AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Jasper

form_srcid: Jasper

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.196.69.189

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Jasper

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/04/18 11:35:51, Link
Author: Jasper
"Anika Smith" is listed as one of the authors of this opinion piece.

Hmmm...could this be the same Anika Smith who is listed as a contributor on the DI blog?

Date: 2007/04/24 11:53:21, Link
Author: Jasper
Albatrossity2 asked FtK:
   
Quote
How about addressing the issue in this conversation that accepting a YEC timeline will require supernatural events?


Considering what she wrote here just over a year ago, FtK would probably say that "the earth appears old because of a natural occurance [sic] that happened during the flood."

In other words, she is willing to accept that the earth appears to be ~4.5 billion years old.  She remains "open minded" about whether it really is that old.

Right, FtK?

Date: 2007/04/24 15:01:06, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote
Read it...have a ball.  I was up against god only knows how many Darwinists on that thread.  Well over 40 I'm sure.


If one generously defines "Darwinist" as "anyone who disagrees with FtK," there were a total of 38 different "Darwinists" that posted to that thread:

Pete
Liz Craig
KC
EB
Connor J
apple
Josh Rosenau
Jason Meyers PhD
Jeremy Mohn
RBHoppe
ToSeek
Art
RF Brady
Bill A
Les Lane
Jack Krebs
Glyn
Jim Swan
csadams
Eric Reynolds
Kevin Nyberg
Joe Meert
slpage
texathome
JonF
zack falin
Don Monro
computer science guy
celdd
Seventy-Six
Gary S. Gaulin
Greg Myers
MisterOpus1
Unsympathetic reader
Harry Gregory
John Smallberries
grmorton
Piasan

Several of these people had only a few posts.

Date: 2007/05/11 14:28:47, Link
Author: Jasper
Ftk-

You will continue to be baffled by theistic evolutionists until you can learn to accept that some people who share your religious beliefs are comfortable living with uncertainty.

I think that if you were to openly acknowledge the uncertainty that accompanies your beliefs, you might ultimately feel compelled to reject them.  Your consistent inability and/or unwillingness to publicly evaluate the evidence that you say supports your beliefs suggests that your smug certitude is merely a defense mechanism.  This may explain why you choose to live with so much cognitive dissonance.

Interestingly, despite all of your talk about Christianity and the Bible, it appears that faith is something completely foreign to you.

Or is it simply that Jesus Christ's call to faith is not subject to a literal interpretation?

Date: 2007/05/26 22:42:27, Link
Author: Jasper

Date: 2007/06/02 21:03:05, Link
Author: Jasper
I don't think that was Forthekids on PT.

The "Who ya kiddin?" line is one used by a particularly prolific commenter who has been polluting the discourse under various screen names at RedStateRabble, several different ScienceBlogs, and kcfs.org.

Date: 2007/06/13 00:20:25, Link
Author: Jasper
There is also a chapter on Darwin's finches in "Icons of Evolution."

In that chapter, Jonathan Wells complained that the finches are not an example of natural selection in action because no new species arose under the watch of Peter and Rosemary Grant in their famous study on the Galapagos Islands.

Wells actually argued against the significance of the observed evolutionary changes that allowed the finches to adapt to their changing environment because the changes did not produce any new species during that time.

Interestingly, these changes were arguably less dramatic than the icefish example that FtK accepts as merely "microevolution."

Date: 2007/07/03 17:45:19, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote
I'd love to spend two hours photoshopping that into The Tard Bomb, with Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Rev Dr Fuhrer Dr Dembski leering over a reclined morphodyke celebrated journalist Denyse O'Leary...


Simply ask and you shall receive:

Date: 2007/07/18 13:16:49, Link
Author: Jasper
More irony from FtK's latest rant:

Quote
Wars start with words, and from what I can tell, they [sic] *dead set* on taking this culture war to a whole new level.


link

The following is from one of FtK's last posts on the KCFS discussion forum:

Quote
In fact, I think I'll start my own blog and give you people some of your own medicine. Poke fun, belittle, use sarcasm, and generally just make this entire "culture war" even worse than it already is.


link

Date: 2007/08/20 22:02:41, Link
Author: Jasper
Over at UD, FtK complained about being banned from KCFS.  In fact, she has been able to sign up at the "new" KCFS discussion forum since it opened nearly a year ago.

FtK at UD:
Quote
Elsberry is a Christian, but evidently verses like 'Be ye kind one to another' only apply to those who agree with his philosophy about life.

I swear this whole on-line debate is out of control. People are positively nasty to one another. It's really sad if you think about it.


Anyone else catch the irony here?

Date: 2007/08/20 22:10:49, Link
Author: Jasper
[sarcasm]
I can't imagine why Jack Krebs might have a problem with Sal.

After all, Sal has always been extremely courteous to Jack on his own blog.
[/sarcasm]

Date: 2007/09/23 01:20:42, Link
Author: Jasper
Rob Knop of Galactic Interactions is a Christian.

Added in edit: Here's a post that provides evidence.

Date: 2007/09/25 21:25:26, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote
I have trouble believing that Behe has no concept of the math he is putting forth.  But, God knows there will be no convincing you people of that.


Let's see...you have trouble believing Behe has no concept of the math he is putting forth.

That's enough for me.  I'm convinced.   ;-)

Date: 2007/09/29 14:42:31, Link
Author: Jasper
I voted "other."

ID is bad science, incoherent philosophy, and risky theology.  It clearly does not belong in a classroom.  I also would not like it to be used to deceive religious people about real science.

I guess it could be used as an example of a pseudoscience.

Date: 2007/10/07 19:44:53, Link
Author: Jasper
I may be wrong, but "Fat Man" sounds a lot like the Kansas troll, aka "Legion."

If I'm right, it is quite rich to see "Legion" lecturing FtK about honesty.

Date: 2007/11/18 13:08:11, Link
Author: Jasper
That post is so disjointed and rambling, it just doesn't sound like FtK.  (I know, I know...whatever)

It appears to me that someone is doing an impression of her by combining sentences and paragraphs that she actually wrote on various Internet discussion forums.

Like this post from April, 2007:
 
Quote
I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

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

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

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

Apparently, these are all things she has said at one time or another, but I think she's too self-aware to repeat all of that stupidity in one place.

I guess I could be wrong...

Date: 2007/11/18 14:30:26, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote
It really does smell a lot like a copy & paste of Ftk's greatest hits from here, though I haven't done a direct comparison.

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

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


I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

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

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

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


I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles. Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me. I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

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


You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.

It appears to me that someone is indeed impersonating FTK by cutting-n-pasting her words from this forum.

Date: 2007/11/24 12:53:35, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FtK @ YoungCosmos.com)
Oh, and as for neutering the ATBC boys…hey, I’m all for it.

From here.

Date: 2007/12/02 15:25:19, Link
Author: Jasper
From the perspective of this fellow Christian, Ftk's recent downward spiral is particularly distressing.

It's not that her behavior is particularly egregious for a religiously motivated anti-evolutionist.  After all, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and errors of logic are well-documented behaviors of the evolution denialists.

The disappointing thing is that she consistently displays this behavior in front of primarily non-Christian audiences (AtBC, Pharyngula, ERV, etc).  Her propensity to implement the "us vs. them" strategy only serves to emphasize the perceived incompatibility of her religious beliefs with what practically everyone else in the forum accepts as the nature of reality.

Ironically, in FtK's attempt to defend her version of the Christian faith, her behavior functions as a kind of reverse-evangelism for Christianity.

Date: 2007/12/03 19:29:48, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,18:55)
Ooh, ooh, see there!...Jasper is making fun of Jesus.

DARWIN BEATS PUPPIES!  

:p  :p  :p

That wasn't me.  Leave me out of this, please.

Date: 2007/12/11 20:55:38, Link
Author: Jasper
Larry Fafarman sighting on PT:
 
Quote
JHM said:

You Darwinists were lucky in the Kitzmiller case – there was a biased judge who accepted Forrest’s bigoted conspiracy theory and guilt-by-association principle. The judge’s decision was a foregone conclusion – he was obviously prejudiced against the defendants because he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not “true” religions. You may not be so lucky next time.

Link

At first, I thought this was a parody, but now I'm almost certain that it's Larry.  I wonder what "JHM" stands for?

Date: 2007/12/14 17:12:12, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2007,15:47)
       
Quote

Jerry claims he was fired because of his anti- Darwinist views at a Spring Arbor University, which is an evangelical Protestant school.  He indicates that he was fired due to his doubts about Darwinism even though the President and Vice President of the school were openly creationist, although he does state in his post that he also experienced antagonism from “dogmatic Darwinists” at the previous University he taught at, Bowing Green State University in Ohio.  Jerry taught psychology, not any field remotely related to evolution.  It seems to me that something is missing from this story.  How pi$$ed off could he have gotten the faculty of the biology department for them to have them call for his ouster?  How does it serve “big science” to have him expelled?

I think that is sufficiently specific to actually make an identification.

Yeah, that guy has major persecution issues.  Check out this account of a presentation by Jerry Bergman at Wichita State University.

Here's a snip:
       
Quote
During the same conversation I mentioned to Bergman how absolutely insane his CV is (which I posted here, verbatim except for the contact information for Bergman), and I told him I made an Excel spreadsheet of time versus place that goes, at times, as many as 7 columns out (meaning he was working or attending school at 7 different places), and that’s with 3 pages of information that I couldn’t place because he provided no dates for them.

When I brought this up, Bergman again exploded in his persecution claims saying that websites publish things like that to discredit him and so I had to mention, after a bit of a pause, “Actually, I got it from Dave [Lehman].”

And so, I asked Lehman, “Dave, what are you doing to Bergman? Why are you persecuting Bergman?”

Date: 2007/12/29 11:21:43, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 29 2007,10:47)
...religious antievolution advocates have been intelligently designing new covers for the same old sham.

Date: 2007/12/31 14:45:06, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,15:02)
Every atheist uses science/Darwin as defense for their belief that there is no God (a faith belief)...we have that ideology in our schools, but nothing else.

There are also lots of theists who use the science of evolution as support for their belief that there is a God. Of course, you probably think they are just as misguided as atheists, but that isn't the point.

The point is that philosophical/religious interpretations of science must be inserted from the outside.

The evidence of evolution speaks for itself, but when it comes down to what that evidence actually means, that is up to the individual.

Date: 2007/12/31 17:27:58, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote
We don't even use half of the brain capability that we have.

We?

Speak for yourself, FTK.

[edit - because it's my last chance this year]

Date: 2008/01/05 16:56:45, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,17:23)
Darwinists had a fit because in one of Sal's previous posts, he suggested that Darwinism leads to the acceptance of bestiality.  I provided support for that point.

Actually, you merely provided an example of someone who accepts evolution who does not think bestiality should be illegal.

You have yet to adequately explain how "Darwinism leads to acceptance of bestiality."

In fact, Skatje wrote the following on your own blog:
Quote
Accepting bestiality has absolutely nothing to do with accepting evolution.

AFAIK, you have yet to engage this point.

Date: 2008/01/30 12:37:02, Link
Author: Jasper


You like?

Date: 2008/01/31 22:50:17, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote
Quote
"Your ignorance.... is not evidence..."


PZ Myers, January 31, 2008

There are several suggestions that this be made into a T-shirt on Pharyngula.


Date: 2008/02/02 13:04:06, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 02 2008,12:15)
The Dr. Geoff Simmons vs PZ Myers Debate is back but only with six comments.

No, that is a different thread.

The original thread still links to an Error 404 - Not Found.

Date: 2008/02/09 09:00:31, Link
Author: Jasper


Umm...FTK.

"Bird to Dino" is BS.

Date: 2008/02/12 12:25:20, Link
Author: Jasper
On her blog, FTK reproduces a diatribe by John West that was originally posted over on EN&V.  The post is full of outright distortions and misrepresentations, but I was particularly amazed by West's use of this quote from Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God:  
Quote
Even the theists among evolution proponents tend to be less friendly to traditional religion than one might think. Biologist Kenneth Miller, who is usually cited as a traditional Roman Catholic by the news media, insists that evolution is an "undirected" process and that the development of human beings was "an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out."

(from EN&V)

The full context of the quote reveals (surprise!) that West is not accurately describing Miller's viewpoint.  
Quote
So, what if the comet had missed? What if our ancestors, and not dinosaurs, had been the ones driven to extinction? What if, during the Devonian period, the small tribe of fish known as rhipidistians had been obliterated? Vanishing with them would have been the possibility of life for the first tetrapods. Vertebrates might never have struggled onto the land, leaving it, in Gould's words, forever "the unchallenged domain of insects and flowers."

Surely this means that mankind's appearance on this planet was not pre-ordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out. What follows from this, to skeptic and true believer alike, is a conclusion whose logic is rarely challenged - that no God would ever have used such a process to fashion his prize creatures. How could he have been sure that leaving the job to evolution would lead things to working out the "right" way? If it was God's will to produce us, then by showing that we are the products of evolution, we would rule God as Creator. Therein lies the value or the danger of evolution.

Not so fast. The biological account of lucky historical contingencies that led to our own appearance on this planet is surely accurate. What does not follow is that a perceived lack of inevitability translates into something that we should regard as incompatibility with a divine will. To do so seriously underestimates God, even as this God is understood by the most conventional of Western religions.

Yes, the explosive diversification of life on this planet was an unpredictable process. But so were the rise of Western civilization, the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the winning number in last night's lottery. We do not regard the indeterminate nature of any of these events in human history as antithetical to the existence of a Creator; why should we regard similar events in natural history any differently? There is, I would submit, no reason at all. If we can view the contingent events in the families that produced our individual lives as consistent with a Creator, then certainly we can do the same for the chain of circumstances that produced our species.

The alternative is a world where all events have predictable outcomes, where the future is open neither to chance nor to independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is a world in which we would never be free. To a believer, the particular history leading to us shows how truly remarkable we are, how rare is the gift of consciousness, and how precious is the chance to understand.

(my empasis)

Have you read Ken Miller's book, FTK?

Do you think that West has done justice to Miller's viewpoint?

Date: 2008/02/16 18:36:27, Link
Author: Jasper
Some advice for Paul:

Date: 2008/04/02 13:17:17, Link
Author: Jasper
If anyone reading this has any remaining doubts that Forthekids just blindly copied that quote without checking the original context, just take a look at her citation:

Quote
Stephen Jay Gould,'Ontogeny and Phylogeny', Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

Huh?  A single sentence that covers 101 pages?

Check out this Google Search to see where else on the web this mistake has been made.

Date: 2008/04/04 19:39:22, Link
Author: Jasper

Date: 2008/04/14 11:49:10, Link
Author: Jasper
By consistently lying about the origin and focus of the original comments, Kairosfocus and his fellow travellers have actually revealed themselves to be deserving of the labels applied to the KS BOE in that KCFS post.

At this point, every time KF brings it up, he confirms that the "unprincipled bully" label fits him quite nicely.

Date: 2008/04/22 19:56:10, Link
Author: Jasper
From FTK's review:
 
Quote
The Darwin camp acts as if the film damns Darwin, himself, for causing the Holocaust, and that is *not* what I came away with. Both Berlinski and Stein mentioned that Darwinism doesn’t by any means lead to Nazism or that Darwin himself would support what Hitler did, but rather that Hitler used the concept of natural selection to support his idea of a master race. He worked to maintain the purity of his race through eugenics programs and compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill and the mentally deficient. That is just part of history and something that we shouldn’t hide under the rug.

Here is something that I have been wondering about regarding the Darwin - Hitler connection that is one of the central themes of Expelled!:

Most Creationists, including FTK, claim to have no problem with random mutation and natural selection. Of course, most usually claim that it only leads to changes within a species, but they generally do not deny that it occurs in nature. (I've even seen Sal Cordova claim that Darwin "plagiarized" the idea from Edward Blyth!)

So how do they justify trying to pin blame for the Holocaust on Darwin's ideas while simultaneously accepting the basic phenomenon of natural selection?  Doesn't it seem inconsistent for someone to place blame for an atrocity on an understanding of natural phenomena while simultaneously affirming the validity of that understanding?

I guess it's probably naive for me to expect consistency from people who are just trying to smear those with whom they disagree, but I just can't help but be puzzled by this.

Date: 2008/06/13 10:27:05, Link
Author: Jasper
I just happen to have a copy of the "Brown's evidence" thread from the old KCFS forum saved on my computer.

FtK posted segments of Walt's book on a daily basis from June 3, 2005 to September 9, 2005.

Walt Brown's participation on the thread lasted from June 19 - July 2.

He posted 24 times:

1 post explaining his agreement to participate
11 cut-n-pastes from his online book (he took over for FtK for awhile)
10 responses to criticisms of his book
2 notifications of corrections to his book

As you can see, the majority of his 24 posts did not address criticisms of his book.

Date: 2008/06/21 23:34:19, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Ftk @ June 20 2008,08:05)
I've never met a group of folks so blinded by their ideology.

Are you sure about that, Ftk?

What about the time you wandered into a discussion forum and wrote this?
   
Quote
I've been scanning through this thread and decided to add my 2 cents.

My kids have always loved dinosaurs and due to that fact, I started researching both the evolutionist view and the creation view of the subject. That lead to study of Christian apologetics which I had never heard of before I started looking into the dinosaur factor.

My opinion is that my kids should learn absolutely everything they can about evolution so that they are able to refute the claims made by evolutionists. I've been teaching them how creation scientists interpret the same data that evolutionists claim support an old earth, molecule to man, and other Darwinist claims.

By doing this, I hope that they will be able to better inform others about this information. Many people have no idea that there is a wealth of information on the internet about the subject of dinosaurs and a young earth.

Here is an excellent book that we started our kids out with. I highly recommend it. That way, your kids can get their fix of dinosaurs and you can rest assured that they are not being fed an evolutionary interpretation.

I am currently teaching a 7th & 8th grade class at my church where we cover these issues. We talk about creation and evolution, dinosaurs, biblical manuscript reliability, etc. I just feel like the kids need to clearly understand both sides of this debate, and the more education we can give them, the better.

If you want to understand where Ftk is really coming from, please read that entire thread and realize that these were people Ftk considered her fellow travelers in the evolution/creationism debate less than two years ago.

If the people here are "blinded" by their ideology, then those folks are locked in a persistent vegetative state by theirs.

(No offense to anyone in a persistent vegetative state.)

Edit: Added the URL for the "excellent book."

Date: 2008/06/26 10:55:54, Link
Author: Jasper
It's a never-ending cycle with FtK.

She comes here and arrogantly spouts ridiculous notions about science, evolution, "just-so" stories, materialist dogma, hateful & stubborn atheists, etc.

Someone invariably responds to her rudeness in kind, and this serves to confirm her prejudices about her opposition.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Here's an idea: step away from the shampoo.

Date: 2008/07/11 15:46:02, Link
Author: Jasper
Try these search terms:

origin "asteroid belt"

Brown's website doesn't show up in the first 100 pages.

I would guess that Brown's website shows up first with FtK's choice of search terms because the word "asteroids" is in the title of the page.

Date: 2008/07/11 20:32:36, Link
Author: Jasper
Walt Brown asserts that the Oort cloud does not exist.

He used to say the same thing about the Kuiper belt, until it was directly observed.

Date: 2008/08/23 20:58:46, Link
Author: Jasper
Tom Willis is not a Kansan.  He lives on a blueberry farm in Cass County, Missouri.

Apparently, PZ favors alliteration over accuracy.

Date: 2008/09/12 20:18:36, Link
Author: Jasper
FtK demonstrates her reading comprehension skills:
     
Quote
"NCSE's Josh Rosenau needs a geography lesson"

Josh writes:

       
Quote
John Cole points out this bit from Sarah Palin's interview:

           
Quote
Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: “They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”

Oy.

According to Google Earth, the westernmost tip of Alaska is over 5,000 miles from the fighting in Georgia. Moscow is closer, a mere 4,500 miles away. Even if Palin didn't need glasses, she couldn't see anything that far away.

Oy indeed...

Josh, luv, think Bering Strait.

Good Lord...while he's working toward that doctorate in evolutionary biology, I hope he takes a few geography courses along the way.

Oy vey.

Link

Date: 2008/10/26 16:25:42, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote
Have a Jasperiser for me!

Hey! What kind of proposition is this?

Date: 2008/10/27 11:12:47, Link
Author: Jasper
FtK practices her powers of projection:
Quote
Be sure to keep up to date on the war against Intelligent Design. Darwinists wants our students to bury their heads in the sand and comply to authority. They don't want them to think outside of the box for fear they'll discover how lame the Darwinian concept really is. It's based upon a philosophical worldview...NOT SCIENCE.

Read Evolution News and Views daily!

Link

ETA: Notice that, despite her protestations to the contrary, FtK's focus really is on getting ID into classrooms. Otherwise, she wouldn't preface this as a "war against Intelligent Design."

Date: 2008/10/27 12:32:25, Link
Author: Jasper
More from FtK:

   
Quote
Can you freaking imagine if someone had hung Obama from that noose?????!!!!11111!!!!

Link


Um, yes.  

Yes we can.

Edit: Fixed first link.

Date: 2009/01/11 10:48:35, Link
Author: Jasper
It's funny how the comedian that writes the Creation-Evolution Headlines doesn't even know how to use scientific terminology correctly:

Quote
If you are wowed by circular reasoning, wave your tetrapods.

Date: 2009/02/12 13:18:10, Link
Author: Jasper
This just in from Topeka:

Intelligent Design = weaknesses of evolution!

FtK wrote:
     
Quote
ID is winning big time in the public square. Screw the hardcore Darwin lover scientists...it won't always be the case that we continue to teach an ideology in the science classroom. Hopefully, at some point in time, much of Darwin's legacy will be shoved over into the philosophy classroom.

The latest Zogby poll (January), linked to above, shows that 78% of US voters favor teaching both strengths and weaknesses of evolution.

FtK also wrote:
     
Quote
Keep up the fight! Looks like the numbers are leaning our way!!!!!!

Yeah...um...not so much:





Those numbers definitely aren't leaning in your favor, FtK.

Link

Date: 2009/02/22 13:08:18, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 22 2009,13:55)
>    Kansas SBOE - evolutionists removed criticisms of eugenics and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments from the science standards.  West implies they are hiding something and asks "Who are the real extremists?"  Albatrossity of Jack Krebs, care to comment regarding the real reason?

Jack Krebs responded to this on PT when West first made the accusation in 2007:
Quote
The Board was not “deleting” this statement. The Board was replacing the entire set of standards written by the IDists with the standards written by the duly-appointed committee, and we on the committee never even considered a sentence like the one inserted by the IDists. We didn’t edit or revise the old ID standards, deleting this and adding that - we just ignored the ID standards and went back to the standards we were writing before the ID folks were allowed to take over.

There are two things about this that upset me. The first is the implication that we on the committee and on the state Board, because we are “evolutionists,” are somehow supportive of the above “violations of human dignity” but don’t want students to know about them. This is insulting, and shows how low the DI will go to stir up divisive and hateful emotions.

Secondly, this illustrates again that the ID movement has no shame in abusing the educational system for their own purposes. It should be clear that if the topics mentioned belong in standards of any kind, they belong in social studies standards, not science standards. Throughout this whole affair, and repeatedly in other states, the anti-evolutionists are using the educational system as a convenient vehicle for their cultural agenda, and our children don’t deserve this.

Date: 2009/04/22 17:48:46, Link
Author: Jasper
Professor Coyne forgot to acknowledge his natural allies in his fight against "accommodationism."

Fundamentalist Christians.

Interesting bedfellows, huh?

Date: 2009/09/11 10:23:22, Link
Author: Jasper
"FL" are the initials of "Floyd A. Lee," a resident of Topeka, Kansas. He outed himself years ago on PT.

Interestingly, here's an old article from the Topeka Capitol Journal written by someone named Floyd Lee.  I wonder if it was the same FL?

Date: 2009/09/11 15:11:21, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 11 2009,14:29)
 
Quote (Jasper @ Sep. 11 2009,10:23)
"FL" are the initials of "Floyd A. Lee," a resident of Topeka, Kansas. He outed himself years ago on PT.

Interestingly, here's an old article from the Topeka Capitol Journal written by someone named Floyd Lee.  I wonder if it was the same FL?

Yes, I was being facetious. I knew he identified himself at one point, but couldn't remember his name. Still, you have to admit that  "Fringe Lunatic"  fits.

IMO, he has also earned the moniker "Flagrant Liar."

Date: 2009/09/14 15:28:25, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 14 2009,15:05)
 
Quote
I'm guessing I could never agree with your interpretation of the bible. You are too much of a liberal for my tastes.

Now, that is funny.   :D

Date: 2009/09/28 21:35:14, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 28 2009,20:30)
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?

IIRC, FL and FtK are friends.

That would be interesting...

Date: 2009/09/29 13:01:13, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote
With the exception of some headliners like Francis Collins, Pope Benedict, etc., the great majority of Christian evolutionists are honestly SCARED to discuss and debate the Incompatibility issue within evolution forums that are clearly dominated by secular evolutionists, such as PT and AtBC and FRDB.

Or maybe they're just too busy giving to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and speaking out against injustice.

You know, the stuff Jesus really cared about.

Date: 2009/10/01 15:41:25, Link
Author: Jasper
It seems to me that FL's main issue is that he lacks faith and instead requires "rational reasons to believe in God."

Jesus didn't think that people needed "rational reasons to believe" in him. Check out John 20:29.

Date: 2009/10/02 11:13:55, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:03)
Quote
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.


Nope.  He's not.

So, Floyd, are you arguing that God has had no role in creating and sustaining the laws of nature?

Date: 2009/10/04 23:00:02, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,23:49)
But that aside, why would somebody who claims to be defending Christianity put a lot of effort into producing arguments that would drive educated people away from it if those people were to actually pay attention to those arguments?

I've always thought that FL specializes in a sort of "evangelism-in-reverse."

He seeks out places on the Internet where there are likely to a high percentage of non-Christians, and then he does his best to increase that percentage.

Date: 2009/10/15 22:01:51, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:56)
For in biblical Christianity, God is NEVER the indirect cause of biological origins, be they plant, animal or human.  See Genesis 1 if you doubt this.  

Now you can reject the Bible's claims here if you want to, (and clearly some already have in this forum), but make no mistake---God is the DIRECT cause of plant, animal and human origins in that Bible.   Not indirect.  Not maybe.  Not a zillion times removed sorta-kinda.  DIRECT.
Plants, animals, and humans are NOT originated naturally during Creation Week---it's all God Himself, doing the impossible (well, to you it's impossible!) all by Himself.

Umm...have you actually read Genesis 1, Floyd?

Quote
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Date: 2009/10/16 15:06:48, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 16 2009,14:47)
Your claim was that God only created directly.  A casual glance at the Bible by an atheist proved you wrong.

Actually, I'm not an atheist.  I'm a Christian (one who also accepts evolution).

Date: 2009/10/18 13:16:00, Link
Author: Jasper
I would like to suggest a new name for this thread:

Schadenfloyde.







Edit: Sorry, once it popped into my brain, I just couldn't resist.





Date: 2009/10/24 20:30:12, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 23 2009,22:34)
How can you explain nmgirl and myself for example?

We are Christians who accept evolution. We prove you wrong.

You can add my name to that list, too.

Date: 2009/10/27 11:26:54, Link
Author: Jasper
There's no doubt that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 believed what they wrote regarding the creation of living things.

The problem is, if you consistently follow the same logic, you will have to reject the understanding we have gained from all fields of science that are contradicted by the Genesis account.

For instance, the writer(s) of Genesis also believed that the "raqiya" was a solid layer (or "Firmament") above the Earth that separated the waters below from the waters above. Genesis 1:20 tells us that the Firmament is above the earth but close enough to not be in outer space. It says:
 
Quote
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Modern science has shown that this solid layer does not exist, and yet the Biblical authors (OT & NT) clearly believed that it did exist.

If you cannot rewrite Genesis 1-11 to make it fit evolution, you also cannot rewrite it to make it fit modern astronomy. Interestingly, Floyd seems to have no problem with modern astronomy.

Date: 2009/10/27 12:47:06, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,13:30)
Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

The OT & NT writers (and Jesus too) also considered Genesis to be an accurate description of the structure of the universe.

And yet, Floyd (apparently) disagrees with them about the existence of the Firmament, the nature of the sun, moon, and stars, the pillars of the earth, along with many other details.

How do you decide which parts of the Bible are literal truth, Floyd?

Date: 2009/10/29 11:52:34, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,11:43)
CM, honestly, I don't really know one way or the other.  He testified he has accepted Jesus as his Savior, so I can't and don't fight about that.

But he also said that no sane person accepts a historically literal Genesis, which of course makes Jesus look very bad.

Jesus quoted other parts of the Bible, like Isaiah 13:
Quote
"But in those days, following that distress,
  " 'the sun will be darkened,
     and the moon will not give its light;
  the stars will fall from the sky,
     and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

Mark 13:24-25

No sane person today believes that the stars can actually "fall from the sky" or that the moon "give[s] light." And yet, this is what Jesus and the Biblical writers believed.

I assume that Floyd would disagree with Jesus concerning the possibility that stars can literally "fall from the sky."

Why are you making Jesus look bad, Floyd?

Date: 2009/10/29 12:53:38, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:45)
But you went further than that, didn't you?  I'll tell you now, you directly said that a SANE person cannot accept Genesis as literal and historical.

...

If you don't retract that skeptic stuff, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT, btw) are untrustworthy.

YOU don't accept Genesis as literal, Floyd.  Otherwise, you'd believe in the existence of the Firmament and that the moon gives light, as the Biblical writers did.

If you don't believe in the Firmament or that the moon gives its own light, you're clearly implying that Jesus Christ and the writers of the Bible (both OT and NT) are untrustworthy.

Right, Floyd?

Date: 2009/10/29 16:02:12, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,16:48)
After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.

That's total BS, Floyd.

I've asked you multiple times about your beliefs concerning aspects of the Genesis account that you don't take literally (the Firmament, the moon "giving light", the pillars of the earth, etc.).

You reject a literal reading of Genesis when it comes to certain areas of science.

And yet, you demand that Genesis be interpreted literally when it comes to the question of whether evolution has occurred.

Why is that Floyd?

Date: 2009/10/30 15:41:01, Link
Author: Jasper
I'm posting this here because the "debate" has finally moved on to ID and I don't want to disrupt the progress that's being made.

It should be pointed out that Floyd has constructed a strawman by merely stating that Ken Miller called humans "lucky accidents" in Finding Darwin's God.

Miller does acknowledge that the existence of humans is based on a series of contingent events in natural history, but he goes on to point out that each and every one of us is the result of such contingencies in human history.
   
Quote
The biological account of lucky historical contingencies that led to our own appearance on this planet is surely accurate. What does not follow is that a perceived lack of inevitability translates into something that we should regard as incompatibility with a divine will. To do so seriously underestimates God, even as this God is understood by the most conventional of Western religions.

Yes, the explosive diversification of life on this planet was an unpredictable process. But so were the rise of Western civilization, the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the winning number in last night's lottery. We do not regard the indeterminate nature of any of these events in human history as antithetical to the existence of a Creator; why should we regard similar events in natural history any differently? There is, I would submit, no reason at all. If we can view the contingent events in the families that produced our individual lives as consistent with a Creator, then certainly we can do the same for the chain of circumstances that produced our species.

The alternative is a world where all events have predictable outcomes, where the future is open neither to chance nor to independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is a world in which we would never be free. To a believer, the particular history leading to us shows how truly remarkable we are, how rare is the gift of consciousness, and how precious is the chance to understand.

Source

In other words, contingent events are a part of our existence. They are built into the very fabric of the universe. If a Christian rejects the evolutionary history of life because it has involved unpredictable processes that could have resulted in a very different outcome, then those same Christians should also be required to reject all other scientific explanations that include unpredictable processes.

For instance, does the contingent nature of the sorting of chromosomes during meiosis mean that all humans are merely "lucky accidents" whose existence had nothing to do with the will of God?

Is the apparently "random" nature of the joining of egg and sperm during fertilization incompatible with the belief that human beings are knit together by God in their mothers' wombs?

As Miller explains in FDG, all of us can point to specific, life-changing events that--when we look back--appear to have been entirely "random" or "indeterminate." And yet, Christians of all stripes are willing to accept these small-scale contingencies as part of the process by which we came to exist.  I see no rational reason for Christians to reject evolution simply because it involves these same type of contingencies on a larger scale.

Date: 2009/10/31 09:33:30, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 30 2009,23:19)
 
Quote
I'm posting this here because the "debate" has finally moved on to ID and I don't want to disrupt the progress that's being made.

Progress?!!?!???

Yes, I was being facetious.

I almost put that word in quotation marks.

Date: 2009/10/31 20:05:40, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:44)
...the Bible itself specifies exclusively DIRECT, not indirect, causations for ALL origin events during Creation Week.

Exclusively DIRECT?

ALL origin events?

What does Genesis actually say, Floyd?
Quote
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:11-12

Quote
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Genesis 1:24

Lying is against one of God's commandments, Floyd.

I'm just making sure you knew because, apparently, you've never actually read the Bible.

Date: 2009/11/05 23:09:48, Link
Author: Jasper
Robert-

It appears that you left out a verb in your last sentence.  Let me fix it for you:

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,23:50)
This movie has caused more talk and fear then anyone expected. it shows how evolution is not founded on the merits but on establishment consent. like any other idea that has been discovered to be without legs.
young men of ambition will be taking on evolution more and more now I predict.
I wish movies were not important as they come from unrepresentive demagraphics. however it seems they are a quick way to ...misinform... large numbers of people.

Date: 2009/12/01 20:10:49, Link
Author: Jasper
I wouldn't believe anything that Robert Crowther has written about a debate that included a couple of his DI brethren.

Methinks he doth boast too much.

I'll wait for the video to surface.

Date: 2009/12/04 20:16:07, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 04 2009,17:29)
How do you know it's the real FtK?

It could be a red heron.

Hey, be careful mentioning herons.

FtK's kids might get their guns.

Date: 2010/03/18 10:18:51, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 18 2010,06:08)
Casey is such a moron.

   
Quote
A biology educator recently wrote me asking how blah blah blah...
       
Quote
Dear [Snip],


Casey you fucking moron, if you don't want the public to know to whom the letter was addressed, you might not want to announce that it was you in the very first sentence of your post. If the letter was not addressed to you, then why say that it was? Are you just a compulsive liar? ....oh, nevermind.

Um...Lou.

Casey posted his response to the "biology educator." The [Snip] is the biology educator's name.

Date: 2010/04/14 17:36:27, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,16:14)
(And what exactly will you evolutionists do to salvage your high-school biology textbooks' chemical evolution sales-pitch, if you insist on every scientific hypothesis being mechanistic?)

Are you seriously suggesting that the descriptions of chemical evolution in high-school biology textbooks are not mechanistic? Is it your assertion that such textbook descriptions do not reference physical or "natural" causes?

Aren't you the one who complained about the textbook used in your local high school because it suggested that life may have arose "naturally and spontaneously" through the combined action of various physical and/or chemical causes?

Do you know what the word "mechanistic" means?

Date: 2010/04/22 11:35:34, Link
Author: Jasper
Quote (FloydLee @ April 22 2010,11:19)
You see that?  Cheryl's busted now.  

Her own scan-page reveals that she actually NEVER acknowledged that I correctly identified one important problem with the textbook while openly retracting my other statement.  

Instead she tried to duck and dodge, (but apparently forgot that her own scan-page was right there to tell the truth on her as well as me.)

She's busted? For disagreeing with you?

As I understand it, Floyd, csadams merely disagrees with your assertion that there is an "important problem" with the textbook.  She said so over a year ago and just repeated herself yesterday.

Look, Floyd, it has been pointed out to you multiple times that high school biology students lack the necessary understanding of biochemistry that is required to grasp the problems with the RNA world hypothesis. The textbook in question clearly emphasizes the tentative nature of the hypothesis and leaves it to the teacher to go more in depth if the students can handle it.

Why don't you just admit it, Floyd? No scientifically-accurate textbook could ever satisfy you because you only want to focus on what we DON'T know, not on what we DO know. Obviously, your goal is to raise unreasonable doubts in the minds of students so that they will be more likely to fall back on the non-scientific explanations they hear from their pastors and from cowardly, hypocritical liars like you.

 

 

 

=====