AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: J. O'Donnell

form_srcid: J. O'Donnell

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: J. O'Donnell

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/09/02 21:37:28, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
You know, once upon a time back in the day where I thought fighting creationists and those in the intelligent design community had a point; I thought these people were just misguided but were generally honest about what they believed.

But reading the ever increasingly ridiculous posts at UD and particularly how Dembski seems to have lost the plot since the Dover disaster, I can't really find their ridiculous antics funny, just very saddening. I like to think of UD as a clown train wreck, it's so comedic how they still peddle furiously through the air on their unicycles while juggling pies, but so tragic at the same time as they crash to the ground with nothing more than a sad squeak of their red button noses.

I don't think they have a shred of credibility or honesty left.

Date: 2007/09/04 01:29:29, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
It seems that Dembski is only adept at calling Waterloo and "victory" far too prematurely.

Date: 2007/09/04 02:02:18, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
For me, every day is a say no to UD day!

That's why this site is so awesome for me, I can read all the tard without having to suffer through finding the prime portions myself!

Date: 2007/09/04 20:38:42, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 04 2007,18:43)
Quote (ERV @ Sep. 04 2007,19:31)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 04 2007,17:20)
Picture this:-
wMAD sitting by the phone waiting for 'Baylor colleague' Robert Marks to call. Eventually the wait is too much, Bill walks across the room pours himself a stiff single malt milk drink then grabs the phone and speed dials.

You all might like a gif I made...

OT: Whence originated the "!!!11!!1111!!" meme?  And why does it amuse?

As explained, it's a form of "leet speek", but it's also used very often to make fun of someone who gets overexcited easily or similar. As they are banging away at their keyboard trying to hit the exclamation point as hard as possible, they accidentally forget to hold down the shift key and insert a series of "1s" into their exclamation marks. It is often further mocked by typing the word "one" into it as well, so you get a something that resembles !!!!!1111oneoneone.

Date: 2007/09/11 03:52:17, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
I've read some stupid on UD, but I believe that Bornagain77 has truly passed the border of being just ignorant to completely stupid. Very little from a creationist has actually given me pause like that piece of tard has.

Date: 2007/09/15 11:18:48, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 15 2007,11:03)
It's not my business, but do you think the Baylor regents are aware of Dr Dembski having advertised their contact details in this way?

Do you think someone should email them, just in case?

Perhaps you should call them. You have their numbers afterall.

Date: 2007/09/16 13:27:21, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
I have a feeling Dembski is trying to pick a fight here for some reason. Perhaps he wants attention or something? I'm failing to see the actual goal here, because this is only going to damage any case Marks could make against Baylor because Dembski is proving himself to be a complete whacko.

Date: 2007/09/17 23:36:43, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Dembski did not take himself being educated about how the flagellum evolved very well did he. His response was extremely defensive and rather ridiculous when you consider the nonsense he peddles. It's amazing how much burden of proof he throws on one theory and expects people to buy a theory, which has no data supporting it, that essentially boils down to "I'll know it when I see it".


Date: 2007/09/17 23:37:52, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....

Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]

Date: 2007/09/17 23:43:54, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....

Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]

I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.

2007-1977 = 30 years. So it answers the question :p

He probably failed to do his math correctly while setting up his strawman. He should have said within the past 29 years, then he'd be safe.

Date: 2007/09/17 23:50:26, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....

Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]

I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.

Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases [/quote]

This is also because populations world wide are aging (because, you know, medicine allows people to live significantly longer than they have before), standards of living are going up while unfortunately activities like proper diet and excercise are being compromised by a more "24" hour world than what things used to be (IE less home cooking, higher rates of obesity). "Curing" something like heart disease is difficult given that these are often conditions caused by aging cells and finding a way to reverse years of damage called by excessive drinking, lack of excercise, poor diet and such is truly ridiculous.

Of course, what you won't acknowledge probably is that treatments for such conditions have got considerably better over the years, which has greatly amended suffering and often the severity of these conditions (but curing is probably not exactly within the realms of possibility).

Really, if you're going to set up a strawman can you at least make an argument that makes sense to go with it first.

Date: 2007/09/17 23:57:24, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:53)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:50)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....

Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]

I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.

Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases

This is also because populations world wide are aging (because, you know, medicine allows people to live significantly longer than they have before), standards of living are going up while unfortunately activities like proper diet and excercise are being compromised by a more "24" hour world than what things used to be (IE less home cooking, higher rates of obesity). "Curing" something like heart disease is difficult given that these are often conditions caused by aging cells and finding a way to reverse years of damage called by excessive drinking, lack of excercise, poor diet and such is truly ridiculous.

Of course, what you won't acknowledge probably is that treatments for such conditions have got considerably better over the years, which has greatly amended suffering and often the severity of these conditions (but curing is probably not exactly within the realms of possibility).

Really, if you're going to set up a strawman can you at least make an argument that makes sense to go with it first.[/quote]
actually, if you want to look at reality honestly, you must admit that people are getting these degenerative diseases (such as heart disease, cancer, etc) at younger and younger's getting worse, not better.

Only if you completely ignore everything else I actually wrote there and that, in general, the majority of those who get conditions like cancer and heart disease are part of the aging population.

Date: 2007/09/18 01:00:44, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
I'm looking forward to a transcript of the Q&A. The description of his talk itself sounds completely boring to me, probably the usual crap I've heard thousands of times but I wouldn't mind hearing this question and answer period. Hopefully a transcript of that will be up soon.

It sounds like Dembski got hammered in the questions and wasn't preaching to the choir at all for once. Poor him.

Date: 2007/09/20 01:41:52, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Does anyone aside from me think it is utterly hillarious to have a series of links to uncommondescent and evolutionnews and subsequently proclaiming this to be 'media coverage'.

Date: 2007/09/23 03:29:26, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 22 2007,12:40)
Yes I am saying that. The intent was to make him look like an incompetent editor in order to discredit Meyer's paper, and part of the technique was to provide information on Sternberg's creationist activities.

Meyer's paper should have been dealt with by attacking the paper, as PT did.

I actually agree with you, though the paper was certainly published under a less than satisfactory review process, the paper itself was a huge pile of dreck and could easily have been shredded without the need for any other nonsense.

I do get the overall impression that Sternberg just annoyed his co-workers by being generally antagonistic, for example his disrespectful treatment of samples and such.

Date: 2007/09/23 04:33:02, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Yes, he is biased in blaming the “ID critics” for shutting down explorations but note the title bar declaration “Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.”  

Yes, they are considerably incorrect there. ID killed itself by being a dead lifeless duck scientifically and producing no testable hypotheses or data. When I challenged Mike Gene in the past to demonstrate an actual testable hypothesis for ID, the usual retreat to "What would evolution do" came up, completely dodging what I was actually asking.

But in general, Telic Thoughts is a veritable fertile field of actual positive thinking about ID compared to cesspools of stupidity like UD. It's completely unfair to compare TT to UD, as TT has intelligent discussions on their site, doesn't suppress comments from those who disagree with them and actually have credibility (see the Dr. Pianka incident from a while ago).


Mike Gene seems to be denying that there is an ID community. So maybe I was too optimistic and they're a bunch of idiots too.

Although I still think TT talks a whole load of nonsense (like about Front Loading, I've still never seen them actually put down a proper testable prediction of this), they are far from idiots and if we take UD as being the "ID community", then I would not blame the group at TT from wanting to have no association with it.

Date: 2007/10/03 16:48:09, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
The outhouse seems a good place.

Date: 2007/10/25 22:32:26, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 25 2007,20:43)
Translation:  Mechanism isn't important or relevant because I say it's not important or relevant.  I even used big words and an example.s[/quote]
I've been thinking about this. Mechanism also creates design but only consciousness instantiates mechanism. Designed mechanisms instantiate conscious design, but only relationships mechanize instantiation. A series of mechanisms allows designed instantiations to become conscious, but only computation mechanizes conscious instantiated design.  

- From The Spatula Brain, which you can buy, and hurry up.

You just murdered an entire English department then D:

I had a headache after the first sentence!

Date: 2007/11/15 03:07:04, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
They will never figure out who I am. Just enough tard to escape notice but not enough tard to be an obvious parody.

I love it so!

Date: 2007/11/17 05:51:40, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell

Sorry. Wrong. She was banned for her rudeness but then the poster went to her blog and posed the question there and she still refused to answer it. Smith should be an embarassment to your side. She argues like a juvenille delinquent.
Anyway, if you have such vaunted “education and training” show some evidence of it.

Edit: Far more appropriate for the situation.

Date: 2007/11/17 23:34:18, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 17 2007,22:32)
and now they seem to have given up on moderating their own blog.

the inmates own the jail over there.  i have never seen such a thing.  my only guess is that there is a heavy flash animation conference going on with Dennis, Wilma, DaveTard and Gil.  Will it be a rerun of NOVA like MSTK3000?  replete with vomiting and projectile flatulence?  stay tuned.

The inmates always ran the asylum there, it's just the guards have given up bothering to manage them because it's clearly not worth bothering to keep them out of the sugar deposits.

I do find it amusing that myself and my fellow sockpuppets now firmly control the blog. VIVA LE REVOLUTION.

Date: 2007/11/19 18:00:13, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
From Bornagain77

I can live with your frustration that I don’t accept your pseudo-scientific ramblings on topics that you are not an expert in.

I don't think I've laughed this hard at this much sheer blatant irony in a LONG time.

Date: 2007/11/20 23:03:59, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 20 2007,14:20)
Cool!  ERV (aka Abbie Smith, aka The Behe Basher, aka The Dembski Destroyer, aka Grad Student Extraordinaire) Catches the Discovery Institute Plagiarizing - Follow The link.

Seems the DIs understanding of Law is as bad as their understanding of science. I guess that's why they've been beaten both in a court room and in the laboratory :)

ps:  ERV's Got New Do Too - check it out

edited to add information!


Date: 2007/12/29 11:59:13, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,11:35)
You, sir, lack all integrity.  Whether you agree with me or not, you have highly misled the public with your twisting of the facts.  ID is not a re-labled subset of creation science.  That is a bold faced lie (a word I've only used twice in the four years I've been involved in this debate).

Then explain why it was so clearly shown in the Dover trial that the authors of a clear creationist text simply copy and pasted out the word 'creation' with 'design' etc. This of course led to their ultimate gaff when they failed to replace it properly, but unless you have severe problems dealing with reality (And the wedge document) your argument is immensely unconvincing.

You can twist your little "subset" definition to fit your needs, but the fact remains that ID and creation science are *not* the same thing,

They are. If they aren't, do explain why a creationist textbook (Of Pandas and People) was changed to an ID one simply by making a copy and paste change.

Or will you just ignore this?

The "evidence" that you use to back up your claims is a twisted muddle of reasoning

Coming from the general rubbish you write, this really has no credibility what-so-ever. I doubt you will bother addressing either the wedge document or the revelation that the difference between a clearly creationist text vs. an ID text is what term you use.

As far as I can see, that's evidence enough to think that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and defecates like a duck: hey, it's MOST LIKELY A DUCK.

and the large majority of those from the general public have *no clue* as to what creation science and ID entails

Apparently neither do you, hence why you cannot see that ID obviously is just creationism lite. Unfortunately, ID even failed at that when it got shown up for what it was in court: Just poorly argued creationist arguments watered down to be even less coherent than the originals.

Date: 2007/12/29 12:05:10, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,12:01)
When I read Brown's work on creation science, and then read a Behe or Dembski book on ID, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.  So frame it however you wish, but it's still dishonest to mislead the public so that you can twist away in court.

Funny that, you see I view the creationist nonsense (whichever way) as exactly the same. Drivel about the improbability of the flagella forming (IC, Dembskis pseudomaths) is about as rubbish as the former creationists arguing that the patella and structure of the knee is too complex THEREFORE EVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE!!!11

Same crap, different scale and just as wrong.

There really isn't much of a difference, just that the IDC group (as per the wedge document) chose to dump the biblical stuff out to pretend they were more scientific than regular creationists. The problem for the ID movement is you put a hat on a duck and it doesn't change that it is still a duck.

Date: 2007/12/29 12:07:30, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 29 2007,07:10)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 29 2007,03:05)
Wirth concluded, "As we monitor scientific discoveries and reports in the news, I think we're beginning to see a growing trend overall that the sufficiency of Darwinian explanations to describe how life evolved is turning out to be substantially inadequate in a growing number of fields, particularly in the areas of genetics and molecular biology. I think it's becoming clear that Darwinism is on the verge of one of the greatest challenges it has faced in many decades. And, based on what we're seeing, I suspect the debate about origins will heat up again significantly in 2008."


The old...."Wait 'til next year!!!" battle cry.

Frequently invoked after the "So there!" defense.

It's like those villians from scooby doo in a way. "If it wasn't for you meddling atheists we would have gotten away with it!" sort of thing after they get unmasked for the frauds they are.

Date: 2007/12/29 12:16:47, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,12:15)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 29 2007,12:10)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,12:08)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 29 2007,12:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,11:56)
Here you go, OM.  

Gather some knowledgeable PhD's and let's get it set up.

They are all here already but nobody wants to take part in a one-sided game. Who would?

Defend the jellyfish fossil account or admit that it is total bunk.



Nope, you're a coward.  

In a professional written debate with editors and teams, you people will back away every single time.  You can't rely on the peanut gallery to charge in with their regular gang banging techniques.  And, a one on one on the internet would be extremely difficult to read due to the length at which this debate would have to take.

Really, why don't you put that to the test on IIDB then? The peanut gallery can do nothing, it's only the two individuals having the debate that are allowed to post in the thread. The only person running away with their tail between their legs here is...well, you isn't it?

Date: 2007/12/29 12:29:01, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,12:19)
Yet for some reason you won't even engage on a single paragraph of his?

You simply cannot be serious.  No offense to AFDave, but it's useless to pick out little bits of creation science and debate it with ardent evolutionists.

What, you can't put enough lies in one paragraph to distract people into thinking your right when you have to engage in a specific point in detail. Funny, that's actually how we do REAL science, where you actually have to back up what you claim in detail and prove your hypothesis. You don't get to make a new method of delivering a vaccine to farm animals and claim that overall immunology makes having to discuss the science of what you are doing useless (for example).

Edit: It would make my life easier if I could just get away with that kind of nonsense though.

Date: 2007/12/29 21:25:47, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
So has FTK actually answered any of the questions posed to them or do they continually run away? Why is it you can never engage a creationist on a single point, presenting complete and detailed evidence on that point (Jellyfish fossils, coral reefs, chalk cliffs in England etc etc etc).

Date: 2007/12/29 23:06:15, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,22:34)
Yes, yes, there are so many excuses that can be used to avoid actually debating the man.  I suggest that someone just do it, and then, if he is a dishonest tard, you can document his dishonestly and have something to legitimately bitch about.

His dishonesty is already documented in the books and other nonsense he has published. That you refuse to actually go through and examine what he has claimed and listen to others explain why it is erroneous is telling. Avoiding the point much?

Incidentally, a phone debate is completely and absolutely worthless.

Date: 2007/12/29 23:09:22, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,22:51)
Waterloo called off on account of nobody showing up:  Design of Life is #28,829 in books at Amazon.

Weren't they skiting just a few days ago that it was at number 4,000 or something?

Date: 2007/12/29 23:13:56, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
I actually felt sorry for AFDave after reading that train wreck he got himself into. It was like watching a hamster futilly attempt to attack an elephant.

Date: 2007/12/30 03:21:14, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,23:18)
You have no clue what you're talking about or how many years I've listened to you people.

Evidently 'years' and 'absolutely nothing' mean the same to you given what I've observed of your posting habits.

 FYI, I posted half of Brown's book over a period of 3 or 4 months at kcfs where the scientists there threw dart after dart.  Brown even participated....long story, and now it's gone because Jack shut down the old forum.

Primarily because the 'darts' were more like bazooka shots. Browns hydroplate theory and ridiculous assertions were ripped well to shreds at IIDB recently with Brown directly helping AFDave. Perhaps that could be a suitable starting point as it's certainly not going anywhere.

The KCFS forums were closed down undoubtably because the creationist clown show got run out of town.

They cried victory after every dart, but it was obvious to me that they were basing most of their claims on speculation or evolutionary inference.

Yes, from someone who admits they are not a scientist, you sure are confident about an area you admit you have very little idea about.

Like all of you, they wouldn't agree to any type of organized debate (wouldn't even participate in judging who's posts should be addressed by Brown) so it was completely one sided with the prefered gang banging techinque being applied.

Again, IIDB, feel free to put up or shut up. The peanut gallery cannot interfere with the formal debate thread as only two posters may post at any time. Pick a single point and have a well defined debate on a topic on a critical area of Browns theory.

Date: 2007/12/30 20:51:55, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 29 2007,23:11)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Dec. 29 2007,23:09)
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,22:51)
Waterloo called off on account of nobody showing up:  Design of Life is #28,829 in books at Amazon.

Weren't they skiting just a few days ago that it was at number 4,000 or something?

Is 'skiting' an Australianism?

Careful you, as a red blooded New Zealand man that's almost a declaration of war you just made there >: (

Date: 2007/12/30 21:05:18, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell

And, for Argy...Since horse “buggery” is ethically okay for an atheist, why do we most of us instinctively *shudder* at the thought?  

Why is it that when Christians start talking about atheism they go completely stupid? I mean, are you truly so ignorant as to believe this is something you can ask seriously and not just be endlessly ridiculed for asking?

And people wonder why I am almost ashamed to say I am a Christian.

Date: 2007/12/30 21:26:42, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 30 2007,21:14)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Dec. 30 2007,21:05)

And, for Argy...Since horse “buggery” is ethically okay for an atheist, why do we most of us instinctively *shudder* at the thought?  

Why is it that when Christians start talking about atheism they go completely stupid? I mean, are you truly so ignorant as to believe this is something you can ask seriously and not just be endlessly ridiculed for asking?

And people wonder why I am almost ashamed to say I am a Christian.

Perhaps you could elaborate.  Argy says it ethically sound to participate in horse "buggery", yet you think it's a stupid question.

Argy is welcome to answer stupid questions as much as he likes. Stupid questions sometimes demand obvious answers.

What is so "completely stupid" about the question, why is it stupid, and as a Christian, how do you think morals developed?

Because simple logic, namely by engaging brain first and not putting ones foot in their mouth would give numerous practical reasons why someone would not permit horse buggery. Firstly, it may be harmful to the person doing it, secondly, it may spread disease, thirdly the horse may not actually be into this and many more. The simplest reason could also be simple biology that the majority of people simply do not find horses attractive.

Historically, there are many non-Christian cultures that have practiced horse riding for centuries that have no known relationships with horse buggery at all. Clearly indicating that you not need a Christian base of morality for things like horse buggery to be clearly unacceptable.

Your question simply boils down to one set of cultural practices (Christianity) that outlaws a certain practice. Your question is stupid (and perhaps even insulting) because you need to explain why other systems of morality and beliefs cannot similarly develop cultural practices and ethical systems that do not permit horse buggery: on simple logical and practical grounds.

Edit: And I derive what I think of morality and ethics on not just the Bible, but also logic and my own practical system. Given that I have met some Atheists who have extremely good senses of ethics and morality, I do not believe that a Christian specific set of morals is superior (as the amount of liars and charletans in the creationist movement so succinctly prove).

Edit2: You may have asked "Why do you keep beating your wife". It's about on the same intellectual level.

Date: 2007/12/30 21:59:51, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 30 2007,21:49)
I never said that you have to be a Christian to *feel* that horse buggery is uacceptable.  I'm asking how morals evolved and why it is that *most* of us *feel* it when we came across something that is immoral?  And, is there any reason to stop evolving morality?

Already given. Please do read the posts I've written.

Firstly, it may be harmful to the person doing it, secondly, it may spread disease, thirdly the horse may not actually be into this and many more. The simplest reason could also be simple biology that the majority of people simply do not find horses attractive.Firstly, it may be harmful to the person doing it, secondly, it may spread disease, thirdly the horse may not actually be into this and many more. The simplest reason could also be simple biology that the majority of people simply do not find horses attractive.

It is fairly obvious.

Argy and Skatje realize, that from an atheist position, there should be no moral problem with bestiality, yet they both seem to feel icky about it.  

They are welcome to think so (see below) but it makes entire sense not to have sex with animals. Again, you fail to present any coherent reason why someone can't find horse buggery unacceptable on their own moral system, unless you hold a Christian moral system as an absolute. Any culture, ANY religion and any set of practices can find horse buggery unacceptable as a first premise that does not need empiracle support (by foundationalism).

Someone who has an atheist position does not (truly) have to find horse buggery unacceptable, but atheism is not a religion or even homogeneous: the individual, their cultural upbringing, their society and many other factors ultimately determine their morality. It can be completely fair for one atheist to think one thing and another something else. Atheism is not an all emcompassing set of religious rules or practices - it is merely not believing in a God or God(s).

Also, to requote:

I never said that you have to be a Christian to *feel* that horse buggery is uacceptable

Good. You've just demolished your own argument. Nobody ever had to tell me that buggering an animal is wrong, because I don't feel attracted to animals. I would argue that is biology at work there and while there are cases throughout the animal kingdom of cross-species mating, they are generally uncommon occurances.


You seem to be adament that it is immoral, but why?

I will not repeat my arguments again. Read and comprehend what I say the first time.

Skatje gave the dog example, and I know a story about a gal, a dog, and a jar of peanut butter getting caught in the act of a very interesting activity (funny story really).   The act was obviously not hurting anyone, and clearly both parties were enjoying it...would that be a problem morally for the atheist?

Yes. Depending on the atheist you ask. Again, you seem to have this deluded idea that atheism is some form of unified religion like the Catholic church or something.

How about the Christian?  If this because common practice among certain groups of people, would you have any problems with that?

Christianity is a religion that, while divided in many ways, has a set of base practices and rules derived from the Bible. It naturally is logical that certain practices accepted amongst individuals who are Christians are highly likely to be considered immoral because of this.

That you fail to realise this doesn't apply to atheists at all.

Date: 2007/12/30 22:11:35, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 30 2007,22:07)
Argy and Skatje realize, that from an atheist position, there should be no moral problem with bestiality, yet they both seem to feel icky about it.  

This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I thought I had sufficiently emphasized that atheism is not the basis for my opinion. It is a form of utilitarian humanism that is the basis for my opinion, which is a philosophical stance that could be taken by theists just as readily as by atheists.

I wonder why I'm bothering to argue with her when she can't even get the position of the people she's using as examples right.

Date: 2007/12/31 00:09:40, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 30 2007,23:12)
[quote=J. O'Donnell,Dec. 30 2007,21:59][/quote]
Already given. Please do read the posts I've written.

Boy, that's all you've got to say about how morals evolved?  Sheesh, I've been thinking my evolutionary morality story through for over an hour now, and I'm still writing.

This is you avoiding the point by trying to go into irrelevant semantics. I'm not advancing any argument how morality evolves in a physical sense (though I think the biology behind this is obvious) but rather (if you bothered to understand my argument) that it is a function entirely of society, environment and upbringing.

I'm not attempting

That's good, because it would be almost indefensible anyway.

I'm simply asking why *all* cultures find this act unacceptable.

Again, it's fairly logical and simple as I've already explained.

I don't think that the answer you provided is very strong.  I see no reason whatsoever why dogs and women or sheep and men shouldn't satisfy themselves whenever they like.


Really, this is so worthlessly insipid it requires no response. Reasons have already been given. I do not repeat myself in around the carosel arguments.

I completely agree.  But, *EVERY* culture I know of rejects bestiality.  I find that interesting.  

Not every culture in the worlds history has, but generally, why would people do something that is generally not something normal humans feel attracted to?

Though culture and upbringing may affect morality, present morality will continue to evolve

Because cultures change, adapt, new technologies like the internet come about etc etc.

[quote]We've already watched sex become more of a form of entertainment than a monogamous relationship./quote]

I'm not sure what twisted version of history you've been looking at, but monogamous relationships weren't the norm historically for a large part of the world.

Perhaps bringing in the dogs and sheep would help with the population explosion and keep Pianka from letting loose with the ebola virus.

Please don't devolve this even further by bringing in irrelevant strawmen arguments.

What argument would that be?  I've merely been asking the atheists how they believe morality evolved.  Just curious.  They haven't provided me with a story, so I'm making one up for them.  

A poor one, because I've already given simple conditions that would easily allow for this. Morality is an intangible concept only defined by human beings and you have yet to give a solid, affirmed definition of morality (especially as it would apply to non-human animals to 'evolve'). Part of the entire problem with this is that I regard the concept of "evolving" morality to be meaningless. Morality is defined by human beings in an intelligent social setting, so I would argue that morality evolved in tandem with intelligence and that it is part of the evolution of the human brain/intelligence.

'Morality' as itself is merely a concept and not something that 'evolved' at all.

Okay, but *some* people do enjoy it,

So? Some people eat metal and swallow swords. Does that mean everyone will?

No, I don't.  I realize that some atheists believe the act to be acceptable and others don't.  I'm merely wondering what they base it on, and why those who do believe it is ethically permissible still feel *icky* about it.  

Again, the answers are simple and have already been given. I do not play round the carosel arguments anymore. I haven't the time or patience. If you want to advance an argument, address the points given and make new arguments.

I'm also stating that although some may find it unacceptable today, they may find it acceptable tomorrow.

Doubtful and sounds like a slippery slope fallacy.

No need to get pissed off at me or be offended.

I'm annoyed because you started on such an ignorant premise namely asking someone the equivalent of: "Are you still beating your wife?". The answer is logical and simple. If you already understand that cultures and societal concepts are what motivate and enforce changes in morality and moral systems, with even people of all kinds of different ideas, races and creeds generally finding having sex with animals non-desirable, then it's pretty obvious that sex with animals isn't likely to be become common place any time soon.

But, I have plenty of atheist friends

And I would bet they would find your question equally ridiculous.

Date: 2008/01/10 06:14:28, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2008,23:38)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 09 2008,23:30)
New accounts don't get edit privileges automatically.

What's the criteria, Wes??

Probably when you end up looking at about 20 posts in a row all with minor alterations to them :p

I'm still trying to decide if I should respond to the omlette that FTK made for me a while back. The train wreck she created out of my post was amazing and I'm still trying to figure out how she managed to do it.

Date: 2008/01/15 16:07:50, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (steve_h @ Jan. 15 2008,15:34)
Quite.  I want to hear how DS's aliens created the cosmos that we and they live in. And how did they bypass the origin of life obstacle which kills any chance of explain subsequent Darwinian processes. Dead!

It's turtles all the way down isn't it? A never ending cycle of designers that were themselves designed until you get bored of the process and finally admit that you need a supernatural designer anyway.

Date: 2008/01/30 04:00:56, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 30 2008,01:56)
Uncommon Descent - a joke that tells itself:

A family friend, who is a brilliant electrical engineer, recently spent some time at our home for a holiday get-together. The topic of ID came up and he asked me how I could possibly have bought into such a silly idea.

Gil, how much does this guy know about biology? I would suspect that any “brilliant” electrical engineer would line up with us software developers to voice his incredulity.

There is so much irony in there, that I don't even know where to begin.

Date: 2008/01/30 04:05:34, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2007,18:26)
They don't do any science or interfere much with scientists who do.

I dunno, I think some of those farty noise videos might have just managed to get to me!

Date: 2008/01/30 04:10:39, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
A long time ago I had an internet debate with a fellow who tried to argue that "Food disproves evolution" as a base argument. Other classics from the, sadly now deceased, discussion included whales disproving evolution and many other equally as stupid statements.

Date: 2008/02/01 10:07:57, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
If they do whine though, I will figure it will be Casey to do it. Primarily because it's not like he does anything anyway.

Date: 2008/02/01 11:28:44, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
I am quite impressed that Dr. Simmons didn't break down entirely during that debate. I did enjoy at one point, where he claimed no transitions with a blow hole have been found and (I think, it was hard to hear) immediately one was bought up. If I have the time, I might go back through the Scientific American articles published in the last six months on whale evolution and see what they've said.

Would anyone like to bet it wouldn't be at all like the version of reality that Dr. Simmons  gave?

Date: 2008/02/01 11:50:13, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Surprise surprise, I cannot seem to find any evidence from Scientific American they published anything on Whale Evolution in 2007.

Edit: Do creationists even bother maintaining a current knowledge of anything anyway? For example, Behe doesn't seem to regard knowing anything about current immunology research before making blanket statements about it.

Date: 2008/02/01 12:06:54, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Since this is the Explore Evolution (EE) thread, here's an update.  I got no nibbles at Discovery for my suggestion, late last summer, of a moderation-free, or moderation-light, forum to discuss EE.

I for one am deeply shocked and surprised by this.

Date: 2008/02/01 17:35:53, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Thanks for the link Gary. My searches on Pubmed and on their site didn't uncover that link at all for some reason.

It's still funny how he doesn't bother even reading the article carefully that he cites as support however. It's hardly a detailed article on whale evolution, it's just a news story and he seemingly ignored the part where it talks about transitionals.

Date: 2008/02/03 04:06:05, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell

Oh yeah, the part with substance.  You've been asked for months to produce even one fact that is taught in biology class that isn't a fact.  I believe you have produced--let's see--ZERO instances of this.  To think that calling you on this is trolling is laughable.  So, how about it, can you give us even one "not-fact" that is being taught?  How about an "almost-not-fact"?  That should be easier, just like an atheist whore.

I agree. I still haven't seen anything from FTK that actually resembles an honest attempt to address questions she has been repeatedly asked. Like most creationists, she feels she can say whatever ignorant things she wants but doesn't feel the need to actually support these things.

I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.

Date: 2008/02/04 21:15:28, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Anyone who spreads ignorance about basic scientific methods and twists data to the extent that creationists do is definitely 'anti-science'. It also makes them highly dishonest, like the incredibly dishonest AiG article mangling a research paper about the burial of an ichyosaurus fossil.

Also, it's not so much that creationist papers are rejected from Journals as they never bother submitting anything (not that many of their major errors would pass peer reviews from actual experts in the relevant field), as admitted on the stand in the Edwards v. Aguillard trial.

If there is one thing creationists are good at, aside from spreading a distinct anti-science and anti-reason endeavor, it's losing court cases dramatically where they can present their best case. It's funny how they always demand equal time, equal say and when they finally get the chance to, they always suffer a massive and humiliating loss.

Possibly because their logic, arguments and what they call 'science' never stands up to scrutiny by people who know what they are talking about.

Date: 2008/02/05 16:00:25, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
As I mentioned in my post at BPR, I think the simplest method of getting to the heart of the matter is to focus on rule #5. In terms of being a 'blog post', Caseys post is hardly reasonable or fair towards the original author and doesn't even bother presenting anything in it. Of the actual article, only two quotes are used and both are presented out of context devoid of discussion of the authors opinion as to why he says what he does. This alone shows that Casey didn't treat the material fairly and shouldn't be allowed to use the icon.

But that's just my impression.

Date: 2008/02/05 16:05:43, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
I wonder if Casey thinks that not allowing comments on his posts, while nearly everyone else allows responses to their posts is having different rules. I don't think a news site qualified as a blog myself...

Date: 2008/02/05 16:14:40, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 05 2008,16:08)
I would encourage you guys to post some of these most excellent comments where Luskin can see them.

Someone already posted the darth vader attack. That's going to be fun.

Edit: Casey made a response, my resolve broke and I made a snarky comment. I couldn't help it.oops

Date: 2008/02/05 16:22:35, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,16:19)
Strange he doesn't directly link to the discussion board from his blog press release.


He does. It's just buried in the reply somewhere.

Date: 2008/02/05 16:50:09, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Did anyone read the 'technical' paper from the new AiG journal on microbiology? It's so awful, I almost wept.

[I'm a microbiologist myself, so it made things all the worse].

Date: 2008/02/05 17:56:54, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 05 2008,17:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:


Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.

Emphasis in original.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.


Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)


A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".

And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?

I was tempted to ask that myself, but decided that it was going off on an irrelevant tangent and there were better things to discuss.

Date: 2008/02/05 18:10:17, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:03)
That's right...use those preachers, Genie!...convert a preacher to Darwinism, and get him to poison his congregation.

Because it shows up a common creationist lie that you have to be atheistic to accept science?

I can't believe they let her pull that crap when she makes it abundantly clear what she's up to.

So contradicting a lie that creationists commonly spread is being dishonest?

Gag...Eugenie is much more dishonest than all of the DI fellows together!!  Blah!  The woman makes me want to projectile vomit.

Considering I've never met a creationist who can accurately or fairly represent the science they are criticising, I find that more than a little humorous.

[No, that wasn't a personal attack, it was the God's honest truth.]

Which God, the one that tells you not to bear false witness? He doesn't seem popular with creationists these days.

Date: 2008/02/05 19:21:01, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,18:28)
That. is. a. riot.

I know, you'd have to wonder why creationists keep repeating it if it's so easily shown up to be a complete lie then wouldn't you?


Eugenie IS an atheist.

Who cares.

She is in the churches evangelizing for atheism.

So? In the end, there are a great number of religious people who have no issues with evolutionary theory (or science in general, creationism doesn't just completely ignore basic facts of biology, but also physics, chemistry and nearly every other field of science). It is irrelevant as to her personal opinions beyond this, even if the great atheist conspiracy declares religion and evolution is incompatible it doesn't actually change this fact. The opinion of the great atheist conspiracy is irrelevant to the basic fact that a large number of religious people have no issue with evolution.

That makes the creationist dual model canard of either creation (God) or evolution (atheism) a lie.


Then the atheist who introduced her asked her if she believed science supported her atheism.


Nobody cares (certainly not me, my faith has or was never challenged by anything I learnt from science. People lying for Jesus (IE the Discovery Institute), people dying in my life in absolute pain, the awful actions of others to me and people I care about etc, did more than ANY scientific book ever could).

The factual statement I have said above is X. Your irrelevant babble in this post is Y.

X (the point) ----------------------------------------------------------- > Y (your argument).

Can you see the problem?

Date: 2008/02/05 19:32:48, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,19:21)

And still, nobody actually cares. I could meet her in person, I wouldn't come away thinking any differently about my faith than I had before.


She's a "Notable Signer" of the atheist religious creed Humanist Manifesto III, which makes the broad theological claim that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”


Who cares.

Are you going to point out where this is relevant to her pointing out the [solid] argument that many people of religious belief do not feel there is a conflict between their beliefs and science?

Are we going to be treated to more inane babble?

So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. The atheists/humanists love the woman...


Again, you argue so far away from any relevant point it's rather disturbing.

Good for her, but every one of you atheists better shut your mouths when you talk about IDers supporting ID for religious reasons.  

Because they do. It's that simple and it's been proven again and again. It didn't take the Wedge Documents hillarious leaking out onto the internet to clearly show Intelligent Design as nothing more than poorly dressed creationism.

On the other hand, as has been stated time and time again

There is NO difference between William Dempski and Eugenie Scott in regard to their philosophical beliefs corresponding to their scientific inferences.

Atheists reject creationism: News at 11.

That just about the only people who accept Intelligent Design and Creationism [in it's biblical Christian form] are Christians is also News at 11.

The difference is that evolution (as a science) is accepted by a large number of religious faiths (including individuals who do not possess such a faith), based entirely on the strength of their evidence. It was after all, people who were originally creationists themselves who realised the geological record was in direct conflict with the biblical records about things like a global flood. Evolution won on evidence and has become the dominant scientific idea on the origins and mechanisms of change in life today because  it's one of the most successful scientific theories developed.

If there was any merit to creationism or intelligent design they would have done more than whine about a scientific orthodoxy, would have gone into some labs and produced some actual science. That they have failed to address critical problems with their biblical based theories, have not developed practical testable predictions (in the case of ID, biblical creationism has testable predictions that are found to be false, which is at least an improvement) and have become dead ideas worldwide except with certain minorities and the fundamentalists in America.

Therein lies the key difference between Dembski and Scott.

And none of this at all changes the original point Scott made that many people of religious faith have no problem with evolution. You can whine about that point all you want. It's not changing.

Edit: Just for curiosities sake, as I'm not 'atheist', does that mean that I can say whatever I want about the obvious parallels between biblical creationists and the members of the Intelligent Design movement?

Date: 2008/02/05 19:54:19, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Wasn't that the point from the beginning in all honesty? Either they can keep the icon and give themselves the impression of reporting scientifically, or they get a nice persecution story.

In either event, my post there (which I'll reproduce here) sums up what I thought (all quotes are from Luskin):

“It’s amazing to me how angry some Darwinists are eager to get over a 117 X 87 pixel graphic that was immediately removed after an ID-proponent learned that he had unknowingly used it — for only about 2 days — in an inappropriate fashion. ”

To be honest. The “unknowingly” part is being disputed, given the obvious and large “” website label on it. I still find it incredibly hard to believe you failed to notice that or check it before using it, being as familiar with copyright law as you like to appear when you threaten others with it…

“(1) A large number of the people on this thread continue to oppose approving my request for registration, explicitly admitting that they simply don’t want to allow ID proponents to be part of these discussion”

In many cases from individuals in this thread, this is certainly not the opinion that was expressed and is a gross simplification (in fact strawman) of many of the arguments presented. The simple fact of the matter is that you did not appropriately represent the original paper or discuss the authors opinion in a fair context.

Others expressed that they do not agree with allowing a news blog that does not permit comments or opposing views on it (despite complaining about such things itself) to use the logo. Again, another fair argument that you have not properly addressed.

“This thread has given another example of the intolerance that ID proponents face in the academy. ”

If we completely ignore that the primary arguments against your allowance of using the icon were not the inappropriate use of it originally, but that you do not permit comments on the blog in question and that you did not present the authors opinion fairly. At the moment, all you are doing is convincing us that you are not going to address the arguments presented and are merely taking the persecution angle.

“If ID proponents aren’t even allowed to “officially” blog about peer-reviewed research on the internet, who can say that their research would get a fair hearing from the actual peer-reviewers in the real world of science?”

If this had any relevance to the two primary arguments bought up by a large number of people in this thread, then it would be worth answering. Perhaps before asking us this you should first address the questions already posed to you.

Again, you are showing a flagrant dishonesty if this is going to be how you discuss this in future, because you’ll be ignoring the substantial critiques of what you did do in favour of a fantasy ‘oppression’ scenario that never occurred as you will claim.

For what it’s worth, your final post and refusal to acknowledge the points raised have convinced me you shouldn’t be allowed to be registered.

Date: 2008/02/05 21:03:53, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,20:52)
Well, hon, you'll be waiting for a very long time, because what I was very clear in relaying was that Dembski is no more responsible for pushing religion in the classroom than Genie is for pushing atheism in the classroom.

You mean like writing textbooks filled with creationist dreck intended for classrooms? I think that's a big strike against the "Dembski not trying to push religion into classrooms" column there.

Incidentally, something I'm wondering, would you mind having Buddist, Muslim, Hindi, Scientologist and other forms of creationism/religious origins/religious 'science' introduced into classrooms. After all, Scientologists claim they have evidence that psychology is all a lie and that it doesn't work (just covered up by an orthodoxy...hey this nonsense sounds familiar).

Date: 2008/02/05 21:32:51, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Casey Luskin is immensely frustrating to deal with I've discovered. I don't think he's even addressed the original point I actually made quite a few posts ago. There is no way he can possibly argue he's represented Orgels opinion fairly before inserting his own into the post, clearly breaking rule #5 (which does not prohibit one discussing the post from their viewpoint, only presenting the authors viewpoint in the authors OWN words first or fairly).

That he can't see this is rather mind boggling.

Date: 2008/02/05 21:36:39, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,21:31)
Hey, Dave, is your favorite bird the "red herring".  Just curious.

Heil Darwin!!!

I want you to know, that people like you convinced me Christianity was false.

Just so you know.

Date: 2008/02/05 23:02:03, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Hrun injects some science into Davescots seemingly clever thread about butterflies and caterpillars:

bFast, I doubt that many biologist share the view of metamorphosis being an amalgamation of two separate organisms. It would be truly remarkable if the fruitfly, THE model organism for genetic studies (and on of the earliest fully sequenced multicellular organisms) had a mashup of two genomes without anybody actually finding any evidence for it.

There are indeed speculations about metamorphosis in insects. For a good (albeit somewhat dated) review on competing hypothoses:

As to the answer to DaveScot’s question, I guess there are two, depending on what meaning the question is supposed to have.

Literally, the answer is neither: Butterflies and caterpillars are the same species and thus appeared at the same time. However, if it is not meant literally, then the butterfly appeared first.

The earliest insect showed direct development (ametabolous). Only later insects, the Holometabola exhibit the different larval, pupal and adult stages we find in butterflies. So the butterfly (or fully differentiated insects) came before the complex metamorphosis of the Holometabola.

As for gradualism, it might be interesting to study the hemimetabolous groups of insects that fall in complexity of metamorphosis between the ametabolous and holometabolous groups.

Jerry, if you are interested in insect development, I would suggest you start looking at Drosohpila development first. It has been used as a model organism (in particular for developmental studies) for so long, that a tremendous wealth of information is available.

It's actually quite curious all this, because I happened to take an interest in this subject a while ago and this has sort of reminded me of it. The nature review quoted is a very good paper and has numerous ideas about the origins of holometabolism. I suspect the regular UD reader will pay it no attention unfortunately.

Date: 2008/02/05 23:22:00, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
I shouldn't have worded it that way.  

A more subtle lie instead of an obvious one?

Tell me, does God approve of bearing false witness?


Date: 2008/02/05 23:48:34, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 05 2008,23:44)
Darn it, I just keep forgetting that you guys can be as sarcastic as you like, but we "creationists" have to toe the line.

But you do get to lie as much as you want though, because lying for Jesus apparently isn't lying at all.

Always a perk or two.

Date: 2008/02/06 13:02:35, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2008,12:49)
Sorry for the cross post, I put this in the uncommonly dense thread when it should have been put here.

Biologic Institute
Mailing Address:
16310 NE 80th Street
REDMOND WA 98052 Street Address:
16310 Ne 80th Street
Registration #24118  

Status Active
Also Known As Name(s) Biologic

Phone (425)296-4400
Fax (425)296-4401
Web Site

Purpose Categories Educational Institutions & Related Activities

Federal EIN 84-1670187
Federal Tax Status Exempt 501C3

The following financial information has been provided to the Office of the Secretary of State by the above-named organization. Figures are for the organization's fiscal year ending Sep 30, 2006.

Beginning Assets $ According to the financial information shown at left, this organization devoted 87% of its total expenses to program services during the year reported.

Revenue $261,698
Program Services $217,823
Total Expenses $250,464
Ending Assets $16,950
Some Charitable Organizations are not required to submit financial information. If the financial report displayed contains zeros or outdated information, it is possible that the organization is "exempt" from registration or is newly registered. Please contact the Charities Program for more specific information.

Commercial Fundraisers or Co-Venturers Utilized (past & present)
None reported.  

I just called them and got a recording.  Too bad!

You know full well they don't answer the phone to dirty church burning ebola boys >: (

Date: 2008/02/06 13:05:40, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 06 2008,12:55)
If I recall correctly, the DI pulls in over a million a year in donations. It's interesting to imagine that there's not enough money to finance experiments in there.

Someone from the DI commented (a while back) during some debate or something that they had barely enough money to keep on the lights.

I still find it amazing that creationists can draw so much money yet do nothing with it. Imagine if we could bolster things like cancer research with a million extra dollars a year, or research into HIV, tuberculosis and such. Things that mattered...

Date: 2008/02/06 14:47:01, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (ReligionProf @ Feb. 06 2008,13:36)
I just posted a response to the good ol' "argument from incredulity" about butterfly evolution that has appeared yet again at Uncommon Dishonesty. If anyone with greater expertise in the biological sciences has any suggestions for improvements or additional links, please do let me know.

As you guys love funny anecdotes, I'll point out that once a Christian group on my campus came up to me and asked if I wondered at the marvel of creation that was the caterpillar turning into a butterfly. He challenged me to name him how such a process could evolve and what intermediates were possible. I simply responded if he'd like to start the discussion with ametabolism, hemimetabolism or holometabolism first.

He just happened to be unlucky enough to encounter me after I had written an essay for zoology on the evolution of insects. He quickly took the first opportunity to flee.

Date: 2008/02/06 17:25:39, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2008,16:49)
New thread on Luskin at BPR3 here

Should I just copy and paste what I already pointed out about the deficiencies in Caseys first post? There doesn't really seem much more to discuss, especially as his second part isn't much better.

Date: 2008/02/06 19:01:40, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,18:06)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 06 2008,17:31)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 06 2008,17:24)
I feel a little sorry for Dave Munger. While I wouldn't fault him for rejecting Luskin's application simply because Casey Luskin's name is on it, no matter how valid his reasons are - and they are valid - the DI is going to interpret this as more persecution from the Materialist Establishment.

Which they undoubtedly planned to do from the outset.

This will play well among the science-haters on UD, of course. But I doubt that it will make a bit of difference in the long run.

Yeah, it was a win/win scenario for Luskin. If he got accepted, it would make ID seem more "sciencey" to the rubes. If he got denied, it's another opportunity to play the martyr.

Since the persecution card is such powerful currency in the ID world, Luskin's probably quite satisfied with the decision.

Yeah, it seems "designed" for this outcome from the start.

Date: 2008/02/06 20:57:45, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Jerry not so cleverly asks:

How many threads have been deleted and for what reasons. Let’s get some specifics. If you do not know of any then you should not be commenting on it.

We could start with the original PZ Myers and Simmons debate thread if you would like Jerry.

Date: 2008/02/06 21:48:46, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2008,21:44)
If only there were such a list, Jerry.

Can you Google, sunshine?

If only there was such a list...

Date: 2008/02/06 22:40:30, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell

By the way, that reminds me, whatever happened to Paul Nelson?

Brave sir Nelson has bravely run away from the looks of things.

Date: 2008/02/08 01:17:31, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 08 2008,00:44)
For DaveTard, I recommend #98, Pumping Iron 2: The Women.  Or maybe the original Pumping Iron: Ahnold Flexes His Man Muscles.

I take it you'll be watching him while he does of course.

I know your ways >: (

Date: 2008/02/08 14:53:43, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Is this blogging on pseudoscience thing free to use? I could probably stick it to a couple of my posts.

Date: 2008/02/08 16:14:45, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 08 2008,16:07)
Get ready...





5:03 pm
C’Mon, Dave. The cool thing about Barrack Obama is that his middle name is Hussein. The name Hussein has taken a bad rap lately in light of a certain Sadam Hussein — the second greatest villan in American recent history. Further, the name Hussein implies a connection to the Muslim world.

This is very smart subliminal propoganda on your part — but hardly an analysis of the character, abilities, or political persuasion of the man. Like Mr. Obama or not, it is prejudicing, plain and simple.

Oh wow. I never thought that I'd see something like that from the denizens of UC, but he's really sticking it to Davetard there. Massive respect to bFast!

Date: 2008/02/08 16:26:50, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Save it for preservation later then, while we still can!

Date: 2008/02/08 17:34:23, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
cdesign proponentsists” was conceived as a term of mockery by Darwinists.

The best part of this all is, that cdesign proponentsists was never thought up by any 'Darwinist' at all. It's merely the incompetent mistake of an FTL editor who failed to properly replace creationism with 'design proponent'. It demonstrates the ease at which you can just switch ID with creationism at will: as they are the same thing.

Edit: Davetard turns up the stupid in the politics thread.

You have my motives wrong in any case. What worries me is how it would be perceived by Muslim terrorists if the next president of the United States has a common Muslim name.

Even for him, this is especially stupid.

Date: 2008/02/08 18:07:40, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Leo joins in the jump on Dave Thread:

I am not suggesting that at all. What I am saying is that anyone stupid enough to think that Americans are capitulating because of our president’s middle name isn’t smart enough to dress themselves, no less pull off an attack. It is a nonsensical reason to justify not voting for someone. Surely, you can come up with a better reason for not voting for Obama.

I'm sure Dave has a diagram near the bed showing which leg to insert into his pants first.


Date: 2008/02/08 19:17:20, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Yes, that is.

Date: 2008/02/08 21:03:33, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Leo is pushing for a banning by challenging Davetard on his stupidity:

Yes, of course, we shouldn’t bother worrying about those dirty poor people. No riches to gain there. Good call, Dave.

Exactly. America should only invade countries that are rich in natural resources that can be exploited after killing the people who are already there. Countries without resources are perfectly welcome to maintain blood and oppressive dictatorships as they see fit.

Good thinking Dave.

Date: 2008/02/09 01:34:30, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 09 2008,00:19)
It's merely the incompetent mistake of an FTL editor ...

FTL editor?  Anyone working that quickly is bound to make mistakes.

(I think you meant FTE, but who am I to miss out on the opportunity for pedantry and nitpicking?)


I'll get you next time Bob and your little dog too.

Date: 2008/02/10 23:28:41, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,18:28)
You people are's rubbed off on me, and now I'm part of the problem when I enter ATbC bizzaro world.

I've never seen you act like anything other than a dishonest, lying and disingenuous twit myself.


Unlike most of the other ID supporters, I still have a dream.  My dream is that one day people will lay aside their petty differences, which seem to be based on personal philosophy, and allow our students to consider all the facts from both sides of this debate.  

Creationists don't get to make up 'facts' as they see fit. If there was something to the 'facts', well I should say non-existant facts that are basically regurgitated poorly disguised creationists arguments that were refuted years ago redressed, there would be something to debate.

But as time has marched on and the ID movement has still produced no science and is still arguing against cartoon positions of their opponents (without moving on their arguments, just like the creationists of old), we get more hostile and bored of their general lying.

I thought, perhaps...just perhaps, if I got to know some of you, I wouldn't loath you so much for treating me like crap.  

I've merely observed you, not said anything much to you at all for the majority of time here and I can see once again you reaffirm my initial statement in this post. Your attack on PZ Myers daughter, your [as yet unsupported] accusations against Eugine Scott and other atheists confirm to me why I revile and reject Christianity. You were my final straw after I had seen how the likes of other "Christians" like Sal, Nelson etc operated in their 'lying for Jesus'. I realised I could no longer call myself Christian and still maintain the facade of thinking that Christian morality and principals were truly right.

I tried to argue with myself that maybe the likes of Ken Miller and others were examples of Christians that I could follow. But I realised, especially after personal events that happened to me last year, that I didn't need role models of any religion, idea or similar and that I needed to develop the personal strength to have my own convictions as to what I feel is right. I've developed that now and I'll never look back.

Salvadore, Pat Robinson, Fred Phelps and many others have proven to me that religion is poisonous, where you need to maintain a facade of being strong through lying and threatening people with hellfire. That's what convinces me that Christianity is false, that it has to support itself through distorting known evidence and through petty threats. I've realised I can never accept a God that has to force people to believe through petty threats and that needs 'defenders' who have to distort evidence and misrepresent the good work of others in understanding our corner of the universe.

Date: 2008/02/10 23:41:45, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,23:32)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 10 2008,23:28)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,18:28)
You people are's rubbed off on me, and now I'm part of the problem when I enter ATbC bizzaro world.

I've never seen you act like anything other than a dishonest, lying and disingenuous twit myself.

Oh, that's another reason why I keep coming back.  To defend myself.  I've never been anything other than honest....yet, "twits" like this clown keep accusing me of dishonesty.

Have you substantiated your attacks on Eugine Scott that you made earlier?


I think not. You did give a false notpology, but yes, you are a disingenuous twit and as the Eugine Scott incident proves, you are indeed an A grade liar. Otherwise you wouldn't have said something you knew was false and never happened yes?

Date: 2008/02/11 00:01:25, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 10 2008,23:42)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,23:32)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 10 2008,23:28)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,18:28)
You people are's rubbed off on me, and now I'm part of the problem when I enter ATbC bizzaro world.

I've never seen you act like anything other than a dishonest, lying and disingenuous twit myself.

Oh, that's another reason why I keep coming back.  To defend myself.  I've never been anything other than honest....yet, "twits" like this clown keep accusing me of dishonesty.

Now I see why FtK is waging her campaign on the Bathroom Wall: she's hoping that no one will notice there's a 200+ page thread chronicling her behavior.

It's almost as if she doesn't think anyone will have read through this thread before so not know anything about what she has done in the past.

Date: 2008/02/11 00:12:53, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 11 2008,00:03)
Well, hey, good for you.  You have someone to blame your rejection of God upon.  Tell it to Him at the pearly gate...

I have a lot of people to blame, in many ways myself included for deluding myself into believing something because I thought it was right, when I was just lacking the personal strength to deal with things on my own.

I didn't attack Skatje...I didn't attack Eugenie.

Facts disagree with you.

I've watched Eugenie play out her "priests with a backward collar routine".  She sure had an affect on my Uncle.  He bought her story hook, line and sinker when she lectured at a church alongside a preacher.  He even sent me the video to view hoping that I would believe a preacher.


Here's a care cup \_/

Eugenie may not consider herself being deceptive in this regard, but it's hard for me to sit here and not question her motives when she makes statements like <i>"I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"</i>  When I first read that interview, I could absolutely not believe she said that.  

It's both correct and logical. You prove without a shadow of a doubt to me that the faithful refuse to listen to anyone other than themselves. So people of faith who also understand what they are talking about when it comes to science are naturally more likely to be listened to by people of faith. This is basic logic 101. I am sure many people as a general rule prefer to listen to people whose views are more compatible with those they hold as well. Especially again as this is to counter a common creationist lie that Christians have to choose between science and their religion. Incidentally despite my "fall" (haha in-joke) to Atheism I [unlike Professor Myers] do not think religion is incompatible with science.

It's interesting that the link I used for that quote at my blog is not longer a workable one.  I'll have to try to locate that interview if it hasn't been erased from public domain.

I have never disputed the quote, only what YOU SAID. You have not backed it up. You have not supported it. You have fabricated a lie.

Do you know what lying is? It's saying something you know isn't true.

I'm sorry, but I believe what I say about lies involved.

I don't care if you believed it, what is disputed is if the incident you claimed happened occurred or not. As you have yet to substantiate the claim, your argument above is irrelevant and yes, you are still lying if you did not actually hear what you claimed.

Do you understand the difference? Do you understand why everyone on this board has had their wick of you and confines your posts to the forum toilet?

There is a difference between disliking Eugine Scotts opinion and fabricating things into her mouth she didn't say.

Date: 2008/02/11 00:42:00, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Before making accusations against Eugenie Scott or PZ or anyone you should make absolutely certain that it is true, with robust evidence to back you up, and that it's not just an intense personal dislike. But I'm not a Christian - what do I know about morals?

This is exactly what I've begun to realise, that Christians do not seem to recognise that morality =/ Christianity (quite the opposite). FTK claims that she faces considerable antagonism towards her from people here, but if she actually reads what she writes she would realise she generates the antagonism because she is being antagonistic to begin with.

Date: 2008/02/12 17:31:20, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Jkrebs @ Feb. 12 2008,15:18)
Ken Miller writes, quoted above

This idea, especially the second paragraph, is critical.  Christians have no problem reconciling their idea of an active God with the presence of contingent events in regards to their own life or the history of humankind, but they then deny that same reconciliation in regards to the evolution of life.

This is inconsistent, and in my opinion, for those who ought to know better, hypocritical.

This is something I constantly thought about for a while back as well. If God started evolution, where did he interject in the process or was the result already known ahead of time? In the first case, I don't think you have anything better than what ID already claims, but in the second case you do have an almighty creator - he's just not taking much interest in the world. Then, once you have humans around, why is there a more sudden interference in human affairs and then why does this interference suddenly stop seemingly arbitarily?

I'll take an example I used to a friend of mine once, if you have a horrific car accident where is God involved in the outcome given the following scenarios:

1) You survive, the driver of the other car dies.

2) You die, the driver of the other car lives.

3) You die and so does the other driver.

4) Both of you live.

Which scenario is God making a difference and why? Why is it that he interferes in that particular scenario and not the others? If he doesn't do anything at all, then what can he do and when does he do it?


Date: 2008/02/12 20:40:08, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
A friend of my friend had a stream at the back of his house so I went looking for critters and found this:

More pictures here.

And yes, the little bastard does have my thumb.

Date: 2008/02/13 21:44:34, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 13 2008,11:56)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 13 2008,11:35)
But Jesus loves you, right? So it's all ok.

Doubt it. FTK is the least christian christian I've ever encountered.

I'm not 100% convinced. Sal is getting up there as well.

Date: 2008/02/13 21:54:08, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 13 2008,12:06)
No more hoping there are real human beings under all the hatred and dishonesty.

Just like what people see from you nearly every time you post? Rampant dishonesty is what all you spout in every single one of your posts.

I think being confined to the forum toilet is better for you, it means less people see you make a fool of yourself and dig your own hole further.

What amazes me is how you still don't understand you got stuck there not because anyone is 'afraid' of how you defend yourself (quite the opposite), but your dead set refusal to support or retract an obvious lie you said. Until you see the difference, you are not worth bothering with and good riddance to you.

Date: 2008/02/14 20:42:17, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 14 2008,17:10)
Two davetard meltdowns in less than 24 hours

Two deleted/locked threads at UD in less than 24 hours (due to davetard's tardic behaviour)

1 UD tard fight that included davetard and DLH

Have we struck davetard gold this week or what? I wonder if he's trying some new medication or something.

I appear to have missed the tard fight between Davetard and DLH, what exactly transpired?

Date: 2008/02/15 19:06:46, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
The human appendix, just in the last months, has been found to serve as a repository of friendly flora to keep the gut healthy.

I wonder if Dembski knows that the paper was written completely from a strict adaptionist (and hence evolutionary) point of view. To be honest, I think the original papers premise is rather weak and I don't really feel it's supported that well. It also doesn't change the appendix has a lack of any real role today, as there are certainly better ways of regenerating your microflora than relying on a tiny organ that frequently becomes inflamed and blocked up. Additionally, I know of no studies that demonstrate a lack of appendix leads to a slower recovery after things like massive antibiotic treatments (which can clear out the gastrointestinal tract of bacteria pretty quick).

I would think that you're more likely to regenerate your microflora from food, outside sources, sharing with friends [keke] and such forth.

Date: 2008/02/25 17:34:15, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 25 2008,08:46)
jerry explains why moms think he's creepy. Only he doesn't.      
When I was in New Zealand with the US Navy, I was assigned duty in Wellington for a meeting of high level politicians. I was outside the parliament building behind a 3 foot high barricade to fence off spectators. I was in civilian clothes and a little girl with her mother said I was a secret service man. She was very cute and after a few minutes she got a little fresh but still cute. I told her if she didn’t be have [sic] I would spank her on her “fanny.” In the US this an affectionate term for one’s bottom and used to be a common women’s name. But in New Zealand and a lot of ex British countries it means quite the opposite anatomically. The little girl, the mother and a lot of others got hostile. So watch out.

Um, jerry . . . I don't know quite how to explain this but . . . Using the term fanny is only part of the problem.  Consider: what if you had told a little girl you didn't know that you were going to spank her on her "bottom"?  

That's not OK either.  See?  Either way, someone's going to pull out the mace.

It's actually illegal to hit a child at all here in New Zealand, thanks to wide ranging sweeping reforms due to the anti-smacking legislation (which of course, predictably did nothing to prevent the hideous abuse of a toddler recently who was thrown into a washing machine, among other things).

But Jerry just establishes that he's a moron, because you firstly don't threaten other peoples children in public and secondly it's best to realise that words mean different things in different countries. He's probably lucky he didn't say it to some little Samoan or Maori girl, otherwise he would have had a stint in a New Zealand hospital.

If evolution is true, how come we still have plant eating bugs?

Does this mean that plants that eat bugs are the result of sin? I'm wondering what came first (because most creationists I've spoken to insist that insects obviously don't get included in the whole all animals were vegetarian thing), bugs that ate plants or plants that ate bugs due to mans sin. QUICK, TO THE SCIENCE LAB TO FIND OUT. We'll need a woman (Kristine?), a man, a talking snake and an apple. Maybe some plants and a few beetles. Let's see which eats the other first, plants or the beetles due to man eating an apple (at the direction of a woman who is herself, taking orders from a talking snake).

Date: 2008/02/26 06:14:14, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
Quote (philbert @ Feb. 26 2008,05:45)

though, to quibble, the reforms were hardly "sweeping", and the law isn't how J. characterises it

Well, it's certainly stupid and doesn't actually do anything about what it was put up to try to do. Thankfully, when National [hopefully] cleans out Labour in the next election it will hopefully get repealed.


Date: 2008/02/28 23:18:46, Link
Author: J. O'Donnell
I do not believe Miracles occur, because they would on some level bend free will such as if God intervened to stop someone from committing suicide [as an example]. Let's take a hypothetical though;

In this scenario, two cars have crashed into one another in a horrific smash, with one individual who is drunk and another who was just driving in the wrong place at the wrong time.

1) The drunk driver is killed instantly and so is the unfortunate person in the other vehicle.

2) The drunk driver is thrown clear of the vehicle and survives with minor injuries, while the other person is killed instantly.

3) The drunk driver is killed instantly, while the other person is merely thrown aside and not injured severely.

4) Neither is killed or harmed in any manner by the smash.

Which of these constitutes a 'miracle', for whom and for what reasons? Do none of them? What about if both were atheists? Both were christian? Both were muslim?