture by Earl (12) is one of the funniest things I've seen all day.

On THIS page, the creation science museum picture seems to be a parody...

It's on here.

Date: 2007/07/06 15:56:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JohnW @ July 06 2007,15:51)
I can't find a reference, but I've seen discussions of that website before and I'm pretty sure it's a parody.  It's just so hard to tell with this stuff, though.

Either way up, it's magnificent:
 
Quote
That kangaroos are not mentioned in the Genesis account of the Flood, either by name or description, is unsurprising due to the great number of kinds of animals that were in the Ararat area at the time. What's a kangaroo or two among a great throng of pandas, mastodons, velociraptors, and giraffes?

I refuse to believe that it is real. If it isn't, virtually all, if not all of the pictures are people taking the piss.

Date: 2007/07/06 15:58:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ta Da!

Date: 2007/07/06 16:27:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2007,16:06)
Quote

That image is .png format, which is not supported on this board.


It should be now.

Testing.



Shame it's a parody site really.

Date: 2007/07/06 17:56:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,17:20)
Quote
2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"?


Spend awhile around my extended family and you'll have an answer to that question. Some people love making really horrible decisions.

Not all poverty is the result of bad decision making. A lot of people go bankrupt from health problems and other things out of their control. But some of it is the result of bad decision making, and I don't know how you're going to eradicate that.

But Stephen is claiming that poverty is only impossible to erradicate if its based upon the definition accepted by the worlds governments.

Date: 2007/07/06 18:15:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,18:09)
I don't know anything about the larger discussion you're having. I just automatically think about some of my relatives when I hear people discussing poverty. The ones who like to drunk drive, punch cops, and have weekly unprotected sex with somebody from the bar are always going to be poor and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

You might want to call them the 'voluntary poor'. Catastrophic health care coverage by the government may be the single biggest thing we can do to reduce the 'involuntary poor'.

That's fair enough so.

Date: 2007/07/07 05:51:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Here's an idea. Instead of going off the masses of leasuire places you saw, and your own experience, why not find out what she did, and what the majority of people felt.

Try looking for testimony, and seeing if your viewpoint was narrow, or actually representative.

Date: 2007/07/10 10:36:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I find this from Larry Farfaraway to be an interesting comment.

Quote
ID is at worst bad science or pseudoscience.


Surely he meant to say something else?

Date: 2007/07/10 12:58:48, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Well everyone, if I'm honest for being smart, funny and welcoming.

Some people who I feel warant special mention are Stevestory for doing a bangup job as the local Darwin thought-policeman.

AirFarceDave for being consistantly entertaining, even if it is accidental.

J-Dog, for being amusing, this time with intention.

Oh, and Louis says he'll break my legs if I don't mention him.

Date: 2007/07/11 05:49:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Future Force.

David Carradine in a really, really shitty looking "metal" arm that shoots lasers, a really late 80's looking "future" of either 1991 or 1993, depending on where you hear about it, and a stripclub.

Oh, and policemen that look like the gay bikers convention 1990. One looks like Freddy Mercury. JUST like Freddy Mercury.

The FUTURE

Date: 2007/07/11 16:43:12, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ July 11 2007,15:43)
Quote (Darth Robo @ July 11 2007,17:24)
"I have had my Darwin fish prised off my car before."

Quite surprised to hear that happened in the UK, I wouldn't have thought it was that well known.  

Little buggers!     :angry:

I was very surprised because the culprit didn't seem like a fundy nutter. If I hadn't been at work with this person, and thus requiredto maintain a suitable profession disposition and relationship, I would have been moved to level one sarcasm. Or possibly even level two.

Just goes to show that nutters is everywhere.

And you're right it ISN'T that well known. In fact it's positively obscure, but a proper nutter (or one who is aware of proper nutters) would know what it is.

Louis

Surely that's treason, being British and not automatically being on level one. For shame Louis!

Now, can someone explain who this Glen person is and why he's just turned up and started talking about something else?

Date: 2007/07/12 10:50:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I just put this comment forward to her blog.
I wonder if it will get through......

Quote
"My approach will enable students to be critical thinkers, whereas yours would be to indoctrinate them with one particular paradigm."

No, it won't. What it will do is teach them hey, guess what? Evidence means nothing as long as you don't believe it. Your personal disbelief allows you to sweep everything under the rug and claim it's "open minded"!

To teach people to be critical thinkers they need to understand how to think critically, and this includes the apraisal of evidence. If there is evidence to support something, no matter how strange it may seem, then it is more likely than something that to you seems logical but has no support.

This is open minded. Looking at something and saying "Wow, that looks impossible" is fine, as long as it is followed by an examination of the evidence. If there is evidence there then you CANNOT just go "Oh well, some people say different, and it still looks off to me".

If you see rebuttals for evidence, by all means, read it, put youself into the world of the problems and opposing views. However, if the opposing views are said to be rebutted then look at THOSE to, don't just say "never happened". If the opposing views to a paradigm don't have any experiments then ask WHY. If it's a simple case of "just haven't done it yet" then try to chase them up, if they cry foul look at what they say and see how it COULD be tested.

If something cannot be tested, it is NOT science, nor is it useful. It may be right, but it sure as hell has less chance than something WITH evidence, and it certainly isn't helpful to further human understanding.

These are the errors you commit FtK. You look at something and say "I don't believe it" and go looking for the other side. THAT is great. However, where it falls apart is that you don't think about the other side's arguments very well, you just say "well, they seem to talk some sense, and theres all sciency words there" and leave it at that. You don't even question how any of this "therefore-god" stuff you profess to put on equal footing to "darwinism" (I highly doubt you do this) is of any use.

When people ask you how it can be tested you just ignore it and say "but look, problem with evolution!".

This is why you fail to see how open mindedness does not mean abandonment of critical thinking.


Damn, I noted a spelling error. Ah well.

Date: 2007/07/12 18:21:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Hurrah, I'm now a meanie according to FtK.

Now, this news came in an e-mail, but frankly, it's of no consequence, and I really don't care now.

Date: 2007/07/13 10:52:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Anyone ever seen this before?

Date: 2007/07/13 13:27:35, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JohnW @ July 13 2007,12:39)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 13 2007,10:52)
Anyone ever seen this before?

That's tard for the ages, Ian.  Like a fine malt, it should be savoured in small amounts, or you'll throw up, your eyes will hurt, and you'll get a splitting headache.

From here:
Quote
Geology shows that every mountain either has:
Sedimentary rock (rock deposited by water) on top of it;
Sea life fossils;
Or sea shells on top of them.

Yup.  Every mountain.

The guy who runs it was on the Rational Response radio when I just happened to tune in (He's looking for people to debate him at a university in TX. Can't remember which one.)

I personally love the 6 reasons people may believe evolution.

Number 1 is bitterness at god. It actually gets WORSE after that.

Date: 2007/07/14 05:06:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ July 13 2007,21:09)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 13 2007,10:13)
Ian and I may be taking orders for an official FtK seal of approval lapel pin for Official FTK Meanie™ members. It will definitely complement the "I'm with the banned" bumper stickers. Here is a possible image for the pin.

I like your thinking young man... and I have one for Dembski and/or Behe:



ps For those of you who are just young punks (and you know who you are) this character is called The Nowhere Man and is from the same most excellent film Yellow Submarine.

Heym I may be a young punk, but I''ve seen that film more times than I can count. It's superb.

Date: 2007/07/14 05:29:36, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Currently "On War" By Carl Von Clausewitz. Not as dry as it may seem.

Date: 2007/07/14 10:04:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 14 2007,09:47)
I have a feeling the comment might not show up over there.

I can't think why....FtK LOVES constructive criticism.

Date: 2007/07/14 13:56:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ July 14 2007,12:55)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 14 2007,05:29)
Currently "On War" By Carl Von Clausewitz. Not as dry as it may seem.

Ian - Could you do the world a favor and send that to Bush and Cheney when you're done reading it?

They will me utterly amazed that you can actually plan to win a war!  Say what you will about the Krauts, but I think they knew how to win, except that Hitler kept second-guessing his professionals and going with his gut reactions...   Sound familiar?  Yep, it's The ID of WWII.

It's a tad outdated, but hey, even Sun Tzu would do better. (I have that to read as well).

Date: 2007/07/14 14:01:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
You know, flying saucers from the devil is exactly, EXACTLY what the curate claims the martians are in War of the Worlds.

Maybe they read some HG Wells and ate cheese before going to bed?

Date: 2007/07/14 20:16:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 14 2007,16:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 14 2007,13:56)
It's a tad outdated, but hey, even Sun Tzu would do better. (I have that to read as well).

Add Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings", too.

I already spent well over £100 of my parents money on textbooks, otherwise I would happily add that.

Date: 2007/07/14 21:28:30, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, that's it, the time for civility is over, FtK went too far this time

Quote
Irregardless,


THIS. IS. NOT. A. WORD.

Even if it was, it would mean "with regard to" which is the exact opposite of what people who use it mean to say.

(This is one of my pet peeves. I'm not a 100% Queens english obsessive, but there are certian things that get my back up, and this is one, but for the hard of thinking this is (mostly) a JOKE).

Date: 2007/07/14 22:03:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ July 14 2007,21:41)
by the way, I share your happiness about Alan Johnston's release. I'd read a bit about the situation, and was not optimistic at all.

Neither was I. I expected there to be a huge bloodbath, probably involving him dying, but Hamas, bastard sociopaths though they are, managed to get him out. Adds another shade of grey to the world.

Date: 2007/07/15 11:44:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06)
Hi all,

Thanks for setting up this area, Wes.  I'll be in Seattle this week, and hope to set up an open forum to discussion Explore Evolution (EE) at the EE webpage.  In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Looking forward to a vigorous discussion,

Paul

WHY? Why don't you just debate it HERE?

I don't understand why you feel you need a seperate forum for this when there's one here which is perfectly fine and has very little moderation, (almost) everyone who might be interested will be able to join in, and you're in an area with more than a few extremly qualified scientists.

Date: 2007/07/15 17:25:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
18. Nice.

I got questions 5, 8, and 14 wrong.

Date: 2007/07/15 17:57:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,17:48)
Paul, is Exploring Evolution going to contain a single... argument...?

You pretty much could have used this.

Date: 2007/07/15 19:31:48, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 15 2007,19:25)
Can we count on VMartin wandering in here and burbling about peppered moths? He seems to be obsessed with them.

As obsessed as he is with JAD, or can nothing go that far?

Date: 2007/07/16 10:46:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 16 2007,10:29)
Please forgive the double post, but this needs to be shared.

In a long and revealing rant at the end of a comment thread, FtK

1) again evades jeremy's question about her view of the difference between "darwinism" and the theory of evolution. She claims to have answered it "several times in the past", and even links to a purported answer, but a close reading of that link reveals nothing of the sort.

2) reveals the true source of her irritation
 
Quote
You know what really disappoints me about theistic evolutionists, Jeremy? You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least.

and 3) takes on Avalos for suggesting that the Bible is not relevant in today's world (or today's school curricula). She concludes  
Quote
Our founding father's would turn over in their graves if they knew where we have gone with the separation of church and state. During their time, the Bible was an important part of student curriculum, now it's virtually banned, and it's considered by some to have a negative impact on society in general.

Yep, it's all about the science.

Read the whole thing; these excerpts really don't give you the fulminating flavor of this philippic...

I know this wont get through, but I've asked questions of FtK about this hackjob on reality that she's finally burts out with.

It goes thusly:

Quote
I'm assuming this won't get through, but here goes.

"and that at some point ID is considered a part of discussion in the science classroom. That's fair."

No, it is NOT fair. That would be the equivalent of letting alchemy be taught alongside elemental theory.

"ou NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least."

Why should it? What, exactly, is so bad about having atheists on your side, or even BEING an atheist? Why are we such terrible people that our opinions can be discredited, or that our presence somehow makes an argument weaker?

"So, not only are we not allowed to consider the very real scientific inference that a designer may be ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe,"

HOW. DO. YOU. TEST. THIS?

"It's as though guys like you and Ken Miller could care less about how often they denigrate religion."

Another personal bugbear. The phrase is could NOT care less. Could care less means that they actually do care, which is not the point you're trying to make. Learn the words.

"who have been decent enough to treat me with respect regardless of my beliefs. "

Now, this one. I have friends who are religious, I even have one who doesn't believe the evolution of man theory, but, and this is key, while she almost certainly wont change her views on god, she is willing to listen to evidence for evolution and reassess her beliefs with that in mind. You are not. You just dismiss it with a "well someone else says this". This does not engender respect and as it gradually gets more annoying (and it does) the tolerance levels will drop as well.

"I've answered your question about the definitions of evolution and Darwinism several times in the past. The intelligent design community has also explained the difference between the two definitions ad naseum. Yet, guys like you just keep asking. How strange."

No, it isn't strange. If I told you there were two types of orange (yes, I know there are several), a regular one and a special one that is markedly different in some areas, and you asked me what the difference is, would either of these replies be acceptable?

1. It just is different, can't you see that?

2. One has the hand of god in it.

Date: 2007/07/16 12:11:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote

and that at some point ID is considered a part of discussion in the science classroom. That's fair.


Date: 2007/07/16 12:34:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 16 2007,12:22)
Bwahahahahahaha...


http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/Research/EILab/Resources.html

Ah, but they don't need to match our pathetic level of detail, remember?

Date: 2007/07/16 17:35:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
There are indeed some comments that I think go beyond the line (or at least put a toe across it) and yes Louis, I'm looking at you, and at Lenny.

However, I don't think that pointing out where and why FtK has failed to substantiate what she has said is a bad thing, and if it's mixed with a slight frayed temper, or odd crass or callous remark then so be it, as long as it doesn't, for example, talk about voting Hitler, or mention someone as being pig shit ignorant, then it's all part of the game we play here. If someone doesn't answer you, and continues to talk about how they have answered all these claims and can't do the homework for people then those trying to talk to them will be annoyed.

Pointing out how FtK is neither a critical thinker, nor truely open minded are perfectly acceptable posts, and as long as they aren't presented in a way that is truely bad taste then as far as I can see there can be no complaint. Factoring in how long some of these people have been dealing with the creationist canards that FtK trots out and refuses to accept have been refuted, coupled with the "If I don't believe it, then it's on equal standing with something I do believe, no matter what else" attitude that prevails amoung her comments, I think a frayed temper and outbursts of annoyance or vulgarity are understandable, if not really acceptable.

I try not to go too close to the line, let alone put a foot across it, but I feel it is important not to sugarcoat your words, and if someone just refuses to listen when you point out that what they have just said isn't actually an argument, or that they seem to have a problem with me because of what I believe (or don't as it may be) and that this somehow means I can't be right, I think it's fair game if I tell them that they are a fucking idiot, or that they have no damn reading comprehension and the attitude of a spoilt 5 year old. It's not nice, but it is damn well not without a root cause, and it doesn't lie with us.

Except in Lennys case, I think he's just rude.  :p

Date: 2007/07/16 17:38:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,14:18)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 16 2007,13:11)
 
Quote

and that at some point ID is considered a part of discussion in the science classroom. That's fair.



That cartoon says it all.

Indeed, it's perfect as a stock response to that kind of ridiculous nonsense.

Teaching both sides is fine, and hell, I'm all for it. Let's just GET two sides first, shall we?

Addendum:

This is surely a good time to have a proper scientific experiment on prayer. Oh wait, We've already had one. Silly me.

Date: 2007/07/16 18:00:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ July 16 2007,17:45)
plus her charming tendancy to slander atheists.

This part is especially true in her dealings with me. She was nice, and fairly polite, and we exchanged e-mails and comments and so on, and I wont say what any of them said, but I will say that if she wasn't talking about atheists it was clear her derision was aimed at them. I found it rather odd that she was being nice, and "how are you?" polite to me, and all the while muttering about those damn atheists, and banging on about how we somehow make points less valid by supporting them, and are morally corrupt and, ironically, intolerant of others.

That's the part that, even when I was being nice and polite to her, I was still extremely angry about. The wild broad brush approach to a strawman of atheists and atheism was rude, disrespectful, and vile, and it still is.

For his point on this, I stand behing Louis.

I still think the sucking off bit was a little extreme though, even though it was clearly hyperbole (although FtK does not use hyperbole when talking about those darn atheists, which in my opinion, is worse).

Date: 2007/07/16 18:27:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ July 16 2007,18:09)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 17 2007,00:00)
I still think the sucking off bit was a little extreme though, even though it was clearly hyperbole (although FtK does not use hyperbole when talking about those darn atheists, which in my opinion, is worse).

METAPHORICALLY ....

Oh no, I noticed the word. I never did anything like the slurping noises in school, but I get what you mean.

I'm just saying the way it's written might lead for people to take it the wrong way (please, no jokes).

It's not what you're saying, or the tone you use, it's the way it might be spun by others. It's that it could be concieved as over the line that is the problem. I mean, to actually cross the line, you would have to attribute amorality to a group just because you're different to them, or claim that ones beliefs have an effect on things they don't, etc.  Can't think of anyone who does that.....can you?

Lenny, Lenny my good man, I don't want to make nice-nice with the nutters, I just see no reason to lower myself unless they really, really deserve it, and I haven't been worn down like you have as of yet, so I still don't find any of them that deserving. Except Larry farfarawaywiththefairies.

Edited to keep it on this thread.

Date: 2007/07/16 18:59:35, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ July 16 2007,18:48)
Quote
I'm just saying the way it's written might lead for people to take it the wrong way (please, no jokes).


mmmmmm mmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmm mmm mmmm mmmmmmm mmmmm*

Louis

* Sound of me typing with my hand over my mouth.

P.S. Added in edit:

Quote
It's not what you're saying, or the tone you use, it's the way it might be spun by others. It's that it could be concieved as over the line that is the problem. I mean, to actually cross the line, you would have to attribute amorality to a group just because you're different to them, or claim that ones beliefs have an effect on things they don't, etc.  Can't think of anyone who does that.....can you?


Let them. I'm not afraid of these people. Are you?

No, I'm not afraid of them.

I just find it amusing that people who cry "repression" are the ones with the most bigoted views.

Not that I can think of any examples.

Date: 2007/07/16 19:17:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,19:10)
The problem I have with calling her dishonest is, she didn't seem to understand anything she talked about. All her arguments were imprecise and confused.

On the other hand, I suppose you could judge her fear of actually discussing science as evidence that she did know she was saying bogus things and didn't want to be torn limb from limb.

I don't know.

I think the dishonesty is in the intent, not the actions.

While she may not have stated something she fully understood to be untrue, she showed she intended to be dishonest when faced with rebutals where she just waved them away.

She doesn't accept that there are answers to things that, for example, Walt Brown, says. Whether it's a case of can't, or simply won't is up to the viewer to decide, but I think that anyone who can state something is interesting, and an eye opener, have it ripped to shreds in front of them, and continue to spout it as if it was unrefuted is dishonest in the extreme.

If I come out with something that is wrong but I think is right, or am unsure but think is interesting, and it gets ripped to shreds, I will accept that maybe that wasn't a good example, if not accept I was at least partially wrong about my opinions. She does not. She just stays exactly the same.

Date: 2007/07/17 05:17:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Kristine @ July 16 2007,19:51)

Quote
And I do think I've got my finger on a guy thing here, 'cause I think you're hard on her in a weird way, not in a way that you're hard on the UDudes. Oh, come on - I'm honest enough to admit that I'm jealous that you seem to like her despite yourselves - not that you like what she says - but a lot of energy is going into her. She may see it as hostile and some of it is, but I think some of it is also crushy stuff, meanie-wink-winkies, let's dunk her "pig-ignorant-tales" in the inkwell. I'm looking at you, here, Lenny. :)


That one isnt for me either. When someone tells me they have all this stuff I want to see and tell me to go look for it by waving me off to some site it will takes days or even weeks to trawl through, I aint happy. Nor am I happy when someone has such obvious hatred for a group based soley upon something totally inocuous that they misrepresent, that kinda pisses me off as well.

Quote

Not that I blame you. I used to be blonde, and taller than the others, back when I was young'n'cute. Then my hair turned brown (and now a little white), and I stayed the same height. Dang. ;)


Now hang on, this insinuates all men prefer blondes, which is a stereotype I've always wondered about. Why does this assumption exist?

Date: 2007/07/17 05:33:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)
Afarensis,

Do you have a copy of EE?  The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.

The point being...?

Date: 2007/07/17 09:51:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 17 2007,07:17)
PaV takes a poll over at the UD thread where Dr. Dr. D. whines about the sales of books by atheists.  
Quote
How many here think that this barage (sic) of books is a sign that the evolutionists are afraid that ID is making converts of atheists?

Any converts here? Anybody? Anybody?


OK, I guess not.

Something science. V-o-o science. Voodoo science.

Date: 2007/07/17 16:53:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
FtK recent quote:  

People don't seem to have any respect for others,and the stuff I see aimed at others on the internet is astonishing. It's absolutely hate filled rage.

Less recent FtK quote:

You know what really disappoints me about theistic evolutionists, Jeremy? You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least.


D-d-d-double standard!

Date: 2007/07/18 10:30:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Bad link Blipey.

Date: 2007/07/18 10:32:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
My god, what a load of old claptrap.

She seriously thinks people hate her for being religious? Either she's REALLY good at ignoring the real reason or she's really, really dense.

Date: 2007/07/18 12:43:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
This part shows why FtK has a problem

Quote
but I do believe that those Darwinists holding the reins in this debate have a strong influence on what will and will not be considered in the domain of science.


Then there's this outright lie.

 
Quote

He wrote:

   AND that she apparently feels that atheists are less than honorable/respectable/human...


Where have I ever said this?


I'm surprised the computer didn't explode in shame.

Let us not forget:

 
Quote
You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least.


Although let's be honest, she typed this without casuing a major blaze:
 
Quote
“Science sounding”....good grief. If the ID inference were not based on science, then none of you would even be interested in debating it.

Date: 2007/07/18 12:46:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 18 2007,12:40)
Amongst the biologists here, hands up who pissed themselves laughing when they saw Sal try to use Nei to bolster ID?  He sneaks Lewontin in too.

We're doomed!  Doomed I tell you!

Bob

Date: 2007/07/18 15:45:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 18 2007,14:04)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 18 2007,13:55)
FTK laments (on her blog):
 
Quote
Mercy
Mention prayer, and you're liable to have anti-ID Darwinist bloggers and their followers breathing down your neck like the hounds of hell. Figures...site meter has blown a fuse...moderator has gone into full Darwinian alert.

What you won't have, apparently, are readers with any interest whatever in the subject:
 
Quote
One Minute Each Night
In WWII, there was an advisor to Churchill who...

0 comments

I've put a couple of fairly tame comments, neither of which got through. A shame, but typical of creationists.

???

I left an increadibly vitriolic comment which I KNOW won't get through, but here it is, in full, where I slam  FtK for pissing on the memories (sorry Steve) of the brave men and women who fought and died defending this country, by attributing their success, and the failure of the German plan to PRAYER of all things.


Quote
I think it was because prayer has never been proven, and, more importantly, you grossly, grossly misconstrued the actions and workings of the German bombings in WW2.

As someone who finds the hollywood idea of USA-saves-us-all parroted constantly in films (the single worst offender I've ever seen is U571, where it credited Americans with the capture of the enigma machine, which was actually done by, if my memory serves, Brits, Poles and possibly Canadians) disgusting and wholly disgraceful to the lives of the men lost in those wars who had more of an affect than the US soldiers, I found it deeply insulting as well.

Attributing the actions of the superb multi-national airforce (including Poles, Norwegians, Brits, some Yanks and Canadians who wanted into the war earlier, French and many, many others) along with the general ineffectiveness of the campaign on damaging British morale to prayer is a true disgrace.

I don't care whether you think prayer works or not, but I'm sorry, that was disgusting. I'm by no means a patriotic person, but when the memories of brave men who fought, and many died, to save this country and the peoples within, including many immigrants from countries already overrun are insulted like this, I get annoyed.

Oh, and who, exactly, was the prayer advisor? I can find no mention of anyone remotely like this anywhere.  I'm sure this wont get put up, but next time you want to bang on about how wonderful God is, spare a thought for whose graves you're pissing on.

Date: 2007/07/18 16:33:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 18 2007,16:13)
Quote
As someone who finds the hollywood idea of USA-saves-us-all parroted constantly in films (the single worst offender I've ever seen is U571, where it credited Americans with the capture of the enigma machine, which was actually done by, if my memory serves, Brits, Poles and possibly Canadians)


Actually, I thought it was almost entirely Poles.

Keep in mind that among other things, Denyse makes a big deal out of being Canadian.

I think it was, but there were a few others there as far as I know.

I may be wrong of course. It CERTAINLY wasn't the USA. They certainly helped with the war and it would have been much more difficult if they hadn't joined in, and practically impossible if they hadn't sent aid, and for that reason I consider the US a major, major player in the war, but the movie industry loves to make them out to be the lords and masters of everything.

Point was though, that like Hollywood, FtK is disgracing the memories of those who REALLY fought.

I just got an e-mail from her, and, since I'm still pissed, I deleted it without reading it. I may regret that later, but right now, unless it's an appology, I don't care what she has to say.

Date: 2007/07/19 06:00:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 18 2007,19:33)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 18 2007,17:33)
         
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 18 2007,16:13)
           
Quote
As someone who finds the hollywood idea of USA-saves-us-all parroted constantly in films (the single worst offender I've ever seen is U571, where it credited Americans with the capture of the enigma machine, which was actually done by, if my memory serves, Brits, Poles and possibly Canadians)


Actually, I thought it was almost entirely Poles.

Keep in mind that among other things, Denyse makes a big deal out of being Canadian.

I think it was, but there were a few others there as far as I know.

I may be wrong of course. It CERTAINLY wasn't the USA. They certainly helped with the war and it would have been much more difficult if they hadn't joined in, and practically impossible if they hadn't sent aid, and for that reason I consider the US a major, major player in the war, but the movie industry loves to make them out to be the lords and masters of everything.

Point was though, that like Hollywood, FtK is disgracing the memories of those who REALLY fought.

I just got an e-mail from her, and, since I'm still pissed, I deleted it without reading it. I may regret that later, but right now, unless it's an appology, I don't care what she has to say.

Beyond the issue that enrages you, Ian, I find the notion that "we prayed and the bombing stopped" juvenile in the extreme, magical thinking at its worst.

Quite. I don't care if you think god answers your prayers in a roundabout kind of way, that's up to you, but to state flat out that prayer saved the British in the war is just....offensive in the extreme.

Date: 2007/07/19 12:24:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
FtK has posted a reply to my attack post. Except it isn't a reply, because it doesn't adress my point as far as I can tell. It hits things around it but never gets to the main point.

Quote

Got your comment. So, what you're saying is that if God played a part in helping troups put an end to war that would be a bad thing?

We're supposed to reject our faith when it comes to war time and not pray for our soldiers because by giving God some of the credit for a peaceful outcome it might potentially take away from giving all the glory to our soldiers?

Do you realize that the soliders ask for our prayers? Do we deny them that?

Of course our military is responsible and held in honor for protecting us, but giving God some of the credit for a positive outcome certainly doesn't take anything away from our soldiers.

What if you're wrong about prayer? What if there is a God? Should we not pray for the safety of our troups, our citizens, and ultimate world peace?

If everyone focused on peace and putting our differences aside, war would cease. Religion and prayer are avenues that provide us with ways in which to keep the peace with one another.

Nothing wrong with that.

I realize the first response you'll make is that you believe religion is to blame for a multitude of wars throughout history. Do bear in mind that underlying political issues were usually responsible for people *using* religion as an excuse to abuse others.

[edited for clarity]


To which I replied.

Quote
Ok, so now I've calmed down a little...

No, that isn't what I was saying. Although I don't much like the Abrahmic god concept, I don't think it would be, in itself, a bad thing. Neither do I think that soldiers who ask for prayer should be denied that right.

I wasn't, in fact, commenting at all on whether people should pray, but either you didn't get that or are purposefully misrepresenting me.

"
Of course our military is responsible and held in honor for protecting us, but giving God some of the credit for a positive outcome certainly doesn't take anything away from our soldiers."

This is blatently not true. It in effect just says "Yay! Go God go!" and then adds "with the help of these guys..."

"What if you're wrong about prayer? What if there is a God? Should we not pray for the safety of our troups, our citizens, and ultimate world peace? "

Sure, why not? Even though this wasn't what I was talking about, I'll adress it anyway, because I feel that you misserd the minor point I did make about prayer.
Tests performed on prayer have shown it doesn't help. There has been NO evidence of prayer helping. None. Why should I believe it works again?

"If everyone focused on peace and putting our differences aside, war would cease"

No arguments there.

"Religion and prayer are avenues that provide us with ways in which to keep the peace with one another. "

Uhhh....no.

" Do bear in mind that underlying political issues were usually responsible for people *using* religion as an excuse to abuse others."

Again, not in the least what I was talking about, but hey, why not rise to it?

Name one war where religion was a major player, and there were other factors that were more prevelent.

I cannot think of one. While there were socio-political issues involved, these were intimately tied to the politics.

Date: 2007/07/19 12:40:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (blipey @ July 19 2007,12:29)
I give you the Darwin Slayer.



I think he must be laughing at Ftk's description of him.

It was a link to this inane load of tripe

Date: 2007/07/19 12:46:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Steverino @ July 19 2007,12:37)
From the Editor of the Churchill Centre,

"This floats around the internet in various guises. I have no doubt it was done widely, but there is no record in the literature of a formal operation."

I'm guessing this is just an urban legend.

Whoops.


What's the betting FtK won't admit she posted something that was a LIE?

In fact, I'll go as far as to say she'll come up with some nonsense about the truth of the statement doesn't matter, but the point it (laughably, although I doubt she'll use that word) tries to make.

Date: 2007/07/19 13:09:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 19 2007,13:07)
Quote

What's the betting FtK won't admit she posted something that was a LIE?

In fact, I'll go as far as to say she'll come up with some nonsense about the truth of the statement doesn't matter, but the point it (laughably, although I doubt she'll use that word) tries to make.


She could do far worse than to review DT's response to being called on his "ACLU keeps Marines from praying" urban legend for a first rate model for that.

Ohhh....what was his response?

Date: 2007/07/19 13:36:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Wow.

That's quite impressive.

He actually thinks he has a point? What a moron....

Date: 2007/07/19 18:30:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Good point about the prayer thing there Gunthernacus, bbut remember, "God works in mysterious ways" so literally anything can be seen as an answer.

I asked a friend of mine who is, I regret to say, a fundie. Not a psycho fundie, but she doesn't believe in the evolution of man, and is super happy about jebus. She said it was NOT a disgrace that god was being thanked for the actions of the men, and said that somehow congratulating God WAS congratulating the men.

She didn't comment on whether she thought it was still ok after I told her it was a lie.

Date: 2007/07/20 11:57:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Now, I can't say I really understand the science, but it seems to me anytime anyone replies to him with something he doesn't like, VMartin seems to do the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "I'm not going to listen to this, I'm not going to hear this now" a la The 'burbs.

Date: 2007/07/20 13:20:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ July 20 2007,13:00)
Arden Chatfield'  lies about my latest posts at "Frontloading" thread:

 
Quote

His stock reply can be summed up as "of course you are thinking that because of you are all foolish atheist Darwinist". Press him harder and he'll denounce your morality ("something bad may happen to you") and call you a Nazi. And he ignores about 90% of the serious questions put to him.


Check the thread "Frontloading" and make your own conclusion who is more denigrated.

As to "something bad may happen to you" it is shameless misinterpretation of my sentence I wrote Kristine:


"Otherwise you could come to a bad end like we (John Davison and me) and Bruno, Nietzsche, and Nabokov as well."


We were all banned from Pharyngula by PZ Meyeres and I warned Kristine that she could be banned as well. That was a good advice her not to agree with us, otherwise she will be banned by PZ Meyeres. Check it yourselves on Kristine blog:

http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2007....ed.html

I didn't call anyone here  "Nazi". I only expressed my opinion that Chatfield - and he only - is like National socialist because he repeatedly brought up my  nationality and made  bold off-topic generalisation about psychology of East-European and Slovak people.

 
Quote

And he ignores about 90% of the serious questions put to him.


The latest question - if some dogs races could interbreed and if they  represent ongoing speciation I answered at Frontloading thread. Check it again yourselves.

" is like National socialist"

Where is he supposed to be from, exactly?

Date: 2007/07/21 19:35:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
Face it, socialism as an economic system is dead, dead, dead.  The only thing left is.......well, you know the rest.

I feel I must ask of this, what socialism are you on about here? Actual socialism, Marxist leninism, Maoism or....what?

Actual socialism revolves around in the UK every so often, oh yes, there's the muddiness that comes from conservative rule, and the people being afraid of the soviet union and such like, and total socialism will never be brought in, but we have a mild form of it in place right now, even under Brown.

I feel that, as a socialist myself (no, I'm NOT a Marxist and I'm CERTAINLY not a Leninist or Trotskyite) I should insist, in a civil, yet firm way, in absolutely no way was the USSR or China socialist. They were Marxist Lenninist, which is a corruption of Communism, NOT socialism.

I do not care to get involved with the fight you are in, but I do feel compelled to inform you, either of you, when you stray from the truth, even unknowingly. Socialism is not Marxism, which is not Leninism, which is what the USSR had.

Date: 2007/07/22 08:19:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I notice FtK has not answered my reply to her post concerning the Blitz. Funny that, one would almost think she was running away from that as well, almost like she can't admit she hasn't got a clue what she's on about and has no reading comprehension. Of course, the stirling work she does in her conversations about science show that can't be true....

Date: 2007/07/22 17:22:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
My god, hell has frozen over.

No, it's not an edible pot noodle, but Larry Farfromreality has actually got a point.

Quote
IMO you have a pretty thin skin, FortheKids. All people are entitled to their opinions.


There's more, but this bit certainly makes sense.

Date: 2007/07/22 19:09:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 22 2007,16:11)
Quote
There is absolutely no evidence to refute common descent,


Why exactly do you disagree with Davison on this?

The brown noser gets his masters commands wrong!

I LOVE IT SO!










Sorry if that was overkill, but it looked like fun.

Date: 2007/07/23 07:25:30, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Blair @ July 23 2007,07:15)
But Ian, how is she supposed to reply if she is banned?

I meant on HER blog.

She replied to my first comment, and, depending on how charitable you want to be, either misunderstood my point, or outright lied about what I was saying. To which I replied informing her of her mistake, and clarifying what I meant.

Nothing since.

Date: 2007/07/23 08:00:44, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I've just noticed a hilarious piece of unintentional irony.

While bitching and moaning because PZ Myers blasted her (rightly) for lying for jesus and distorting the events of the second world war (I'm still pissed about that) she comes out with this truely great comment.

Quote
I swear, if I were you average everyday atheist, I would be *livid* with the way PZ et. al. and their choirboys carry on.


Yet she attacks ALL atheists on a routine basis.

Let us never forget.

Quote
You know what really disappoints me about theistic evolutionists, Jeremy? You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least.

Date: 2007/07/23 14:17:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,12:47)
Quote (Kristine @ July 23 2007,12:24)
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your gains! Of course the union is you - and if you don't stand up, put your foot down, be willing to strike (and I was scared this time, folks, I was really nervous, but I ain't no scab, no sireee, if my union calls a strike I'm there with the placard and the communal potluck, and if I have to shimmy on the sidewalk for coins I'll do it), and able to articulate your plight firmly and respectfully to management, you may as well hang a yoke around your neck.

We did just that, and because of it, I'm getting a raise. Not the raise that we wanted, but the highest one I've ever gotten. And no concessions. We definitely made some gains - got a foot in the door in some areas - and I'm happy (and relieved). I love my workplace - and yes, managers are people.

No, we are not.   And now that I have moved on to a different project, I have a ziploc bag full of pesos that I don't need anymore. I ever do see you shimmying for coins on the picket line, your going to get them. Try paying the light bill with those.

BWAHAHAHA.  

{Twirls moustache}

{Kicks a little old lady trying to cross the street}

You forgot to flourish your cape.

Date: 2007/07/23 15:59:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Nerull @ July 23 2007,15:24)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 23 2007,12:02)
 
Quote
The worst was when she started in on PZ Myers daughter over on her site.  Wow! Skatje shut her down so quick I actually felt bad for her.


I've heard the rumors that FTK barged into Skatje's site and started shitting all over the place, but I never heard what this consisted of. Can anyone provide a humorous capsule history or, failing that, a link?

   
Quote
Although Jack over at KCFS did suspend FTK's posting priveleges it was only for a couple of days. Shortly after he took that (long overdue) action, he shut down the old forum in order to facilitate the use of new software. At that time he said that any and all posters were welcome to re-register and that included FTK.

Apparently FTK chose to not rejoin.


Since FTK can't keep her head above water at any site she's not moderating, her MO seems to be to deliberately get herself banned as soon as possible, or, barring that, to pretend she's banned, like she does here.

It's pretty twisted.

FTK showed up and 1) Told Skatje she shouldn't talk about gay bashers, because they have a right to believe what they like, while she doesn't have a right to argue otherwise.

2) Butted into a argument with a friend with a long and complex history and tried to hijack it into a lecture about how mean Skatje was.

3) Told Skatje she couldn't quote scripture, because she couldn't see it how a Christian sees it (aka she doesn't ignore most of it).

4) Told Skatje she was only an atheist because PZ indoctrinated her.

At some point she got tired of it and booted her out.

I'm not surprised. Christ, how the hell does FtK have the gall to complain about other people being rude?

Date: 2007/07/24 17:59:05, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
When one finds that there is so much historical evidence for a particular religious belief, that does affect how we view other issues in life as well.


Presumably FtK is talking about christianity here.

Funny, I thought they got the dates way out of whack? I mean I know real people are mentioned, but that the timeline was skewed, and that there were some....interesting additions.

Maybe I'm wrong, and King Herod the great really did coexist with that Roman emporor whose name I can't remember but came to power 10 years after Herod shuffled off the mortal coil?

Date: 2007/07/24 18:36:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?

Date: 2007/07/24 18:37:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Steviepinhead @ July 24 2007,17:39)
Maybe Paul would get back to us on all these points quicker if we posted up addresses for Internet cafes in Roma, Italia.

Poor guy.  Stuck out there in the sticks with "limited" access.

Damn Italy's third world status!

Date: 2007/07/24 18:38:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Personally I advocate an invite.

I mean, it looks doubtful he'll be another FtK or AirheadDave.

Date: 2007/07/25 05:09:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,19:57)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 24 2007,18:36)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,18:34)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,16:10)
 
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2007,13:06)
So what's your ultimate point Joe? That god did it?

Nope.

Joe claimed to be a Muslim once, so perhaps his position is Allahdidit.

I was a christian once also.

Intelligent Design makes it possible to be an intellectually fullfilled atheist. It has absolutely no attachments to the divine what-so-ever.

If all religions were falsified tomorrow ID wouldn't be fazed. If the Bible were to be proven a hoax, ID wouldn't flinch.

Uh huh. So tell me, who was the designer if it wasn't god?

Who designed them?

Does it matter who/ what the designer is?

Can we, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, determine the presence of design?

It's already obvious it matters to an investigation.

Also only once we can examine said designer(s) can we make any scientific determination about it/ them.

Right now all we have is the data observed and observable in this universe. And we ask, did nature, operating freely cause it (sheer dumb luck) or are we part of some purposeful arrangement, ie some grand design?

How can we tell?

Yes, it does matter.

No, we cannot do that, because in order to see the design, we would have to know how the designer did it, and it's a pretty safe bet we would need to know the designers identity for that.

The rest of this post seems to my silly darwinist, materialist (whatever the hell that means) mind like THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF YOUR POINT.

If we don't know how the designer acted, as you state, and don't know how we can tell if something is designed, WHAT THE FUCKING HELL DO YOU WANT ID TO DO?

Date: 2007/07/25 05:13:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,23:40)
And yet I'll bet you have absolutely no trouble in believing in the Flood and Noah's ark.

Oh I very much hope so. I've been waiting for someone to tell me how this was possible for years and sadly the closest I ever got was "I answered that somewhere else, let me find it" FtK.

Welcome RedDot, you will find if you are curteous and answer the questions, which I have no doubt you will do, you will get along fine, and show the rubes at Uncommon Pissant and UnReasonable Kansans that we can actually get on with a creationist IF THEY GIVE US A CHANCE TO.

Date: 2007/07/25 09:46:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,09:30)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,09:28)
I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this  
Quote
Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots

is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless.

I agree. I think all we have is another AFDave but more pretentious and with longer words.

Say it aint so!

Date: 2007/07/26 05:55:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Blair @ July 26 2007,05:52)
Just as you point out that Lenin misintrepreted Marx and was certainly not a TRUE Marxist.  :D

Errrr.....no.

Lenin didn't misinterpret Marx, he altered it significantly. Essentially that would be the equivalent of adding your own text to the bible, NOT as you are suggesting reading it in a certain way.

So....your argument is nonsense. Try again.

Date: 2007/07/26 07:01:48, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Blair @ July 26 2007,06:01)
Oh, I see, he altered it rather than misinterpreted it.

So we must stick to the ORIGINAL text, and avoid FALSE PROHETS who "add to or take away from" the text!

Yes, yes...that makes sense.  Otherwise one could get the impression that Marx was some kind of hack concocting pseudo scientific "laws" of history.

Wouldn't want that!

I'm not saying he was a prophet either, I'm just saying that Marx wasn't a socialist, and even more distinctly, Lenin wasn't a Marxist.....

I don't know what you're trying to say, I was just clearing up where you had made a clearly false statement which you had based your argument on.

Is it just me who thinks this stuff should ALL get moved to the bathroom wall?

Date: 2007/07/26 07:06:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 26 2007,04:53)
driven by demonic forces

"Hey Brandine, I told you one of them fancy book learnin' types done talk about the divil!"

Date: 2007/07/26 07:09:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Blair @ July 26 2007,07:06)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 26 2007,06:45)
 
Quote (Blair @ July 26 2007,06:14)
It certainly lays to rest the notion that atheists have a problem with killing!

I'm not an atheist, you twit.  (shrug)

No, but Marx was. Er, uh, thats who were we discussing.

So, what exactly is wrong with athesits?

Date: 2007/07/26 07:30:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 26 2007,07:27)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 26 2007,07:09)
So, what exactly is wrong with athesits?

Dude, you're arguing with a halfwit.

Don't bother.

True, but what the hell, it's amusing for now.

Date: 2007/07/26 07:34:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Blair @ July 26 2007,07:10)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 26 2007,07:01)
 
Quote (Blair @ July 26 2007,06:01)
Oh, I see, he altered it rather than misinterpreted it.

So we must stick to the ORIGINAL text, and avoid FALSE PROHETS who "add to or take away from" the text!

Yes, yes...that makes sense.  Otherwise one could get the impression that Marx was some kind of hack concocting pseudo scientific "laws" of history.

Wouldn't want that!

I'm not saying he was a prophet either, I'm just saying that Marx wasn't a socialist, and even more distinctly, Lenin wasn't a Marxist.....

I don't know what you're trying to say, I was just clearing up where you had made a clearly false statement which you had based your argument on.

Is it just me who thinks this stuff should ALL get moved to the bathroom wall?

You mean Lenin was not a TRUE Marxist?

So who says you understand Marx better than Lenin?

Why is YOUR interpretation better?

This is a ridiculous argument. It is the equivalent of insisting that the protestants are still catholics. They altered the catholic religion into something vastly, but not totally, different and even put a new name on it. There was a distict split between the two factions (and if you think there was no split in Russia over Lenin's alterations to Marx then you're ignorant) and therefore Lenin could not be a true Marxist, because he was no longer working from Marx.


Good show, shift this too.

Date: 2007/07/26 12:51:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Found this on PZ's site.


Bloody hell.

Date: 2007/07/27 04:21:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Kristine @ July 26 2007,15:41)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 26 2007,11:51)
Found this on PZ's site.


Bloody hell.

"WRONG"

"Wrong" meaning I really don't believe it? :D

Oh, so you got that too?

I was ferried around for ages before I decided to play along and enter the site itself.

I just kept on clicking "There is no absolute morality".

I love the argument from consequence it tries to pull at the end, claiming that if you think there's no morality then you must think child abusers and rapists are a-ok.

Date: 2007/07/27 13:26:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
From the latest mammoth thread on her site, someone asks her if Walt "Incapability" Brown has published any papers.

She once again states that everyone knows that he would not be allowed to post but doesn't supply a reason.

Since she's told me she'll be nice if I am and engage once more in discussion with me, I decided to ask her a straight question, and since her spirit of fair play isobviously alive once more, I'm sure she will answer, because there's no need to ignore it.

My post:

Quote
"You and I both know that there is not a chance in hell that the establishment would give Brown's work fair consideration."

Ok FtK, since you've decided to be pleasant to me again, while I'm still pissed at some of your...comments, I'll go along with it. I'll start with this comment.

Why is this? Is it;

a) A conspiricy of scientists who don't let any differing views through

b) His work has no merit and he knows it

c) Something else. If it is this, please specify.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:34:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
FtK shows her wonderful open minded attitude here in a conversation about smoking dope

Quote
And, no, you Darwinian dodos, I wasn’t a pot smoker in my youth so don’t go assuming that my inability to grasp the concept that I'm the byproduct of a microbe that crawled out of a pond of primordial soup is due to psychosis brought on by smoking too many doobies. I tried it a few times, but I didn’t inhale...LOL!

Honestly, I think the concept of microbe to man was initially the brain child of someone who was trippin' on something funky.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:35:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (blipey @ July 27 2007,16:32)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 27 2007,13:26)
From the latest mammoth thread on her site, someone asks her if Walt "Incapability" Brown has published any papers.

She once again states that everyone knows that he would not be allowed to post but doesn't supply a reason.

Since she's told me she'll be nice if I am and engage once more in discussion with me, I decided to ask her a straight question, and since her spirit of fair play isobviously alive once more, I'm sure she will answer, because there's no need to ignore it.

My post:

 
Quote
"You and I both know that there is not a chance in hell that the establishment would give Brown's work fair consideration."

Ok FtK, since you've decided to be pleasant to me again, while I'm still pissed at some of your...comments, I'll go along with it. I'll start with this comment.

Why is this? Is it;

a) A conspiricy of scientists who don't let any differing views through

b) His work has no merit and he knows it

c) Something else. If it is this, please specify.

Good luck with getting that through.  She has at various times (and occasionally at the same time) held the following convictions:

1.  I don't believe that there is a conspiracy of scientists
2.  Scientists will never allow the publication of an article by someone who doesn't walk the party line.

Unless you hate yourself a bunch, why would you ever publish a comment that brings that particular lunacy to light?

Quite, she even danced around it with me saying it was "obvious" why they won't get published, but refusing to admit she thinks there is a conspiricy.

Of course, it's a question she's already answered millions of times on KCfS.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:41:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ July 27 2007,16:35)
The Tom English case might be my favorite. They were babbling about Genetic Algorithms, and recognized expert in GA's Tom English shows up and politely explains the various introductory-level errors in their analysis, and gets quickly shown the door.

Good lord. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Still, I find it amusing that they pretend that it's open and fair....

Date: 2007/07/27 16:45:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,16:43)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 27 2007,16:34)
FtK shows her wonderful open minded attitude here in a conversation about smoking dope

 
Quote
And, no, you Darwinian dodos, I wasn’t a pot smoker in my youth so don’t go assuming that my inability to grasp the concept that I'm the byproduct of a microbe that crawled out of a pond of primordial soup is due to psychosis brought on by smoking too many doobies. I tried it a few times, but I didn’t inhale...LOL!

Honestly, I think the concept of microbe to man was initially the brain child of someone who was trippin' on something funky.

I'm sorry, the idea of Denyse using the word 'funky' is just too horrible. I have to go lie down now.  :O

It's not Denyse.

Why do you keep assuming it is Arden?

Date: 2007/07/27 16:46:33, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Just for the funnies, I left this comment on her post about the creo "museum"

Quote
Blimey, who knew there were so many rubes around?

Date: 2007/07/27 16:51:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,16:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 27 2007,16:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,16:43)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 27 2007,16:34)
FtK shows her wonderful open minded attitude here in a conversation about smoking dope

   
Quote
And, no, you Darwinian dodos, I wasn’t a pot smoker in my youth so don’t go assuming that my inability to grasp the concept that I'm the byproduct of a microbe that crawled out of a pond of primordial soup is due to psychosis brought on by smoking too many doobies. I tried it a few times, but I didn’t inhale...LOL!

Honestly, I think the concept of microbe to man was initially the brain child of someone who was trippin' on something funky.

I'm sorry, the idea of Denyse using the word 'funky' is just too horrible. I have to go lie down now.  :O

It's not Denyse.

Why do you keep assuming it is Arden?

I suspect they're the same person. Note that they've never been photographed together.

Yeah, but that's only because Denyse cracks the cameras.

Date: 2007/07/27 17:52:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,16:11)
Quote
Yes, it has to be some non-darwinian force behind coloration of mushrooms.


What would that 'non-darwinian force' be, V?



Thank you to whoever put this up originally.

Date: 2007/07/29 06:50:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Actually, I've found a spot in Wales where Black and white swans live together.


But again, this is one place in one country, so it doesn't exactly show anything.

Date: 2007/07/29 06:57:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
FtK on the creation museum:

Quote
Well, seeing as I live in Kansas, I'm probably not going to make a special trip or anything. But, if I'm traveling with the family sometime and we're in the area, sure, I'd probably go see it


She would take her kids to that place? Good lord.

Date: 2007/07/29 09:17:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 29 2007,09:12)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 29 2007,06:50)
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 28 2007,12:53)
 
Quote (VMartin @ July 28 2007,08:40)
I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Actually, I've found a spot in Wales where Black and white swans live together.


But again, this is one place in one country, so it doesn't exactly show anything.

Do they have black swans in Wales?  Colour me astonished - I thought they were exclusively Antipodean.

There's a couple in one place I know of. I think they ended up there after they escaped from somewhere and took up residence on this one large pond.

They certainly aren't native, but as I recall they are breeding.

Date: 2007/07/30 15:11:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Henry J @ July 30 2007,14:28)
Re "She would take her kids to that place? Good lord. "

Not really a surprise at this point, though.

Henry

I didn't think she was a fan of creationism? I thought her interest was piqued by ID?

Date: 2007/07/30 15:52:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 30 2007,15:21)
Or even piqued by ID...

Damn you ebola spreadin' darwinists with your fancy book learnin'

Date: 2007/07/31 18:02:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 31 2007,14:56)
SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...

Someone needs to photoshop photos of Sal and Dr Dr Dembski onto a picture of Arthur and Bedivere.

Date: 2007/07/31 18:42:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 31 2007,18:26)
It doesn't take a double doctorate to figure out that the "positive program" is still more "if evolution is false, then creation is true" negative argumentation.

Heck, a fair chunk of grade schoolers will follow that much philosophy talk. It didn't go anywhere in McLean, Edwards. or Kitzmiller. I don't know why these guys think that the bogus arguments that got hammered in court will seem any less bogus afterwards.

Presumably it's similar to the Psycho thing.

When the movie Psycho was finished, and submitted to the censors, they ordered certain frames removed from the shower scene.

When it was resubmitted they passed it without noticing it was exactly the same.

Date: 2007/08/01 07:15:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 01 2007,07:11)
I just asked FTK if "she" could name the layer that separates pre-flood from flood layers.

I also asked, in that I don't expert her to be an expert in this sort of thing, if "she'd" agree that there should be a clearly defined layer or not?

If FTK says not, then how can "she" claim that there is good evidence for a flood event? What is the evidence in that case FTK?

FTK, where in the geologic column is the flood shown?


To get you going, FTK, there is plenty of evidence that there was not a global flood
Quote
The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale.


In my experience, you don't get to keep 15,000 alternating layers from the kind of global catastrophe the global flood must have been. They would kinda get all mixed up!

FTK says
Quote
A large scale localized flood would do the trick, IMO, and there is all the evidence necessary to very reasonably believe that that occurred.


What's the actual difference between a large local flood and a global flood then?

If there is all the evidence necessary you can quickly point me to the location in the geological column that is the time of the flood?

And I suppose, finally, how come all those Christian geologists accepted deep time after doing their own research into the matter? And when I say doing their own research, I don't mean reading some book, I mean getting their hands dirty and doing some digging!

They were looking for evidence of the biblical timescales, and yet were convinced of the fact of an old earth. What respect are you paying them if you discard their honestly gained results? I guess they were not "true christians" according to you FTK.

Maybe the materialists mindset reached back through time to convince them that their young earth position was wrong? What's your take on the creationist geologist conversions FTK?

Well that's all very well, but they didn't know what Walt Brown knows because he is very interesting and there is obviously some evidence out there that goes against this give me a while to find it, I probably talked about it on KCFS and.....

Ad nauseam

Date: 2007/08/01 07:19:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Oh, BTW, you PS was seriously not necessary and I almost flicked your comment into space because of it.


"Damn Elsberry and his draconian regime! Now lets see which posts I let through today. No, no, no, yes, no....."

Date: 2007/08/01 07:49:36, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Once more I ask, with little hope of reply:

Quote
Once more into the breach....

"You and I both know that there is not a chance in hell that the establishment would give Brown's work fair consideration."

Why is this? Is it;

a) A conspiricy of scientists who don't let any differing views through

b) His work has no merit and he knows it

c) Something else. If it is this, please specify.

As an addition, why do you refuse to answer this?

Date: 2007/08/01 08:03:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
From Wikipedia:
Quote
Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of her or his choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).


A couple of posts from FtK.

Quote
And, I did point to “one thing” from the book that is pure speculation. The entire book is based upon common descent and the speculation that everything we observe in nature arose from a minute microbe that popped into existence billions of years ago.


Quote

Honestly, I think the concept of microbe to man was initially the brain child of someone who was trippin' on something funky.

Date: 2007/08/01 14:12:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 01 2007,12:40)
Quote
Sal: I'm going to call this dilation SCC Dilation (Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova)

From the Crackpot Index.

Quote
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

Date: 2007/08/01 16:17:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
On that note, I am just about to submit this.

Quote
So come on FtK, what DO you believe. Time to put your money where your mouth is, show you're not all shirt and no trousers, don't look this (self made) gift horse in the mouth, and tell us, so I can stop with the cliche's.


Incidentally, for someone who implies she wants open debate about things and discussion without recrimination based upon beliefs, isn't it a bit sad that we have to put our posts here as well to ensure they do actually appear somewhere?

Date: 2007/08/02 14:39:05, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 02 2007,13:36)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,21:35)
Of the 129 places I can find the mention of the earth in Scripture, none actually mention the shape of the Earth.  Please quote the source of your claim that Scripture states the Earth is flat.

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

The last time I checked, a circle was a two dimensional object, not a three dimensional one.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth."

A compass is used to draw circles, not spheres.  That was the King James verse.  Let's read the Revised Standard Version instead.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

Now that is pretty plain, isn't it?

(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

Unless the tree was burning in the earth's core, this suggests a flat Earth, don't you think? Indeed, if it WERE in the core, how did it come up through the ground and reach heaven?

Date: 2007/08/02 14:50:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

(Job 11:9 NRSV) Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Also.

(Gen 1:6-7 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

A dome over an oblate spheroid (oh yes)?

Date: 2007/08/03 13:22:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 03 2007,13:05)
OK, it's my turn to point this out.

Sal whines        
Quote
I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.

Can these guys spell PROJECTION? Here's Bill, Denyse and Sal, relaxing at home with an example of the designer's handiwork.

From left to right, Denyse, Bill, Sal, right?

Date: 2007/08/03 14:32:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Even better, those lynching laws (the ones that permitted lynching, that is) were talked of often before the 1960's!

Jesus, if that's your best card you don't have a good hand, do you?

Date: 2007/08/03 18:22:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,17:43)
If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.

Although you don't mention if you think the ACLU are or not, I wonder, which do you think it is, and how do you define "public square"?

Date: 2007/08/04 09:09:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,08:30)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
Of course, you are not the worst of the worst, which is reserved for the capitalists who are raping the cultures and economies of the world and must be pulled down by the poor and oppressed workers, Viva Le Revolution!

Well, Skeptic, I'm pretty sure Ian already knows that I'm a commie.  After all, I make no secret of it.

But hey, go ahead and spout if you think it will help.  (shrug)

Yep, I know Lenny is a damn red commie liberal who should be shot and have the bible read over his grave while he burns in hell with his heroes Marx and Hitler and............./fundy

Date: 2007/08/05 06:23:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
On that latest from FtK, I decided to reply with:


Quote
I wonder, FtK, how long you would allow them to try to change things, once they get in?

Whether you would criticize them for staying in Iraq, since they now have to by international law, I believe, and moral obligation, so many believe?

I wonder whether you would give them half a chance by voting for a "liberal" (I so loathe using that word improperly, but this is typical American usage) rather than just a democrat. The democrat party itself isn't much different to the Republicans, since in the US it is personal politics, not party politics that determines things.

Date: 2007/08/05 07:24:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 05 2007,07:20)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 05 2007,06:23)
On that latest from FtK, I decided to reply with:


   
Quote
I wonder, FtK, how long you would allow them to try to change things, once they get in?

Whether you would criticize them for staying in Iraq, since they now have to by international law, I believe, and moral obligation, so many believe?

I wonder whether you would give them half a chance by voting for a "liberal" (I so loathe using that word improperly, but this is typical American usage) rather than just a democrat. The democrat party itself isn't much different to the Republicans, since in the US it is personal politics, not party politics that determines things.

Ian, a small quibble, you may not have even realized you did it.  The party is named the democratIC party.  Bush and his pals started dropping the i and c in order to call them a name without really using bad words and suggest that the democrats are not really democratic. Just an FYI.

Sincerely,
Paul

Ahh, yes, my mistake.

Ah well, means the same thing in the end.

Date: 2007/08/05 10:21:35, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
FTK, you were given 500 straight unmoderated comments to tell us what you thought about science. You used basically all of them to tell us why you weren't going to talk to us about science, due to our various and sundry deficiencies. And instead of reciprocating our very open policy on your blog, you heavily edit and delete our comments there.

We usually let hysterical creationists go on for thousands of posts, but your rudeness shortened your tenure here. Tough luck.


But Steve, she did talk about how she'd said it all on KCfS ages ago and we should all read Walt Brown's book and we don't dislike it because it's tosh it's because we're all involved in a conspiricy to keep darwininsm alive except there is no conspiricy and we're all just atheist meanies including those so called "christians" amoung us who are just as close minded as.......

Ad Nauseum.

Date: 2007/08/06 10:12:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
RD my good man, I wonder could you do me a favour?

I have 3 very, very simple questions for you to answer, and seeing as how you have looked at the evidence and know nothing can show the flood to be wrong, I'm sure you can succeed where FtK, AiG and others have failed.

Tell me:

1. What date, to the nearest 100 years if possible, less would be better, did the flood occur?

2. Was the flood global?

3. Assuming the answer to 2 is yes, what happened to the numerous ancient civilisations of the world at the time?

You see, every creo I've encountered has said "the numbers say it was 4000 years ago" which leads me to wonder how the Egyptians held their breath for so long. The Hittites too. Those Assyrians needed SCUBA gear surely? etc etc.

No one has ever answered these questions. The best I ever got was FtK stating the years didn't tally that well and it was a bit before 4000 years. That didn't help her at all.

Date: 2007/08/06 10:15:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 06 2007,10:14)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,10:12)
RD my good man, I wonder could you do me a favour?

I have 3 very, very simple questions for you to answer, and seeing as how you have looked at the evidence and know nothing can show the flood to be wrong, I'm sure you can succeed where FtK, AiG and others have failed.

Tell me:

1. What date, to the nearest 100 years if possible, less would be better, did the flood occur?

2. Was the flood global?

3. Assuming the answer to 2 is yes, what happened to the numerous ancient civilisations of the world at the time?

You see, every creo I've encountered has said "the numbers say it was 4000 years ago" which leads me to wonder how the Egyptians held their breath for so long. The Hittites too. Those Assyrians needed SCUBA gear surely? etc etc.

No one has ever answered these questions. The best I ever got was FtK stating the years didn't tally that well and it was a bit before 4000 years. That didn't help her at all.

and I'd like to request that you note global populations at the time of each of the events that Ian mentions.

What a good idea!

Get to it mr edumacation, chop chop!

Date: 2007/08/06 10:22:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 06 2007,10:21)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 06 2007,00:33)
Hey Dot, if an organism has a gene duplication, and one of those duplicated genes then goes on to develop a different function, is that a LOSS of "biological information"?

By what measure?

Provide an example please.  Most gene duplications I have read about wind up with broken genes (on the new section) in just a few generations.

Try here.

Date: 2007/08/06 11:54:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 06 2007,11:48)
We believe there were very few "cities" before the flood,

So when WAS the flood?

Please, answer my questions.

Date: 2007/08/06 13:49:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Current Creation theory holds that the flood occured approximately 4,500 years ago, but that is based solely on theological information of generations, which is fuzzy to say the least.  I would rather see the estimate written as 5,000 +/- 1,000 years.  Asking me to date it within one hundred years is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Yes, the flood was global.

They perished.

Most to all of the civilizations we know about now were post-flood (i.e. Assyrians).

Now, someone has answered your questions.

Our current findings place the pre/post flood boundary concurrent with the uniformitarian defined Cambrian/Ordovician boundary.

The global population estimates you requested I am working on, and will have them up on my site first.



Quote
Based on what evidence?  What assumptions were made in those findings?  What is the margin of error in the 12,000 year dating?

The flood only lasted about one year, with the final waters receding over the next few hundred.  Within my 10,000 year old maximum and a gap of about a thousand years in the middle and near the beginning, why would I doubt that people have been inhabiting that area for that long?  We are not that far off, and well within any margin of error you may come up with.


You honestly, honestly believe there weren't any people around 6-4000 years ago?

Seriously?

Honestly?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Jesus Christ man!

Date: 2007/08/06 14:08:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 06 2007,13:15)
Louis - outstanding work - as usual.  I hope you don't mind that I appropriated one of your lines...

Most of the time I agree with k.e. - "poke them with a stick", but I do realize that engaging in dialogue ala this post is the best route to take for us civilized types.  

But, just so you know Louis, like I told Kristine earlier, just cuz you Brits are smarter, better looking and talk prettier than us Colonials, don't mean you're better than us.

No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

Date: 2007/08/06 14:23:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 06 2007,14:17)

I am open to an old age for the Universe, just not the Earth.

Swing and a miss....

Date: 2007/08/06 14:33:28, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 06 2007,12:03)
"Ugh!

Somebody please MAKE Wesley Elsberry let me back into AtBC. I cannot bear watching people say things about me that are incorrect. I really HAVE to quit peeking into that forum and watching those loons make up stuff about what they believe my "worldview" consists of."


Translation:  "No fair they won't lemme play martyr at AtBC as well as my own blog!  They all jus' big mean poopy-heads!"      :angry:       :(

"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"

Date: 2007/08/06 14:50:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,14:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

Oh trust me, I am NOT a fan of F1 either.

Date: 2007/08/06 17:48:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 06 2007,17:41)
Well, goodness, if the prayers of a Good Christian are so effective, you'd think all the fundies would have to do would be to get together and pray for Sam Brownback to win in '08, and FTK would have nothing to worry about.

Why FTK isn't proposing this, I can't imagine.

I know, after it saved the UK in WWII as well.


I'm still pissed about that. It was a dirty trick played by a god bothering scum sucker who has absolutely no respect for the living and dead soldiers who fought to keep Britain safe from the Nazi's.

Yes FtK, you REALLY hit a nerve. I don't mind you babbling on about Jebus, I don't care if you believe psuedoscientifc nonsense, and it only irks me if you try to push said nonsense onto others, but insult the memories of the soldiers in WWII? You might as well have broken into my home and taken a shit on my family, pardon my French.

It's not just the Allied soldiers either, a decent number of the Nazi soldiers didn't much like the way they were being ordered, such as the Lithuanian officer who stopped one of his men from shooting a woman for the "crime" of being Jewish with the words "some day, history will judge us".

I digress, of course, this was about FtK's whining, not her spitting on the memories of heroes.

Date: 2007/08/06 18:10:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 06 2007,17:59)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,17:48)
It's not just the Allied soldiers either, a decent number of the Nazi soldiers didn't much like the way they were being ordered, such as the Lithuanian officer who stopped one of his men from shooting a woman for the "crime" of being Jewish with the words "some day, history will judge us".

As an aside, I point out that all the soldiers in the Nazi army were issued belt buckles that had the inscription "Gott Mitt Uns" ---- "God Is With Us".

I thought that was just the stormtroopers, but what the hell, it's the same difference.  

Just goes to show that the damn atheist mass murderer Hitler had a soft spot for err.....God.

Date: 2007/08/06 18:20:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 06 2007,18:11)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 06 2007,11:48)
If you have read any of our papers

"Our" papers?


"OUR" papers?


"*****OUR*****"  papers?

How many papers have YOU written, Junior . . . . ?

I think he must mean this up to date masterpiece.

Date: 2007/08/06 18:49:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 06 2007,17:22)
UK people, turn off teh irony meters.

PaV quotes the daily Mail
 
Quote
I was just reading this fairly-well written article, and came upon one of the last paragraphs.


The Image of Pots and Kettles ….

Lets just say the daily Mail front page more often then not is a Princess Diana murder mystery conspiracy theory.

Nah, that's the express more than the mail.

The mail is more into having a go at the poor, immigrants, gays, the left wing, immigrants, the government, immigrants....

Of course, it does dabble in a little Diana-murder nonsense.

Date: 2007/08/06 19:02:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 06 2007,18:58)
Quote
The flood only lasted about one year, with the final waters receding over the next few hundred.


I haven't noticed, has RD offered his personal theory as to where the water went? That's always good for giggles.

("It evaporated" isn't an answer.)

Not yet Arden.

Presumably it'll be the only one that is actually possible without having boiled alive all the remaining life, or having created an awful lot of mess we can't seem to find.

Date: 2007/08/07 17:38:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
In reply to her latest load of nonsens about those darn democrats:

Quote
"Like I said, let the Democrats clean up the mess. They seem to have all the answers. Hopefully they can turn the nation around"

Like I said, how long will you give them, FtK before you write them off as useless?

I suspect it won't be long.

Date: 2007/08/07 17:42:28, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Beside the Jews, throughout history, Christians have been the most persecuted religious group in the world


I'd love to see some evidence of this.

NOTE persecution of a certain sect by another christian sect does not count.

NOTE Catholics, despite what a whole load of idiots say, are christians. They were pretty much the ORIGINAL christians.

Date: 2007/08/07 18:01:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 07 2007,17:16)
Hey Paul, are you back from Rome yet?

(snicker)  (giggle)

Maybe those local savages tied him up, what with Italy being such a wild place with no internet capabilities....

Date: 2007/08/07 18:03:44, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Nerull @ Aug. 07 2007,17:58)
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 07 2007,14:20)
Doctor Meyeres published (or random ejaculated?) an article few days ago:

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

The name of the article: Cephalopod development and evolution. Doctor argues that primitive apes evolved into man and oysters are related to squids. If origin of oysters and squids is due to saltus/frontloading/gradual evolution is of course no problem for him.

But transitional forms are many times impossible. Anatomy of soft parts (of snails for instance, speaking about molluscs) corresponds with the form of the shells. Mantle should have evolved only after the appearance of the shell, but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole. Thus, many molluscs could appear only as a result of saltation.

But such triffles are no problem for the doctor.

I'm wondering how long it'll take for VMartin call him Meeeeyeeereeeeesseeess at this rate. You'd think, for someone so obsessed, he could manage to spell the name correctly.

Maybe he thinks if you spell his name 3 times he comes into your house and steals your bible?

Date: 2007/08/07 18:28:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 07 2007,18:23)
Quote
   
Quote
Beside the Jews, throughout history, Christians have been the most persecuted religious group in the world


I'd love to see some evidence of this.

You won't.

     
Quote

NOTE persecution of a certain sect by another christian sect does not count.


There goes Denyse's whole argument.

 
Quote
NOTE Catholics, despite what a whole load of idiots say, are christians.


Has Denyse claimed Catholics aren't Christians?

     
Quote
They were pretty much the ORIGINAL christians.


There are older ones, though.

1. True, there are other, older churches, but in effect the majority of christian sects came up from those darn Catholics.

But of course, that is British history, and we all know history didn't start until whitey came to the Americas.

2. Seriously, what the hell is your fascination with Denyse? This was about RedDot, and unless she's allowing us LOADS of room with the manly jokes, it sure isn't O'Leary.

Date: 2007/08/07 18:45:38, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Since FtK actuall put my comment up and then replied to it, I decided to reply to her with:

Quote
"I wish Colin Powell was still involved in the war efforts. He seemed to have a good head on his shoulders."

I have to say, I do agree with this. I rather thought he was the only one of the Bush cabinet with any sense. Then they got him out and the circus really began...

I have to say though, political differences aside, many many people, particularly when they say things like "They know how to fix it? LET THEM!" and similar expect whichever party to wave a magic wand and fix the problems. Unfortunately, the main problem with the US is the population, vis a vis, the fact a large chunk of it are uneducated hicks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070

sorry about the length of that, but it's a nice link to a study in 2005 where 1 in 5 adult americans believe the sun revolves around the earth.

Date: 2007/08/07 19:01:12, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Presumably brats are bratwurst? I get my bratwurst from Lidl, it's a super cheapo supermarket, by my god the German products are good.

Date: 2007/08/07 19:14:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 07 2007,19:02)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 07 2007,18:45)
Since FtK actuall put my comment up and then replied to it, I decided to reply to her with:

 
Quote
"I wish Colin Powell was still involved in the war efforts. He seemed to have a good head on his shoulders."

I have to say, I do agree with this. I rather thought he was the only one of the Bush cabinet with any sense. Then they got him out and the circus really began...

I have to say though, political differences aside, many many people, particularly when they say things like "They know how to fix it? LET THEM!" and similar expect whichever party to wave a magic wand and fix the problems. Unfortunately, the main problem with the US is the population, vis a vis, the fact a large chunk of it are uneducated hicks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005....ei=5070

sorry about the length of that, but it's a nice link to a study in 2005 where 1 in 5 adult americans believe the sun revolves around the earth.

Ian, Yesterday I listened to a radio report that a large part of the American population does not even know that New Mexico is a state of the union. I'll try to find it.

Almost makes one want to cry.

Sincerely,
Paul

Jesus H christ on a motorbike, that's not scary, thats just sad.

I bet few Americans could answer corretly to "Which 4 countries make up the UK?" I've heard answers that included Ireland, and even Europe.

Date: 2007/08/07 19:43:28, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2007,19:11)
Phase 3: Waterloo!




That took me ages to do, and I know it's a shoddy job, but I don't care.

Date: 2007/08/07 19:44:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 07 2007,19:42)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 07 2007,19:14)
Jesus H christ on a motorbike, that's not scary, thats just sad.

I bet few Americans could answer corretly to "Which 4 countries make up the UK?" I've heard answers that included Ireland, and even Europe.

What?, You mean Europe is NOT a country.  Let me get my atlas.  We'll just see about that!

Not yet, but if the EU get their fingers out it might become one.

Bits of it at any rate.

Date: 2007/08/07 19:47:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Discussions of the Establishment Clause


That's the one where it talks about congress shall not favour any religion or somesuch, right?

What the hell DO you think it means Skeptic?

Date: 2007/08/07 20:17:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 07 2007,18:42)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 07 2007,18:28)
But of course, that is British history, and we all know history didn't start until whitey came to the Americas.

The difference between Americans and British:


Americans think that 200 years is a long time.

British think that 200 miles is a long distance.


;)

I'll go along with that.

Date: 2007/08/07 20:28:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,20:27)
It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

Then PM me.

Date: 2007/08/08 08:51:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,07:18)
God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.  Just a quick example, if I could take every single religious text on Earth (every faith) and thoroughly disproves every single line in them it still would mean nothing when the question of God's existence is approached.

But why should we believe in god? If it's not to do with any religion, why does god HAVE to exist?

Sorry if this is off topic.

Date: 2007/08/08 12:00:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Sorry again K.e. but this comment you made

Quote
THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!


Is also quite, quite wrong. Most of the Welsh have English as their first (and in many cases only) language. Welsh itself is hardly spoken.

Date: 2007/08/08 14:19:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 08 2007,14:00)
When was the last time Joel Borofsky showed up at UD?  (That could be a stupid question, as I haven't been paying attention.)

A quick google produced the exciting news at his web site that "Satan Hates the Church"  (posted June 28th, 2007, at http://www.stoplyingtous.com/ )

(At something like three comments in 20 posts since early May, he might actually be envious of the comparatively blazing level of activity over at OE.)

I went to that site, clicked on the link to the "Intelligent Design" posts, read the start of the second one and thought 'Bye bye Mr Freakshow' and promptly closed the site.

Date: 2007/08/08 17:29:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
In response to her post about the huge new planet discovered FtK bangs on about how materialism is dead. DEAD I TELL YOU!!!!!

She speaks of how "some people" clearly materialists, think they know everything. So I put this comment forward.

Quote
"Some ponder the depths of the universe and think they have all the answers,"

Yes, and they are called assclowns, or AirFarceDave.

Date: 2007/08/08 17:30:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Just like my previous example of human variability, here are a couple horses whose skeletal remains would be vastly difference, yet guess what? They're still both horses!


WOW! It's almost as if this was supposed to mean something.

Date: 2007/08/09 03:06:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Anyone know who jc is? Other than a tit I mean?

He claims since Dawkins claims science will one day understand EVERYTHING about the universe, (not an unlikely claim, as far as I'm aware) this means he thinks he knows it all. What?

I posted this in reply.

Quote
"That sounds pretty darn close to claiming you have all the answers."

No, it isn't remotely close. You either fail to understand the english language, or you're warping the definitions in order to make Dawkins look like an assclown. Or AirFarceDave.

First of all, I could say "some day, with investment, I'll have £1 million!".

Do I have that now? No. I have SOME  money, but it's not even close to £1 million. However, I can still say it because using a method I know works (investment) I can predict I might well get to the total. It doesn't mean I think I already have, or am at all close.

Secondly, the original comment by FtK was:
"Some ponder the depths of the universe and think they have all the answers"

Sounds to ME far more like religous folks actually. I mean, they claim to have the answers. Of they might not know where the nearest star to the centre of Andromeda is, but they know the IMPORTANT stuff, so they claim, like how god does everything and so on. This is far more like claiming to know everything than saying "I reckon science might find out everything someday, cool eh?"

Date: 2007/08/09 03:17:04, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 08 2007,22:33)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,13:49)
You honestly, honestly believe there weren't any people around 6-4000 years ago?

Seriously?

Honestly?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Jesus Christ man!

I've never given a time limit of 4-6K for human habitation.  I've actually given a 6-10K limit.

Uh huh.

That's why you said:

Quote
Most to all of the civilizations we know about now were post-flood (i.e. Assyrians).


Despite the fact you claim the flood was 5-7k years ago, right?

Despite the Chinese having an 8 000 year written history?

Despite older cave paintings?

Despite insurmountable evidence that humans have been banging around, totally unaffected by a global flood you claim happened for a few thousand years BEFORE the Chinese starting writing?


Another hilarious gaffe from RedDot the clown, when asked if the flood water was salty or fresh you said:

Quote

I believe salty.


Not only does this bring up the question (which was posted and that you avoided) of what happened to the freshwater fish, and how did they survive, it also begs the question as to how farming is possible, since salt in the quantities that would have been present would have utterly destroyed all fertile land. There's farming now, and there was farming during and after the so called global flood everyone seems to have ignored. How is this possible?

Please, don't forget to answer little old me.

Date: 2007/08/09 03:25:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,23:43)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 08 2007,20:00)
Sorry again K.e. but this comment you made

   
Quote
THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!


Is also quite, quite wrong. Most of the Welsh have English as their first (and in many cases only) language. Welsh itself is hardly spoken.

To be quite honest young man, how can possibly you say that? Yes I will have to agree the words coming out of their mouths may be English but it could be reasonably argued that they don't actually think in English. I hardly need mention that for instance India speaks English and they are without a doubt completely understandable on a phone line when suggesting delivery of free telephones direct to your front door and to me they sound Welsh.

There has to be some degree of acceptance for this not so radical idea and considering that most true Welshmen don't like Tiger Rogan Josh (with real Tiger) then I think the case has been made.

God some people are sticklers for detail.

Because I've spent a fair portion of my life in Wales?

My family, one half at least, are from there, and I spent at the very least about a month per year of the first 16 of my life their?

Because I live their most of the year, and have for the past 2?

I think we can safely conclude I know a tiny bit more about the Welsh than you, k.e.

Sorry I'm a stickler for detail.

Date: 2007/08/09 04:48:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Damn straight mo fo.

Sorry, I can't even type that with a straight face.

Appologies K.E., I don't mean to be an uptight arse.

Much.

Date: 2007/08/09 06:00:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Oh dear oh dear.

Is it me, or is this new to the discussion of FtK and her "open minded" viewpoint?

Seems to me like she's talking about how "molecule to man" as she puts it, is clearly nonsense that shouldn't be taught.

Whoops.

Date: 2007/08/09 06:45:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 09 2007,06:10)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 08 2007,22:19)
Three resistance mechanisms have been identified to toxic analogs of folic acid, like aminopterin.  The first involves dihydrofolate reductase, the second a decreased affinity to the aminopterin transport system for its substrate, and the third is a mutation in the structural gene for thymidylate synthase.  Each is under the control of a single gene.  Studies of pleiotropic mutations of the amiA locus have determined that the enzyme's properties of both the wild and mutated strains are identical, so the mutation does not affect the properties of DHFR.

In your particular case, if DHFR concentrations are rising, it should be able to be offset with higher concentrations of aminopterin or amethopterin (at least in a lab) since the specific activity is unchanged.

However, duplication of the DHFR gene, since DHRF is still being produced by the new region, is still not an increase in information - just the overall size of the genome.  It is possible that the extra information would wind up being cut back out of the chromosome within a generation or two.

Ball's back in your court...

'Fraid not. You have merely proven that you can google and quote irrelevant information (WTF does ensyme specific activity have to do with this discussion?) as if you understood it. Now you need to work on arguing coherently.

What is wrong with this pair of sentences you just wrote? I'll highlight the logical inconsistency in boldface, since you seem to be a bit thick.
   
Quote
However, duplication of the DHFR gene, since DHRF is still being produced by the new region, is still not an increase in information - just the overall size of the genome.  It is possible that the extra information would wind up being cut back out of the chromosome within a generation or two.

Apparently you agree that this mechanism is an increase in information. Or maybe not. Thanks for playing.

Nevermind, you've still got your bendy bully.

Date: 2007/08/09 07:52:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (RF Brady @ Aug. 09 2007,07:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,06:00)
Oh dear oh dear.

Is it me, or is this new to the discussion of FtK and her "open minded" viewpoint?

Seems to me like she's talking about how "molecule to man" as she puts it, is clearly nonsense that shouldn't be taught.

Whoops.

No, it's not new to her. She has long held that viewpoint, she just may not have expressed it here (before she was banished). :O

I meant new to the discussion of her obviously upholding those views, but pretending she doesn't.

Date: 2007/08/09 11:17:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 09 2007,11:11)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,03:25)
Because I've spent a fair portion of my life in Wales?

My family, one half at least, are from there, and I spent at the very least about a month per year of the first 16 of my life their?

Because I live their most of the year, and have for the past 2?

Oh, you poor, poor man.

Precisely what is so bad about Wales?

Honestly, you church burnin' ebola boys are beyond the pale.....

Date: 2007/08/09 17:38:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 09 2007,15:05)
Dobzhansky about Pierre Grasse:

 
Quote

Now one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic.


Pierre Grasse, the man of the encyclopedic knowledge came to the same conclusion 30 years ago:

 
Quote

Facts are facts; no new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred million years, and for an equally long time numerous species, animal as well as plant, have ceased evolving. … At best, present evolutionary phenomena are simply slight changes of genotypes within populations, or substitution of an allele with a new one.


Evolution of Living Organisms
(1977), page 84


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

Especially instructive is also this observation of Grasse . We discussed  with some people here also "incipient speciation" of dogs in another thread btw.

 
Quote

The genic differences noted between separate populations of the same species that are so often presented as evidence of ongoing evolution are, above all, a case of the adjustment of a population to its habitat and of the effects of genetic drift. The fruitfly (drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotropical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.{2}

Rad! Hey, guess what? That new "disco" music is really cool, now lets strap on our skates and hop in VMartins TIME MACHINE.

Dear lord alive.

Date: 2007/08/09 19:54:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
FtK has actually asked me to go, leave her blog and never darken it's door again, foul one!!! (At least try to find this funny FtK, it IS meant as a joke.

So, I decided to post a very non joke reply to her telling me my anger towards her (she has only raised my blood pressure once, in the "WWII incident") has clouded my views on what she says. Actually it's the fact she will not listen to any refutations of her favourite "thats interesting" pontification areas that "clouds" my judgement and makes me think she is almost as uninterested in following the evidence as Sal "snake oil" Cordova.

Quote
"And, please don’t post here any more. Your anger has clouded your ability to consider anything I say without putting your own twist on it."

Anger? FtK my dear, I'm not angry. I appologise if I seem that way (although yes, I will admit, I am angry when it comes to certain things, not all of which are done by you) I am, in fact, intrigued as to why you don't think rebuttals are worth anything.

Imagine I say X.

You say not X because Y.

I say no, not Y because Z, and Z is backed up by A, B and C.

You don't reply, and just say not X.

Why are my points here not vaild? Yes, it's certainly a good idea to look for holes in new research, scientists do it all the time, it's called peer review. However, when the problems brought up are, to use a colloquialism from the US, hit right out of the field, why dismiss the rebuttals to them?

FtK, I wasn't stating that you are campaigning to have that darn evolution removed, no matter what you think of my opinion of you. However, I do think that anyone who claims to be open minded, and starts spouting off about how silly something is and how they just don't believe it could ever have happened, isn't that just a tad dishonest?

I mean, if you were really open minded, you would say "X seems ridiculous, why do you say it's true?"

If as a reply you get "because it is" then fine, kick the crap out of them all you want. However if you get substance in your reply, then analyse it, if you don't understand it ask. If you think you have seen a rebuttal submit it, it might not get a warm response but it should get an answer. If, however, you are told to go look at X, Y and Z, or are told why someones maths is faulty, or why their experiment was poor, don't just rubbish it right away.

Just because someone says something that sounds increadible doesn't mean they don't have evidence, and just because it's increadible doesn't mean the evidence is somehow more suspect.

Like I say, even if you don't let me talk here ever again, although I would be rather disappointed if you didn't let me respond to the whole USA saves the day brigade, assuming they reply to me, then at least tell me WHY you won't listen to the qualified scientists when they show you where things you bring up as problems are ripped apart.


Thus endeth (probably) my time at Reasonable Kansans. I shall mark the day with....well with nothing.

Date: 2007/08/09 20:16:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I tried, I really did. She didn't want one however. She expected me to instantly go "oh WOW FtK, you've opened my eyes!!!" to any response she gave me. When I just asked more questions, such as "why are you telling me to read this nonsense? It makes no sense" or "But FtK, that doesn't help your point at all, 100 years or 1000 year difference, the flood can't possibly have been global because this civilisation was around for thousands of years prior to the base date" and suchlike was met with "I don't know what you want, you ask for my answers and I give them, then you just ask MORE QUESTIONS!!!!!" as if I had broken into her house on Christmas Day and pissed on her kids (my thanks to Peter Kay for that joke).

It was bizarre really, every time I asked a question I got "I've answered that on KCfS"

or

"I'll get back to you" (with no further reply, or with a totally ridiculous and inadequate one that she might as well have replaced with "because I say so"

Or the increasingly popular
"Why are you asking more questions? I replied to you! You just don't want to listen!"

Date: 2007/08/09 20:25:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, I got into a debate with a guy about religion (I know, I know) but he keeps insisting that thermodynamics (I know the first 2 laws, I get lost later on) prove the supernatural.

Bear with me.

He basically states either one of three things has happened.

1.Something supernatural created everything, and the universe is not infinate.

2. Something supernatural created everything and the universe is infinate.

3. The universe was held still, away from those pesky thermodynamic laws by something supernatural, while in the pre big bang state.

Essentially, he argues, the universe is a closed system, therefore everything (very slowly, I don't think he's a 6000 year old universe nut) is decending towards entropy, and all viable energy is being used up. Therefore either something created the universe a fixed time ago, and it's been going downhill ever since, or something held back the actions of thermo prior to it coming into effect.

Now, I argued what I hope is a point, that the universe is made up of lots of open systems, and therefore the energy released by one going entropy way feeds another. He wasn't having any of it, because as he keeps insisting in the single most patronising way ever, "the universe is a closed system".

Any help?

Date: 2007/08/09 20:35:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 09 2007,20:34)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,20:25)
Essentially, he argues, the universe is a closed system, therefore everything (very slowly, I don't think he's a 6000 year old universe nut) is decending towards entropy, and all viable energy is being used up. Therefore either something created the universe a fixed time ago, and it's been going downhill ever since, or something held back the actions of thermo prior to it coming into effect.

Even if that proves the universe had a beginning (and I'm not sure it does), it doesn't prove that the universe was created by something supernatural.

Unless, of course, his definition of supernatural is whatever accounts for the universe having a beginning.

Essentially he is saying that something supernatural must have created everything, because it's all really big, nad how was it around before everything and so on.

Date: 2007/08/09 20:36:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 09 2007,20:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,20:25)
Ok, I got into a debate with a guy about religion (I know, I know) but he keeps insisting that thermodynamics (I know the first 2 laws, I get lost later on) prove the supernatural.

Bear with me.

He basically states either one of three things has happened.

1.Something supernatural created everything, and the universe is not infinate.

2. Something supernatural created everything and the universe is infinate.

3. The universe was held still, away from those pesky thermodynamic laws by something supernatural, while in the pre big bang state.

Essentially, he argues, the universe is a closed system, therefore everything (very slowly, I don't think he's a 6000 year old universe nut) is decending towards entropy, and all viable energy is being used up. Therefore either something created the universe a fixed time ago, and it's been going downhill ever since, or something held back the actions of thermo prior to it coming into effect.

Now, I argued what I hope is a point, that the universe is made up of lots of open systems, and therefore the energy released by one going entropy way feeds another. He wasn't having any of it, because as he keeps insisting in the single most patronising way ever, "the universe is a closed system".

Any help?

He's right -- the universe as a whole is a closed system.  And it is declining, in accordance with thermodynamic laws, into heat death.

The rest is just gibberish.

The problem is Lenny, I was pretty sure it WAS gibberish, and I didn't disagree on the heat death thing, but I don't get why it's jibberish.

Date: 2007/08/09 20:37:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 09 2007,20:21)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,20:16)
I tried, I really did. She didn't want one however. She expected me to instantly go "oh WOW FtK, you've opened my eyes!!!" to any response she gave me. When I just asked more questions, such as "why are you telling me to read this nonsense? It makes no sense" or "But FtK, that doesn't help your point at all, 100 years or 1000 year difference, the flood can't possibly have been global because this civilisation was around for thousands of years prior to the base date" and suchlike was met with "I don't know what you want, you ask for my answers and I give them, then you just ask MORE QUESTIONS!!!!!" as if I had broken into her house on Christmas Day and pissed on her kids (my thanks to Peter Kay for that joke).

It was bizarre really, every time I asked a question I got "I've answered that on KCfS"

or

"I'll get back to you" (with no further reply, or with a totally ridiculous and inadequate one that she might as well have replaced with "because I say so"

Or the increasingly popular
"Why are you asking more questions? I replied to you! You just don't want to listen!"

Alas, you will find that, underneath all their arm-waving, this is all ANY creationist/IDer has.  (shrug)

I've been in this game for over 25 years and have dealt, in person and online, with several hundred creationist/IDers.

Do you understand now why I wouldn't piss on *any* of them if their heart were on fire?

I hate to sound like a twat, but I'm begining to understand why the vast majority have zero patience for the ID crowd, and why guilt is presumed before innocence.

Date: 2007/08/09 20:47:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 09 2007,20:45)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,20:16)
I tried, I really did. She didn't want one however. She expected me to instantly go "oh WOW FtK, you've opened my eyes!!!" to any response she gave me.

You have done well, young Jedi. Given the strength of the Tard Force that pulses through that blog, it would take a miracle to make any impact over there. And miracles are only given to those who pray for the end to the Blitz, y'know.

Topeka is a long way from Wales, but if you ever do get to Kansas, let me know and I'll buy you a pint or two.

No worries, similarly, if you're ever in Aberystwyth, or in Leicestershire, I'll be glad to show you a few decent drinking houses.

I didn't exactly expect wonderscience from her, but I did at least expect a little more than "MORE QUESTIONS BOY?" a la Oliver Twist.

Date: 2007/08/09 20:49:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 09 2007,20:47)
It's just the old "everything has to have a cause" BS.

But if I try to post that he'll just go on for another million words about thermodynamics talking to me as if I were a child.

That is what bugs me the most, I told him not to get TOO technical as I'm no great shakes at physics (beyond electronics, I was always good at that) and he assumes I therefore don't understand things like "thermodynamics", "heat death" or "energy".

Date: 2007/08/09 21:02:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 09 2007,20:56)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,21:49)
Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 09 2007,20:47)
It's just the old "everything has to have a cause" BS.

But if I try to post that he'll just go on for another million words about thermodynamics talking to me as if I were a child.

invite him here.

:D

I have just done.

I may have done it before, but after I told them about how people who advocate Creationism get a fairly frosty reception, and that the people here are pretty much (with a few exceptions) conviced evolution and various other things are solid science and are, as far as science can tell, correct, he called you all "prideful".

That may have been someone else, however.

Date: 2007/08/09 21:35:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 09 2007,21:31)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,20:47)
No worries, similarly, if you're ever in Aberystwyth, or in Leicestershire, I'll be glad to show you a few decent drinking houses.

Actually, I have tentative plans to be in the UK next summer for a meeting in Aberdeen, and it is likely that we will saunter down to more southerly regions of that fair isle. As the time gets closer and the schedule more firmed up, I'll keep that in mind. All of that slagging from k.e and Louis re Wales on the other thread has me intrigued; I need to see it for myself!

OTOH, I'm not sure that you need to see Topeka. A bit west of there, in the Flint Hills where I live, it is a tad more scenic however.

It's unlikely I'll be seeing the US, for a very long time at least. I have no money, and no really prospects of getting any soon.

Date: 2007/08/10 03:41:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ok, I invited him, and he's on his way.

Date: 2007/08/10 05:39:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,04:54)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 10 2007,03:31)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,20:47)
No worries, similarly, if you're ever in Aberystwyth, or in Leicestershire, I'll be glad to show you a few decent drinking houses.

Actually, I have tentative plans to be in the UK next summer for a meeting in Aberdeen, and it is likely that we will saunter down to more southerly regions of that fair isle. As the time gets closer and the schedule more firmed up, I'll keep that in mind. All of that slagging from k.e and Louis re Wales on the other thread has me intrigued; I need to see it for myself!

OTOH, I'm not sure that you need to see Topeka. A bit west of there, in the Flint Hills where I live, it is a tad more scenic however.

Albatrossity,

If you're over in the UK next summer, make sure to look me up. I'm sure between us Ian, Steve and I can sort you out a pint or two.

I'll even say nice things about Wales (like for example how the Gower has great surf).

Louis

Most of Wales would be an awsome place, if it weren't for the dickheads who live (mostly in the north) there.

They cut the frickin' English of the signposts in some areas.

Date: 2007/08/10 06:06:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (guthrie @ Aug. 10 2007,05:54)
Just to add to the fun, cosmologists are looking at possible causes of the big bang.  These include collisions of Branes, which are some kind of great big extra- this universe higher dimensional thingies.  The difficulty is in showing what is likely.  And of course it still leaves plenty of room for a deity somewhere.

Oh, I don't doubt that a god COULD have done it, not my arguement. He was arguing god MUST have done it.


His claim is that god is needed in a similar way to air. He even used the "you can't see air" argument on me.

Date: 2007/08/10 09:31:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Now that is funny.

Who, pray tell, is the British Steve? Have I missed something here?

Date: 2007/08/10 10:00:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,09:35)
Quote
I hate to sound like a twat, but I'm begining to understand why the vast majority have zero patience for the ID crowd, and why guilt is presumed before innocence.


Well you don't sound like a twat. I've adopted a "3 strikes and out" policy with creationists. I'll ask them questions and engage with them perfectly nicely (well maybe not perfetcly) until they demonstrate those traits which we know and love. Then I reckon it's open season.

Oh and the British Steve is Steve Elliot. Lives down the road from me. Nice bloke, can't handle his tequila.*

Louis

*Actually he can, but this is something of another in joke.

Sounds like a fair policy.

In my defence, arguing with FtK was getting somewhere for a short while. Then she blew a gasket at me (she assumed I just wanted to bring stupid things back to tell you all, as a supposed crony or somesuch).

A while later she was talking to me again, and she responded to a question I set her. When I asked her what led her to the conclusion she cmae to, and why she thought it made any difference, she went off on one for asking questions (eh? I thought thats how we're supposed to do this?) and frankly I pretty much gave up then.

Date: 2007/08/10 10:34:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,10:32)
Like father and son, what do you mean?



Yes, because Wesley often waxes lyrical about Marxism.....


NURSE" He's out of bed again! (compliments to Mr Stephen Fry for that one)

Date: 2007/08/10 10:40:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Yay, Paul managed to get out of that backwater hellhole of....Rome.

Maybe he'd like to talk to us about the issues raised?

[EDIT] D'oh, Paul Nelson done run away with his tail between his legs left again.

Date: 2007/08/10 10:42:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,10:34)
Hell, I'm off to Cyprus in a few weeks for a holiday. I reckon that, despite my puritanical desires which involve nothing more exciting than a cup of warm tea, I might **accidentally** drink sufficient quantities of beer to make FTK hawt.*

Louis

*Notice I haven't said how much beer that is. It could, theoretically, be a very small amount. And for those in the know, no I am not going to Agia Napa.

North or South?

If you go to the North, be careful who you talk to. A lot of the ex-pats from other European countries are criminals and gangsters hiding away, since North Cyprus isn't a recognised country, and as such has no extradition laws...

Date: 2007/08/10 11:06:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 10 2007,11:02)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 10 2007,05:39)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,04:54)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 10 2007,03:31)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,20:47)
No worries, similarly, if you're ever in Aberystwyth, or in Leicestershire, I'll be glad to show you a few decent drinking houses.

Actually, I have tentative plans to be in the UK next summer for a meeting in Aberdeen, and it is likely that we will saunter down to more southerly regions of that fair isle. As the time gets closer and the schedule more firmed up, I'll keep that in mind. All of that slagging from k.e and Louis re Wales on the other thread has me intrigued; I need to see it for myself!

OTOH, I'm not sure that you need to see Topeka. A bit west of there, in the Flint Hills where I live, it is a tad more scenic however.

Albatrossity,

If you're over in the UK next summer, make sure to look me up. I'm sure between us Ian, Steve and I can sort you out a pint or two.

I'll even say nice things about Wales (like for example how the Gower has great surf).

Louis

Most of Wales would be an awsome place, if it weren't for the dickheads who live (mostly in the north) there.

They cut the frickin' English of the signposts in some areas.

How else are they dickheads?

I guess cutting down signs is pretty stupid, but otherwise I actually sympathise with them. It can't be easy to keep their culture afloat in the middle of an ocean of Anglophone British culture. The Welsh language has disappeared from most of Wales in the last 800 years, and as a linguist I think it'd be pretty awful if it died out, like Breton and Gaelic are in the process of doing. Too many languages are going extinct as it is.

But it's easy to go overboard and be a shithead about that kind of thing, I admit.

A few of my frineds went into a Welsh pub (north, again. You hardly get this in the south) and asked for a few drinks at the bar in english.

Now, there were a few of them there, but the main players were my two friends and the mother of one of the two. When they entered it went quiet, and when they ordered in English, a lot of the pub started muttering quite nasty and obscene things about them in Welsh.

The mother, who was fluent in Welsh, turned around, and in perfect Welsh told them exactly what she thought of them.

A lot of the rural welsh, almost always in the north and centre (more in the north though) really don't like the english. They're like those cornish people who think it should be declared a country, and should seperate from the UK.

Date: 2007/08/10 11:12:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 10 2007,11:08)
My guess is that anyone who advocates evolution is the same as a Marxist in VMartin's little world.

Which is even more bizarre, since Marxism is, by it's very nature, a benign entity. Irrespective of whether you think it's a good thing, it has, at it's heart, the concpet that everyone should be more equal than they are, and that those who push others into the dirt are acting in a harmful way.

It took Lenin to make it into a psychopathic, murderous quasi-religion.

Date: 2007/08/10 11:14:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 10 2007,11:11)
Yes, you can see air.



You can also see glass.

But...but...NUH UH!!!!!1!11

The guy got an invite, anyway, but I don't know if he'll venture over. He might think we, or even just I, am a really mean, angry person (like FtK does) or that we're all beyond help or something.

Date: 2007/08/10 11:15:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,11:08)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 10 2007,16:42)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,10:34)
Hell, I'm off to Cyprus in a few weeks for a holiday. I reckon that, despite my puritanical desires which involve nothing more exciting than a cup of warm tea, I might **accidentally** drink sufficient quantities of beer to make FTK hawt.*

Louis

*Notice I haven't said how much beer that is. It could, theoretically, be a very small amount. And for those in the know, no I am not going to Agia Napa.

North or South?

If you go to the North, be careful who you talk to. A lot of the ex-pats from other European countries are criminals and gangsters hiding away, since North Cyprus isn't a recognised country, and as such has no extradition laws...

Ian,

I'm half Greek Cypriot*, I'm going no where near the Northern half of the island without an armed escort!

Ok maybe that's an exaggeration, but it isn't the most hospitable place when you look very Greek and have a very Greek surname.

Louis

Half greek you say?

Here comes all the stereotypes about loving curly shoes and being lazy drunk slobs then....Revenge is sweet. Like baklava.

Date: 2007/08/10 11:41:28, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 10 2007,11:16)
Mirages and bubbles are other examples of you seeing air.

I myself am quite aware of the ability to see air thanks Rich.

Although I didn't know mirages were air related....

Date: 2007/08/10 11:43:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 10 2007,11:38)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,11:08)
Ian,

I'm half Greek Cypriot*, I'm going no where near the Northern half of the island without an armed escort!

Ok maybe that's an exaggeration, but it isn't the most hospitable place when you look very Greek and have a very Greek surname.

Louis

Is it? Assuming the Turks are as hostile to the Greeks as vice-versa you would be justified in steering well clear.

As far as I could tell, the Turks seem worse.

Date: 2007/08/10 11:52:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
[EDIT]

Date: 2007/08/10 13:05:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,12:15)

Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.





Hurrah, Comrades!





Charles Darwin's evolution is right.

One word. Lysenkoism.

Date: 2007/08/10 13:18:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,13:13)
Quote

One word. Lysenkoism.


Lysenko was kind of a lamarckian:

 
Quote

The most glaring manifestation of such debasement of Darwinism is to be found in the teachings of Weismann, Mendel, and Morgan, the founders of modern reactionary genetics.

Yes. Well done, an actually lucid point. An actual point, no less.

Now, was the CCCP favourable to Lysenkoism, yes or no?

Date: 2007/08/10 14:07:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Isn't it obvious Arden?

This means the darwinian religion is dead, and VMartin and JAD can skip through fields and so on, laughing at all the silly darwinist, marxist, communist, nazis as we weep at our pathetic nature!!!!11!1!

Date: 2007/08/10 14:12:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 10 2007,14:09)
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:01)
Slug from the same graden - Because there was not selective pressure on me I don't need to protect heart and kidney anymore and I got rid of the shell and  transformed complicated structre of mantle cavity. I have the shell only as a rudimentary organ, you know:

V

Nice pictures. But perhaps you could also ask those snails (or JAD) the real question:

When did God die?

Or has god died, in your opinion?

NOT JAD's opinion. YOURS.

Date: 2007/08/10 14:43:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:41)
Don't you think that having shell would give a small survival advantage (0,00001%) as not having shell? Eh? Or is this case somehow different?

Why can't it be different?

why is it so hard to believe the slug had some other form of survival trait?

Even if they don't, if they survive perfectly well, having a shell would make no difference.

Date: 2007/08/10 15:56:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Oh boy oh boy oh boy!

I decided, since I was bored, to go looking through FtK's old posts on her opinion piece blog, and I found that she just loves (or loved, to give her the benefit of the doubt) Sal "The Serpent" Cordova.

Quote
Sal is one of my VERY FAVORITE intelligent design advocates.

Date: 2007/08/10 17:13:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Where oh where has RedDot gone?

I do hope he hasn't run away.

Date: 2007/08/10 17:15:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
He just can't seem to grasp the idea that natural forces, as of yet unknown, can do anything.

Date: 2007/08/11 05:11:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 11 2007,02:03)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 10 2007,14:43)
     
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 10 2007,14:41)
Don't you think that having shell would give a small survival advantage (0,00001%) as not having shell? Eh? Or is this case somehow different?

Why can't it be different?

why is it so hard to believe the slug had some other form of survival trait?

Even if they don't, if they survive perfectly well, having a shell would make no difference.

So you somehow concede that shells don't have protective function.

Do I?

Wow V, you're a fucking mind reader, even I didn't know I was thinking that.

Jesus christ you're mental.

Date: 2007/08/11 05:13:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,03:17)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 08 2007,22:33)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,13:49)
You honestly, honestly believe there weren't any people around 6-4000 years ago?

Seriously?

Honestly?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Jesus Christ man!

I've never given a time limit of 4-6K for human habitation.  I've actually given a 6-10K limit.

Uh huh.

That's why you said:

Quote
Most to all of the civilizations we know about now were post-flood (i.e. Assyrians).


Despite the fact you claim the flood was 5-7k years ago, right?

Despite the Chinese having an 8 000 year written history?

Despite older cave paintings?

Despite insurmountable evidence that humans have been banging around, totally unaffected by a global flood you claim happened for a few thousand years BEFORE the Chinese starting writing?


Another hilarious gaffe from RedDot the clown, when asked if the flood water was salty or fresh you said:

Quote

I believe salty.


Not only does this bring up the question (which was posted and that you avoided) of what happened to the freshwater fish, and how did they survive, it also begs the question as to how farming is possible, since salt in the quantities that would have been present would have utterly destroyed all fertile land. There's farming now, and there was farming during and after the so called global flood everyone seems to have ignored. How is this possible?

Please, don't forget to answer little old me.

I do hate to go all Lenny Flank (sorry Lenny) but here we go AGAIN.

Don't ignore me RedDot. It's terribly impolite, and gives the impression you have no idea what you're talking about.

Date: 2007/08/11 08:54:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 11 2007,06:54)
Quote

Wow V, you're a fucking mind reader, even I didn't know I was thinking that.


So you don't think that snail shell has protective function. But you also don't think that it hasn't.
Your head is empty.  That's why you became a darwinist.

You misunderstood me, oh captain genius.

I didn't say it had no protective function, but that it didn't have that function for the slug, because the slug might have other measures, or might simply not need it.

The insult, by the way, is amusing to me.

Date: 2007/08/11 08:58:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
I didn't avoid you, these topics were covered in a different post, so I didn't feel compelled to repeat myself.  Not intending to be rude, just efficient.


Where. Link or quote (whichever is easier) please.

"One other question that could be raised was whether the oceans contained salty or freshwater before the flood.   Hmmm..."

Technically not a question, since you have shown absolutely no reason to believe a global flood occured, and haven't answered the reasons that the fish didn't die, or why farming is possible.

I also love the fact you're trying (and failing badly) to deflect the point. Your response is not an answer to the question I asked, so please, answer the question asked.

Quote
Are you saying that the Chinese have had writing for 8000 years?  Is that your final answer?  What were they writing on?  What were they writing with?  I ask because the oldest form I'm familiar with is writings on some divination bones dating back to about 1200 B.C


You're kidding, of course?

Date: 2007/08/11 09:01:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I would like to make a formal appology to FtK.

I linked to something which was given to me in a private conversation. I was unaware of that when I linked to it (it had been given a while back, and I had put it into my bookmarks, where I got the link from to post it here).

I assumed, incorrectly, it had come from our other blog conversation, which, since it wasn't mentioned as being private viewing, I figured wasn't a problem. Had I realised it was from a source which I had been absolutely informed was private, I would not have linked to it.

Date: 2007/08/11 09:26:05, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2007,09:22)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 11 2007,09:50)
Are you saying that the Chinese have had writing for 8000 years?  Is that your final answer?  What were they writing on?  What were they writing with?  I ask because the oldest form I'm familiar with is writings on some divination bones dating back to about 1200 B.C.

Indu, Sumerian, and Chinese writing all go back thousands of years before that.

PS Ian, be a little nicer.

Which post wasn't nice (apart from the Lenny Flank bit)?

I asked him to answer. I told him he wasn't doing a good job, and then I asked him if he was joking about not knowing of writing older than 3 600 years.

Date: 2007/08/11 10:34:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2007,09:22)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 11 2007,09:50)
Are you saying that the Chinese have had writing for 8000 years?  Is that your final answer?  What were they writing on?  What were they writing with?  I ask because the oldest form I'm familiar with is writings on some divination bones dating back to about 1200 B.C.

Indu, Sumerian, and Chinese writing all go back thousands of years before that.

PS Ian, be a little nicer.

The only possible conclusion I can think of is RedDot thinks that the world revolves around the US, and is JUST LOOKING AT USA TERRETORY records. Anyone know when the earliest writing found in the US is from?

Date: 2007/08/11 16:27:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
His latest is telling me that for something to break the natural laws, it must be supernatural, and if the laws didn't apply pre big bang, the laws governing the state must be supernatural, since today's natural laws didn't hold sway (I'm paraphrasing).

That was in reply to me telling him that they didn't have to be supernatural.

Date: 2007/08/11 20:30:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 11 2007,18:11)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 11 2007,16:27)
His latest is telling me that for something to break the natural laws, it must be supernatural, and if the laws didn't apply pre big bang, the laws governing the state must be supernatural, since today's natural laws didn't hold sway (I'm paraphrasing).

Why?

How the heck does he get from A to B?

Effectively he sees it like this.

You have law A.

Someone suggests that Law A either didn't apply, or was broken.

Since law A is a constant effect, the thing that broke it (B) must be beyond the natural.

Therefore B is SUPERnatural.

Date: 2007/08/13 12:12:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Anyone else presume this was more porn links?

Date: 2007/08/13 14:59:36, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 13 2007,14:46)
Quote

A biology lab with the Discovery Institute's funding could produce over a dozen peer-reviewed papers every year.


So, you're saying that ruthless efficiency is not one of the DI's weapons?

Date: 2007/08/13 16:03:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Aug. 13 2007,15:36)
Fascinating!

I don't know why, but I hadn't pictured Nigeria as having Legos.

Entirely provincial on my part, I'm sure.

Ok, this is a really small, and entirely tangential (mind you, since RedDot hasn't been back in a while, it's drifted of it's original course already) but legos isn't a word. It isn't the plural of lego. Lego is the company name, the little  pieces of plastic that fit together are lego bricks, and one is a lego brick.

The term legos always struck me as strange.

Date: 2007/08/13 16:17:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,16:05)
Kristine,
 
Quote
As for C.S. (an unfortunate combination of consonants, I think), he was never really atheist, he [HAHAH, David Heddle, my friend, sorry if you're reading this, but zingo!] described himself as "very angry with God for not existing". And that's what's gotten into little Shaner here. No C.S. Lewis dolls, no siree.

I’m missing the boat, I guess. Because I think you are referring to my concurring with Douglas Wilson, in his debate with Christopher Hitchens (a strange pairing for a debate), in which Wilson made the point that atheists deny God exists and they hate him. That’s rather consistent with what the C.S. Lewis Wikipedia article states (the accuracy of which, I certainly can’t defend)
 
Quote
Though an atheist at the time, Lewis later described his young self (in Surprised by Joy) as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing".

I think you might be arguing, correct me if I am wrong, that since he was angry with God he therefore was not an atheist. But I would say that all atheists have strong emotions (call it hatred) toward God.

Why would you say that?

Personally, I don't hate god. Why would I? I don't hate Zeus, or Ra, or Mars (not the planet) I just don't think they exist.

Are you mad at Santa?

Date: 2007/08/13 16:31:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 13 2007,16:17)
Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,16:05)
Kristine,
 
Quote
As for C.S. (an unfortunate combination of consonants, I think), he was never really atheist, he [HAHAH, David Heddle, my friend, sorry if you're reading this, but zingo!] described himself as "very angry with God for not existing". And that's what's gotten into little Shaner here. No C.S. Lewis dolls, no siree.

I’m missing the boat, I guess. Because I think you are referring to my concurring with Douglas Wilson, in his debate with Christopher Hitchens (a strange pairing for a debate), in which Wilson made the point that atheists deny God exists and they hate him. That’s rather consistent with what the C.S. Lewis Wikipedia article states (the accuracy of which, I certainly can’t defend)
 
Quote
Though an atheist at the time, Lewis later described his young self (in Surprised by Joy) as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing".

I think you might be arguing, correct me if I am wrong, that since he was angry with God he therefore was not an atheist. But I would say that all atheists have strong emotions (call it hatred) toward God.

Why would you say that?

Personally, I don't hate god. Why would I? I don't hate Zeus, or Ra, or Mars (not the planet) I just don't think they exist.

Are you mad at Santa?

Quote
But I would say that all atheists have strong emotions (call it hatred) toward God.

Not me.

I don't even know who you're talking about, unless you mean a literary character. Why would I have any feelings about him/her/it?

Am I mad at Thor, too? Are you?

If not, please explain the difference.


Quote


(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,16:18 ?  
Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,15:05)
Kristine,
Quote
As for C.S. (an unfortunate combination of consonants, I think), he was never really atheist, he [HAHAH, David Heddle, my friend, sorry if you're reading this, but zingo!] described himself as "very angry with God for not existing". And that's what's gotten into little Shaner here. No C.S. Lewis dolls, no siree.

I’m missing the boat, I guess. Because I think you are referring to my concurring with Douglas Wilson, in his debate with Christopher Hitchens (a strange pairing for a debate), in which Wilson made the point that atheists deny God exists and they hate him. That’s rather consistent with what the C.S. Lewis Wikipedia article states (the accuracy of which, I certainly can’t defend)    
Quote
Though an atheist at the time, Lewis later described his young self (in Surprised by Joy) as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing".

I think you might be arguing, correct me if I am wrong, that since he was angry with God he therefore was not an atheist. But I would say that all atheists have strong emotions (call it hatred) toward God.

No, no, not at all. Dear me, no, is that what believers think? Yikes!

Now I understand a little more about why I cause people distress. But no, I assure you that's not the case with me. I see religion as merely a human invention, that is all. I know people from many different faiths and know a great deal about many religions because I am interested in human beings. Even the most ardent creationist right-winger misogynist jerk is more interesting to me than any supernatural being, simply for being a flesh-and-blood human being. (However, I wouldn't mind it if the ancient Egyptian gods were real - always wanted to hang with them.) :)

People asking me why I don't believe in God is like asking me if I believe that democracy exists - well, democracy exists because people do certain things, but there is no central being called Democracy...

I think I've written this before, that if God exists, S/He should accept forgiveness from humanity as well in a mutual, not top-down, relationship. My greatest objection to a belief in God (who I would have no real grudge against personally) is that everything we know about disfunctional and abusive relationships goes right out the window when people talk about God. As it is, I get called a "Christian" a lot. *eyeroll* Whatever, I know it's meant as a compliment...


Quote
The only antipathy this atheist feels in regard to your imaginary sky buddy is directed at his arrogant and insipid self-appointed representatives, and their behavior toward those who disagree with them on the subject.

Do you hate Zeus?  "I would say" that you do.  Doesn't mean much, does it.


This uh, tell you much Heddle?

Date: 2007/08/13 16:49:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,16:46)
As for being my hating Thor (or Zeus) I do not.

So why, exactly, is this any different?

If you want to take this to another thread so we don't derail this one, say the word and I'll do it. I'm quite honestly wondering how you differentiate between the two positions. I'm not seeking to attack you, or belittle you, but to work out why you believe something so very odd in my eyes.

Date: 2007/08/13 16:54:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Over on her blog, on the post about debate and so on.
Quote

"Poet in a former life, Jim? *wink*"

If he was, he was this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McGonagall

I wonder why Jim thinks Evolution is losing? It doesn't seem to be. I've certainly not seen any evidence it is.


"But, public debate will educate the masses and disprove the misrepresentation of ID coming from the scientific community and the media."

I wonder, FtK, if you could enlighten us as to what has been misrepresendted?

Does ID have a theory now?

Have they described what information is, how to measure it, and how to test it?

Have they found a way to diferentiate between a designed object, and an undesigned one?

Date: 2007/08/13 16:56:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 13 2007,16:54)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 13 2007,16:03)
...but legos isn't a word.

Nonsense.  Legos connect your hipos to your ankleos.

Ok, that made me laugh. I'm going to flagellate myself for that....

Date: 2007/08/13 16:57:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2007,16:55)
Sal sounds like a precocious 10 yr old muttering to himself
 
Quote
It can be seen then, as time goes on, light from a given source becomes increasingly blue shifted when observed nearby. Howevr, from a distance it will appear red shifted since the observer will be in a relatively higher blue shift state at his observation post. This would also mean the sun began generating more gamma-rays, x-rays, and UV light over time. There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent.

Aww
 
Quote
There might have been a time the sun was more benevolent
link

Darn that evil sun!!11!!1

(What the hell?)

Date: 2007/08/13 17:18:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Please explain why I, as an atheist, hate your god, but you, as a christian don't hate Zeus.

Date: 2007/08/13 19:40:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I would like to thank SteveStory for inventing, a while back, the term "flinkwisty". I also appologise for having used it without prior consent.

Still, you can't sue, so my ass is safe.

Date: 2007/08/13 19:56:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 13 2007,19:49)
Ian, et al.

I presume that you are all familiar with the Brick Testament, the one true gospel according to Legos. But, if not, here is one of my favorites, When to Stone Your Children.

Enjoy!

Indeed I am familiar with it. Good times.

I'm having a discussion with someone on youtube about complexity. While they aren't a creationist, they keep coming up with the "X is more complex than Y" argument. I asked them to define complexity, and they told me it's obvious, X is more complex than Y.

I keep asking, and now they are descending into a series of non sequiturs, such as since we don't know how old the universe is (someone else pointed out we DO know) we can state it doesn't exist.

Date: 2007/08/13 20:39:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"No I don't hate Zeus. But if you believe in Zeus, and the Zeus holy book teaches that all are born in rebellion against Zeus, then you should argue that I hate Zeus, even as I deny it. And if you insist I hate Zeus, when I don't believe that I do, I will not be offended. I'll either not think about it at all or, like Reciprocating Bill, I'll try to understand where you are coming from."

Fair enough.

Except they are both unsupported assertions. If the stories of Conan said anyone who didn't believe them was gay, and you don't believe them, are you therefore gay? No, so why state atheists hate god when all evidence suggests that on the whole, we don't?

Date: 2007/08/13 20:48:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 13 2007,20:44)
flinkywisty is not mine. It's from Edward Lear's nonsense letter to his friend:

Quote
Thrippsy pillivinx,

Inky tinky pobblebockle abblesquabs?--Flosky! Beebul trimble flosky!--Okul scratchabibblebongibo, viddle squibble tog-a-tog, ferrymoyassity amsky flamsky ramsky damsky crocklefether squiggs,

Flinkywisty pomm,
Slushypipp


My point was that the ID folk were using the word 'design' in such a way that it had no meaning. It might as well have been a nonsense word. Certain objects were said to have design. If it's a watch lying in the grass, it's the watch with design. If the grass is lying on a sandy beach, it's the now cells in the grass that have design. If it's a sandy beach on earth vs rocks on an uninhabitable planet, the beach has design. If its the uninhabitable planet that was able to form vs the universe where planets can't form, the uninhabitable planet has design. If something's fragile (i.e. Irreducibly Complex) it has design. If instead it has complex backup systems, it has design. If a poker hand is a straight flush, it has "CSI" and therefore design. If it's random, hey, maybe that's just a false negative. Designers can incorporate random components, after all. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It makes as much sense as just arbitrarily picking something and saying it has Flinkywisty, and Flinkywisty implies a Flinkywister.

Ahhh, it's a Lear creation...fair enough so.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, at any rate.

Date: 2007/08/14 07:05:38, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,04:56)
I have answered a number of times that your hatred of God  is synonymous with original sin. Since I believe in that doctrine, the point  is obvious. Since I do not believe the Roman or Greek or Norse or any other gods carry with them a similar truth, then, just as obviously, I don’t have any particular opinion as to whether you hate them or not.

So, basically, you are absolutely right that we hate god because you believe it, but when we use your exact same logic to show that you hate Zeus, we're somehow getting it all backwards?

That a fair assessment Heddle?

Jesus Christ.

Date: 2007/08/14 07:33:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"although I would hope the reasons are more substantive than “he says I hate God, so I say he hates Zeus."

Why should they be? Yours arent.

Date: 2007/08/14 07:50:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 14 2007,07:34)
This is not about truth in a scientific sense and that may be hard to accept.

Please define other types of proof (if by proof you mean overwhelming evidence, if you DON'T, then that's another problem entirely)

Date: 2007/08/14 07:56:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Ye gods.

Intellectual dishonesty and cowardice, thy name is FtK.

Date: 2007/08/14 08:16:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 14 2007,08:02)
I thought the point of a blog was to have your opinions reach a wider audience.

What FtK needs is an email list, or one of those Yahoogroup things.

But she's only protecting herself from those meanies over here!1!!111

Date: 2007/08/14 08:25:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2007,08:23)
If so, she could have just turned comments off. No, she's hiding because having knowledgeable people dissect her weak ideas gives her the howling fantods.

This can be the only explanation, really.

Heving someone beat the shit out of her ideas is the only thing that this alone prevents.

Date: 2007/08/15 16:28:04, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 15 2007,16:18)
Now I acknowledge that there are those out there that do not believe that things like Love, Good, Evil and the Mind actually exist.  To those people, it may all be reactions and chemical levels or human desires and firing neurons.  I say that there is so much more and those people live in a pale, colorless world without sampling the beauty around them.  I pity those people.

"...TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN  SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET- Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

Death, speaking in The Hogfather.

Why must you imply there is good and evil? Why must you imply that love is more than the reactions of the brain producing strong surges of chemicals causing people to do things for others?

Why does there have to be ANYTHING beyond what we can see, and measure?

Date: 2007/08/15 16:39:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 15 2007,16:37)
I wonder how many folks on the other side of this creo/evo debate actually think that atheists hate their god, using the standard definition of hate, not the theologically contrived one. That could explain a lot, even the classic put-down from FtK to Jeremy which is immortalized in Ian's current sig.

Current and permenant. That was a hilarious comment from someone who claims to not hate atheists and to be, of all things, open minded.

Date: 2007/08/17 04:17:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Oh god yes. This guy is unbelievably dense.

I've come across him before, the freakin' loony.

Date: 2007/08/17 05:17:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 17 2007,04:59)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 17 2007,10:17)
Oh god yes. This guy is unbelievably dense.

I've come across him before, the freakin' loony.

I hope you wiped it off and said sorry.

Louis

That's far more than just disgusting Louis.

That's really just off the wall vile. Really frighteningly replusive in every possible way.

Date: 2007/08/17 12:59:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 17 2007,12:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 17 2007,01:39)
Tardeo?

http://uk.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX

Wow. Such religious psychosis in someone so young. I see a fairly horrible life ahead for 'VenomFangX'.

Is he British?

Errr.... I don't think so.

He doesnt sound British to me. As in his accent, not what he says. I've seen worse than him on Youtube from the UK.

Watch his videos on evolution. His misrepresentations make Sal look like an honest genius.

Date: 2007/08/17 14:29:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 17 2007,13:10)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 17 2007,12:59)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 17 2007,12:30)
?  
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 17 2007,01:39)
Tardeo?

http://uk.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX

Wow. Such religious psychosis in someone so young. I see a fairly horrible life ahead for 'VenomFangX'.

Is he British?

Errr.... I don't think so.

It was the 'uk.youtube' thing that made me wonder if he was British. I couldn't bring myself to actually *watch* one of his videos. I need all my brain cells.

But his is a type of psychosis that's characteristically American.

Oh no, do watch them.

He's hilarious.

Date: 2007/08/17 15:38:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I recommend this load of nonsense.

Date: 2007/08/17 16:36:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
He'll be in the news.

The story will end with "...before turning the gun on himself."

He's insane.

P.S. Didn't you like that Arden? I thought it was wonderful. Particularly when he used photoshop contest entries and a PT Barnum exhibit to prove creation.

Date: 2007/08/17 19:25:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 17 2007,19:13)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 17 2007,16:36)
He'll be in the news.

The story will end with "...before turning the gun on himself."

He's insane.

Another unnerving thing is that there are evidently no influential adults in his life telling him that he's full of shit or insane, or even pointing out how severely socially unpleasant he is. His parents have raised a freak, basically.

It won't be a pretty sight when he has to transition to adulthood with people from different backgrounds. And woe betide him when he goes to college with that set of reasoning skills. (Unless he stays sheltered and goes some place ridiculous like Bob Jones, Liberty, or Patriot University.)

There's another youtube user whom I won't name (because I can't remember his name) whose parents were aghast he agreed with evolutionary theory. He had to convince them he was a christian (he's actually an atheist) or they would disown him...

There's some scary people out there who really shouldn't have kids.

Date: 2007/08/19 07:29:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 19 2007,02:41)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 17 2007,19:43)
Hmmm.... think we should invite VenomFangX to come here and 'debate'?

(Things have been a little slow lately, and VMartin's shtick has gotten very predictable. :p)

I don't think that is a good idea. The guy sounds nuts and in need of expert help. Posting his wingnuttery here will result in a pile-on that he wont be able to answer. Who knows what real-life consequeces that might have? Medical treatment under supervision would probably be better.

But since he wont find it driving him to rabid insanity will suffice.

Shall I invite him?

Date: 2007/08/19 07:31:43, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 19 2007,04:24)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 18 2007,20:40)
I'm just amused by the spectacle of an Englishman calling another Englishman 'disgusting' for a change... :p

He's not English, he's Welsh. I.e. a member of a degenerate brood of half breeds suited to close harmony singing, druidic worship and of course (this goes without saying, but I thought I'd mention just FYI) the molestation of sheep.

Frankly when you compare them to the English (a mongrel horde of illiterate, flabby, sexually deviant, violent alcoholics with a penchant for Morris dancing, casual racism and spanking. A group so vile even the sheep turned them down) we Englanders come out on top every time.

Right?

Louis

He's HALF Welsh.

Date: 2007/08/19 09:36:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Because it's funny?

Date: 2007/08/19 10:25:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
It's done. He probably wont accept, but hey, if he does we've opened a new mine of comedy gold. Hopefully.

The message I sent to him:
Quote
If you wanted to discuss this issue with scientists and interested laymen (I'm in the second group) then I'm a member of a forum where any views are allowed to be expressed.

A link to the most active section of the forum.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi- bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=14

A small caveat, there is much, musch ribbing and making fun of others. It happens to everyone and is started by virtually everyone.

A second small point, an awful lot of the people on this forum are working research scientists, they will expect cites of information and evidence presented for any position.

Date: 2007/08/20 14:23:38, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I get the feeling he wont come.

It's a shame really.

Date: 2007/08/20 14:44:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Being the sad and petty person I am, I wrote to the EU enlargement commitee to issue a complaint about this latest piece of human rights ignoring chicanery.

I urge other saddo EU citizens to do the same.

Date: 2007/08/20 16:46:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 20 2007,16:32)
Here comes the chasm.  I can not accept your definition of physical reality because I've already experienced things beyond that simplistic framework.

Ohhh....bad move Skeptic. This is an assertion. You can't make that without evidence, unless you would like to show how people cannot be mistaken as to what they believe they feel.

Quote
By the same token, you can not accept my view until and if you actually experience these things as transcendental ideals.  You are more than happy to jump into the science of lust and attraction but that's all love will ever be for you unless you recognize and experience Love.  The same goes for all of these example including God.


So basically, we have to accept the premise to be able to accept the premise? I smell circular reasoning...

Date: 2007/08/21 04:28:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,01:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 20 2007,20:44)
Being the sad and petty person I am, I wrote to the EU enlargement commitee to issue a complaint about this latest piece of human rights ignoring chicanery.

I urge other saddo EU citizens to do the same.

WAY ahead of you! I've been campaigning to refuse Turkey EU admission on it's human rights record for years.

Don't get me wrong, I want Turkey in the EU, I just don't want Turkey in the EU as it is now. Show me a decade of progress and a concerted lack of human rights abuses and I will welcome them like the falafel guzzling brother I never had.

(So no, it's nowt to do with it being Islamic or the Greek/Turkish thing, it's all about well documented human rights abuses. Just ask Amnesty)

Louis (Another human rights saddo!)

Mein (lack of) gott! Another member of Amnesty?

Date: 2007/08/21 04:32:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
FtK is thin skinned, uncapable fo taking on the possibility she's wrong, sees conspiricy everywhere but says she doesn't, and generally acts like a very reprihensible individual on her blog (which we now can't see, hello in there, how are the 4 of you?).

Date: 2007/08/21 05:03:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Huh.

Date: 2007/08/21 05:36:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Many Creationist arguments only gain plausibility because of major deficiencies in evolutionary theory. Remove the deficiencies and their arguments lose plausibility.


Name some.

Date: 2007/08/23 18:13:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 23 2007,18:07)
Let's try this one then:

in so far as murder is the willful killing of an innocent person,

Is it always wrong to commit murder?  Why? or why not?

BTW, your Spock objection is ridiculous.  If there is nothing more than the physical that is or possibly is open to only rational description then there is no such thing as emotion.  The word, emotion, is nothing more than a place-holder masking our relative ignorance concerning the characteristics of emotion.  It is impossible for Spock to say "I feel good" but it easy for him to say "my serotonin re-uptake rate is low."

That depends on if you mean in society, or at all as a universal absolute.

If the first, it's never right because of the laws and social norms we live with, possibly to ensure better species survival.

If the second, it's neither right nor wrong, as there is no reason to accept universal moral constants exist.

Date: 2007/08/24 04:23:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,18:31)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 23 2007,18:13)
That depends on if you mean in society, or at all as a universal absolute.

If the first, it's never right because of the laws and social norms we live with, possibly to ensure better species survival.

If the second, it's neither right nor wrong, as there is no reason to accept universal moral constants exist.

Point of fact, there have indeed been societies in which what we would consider "murder", was not only legal, but encouraged.

Quite aside from the ethical/moral question of whether something that is "illegal" means that it is necessarily ethically "wrong", or whether something that is "legal" means that it is ethically "right".

And indeed, it is the very fact that not only does no universal moral constant (of any sort) exist, but science and reason cannot provide us with any, that makes questions like this impossible to objectively answer.

But Lenny, Louis wasn't saying they can objectively answer everything, he's just saying they are the only routes to answers for objective things.

He wasn't saying reason and science can answer all questions, just that nothing else can answer any.

Date: 2007/08/24 07:19:30, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.


So I really AM Napolean....cool.

Date: 2007/08/24 10:06:12, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,08:17)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,07:19)
Quote
But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.


So I really AM Napolean....cool.

Where did that come from?

Personal truths. As far as I'm concerned, I'm Napolean (Not really, just for the sake of argument/a joke)/

If something that you believe is a truth, then it is incorrect not to say I am Napolean, surely?

Date: 2007/08/24 10:07:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
or are just very content free


WARNING! WARNING!

Irony meter going critical!

Evacuate immediately!

Date: 2007/08/24 10:12:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 23 2007,22:21)
Bwahahahahahhah

Ftk gives Sal a hj link

?  
Quote


Forthekids

08/23/2007

4:26 pm

 
Quote

Sal,
?And after running your own blog for a few weeks with Darwinists relentlessly spamming, one gets a whole new perspective.?


LOL?NO KIDDING. After blogging for a whole year now, I?ve completely shut down and I?m regrouping. I?m not allowing repetitive rhetoric in any more - I?m going into the DaveScot moderation mode. I don?t have time for the crap. I?m working on a FAQs site that I?ll send repetative questioners to and to heck with the rest of their worthless banter.

I wonder what FAQ's she'll include?

"Why won't you answer any questions?"

"Why do you insist there is no 'big science' conspiricy, and yet claim that Walt Brown wouldn't be allowed to publish?"

"If you have no problem with atheists, why do you semi-constantly bitch about them?"

Date: 2007/08/24 11:34:33, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
4) Go read Walt Brown's book. It's really interesting.

Date: 2007/08/24 11:38:03, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 24 2007,11:22)
Reason is the only source of knowledge, that is what you are saying whether you know it or not

Yes, it is. Please demonstrate otherwise, without appealing to your own authority.

Quote
Again, is it wrong to commit murder?  I can give you a reasoned-based response to that question BUT I can also give you a response based solely upon revelation, inspiration, meditation, etc.  You are saying that one is knowledge and the other is not regardless of the fact that both can contribute to the human experience.  


What makes it knowlegde, exactly?

Absolutely ANYTHING can be knowledge by your standards Skeptic.

It's now knowlegde that I am Napolean.

Date: 2007/08/24 11:39:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,11:18)
Hey! Blipey turns 34 today!

Have a great birthday! Go visit Dave Scot! ?Poke a stick through the bars of Joe Gallien's cage!

Arrr, ye be right.

Happy birthday Blipey. It's a pity you're a clown...

Date: 2007/08/24 11:50:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 24 2007,11:39)
FtK:

Quote

repeated rhetoric that has been addressed ad naseum becomes nearly maddening.

[...]

I actually feel like applauding because justice is being served


If that were a consistent stance, she would have been applauding how her own case was treated here.

Ah, but remember, in her world, she wasn't repeating rhetoric, but honestly and consistently answering questions.

Date: 2007/08/24 13:43:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,12:24)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,10:06)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,08:17)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,07:19)
 
Quote
But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.


So I really AM Napolean....cool.

Where did that come from?

Personal truths. As far as I'm concerned, I'm Napolean (Not really, just for the sake of argument/a joke)/

If something that you believe is a truth, then it is incorrect not to say I am Napolean, surely?

Good grief,
Do you think that I am some sort of postmodernist? I never claimed that anything I believe is the truth. Far from it.
My only claim so far is that some things are not universaly true. I enjoyed going skiing you nay or may not. I think that science (as it is now) cannot reliably predict whether you will like it (skiing) or not. The only way for you to know (right now) wether you like it or not is to go and try it Napoleon.

Oops, my mistake.

Also, my incorrect spelling. Damn.

Date: 2007/08/24 15:53:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 24 2007,15:49)
EEWWWWW - For what It's Worth:

Bolt-Ons For Coulter... (I like the comment that says she should have saved some dollars for her face...)

http://cityrag.blogs.com/main/2007/08/ann-coulters-bo.html

[EDIT:typo]
Dear god, now she's irritating, stupid, insane, hideous, and somehow even MORE trashy than she was before.

My god someone whould shoot her. In the face. With a shotgun.

Not that I want her dead, I just don't want to ever see that face again.

Date: 2007/08/24 15:55:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Aye, happy birthday Blip.

Date: 2007/08/24 17:03:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 24 2007,16:55)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,14:53)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 24 2007,15:49)
EEWWWWW - For what It's Worth:

Bolt-Ons For Coulter... (I like the comment that says she should have saved some dollars for her face...)

http://cityrag.blogs.com/main/2007/08/ann-coulters-bo.html

[EDIT:typo]
Dear god, now she's irritating, stupid, insane, hideous, and somehow even MORE trashy than she was before.

My god someone whould shoot her. In the face. With a shotgun.

Not that I want her dead, I just don't want to ever see that face again.

What's the big surprise? I said this last year at Rev. Chimpy's blog! "She's had her boobs done. I can tell." I could tell.

They didn't move right. :)

How can you tell what a demonic beast made up of a woman, a horse and something spawned from satans anus' breasts are supposed to move like, exactly?

Date: 2007/08/24 17:04:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 24 2007,16:58)
I wonder what Uncommon Descent would like to see more of from us? :D

More evilutionist, atheist lies.

More church burning.

More ebola spreading.

Date: 2007/08/24 17:07:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 24 2007,16:45)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,13:33)
Skeptic,

You really don't learn to well do you.

Rather than repeat my assessment of your failed arguments back at me, how about you go and show, as I have done for your arguments, where the flaws in my arguments are.

Bet you pennies to pure gold bars you cannot and will not do it.

Louis

If it weren't against my better judgment, I'd love to have what you're smoking.  You have proven NOTHING other than your opinions.  

Answer my question.

Quote
WARNING! WARNING!

Irony meter going critical!

Evacuate immediately!



In adition, my hypocrisy shield is down, capt'n, we cannae do anything!

Date: 2007/08/24 17:39:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 24 2007,17:20)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,16:03)

How can you tell what a demonic beast made up of a woman, a horse and something spawned from satans anus' breasts are supposed to move like, exactly?

I said that I'm trying to put my past behind me, Ian! :D

Pish tush gel, you aren't anything remotely like a horse.

(See what I did there? Aren't I a card).

(I also appear to be from the roaring 20's. Oh well, toodle pip)

Date: 2007/08/24 17:40:05, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 24 2007,17:18)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,16:04)
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 24 2007,16:58)
I wonder what Uncommon Descent would like to see more of from us? :D

More evilutionist, atheist lies.

More church burning.

More ebola spreading.

More shimmy sinning. :)

Be fair, we ALL want that.

Date: 2007/08/24 19:11:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
A (different) jackass on youtube is telling me that me insisting the burden of proof is on the claimant is "not applicable in philosophy, only in law" (paraphrasing) and that Debski et all have never been refuted. He also came close to the "big darwin conspiricy" when he mentioned that Dembski et al are being kept out of literature and uni courses.

The only reason I haven't terminated this conversation is because to do so would be seen as cowardice from this obtuse piece of slime (he's already accused me of this, as well as throwing strawmen).

I don't know quite how I'm going to get to 30 without having a heart attack at this rate.

Date: 2007/08/24 20:48:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 24 2007,20:33)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2007,17:37)
What a waste of money. A lobotomy would have been so much cheaper and benefitted society much more.

So what makes you think she has NOT had a lobotomy?

She's still a vile hateful piece of rectal waste, rather than being a slightly dim, calm, dull person with no personality.

Date: 2007/08/25 07:45:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:40)
Quote
The concept of beauty does not exist outside of its context. Beauty is not an inherent/intrinsic property of an object, like (for example) mass is.


This is Louis' narrowmindedness on display.  Here you state opinion as if it where fact.  If only you could accept that then you'd be able to understand that other people may believe differently from you.

It might as well be fact, Mr Pot.

Indeed, since there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, surely the default position is no?

Date: 2007/08/25 07:51:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:46)
Quote
Same with concepts like beauty and good and evil. They are emergent properties of the systems from which they arise. Taking the system, the context away, renders them non existant. Hence when context free they are devoid of meaning, they are nothing more than pretty noises. Insert them BACK into context and BLAM, they are redolent with meaning etc. I may have mentioned this ooooooooooh about four or five times now.


Really?  That's a pretty profound statement you've made there.  There are philosophers throughout history that disagree with you.  Can you back this up with anything more than just your say-so?  I don't believe you can but I'd interested in hearing you try.

Where is it written in the universe that something is beautiful?

Where is the universal decree on evil?

"...TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN  SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET- Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

Death, speaking in The Hogfather.

Date: 2007/08/25 07:59:45, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:56)
Your hardheadedness and petty insults are just an ongoing display of arrogance that blinds you to possibility that there may be alternate opinions in this discussion.

Mr. Kettle, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Good grief.

Date: 2007/08/25 08:14:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

Err....why do you believe this?

Why do you not take the more logical step of accepting that there is no such thing as good or evil, considering the universe as a whole almost certainly could not give two shits about the actions of an individual member of a single sepcies on a backwater planet? Even if there is no other life, why would the universe care, and HOW could it care?

Is this belief knowledge (which you were originally asked to discuss) or not?

Date: 2007/08/25 09:29:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:58)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 25 2007,08:14)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

Err....why do you believe this?

Why do you not take the more logical step of accepting that there is no such thing as good or evil, considering the universe as a whole almost certainly could not give two shits about the actions of an individual member of a single sepcies on a backwater planet? Even if there is no other life, why would the universe care, and HOW could it care?

Is this belief knowledge (which you were originally asked to discuss) or not?

You and I (and apparently k.e.) differ in this regard.  It is entirely more satisfying (and logical to me) to believe that it does exist independently.  Who is to say which opinion is better?

1. Something cannot be logical 'to [you]'

2. It is absolutely illogical to assume there is an absolute standard of ethics, or beauty, or some other subjective idea.

Date: 2007/08/25 16:36:07, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,16:00)
who is the question meaningful to?  The person asking the question!  Who answers the question? the person asking the question!  How hard is this to understand.  How does the person answer the question?  Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence?  That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't.  If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that.  If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that.  Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one.  Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case?  No!  As far as seatbelts are concerned, based upon the predetermined conditions there will be a correct answer.  For abortion, we just don't know.  For one, we don't know what the actual predetermined conditions are so there is no way to arrive at a correct answer.  We answer that question as best we can based upon our beliefs and we go with it.  The question is not meaningless nor is the answer and to assert so is just plain stupid.

If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't?  And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind?  No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves.  There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set.  How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around?  My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear.  "What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?"

regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing:  science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be.

Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best.

Date: 2007/08/25 19:57:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,16:52)
Quote
Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best.

Quote
Pure trollbait.

Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly.

(etc.)

I don't quite understand the abuse being directed Skeptic's way. After all, Louis started the thread in response to a statement he made elsewhere and invited his participation. That pretty much renders silly the notion that his posts are troll-like intrusions. He has continued to generate (earnestly, I would say) the stuff that he generates (as have we all).

That upsets you?

I don't get it.

Bear in mind I was not abusing skeptic in him/herself, I hold no real opinion either way of him/her. I don't even know what gender (s)he is.

However, that post was unbelivably pretentious psuedo intellectual posing of the highest order.

Date: 2007/08/25 19:58:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 25 2007,17:40)
Apparently uber-tard Sal has been drinking from Larry Falafelforbrains' stash of Kool-Aid.  
Quote
If scientific evidence contrary to Darwinian evolution is withheld because atheists were trying to promote their world view by withholding scientific evidence, then that could be a violation of the establishment clause.

Wha'?

I read the words, and I kind of got the concept as a whole but still......wha'?

Date: 2007/08/26 18:20:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2007,23:05)
BTW, thanks to Rev. BigDumbChimp's blog, I've started to notice the fat content in meat, and he's right, much of it is too lean to taste good. Pork chops are too lean, and a bit more fat really adds to the mouthfeel. The veal tonight had a high fat content and was delicious.

(yeah, I have some ethical problems with veal too. I'm a hypocrite, I confess.)

Well unless it's the young animals thing, there isn't much to worry about with British veal. Veal cages were banned over a decade ago, and the animals are now reared well, kept in good condiions and made to be happy.

They're still killed, but hey, we want meat.

Date: 2007/08/26 19:08:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 26 2007,19:01)
Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I didn't know PT ever delayed comments. I thought either one's comments sailed right through or were blocked entirely.

I thought so too.

I do know that it comes up with "You may need to refresh to see your comment" (I've had to do that before) so maybe Robert was confused by that.

Date: 2007/08/30 17:48:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,17:42)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:02)
I think Lenny is mired in his religious mindset

That's pretty funny.  Yes, Louis, I'm just another retarded theist.  Just ask PZ.  (sigh)

I do think that certainly ONE of us has a religious mindset that's being dragged into this.  I'd guess it's probably the one who is letting his emotions run away with him.

Nothing either one of us has said affects my worldview in the slightest, so there's simply no need for me to get all emotional and defensive about it.  (shrug)

Yet you're the one misrepresenting the other side and acting like a child by refusing to accept where you were wrong.

You never cease to amaze Lenny.

Date: 2007/08/30 18:59:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,17:57)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,17:48)
Yet you're the one misrepresenting the other side

What "other side"?

Please be clear about that.

Well actually, it's not really the other side, more a parallel side you don't agree with.

While I'm not going to jump right into these rather muddy waters of philosophy, I have to say, you ARE dishonestly representing Louis, and are somehow pulling a favourite of the creationists out at the same time (the "Those darn atheists are all a bunch of zealots as well!!!!!!" rubbish that we've grown quite, quite sick of).

Not all atheists want a religious war lenny, and calling people out on following up their statements about religion (as Louis did to skeptic, vis a vis, revelation/religion is another way of finding the truth that doesn't need logic and/or science) is not a call for all religion to be banned and it's followers shot andburied in mass graves.

I quite understand that you don't like atheism as a position, while not holding any religious values of your own. Great, bully for you, but every time an atheist asks questions of religion, it's quite, quite stupid of you to go "Sigh, another religion bashing thread AGAIN".

Had Louis' point been "Religion is good for nothing and makes the world all evil and stuff, yah boo sucks" then your resigned attitude of tut tut here go the fundies again would be quite well placed, and occasionally, it is. Unfortunately, any time anyone who is an atheist questions religion, or an aspect of it, you seem to IMMEDIATELY pull it out of the bag without looking and refuse to recant.

The religious think atheists are wrong, atheists think the religious are wrong, but you, Lenny Flank, master of the universe and reader of minds both concious and subconcious extraordinaire know differently. BOTH sides are silly fools who want to rip each other to shreds. Well you sit back and chuckle at any religious debate that comes by lenny, but do try to understnad one thing. We aren't all out to rip the shit out of the other side, and you consistantly claiming we are makes you look like someone who just spots the headline and doesn't read the full story before reacting.

Edited for typos.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:11:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:06)
Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 30 2007,18:53)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,17:53)
Science simply is not universally applicable. It simply cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions.

Lenny, as you've said repeately, science can't provide objective, universal answers to these questions because they don't HAVE objective, universal answers. You seem to be claiming that science isn't universal because it can't do what's logically impossible - i.e., answer questions that are inherently unanswerable. I confess that makes little sense to me.

Then you miss the point.

It is NOT that the questions are "unanswerable" --- after all, people answer them every second of every day.  Just ask some random person on the street, "Is abortion wrong?" and you'll get --- tada! -- an answer.

It's that they are not OBJECTIVELY answerable.

It's not that there is NO answer -- it is that there are BILLIONS of answers, and science simply can't tell us which is the right one.

And you are precisely and absolutely right --- for science to answer them is logically impossible.  Great choice of words.

And if science can't answer the question (and Joe Blow on the street *can*), then science is not universal.  There are questions it simply can't answer.  It can't even frame the question itself in any objective way.  It is, indeed, impossible for logic to do so.

That being my entire point.

Which is....err....not the opposite of Louis'.

Incidentally, logic can answer those questions within a given context, as Louis was saying, for example, for the blondes/brunettes thing, you could (theoretically) test every single straight man and lesbian and find out which one came top, you could then logically state that for the majority, one is cuter. Since there isn't really any other context it could be put in, you could state it is concievable that whichever won (assuming one beat the other to a significant degree) that one is demonstratably the cuter.

If that isn't sound logic then that's cool, my bad, but I assume since there is only really one group with which the question has meaning (those people who are attracted to women), the majority answer would be feasibly correct, no?

Date: 2007/08/30 19:28:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:18)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,18:59)
I quite understand that you don't like atheism as a position, while not holding any religious values of your own. Great, bully for you, but every time an atheist asks questions of religion, it's quite, quite stupid of you to go "Sigh, another religion bashing thread AGAIN".

Yeah, right, OK.   If you say so.

See, this is why you come across as a jackass.

You always, always insist you are right, no matter what the tone is.

I personally have questions about religion that don't boil down to "so you believe this....why exactly?" but nope, not in Lenny Flank world. In Lenny Flank world even questions such as "so what is the meaning behind X?" or "What is your religions view of Y?" are actually saying "Ah hah! I come to kill your twisted religion you fools! Your god is false and you are evil for following him! I AM ALWAYS RIGHT FOR I AM ATHEIST!!!!!!!!1".


If you can't work out why this is joe G stupid, theres something wrong with you.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:30:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:27)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:11)
If that isn't sound logic then that's cool, my bad, but I assume since there is only really one group with which the question has meaning (those people who are attracted to women), the majority answer would be feasibly correct, no?

No.

If every person on the planet but one said brunettes are cuter, and one said they're not, there's simply no objective way to determine who is right.

Aesthetics is not a democracy.

No, but the logical thing to say would be that the one person is wired in a different way, and the majority opinion is probably more rooted in something.

More people think one way, so it's more likely that this is the correct way of thinking within that context, surely?

Date: 2007/08/30 19:32:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:23)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:11)
And if science can't answer the question (and Joe Blow on the street *can*), then science is not universal. ?There are questions it simply can't answer. ?It can't even frame the question itself in any objective way. ?It is, indeed, impossible for logic to do so.

That being my entire point.

Which is....err....not the opposite of Louis'.[/quote]
Well, I don't know if that is so or not, yet.

I've asked Louis to tell me if he thinks science (or logic or reason or rationality or kohlinar or whatever the heck else he wants to call it) is or is not universally applicable.

Are there, or are there not, any meaningful questions that science/reason/rationality/kohlinar cannot in principle answer?

I certainly think his answer to that question is pretty apparent.

But I'm all willing to have him answer it explicitly and remove all doubt whatsoever from everyone's mind.

He already stated they are not.

They can be applied to any meaningful question within context. This doesn't mean they can be universally applied outside of context.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:41:04, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:39)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:30)
More people think one way, so it's more likely that this is the correct way of thinking within that context, surely?

Why.

The majority is just as capable of being utterly stupid as the minority are.

Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.

But within the context of the times, the religion, the knowlege etc, that WAS the most logical way to do things.

Oh, and virtually no witches were burned, or at least burned alive, most were hung or strangled.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:42:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:37)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:32)
Are there, or are there not, any meaningful questions that science/reason/rationality/kohlinar cannot in principle answer?

quote]
He already stated they are not.

They can be applied to any meaningful question within context. This doesn't mean they can be universally applied outside of context.

Then that is the source of our disagreement.  It's also why he thinks science and religion must necessarily conflict, and I don't.

I find the view that "questions which science can't answer, aren't really questions" --- well, silly.

But they aren't questions if they don't have context.

He isn't arguing that science can answer absolutely every question in every way, he saying there are certain ways in which science CAN answer any question, but that doesn't mean the answer can be applied to absolutely anything.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:45:07, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:43)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:41)
Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.

But within the context of the times, the religion, the knowlege etc, that WAS the most logical way to do things.[/quote]
Was it correct?

For the knowledge of the time, yes.

Was it absolutely correct? Who knows.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:47:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
But they aren't questions if they don't have context.

Then, um, how do people answer them, if you ask them.

Because they are put into context in certain situations.

If I ask you "do you think blondes are hotter than brunettes?" it has the context of your opinion, which we could test. If I asked you the straight question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" you automatically put the question into the aforementioned context. That doesn't mean it HAS this context, you just choose to put it in.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:48:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
He isn't arguing that science can answer absolutely every question in every way, he saying there are certain ways in which science CAN answer any question, but that doesn't mean the answer can be applied to absolutely anything.

Great.  Wonderful.  Glad to hear it.

Please answer the question "is abortion wrong?"

I can stop any fifty people on the street, ask them that simple question, and get answers.


What is science's answer . . . . . . ?

That the majority of people withing certain groups think a or b.

Does that mean it's an overarching answer, always applicable? No. Does it provide an answer for the context of (for example) the calvinist church? Yes.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:50:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:48)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:47)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:44)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
But they aren't questions if they don't have context.

Then, um, how do people answer them, if you ask them.

Because they are put into context in certain situations.

If I ask you "do you think blondes are hotter than brunettes?" it has the context of your opinion, which we could test. If I asked you the straight question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" you automatically put the question into the aforementioned context. That doesn't mean it HAS this context, you just choose to put it in.

DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!!


And why, again, can't SCIENCE do that . . . . . . . . . ?

Because it isn't overarching. No one has ever said it was.

They have stated, as I have, in certain situations, science/logic can answer questions.

Lenny, Louis wasn't arguing that science and logic can answer questions on peoples opinion (except within certain strict limits) but that there is no other process than can.

Date: 2007/08/30 19:51:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:50)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:48)
What is science's answer . . . . . . ?

That the majority of people withing certain groups think a or b.[/quote]
But that wasn't the question.  I didn't ask "how many people think abortion is right or wrong?"

I asked "is abortion wrong?"


They're not the same question.

The answer given was according to group A, it is wrong (for example). That's the best science can do.

What is your point, exactly?

Date: 2007/08/30 19:52:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:45)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:43)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:41)
Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.

But within the context of the times, the religion, the knowlege etc, that WAS the most logical way to do things.

Was it correct?

For the knowledge of the time, yes.

Was it absolutely correct? Who knows.[/quote]
I thought YOU know.  Aren't YOU the one who just finished telling me that the majority's answer must be the correct one  . . . ?

No, actually, I'm not. I'm saying for the strict perameters set by the group asked, the social and intellectual constraints of the time and location etc. the majority is, theoretically at least, right.

Date: 2007/08/30 20:04:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,20:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:52)
I'm saying for the strict perameters set by the group asked, the social and intellectual constraints of the time and location etc. the majority is, theoretically at least, right.

Says who.

I am not being flippant.


Why, exactly, is the majority "right"?  Based on what authority is it "right"?

Based upon the fact that this is probably the most logical path for the various factors involved. According to a multitude of factors it's almost certain I will type a full stop at the end of my sentance, based upon me having a fully working keyboard, and knowledge of how english grammer works. Does that mean it's the absolutely correct thing for any sentance in any language everywhere? No, but within the perameters, it is.

Date: 2007/08/30 20:05:44, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote


Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.


Neither does a religious answer.

It's exactly the same answer, phrased in a different way. Just because Catholics say no, it's wrong doesn't mean that everyone will, and it doesn't mean that every single catholic thinks the same way. It's still a numbers game Lenny.

Date: 2007/08/30 21:15:38, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,20:52)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,20:05)
Quote


Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.


Neither does a religious answer.

It's exactly the same answer, phrased in a different way. Just because Catholics say no, it's wrong doesn't mean that everyone will, and it doesn't mean that every single catholic thinks the same way. It's still a numbers game Lenny.

Indeed.

But at least religion can GIVE an answer.

And since science can't, it's pretty obvious that any answer given by religion simply cannot conflict with an answer given by sciecne, since science, uh, can't give any.

Which is, after all, my point.

Science gives the exact same answer as religion.

It gives a People X think Y answer.

Religion just states what people and what answer.

Date: 2007/08/30 21:17:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,20:51)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,20:04)
Why, exactly, is the majority "right"? ?Based on what authority is it "right"?

Based upon the fact that this is probably the most logical path for the various factors involved.[/quote]
Says who.

Says the perameters put in place.

People who are living in this place at this time with this belief system and this level of education think this.

Within those given perameters, that is right. Those people think it is right, therefore it is right.

Does that mean we can take their answer and apply it to everything? No. But within those perameters, it is the correct answer. Even i the perameters limit the group to one person, for that group with those characteristics, it is the correct answer.

Date: 2007/08/31 09:25:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,09:20)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,14:21)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,15:29)
 
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,13:17)
Who sez there aint a god?

No one.

I sez there's bugger all reliable evidence FOR a god. Which is a very different thing.

Louis

Of course.

God is just a figure of speech or a projection, nothing more and never will be, unless the preacher has a gun, a 747 or controls the door to the afterlife, then huge proportions of the great unwashed cower under the appropriate deity. But then that is why we have fundies, nobody loves them. Fuck ?em.

I love fundies. I love everyone. Except liars.

No one likes liars.

Louis

Then you should hate yourself! Claiming that it isn't the attack on your deeply atheist worldview you're upset about (same as me apparently).

We don't even know our own minds Louis.....good thing we have Lenny here, eh, otherwise we wouldn't have a CLUE what we thought.

Date: 2007/08/31 10:10:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
So the truth is out!!!11!

You now MOCK him for your worldview!!11!1

(Anyone else getting the impression of that bit from Team America:World Police where Tim Robbins is unable to get things striaght? "and the corperations sit in their buildings, and are all corperationy, and...")

Date: 2007/08/31 10:50:16, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 31 2007,10:42)
Wow, what an long unnecessary crock.  To you, Louis, these may be meaningless question or non-questions.  To the rest of humanity throughout history we see and entirely different story.  But in the world according to Louis, you're right and and everyone else is wrong.  Either that or they're involved in this vast conspiracy against to quote-mine, misrepresent, and otherwise annoy you.  Do you know Hilary Clinton?  It seems you two would have much to talk about.

So, Louis doesn't accept the existence of abstract universal concepts, hmm sounds familiar.  Also sounds like an opinion to me.  Louis asks for evidence if these concepts actually exist.  Well where does that evidence come from?  Louis says it must come from reason or else it is invalid.  Again sounds like an opinion to me.  I'm glad we've got Louis here to completely define for us the nature of reality.  Saves me alot of time and I can throw all these books out.  

But before I do maybe I'll take a second look.  This question "is abortion wrong" it seems to be a hot topic.  many people disagree about the answer.  But how is this possible if it's not really a question or a question with no reason.  Must be a definition problem cause now I'm not sure what "wrong" means because I lack the proper context.  Wrong either means nothing without reasoned parameters or it means different things to different people.  Yep, I'm gonna go with the second one because that makes more sense to me and more correctly reflects the world I see everyday.  But people still ask the question...hmm why is that?  Don't they know that there is no reasoned answer because there lacks a consistent context in the form it is in.  Those silly people, what are we gonna do with them?  Maybe they're part of the conspiracy too.

How 'bout I ask someone and find out.  That fine man looks to be a good subject.

"Sir, may I ask you a question?"

"Sure."

"Is abortion wrong?"

"Yes, it is wrong."

"Really, are you sure that is the case?  I've been told it's not really a question."

"No actually it's a very important question.  Where have you been for the last 16 years."

"Why is abortion wrong?"

"Because abortion is murder."

"And murder is wrong?  Are we sure?  That doesn't sound like a question to me either."

"Of course murder is wrong.  Where are you from?"

"Why is murder wrong?"

"Because all life is sacred and it comes from God."

"Oh.  Well that sounds like an answer to me.  May not be the right one but I appreciate your time anyway."

So in this case it appears that if you believe in God you can arise at an answer to that unanswerable question.  Somehow, I think its more complex than that but again that is probably just my opinion.

Well done for not answering anything put to you. Congratulations.

The point is that religion can't answer questions that reason cannot, not that religion can't answer anything.

Saying Catholosism thinks abortion is wrong is EXACTLY the same as the logic argument that states for group X, proposal Y is wrong. You cannot get an answer from revalation that you could not get from reason. Without context, those questions ARE meaningless. The context can be supplied by absolutely anything. The question "Is this square yellow?" is totally meaningless, unless I give a context in which it is not, by showing you a square, for example.

Just because your holy book of choice says the answer is yes doesn't mean it absolutely is.

Your opinion is different from Louis' because you state something is absolutely so without any evidence or logical thought, Louis simply states he doesn't agree with you, and thinks it's wrong because there is no evidence. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Date: 2007/09/01 14:12:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2007,14:06)
It's not nice of me, but I do giggle at how frustrated she gets.



OOOOO Those Darwinists Make Me Sooooo Mad!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL.

I think the humour is compounded by the sheer number of times she tells others to calm down.

Date: 2007/09/02 12:09:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Happy birthday to both of you.

Date: 2007/09/03 03:03:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,01:58)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,21:55)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 02 2007,17:01)
faith is probed to determine the original premise that murder is wrong. ?That is the original source of knowledge and used in the answering of is abortion wrong. ?You take for granted that we know that murder is wrong. ?That knowledge had to come from somewhere and in this example it is faith. ?To be fair the same answer can come from other sources as well as the opposite answer, makes no difference for our purposes as we're not really discussing whether murder is wrong but the source of the knowledge.

Erasmus, this nonsense says that murder is wrong based upon faith and then extrapolates that out to societal norms that agree that murder is wrong theoretically resulting in a more humane culture. ?Is that nonsense achieving something constructive?

Sorry but I just don't buy it. Faith is not a source of knowledge, it is something that you accept to the point where you no longer test it.

then we must disagree because I see faith as a source of knowledge and I can point to specific instances where that would be the case, unless we have different understandings of the nature of knowledge.

is "murder is wrong" knowledge?

Yes. Did you come to it by faith? I hope not.

Date: 2007/09/04 11:47:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 04 2007,07:49)
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 04 2007,07:44)
FTK - Occam and oldman have made excellent points that you should think about. ?To me it is an obvious case of the ID mucky-mucks believing one thing, and telling their followers something else.

Do your self - and your kids a favor. ?Take your blinders off, open your mind, and ask some tough questions.

But only accept reasonable answers that provide at least some evidence and can stand up to honest inquiry.

The only problem being, she thinks she does that already.

Date: 2007/09/04 12:03:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 04 2007,12:02)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 04 2007,11:47)
The only problem being, she thinks she does that already.

Yes, she probably (but not certainly) does.

I think that ftk is in a dilema. Everything that she values in life is likely somehow linked to her religion. That would be very hard to cast off.

Someone/people have told her that accepting science and in particular Evolution is diametrically opposed to her religion. I reckon she has somewhat accepted that. Ftk will have a hard time with her interest (which I think she actually does have) in science.

The whole "culture war" is a pretty sad situation.

I think she has an 'interest' in science in the same way the luddites had an 'interest' in technology.

Date: 2007/09/05 08:44:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Mein Gott, is Skeptic channeling FtK?

Date: 2007/09/05 18:09:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 05 2007,21:31)
I'm no prude, but I've pretty much had it with the porn spammers. I've changed the default group on registration to be "Probationers", whose privileges do *NOT* include starting topics. So if you register and have made some on-topic posts, you can PM me about getting topic-creation privileges.

Sounds fair to me.

Oh noes, I may now look like a lickspittle to the likes of FtK!!!1!111!ONE

Never mind, it's still a good idea.

Date: 2007/09/05 18:27:35, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 05 2007,22:22)
As far as Dawkins, I have stated in the past that atheism is like a religion to his like and not merely a lack of religion.  I have taken a lot of slack for that statement and we don't need to rehash that discussion but in the context of the present discussion I'm not saying exactly what you're implying.

I would say that Dawkins replaces religion with science or that science is his religion.  The science itself is still based on quantifiable data and looses none of its rational basis when applied appropriately.  Dawkins then extends it into the realm of Faith to answer questions that would typically be answered by religion.  He has faith that science can answer these questions.  That's the distinction as I see it and I hope I was able to communicate it effectively.

Firstly, I don't think you can take slack. I think you mean flak, as in what they use(d?) to shoot down aeroplanes with.

Secondly, what, precisely is wrong with "No faith, just science, if not science now, maybe science later"?

I fail to understand why this is a problem.

Date: 2007/09/06 07:12:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 06 2007,10:46)
IS central to many religious systems and DOES cross into the realm of scientific investigation.

[skeptic ]......NUH UH!!!!!!!!1111!1!1ONEONE [ /skeptic]

Date: 2007/09/06 07:14:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Personally I'm a fan of both the fried blood sausage and very spciy foods (although I don't think I'm QUITE on the level of some of you, I like to taste other things the next day, for example) but then, I love haggis, so what do I know?

Date: 2007/09/07 10:44:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,04:13)
There is some good habit here makinkg psychonalysis for gratis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you aren't qualified to do that, are you?

Judging by your efforts I would say you've never studied psychology in your life, since they are the worst kind of cod psychological nonsense favoured by simpering morons who try to act all cool and intellectual.

Coincidence? I think not.

Date: 2007/09/07 16:27:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:05)
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 07 2007,10:47)
Do you mean that removing red frequency from the light spectrum will cause that the light entering the eye should be perceived as green?

Yes. When talking about mixing of light frequencies:

White light = red + yellow + blue.

Green = yellow + blue.

Remove red from white, what's left?

Oh, and to avoid being totally off topic - how old is the Earth?

Errr....I thought the primary colours of light were red green and blue. Yellow is a derivative of blue and green, isn't it?

[EDIT] This guy thinks I'm half right at least.

Date: 2007/09/07 16:33:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 07 2007,19:45)
Quote
Links
Access Research Network
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
Center for Scientific Creation
Darwin, Design and Public Education
Discovery Institute
Evolution News & Views
Expelled - The movie
I'm from Missouri
Intelligent Design Network Australia
Intelligent Design Podcasts
Post-Darwinist (Denyse O'Leary)
Science Standards 2005
Stand up for Science
Telic Thoughts
Truth in Science UK
Uncommon Descent
Young Cosmos



No AtBC?

Not sciency enough?

List corrected.

Or do they not want to be reminded of that part of the name?

[EDIT] Incidentally, only linking to one side of a debate is so unbelievably open minded, yah?

Date: 2007/09/07 16:53:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2007,20:40)
Well, what I recall from school was primary = blue, yellow, red.

Ah, they are the primary colours in terms of paint, apparently because blue is roughly comparative with cyan and red with magenta.

I learnt in secondary school the primary colours of light are red green and blue, and that they are the primary derivatives of white.

Date: 2007/09/09 07:39:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Is anyone else getting this with the Uncommonly Dense thread?

Date: 2007/09/10 14:36:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 10 2007,15:10)
Hmmm. Piranha come from a country where the people speak Portugese - could there be a connection?

Well, that IS just a mix of French and Spanish you know....

Date: 2007/09/10 14:42:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Comment I just left on the Macro/Micro "FAQ" page. Link.

Quote
Quick question. What, exactly, is 100% of an eye?

What features must it have? Are, for example, human eyes 100% of an eye?

If they are, what are the eyes of dogs? They can see perfectly well (as far as I'm aware) but they have no colour perception. Neither do bulls, in fact. Are they 75% of an eye?

What about the eyes of pigeons, which have been found to work much faster than those of a human, perhaps even 10 times as fast. Are these 1000% of an eye?


[Edited to add link]

Date: 2007/09/10 14:46:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Mein Gott Martin, have you travelled forward in time 60 years or something?

Do you not have ANYTHING recent?

Date: 2007/09/10 14:59:02, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 10 2007,18:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 10 2007,14:42)
Comment I just left on the Macro/Micro "FAQ" page.

 
Quote
Quick question. What, exactly, is 100% of an eye?

What features must it have? Are, for example, human eyes 100% of an eye?

If they are, what are the eyes of dogs? They can see perfectly well (as far as I'm aware) but they have no colour perception. Neither do bulls, in fact. Are they 75% of an eye?

What about the eyes of pigeons, which have been found to work much faster than those of a human, perhaps even 10 times as fast. Are these 1000% of an eye?

All good questions that I am sure Ftk has given years of thought to.  She will, no doubt, post your comment and give us her well thought out response to such relevant questions.

Oh absolutely. I imagine that I will be wreathed in honours for allowing her to display her well thought out and impecably researched answers, which will come in her own words, rarely intersersed with extremely revelvant quotes from published articles with experimental backing.

Oh look, free debate on uncommon descent...

Date: 2007/09/11 19:47:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 11 2007,23:42)
This is a deep cover troll, right? Right?

 
Quote
Support Conservapedia


quizzlestick
There's a new wiki and it's going to blow Wikipedia out of the water. Imagine an educational resource like Wikipedia but free of the Anti-American, Anti-Christian, Pro-materialistic bias.
I'm sure WIkipedia is great if you want to learn about "Gangsta Rap", "Gang-banging" or catch up with the latest gossip about Britney Spears, but is that what we want our kids to be learning? Our kids should be learning about scientific facts like ID, and the history of America our Christian founding fathers.
Conservapedia is just the right sort of thing for those of us who are homeschooling. Where else can you find an accurate reference for all of the world's most interesting issues, and be sure that the articles are 100% free of bias, spin and political correctness.
This page explains the fundamental differences between WIkipedia and Conservapedia. I do hope you will join me and submit a few articles. May I suggest that with the author's permission, some articles from this site might be donated to help build Conservapedia?

If it isn't, that's one mentally ill human being.

Date: 2007/09/11 19:49:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 11 2007,23:46)
V:

If you place grey piece of paper to red backgound you will see the margin of the paper as green or bluegreen (Woodworth, Schlosberg 1959). You will see the opponent color. Obviously you see a color the spectrum frequency of which is not entering your eye.

Do you ever heard about Hering red-green channel? Do you ever heard about Opponent Process Colour Theory?

I am speaking about color perception which is much more complicated process as your mixing of simple colors in camera or printed journal.

******************************************

V, 'color perception' is a miracle in it's self... sorta like watching a live event on TV or a good movie re-run.  Also you can just close your eyes and fantasize or dream......4 choices.

1. Reality
2. Memory
3. Imagination
4. Dream (sleeping)

Zero

I thought zero was....well I'm not sure, but I didn't think (s)he was coming back.

I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

Date: 2007/09/12 10:50:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero

Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.

Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....

Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.

Date: 2007/09/12 11:11:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
From the link Steve Story put up in response to someone saying ID can't really be science because it doesn't have mechanisms:

Quote
The mechanisms are being identified right now by biologists in academia and private practice.


WATERLOO!!!!!!!!!!

Date: 2007/09/12 13:07:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2007,14:54)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 12 2007,10:50)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Sep. 12 2007,00:46)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 11 2007,19:49)
I'm equally unsure what the hell that was about.

How light reaches you and me is much more
complex than how the super bowl reaches our
living rooms.  It might have been designed.

Zero

Yes. It also might have been created when some pirates stole gods treasure and needed some way of examining it.

Or when an elephant fell onto the eternal light switch or....

Absolutely anything is possible zero, without evidence, why is your concept better than my one? At least mine has pirates.

Mine has ponies.

Pirates RULE.

Date: 2007/09/13 07:42:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,04:07)
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?

Be fair, you do pretty much repeat what JAD says without adding anything of your own.

I mean, you're willing to tell us what JAD says about things, but when asked yourself you turn into a coward and just run away and shout insults. It's pathetic really.

Date: 2007/09/13 11:18:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
AfDave, you're seriously comparing the bathroom wall to a gulag? What the hell is wrong with you?

Incidentally, to all those with science degrees, while you were studying, did you ever get really annoyed by the misuse of correct terms by people? Like when someone abuses the term random, or when people talk of the missing link? If yes, does this get worse when it enters the public forum in this incorrect way, again like missing link?

I assume so, but I feel I should check.

Date: 2007/09/13 13:30:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 13 2007,16:02)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,09:18)
AfDave, you're seriously comparing the bathroom wall to a gulag? What the hell is wrong with you?

A nasty combination of stupidity, wilful ignorance, narcissism and masochism.

 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,09:18)
Incidentally, to all those with science degrees, while you were studying, did you ever get really annoyed by the misuse of correct terms by people?

Yes, but maybe it's just me.  It's not just scientific terms - I develop a tic when I see things like "very unique", or "stadiums".

 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,09:18)
Like when someone abuses the term random, or when people talk of the missing link?

I'm a statistician.  Yes, with knobs on.

 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,09:18)
If yes, does this get worse when it enters the public forum in this incorrect way, again like missing link?

Yes again.  Don't get me started on "the law of averages".

Oh good, I thought it was just me...

I've been reading the bit on PT about "conservatives" and "liberals" and it's been getting on my nerves. Why do so many people think that liberal=left wing?

Date: 2007/09/13 16:38:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2007,20:18)
Quote

I've been reading the bit on PT about "conservatives" and "liberals" and it's been getting on my nerves. Why do so many people think that liberal=left wing?


The terms don't mean the same things in Britain versus the US.

Well yes they do, it's just that the US has misapplied the term and it's stuck.

Date: 2007/09/13 17:22:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2007,20:57)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 13 2007,16:38)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2007,20:18)
 
Quote

I've been reading the bit on PT about "conservatives" and "liberals" and it's been getting on my nerves. Why do so many people think that liberal=left wing?


The terms don't mean the same things in Britain versus the US.

Well yes they do, it's just that the US has misapplied the term and it's stuck.

In linguistics we describe that as "the meaning of the word has changed".

I guess so, but the definition within political studies hasn't, so it still looks out of place to me.

Indeed, political theory hasn't changed with the US definition of the word, so I still hold it as my right to be an annoying pedant.

Date: 2007/09/13 18:28:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Precisely. What about the word theory, that's caused oh so much trouble in the evo/creation/ID debate?

The public use of the word and the academic use are totally different, but you still strive to put the academic word forwards when discussing science.

Date: 2007/09/14 04:40:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
After having two comments passed to my great surprise, FTK asks for a truce because she thinks she's pissing me off. Uh huh.

Linky.

My reply:

Quote
Piss me off? My dear lady, you've only done that once (remmeber that stuff about WWII? That really did piss me off, and I've calmed down now, thank you).

However, when someone makes a claim about me (that I will just turn my back on any evidence provided) without any cause to (for example, after having not provided the evidence I specifically mentioned would affect me) I feel I am quite warrented to rebut such claims. Had you shown me a 87% (to pull a high number out) success rate for prophecies, or some advanced scientific knowlege in the bible they couldn't have known at the time, prayer studies that showed it made a difference, or a direct manifestation of the devine (note to readers, no, I am NOT saying I need direct contact with the big beardy man, this is ONE thing that would convince me) and I had sai "don't believe you" then you would be absolutely fine to say what you did.

However, I guess I accept your truce, although I suspect the truce will mean I am "no longer welcome" on here, no matter what you say, whether I agree or not.

As an aside, I know you don't publish comments on your FAQ's and that's fine, but you apparently DO adapt them to comments, so why no dice on my eye comment? You know, what is 100% of an eye, if it's a humans what are dogs eyes and pigeons eyes etc.?

Date: 2007/09/14 19:52:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
On a rather old post on her blog, I figured I might as well post a differing opinion on the death of psycho, liar and bigot extraordinaire D. James Kennedy. Linky.

Quote
It's more for the fact that he lied (whether he knew it or not), espoused hatred and bigotry and promoted various...slightly disturbing concepts. Had he just been an uppity priest I doubt anyone would have cared, but like the late reverend Falwell and all their kind, the psychos get what they deserve. Maybe going at him right away is in bad taste, but frankly anyone who trivialises certain issues such as the holocaust and promotes hatred of a sector of the populous (actually, judging by this guys info on the web, a nuber of sectors, pretty much anyone who disagreed with him) for what is effectively a badly translated passage which has quite possibly been misread in a 2000 year old book, or some other trivial reason, deserves everything he gets.

I find it amazing that you can just sit back and go "Oh my, I can't believe they are so full of hate just because he didn't agree with them" about a guy who regularly by the looks of things lied, promoted hate and encouraged bigotry. I somehow dobt you would be so understanding if this was Abu Hamza or Osama Bin Laden they were ripping apart.

Oh, appologies for the rather late reply to this, I just found it, and thought I might as well comment.

Date: 2007/09/15 06:07:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,09:22)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,09:13)
 
Quote
Show me a real science paper that confirms the real age of any of these items claimed to be older than Methuselah and we'll talk.


I find it amusing that Dave accepts the results of science with no problem when scientists say that there's a 4,800 year old tree, but rejects the findings of scientists outright when they say that a mesquite bush is 11,700 years old or that a tree is 80,000 years old. I wonder what the difference could be?

I updated my blog with an article from Science which explains this.

http://afdave.wordpress.com/2007....tionism

Go check it out and learn something new from this "lunatic" creationist.

No Dave, he's asking why you think the science for one is ok, but the exact same science for the other is not.

Incidentally, wouldn't that tree have been underwater during the flood? How the hell did it survive, exactly?

Date: 2007/09/15 10:16:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,14:01)
Ian and Bill ... I have very good answers for your questions, but I don't think Wesley and Steve want me posting extensively here, so please post your questions to my blog or at RD.net or at IIDB where I post a lot.  Thx

Errr....I don't think so chum. For one, Wes and Steve had a problem with you starting a new topic every 5 seconds, I don't think they will mind you answering questions somehow, particularly since this is something you didn't do a whole lot of when you weren't confined to here.

Secondly, how do I know all my comments will appear? I've had enough exposure to people on your side of the "debate" to know that a great number of them are dishonest cowards who won't allow dissent in many cases.

Date: 2007/09/17 10:18:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I decided to reply to that thread Blip.

Quote
I'm assuming you know this is the interview where they didn't actually tell him why they were there, pretending to be from a group talking to scientists about evolution honestly, right?

Then they asked him that, which was rather out of the blue, in his home, after having lied to him about why they were there. You do know this?
Here's his reply to this decietful bit of chicanery.

   “In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew [from the then Answers in Genesis] into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

   My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.”

Of course, even if you don't believe Dawkins' response, there is the rather problematic reality, in that to respond to this question, one would have to do everything Blipey says, not possible in a 5 second soundbite.

Date: 2007/09/17 10:20:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 17 2007,14:00)
As she has allowed my comment through I am eagerly awaiting Ftk's definition of information and her foolproof method of measuring it in mutation events.

Much like I'm waiting for a response to this, ANY of this:

Still nothing.

Date: 2007/09/18 03:41:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I used to have a supersport quote for my MSN name. Something about atheists being evil or somesuch, but it was really aggressive, even more so than the normal "those darn atheist satan worshippers" nonsense.

The man is a legend. Unfortunately, I doubt he thinks it's for the same reasons I do.

Date: 2007/09/18 08:58:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I responded to the mass blithering.

Quote
'So, I say, let's put it to rest and consider both the materialist and the non-materialist explanation for origins in the classroom as long as we are talking science and not religion.'

Wonderful. Lets.

Now let's have the definative version of ID, with predictions that can be tested, and falsifiability, that also has the full weight of the evidence collected.

Why hasn't this ever happened?

Oh, and Jason, I consider Professer Dawkins' Credibility far higher than that of AiG anyway, and even if he DID know who they were, the question is STILL to vauge to answer, and any attempt to turn the question into something answerable would probably have ended up with "that isn't what we're asking." So what's the point?

Date: 2007/09/18 09:04:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.

Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.

Date: 2007/09/18 09:08:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:06)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?

You've heard about "erosion", right?

right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.

Rain CAN do it.

Are you seriously suggesting rain can't wash earth away similarly or better than tools?

Ye gods.

Date: 2007/09/18 09:10:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:07)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.

Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.

all over the world?  It just takes one spot, right?

If it was something as bizzare as rabbits in clearly pre-cambrian rock, then yeah.

If it's fossil humans and fossil dino's in one area where there's been a lot of geographical turbulence, not so much.

Date: 2007/09/18 09:16:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:12)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:10)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:07)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.

Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.

all over the world?  It just takes one spot, right?

If it was something as bizzare as rabbits in clearly pre-cambrian rock, then yeah.

If it's fossil humans and fossil dino's in one area where there's been a lot of geographical turbulence, not so much.

there's been geologic turbulence everywhere.

On a minor scale, yeah.

Unless you're talking about the flood? Please tell me how the water got there without boiling all life.

Then tell me how big the ark was, and what animals were on it.

Date: 2007/09/18 09:19:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:17)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:13)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?

You've heard about "erosion", right?

right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.

I find amusing that you want a scientific explanation, while you favor Goddidit over scientific facts.
So just to be clear, you also refute all geology?

Is it part of the big conspiracy?

:O

I just don't trust atheists as far as I can throw them.  They'll only "find" evidence that they can manipulate to further their worldview....all the contradictory evidence gets lied about, hidden, or left in the ground.

Geologists are no different than atheists in other areas of science.

1. Why don't you trust atheists? What evidence made you think they are liars?

2. What about the religious scientists who accept evolution, such as Wes?

Date: 2007/09/18 09:33:04, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.

Date: 2007/09/18 09:43:00, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.

I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.

Really? Is this not you then?

Quote
"What happened to the happy-go-lucky, peace-loving athiest? The reality is atheists are dreadfully miserable, foul-mouthed individuals....Truly the pond scum of society

Date: 2007/09/18 09:52:48, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:43)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:35)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.

I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.

Really? Is this not you then?

 
Quote
"What happened to the happy-go-lucky, peace-loving athiest? The reality is atheists are dreadfully miserable, foul-mouthed individuals....Truly the pond scum of society

that doesn't mean I hate them.  I hate science, not people.  That is just an observation.

So if I said "All christians are just bigoted scum sucking morons with the capacity for reason and honesty of a particularly twisted whelk" that's not hate?

I don't believe this, by the way.

Date: 2007/09/18 18:35:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,23:39)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.

Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?

Well who said this?

"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"

Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now?  The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test.  Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens.

I don't know if anyone has bothered to respond to this, but Weismann cut the tails off several generations of mice in order to test inheritable acquired traits. It didn't work.

Link.

Date: 2007/09/18 18:37:52, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 19 2007,00:23)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:10)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:47)
Nerull: "Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light"

Taken from "Faster than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo

"Einstein was well aware that the Newtonian theory of gravity was at odds with his thoery of special relativity at the very fundamental level.  It contradicted the idea that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light." pg. 46

any explanation as to why you would get this basic information so wrong?

Would you like me to explain exactly what E=mc^2 means? Its pretty obvious you've got no idea.

Energy = Mass X constant (speed of light) squared.

I'm not sure what it actually means, but that's what the equation is.

Date: 2007/09/18 19:00:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 19 2007,00:52)
It describes the energy you get when you convert mass to energy. (Or energy to mass, if you can find a way to do that).

It has nothing to do with the speed things can travel. Its completely unrelated. If he actually knew what it ment, he wouldn't bring it up, because its silly. Its about as relevant to something going faster than light than the fact that I had a hamburger last week.

To be fair to supes, it IS presented in much science fiction as being something to do with speed, specifically the speed of light, or the possibility of time travel (probably involving the speed of light).

Not that that means he can accurately discuss what is a really hard concept (I know I can't, beyond being able to state what the letters stand for), but I think you can forgive him for being confused. Although his arrogant presumption I can't and won't defend.

Date: 2007/09/18 19:21:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,01:19)
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:26)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:09)
 
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:02)
Oh, and that experiment is quantum tunneling. It does not violate relativity, the guy doing the experiment doesn't claim it does. That comes from overzealous reporters. Strike two.

who cares how it happened?...and the speed of light has slowed down in the past centuries so obviously it is variable.

Got any evidence for that, any at all?

Didn't think so.

sure do.  It's called measurements.

Never mind Supes.

Date: 2007/09/18 19:22:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,01:20)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,18:35)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,23:39)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.

Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?

Well who said this?

"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"

Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now?  The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test.  Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens.

I don't know if anyone has bothered to respond to this, but Weismann cut the tails off several generations of mice in order to test inheritable acquired traits. It didn't work.

Link.

sorry that's an assualt to the organism, not an internal response to a changing environment.  Big difference.  Show me a trait generated by the animal itself and show me how science has proven it can't be inherited.

I'm sorry, but in what way can an animal generate a trait (for example, a longer or shorter tail) without a gene mutation?

Date: 2007/09/18 19:24:50, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Oh good lord, Worldnetdaily?

I've had enough of feeding the troll. I'm off.

Date: 2007/09/19 09:37:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,15:35)
The nylon bug is often brought up by evos as an example of "new" information resulting from a mutation. I'm not here to debate whether this is new information or not. As far I'm concerned the idea that the body can generate new information is fine by me.

So assuming that the nylon bug DOES generate new information, let's play a game.

Let's say I'm thinking about the number 8. I'm thinking about the number 8 because I woke up in the morning at exactly 8:00 a.m....therefore the number 8 is stuck in my head all day....at the end of the day I write the number 8 down on a piece of paper.

Next day rolls around, and instead of waking up at 8:00 I wake up at 9:00....therefore I have the number 9 in my head all day....so then I think about the number 9 all day and then write that down on a piece of paper

Question: is this an increase of information? Why or why not? If so, where did the information come from....if not, why not?

It seems to me that there is simply no way to ever tell if information is "new" or not because ultimately nobody knows where information comes from. Coming at it logically, I would say information comes from the mind, but that's just me....I think the mind is in control of all of biology, including the genome. Materialists, however, ignore the mind when it comes to biology and evolution and instead give all the credit to chance and randomness. Ultimately then we all believe in Ex nihilo -- we all believe everything came from nothing...some of us, however, believe there was a cause behind the nothingness changing to something-ness.

So to answer my own question, I would say that going from "8" to "9" may be an increase of information, but that's only because the mind is capable of acquiring more information. Surely, for example you've acquired lots of information over the course of your lfetime -- you've got much more now than you had when you were in grade school. Likewise biology is the same. Flu shots work like that....give yourself a flu shot and your immune system soon reads this information, remembers it and is able to put this information to good use by developing resistance.

Ultimately, the question as to whether or not new information arises by way of mutations is meaningless because I would say the genome is just a physical manifestation of the mind, which is capable of acquiring new information.

But you aren't going from a base of 8 up to 9, you're starting again from scratch.

Date: 2007/09/19 16:50:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,22:46)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,16:42)
Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is.

I already know what it is: a physical manifestation of the mind.

Evidence for that?

No, you can't just say "prove it isn't" because the onus is on YOU.

Date: 2007/09/20 09:57:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?


Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.

Date: 2007/09/20 10:11:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:04)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,09:57)
 
Quote
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?


Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.

you are seriously moving the goal posts.  Now you are saying that animals have evolved to evolve...that evolution is no longer a populational process, but an individual one.  If this is the case, natural selection is finished, only to be replaced by individual adaptivity.  Now it's up to you to show that natural selection has ever been a reality or that animals did not used to have this ability.  Both are non-provable and non-scientific.

No I'm not. I'm saying they evolved the ability to produce spines. The fact that the flea can produce spines isn't an evolution.

Do you consider growth of hair in humans to be an evolution within the organism? If not, why not?

Date: 2007/09/20 10:44:28, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 20 2007,16:22)
This guy is a troll with a capital T. Other than one hilarious quote (in response to my answering the question in his OP, by the way) now immortalized on oldman's sig line, he has produced nothing of substance.

I propose that we stop engaging him. I suspect that he only wants attention, and we need to stop giving it to him. Let's see how shrill he gets if he is only talking to himself; I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...

I'm in.

Date: 2007/09/20 12:00:34, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 20 2007,17:49)
Quote (factician @ Sep. 20 2007,10:25)
Densy:

 
Quote
Anyone who thinks that the fact that girls are not as good as boys in math means that girls do not rule is obviously not in contact with many girls.


Ummm...  Huh?

Link

"Math is hard!" - Barbie

"Math is a meaningless non word, created by someone who decided that Mathematics was somehow not a plural" Pedantic Brit.

Date: 2007/09/20 16:24:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 20 2007,22:05)
It's a daphnia, not a flea!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia
The common name is "water flea."

I looked at the paper I believe our stuporsquirt is on about, and I found it interesting that it's written entirely from a Darwinian perspective: the authors don't seem to feel they've uncovered any weird Lamarckian mechanism, stuporsquirt. Why do you? Are you more qualified than they to interpret their results, or are you talking out of an orifice other than your mouth?

After a little checking on my lunch break, it turns out that the phenomenon, called "inducible defenses," has been observed in many different lineages (although, not, to my knowledge, fleas). There's a book on the subject, which is reviewed here
Oh, and here's the paper

Why don't you learn something, squirt?

[supersport]Can't prove it's the genes! Can't prove it's the genes!

[/supersport]

Date: 2007/09/20 16:44:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 20 2007,18:08)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,12:00)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 20 2007,17:49)
     
Quote (factician @ Sep. 20 2007,10:25)
Densy:

       
Quote
Anyone who thinks that the fact that girls are not as good as boys in math means that girls do not rule is obviously not in contact with many girls.


Ummm...  Huh?

Link

"Math is hard!" - Barbie

"Math is a meaningless non word, created by someone who decided that Mathematics was somehow not a plural" Pedantic Brit.

Now, now...

It's biology, not biologies
It's chemistry, not chemistries
It's math, not maths
It's Darwinism, not Darwinisms (heh)
It's computer science, not computer sciences*

Only Physics, as it should, warrants the "royal we."

--------
*But that wouldn't matter anyway, because of the old adage: any discipline with the word science in its name, isn't.

Ah, but they aren't plurals. Maths is.

Mathematics, variety of different mathematical principles.

Date: 2007/09/21 03:21:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I have a question. Since genes don't pass anything down according to you supes, does DNA actually do anything?

Date: 2007/09/21 09:24:31, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 21 2007,14:02)
Quote (ofro @ Sep. 21 2007,07:29)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:41)
http://discovermagazine.com/2006....t=1&-C=

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

now answer my question...why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?

You are wrong.  You are assuming that the ability to create spines is created simultaneously by many or all members of a population.  

Rather, this change occurs with one individual and is passed on to its progeny.  It just occurs to rapidly because of the rapid generation times of these animals.  And even if this is an epigenetic effect that may wear off after a few generations without selection pressure by a predator, (I didn't have time to examine the spine phenomenon in detail), it is still a process where a phenotype is passed on to the next generation, not among members of the same generation.

so knowing this is a non-random change, if one group of fleas are exposed to predators and they generate spines, what would stop other fleas from doing the same?   Why would one flea be constructed in such a different way that it would not be able to respond morphologically while others in the same population would?  Your logic makes no sense.

Perhaps because the genetic information that resulted in this ability was due to a mutation within a single organism, resulting in the rest of the organisms in the same generation NOT having this ability?

Is this REALLY hard for you?

Date: 2007/09/21 09:26:22, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Looks like supes is a pariah now, like FtK.

I know he was annoying, but seriously, don't you think that was a bit hasty?

Date: 2007/09/21 17:34:07, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2007,22:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,16:25)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 21 2007,15:55)
By the way, did I miss something?  Has he been banned so soon?

People aren't banned without a good reason and a warning at AtBC.

Um, what's the evidence that he's been banned?

He's not been banned, but he's now a pariah. He sent me a PM, and it had him down as Pariah in it.

So he can no longer post.

Date: 2007/09/21 17:41:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,23:34)
Funny, I just got a private message from SS saying that he was banned.

At first, I was thinking of a stupid joke, then a noticed his group name "Pariah".

Was did he do?
Can he still post private messages?

EDIT: OK Ian.
Still, I'd like an explanation.

I wouldn't mind one. I mean, I know some of the things he said would have had us getting a round in with Ken Ham to discuss the loon in the corner, but still, he was only here for a couple of days.

Date: 2007/09/21 17:44:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2007,23:42)
My hunch is this had something to do with it:

Quote
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment

Didn't SS say he actually believed all he wrote, but jazzed it up a bit to get an extra rise?

I know it's a jackass thing to do, but still, Paley just made shit up and got awa with it for months.

Date: 2007/09/21 18:20:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I know Airfarce is a bit away with the faries, and he retcons anything he can incase he makes a slip up and contradicts himself somewhere else on the net, but wow.

Contradicting yourself on the same thread, then claiming you didn't? That's impressive. I mean seriously, I thought  shooting oneself in the foot was good, but Davey just has to do it with an artillery cannon.

Date: 2007/10/01 21:15:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
FtK, you do know the ae of consent in the UK IS 16, for straight and gay couples, yes?

As for flipping between the two, have you never come across the term "Bisexual" before?

Date: 2007/10/04 12:08:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Hi, I'm IanBrown_101.

Real Name: Edward M Baylis

(Current) Address.

Room 1, 44 South Road,
Aberystwyth,
Ceredigion,

Mobile Number: 07817945133

I'll answer the phone with Ahoy hoy.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:12:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2007,18:10)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 04 2007,12:08)
Hi, I'm IanBrown_101.

Real Name: Edward M Baylis

(Current) Address.

Room 1, 44 South Road,
Aberystwyth,
Ceredigion,

Mobile Number: 07817945133

ohh, right on the harbour yeah? v.nice..


or is it ? :)

A minute or two away by foot.

Right opposite the Castle Hotel. As in, my window virtually faces the front door.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:27:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 04 2007,18:24)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 04 2007,12:08)
Hi, I'm IanBrown_101.

Real Name: Edward M Baylis

(Current) Address.

Room 1, 44 South Road,
Aberystwyth,
Ceredigion,

Mobile Number: 07817945133

I'll answer the phone with Ahoy hoy.

What? No credit card numbers?

Obviously you're trying to hide something!  :angry:

The fact I don't have a credit card maybe?

Date: 2007/10/04 13:43:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Of course Behe didn't know what was in every book...as he said, he hadn't read all of them.  But, that's not the point, as I tried to relay in the thread in which we were addressing the issue.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he say he'd never read ANY of them?

How would he know what they contained if he didn't read them? I doubt they would have made a good movie...

Harry Potter and the Evolution of the Human Immune System just doesn't have a good ring to it.

Date: 2007/10/04 22:36:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
'ID is not based on religion...it's based on science.'

What science, specifically?

See, I've seen you talk about "design inference" and how that makes ID science, but when anyone who supports evolution, you bang on about how all they have is inference, and that this isn't good eough.

Appologies if my typing is a bit dodgy, I'm more than a tad drunk.

Date: 2007/10/04 22:55:07, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 05 2007,04:53)
Quote
Appologies if my typing is a bit dodgy, I'm more than a tad drunk.


I thought you said you didn't drink...figured you were more into weed than alcohol.

I said I don't drink MUCH. I very rarely drink, but I'm not anti drink. I have smoked weed before, but we're talking single figures for the number of times.

Date: 2007/10/04 23:12:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
'The flood has been documented by virtually every ancient nation...it most certainly does not have to be approached from a religious or biblical standpoint. '

A flood. At each location.

Is it just me, or does the "all nations have a flood story!!!!" thing fall down in two places?

1. If everyone died, who wrote the stories?

2. Didn't people almost always live on or near flood areas, because of the fertile soil?

Date: 2007/10/05 00:19:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 05 2007,05:27)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 04 2007,23:12)
'The flood has been documented by virtually every ancient nation...it most certainly does not have to be approached from a religious or biblical standpoint. '

A flood. At each location.

Is it just me, or does the "all nations have a flood story!!!!" thing fall down in two places?

1. If everyone died, who wrote the stories?

2. Didn't people almost always live on or near flood areas, because of the fertile soil?

Um...no, not a flood at each location. Put down the bottle.  I'll try to make this simple for someone who is inebriated.  

One flood...a few survivors...story passed down orally  throughout the generations...history of the flood is eventually told in other areas of the world as people migrate to other areas...stories become slightly modified as time passes, and people forget certain aspects of the event.

The stories are quite simliar if you take the time to read them, and obviously for the story to be told not everyone could have died...many of the ancient stories tell of a family of approx. 8 people surviving the flood.

So one flood that hit the world, andyet noone noticed?

There was a lot of people around at the supposed time of the flood.

A lot.

Like, millions, a lot.

All over the place.

Date: 2007/10/05 22:20:51, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2007,03:54)
Jack,

GO CHECK WITH PZ AND GREG LADEN AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.  Thanks.

I'm not going to spend hours looking for those posts.

I did not say that anyone was going to SUE anyone for wearing a cross necklace!  I said that I've heard it mentioned more than once that some people are pissed about teachers wearing cross necklaces, and for that matter, I've heard them complain about teachers having symbols of faith on their desks as well.

Granted, I spend *way* to much time in atheist forums, and that has definently tainted my views in regard to many of these issues.  As I've mentioned in the past, before I came upon these on-line debates, blogs and forums, I thought the that concerns I heard on Christian radio were promoted by highly paranoid Christians and turned a deaf ear to what I considered ridiculous.

But, after being in the trenches, I've seen *exactly* what they were refering too.  And, yes, thank God this type of hatred toward Christianity is still held by relatively a minority of people, but nonetheless it is quite disheartening to watch atheists as well as hateful Christians going at each other like they're at war.

But, evidently nobody cares or worries about these arguments turning uglier as the years go by except me...the "concern troll".

BTW, Jack, you're teaching in the state of *Kansas*...somehow I doubt that many parents here are that terribly disgruntled about the freedom of religious expression.

In all honesty FtK, if I lived in the states, I'd probably either be afraid to admit I'm an atheist, or, if I lived in a more (ho hum, misuse of the word) "liberal" state an "angry atheist". The way that religion has a strangle-hold on what is supposedly a secular state is quite, quite terrifying to me, who goes by unaccosted in a very, very definately Christian state (although Price Charles thinks we should become secular, I knew I liked that man).

The tales of abuse I've heard from over there, the massive anti-atheist sentiment spread by evangelical (usually) baptist churches chills me to the core. Sure, we disagree, and that's fine, but claiming that somehow makes us traitors, or evil and immoral is, I think, taking it so far the individual can no longer see the line of what is acceptable.

I'd love to live in a nation where organised, school institued prayer is illegal. Boy, would I like that, and not because I "hate" christianity (which, of course, I don't. I find it ridiculous to varying degrees depending upon what the individual believes.) but because I would rather NOT have been forced into prayer and hymn singing when I was at school betwee the ages of 5 and 12 (oh yes, I very much was, and I was at a C of E school, and their usually the more relaxed type).

However, this desire is tempered by the fact I'd loathe being forced to pledge allegence to my country every damn day, with or without the "under god" addition. I don't like enforced prayer, but boy, do I prefer it to even stronger enforced "patriotism", whereby if I refuse to take part I'm officially suspended and unofficially shunned as "un American", a ridiculous idea if ever I heard one.


Sorry if this divulged into a rant, my appologies. What's the betting someone, somewhere, and I don't neccessarily mea FtK, will claim I "hate America" or somesuch bollocks?

Date: 2007/10/05 22:23:33, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I know this is against the nice-nice code, but it has to be said.

Einstein was a deist, dumbass. Swing and a miss.

Date: 2007/10/05 22:40:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 06 2007,04:33)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 05 2007,22:23)
I know this is against the nice-nice code, but it has to be said.

Einstein was a deist dumbass. Swing and a miss.

I think you may have missed a fairly important comma there, Ian.

It's been added.

Mea Culpa.

In my defence, it's twenty to five in the morning and I'm a tad tired.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:10:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
They do say the pledge, so every day the only thing that is remotely related to "God" are the words "under God".  THAT IS IT.  How on earth is that worse for an atheist that what you had to endure throughout your school years????!!!!  You make no sense to me.  


Personally, feeling a little hypocritical while being forced to pray (although I was a lamb of god at the time) is far, far less galling than being forced to be patriotic. I can't stand the evagelical christiaity that seems to be prevalent over your side of the pond, but my god, I think the hatred leveled at those seen to be unamerican is worse. If I'm brutally honest the only countries I can think of where patriotism is so hard wired and enforced other than the US are those frowned upon by the US for not being free. I am much happier here, where I can bitch and moan about my country safe in the knowlege that I'm ot going to be branded a traitor for my troubles. Frankly, it's the one thing about the US that really bothers me the most.

As for the religion, I think a comparative religious studies class should be manditory everywhere. This should absolutely not promote or encourage belief in ay religion, and should look at the beliefs, cultures, history and practices of as many of the worlds faiths as is feasible. However, any kind of promotion of religion should NOT be allowed. None of this biblical morality in schools that Chuck Norris wants.

Interestingly, I notice you leapt straight for science in your reply. Why is that FtK? I never mentioned it.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:19:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2007,05:12)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 05 2007,22:33)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 05 2007,22:23)
I know this is against the nice-nice code, but it has to be said.

Einstein was a deist dumbass. Swing and a miss.

I think you may have missed a fairly important comma there, Ian.

Well, since my last post disappeared, let's try it again.

Ian,

I am not a "dumbass", you prick*.  Believe me, after being in this debate long enough, you learn about the faith beliefs of~virtually~ every famous scientist.  How anyone can be in this debate for 4 years and not know that Einstein was a deist is beyond me.

If you weren't such as moronic* idiot*, you'd realize that Einstein's being a deist makes no difference whatsoever in regard to the quote I provided.

Now, quit being such a condescending, arrogant, asshole*, and learn how to treat others with respect even if they disagree with your opinions.


*I have no idea how some of you can continuously call people names like those I used above.  It makes me feel like a real shit to treat people like that.  Maybe that's why many of you are so nasty....you no longer even know or care to know how much better it feels when you treat others with respect.

In all honestey, I'm ot arrogant, nor am I a prick. The way you phrased it made it look like you were trying to claim Einstein as a theist. Even if you weren't (and since this appears to be so, I appologise) then it doesn't really matter anyway.

So what if ewton, Einstein and various others believed in a god? Bully for them, doesn't mean that god exists, nor does it mean that you can't become a top scientist or somesuch without belief in god, I believe that the current smartest ma in the world and top physicist is an atheist (Hawking, of course).

I like how you call ME condescending, and yet you have adressed me repeatedly as "sweetie" and have numerous times talked to me as if I were a child of 5.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:20:23, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2007,05:15)
Also, please show me how it matters what Einstein's faith beliefs were in regard to that quote?

Your use of it implied that religion, presumably theistic, was needed for sciece to progress, further extrapolation (and not much further) hints at "therefore = ID"

Date: 2007/10/05 23:31:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2007,05:23)
Okay, let me see if I've got this straight, Ian....

You'd rather be in a school environment where they sing hymns to God, say prayers to God, and live under the Church of England, than to have to utter those two nasty words, "under God", in a national pledge each day.

That is certainly odd, IMHO.

Errr....no. You either read past what I said or decided to twist my words.

I would rather be under the religious but extremely lax and kind wing of the C of E tha have to EVER pledge allegence to my country, irrespective of if "under god" was in there or not.

It's the pledge I loathe, not "under god".

Incedetally, my n key doesn't work properly on my keyboard, so my spelling mistakes you picked up on were due to that. You may notice that for the next 10 months, give or take a few weeks at a time, I miss out n's. This is my keyboard, not me. I don't normally miss out n's from words.

Date: 2007/10/08 14:14:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
A question was just asked on University Challenge which implicity refered to ID as the attempt to merge sciece with religious dogma.

Go BBC.

Date: 2007/10/09 00:24:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 08 2007,23:15)
I got to 0.274 secs on the bullet game.  I am curious as to find how fast you got.  That was with sound off.

I haven't tried without sound, but I'm averaging around 0.185.

My best so far was (and no, I'm not lying, why would I?) 0.028.

I still don't know quite how I managed that, but hey.

Date: 2007/10/09 23:14:03, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
The problem that I see with this is that, as you have stated, “His [Miller’s] model may be, but is not yet necessarily, correct. Whether or not it IS correct, it describes a POSSIBLE series of selectable, step-wise events leading to the evolution of the flagellum that surmounts Behe's assertions regarding well-matched parts, all needing to be present for functionality, etc.”  So, as I have been implying endlessly, ultimately there is no way to falsify the assertion that the flagellum arose through evolutionary processes, because another scenario will always arise.  


Yes, much like how Newtonian physics was one possible explanation, which, when it was found to be incorrect, was replaced by yet ANOTHER "possible" explanation, in special relativity.

Date: 2007/10/11 20:59:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
FtK, do you REALLY think science has to find out EXACTLY which path it is?

Science looks at the evidence. It comes up with multiple pathways and tests them, those that fail get dropped, and scientists argue over the others. But the point is, they only consider those that fit the evidence. It doesn't matter if 2 or 20 or 2000 fit the evidence, science ca confidently say, at that present time, it was one of these variations on a theme.

If evidence is found that reduces the number, GREAT. But until all but one have been ruled out, it's still tentative. It's ALWAYS tentative. Certain medicines which used to work, according to the evidence now don't or aren't used, either because a better medicine was found, or because the germ picked up a resistance. But this was only found out via evidence. However, even in THIS case it's impossible to state if the germ is REALLY resistant. The medicie might work 1 time in ten on average, and the 7 thousand failures have just been unlucky. Perhaps the medicine never worked at all, and the positives were all false, people curing themselves of the disease? Anything is possible, but it is far more sane to go with the evidence ad say that yes, said medicine DID work, but now doesn't.

Date: 2007/10/11 21:01:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,02:57)
Yes, Bill, I completely understand that this is how science works.  And, yes, I believe it to be a very good way of "teasing out and testing specific evolutionary hypotheses".  I support scientists continuing their efforts in this regard and perhaps "models of the evolution of these complex structures about which the biological sciences have confidence will emerge."

Long ago, a friend in another forum wrote a song about evolution (no doubt to drive me up a tree), but nevertheless, the lyrics have stuck in my head forever...

"Just because we don't know doesn't mean we won't know."

I get it, but it also applies to ID...no, we won't run across the actual designer unless it is of natural origin, but as science advances, the inference may become increasingly difficult to ignore.

But the point is, the "inference" isn't, on it's own, science. It's entirely possible that in some way, we were designed. The only problem being, unless testable, falsifiable theories (or just theory) are produced, research can't be done. It ISN'T being done.

Date: 2007/10/11 21:10:11, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,03:08)
Quote
FtK, do you REALLY think science has to find out EXACTLY which path it is?


No, ultimately, I don't think that would be possible.  But, as we keep "teasing out and testing" these possible pathways, answer will become clearer, no?

Yes, but the only answers allowed will be those that fit he evidence, hence removal of young earth theory, or special creation. ID is only kept out because there's no way to test it and get the relevant data, and the few bits that CAN be tested (IC) have been shown to be inaccurate.

Date: 2007/10/11 21:12:36, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I may be being a little slow here (in months) but hey, sue me. Isn't Judge Jones a hugely right wing, lets stand up for FAMILY!!! ™ type?

Date: 2007/10/11 21:26:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 12 2007,03:16)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 11 2007,21:12)
I may be being a little slow here (in months) but hey, sue me. Isn't Judge Jones a hugely right wing, lets stand up for FAMILY!!! ™ type?

For some biographical information on Judge Jones, see here.

Cheers.

I believe the phrase that comes to mind is "Hoisted by his own petard."

Date: 2007/10/12 12:52:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,18:37)
Hey, this is COMPLETELY OT, but I know there are several Europeans who post here and I wondered if any of you have heard, through the media, about an emergency plane landing in Turkey.  

It was an AMC Airline (Egypt based) on it's way to Poland.  They lost electricity and had 20 minutes of backup before they had to land....they were over water at the time, so I imagine they were over the Mediterranean.  

It was flight 4270 AMC and landed in Istanbul.  The flight landed safely and I know there are no fatalities, but I'm trying to get more information and find out what the media is saying about the incident.

There should be something on the internet soon, but I just wondered if anyone had heard anything about it yet.

You can PM me with the details, if you have any.  Thanks ahead of time for any information you can provide.

Absolutely zip about it on the TV news (although it IS only ITV, I missed BBC news).

Date: 2007/10/12 15:31:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,21:26)
I am unable to post at ISCID for several days.  Only John has access there. I don't know what's going on.
I only hope  John will be able to continue. His critic of neodarwinian fancies about natural selection is unique. I I have great pleasure in reading his posts.

You don't say?

Date: 2007/10/12 16:27:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"they laugh at the thought of Gore with a Nobel prize."

Why, exactly, should they laugh?

The only thing I can think of is that maybe a peace prize is a bit far out for his work on global warming. Otherwise, I'm at a loss.

Date: 2007/10/12 16:29:56, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
You're really a piece of work, Dave.  You slam IDists with everything you've got on a *daily basis* and then have the audacity to complain when they laugh at the thought of Gore with a Nobel prize.  


Only difference is, the IDists stuff has been shown to be vacuous, they are constantly asked to provide a theory and the "holes" they find are shown to be....suspect at best. Only when they continue to say the exact same things over ad over are they lambasted as idiots. Remember, an insult is NOT ad hominem.

Date: 2007/10/12 18:21:30, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,23:44)
Quote
You make the call.


LOL...you're asking that question of Darwin's peanut gallery??

Mercy...

It's statements like this that REALLY show that FtK is interested in following the evidence, no matter where it leads. No way she could have already decided despite the evidence. No siree.

Date: 2007/10/13 03:10:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2007,08:25)
Incidentally FTK, whilst I think of it:

1) Please name ONE fallacy in "Darwinism" (you might need to define "Darwinism" for me because I'm sure you and I don't mean the same thing when we use that word. So I'd like to know what you mean when you say it). You make this claim a lot but seem curiously reluctant to support it.

2) Please explain why there are at least tens of thousands of scienists who are theists of many religions, deists, pantheists etc all of whom accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth.

For example: Wesley is a christian. Wesley understands evolutionary biology and is not an IDCist. The same goes for the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, although I hesitate to place either of those "gentlemen" in the august company of Wesley!

In your rush to accuse people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth of being atheists (as if it were a bad thing anyway) you are missing a rather huge demographic of experts in the relevant fields who share your religion (if not specific aspects of your specific sect's faith) and have no problem with modern science. As I've explained and asked you about before. You need to explain this apparent contradiction.

Let me give you a hint "they're not real christians" is unacceptable as an argument in any form.

Cheers

Louis

Hey man, I happen to LIKE Rowan Williams, ad the fact he has an honorary degree from my university ad is therefore sort of an alumni has nothing to do with it.


I actually do quite like the guy, he has a decent head on his shoulders, and is pretty forward thinking, for a major player in a religion.

Date: 2007/10/13 03:27:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2007,09:15)
....


















Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict the Umpteeth

Does that make it clearer?

;-)

Louis

That's fair enough, I'm glad you didn't mention the last pope, I think you might have needed a few more pages. Around a score or so.

Date: 2007/10/13 04:23:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
You know, it may be because I had about 2 hours sleep and thus am in a world of my own, but sat here, listening to Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds on my computer, I can't help but think this is kind of how the IDers see this "debate".

Let me elaborate. They are the Martians, and we the humans, they think (or at least thought) they would/will swoop in, meet a little resistance, maybe lose a few skirmishes, but pretty quickly the whole thing would be wrapped up and we would/will be suppressed, and they ruling supreme. Indeed, I can even draw the red weed into this analogy, as the byproducts of their anti science ramblings, such as HIV denial, Global warming denial, Holocaust denial et al.

Only problem is, it didn't quite work out that way, in fact, it's virtually the opposite.

Date: 2007/10/15 18:07:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Hate to be a spoil sport, but the whole Caligula making his horse consul is...not true. He probably did suggest it, but it's more likely that it was a way of angering the senate, who didn't think much of the (admittedly insane) emperor. Indeed, many historians have disputed that he even mentioned it, since it as written by a historian with something of an agenda, in a similar way to how the stories of how Richard the third having a hump back ad being extremely cruel even for the time are now thought to be exaggerations or outright lies.

Date: 2007/10/17 08:40:03, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I'd like to take issue with this:

Quote
one who realizes that the world could not arise spontaneously from nothing


I understand that FtK believes god created everything in some way, and that's fine, bully for her, but is she now INSISTING there must be a creation event of some kind? Isn't it entirely possible everything has always been here in some form which only manifested itself into this one after the big bang event?

Date: 2007/10/17 22:07:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 18 2007,03:54)
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 17 2007,20:58)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 17 2007,19:12)
I'm just amazed at people who think 'common sense' applies to things like the origin of universes.

Or base life decisions on translations of what bronze-age nomadic goat-herders once wrote in a dusty old book.

J-Dog,

Repost from several pages back:

 
Quote
It is astounding to me how volatile you are toward the Christian faith.  Your wife, as well as your family, are Christians, and here you park yourself on a daily basis contributing to as much disrepect and vulgarity toward the Christian faith as you can possibly muster up.  

Was your wife brought up incorrectly?  Does she believe based on "blind faith".  Do you consider her a complete moronic idiot?


Do you have any respect for their beliefs whatsoever?

Just curious...

While I'm aware this was addressed to J-dog
I hope that you, FtK, won't mind me answering.

Personally, I have absolute respect for the people, and I respect that they believe in the bible, to some degree.

I do not respect their beliefs. I will, ca and do mock them, even to my friends, as they mock my beliefs in other things. Indeed, while watching an episode of South Park this evening(The one that rips the mormons) with two of my friends (one atheist one christian), I ridiculed the mormon beliefs. My atheist friend asked (paraphrasing, of course) "Since you're an atheist, don't you think ALL religious beliefs are crazy?"

My response was "Yes, but to different degrees". Anyone who wants to live their life being nice and kind, giving to the poor etc. fill your boots, and if you think a magic book tells you to, bully for you. However, I am in no way forced to then respect the belief that a man who was also god was killed and resurrected for our sins. It, to me, sounds bizarre. When you factor in the fact he was supposedly sacrificed despite the fact he died for only 3 days before going to paradise (Can I buy in on that deal? A few hours of torture and 3 days where you don't actually notice whats going on followed by an eternity in paradise? Yes please) makes it even more so.

The more literal truth you say the bible has the less and less I respect the beliefs. Do YOU respect the beliefs of someone who thinks the government are poisoning the water supply, making people ill? How about if you replace government with goblins? Unicorns? I somehow doubt you do.

Date: 2007/10/18 18:31:44, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I don't go out to the cinema much, sadly, and the only film I've seen there in the past few months was Superbad. I do however watch a lot of DVD's.

Superbad= 4.5 A strangely intelligent, yet low brow comedy in a similar vein to (but much funnier than) American Pie. The three leads are brilliant, and if you fail to laugh when Fogell presents his fake ID to the others you aren't human.

Dog Soldiers= 4 Genius low budget horror comedy. British squaddies vs werewolves in a really entertaining flick. Not the smartest or most subtle of comedies, but absolutely hilarious, and occasionally genuinely chilling.

Hot Fuzz= 5 Hilarious. I can't decide if I prefer this to Shaun of the Dead or not, but both are absolute classics. Maybe British comedy is once more on the rise?

(They've all been good haven't they? Ok, here's a bad one.)

The Decent= 1. Horrible mess of a "horror" film. Dreadful acting, direction and script make for a dire, boring shambles which starts badly, drops off towards the middle and veers into despairingly bad near the end. I shudder to think this terrible schlock was made by the same man who created the superb Dog Soldiers.

Date: 2007/10/18 21:33:28, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2007,02:58)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 18 2007,19:31)
Hot Fuzz= 5 Hilarious. I can't decide if I prefer this to Shaun of the Dead or not, but both are absolute classics. Maybe British comedy is once more on the rise?

I've been told I'm not complete without having seen Fawlty Towers, and Blackadder. Both will arrive in my mailbox next week.

Oh absolutely. Although most people dislike The Blackadder (the first series) I quite enjoy it, although it's not a patch on the other 3 series. I think my favorite is Blackadder Goes Forth though, set in WW1 it manages to make the futility of that war funny, and it's got some great performances, especially by Tony Robinson, Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry.

Date: 2007/10/18 21:42:46, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2007,03:38)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 18 2007,21:33)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2007,22:02)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 18 2007,20:58)
     
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 18 2007,19:31)
Hot Fuzz= 5 Hilarious. I can't decide if I prefer this to Shaun of the Dead or not, but both are absolute classics. Maybe British comedy is once more on the rise?

I've been told I'm not complete without having seen Fawlty Towers, and Blackadder. Both will arrive in my mailbox next week.

Shooting stars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0keph8daK4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=

Yeah that wasn't funny at all.

It's in the English Surrealist tradition.

Stick to pie-in-face, colonial!
:p

It's a weird one is Shooting Stars. It changes between being really good and being utterly dire.

My personal recommendation for anyone who isn't familiar with it is to watch Mock The Week.  on joox, it's a British topical news stand up show, featuring a few regulars (all seasons: Frankie Boyle, Andy Parsons, Hugh Dennis, Seasons 1 and 2: Rory Bremner, Season 4 (I think) onwards: Russel Howard.)Found here

[EDIT] Not any more it isn't. Bugger.

Date: 2007/10/18 21:44:12, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2007,03:41)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 18 2007,22:33)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2007,02:58)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 18 2007,19:31)
Hot Fuzz= 5 Hilarious. I can't decide if I prefer this to Shaun of the Dead or not, but both are absolute classics. Maybe British comedy is once more on the rise?

I've been told I'm not complete without having seen Fawlty Towers, and Blackadder. Both will arrive in my mailbox next week.

Oh absolutely. Although most people dislike The Blackadder (the first series) I quite enjoy it, although it's not a patch on the other 3 series. I think my favorite is Blackadder Goes Forth though, set in WW1 it manages to make the futility of that war funny, and it's got some great performances, especially by Tony Robinson, Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry.

I don't know anything about Atkinson, myself, besides that this clip from Love Actually is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

"It will be ready, in the flashiest, of flashes."

Check this out, from one of his stand up shows.

Date: 2007/10/18 22:01:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Another good one for you colonials, in case you don't get this broadcast over there, is Peep Show. Hilarious, and at the same time, cringeworthy show, seen (literally) through the eyes of two best mates Jez and Mark, polar opposites who met at Uni and now live together.

Date: 2007/10/18 22:35:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I'm having a debate with someone on youtube (I know, I know) and it's got me wondering. For anyone here who takes the bible literally (AFDave for instance), what the hell was the point of the tree of knowledge anyway? Unless god put it there to trap us, in which case he isn't very loving, why bother making it at all? It's not like there was anyone else around, and he already had the knowledge that could be gained from it anyway, so what gives?

Even if there's a reason for this, why did he put it in the garden? He must have known what would happen (since he's omniscient) and therefore can't be very loving, since it's clear this was then a trap. It's not like he did anything to stop them eating from it, despite the fact he could easily have done so.

I mean, if this is a parable then you're ok, but if you believe this stuff actually happened then you have to concede that either god is evil, not omniscient, or is really, really stupid.

Date: 2007/10/18 23:58:24, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2007,05:37)
Is there a new "housewives against science" movement?


What. The. Hell.

Date: 2007/10/19 12:48:43, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,18:26)
Lord, you bore me blipey...hey, Richard, come on back in here and tell me more about your clean-up skills...

Questions that you stated you would answer bore you?

So much for the thirst for knowledge.

Oh, and incidentally, you DON'T think Larry FarFromSane is mad?

Seriously?

You really want to lump yourself in with a HOLOCAUST DENIER?

Date: 2007/10/19 13:06:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
not the position that there is no god(s)



This is my current position, butonly because there is absolutely no evidence for, need for, or reason to believe in god(s). If I am proved wrong I will change my mind.

As for the questions, if god were proven I would be a little miffed, but otherwise fine with it. However, if it was the god of the bible and the bible was also literally true, I'd be lining up behind Christopher Hitchens to bemoan how much that sucks, and how evil said deity is. If it was just a nice benevolent deity then I'd be cool with that, but any god who set us up for a fall or plated false evidence towards evolution and old earth etc.

So I think that answers both your questions.

Date: 2007/10/19 13:14:41, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,19:08)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 19 2007,12:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,18:26)
Lord, you bore me blipey...hey, Richard, come on back in here and tell me more about your clean-up skills...

Questions that you stated you would answer bore you?

So much for the thirst for knowledge.

Oh, and incidentally, you DON'T think Larry FarFromSane is mad?

Seriously?

You really want to lump yourself in with a HOLOCAUST DENIER?

Nah, I don't think Larry's insane.  I don't agree with his views on the holocaust, but then....

...you people are all GOD DENIERS, which borders on an insane position.  Regardless, I still think most of you are dealing with a full deck.  And, I love each and everyone one of you!

Really? Personally I'd think that people talking to a big invisible man in the sky who is omnipotent, omniscient, ad all loving despite having done various things he must have known would end up with the fall of man insane. I find anyone who insists the flood is a plausible position is either deluding themselves or not dealing with a full deck, as you say.

Larry's personal war with Wikipedia (haha, oh how amusing that is) puts him a bit above the rest.  Frankly, there is no evidence for god, theres no need for god,so why believe in him? Why is the god concept any less bizarre than hobgoblins stealing peoples hair and making them bald? Unicorns pushing the Earth in it's orbit? Atlas holding up the sky? (Oh yes, not the Earth foo') Zues getting it on with various women and birthing Hercules?

Date: 2007/10/19 13:19:33, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
We had RedDot here didn't we? He kept pulling an FtK and saying he was busy, and never really did anything.

Date: 2007/10/19 14:00:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,19:48)
LOL....goodness sakes!  You guys can dish it out, but you certainly can't take it.  I'm just pushing buttons to help you understand that your god denial seems as silly to us God believers as our God believin' sounds to you god deniers.

Did ya get that, cuz I'm starting to confuse myself.

TGIF, and all that... :)

Right, I'm fed up now.

*Did YOU get that, BECAUSE I'm starting to confuse myself.

Speak ENGLISH.

Gah.

Date: 2007/10/19 21:43:21, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,20:59)
Davey needs to joins us because he just seems so moody and emotional today.

Hard day, luv?

*Hard day LOVE?

Date: 2007/10/19 21:50:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (ck1 @ Oct. 20 2007,03:00)
Raising Arizona (may only appeal to Americans?)

You're kidding, right? Hilarious film!

Date: 2007/10/22 01:46:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
FtK, I doubt I would be able to understand much, if any primary literature as I am now, so I trust in the scientists.

However, in MY field, there aren't specifically trained groups of people doing research and finding new and exciting things, but that doesn't mean absolutely anyone can pontificate on anything with any level of education. As far as I know you haven't got a clue who John Locke is, and so I wouldn't trust you to be able to write an essay, or even coherently argue against his social contract theory, but I can.

I have, in fact. It's not all that great, there are some major flaws, and other interesting competing theories. However it does make a deal of sense, and it can be applied, albeit not entirely, to modern life.

In order to dismiss all I've written, you would need to know who John Locke was, what his theory is, what other theories are, the current state of world politics and so on. I seriously doubt you do, and you would need to do a lot of reading in order to understand all the potential components and arguments, whereas I can, so you'll have to take my word for it. Agree?

Date: 2007/10/22 01:48:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 22 2007,03:30)
Louis, as nicely as I'm able, do you know what faith is? and why it does not lend itself to rational examination?

Serious, honest open question:

So why bother with it?

Date: 2007/10/22 20:24:14, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 23 2007,02:04)
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right.  Perhaps I don't understand the definitions or the situation at all.

So, you can keep badgering me about it, or you can help me understand.  It would help if you try to teach me something rather than keep asking questions or telling me I simply don't understand.

But the point is you keep making pronouncements about it. Going back to my ignored (quite possibly rightly so, I wasn't in the clearest mindset when I wrote it) analogy, it would be like you spouting off about how wonderful (or terrible) John Locke's social contract theory is without knowing what it was.

I have never been to Kansas, (or anywhere in the US for that matter) so wouldn't you be a bit miffed if I started banging on about how the place sucked?

Date: 2007/10/23 14:22:18, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Richard, I wish you my best contifabulations.

Date: 2007/10/23 14:28:10, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 23 2007,20:08)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 23 2007,14:06)
In the very same thread where he not only banned someone, but also deleted his comments and all comments addressing those, DT writes, without a hint of self-realization    
Quote
I love science and I hate what is being done to it through the use of despicable tactics to suppress open dialogue.

All Science So Far!

I know he reads this thread. How does he reconcile this? How does he live with himself?

To quote General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
Quote
'If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.'

Date: 2007/10/24 03:55:47, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2007,09:21)
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 23 2007,23:56)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 23 2007,15:43)
SAUSAGE??? SAAAAUUUUSSSAAAAGE????!!!!!

Inna bun!

Genuine 100% pig.*

Louis

With mustard I hope?

*Includes things found within earshot of a pig

Date: 2007/10/25 22:57:54, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2007,03:06)
And, another thing:

If I were really only interested in reaffirming my own ideas with no concerns for opposing data or evidence, why on earth would I come here?!?!

1. I don't recall anyone saying you were here to reaffirm your beliefs, they said you were rock steady in them.

2. In order to convince us you are right, because you subconsciously think this will work, since you clearly think that they trump absolutely anything we can throw at them. Whenever someone gets an idea they believe is totally impervious to attack they immediately want to test it on the opposition because they expect them to fall on their knees and shield their eyes from it's brilliance. It's that simple, if you seriously think that your idea is absolutely, no matter what right, then you think deep down we will, eventually succumb to it.

Date: 2007/10/25 23:08:29, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,02:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 25 2007,18:43)
BWE that is some deep tard.  I salute you sir.

At ease soldier. We've earned some R&R.

If we're using war analogies, can I be the one who never actually does anything, but sit around playing the harmonica?

Date: 2007/10/26 19:23:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
In truth, you have no idea what dishonesty is.  In your mind, dishonesty is anyone who disagrees with you.


If this were true, he would be regularly lambasting Wes for being dishonest.


Come to think of it, I know I differ in belief and opinion from Louis in some areas, and I'm pretty sure I disagree with him on such things as politics. I don't recall him ever calling Wes or I a liar.

Date: 2007/10/28 10:49:40, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Now on the subject of atheism, I continually hear that atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence to support the claim.  Isn't also the case that there is not evidence refuting the claim?  Wouldn't the question of God be in a neutral position in terms of evidence?  If I were to try to convince you of the existence of God then I would need to offer evidence to change that initial belief but what is the foundation for the initial belief?


You cannot be serious. Either you're joking, trolling or a moron.

Date: 2007/10/28 22:01:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 28 2007,21:55)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 28 2007,10:49)
 
Quote
Now on the subject of atheism, I continually hear that atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence to support the claim.  Isn't also the case that there is not evidence refuting the claim?  Wouldn't the question of God be in a neutral position in terms of evidence?  If I were to try to convince you of the existence of God then I would need to offer evidence to change that initial belief but what is the foundation for the initial belief?


You cannot be serious. Either you're joking, trolling or a moron.

No, that is a serious question.  I'm not sure which part of that quote is upsetting you but I'm more than happy to discuss.  Could you elaborate a little further?

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. The religious, whether they be the kindly love thy neighbour types, or the psycho kill the heathen types and all in between are making an absolute claim, there IS a god and he/she/it/they is/are X Y and Z.

I don't see any need to believe in your god, therefore I say I don't believe in he/she/it/them as there is no evidence. For you to turn that around and say "but there is no evidence AGAINST god" is a completely ridiculous statement. There isn't any evidence against vampirism either, should we consider the question of their existence neutral? How about the FSM? Ra? Zeus?

Seriously, the "YOU don't have any either" argument would be really impressive if you were five. You aren't. Don't use it, and learn how evidence works.

Oh, and by the by, "upsetting"? Either you're claiming you think I'm upset, in which case you can't understand emotion and motivation online well, or you're concern trolling.

Date: 2007/10/29 23:09:29, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 30 2007,01:18)
I would include anything beyond the five senses.  All artificial meanings are a result of application of our intelligence and that would render all knowledge relative to our ability to apply that intelligence.  In essence, reality would be dictated by us and I'm pretty sure nobody here wants concede that reality.

Five senses? There are more than that.

Date: 2007/10/30 14:18:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Is it just me, or are you Daniel trying to force God into some real science?

I mean when you say things like it's your "guess" that structures are being designed by evolution, aren't you just saying that since the general direction of evolution after stages a and b seems to be towards z, therefore something designed it to be z?

Seems like a whole lot of straw clutching there.

Date: 2007/10/31 08:46:57, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,14:13)
What I'm saying is I do not believe that absolute morals can exist without an absolute authority.  In that absence, all morals becomes relative.

YES! I think he has it!

Quote
With anyone or society defining morality as they see fit, that constitutes no morality overall.  Or in other words, morality would be meaningless because it would become all things to all people.


Ohhh, swing and a miss.

Morality is defined by the people based upon a wide variety of stimuli, in certain cultures some practices we think are vile or wrong are done on a regular basis. Does that mean they are wrong? No, it means we as westerners from MEDC countries perceive them to be so. Just because we turn our noses up at long pig doesn't mean it is ipso facto wrong to consume it, for who is to tell us what is right?

Without god morals do indeed become relative, but this isn't some sort of anarchistic or nihilistic view of the world, but one where there are o "savage" and "civilized" cultures, only equality and difference.  While I don't doubt that there are certain practices which are frowned upon world wide, such as murder, that doesn't mean they are absolutely wrong, but that we as humans have seen that they are harmful to the species and therefore condemn them, ad brand them as "wrong" or "evil".

Date: 2007/10/31 19:31:15, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,15:29)
Ian, with societies defining their own values then Morality doesn't exist only individual morality is real.  If one believes that murder is wrong not because most people agree but just because it's wrong, you move towards a universal Morality.  I think this is too closely related to theistic/spiritual belief.  In essence, if you have a theistic/spiritual viewpoint then you accept Morality and if you don't then morals are relative because there is no ultimate authority.  We're actually debating whether or not there is a basis for the theistic/spiritual belief and morality just becomes a subset of that discussion.

What now?

Look, morals are all relative, however they are also dictated by our society, and we are brought up (usually) to believe our society has the "true" version of morals. "We think X is bad and Y is good, therefore this is true."

I didn't say anything about god, except commenting on how no god would equal relative morals. I was telling you that morality is relative in terms of the universe as a whole, but to our societies it is, more or less, fixed. The only thing I mentioned even remotely close to universal morals was when I mentioned some behaviors that are universally reviled. Note that they are still relativistic, but that every culture notes how they are harmful, and attempts to expunge them. Just because it hurts our species (and we therefore see it is "bad") doesn't mean that it is, within itself, a bad act. Killing humans might be morally "right" if such a definition can be made, but virtually all human culture has made this, except in certain circumstances, a "bad" behavior.

Date: 2007/10/31 19:57:58, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2007,01:42)
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Oct. 31 2007,18:38)
Note also, that in a strict and very real sense these are not "simulations of evolution."

GA's like these we are speaking of are instantiations of real, no-kidding, actual Darwinian processes.

Therein lies the difference.  "Darwinian processes", when coupled with strict selection criteria (which conform to a specific goal), can take any random sequence and eventually meet that goal.

Real Darwinian evolution however, has no goal.  Reproductive fitness is seen as a valid section criteria, but it cannot be the reason for the variety of lifeforms we see.  If reproductive fitness was the goal, nothing beyond bacteria would have ever evolved - since they are probably the fittest reproducers on the planet.

So, if you want to postulate a mechanism for evolution, you must show one that is capable of producing vast complexity without a goal.

Therein lies the conundrum for your theory.

Errr.....No.


They are indeed fittest, but only for their niche. If one happened to spawn various things which put it on a track to (eventually) become multicellular, then these would have distinct advantage, in certain conditions. You can't put all animals on one scale of "fitness", that would be simplistic.

And idiotic.

Date: 2007/11/02 02:03:17, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Roland Anderson @ Nov. 02 2007,03:36)
2: Casablanca

First time I saw it I almost cried. I don't think I've seen many performances top Humphrey Bogart in that. The man is a god and that film a video bible. Utterly marvellous in every single way.

Still, my favourite film varies, as I'm sure most people's does, but most of the time it's either Godfather Part II (DeNiro is one of the performances that equals that of Bogart in Casablanca, and Pachino is also superb) or The Shawshank Redemption.

If you don't cry at Shawshank at least once, you're some kind of inhuman robot thing.

Date: 2007/11/03 04:07:20, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Since FtK is apparently taking the genesis story seriously, and considers it a clear case of "free will" I would like to ask, in what way is it "free will"? If God is omniscient then he would know that warning Adam and Eve would do nothing, and the snake would tempt them. This isn't a loving act giving free will, this is a trap, plain and simple.

Date: 2007/11/04 10:04:13, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I love how the 17 year old kid is telling a forum full of scientists (of which I am not one, by the way Assassinator) how not to advance in science.

Date: 2007/11/04 18:13:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
as we have no historical knowledge or written information of their activities until they evolved to about 7,000 bc so,


Oh really?

Date: 2007/11/04 18:41:55, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Then I went on to say that from an evolutionary perspective, incest would have also occurred as well, so whether you believe that nutty story in Genesis or you believe in an evolutionary perspective, incest was bound to have occured in either.


Wasn't your argument for this that the "first" whatevers would have to mate with other versions of the same thing? As in, brian and sally are different from their parents, and are heading towards being a totally new species, therefore they HAVE to mate with each other?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this....a load of nonsense? Why can't they breed with others of the original group? If the mutations are beneficial for the environment, they would be conserved, no? The potential to have said mutations is guaranteed by brian and sally, surely?

(This is oversimplified, I know)

Date: 2007/11/06 02:16:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,05:59)
JAM

 
Quote

It's not our responsibility to "present convincing evidence" against anything, you goof. It's DAVISON'S responsibility to TEST his hypothesis, but he won't. That's the main reason why real scientists ridicule Davison and Behe.


Unbelievable. John Davison supported his ideas presented in his Manifesto by thoughts of Berg, Broom, Schindewolf, Punnet, Grasse. All of them were real scientists. Grasse was president of French academy of science!
It is utterly ridiculous when you call "real scientists" only your neodarwinian cronies.

Quoting people isn't data (incidentally, how many of these scientists published all/most of their work before 1950?) dumbass.

If it was, I could "prove" there was a god by quoting various religious leaders or, even better, religious scientists.

You're either insane or unbelievably, incurably, ridiculously stupid.

Date: 2007/11/06 22:53:39, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,20:02)
LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.  And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science unless you enjoy just-so stories which contemplate how dinos sprouted wings and took to flight or other such rubbish.  

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".

Yep, you can sure tell FtK doesn't believe in any "big science" conspiracy. No scaremongering and tinfoil hat wearing lunacy from her, no siree bob....

Date: 2007/11/07 01:14:08, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 07 2007,06:08)
Steverino:

 
Quote

VMartin,

Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?


And you? Instead of lunch do you carry your copy of "Selfish gene"? Are you affected by memes there so strongly you are beyond any help?

Martin, I don't think I can express this passionately enough.

You're just an annoyance now, at least FtK answers some questions and is, generally, sort of polite.
Skeptic, while he has some...odd ideas, seems like a sane enough, generally responsive, person who isn't obnoxious and doesn't compare anyone he disagrees with to Stalinists (A pretty bizzare term, for even if your delusion of a scientific coverup was true, I don't think that any scientists group ever blew someones head off in a wood somewhere. Nor do they routinely remove all trace of someone from record).

Date: 2007/11/07 02:38:19, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 07 2007,08:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2007,16:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:56)
Hey a bonus question, what's your take on the Discovery Institute?

That's kind of a silly question.  I think the Discovery Institute it great.  Though, I do prefer some of ID proponents over others.  And, no, I won't be sharing more on that comment.

They're not as funny as UD, but the on-going "no-research, only press releases" gag still has legs.

You'll be sorry when they emerge from their secret underwater lab to present their research.

That's pretty funny, particularly since it brings up mental images of Dembski doing an evil scientist laugh, and Sal and Dave as witless but loyal henchmen.

Date: 2007/11/07 19:39:37, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
a) I am not a satanist. Even though the label is humourously applied due to FTK's whiny comments, I reject it. Just like I would reject the label "christian" or "buddhist" if applied the same way.


I feel I should ask, which type of Satanist? The Anton LaVey kind or the Aleister Crowley kind? Only one believed in any kind of supernatural force(s). Anton LaVey just hated idiots and believed we were our own gods, and that satan was a literary device, effectively a codified kind of hedonsm with a few set rules. LaVey did dip his toe a little into lunacy a little, sadly, and did write about witches and so on, but the core to his beliefs was merely a blend of various naturalistic philosophies, with just a hit of mythical practice.

I would absolutely be appalled to be classed as a Crowley satanist. I would be a lot less bothered to be classed (incorrectly, by the by) as a LaVey satanist. They made some sense (except for the whole magic thing, that not so much).

Date: 2007/11/07 19:44:36, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 07 2007,14:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2007,08:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 07 2007,08:08)
Running to the moderator is a bit childish.

HILE! :p

Yes, FtK. We all know how you feel about blog moderation.

This *again* coming from the guy who's posts ALWAYS GO THROUGH at my blog.  Sheesh...

So?

Ganges river dolphins are never caught in tuna nets, therefore no dolphins are.

Date: 2007/11/07 21:13:32, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 08 2007,00:38)
Chris, I find the typical end-of-the-world hysterical rhetoric insulting.  The largest aspect of the global warming debate is political and economical, IMO, and the pandering that goes on to appear publically favorable is annoying to say the least especially given the extreme ignorance of the general public.  It's far past time for some rationality to enter this discussion but I fear a critical mass has been reached and we've been launched on this global crusade to save the planet.  What hogwash!

that about sums it up...IMO

So, you DON'T believe that global warming can cause a global environmental catastrophe?

Based on what, exactly?

Date: 2007/11/11 05:31:12, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
LOUIS SUCKS!

I mean, happy birthday.

Or something, who cares, really?

Date: 2007/11/13 07:10:26, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Wow, what's with all this heavy technical stuff? I have no idea, nor do I really care about that, if it sounds good on whatever I play it on, then whatever I play it on is alright by me.

Personally I have a huge love of the old Madchester scene (no, that's not a typo despite what spell checker says), Stone Roses, Charlatans, Happy Mondays and all their ilk.  (for those who have no idea who I'm on about:
The Stone Roses although I urge caution for some of you, the lyrics can be somewhat....blasphemous, particularly in that song
The Charlatans
Happy Mondays
I also adore Inspiral Carpets Link.
Finally, Ian Brown, from the Stone Roses (hence the name, which I used first a few years ago to hide my real name somewhere and subsequently use everywhere, because it's easy) has a rather good solo career. Here's one of his, F.E.A.R.

Plus I love a lot of older music, big fan of the Beatles, Beach Boys, Buddy Holly, Johnny Cash, James Brown.... Quite a lot of different genres really, and loads of artists. Add a smattering of Classical in there too.

However, I almost entirely (almost) dislike Hip Hop and "new" R n B (although the actual RnB is awesome) and I can't stand most (but not all) Dance music.

Date: 2007/11/14 07:10:12, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
Do you understand what Pink Floyd are talking about on the Dark Side of the Moon album? (with the obivous discussion)


S'life isn't it?

Date: 2007/11/14 09:53:01, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I just submitted this at Reasonable Kansans:

Quote
Right, that's it. I'm really fed up now. FtK, is there a conspiracy to suppress ID? Yes or No?

You absolutely point blank state there isn't, and anyone who says there is is a little overzealous, or a tad OT or loopy or whatever.

Yet you constantly double back with pictures like that, or with statements like "You know that Walt Brown/Behe/Dembski/whoever wouldn't be able to get into a mainstream journal, so why should they submit/why are you having a go at them for not being?" (paraphrasing of course).

You constantly swing wildly towards "nudge nudge conspiracy, they have all the ID papers locked up in a basement" and when called upon it claim thats absolutely not what you believe.

Which is it? It has to be one or the other and frankly, you're either trying to hide your real feelings from people, and trying to pander to both crowds, or you simply haven't got a clue WHAT you believe and just accept whatever you read at face value unless challenged on it.

Date: 2007/11/14 09:53:06, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 14 2007,13:01)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 14 2007,00:21)
"Behe refused *several* requests to be interviewed for this show".

Not according to FtK! in her per-usual parroting of ENV.


[CROSSPOST]

I just submitted this at Reasonable Kansans:

Quote
Right, that's it. I'm really fed up now. FtK, is there a conspiracy to suppress ID? Yes or No?

You absolutely point blank state there isn't, and anyone who says there is is a little overzealous, or a tad OT or loopy or whatever.

Yet you constantly double back with pictures like that, or with statements like "You know that Walt Brown/Behe/Dembski/whoever wouldn't be able to get into a mainstream journal, so why should they submit/why are you having a go at them for not being?" (paraphrasing of course).

You constantly swing wildly towards "nudge nudge conspiracy, they have all the ID papers locked up in a basement" and when called upon it claim thats absolutely not what you believe.

Which is it? It has to be one or the other and frankly, you're either trying to hide your real feelings from people, and trying to pander to both crowds, or you simply haven't got a clue WHAT you believe and just accept whatever you read at face value unless challenged on it.

Date: 2007/11/14 10:00:59, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
On a related note, how long has she had this pic there?

How she can claim not to believe in a scientific conspiracy is beyond me. It's the most obvious case of doublethink I've ever seen.

Date: 2007/11/19 07:35:53, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (JAM @ Nov. 19 2007,06:38)
Quote
The suffering of these children (and everything else that happens in life) is a lesson for us all - not just for "people like me".

I'm sorry, but I don't see what the children who suffer and die are learning. Why shouldn't you and your children be suffering and dying?

Because their life will be bad anyway, so it's a mercy.

By this logic we should commit multiple genocides in Africa to end their suffering.

Date: 2007/11/22 07:18:09, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
"
What specific mechanism of the MET is tested by this "prediction"?

And how does this "prediction" differ from what you call, "post hoc spin"?"

It's testing the idea of descent with modification, since if they were totally different then it would be a little....hard to explain, shall we say.

It isn't post hoc because, shockingly, it wasn't developed post hoc, and actually relied on a prediction made before the results were found.

You DO understand what post hoc means, don't you?

Date: 2007/11/22 08:16:38, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Have a good day.

I tried to think of a horse pun, but I failed because I'm hungover, so sue me.

Date: 2007/11/24 12:28:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote
happy accident numerous times is a much more complicated explanation.


This shows you have absolutely o idea what you are talking about.

Swing and a miss....

Date: 2007/11/25 21:16:25, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 25 2007,22:27)
Color me old-fashioned, but I don't find capping to be among those things that demonstrate humor. They may not be serious, but that doesn't imply that the material is thus humorous.

Ah, but just because one doesn't find something funny doesn't mean that you can instantly react like they are serious and are going to go Rambo in Polk county.

Just because something isn't funny doesn't mean it isn't humour, or at least an attempt at one.

Ad in my personal opinion, while the action of shooting someone isn't in itself funny, the word capping is.

Date: 2007/11/26 20:27:27, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 27 2007,01:20)
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 26 2007,16:36)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 26 2007,13:56)
     
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 25 2007,14:58)
Daniel,

"...Now maybe that's because we just don't know enough.  But there's also the possibility that it just can't be done."

This is basis of your, ID's and Creationists argument. Boiled down it's the standard "God of the Gaps" argument.

When one gap is explained you abandon that point like rats leaving the sinking ship and move on to the next gap.  You (IDiots/Creationists) never admit that it was you that was wrong in your thinking.

It's disingenuous at best because no matter how much Science proves, there will always be a gap for you and yours to hide in.

I've already answered your "god of the gaps" objection once - don't you remember?
Let me just nutshell it for you:
Even though man can explain certain things, it doesn't mean they weren't designed.  I can explain many of the systems at work within my car.  Does that mean they weren't designed?

"Let me just nutshell it for you:
Even though man can explain certain things, it doesn't mean they weren't designed...."


Now that argument is called "moving the goal posts".

So, at Dumbfvck U, DI/Creationist Institute of Higher Edumacation, everything is and was designed....until proven otherwise.

"...I can explain many of the systems at work within my car.  Does that mean they weren't designed?"

I'm gonna have to call a non sequitur the play.  Does your car reproduce?

Where is the proof that the appearance of design, proves design?

Steverino,

I see everything as designed - even lightning.  It doesn't matter to me if man can explain it.  I don't see that as an issue - for the reasons I specified.  I'm not advocating "god of the gaps", I'm advocating "God over all".

I'm hoping you can see the difference.

Point is, i's absolutely fine to say "God, then this"

That is, god is the root cause of everything.

What you cannot do is state anything along the lines of "This was designed, this is a scientific statement."
Just because you believe something to be so doesn't mean it is, and what you believe certainly isn't science.

You can state that god used evolution to create life, by all means fill your boots, but don't start saying "nuh huh evolution!!!!!" because then you look like a tit.

Date: 2007/11/28 18:27:42, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
I quite like the way I've seen FTK change, "evolve" if you will.

See, when I first encountered her (and I DO hope you are reading this FtK, because you know, not posting any of my perfectly valid and also pretty damn civil comments I left at your blog, such as the one asking about the "conspiracy" was pretty darn mean of you) she pretty much came across as a somewhat confused, slightly Cdesign leaning woman who wanted to know more.

Then a few little cracks appeared around the edges, her blocking of certain people's comments, the blocking of certain comment types, that put her as being somewhat more certain of her position, less like someone wanting to evaluate both sides, but still, she kept on smiling and pretending she was in the middle.

Then came her various escapades here and at her own blog that made it blatantly obvious she was in no way an open minded middle grounder, but still, she kept grinning like a maniac and ignoring the fact we could all tell exactly what she was.

Now she's just given up, constantly referring to "us" and "them", talking about how there clearly is a conspiracy (her constant references to how amazing Expelled will be, plus her ill informed dismissal of Judgement Day etc.)

She's getting more ridiculous by the day, and yet she thinks she's actually scoring points against science.

Here is the main point of my post here. This is an open invitation to FtK, since I know she reads this thread. You have stated that you will come back to fght against those who misrepresent you. So do so. If you feel I am wrong with any of what I've said show me evidence to the contrary. Show us ALL.

Date: 2007/11/28 18:44:49, Link
Author: IanBrown_101
Here's a rather amusing video I found on youtube, from the guy who wrote and sang the "Tribute to Kent Hovind" song, a dramatisation of an actual conversation he had with a creationist.