form_srcid: Occam's Aftershave
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.96
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: Occam's Aftershave
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 'Occam\'s Aftershave%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2006/04/08 06:33:33, Link 209.209.14.239 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
As others have alluded to, that correlation implies causation is a logical fallacy. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation This is Basic Logic 101, but it seems to have eluded Thordaddy. |
| Date: 2006/04/08 13:34:19, Link 209.209.14.174 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
And African-American males ages 18-29 are also HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in the same areas. For the third time, correlation DOES NOT imply causation. Has it ever dawned on your bigoted little brain that such numbers could be affected by the stress due to discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence that gays are subjected to? The Australian Medical Association did detailed studies in 2002 that came to exactly that conclusion. Please read carefully the sections on discrimination, and its negative effect on health.
AMA Position Statement on Sexual Diversity If you wish to raise your kids to be as bigoted as you are, that's your decision. Just don't expect them to get very far in the modern world. |
| Date: 2006/04/09 17:49:20, Link 209.209.14.218 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
And African-American males ages 18-29 are also HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in the same areas. Do you think therefore we should stop teaching children in schools that all men are created equal? For the FOURTH F*CKING time, correlation DOES NOT imply causation. Thordaddy, you are either the most bigoted piece of sh*t to come down the pike in months, or the most stupid, or both. How did you manage to totally ignore the studies that show that the increased risk health and social problems of gays are CAUSED in a large part to the discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence that gays are subjected to? Sexual orientation does not cause the health problems, PREJUDICED ASSH*LES cause the health problems. Here is the 2002 Australian Medical Association report AGAIN. Read the d*mn thing, then tell me what it says about discrimination and its negative effect on health.
AMA Position on Sexual Diversity and Health Issues If you're so worried about the health issues of gays adversely affecting society, then stop being such a d*ckheaded bigot. I apologize to the rest of the board for my strong language, but few things hit my hot button like willfully ignorant prejudice. |
| Date: 2006/04/10 04:18:38, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
OK, you're both bigoted and stupid. Thanks for clearing that up Susceptibility to diseases (including things like alcohol /drug abuse) is greatly increased for people under severe stress. Sever stress is caused by being the victim of discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence. Many gays are the victims of discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence. If I used words with less syllables, would that help you understand? I ask you again - do you thing we should stop teaching racial equality in schools because certain minorities are over-represented in health related issues? Also, please tell us what you define to be the gay "lifestyle". AFAIK for every confrontational gay who makes the evening news, there are a hundred other non-hetero folks leading quiet, normal lives. These quite folks are our neighbors and friends. They obey the laws, pay their taxes on time, worry about the economy, defend their country in the armed services, cheer the local sports teams, cry during sappy movies, love their parents, partners, and children. Just like every other American. Why in the world should they be ostracized and even killed for their sexuality (remember Matthew Sheppard?) because of bigoted assh*les like you? |
| Date: 2006/04/10 09:41:26, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Chris Hyland wrote:
Ghost of Paley wrote:
Hi Ghost, Quick question – how do you define gender? Is it just the physical equipment a person is born with? Are there only two genders, male and female? What about hermaphrodites? What gender are they? My point is, the natural world is not limited to our binary constructs like masculine and feminine. In the natural world nonfatal variations in phenotype expression are not uncommon, and appear across a continuous spectrum. Similarly, variations in sexual preference appear across a continuous spectrum, from straight to bi to gay, and all shades in between. Sexuality is determined by a myriad of factors – biological, genetic, environmental. Those in society who define sexuality solely based on the plumbing between one’s legs, and who demonize those who don’t fit some narrow minded ideal are doing a great injustice to us all. |
| Date: 2006/04/10 15:42:07, Link 209.209.14.195 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
Ghost of Paley said:
Maybe in their physical equipment, but most certainly NOT in their sexual orientation. Multiple studies show that between 2-4% (not the often misquoted 10%) of people in the world identify themselves as gay or bi. Even erring on the low end, that’s over 100 million clearly non-hetero folks. A not insignificant number, wouldn’t you agree? http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=88 Ghost of Paley said:
But we must design social norms to accommodate the exceptional cases. Should we regress to a hundred years ago, when physically handicapped people were considered second class, denied civil rights, and placed in circus sideshows? It’s not like those ‘tards such as Stephen Hawkings ever contribute to society, right? Ghost of Paley said:
You just defined homosexual behavior as “sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know.” Now you are equating accepting homosexual behavior to “wiping out sexual mores” and “free love” and “open relationships” and “end of marriage”? How in the world can you make that logical connection? Here’s a though experiment for you You walk through the park and see a man and a woman making out like high school kids. Someone tells you “They’re on their honeymoon”, so you can bet they’ll be doing that “well,,,you know” stuff at night. You walk away smiling A week later you find out that the woman was actually a guy in drag, and that they pretended to be a hetero couple because they weren’t allowed to marry as a same-sex couple. Now tell me - how was society harmed by their relationship? What sexual mores got wiped out? How did their actions condone “free love”, or “open relationships”? Or signal an “end to marriage”? That is not a far-fetched scenario, BTW. Many same-sex couples are desperate to show their commitment in a legal marriage. Last year when the mayor of SF briefly instructed City Hall to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, over 4000 couples from all over the U.S. showed up the first week alone, totally swamping the office. Those with non-hetero orientations have never asked for special rights. They just want the same rights guaranteed every other person under the Constitution. The right to marry the person they love. The right to not be fired or beaten because of those they go home to at night. The right to not live in fear. Ghost of Paley said:
That’s right. Every time ANY person of ANY orientation is unfairly discriminated against, or ostracized, or threatened, or tied to a fence post and beaten to death, we ALL are adversely affected. |
| Date: 2006/04/11 15:13:32, Link 209.209.14.42 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Hey Ghost, You forgot to explain how allowing a same-sex couple to make the legal committment of marriage will lead to sexual mores getting wiped out. Or lead to a massive wave of “free love” and “open relationships”. Or signal an “end to marriage”. Please provide some details, not just your idle speculation. Inquiring minds want to know. |
| Date: 2006/04/11 16:02:28, Link 209.209.14.42 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
Isn't it fun to watch a homophobic bigot like Thordaddy try to justify his bigotry? Especially when he's so ignorant on the topic he thinks the term homosexual only refers to males? Wouldn’t surprise me at all if our Thordaddy has some gay leanings himself, and only posts his hateful rants here to ease his sense of self loathing.
Suuuuuuure it is, if you discount all the current studies that show an evolutionary advantage to having gays around to help with child-rearing, and those that show a dramatic statistical correlation between the chances of being gay and having a certain amount/type of siblings. Of course you also have to totally ignore the personal testimony of millions upon millions of gays who will tell you that their sexual preference is not a conscious decision. I guess if you have your head up your ass as far as Thordaddy, it's easy to block out those things you don't want to hear. And there's that "gay lifestyle" T-wad keeps harping on. I wonder if he'll ever tell us what it means? Do 100% of gays lead this "gay lifestyle"? 50%? 5%? Do the gay police arrest you if you're gay and don't behave like T-wad expects? Nothing like a little group stereotyping to help with your demonization, right? All blacks are lazy and shiftless All hispanics are thieves All asians can't drive All gays choose the "gay lifestyle".
NOW we’re getting somewhere. Maybe T-wad can tell us those very DISTINCT differences between female same-sex couples and male same-sex couples. I bet I know what the real difference is. When T-wad sees two gay males kissing he goes “Ewwww, that’s icky!”, but he’d pay good money to watch two hot looking gay women making out. Am I right Thordaddy? Sir Toejam has been correct along. There’s no reason to argue with such an idiot homophobe. It’s just good mental exercise, and may help the occasional lurker get a long hard look at just how low a bigoted Christian fundy can sink.
Well T-wad, any honest thing you post from here on out will be your first. |
| Date: 2006/04/11 16:28:26, Link 209.209.14.42 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Ghost of Paley said:
How many gays embrace a decadent lifestyle? 100%? 50%? 10%? How many is "many", and how did you determine that number? And what is a "decadent" lifestyle? PDAs in front of some 80 year old WASP prig? Wanting to have a committed same-sex relationship with someone you love? You are arguing the same group stereotyping that is a hallmark of every hater who tries to justify his prejudices. many blacks are lazy and shiftless many hispanics are thieves many asians can't drive many gays live a decadent lifestyle I just took Thordaddy to task for exactly the same thing. He's a hopeless flaming homophobe - you at least seem a bit more sane and rational. Do you see how your stereotyping drags you down to his level? And did it ever occur to you that the folks celebrating their sexuality in a parade do so because it is a highly visible but non-violent means of protesting and bringing attention to the discrimination they suffer? Good thing Rosa Parks and ML King didn't realize how they were damaging their movement by being such uppity nigg*rs, eh? |
| Date: 2006/04/11 18:45:56, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
Here we see the Thordaddy the bigoted troll in full bloom First the moron posts this
Then the moron links to NARTH, a right-wing Christian anti-gay organization whose "sexual reparative therapy " for "curing" homosexuals has been denounced and condemned by virtually every professional medical and teaching association in the country, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American School Health Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association. After all that, the moron references quotes that directly contradict his claim that homosexuality is solely the result of a freely made lifestyle choice. wow.....just wow. T-daddy, shouldn't you be off burning crosses, or marching with Fred Phelps somewhere? |
| Date: 2006/04/12 09:51:37, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||||||||||
All quotes from Thordaddy
Someone like you with an irrational fear of any person who has a different sexuality than what you deem “correct”, and who espouses discrimination against those persons based on your fears.
Nope. Stereotyping in making a judgment on ALL members of a group based on the actions of a few individuals, like demonizing all gays based on the few militants you see on TV. You as an individual are showing to be a homophobic bigot based on your individual actions here.
Not at all, just pointing out a plausible reason for your hate filled anti-gay diatribes. Do you have a better explanation?
Absolutely nothing, yet you obviously are petrified of gays to the point of actively denying them their civil rights.
Links to studies showing the evidence for positive evolutionary benefits have already been provided. That you are too stupid or too lazy to read and understand them is your problem. Altruism doesn't make sense for an individual but is an evolutionary evolved trait too – every single individual need not maximize his reproductive potential as long as the population reproductive potential is positively affected.
No stereotyping – you’re an individual assh*le bigot.
Please elaborate on this very recognizable and distinct ideological system. How does it differ from the “heterosexual lifestyle”? What percentage of the gay population with this lifestyle is “many”, and how did you determine the actual numbers?
Of course this is a blatant lie. I corrected your lie by stating Discrimination causes severe stress Severe stress cause health problems, both physical and emotional Health problems negatively affect the spread of AIDS I like when you repeat such easily exposed lies; it makes my job of highlighting your dishonesty that much easier. Are you claiming that homosexuality causes AIDS?
Maybe we should discriminate against those d*mn queers by making them all wear striped uniforms with pink triangles affixed. That seemed to work once before as I recall. Is that your solution? Fred Phelps is waiting for you Thordaddy, you’re his boy! |
| Date: 2006/04/12 12:34:48, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
All quotes by Thordaddy
You just go on and on about this statistic without ever addressing WHY this came to be. You take a small section of the population, actively discriminate against them, ostracize them, deny them the right to make legally committed relationships, tell them they’re worthless sinners who will burn in h*ll, physically beat them, then wonder why some of them adopt a selfish “society hates me anyway, so I’ll screw around and enjoy life for me before they kill me” attitude??
So that’s your understanding of human sexuality?? – homosexuality is defined only by a desire for anal sex?? No love, no attraction, no commitments – only butt f*cking? Gawd, no wonder you’re such a moronic bigot
So you think that teaching that same-sex attraction falls within the normal range of human behavior, and that folks in that category aren’t automatically perverts, sexual preditors, evil sinners, or monsters is the same as encouraging children to engage in dangerous and deadly behaviors? You fundy bigots will stoop to any level to justify your Bible-base prejudices, won’t you? Here’s an idea – we teach children the scientific truth. You are for science, right? 1) evidence shows homosexuality to be caused by a complex combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. The exact percentages are unknown and are probably different for each individual. 2) There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest same-sex attraction is a conscious choice. 3) Same-sex attraction falls within the normal, acceptable range of observed human behavior 4) Everyone deserves to be treated with equality, dignity and respect, and not discriminated against due to religiously based prejudices Then, we offer to the older children a frank course in sex education, including the risks of STDs from unprotected sex, both hetero and homo. That would go a long way towards solving the health issues and make for a better society, but of course it leaves you with the problem of gays being evil sinners who should burn in h*ll. Guess you’ll have to keep lighting those crosses on people’s lawns. |
| Date: 2006/04/12 13:26:25, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
|
Thordaddy, you’re really a confused little Fundy, aren't you? You keep confusing homosexuality with “unprotected anal sex.” You seem to use the terms interchangeably. Why is that? Is that what your preacher taught you about human sexuality? Thordaddy said:
Please do so. Just don’t make the mistake of linking to studies showing unprotected anal sex to be a very dangerous and deadly behavior. That is know to be dangerous for ALL couples, both hetero and home. I want to see your evidence that homosexuality (which means same-sex attraction) is by itself a very dangerous and deadly behavior. There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love. Show us how they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior. I asked
And you replied
I take that as an admission you can’t answer the question, and were just lying again when you made the claim.
Lining AIDS patients up against the wall and shooting them can prevent the spread of AIDS, does that mean we should do it? 18-29 yr. old African-American males are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of the crime rate in America. Does that mean we should discriminate against ALL young African-American males? There are laws with severe penalties for knowingly passing on the AIDS virus. The laws apply to ALL people regardless of sexual orientation. How does denying ALL gays their civil rights, and discriminating against ALL gays prevent the spread of AIDS? BTW, don’t think for a second that anyone buys your “it’s due to AIDS” reason that you’re so anti-gay. You’re just using that as an excuse for your religious-based bigotry, and we all know it. |
| Date: 2006/04/13 20:17:34, Link 209.209.14.133 | ||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||
That's right. There is NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION for discriminating against gays. The laws of this country apply equally to ALL citizens. You cannot discriminate against an ENTIRE GROUP based on the actions of INDIVIDUALS. The Constitution doesn't allow it. If INDIVIDUALS break the law, INDIVIDUALS are punished, not ENTIRE GROUPS. The last time group discrimination was tried in the U.S. was the Japanese interments of WW2. That was as shameful an episode as any screw-up the U.S. Government has done. Everyone in the country now recognizes that such group discrimination is wrong, immoral, and illegal. Everyone except bigoted homophobic fundy d*ckheads like you that is.
Homosexuality IS within the normal observed range of human behavior. This is based on thousands of years of empirical evidence from every single culture that's ever kept written records.
No, there are NO RATIONAL REASONS to discriminate against homosexuality in ANY area. Homophobes like you are fueled by your Biblical based hatred and prejudice, not by anything rational. Thordaddy, you claimed:
And I challenged you to back up your bluster
You totally ignored the tough questions - looks like your bigoted big mouth wrote another check your data can't cash. I'll ask again: There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love. Show us how they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior. You seem to be scurrying back and forth between the two "gay gene" threads in an effort to avoid answering any criticisms. Won't work though - I'll keep asking these tough questions so all the lurkers can see that your bigoted little troll ass has no answers. |
| Date: 2006/04/14 04:34:56, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
All quotes by Thordaddy
As opposed to your homophobic rants brought about by your religious indoctrinations? Those narrow-minded and hateful views you fundies wish to force on everyone?
All pedophiles, whether priests on not, are prosecuted as INDIVIDUALS based on their crime. Would you agree to public schools teaching that ALL Catholic priests are harmful to society just by virtue of there being SOME pedophile Catholic priests? Why or why not?
Which lie is that - that AIDS doesn't care about the sexuality of the infectee? Maybe you should research the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa and tell us what the statistics are for hetero infections. BTW, you still keep avoiding this question There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love. Show us how they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior. And what about the young virginal teenagers who hit puberty and find in their sexual awakening that they are attracted to members of the same sex? In attempts to understand and discuss their feelings, many times they are kicked out by their parents, ostracized by their friends, told by their “loving” church that they’re evil sinners and God hates them. Many are driven into suicidal despair by such rejection. Tell me how those young people were guilty of very dangerous and deadly behavior. Are you ready to retract your claim that homosexuality by itself equates to very dangerous and deadly behavior?
You've done nothing in your time here except post your trolling, hateful, anti-gay rants and avoid every single question that has been put forward. Why do you think anyone will believe you now? If you wish to show otherwise, start with the questions in this post. |
| Date: 2006/04/14 19:08:44, Link 209.209.14.14 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Thordaddy said:
I keep asking you these tough questions, but you keep refusing to answer. Engaging you like an adult is as productive as teaching calculus to a pig. Guess you're just another another "Liar for Jesus", eh? Here are questions for you to field if you can stop humping your Bible for a minute. There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love. How are they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior? Why should they be discriminated against? Some young virginal teenagers hit puberty and find in their sexual awakening that they are attracted to members of the same sex. In attempts to understand and discuss their feelings, many times they are kicked out by their parents, ostracized by their friends, told by their “loving” church that they’re evil sinners and God hates them. Many are driven into suicidal despair by such rejection. How are these young people guilty of very dangerous and deadly behavior? Why should they be discriminated against? Pedophile Catholic priests are certainly guilty of guilty of very dangerous and deadly behavior. Would you agree to public schools teaching that ALL Catholic priests are harmful to society just by virtue of there being SOME Catholic priests who are pedophiles? Thordaddy said:
And you haven't given one single rational reason to justify punishing ALL gays because of the actions of some INDIVIDUAL gays. You just keep spewing the same statistics ("But...but...more gays get AIDS that straights!!") like it was some fundy mantra without discussing WHY the rates are higher. You seem to think that more discrimination against gays will somehow magically make the rates go lower, but you won't address the fact that existing discrimination is one of the main causes for the higher rates to begin with. You also still have this creepy fixation about "homosexuality = anal sex" for some reason. Why is that? Did you have a bad experience with a Catholic priest as a child? If two gay men form a monogamous couple and do nothing to pleasure each other except fellatio and mutual masturbation, does that mean they're NOT homosexual in your eyes? And what about hetero couples - do hetero couples ever engage in anal sex? Is hetero anal sex any more or less unhealthy that gay anal sex? If two gay men agreed to sign a legally binding contract that guaranteed they would never engage in anal sex under penalty of law in exchange for the right to be legally married, would you then condone the marriage? You are a strange, twisted fundy Thordaddy. Your homophobia has turned you into a bigot, and a coward, and a liar. I strongly suggest you go for counseling. |
| Date: 2006/04/15 13:31:47, Link 209.209.14.77 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Thordaddy, you still have a lot of tought questions about your homophobia waiting for you at the bottom of page 9 of this thread. Why do refuse to answer them? Is it because after all your mouthy bluster, you have no answers? Gee, who'da thunk  I thought your Bible gave you all the answers. I'll repost them for the fourth time if you can't find them. The board is waiting, your Bigotness. |
| Date: 2006/04/18 13:26:59, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
|
Oh good Thordaddy, you're back! Now you can answer all those though questions about your homophobia. You know, the questions you've avoided like the plague since you started spouting your bigoted rants
BTW, looks like ericmurphy already anticipated your latest anti-gay "reasoning" ericmurphy wrote:
You fundie bigots need to come up with some better, more original arguments. You're getting boring. |
| Date: 2006/04/18 15:13:11, Link 209.209.14.117 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Ghost of Paley says:
Do you know how to tell if you're winning a debate with a homophobe? After you point out the self-serving hypocrisy and total lack of rational arguments for their prejudice and bigotry, they'll call you a liberal! |
| Date: 2006/04/18 16:11:13, Link 209.209.14.117 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
AFD said:
Here is a beneficial mutation to a protein that was documented in a population in Italy. It helps reduce the risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke. The mutation is now becoming fixed in the local population. There are many others if you cared to look for them - Google is your friend. beneficial mutation AFD said:
There are literally hundreds of lineages in the fossil record that are considered "transitional" form. Here are but a few: transitional fossils list How could you miss the big excitement about the latest tetrapod transitional announced earlier this month, Tiktaalik? It was in all the papers. Tiktaalik discovery For me, the most compelling evidence for the veracity of ToE is the twin nested hierarchies of life: the tree of ancestry derived from the molecular evidence matches perfectly with the tree of ancestry from the fossil record. Two completely independent lines of evidence that point unmistakably to the conclusion of common descent. You can read more about it, and plenty of other evidence here Evidence for common descent Note that unlike your AnswersInGenesis source, virtually every article at TalkOrigins is backed up by references and citations to actual peer reviewed scientific research, so you can check the original data yourself. Combat pilots are supposed to have good situational awareness. Do you? Let's see you assess the situation honestly after reading ALL the available evidence. |
| Date: 2006/04/18 16:38:30, Link 209.209.14.117 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Thordaddy the homophobe said:
I can just hear Thordaddy’s bigoted voice in the early 1860’s in the U.S.:
Better watch out Thordaddy – if those evil atheist communist gay-loving liberals get their way, you’ll be first up against the wall facing in and bent over |
| Date: 2006/04/18 19:17:38, Link 209.209.14.158 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
Thordaddy Can a gay couple get married in a legal, state recognized union that grants them the same legal rights (no more, no less) as hetero couples? Yes or No? No Can a gay legally marry the person whom they love, cherish, honor, and respect enough to be willing to make a permanent monogamous lifetime legal commitment to? Yes or No? No That is why your anti-gay argument is based on inequality and discrimination against individuals.
Denying civil rights to non-whites was a fundamental uniqueness to our civilization up until 140 years ago Denying civil rights to women (i.e. the right to vote) was a fundamental uniqueness to our civilization up until 80 years ago Denying civil rights to interracial couples (i.e. the right to marry) was a fundamental uniqueness to our civilization up until 40 years ago In every case, the bigots made the identical arguments as you do now - "if we change the status quo, it will ruin society!!" Now there is ample scientific evidence that a person's sexuality is defined by a whole lot more than just their physical external plumbing. But that won't get in the way of your religiously inspired "all gays are evil sinners who want to harm children and wreck civilization!!" rants, now will it? You've already established the fact that you're a bigot and a coward, with nothing to add except repetition of your same old prejudiced canards. Just for curiosity's sake though, why in the world are you so hung up over what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom? |
| Date: 2006/04/19 04:47:40, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Compare these Thordaddy arguments
with these
Do they sound similar? Identical? The second batch of quotes date from 1823 to 1964 and refer to interracial marriage. The quotes were culled from a Boston University Law Review article and a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Looks like those damm liberals have been trying to distroy traditional marriage for hundreds of years. How could they do such a thing???Man Thordaddy, you Bible humping bigots gotta get some new material! |
| Date: 2006/04/20 04:21:55, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thordaddy whines...
Ya know Thordaddy, the only thing you've established is the fact that you're a pin-headed bigot. No need to be an obsessive compulsive about demonstrating it every day. The same lies and misrepresentations you repeat with every message have been dealt with ad nauseum. If your prejudiced hateful pea-brain has nothing new to add, I respectfully suggest you go take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut. |
| Date: 2006/04/20 06:38:24, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Flint said
Their styles are certainly different, but I can't tell any difference in the substance. Thordaddy flings his dog turds through the porch window; GoP hand delivers his in a box with a bow ribbon. |
| Date: 2006/04/20 13:24:18, Link 209.209.14.42 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
HEY THORDADDY EVEN IF YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS AS WELL AS BOLD AND LARGE FONT AT THE SAME TIME, IT STILL WON'T ADD CREDENCE TO THE VACUOUS BULLSH*T YOU'VE ALREADY POSTED HALF A DOZEN TIMES! We KNOW you hate all gays We KNOW you think they don't deserve to live We KNOW you're a mouthy, bigoted, holier-than-thou prick. There's no need to be a redundant mouthy bigoted holier-than-thou prick. |
| Date: 2006/04/20 13:43:50, Link 209.209.14.42 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thordaddy the bigot foams:
LMAO! This coming from a rabid homophobic bigot who himself has a deep obsession with anal sex, claims that homosexuality causes AIDS, and that gays have a secret agenda to distroy civilized society as we know it  T-daddy, aren't you afraid to walk outside where a gay might accidentally brush against you and give you gay cooties? |
| Date: 2006/04/20 14:24:24, Link 209.209.14.42 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thordaddy rants:
For the lurkers: What this debate really boils down to is the definition of man and woman. For millennia the sexes have been defined only in those binary terms, based solely on a person's external plumbing. As a general rule this works for most all cases, probably >95%. The right to form legally recognized pairs has been based on this simple binary standard since the get go. However, as human understanding has increased, it has become obvious that there exists a small but significant portion (<5%) of the population whose sexuality is NOT dependent solely on their genitalia. Scientific evidence continues to mount that human sexuality is actually determined by a mixture of many factors - genetic, hormonal, and environmental - and that human sexuality can naturally fall anywhere along a spectrum, not just a binary genital-based either/or. Gays and bi-sexuals are human beings who happen to fall on the edges of this spectrum. They are not sinners, or evil, or decadent. They're just everyday regular people, like every one else on this crowded planet. The question now arises – given our new understanding, should society refuse to recognize the scientific realities and continue to unfairly discriminate against a portion of the naturally occurring population? Gays and bisexuals don't want special rights or privileges. They only want the exact same privileges granted to everyone else. They want the right to form legally recognized pairs. They want the right to not be fired from a job, or socially ostracized, or kicked and beaten just for being different. And contrary to the bigoted bleating of sanctimonious assh*les like Thordaddy, society won’t crumble and fire & brimstone won’t rain down if gays are permitted the same legal rights as everyone is guaranteed under the Constitution. |
| Date: 2006/04/20 18:36:15, Link 209.209.14.75 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Thordaddy the bigot continues with his infinite loop of stupidity:
And for the fifteenth time It will be pointed out to this dumba$$ that gays are denied the right to form a legally binding state recognized partnership of marriage with all its associated privileges, a right that is freely available to all other non-gay citizens through marriage.
Another lie from the dumba$$. Actually it’s the same lie he has repeated over and over and over, as if he tells it enough times it will become true. Gays do not seek to redefine the rights and privileges granted to a couple that is engaged in a traditional marriage. They only wish to not be denied those same rights. I do not answer Thordaddy’s rants to try and change his mind. He was a self righteous homophobic bigot yesterday, he’s a self righteous homophobic bigot today, and tomorrow’s not looking any better. My comments are for the lurkers, with the idea that prejudice and hatred like Thordaddy’s should be opposed every time it rears its ugly head. |
| Date: 2006/04/20 19:53:35, Link 209.209.14.75 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
Thordaddy the bigot rants:
You have been repeating yourself dumba$$, over and over and over with the same tired lies. And each time you were answered, and each time *you* were too chickensh*t to answer all the other questions you've left hanging on this thread. Why is that?
First you started out with "being gay is a lifestyle choice", then moved to "Gays cause AIDS", then "Gays are pedophiles", then "Gays want to destroy society", and now its "Gays just want marriage for financial gain". Your bigoted little mind just doesn't know what lie to use next, now does it dumba$$?
Oh, like the definition of "traditional marriage" that said one couldn't marry outside of one's race until that law was changed? Did giving interracial couples the right to marry destroy "traditional marriage"?
Gee, that's the exact same argument the racial bigots used to oppose interracial marriage. It was a worthless argument that failed miserably then, it's still a worthless argument that's failing miserably now. Here's an idea - we could change the law so that it no longer unfairly discriminates but applies equally to ALL couples who wish to marry. Equality under the law - what a novel concept for a bigoted dumba$$ like you, eh? The more you rant and lie, the more you remind me of another dishonest sh*t-for-brains moron named Larry Fafarman. Are you guys related? |
| Date: 2006/04/21 17:41:43, Link 209.209.14.171 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thordaddy the obsessive compulsive bigoted dumba$$
Fred Phelps, er, Thordaddy: if we wanted any more sh*t from you we'd squeeze your head. Now go make yourself a nice warm cup of shut the #### up and let the adults continue the discussion. |
| Date: 2006/04/22 13:55:00, Link 209.209.14.101 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thordaddy continues his idiot act
Here's a fourth choice - bigoted assh*les like you need to raise your IQ above room temperature, and that's in degrees Celsius. Since you won't put a sock in it - here's what you can do: We live in a free country. If you want to marry your five brothers, or marry your blow-up sheep, you are free to petition the government for a change in the laws. If you feel that sheep f*ckers or brother marriers like you are being discriminated against, all you need to do is convince enough other people of the goodness of your cause. If you can find enough other sheep f*ckers or brother marriers to get on the ballot - more power to you. Right now there are several million gay U.S. citizens who are being unfairly punished just for being who they are. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that gay people did not choose their sexuality. Nevertheless, they are being denied the right to form a one-on-one legal union with a person they love, a right granted to non-gay citizens, because of it. These folks and others who agree that the current wrong need righting are working within the legal system to change the laws. No one is changing the definition of marriage as a one-on-one legal union. All that’s changing is the legal definition of who that one legal partner can be. Changing and expanding the definition of what constitutes a legal partner has been done many times in the past, from allowing those of different religions to marry (it used to be illegal for a Catholic to marry a Protestant), to the most recent change of allowing interracial marriages. This is no different – extending marriage rights to ALL citizens who wish one-on-one commitments. If you can muster evidence that you deserve the right to change the definition of marriage from one-on-one to five-on-one, or to one-on-sheep, please present it. Otherwise, go stick your head back under the sh*tpile. |
| Date: 2006/04/24 16:05:32, Link 209.209.14.59 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Ghost of Paley says
...and Ghost of Paley delivers another dog turd with a pretty bow ribbon. It's obvious to all by now that Ghost of Paley is floundering badly. His confused attempts to claim legalizing gay marriage must lead to massive affirmative action programs have crashed and burned. His "free scale networks" nonsense deserves a nomination for math gobbledygook post of the month. Finally, realizing that he has caught himself in his own zipper big time, he attempts a lame burden-of-proof shift maneuver coupled with screaming "damm liberals!!!" as often as he can. Pretty pathetic, even for a ghost. |
| Date: 2006/04/24 16:15:00, Link 209.209.14.59 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
stevestory says:
LOL! Actually, MCC's Good Math, Bad Math was the first thing I thought of a few days ago when I initially read GoP's goofy sidebar into math fantasyland. Convergent evolution? |
| Date: 2006/04/25 07:24:51, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
I've had to consider the possibility that I'm really a lesbian trapped in a man's body. After all, I always felt safer on a girl's bike. Why should the one with the balls get the one with the bar?(with apologies to Gallagher) |
| Date: 2006/04/25 16:25:09, Link 209.209.14.4 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Ghost of Paley says
Maybe, but you're an easy man to make look foolish, severely biased, and addle-brained. Your wandering, rant-filled, off topic posts do most of the work for us. You began trying to defend your anti-gay stance and ended up raving about the liberal media. WTF? The only difference I can see between you and that mouth-breathing bigoted idiot Thordaddy is that you’re much more verbose. Neither of you can back up a single “gay marriage will ruin society” claim you’ve made. Do you enjoy this process of publicly humiliating yourself? |
| Date: 2006/04/25 19:57:21, Link 209.209.14.251 | ||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||
|
Well, it was too good to last. Three whole days without Thordaddy’s rancid homophobic stench permeating the place… All quotes by Thordaddy the bigot
Yes, I agree. The forces of goodness and decency are making progress against assh*le bigots like you.
That makes no sense whatsoever
The point is to give same sex couples the identical rights now afforded hetero couples. It’s just icing on the cake if as a result culture moves towards more tolerance and away from hateful bigotry like you espouse.
The “American process” IS to use the legal system and free elections to achieve equal rights you f*cking moron. What planet ARE you from?
You mean it will redefine what Thordaddy the bigot has proclaimed as “traditional marriage” - isn't that just tough sh*t for you. The rest of society will still define marriage as a one-on-one legally recognized partnership. All that’s changing is expanding the definition of who can enter into such legal partnerships, just like the definition has been expanded in the past. When the tiny minority of inter-religion couples were given their “special right” to marriage, did they dictate a new definition for “traditional marriage” to the rest of society? When the tiny minority of interracial couples were given their “special right” to marriage, did they dictate a new definition for “traditional marriage” to the rest of society? Thordaddy, you’re so full of sh*t your eyes are brown. How’s that petition to marry your five brothers coming? Any support? Got any more sheep-f*ckers like you to come out of the “cote”? Are your children really your "kids" and do they call you Thorda-a-a-a-a-a-a-dy?  |
| Date: 2006/04/26 06:45:43, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
Thorda-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-dy says
As many others have noted, you get exactly the respect you have earned. I make no apologies for having no patience with bigoted assh*les like you. My wife and I live near SF, know many gays as coworkers and friends, and have seen up close and personal just how hurtful your hateful prejudice can be on real, live people.
Of course not you lying moron. I said society already defines marriage as a one-on-one legally recognized partnership. That definition is not being challenged or changed. The definition of who is eligible is being expanded, just as it has been expanded multiple times already in the recent past.
YOU are the only one who has mentioned changing the definition to one-on-five, or one-on sheep. Not the gay community Thorbigot - YOU only. Worthless f*cks like you have no clue as to how much real world pain you cause to innocent people. That's why your type will be confronted every time you rear your ugly bigoted head. |
| Date: 2006/04/26 17:36:08, Link 209.209.14.222 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thorda-a-a-a-a-a-a-dy says
Wow t-wad, you've got to be one of the funniest homophobic imbeciles to ever troll the internet! If you want to petition for the right to marry your sheep, or marry your brothers, go right ahead with my blessing. It's a free country, and the American process makes allowances even for bigoted nutcase assh*les like you. Let me know when you and your fellow sheep f*ckers establish a quorum. |
| Date: 2006/04/26 18:17:07, Link 209.209.14.222 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Thorda-a-a-a-a-ady says
Of course Larry, er, Thordaddy can't post without lying. I said I'd support your right to petition the government for you to be a married sheep f*cker. And indeed I will. You got that quorum of sheep f*ckers yet T-wad?
Actually, if sheep f*ckers like you got your way and you could marry your wooly true love, it wouldn't affect my marriage the slightest bit. Two questions Thordaddy, if you aren't too chickensh*t to answer: How did legalizing inter-religion marriages affect your marriage? How did legalizing interracial marriages affect your marriage? |
| Date: 2006/04/27 06:30:46, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Thorda-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-dy says
Why do you keep lying about what was actually said? Do you think everyone else is as stupid as you and can't go back and read the previous posts?
Well how about that! Mr. "traditional marriage is the very foundation of our civilized society" admits that he never bothered to get married himself. He can raise bastard children in a "no commitment, free love" environment that spits in the face of traditional marriage, but here he's preaching to everyone else how those who respect the institution and desperately want to get married are ruining marriage somehow. Larry or Thordaddy or whoever; you are the biggest lying hypocrite to ever put fingers to keyboard. Don't ever, EVER presume to lecture others on the critical importance and sanctity of marriage when you yourself couldn't be bothered with it. |
| Date: 2006/04/27 11:50:20, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||||||||||
Thordaddy the flaming hypocrite says
Because you are a hypocrite, you assh*le. You scream that marriage is SO important, but you yourself refuse to make the commitment. That makes you a hypocrite.
Then if you don’t care about marriage, why are you having such a hissy fit over those who are willing to make a lifetime one-on-one commitment to a person that they love?
Already done, hypocrite.
Of course they are you moron. Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.
Marriage as defined as a legal commitment to one loving, lifetime partner is certainly important.
The fact that I had the right to make a lifetime legal commitment to the person I love is very important to me. Everyone willing to take that leap should have that right.
What you do with your personal life is of no concern to me or my wife. Just because something is “traditional” doesn’t mean that it can’t be expanded and improved. The “partners must be of the same religion” part of “traditional” marriage was changed, and the world didn’t end. The “partners must be of the same race” part of “traditional” marriage was changed, and the world didn’t end. Why do you think the “partners must have opposite external plumbing” part of “traditional” marriage is so important? Why does defining “man” and “woman” in marriage have to be limited to just physical genitalia, and not include innate psychological and emotional make up too? Give a rational reason, and folks may at least listen even if they do not agree. Keep spouting the same homophobic bullsh*t like “the gay agenda is to ruin society!! or "gays cause AIDS!!!" or "gays have ickky butt sex!!!" or “but…but…but…it’s traditional!!!” and you’ll always be viewed correctly as nothing but a bigoted clown.
Well, since you’ve been too much of a hypocritical chickensh*t to make a marriage commitment, any claims as to how much you will value it are less than worthless.
Of course it’s not, but continually lying about it seems to be the only argument you can muster. You’re making yourself look real good there sh*t-for-brains. |
| Date: 2006/04/27 14:49:21, Link 209.209.14.84 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Just a reminder AFDave: What happens to an Air Force pilot who flies into a zero-zero fog at night, and every last one of his instruments (altimeter, air speed, artificial horizon, etc.) indicates the aircraft is in a rapidly descending spiral, but the pilot decides to ignore all that empirical scientific data and trust his inner balance that tells him he's flying straight and level? Think about it. |
| Date: 2006/04/27 15:01:13, Link 209.209.14.84 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
It's the mark of an idiot savant, but without the savant part. |
| Date: 2006/04/28 06:08:49, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
Hi AFDave I appreciate your good attitude toward this whole topic. No one that I know will attempt to change your belief in God, or claim that your belief is wrong. Many here see no conflict whatsoever in believing in God and accepting the ToE (a topic for another thread at another time). However, we will take you to task if you screw up the technical stuff. As an IP in a Talon, would you let your students slide if they got Airmanship 101 wrong?  That being said, you’ve got a big logic flaw in your very first batch of Testable Prediction arguments.
In all of these cases, your observations do not provide confirming evidence for your predictions, because there are other well supported explanations requiring no Supreme Being. You are committing a simple logical error, i.e. You hypothesize that it rained last night You predict “If it rained, my driveway will be wet” You look out the door in the morning and observe a wet driveway That doesn’t mean that it rained last night – maybe your wife just washed the car there, or your next door neighbor’s lawn sprinkler was mis-aimed. You cannot conclude rain just by seeing a wet driveway. The wet driveway doesn’t preclude your hypothesis, but it does not qualify as something that confirms your hypothesis either. To confirm your hypothesis, you need other evidence that could be caused by rain only. Think it through again and you’ll understand. FYI, I’m a spacecraft systems designer (all DOD stuff), MSEE, with a strong amateurs’ interest in the natural sciences. I’d also like to thank you for your military service to our country. Guys like me can’t say enough to our military folks about just how much they are appreciated. |
| Date: 2006/04/28 11:13:27, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thordaddy the bigoted a$$clown says
And I'll again point out to the lurkers that Thordaddy the homophobe is the only person on this whole thread who has mentioned anything about "marriage between one man/one woman is no better or no worse, but in fact EQUAL to a marriage between a man and a sheep" Lying for Jesus makes Thordaddy feel better about his pathetic bigoted little world, which is why he does it virtually every post. |
| Date: 2006/04/28 20:51:47, Link 209.209.14.113 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Hey AFDave, I'm late getting to the party today. The observation I will make has already been made, but since you didn't address it I will say it again. Every single event you listed in your Part 1 was a POSTdiction, not a PREdiction. Stars with huge energy outputs were observed before you hypothesized "God would make big, powerful stars." Altruistic behavior was observed before you hypothesized "God would create right and wrong behavior" People heard voices in their head before you hypothesized "God will send messages to some people" All you are doing is making some ad hoc rationalizations after the fact. You are providing absolutely nada in the way of a testable hypothesis or supporting data. I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too. I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results. Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis. Can you see any flaw in that reasoning? You're already flying into that fog bank and disregarding your instruments. Still not too late to pull up and avoid the CFIT. |
| Date: 2006/04/29 07:01:21, Link 209.209.14.46 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Hi AFDave,
My objection WAS my answer to your first response. You can name 10,000 observations after the fact, but none of those observations are predictions that logically follow from your hypothesis. "A God with a sense of esthetics would make a beautiful blue sky. WOW! Look at that, the sky is blue!" Why not green, or purple? If the sky was green, you'd claim it as evidence for God too, wouldn't you? "A God with a sense of humor would create a group of goofballs that choose to be willfully ignorant of 150+ years of verified and cross-correlating scientific evidence!" OK, you got me on that one Then there's always the flip side that you avoid "A kind, loving God would protect and nurture his children." Gee, there's ebola, and cancer, and tsunamis in the Pacific that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Oops. And speaking of dodging responses, I asked you
Well? A couple of final point (for today) First: You were fairly warned that if you try to BS your way through the technical details of the sciences involved in discussing the ToE, or a 6000 year old Earth, etc. you are going to get your ass handed to you on a plate, and you most deservedly will. Getting your scientific understanding from a Christian Apologetic site like AIG is like trying to understand a hundred years of aircraft history and design by reading Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. If you are serious about understanding, you must go to the primary scientific literature (many scientific papers are available at PubMed), or at a minimum sites that reference the primary scientific literature. There are many good "neutral" sites on the web, like the U.C. Berkeley Museum of Paleontology, for example. Second: With all due respects, trying to "prove" the existence of God by examining the physical world is a fool's errand. Religion is a matter of individual faith, and trying to "prove" that your particular flavor of religion is the only *correct* is not only foolhardy, it's an insult to the intelligence of people who have already formed their own individual ideas based on knowledge that you lack. Have a good weekend, chat more soon. |
| Date: 2006/04/29 15:07:11, Link 209.209.14.60 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
I've come to the conclusion that Thordaddy has problems - real psychological and emotional problems that he is struggling to deal with. His irrational fear and hatred of gays makes me think that he himself has at one time been attracted to men, possibly to the point of experimenting, and is now filled with self-loathing. Alternately, maybe he was molested by his parish priest and is now upset because he secretly liked it. It would explain his aversion to marrying a woman, and his fixation on anal sex and sheep. I think it's best we all give this nutbar a wide berth. |
| Date: 2006/05/01 06:25:39, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
AFDave says
Dave, you're really starting to disappoint me. You continue to criticize technical areas in which you admittedly have no expertise, yet accuse those who do have detailed knowledge in those areas of being "closed minded". What you are doing is the equivalent of going to a convention of aerospace engineers and pilots, held at an airport with hundreds of aircraft on the tarmac and flying overhead, and lecturing that heavier-than-air flight is impossible. Then, after you have embarrassed yourself with that, dozens of those technical people offer to help you and teach you the basics you obviously lack, but you refuse to listen and instead tell them they're closed minded. Is it any surprise you are turning off most everyone here? Being smug and self-assured may be a good thing for a combat pilot, but if not backed up with technical knowledge and understanding those traits will just make you a smoking hole in the ground. Many people have already pointed out the unwarranted assumptions and battleship-sized flaws in your logic. If you want to impress us, start listening and addressing the criticisms. Show more critical thinking skills and less single-minded bluster. |
| Date: 2006/05/01 08:05:47, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||||||||||||
AFDave says
Actually Dave, you haven’t. All you’ve been doing is continuing to present your uninformed opinions on technical topic that you don’t understand. I, personally, don’t care what you choose to believe, as long as it makes you happy. However, when you present your ignorance as an alternative to actual scientific results, I will continue to point out your errors.
That’s total bullshit Dave. You’re off on an exercise of self-justification for your religious beliefs, nothing more. Do you think you’re the first to come here and do this?
Denton and Behe and the other Creationist pseudo-scientists specifically target untrained laymen like you because you don’t have the skill set to know you’re being lied to. You’re a “soft target” Dave, whether you care to admit it or not.
And sometimes there is no problem, but the Mom becomes a controlling, domineering battle-ax over her children anyway just because she needs to feel important.
Science HAS NOT EVER claimed to have disproved the existence of God. Whoever told you that if full of shit too. There are certainly a few atheistic scientists (i.e. Dawkins) who hold that personal opinion, but the science itself says NOTHING one way or the other on the existence of God. You want to claim different? Then find me a textbook or a scientific research paper ANYWHERE that says “here is scientific evidence there is no God”.
Er Dave, there is ample evidence humans ARE just another species of animal. Your total ignorance of, or personal dislike for of the evidence does not mean the evidence doesn’t exist.
Again, science DOES NOT DO what you claim. Just what do you think “science” is, anyway? Science is just the collected technical knowledge of the natural world. It has been compiled by millions of people of all religions over hundreds of years and is available to be examined or questioned by anybody. It is not some unified organization like the Catholic church with a “head scientist” as Pope handing out scientific “proclamations” that must be followed by the lesser scientists.
Again, nothing personal Dave, but you’re way too ignorant on the topic to be telling professionals that they are in error. If you wish, you can study the sciences, do your own research, and present peer reviewed results to overturn current scientific thinking. However, just repeating your uninformed bogus claims will only get you laughed at.
I agree 100% that this is a political battle, because the scientific battle was decided over 150 years ago. The YECs lost. Like so many other Fundamentalists, all you want is your particular religion’s brand of “Truth and Fairness”, regardless that all the scientific evidence available directly contradicts you.
I respect your passion, but your critical thinking skills still haven’t gotten off the ground. Take care. |
| Date: 2006/05/01 09:53:29, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Atrociously bad writing style that would embarrass a Jr. High school author. The only reason the book sold was its "religious controversy", and even that was contrived. Find a copy for $0.50 at a yard sale if you must. |
| Date: 2006/05/01 10:20:05, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Well Dave, if you didn't want to discuss your claim of "science says it disproves the existence of God", then why in the world did you bring it up in the first place? Speaking of on topic, you are still avoiding answering this objection to your hypothesis
Why is that reasoning any less valid than yours? or Abductive Reasoning DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The Indian tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the hypothesis that AFDave caused the tsunami  )CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true. Tell us AFDave, should we suspect you of killing all those innocent people? Don't feel alone. Most of the YECs who come through here experience similar bouts of cognitive dissonance when presented with factual evidence that blows away their arguments. That makes them get angry and confused, just like you. |
| Date: 2006/05/01 12:37:13, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
|
AFDave, you keep ignoring this important discussion point. You've ignored it three times now, so I'll ask it a fourth time OA: "I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too. I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results. Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis." Why is that reasoning any less valid than yours? AFDave says
Sure, if you realize as we do that your definition of "open minded person" is someone as totally ignorant of the sciences involved as yourself who can be gulled by pseudoscientific charlatans. You probably won't find many here who fit your definition, though.
Sigh...Sorry Dave, you started this thread to provide the evidence for your YEC position, remember? So post your evidence based on the pseudoscientific garbage that you picked up from AIG. We've seen it all before. (In fact, we 've heard it so many times it has a special name. PRATT, or "Points Refuted A Thousand Times".) Post your technical "evidence", and we'll hand you your ass on a platter, just like every other cock-sure but clueless YEC we meet. And you'll sputter and fume, and tell us we'll all burn in he11...oh well.
No need for me to belabor the obvious. I'll let the scientific quality of your YEC arguments speak for themselves. |
| Date: 2006/05/01 18:11:37, Link 209.209.14.228 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thordaddy the mentally ill bigot spews again
Tell us Thorbigot: how are you gonna explain to your kids that you decided to stick them with the social stigma of being illegitimate bastards because their biological father disrespected traditional marriage so much he ran from it like a cockroach from the kitchen light? |
| Date: 2006/05/01 18:34:59, Link 209.209.14.228 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thordaddy the lying bigot
No you don't you liar. You disrespect traditional marriage at every turn. You disrespected traditional marriage by fornicated outside of wedlock. You disrespect traditional marriage by refusing to marry, making illegitimate bastards out of your two innocent children. You disrespected traditional marriage by wanting to marry your three gay brothers. When will a slimy LIBERAL like you quit trying to destroy America and the traditional marriage and family values she stands for ??!?? |
| Date: 2006/05/02 04:15:26, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
AFDavesays
For the last two months there has been a wingnut posting over on the TheologyWeb Natural Science page, arguing for Geocentricity (i.e. the sun, planets, and stars all rotate around a stationary Earth). This Bible Inerrancy proponent bases his belief on passages such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:
and Joshua 10:13:
Many people have patiently explained the copious scientific evidence that shows this is wrong, from satellite launches that must take into account the Earth's rotational velocity, to observed stellar parallax, to the measurable wobble in the Earth's rotational axis caused by the mass displacement of the tides. The Bible Inerrancy guy refuses to listen to any evidence - according to him it's everyone else who has a "closed mind". How do you feel about that bit of Bible inerrancy? Do you think the whole universe revolves around a stationary Earth? Why or why not? I don't mean to distract you from your task of publishing your scientific evidence for YEC, but think about this on the side and answer when you can. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 04:15:26, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
AFDavesays
For the last two months there has been a wingnut posting over on the TheologyWeb Natural Science page, arguing for Geocentricity (i.e. the sun, planets, and stars all rotate around a stationary Earth). This Bible Inerrancy proponent bases his belief on passages such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:
and Joshua 10:13:
Many people have patiently explained the copious scientific evidence that shows this is wrong, from satellite launches that must take into account the Earth's rotational velocity, to observed stellar parallax, to the measurable wobble in the Earth's rotational axis caused by the mass displacement of the tides. The Bible Inerrancy guy refuses to listen to any evidence - according to him it's everyone else who has a "closed mind". How do you feel about that bit of Bible inerrancy? Do you think the whole universe revolves around a stationary Earth? Why or why not? I don't mean to distract you from your task of publishing your scientific evidence for YEC, but think about this on the side and answer when you can. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 17:25:43, Link 209.209.14.62 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Thorbigot rants again
Thordaddy has already proven himself to be a homophobic shithead, and there’s no value whatsoever in attempting to get him to defend his irrational hatred. Still, it serves a useful purpose to show just how f*cked up Thordaddy’s “logic” can be Consider the following hypothetical situation: Pat and Leslie, an unmarried couple, move into Thordaddy’s neighborhood. They’re a quiet pair, both 40-something, both white collar professionals. Both thin and plain looking with page boy haircuts, it’s impossible to tell their gender by just looking. All the neighbors have to judge them by is their actions. The two of them turn out to be great neighbors: going out of their way to help others, volunteering at the homeless shelter, giving generously to their local church charities. Those who watch them see a loyal and devoted couple – always holding hands when they take their evening walks. Once, when Leslie was seriously injured in a car accident, Pat agreed to work third shift so Leslie would have full time care during the day. And when Pat got laid off, Leslie took a second job while Pat interviewed so they could keep their home together. Finally, Pat and Leslie decide they are soulmates for life, and wish to formalize their union with both the church and the state. They send wedding invitations to all the neighbors, including Thordaddy. What does he do? Now Thordaddy is really in a bind. He wants to call in the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover, and have the FBI line up Pat and Leslie and make them drop their drawers in the town square so Thordaddy can closely inspect their genitalia. That’s not a realistic plan though, so Thordaddy finds out who Pat and Leslie’s private physician is, and bribes the receptionist for information. Scenario 1) Thordaddy discovers that Pat and Leslie are both biologically male. Thordaddy flies into a screaming rage and demands that those “traditional marriage" wrecking faggots get out of his neighborhood. He offers his lighter to some fellow bigots who go to burn down Pat and Leslie’s house. Scenario 2) Thordaddy discovers that Pat and Leslie are both biologically female. He still objects to the wedding, but now doesn’t mind watching Pat and Leslie do their PDAs. In fact, at night he gets his Kleenex and sits looking out the window waiting for it. Scenario 3) Thordaddy discovers that Pat and Leslie are a heterosexual couple. Thordaddy is overjoyed, and gives his blessing to the “traditional" wedding even though he still has no idea which of the two is male and which is female. In each case, there was nothing at all that would lead one to believe Pat and Leslie would make a bad married couple, or speed up the downfall of society except Thordaddy’s bigoted perception. That’s why Thordaddy is considered such a bigoted homophobic flaming assho1e. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 18:14:47, Link 209.209.14.62 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
AFDave, So far you haven’t provided any evidence at all to support YEC or God, just your own (and a few other Creationists’) personal incredulity. “WOW! It’s just SOOOOO complex, I’m too stupid or too lazy to investigate how it could have evolved!!” You sound just like the natives looking at the “flying canoe”. Do you realize that Behe accepts the Theory of Evolution, an old earth, and common descent? He just thinks God, er, the Intelligent designer “front loaded” things billions of years ago. Speaking of Behe and his “molecular machines”, did you happen to follow any of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover PA. school board "ID" trial last year? Behe was called as a star witness for the defense, and was made to look like an absolute bumbling fool by the questioning attorney. First, under oath, Behe testified that Astrology would qualify as a legitimate science under Behe’s definition. If that didn’t make the clown look bad enough, Behe then made his famous “irreducible complexity” argument using the human immune system, Behe claimed there was no evidence whatsoever that the immune system could have evolved. The prosecuting attorney then dropped a two foot high stack of over 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers and articles with research detailing the evolution of the human immune system and asked Behe if he was familiar with the work.. Behe replied that he didn’t need to read them as he already knew his claim was correct. With that foot shoved deep into his mouth, Behe effectively scuttled the rest of his already pitifully weak scientific credibility and his career. I’ll give you another day to start presenting your evidence, so far you’re 0 for the week. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 18:40:28, Link 209.209.14.62 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Thorbigot the shithead fumes
I'm sure you have, and on the giving end too. Being jilted by your gay lover explains a lot of your irrational anger and your disrespect for traditional marriage. Tell us Thorbigot, what would you do in the Pat and Leslie case? Rationalize away.
Yeah, we're all suckers for that "homosexual propaganda" that merely asks for the same constitutional guarantees as provide to every other citizen. And everyone knows "equal rights" and tolerance and liberal ideas that are expressly forbidden by the Constitution, right Thorbigot? Are you this hateful and prejudiced towards other minorities as you are to gays? Wouldn't it be great if we could just take away the "equal right" and tolerance them damm niggers and wops and chinks got by corrupting out traditional society, right tighty-whitey Thorbigot? Don't you need to be out firebombing a Planned Parenthood Clinic or something? |
| Date: 2006/05/03 05:03:04, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Pat and Leslie are kind, thoughtful people. They sent invitations to all their neighbors, even the bigoted jerks like you. The question still stands Thorbigot. What criteria would you use to judge a couple's fitness for marriage if you couldn't examine their genitalia? |
| Date: 2006/05/03 06:57:51, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||||||||||
AFDave says
Dave, as a fellow EE it’s embarrassing to see you continue to flaunt your ignorance on such topics. Art and artifacts have been around for way before 4000 B.C. Have you never heard of the Lascaux cave paintings in France? Google is your friend Dave – you could easily find hundreds of examples that contradict your silly words if you were motivated to look. Your personal incredulity and ignorance will never be acceptable as evidence, Dave.
Sorry Dave, my intention is not to insult you. However, when you continue to say really stupid things, and I point out to you that they’re really stupid things, I can understand how you’d feel slighted.
I didn’t quote him Dave, I accurately described his testimony.
The scientific community HAS weeded them out Dave, over 150 years ago. That’s why the Creationists and IDers are trying to use the legal system to get their religion forced into science classrooms.
Wrong Dave. Science is not a democracy, and scientific facts aren’t decided by majority vote. Do you think we can pass a law that will reduce the force of gravity by 50%? Or change the properties of chemical bonds?
That’s great for a philosophy class, but dead wrong for a science class. Should we teach the Geocentric view of the universe in science class because some non-scientists and a teeny minority of scientists hold that view?
Wrong again Dave. Kids, even with the help of their lay parents, do not have the technical knowledge to decide for themselves what is scientifically accurate.
He’s supposed to be a profession scientist and an expert on the subject. Since he never bothered to read all the scientific evidence, how did he know it was nonsense? The scientific evidence being presented “all sounds the same” to you only because it all directly contradicts your ignorance based view of scientific reality. Being ignorant doesn’t mean unintelligent Dave, it just means untrained. I’m quite ignorant of the flight controls of a Huey, but I’m sure you could teach me. You don’t see me going on web sites and claiming that I already know better that those “closed minded” Huey drivers about how to pilot their aircraft.
Then you need to tell that to the Creationists who avoid the scientific peer review process like the plague, and opt for “end runs” through the legal system instead. Sorry again if you feel insulted – I’ll buy you a beer or three if we ever meet As you are passionate about your cause, I am just as passionate about scientific literacy. I see a real threat to the economic future of my country if the pseudoscientific pushers like the Creationists continue to try and lower the U.S. science standards. |
| Date: 2006/05/03 18:19:24, Link 209.209.14.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
|
As usual Thorbigot can't type two sentences without resorting to lying Let’s see:
BZZZZT! There’s LIE No.1! All that is being changed is the legal definition of who can get married. This proposed change is EXACTLY what was done to allow interreligion marriages, and interracial marriages. There are NO CHANGES AT ALL proposed to the rights and legal status of married couples themselves.
BZZZZT! There’s LIE No.2! NO ONE in this thread has argued that marriage as an institution is not inherently valuable. All that is being argued is that this valuable privilege be extended to ALL citizens who wish it.
BZZZZT! There’s LIE No.3! NOWHERE in the world has there been any attempt to defined marriage out of existence! All attempts to change the laws regarding who can get married have been done through proper existing legislative procedure. For those students of history, it's interesting to look back on this thread and see all of Thorbigot's changing tactics in his gay-bashing rants First, it was that gays alone are responsible for the AIDS epidemic. Then it was that teaching that homosexuality is normal will corrupt innocent school children. Then it was that all gays really want is promiscuous anal sex Then it was that most gays are pedophiles Then it was that gays have a master plan to destroy civilization Then it was that gay marriage was equivalent to marrying your five brothers, or marrying a sheep When all those got shot down, thorbigot switched to his latest fixation, that the "radical gay agenda" is to define marriage out of existence. After all that, Thorbigot still wonders why everyone here considers him a hateful homophobic moron. Folks, this assho1e is one sick puppy. |
| Date: 2006/05/03 18:26:14, Link 209.209.14.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Oh, before I forget: Thordaddy, you STILL keep avoiding this question What criteria would you use to judge a couple's fitness for producing a viable, society-enhancing marriage if you couldn't examine their genitalia? |
| Date: 2006/05/04 04:26:47, Link 209.209.14.196 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
Jeezuz AFDave, what's with you? You've been given the benefit of the doubt several times now, and each time you've reacted not like someone who's interested in learning, but like a preachy YEC dolt who's only interested in flaunting his ignorance. You've left dozens of questions unanswered on the other threads you started. You refuse to do the most basic research before you post another piece of "evidence" You snap at people who keep pointing out that your actions do not jibe at all with the "honest skeptic" you claim to be. As far as this latests "evidence", you cite a study that is over 30 years old, and even then you don't understand the contents of what it says. Here is a good overview of the chromosomal fusion evidence. Notice all the references to the primary scientific literature, including this one
All this information is easily available for those who are intellectually honest enough to seek it. Strike two Dave. |
| Date: 2006/05/04 05:15:27, Link 209.209.14.54 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Gotta go with Geocentrism. This should be a hoot - not that I expect GoP to actually DO anything that his mouth promises. |
| Date: 2006/05/04 14:32:24, Link 209.209.14.105 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
| Does anyone really see any value in engaging with a raving bigoted homophobic hypocrite like Thordaddy, or a quiet conniving one like GoP? |
| Date: 2006/05/04 18:21:27, Link 209.209.14.105 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
A severely retarded anal-retentive one at that. |
| Date: 2006/05/04 18:36:46, Link 209.209.14.105 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Better make that a severely retarded anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive one. |
| Date: 2006/05/05 19:01:29, Link 209.209.14.110 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Wow guys, this is just too funny. Thordaddy has become our own little pet troll! We can use him, and confuse him, and abuse him, and he keeps coming back for more! I think we should start a contest: let's see who can get Thorbigot to spew "but gays can get married in a liberal church!!!' the most time in a row. I've seen T-idiot do it in three consecutive posts several times now. Anyone think they can get the moron to stutter it out in four consecutive posts? Step right up and try your luck at Troll-O-Rama! |
| Date: 2006/05/06 05:32:42, Link 209.209.14.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
AFDave says
What you really mean is "I welcome all those comments that I can spin and/or tap dance around. The other 95% are tough questions that show me to be mind-numbingly naive and ignorant. Those I'll just ignore".
Hasn't worked though, has it. Every day we see another steaming plate of deef fried AFDave cheeks being delivered. Oh well, don't take it personally Dave. You're not the first arrogant but hopelessly ignorant YEC to come through here, and you won't be the last. Isn't this a great country where even an ex AF pilot can make himself look like a total idiot on a public forum! Strike three Dave, you're out. |
| Date: 2006/05/06 17:50:19, Link 209.209.14.88 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
ericmurphy observes
Of course AFDave has evidence. He just has to do a Google search, then throw out all the hits that don't come from AIG or any of the other loony tunes Creationist sites. Just like Behe, AFDave doesn't need to read the primary scientific literature because he already knows what lies those evil atheist scientists concoct. Science understanding the AFDave way - it's quick, it's easy, and even an arrogant, deceitful, scientifically illiterate evangelist can do it. |
| Date: 2006/05/08 08:32:14, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
All quotes from AFDave:
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we? Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong! Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong! How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???
Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved". Any bets?
Dealing with willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is frustrating. And yet Dave wonders why so many people have come to view him as a clueless but arrogant jerk. BIG FAT HINT: Personal incredulity based on woeful ignorance will never be considered evidence. |
| Date: 2006/05/08 09:00:10, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
AFDave says:
Because the idea is so overwhelmingly supported by all the available scientific evidence that it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. Your ignorance based tirades do not constitute "reasonable doubt".
Theories are taught based on the quantity and quality of positive evidence. All theories are NOT equal in this respect. Do you think we should teach the Geocentric Theory of the universe to kids as well as the Heliocentric one? They’re both UNPROVEN THEORIES, so should we teach BOTH and let PARENTS and CHILDREN decide?
For the umpteenth time – science is NOT a democracy, and scientific truth is NOT decided by popular vote. Your opinion based on ignorance doesn’t mean jack sh*t to the scientific realities of the evidence. Dave, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you’re sure doing a good impersonation of a cement-headed dumbf*ck. |
| Date: 2006/05/08 10:06:36, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
AFDave says
Actually Dave, satire and parody work quite well in pointing out the gross inanity of your anti-evolution "argument". Your peeved response shows that I did indeed hit the mark.
Gee, looks like that "I can take it, I'm an AF pilot with a thick skin" was just an act of bravado. I'll try harder not to hurt your sensitive feeling next time. You can help too - if you don't like being embarrassed in public, then stop repeating such bloody stupid Creationist lies like "ToE = support for Nazis". |
| Date: 2006/05/08 16:22:28, Link 209.209.14.133 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Well AFDave, while you’re busy patting yourself on the back for anticipating the answers you’d get from those evil atheists evos, maybe you can answer a few questions about the Air Force. Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets? Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified? And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all? Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics? Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones? I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies. Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT? This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons. What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified. My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction. Why is my opinion shut out and vilified? Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not? Last time I checked IT WAS. You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave? Shouldn’t it be applied here too? I’m really curious to hear your answers. |
| Date: 2006/05/08 19:18:00, Link 209.209.14.72 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Sure. To paraphrase our newest ATBC evangelist: "Now we scientific literati are reasonable people and we will forgive blustering ex-AF pilots if they admit their errors and fix them." |
| Date: 2006/05/09 08:36:00, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||
AFDave says:
When will be able to say the same for you? 
Wrong Dave, we’re talking about the exact same thing. Scientific ideas are put through a rigorous peer-review process very similar to pilot selection. The scientific peer-reviewers are the “generals” who have EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS. It is very easy for scientists to winnow out the sound scientific theories like ToE from the crappy pseudoscientific junk like Young Earth Creationism by the quality and quantity of the evidence. In fact, the YECs have submitted almost NOTHING in the way of positive evidence TO BE reviewed. They consistently and willfully AVOID THE SELECTION PROCESS because they know they can’t cut the muster. That which they have submitted for scrutiny has been found woefully lacking, just like the noob pilots who wash out on their first day. Would you fly on a plane with a pilot who washed out of flight school, then went crying to his local Congressman and got given his pilot’s license anyway over the severe objections of the flight school professionals? That’s exactly what you’re doing when you accept AIG’s YEC claims over the objections of the qualified scientific community. Once more, with feeling: You, Dave, ARE NOT QUALIFIED to judge the quality of scientific evidence being presented, just as I an NOT QUALIFIED to dispute the generals’ judgments about a pilot’s aptitude. The charlatans at AIG, your primary information source, are also NOT QUALIFIED to judge. They, like you, are motivated by their religious beliefs, NOT by any desire for scientific veracity. AIG is rife with lies and disinformation. You saw how badly they misrepresented the human-chimp chromosomal fusion info – just wait till you see how badly they lie about the Young Earth data.
Your worldview is not an issue as long as the quality of your work doesn’t suffer because of it. You can be an atheist and be a damm fine pilot, you can also be a YEC and be a damm fine doctor or scientist. However, if you reject any of your scientific findings based solely on your YEC preconceptions then you deserve to be tossed out on your ass. Imagine your daughter is desperately ill. You take her to Doctor A who prescribes a new antibiotic, because he understands the strain of flu your daughter has contracted has evolved and no longer responds to the old antibiotic. Doctor B is a YEC, and he tells you your daughter is possessed by Satan’s minions and that you should just go home and pray. Whose advice would you follow, and why?
Agreed. Do you think there should be a selection process based on positive evidence in deciding the veracity of scientific ideas? Or should every last idea, even the crackpot ones, be given equal time in school? |
| Date: 2006/05/09 18:00:49, Link 209.209.14.92 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Thordickhead, If you like being an obsessive compulsive bigoted homophobic assho1e, fine. it's a free country. Just keep your stupid bigoted anti-gay off topic rants on your own fukkin' thread, you moron. |
| Date: 2006/05/11 09:04:58, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
AFDave says
Easy. It's because you haven't provided one shred of evidence, just lots of claims based on your own personal incredulity and ignorance. Personal incredulity and ignorance will never be considered evidence Dave. Haven't you had this explained to you at least half a dozen times on this board so far?
Given your demonstrated level of scientific understanding, I'd say that's just about right for you. |
| Date: 2006/05/11 09:55:08, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
"Cosmic Fine Tuning" :The fact of the matter is, we have a sample set of *ONE* universe that happens to contain life. We have NO IDEA how many other possible universes there are, or whether a different sort of life is possible in those universes. It has also been demonstrated repeatedly that life in our universe tends to evolve to fit the environment available. It has never been demonstrated that the parameters for the environment were put in place first with the preconceived idea that life would exist there later. Do you really think that liquid water was "designed" just so that fish can live in it? Ever heard of Dr. Pangloss? "Biological Machines": The fact that certain biological structures superficially resemble human built machines in no way implies that the biological structures were purposely built also. Some people see the face of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich – does that mean there’s an Intelligent Grilled Cheese Sandwich Designer who oversees the cooking of each? A real flagellum looks nothing like the pretty IDiot Powerpoint drawing with its cute little gears and motors. Real flagellum parts under high magnification are squishy globs of interconnected organic molecules that react and move in response to well understood chemical reactions. The gears and motors description is an analogy only to help visualize the motions taking place. Dave, do you think you’ll ever come up with some positive evidence for YEC that’s not based on your own personal incredulity and ignorance? I sure don’t, but please feel free to try. |
| Date: 2006/05/11 11:26:31, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Absolutely right. It could be Susie Q. Pimplekowski from Hoboken, N.J. for all we know. Still, that didn't stop some goober from paying $28,000 for the stupid thing! Virgin Mary grilled cheese sold! Wonder how much I could get for the dump I took last night that looked exactly like Dembski? |
| Date: 2006/05/11 13:52:58, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
AFDave started out with promise, but has recently shown all the telltale signs of being just another scientifically illiterate fundy-bot. He's begun doing the Gish gallop, continues to use AIG as his primary info source even though he was shown how dishonest they are, and totally ignores all other evidence that refutes his hackneyed YEC baloney. Different clown, same circus. |
| Date: 2006/05/11 13:58:58, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Here ya go Dave: A map, in case you ever lose your way when presenting your "evidence" for YEC. AFDave's Argument Map You seem to be at the second green diamond |
| Date: 2006/05/12 21:06:07, Link 209.209.14.149 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
Here AFDave, I corrected some minor mistakes you made in your list: THINGS THAT ARE NOT AF DAVE'S GOALS (1) Understand the most basic things about biology (2) Understand the most basic things about genetic engineer (3) Learn from those with advanced science degrees (4) Understand the most basic things about biochemical research (5) Care one little bit about actual biological facts (6) Understand the most basic things about geologist (7) Understand the most basic things about astrophysicist THINGS THAT ARE AF DAVE'S GOALS HERE AT PANDA'S THUMB (1) Pretend to be seeking information when all I really want is an audience to evangelize to. (2) Lie about my motives so I can keep you guys responding as long as I can (3) Preach my literal Bible views to all you atheist evilutionists out there with no intention of ever backing up any of my BS. (4) Do my “witnessing” to amass my Get-Into-Heaven points. Face it Dave, you see yourself as some noble missionary savior going into the land of the heathen savages to bring Jeebus into their black hearts. Problem is, 95% of those "heathen savages" are way better educated on the topic than you, and 100% of them are more honest than you.
Actually Dave, it’s not our problem at all that you choose to remain such a willfully ignorant dumbass. You’ve had dozens of kind folks explain to you in great detail the basic mistakes and idiotic claims you get from AIG, but you keep right on making them without missing a beat. You’ve also proven to be quite the intellectual coward. I’ve yet to see you answer any of the tough questions you get asked every day, like “Should ALL scientific results have to undergo rigorous, critical peer-review before being taught in schools, and WHO is qualified to do the peer-review?” or "Why should the opinion of an uneducated layman mean more than that of a dedicated professional science researcher?" You just don your ballet slippers and tutu, and pirouette daintily away. Most military pilots I know seem to walk on water when under pressure – you just pass water. You’re busted Dave. Your “Lying for Jesus” is readily apparent to folks because, unfortunately, we’ve seen far too much of it from arrogant know-nothings like you. |
| Date: 2006/05/13 05:07:07, Link 209.209.14.238 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
Looks like Arrogant Fundy Dave has given up all pretense of wanting to cure his ignorance and has decided to kick his “lying for Jesus” machine into high gear. AFDave starts our Saturday with his latest bunch of "Gish gallop" whoppers:
Lie #1. Scientific predictions about fossil finds have been supporting ToE for over 150 years, the latest example being Tiktaalik. YEC makes NO predictions about the fossil record whatsoever; it just tries to hand wave away the positive evidence for ToE that IS found. This was explained in detail with examples to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying. Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?
Lie#2. The old “there is only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution” creato standard canard.. No “leading evolutionary scientists” ANYWHERE have said that macro-evolution hasn’t happened. This was explained in detail with real world examples of speciation to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying. Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?
Lie #3. In biology there is no such thing as “upward” or “downward” evolution. There is evolution, period. There is also no recognized scientific definition of "kind'. These are terms invented of the Cretos to confuse ignorant laymen like Dave. This was explained in detail to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying. Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?
Lie #4. Everyone has the right to question existing scientific theories, and critical peer-review is an ongoing part of the scientific method. We call Creationists and IDiots stupid because they don’t understand the sciences involved enough to ask logical pertinent questions. Changes to scientific theories happen all the time as new evidence becomes available. However, refinements and updates to ToE DO NOT mean that the whole theory is wrong, and DO NOT provide any positive evidence for YEC. This has been explained ad nauseum to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying. Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness? My prediction: Missionary Dave will continue to ignore all attempts to correct his blatant scientific ignorance, and will continue to arrogantly preach to those who know the subject way better that him. Anyone wanna bet? |
| Date: 2006/05/13 15:31:51, Link 209.209.14.74 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
All that's really necesary to make a useful contribution to the discussion is a desire to learn and an ego sized small enough to understand and admit that your current 'knowledge' may be wrong. Unfortunately, finding those traits amongst the YECs I've met has proven just about impossible. AFDave is merely the latest egotistical dimbulb in a long line. |
| Date: 2006/05/13 17:18:38, Link 209.209.14.204 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
I've never seen anyone take such absolute delight in being such a willfully ignorant dumbass. Missionary AFDave, are you ever going to bother reading the links given at the very web resources you cite? From the SETI Institute itself, as linked to by T.O.
So the SETI people aren't just looking for "things that look like what people build.". They're looking for artificiality and context. RTFL for once in your dishonest life, you anti-science ignorant twit. Edited to add: looks like ericmurphy beat me to it. |
| Date: 2006/05/14 13:49:02, Link 209.209.14.67 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Haven't you guys caught on yet that AFDave is not here to learn, or to discuss, but to PREACH. He sees himself as an evangelical missionary, just like his father, out to save the ignorant savages. Personally, I find his dishonest attempts at feigning interest in order to proselytize and push his anti-science agenda to be quite insulting. I'll support anyone's right to believe their own religion, but I really don't appreciate getting lied to about it. |
| Date: 2006/05/15 17:06:08, Link 209.209.14.139 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Missionary AFDave says:
Ahhhh...it just wouldn't be the same, having a scientifically illiterate fundy proselytizer prattle on without bringing up Pascal's wager. Gee Dave, shouldn't you subscribe to the practices of Buddhism, and Hinduism, and Islam at the same time too just to further reduce your risk? Think of it as buying extra insurance to hedge your bets. One can't be too careful about the afterlife, you know. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 10:03:56, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
OK, let's review all Missionary AFDave's "evidence" to date: 1. Personal incredulity based on ignorance. 2. More personal incredulity based on ignorance. 3. Lie-filled article from AIG that got totally trashed. 4. Personal incredulity based on anecdotal occurrence. 5. Pascal's wager. 6. Repeated personal incredulity based on ignorance. 7. Second lie-filled article from AIG that got trashed worse than the first. 8. More repeated personal incredulity based on ignorance. Anyone see a trend here? I wonder what part of "personal incredulity based on ignorance DOES NOT QUALIFY as evidence" Missionary Dave just can't get through his head?
Yes Dave, the same questions you have consistently avoided. 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? Surprise us all and provide some honest answers for once. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 16:34:03, Link 209.209.14.171 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Seems highly unlikely, given the mind numbing ignorance and arrogance of their old man. Depends on how far the apple falls from the tree I guess. Still, having Missionary Dave home school his kids on science is not all a bad thing though. It will statistically increase the likelihood of my children winning a competitive job that requires critical thinking. As far as Dave's kids' employment outlook - the country will always need janitors and fry cooks. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 17:24:59, Link 209.209.14.171 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
No insult at all Dave, just stating the facts. You are one of the most ignorant and arrogant Bible pushers to come by in some time. You lied about your reasons for coming here, you lied about all the data that was presented to you, you continue to lie about your desire for honest discussion. I will support to the last your right to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose, but I can't stand liars. I've got nothing against your kids - I sincerely hope they are all happy and successful in whatever they choose to do. They're just going to have to learn intellectual honesty from somewhere else, because they sure won't learn by example from you. Want to prove me wrong? Then answer the tough questions that you keep cowardly avoiding: 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? Your T-38 just took an SA-20 SAM up the tailpipe Dave – what are you gonna do now? |
| Date: 2006/05/17 04:08:19, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
OA asks AFDave for the fourth time
AFDave's reply
(cue the theme from Top Gun) "Maverick! Goose! This is Viper. What's going on up there?!" "It's AFDave sir, he won't engage. AFDave won't engage!" |
| Date: 2006/05/17 04:24:39, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Missionary AFDave says
ROFLMAO!! Dave, you crack me up! So now the onus is on us to cure you of your desire to be a willfully ignorant dumbass. That's priceless. Tell us Dave, what incentive would anyone have in doing hours and hours of research and writing just so a disingenuous knucklehead like you can reject the data with a few flip sentences? Give us a bigger laugh Dave. Tell us what possible evidence you would accept that shows Human-Chimp common ancestry? |
| Date: 2006/05/17 15:28:24, Link 209.209.14.192 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Looks like AFDave the missionary is having quite a bad day. Well Dave, we all know what happens to arrogant pushy missionaries, now don't we?  |
| Date: 2006/05/17 17:46:33, Link 209.209.14.83 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Missionary AFDave says
Of course you're working hard to provide the actual scientific evidence of this, right Dave? Your mouth has been writing this check for almost a month now, but your pea brain hasn't been able to back the cash. You, me, the whole board knows you're lying about your non-existant "evidence" again, but that's just part of the con, isn't it? Gotta hand it to ya Dave- when it comes to making a fool out of yourself in public, you're no. 1 with a bullet. Seems like you're use to being laughed at though - wonder why that is? Looks like your continued "lying for Jesus" has ticked off alot of people too. Can't say as I blame them. Having an arrogant little prick like you lie about your motives and spit on the kind offers to educate you does rub one the wrong way. Do you really think you're doing the Lord's Work ™ with your attitude and your dishonesty? Pathetic Dave, you're just pathetic. |
| Date: 2006/05/18 09:15:35, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
I'll just note that the sum total of AFDave's scientific knowledge and integrity would comfortably fit inside a thimble, with plenty of room left for his genitalia. |
| Date: 2006/05/19 03:18:27, Link 209.209.14.160 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
The way Missionary AFDave keeps shoveling the shit, I think of him as a pile-it. |
| Date: 2006/05/19 03:29:46, Link 209.209.14.160 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Vicious Fish: a local SF based band, I know the lead singer. Bad Tuna: Amateur ice hockey club in my local beer league. Their team logo is a Dr Seuss fish holding a hockey stick. |
| Date: 2006/05/19 04:41:27, Link 209.209.14.195 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Missionary AFDave says
Well Dave, since you keep bringing up the topic of teaching other views, I'll ask these for the fifth time. 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? And no, I won't waste board space on a separate thread for these questions. You brought the topic up in this thread, answer the questions in this thread. Why do you continue to be a coward and avoid them? |
| Date: 2006/05/22 16:30:10, Link 209.209.14.86 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Well, I go away for a long weekend and what do I find? Missionary AFDave still typing lies as fast as his little fingers can pick-and-peck. The rest of you guys still kicking the living crap out of AFDavey's posterior. Arrogant Fundy Dave still being too stupid to realize he's getting the living sh*t kicked out of him. Hey AFDave, I noticed that you avoided my questions about scientific peer-review for the fifth time. That means you lost big time on that one. How does it feel to be such a loser? When you "flew" the T-38, were you sitting in the back seat or the front? My $0.02 on Dave's mental state: AFDave is not an idiot in the classical sense, but he does suffer from "military pilot's disease" - terminal arrogance and the most unwarranted belief that if he is competent in one area, then that makes him an expert in all areas. I've spent my whole career in military aerospace and unfortunately have seen too many "AFDaves". Usually they're the ones who end up crashing multimillion-dollar aircraft because they are too f*cking arrogant to ever admit they can be wrong, ever. |
| Date: 2006/05/22 17:44:16, Link 209.209.14.86 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
My guess is he made it through UPT (undergraduate pilot training), then as far as flying T-38s (an advanced supersonic jet trainer for potential fighter/bomber pilots) as a student pilot. I also guess he washed out at that stage; probably his arrogance caused him to make too many unacceptable errors. That's why he ended up flying helos (according to his blog at least). My limited knowledge of such things comes from having an ex-GF (many years ago) whose brother was a military pilot. He followed the same career track but passed T-38 training, and was invited back to become a T-38 IP (Instructor Pilot) because at the time there were too few fighter slots available. Tom (the brother) told many comical stories about the screw-ups of his students, and how they'd always end up whining "...but sirrrr...." Eventually he ended up flying KC-10 tankers, the Mil version of the DC-10.Edited to add: This is not meant to belittle what AFDave did achieve. Just making it through UPT to get a ride in a T-38 is a major accomplishment, so props to him for that. It's a pity that his arrogant and condescending attitude will keep him such a total dumbsh*t on some fascinating and amazing avenues of scientific knowledge. |
| Date: 2006/05/22 18:05:34, Link 209.209.14.86 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
(shakes head and laughs) Damm...Thorbigot is still at it after 39 f'ing pages Hey Thordaddy, what if a gay man builds a time machine and goes back in time to have sex with himself? Is that still homosexual behavior, or is it just masturbation? What if a woman travels back in time to have sex with herself. That's not homosexual then, right? What if she agrees to let you watch. Is what she does OK by you then? You better start lining up your legal arguments now. Who knows what those sneaky queers will dream up next? |
| Date: 2006/05/22 19:07:22, Link 209.209.14.86 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
I find this curious - I just looked at AFDave's blog airdave.blogspot.com and he has removed his AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis entry along with all the associated critical comments. That's one way to hide the embarrassment I guess. Do we have another Dave Springer-Spaniel the mad deleter on our hands? |
| Date: 2006/05/22 20:04:08, Link 209.209.14.86 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
From my first hand experiences with military pilots (who all tend to be intelligent self-assured free-thinkers) A few probably politely listened to him. A few more probably just ignored him. Most probably told him in no uncertain terms to take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut. How about it AFDave - is that breakdown basically accurate? When you started preaching to them about their sins, how many of your fellow aviators told you to f*ck off? |
| Date: 2006/05/23 09:19:16, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Missionary AFDave sobs
Once again we see AFDave the coward turn tail and run after getting his lies and pathetic attempts at "evidence" shredded into so much confetti. Never fear dear readers. Dave has "declared victory" in order to save a teeny bit of his dignity (didn't work though Dave, now did it?) and will soon deliver his next sermon, er, bit of YEC "evidence" All together now - let's serenade Dave as he goes to his next battle with the evil atheist scientists: Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before. BTW Dave, I was right about you washing out of T-38 training, wasn't I? |
| Date: 2006/05/23 09:25:35, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
What's the difference between AFDave and a non-cowardly pilot? A non-cowardly pilot breaks ground and flies into the wind... |
| Date: 2006/05/23 18:17:59, Link 209.209.14.221 | ||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||||
Conveniently overlooking the fact that scientists developing the ToE have been performing experiments, collecting data, and making correct predictions for the last 150 years.
There are too many to count. The whole modern field of genetics is based on them. Any decent college biology text will cover the basics.
Random mutation is not the sole mechanism for diversity. There are other well know ones, such as horizontal gene transfer.
Populations evolve, not individual organisms. If you don’t understand that, there’s not much anyone can do for you.
Populations evolve, not individual organisms. Populations that can’t evolve quickly enough to adapt to changing environmental conditions go extinct. That is high school biology 101.
Proteins follow the basic laws of chemistry, as does all life. What do you mean by ‘sub-atomic level’? Take the friendly advice that’s been offered – learn some of the ToE basics so you won’t keep asking inane questions. |
| Date: 2006/05/23 18:50:20, Link 209.209.14.221 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
As a rule I always give new posters the benefit of the doubt until they say stuff like
followed by starting a thread full of typical Creto ignorant nonsense called "Reinventing Evolutionary Theory" and goofy things like
and
I just checked, there is no link to or mention of antievolution.org at the Santa Fe site. No, our new friend is not fooling anyone. |
| Date: 2006/05/23 19:07:42, Link 209.209.14.221 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
And what would you know about it, Mr. "I accidentally came here looking for info on complexity"? |
| Date: 2006/05/23 19:23:36, Link 209.209.14.221 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
Given that you were the one who lied about how you got here, lied about your motives, and posted a thread full of antiscientific Creto crap, I'd say your level of arrogance is monumental!
Except for the parts where we corrected your blatant ignorance.
May I kindly have some projection with that projection?
Don't worry skeptic, no one here will ever mistake you for a scientist. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 04:09:25, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Skeptic says
So far you haven't shown that you know or understand the actual theory even the slightest bit. Why should anyone care that you reject a cartoon version of ToE based on your own ignorance? |
| Date: 2006/05/24 04:29:12, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Since AFDave continues to shine us on with his promise to provide his positive evidence for Young Earth Creationism, I thought I'd give him a special thread just for that purpose. Go on Dave, quit being a tease! Start presenting that positive evidence for YEC and a literal Bible! Suggested topics include A literal Noah's flood Evidence that the earth is only 6000+ years old Definition and evidence for 'kinds' Geocentric earth Cattle genetics affected by striped and spotted rods C'mon Dave, you've been quite entertaining so far, in a bumbling clown kinda way. So put that big red nose back on you flight school washout, and edjamacate we evilutionists! P.S. If you get stumped, you can always answer those questions about scientific peer review |
| Date: 2006/05/24 07:42:31, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Missionary AFDave sobs
Sorry Dave for hurting your sensitive feelings yet again. I keep forgetting about your delicate little feminine side. Does your nose bleed every 28 days too? Here's an idea for you Dave while you dry your tears. If you want to show that you're not an intellectually dishonest coward, then answer these questions that I've now put to you six times: 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? I'll keep asking and embarrassing you until you explain your YEC position on this issue, might as well deal with it. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 10:05:55, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Missionary AFDave bawls
Sorry sweetie - this is a public BB, so if you don't like public criticism, too bad. Or as the Russians say, tough shitski. Now you could get me to quit hounding you if actually grew some testicles and tried to answer the tough questions on issues that you yourself raised. But we both know that's not your style, right washout? It's way easier for you to keep lying and avoiding, which is all we've seen you do so far. BTW, the new thread I started is specifically for your YEC evidence. All that has to happen now is for you to quit spewing hot air and actually provide some. Ta for now Dearie |
| Date: 2006/05/24 13:18:38, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Holy sh*t! I just look at AFDave's profile on his blog He identifies himself as a '43 year old male Pisces'  Oh Dave, do tell us you believe in astrology, pretty pretty please! I guess when Behe said that astrology qualified as science under the Creto/IDiot definition, he had Missionary AFDave in mind! (shakes head sadly and chuckles) Damm Dave, you get funnier every day |
| Date: 2006/05/24 17:15:42, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Skeptic says
This is why your ignorance flashes at us like a big red beacon Skeptic. The ToE is not based on the result of a single experiment, or even a few dozen, but on the collective results of over 150 years of discovery in literally hundreds of different scientific fields - biology, chemistry, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc. ALL of the evidence taken COLLECTIVELY is what supports the ToE. It is a grand tapestry woven by millions of dedicated researchers of all races, ages, religions, nationalities, gender. It is millions of pieces of independent, cross-corroborating evidence that makes ToE the bedrock of science that it rightfully is today. A favorite tactic of the Creato/IDiots is to demand a single piece of evidence that conclusively 'proves' evolution. You are making the same asinine request. If you are so ignorant of the topic as to ask such a butt-stupid question, why should we give you the time of day? |
| Date: 2006/05/24 17:49:29, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Skeptic says
That's pure unadulterated bullsh*t Skeptic. The evidence was collected and assessed independently as to whether or not it supported the theory. When the evidence did NOT support the theory (as was often the case), the theory was MODIFIED and REFINED to accommodate ALL the evidence, both the old and the new. That is the way ALL scientific theories are developed and corrected over time WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Do you have the slightest clue as to how the scientific method actually works? If you have any examples of your allegations that the scientific community did a 'forced fit' on evidence that would totally overturn the ToE, either present them or STFU. The ToE has been modified and refined countless times since its inception. Many details have been added, and many remain to still be added. However, in all those years and all those millions of pieces of evidence it has NEVER proven necessary to overturn the central idea of ToE - common descent with modification over time. I’ll ask again: If you are so ignorant of the topic as to ask such a butt-stupid question, why should we give you the time of day? |
| Date: 2006/05/24 18:13:37, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
|
AFDave Evasion Watch 27 days since AFDave made this promise of evidence to support his original GOD hypothesis YEC claims
23 days since AFDave's Updated GOD hypothesis with the same YEC claims
Still no positive evidence of YEC from AFDave Presented as a public service for those who can't stand a liar of any belief, from atheist to religious fundy. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 18:22:10, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Skeptic says
I'll think about it when you provide examples for this assertion by you that the scientific community did a 'forced fit' on evidence that would totally overturn the ToE.
Present the evidence for your assertion, retract, or continue to be thought of as an ignorant preachy boob. ETA: BTW Skeptic, I understood k.e. perfectly. He politely told you you're full of shit, which is what all of us have been noting. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 18:38:38, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Are you then retracting this assertion you made
...or not? It's a simple question. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 19:04:15, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
Skeptic says:
Please define “long odds”. Please show us the detailed calculations of how you computed the ‘long odds”. Be sure to provide scientific evidence for all assumptions you make including sample size, number of all possible outcomes, number of possible successful outcomes, and length of time the event has to run. Or is this just personal incredulity based on ignorance?
Every study I’ve seen says that most mutations are neutral with respect to fitness. Please provide evidence that most mutations are almost assuredly detrimental.
Please define “very very long odds”. Please show us the detailed calculations of how you computed the ‘very very long odds”. Be sure to provide scientific evidence for all assumptions you make including sample size, number of all possible outcomes, number of possible successful outcomes, and length of time the event has to run. Or is this just more personal incredulity based on ignorance? Clue no. 1: Personal incredulity based on ignorance is not viewed as a problem by the scientific community. |
| Date: 2006/05/24 19:18:54, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Skeptic says:
I didn't ask you if you thought it was a concious decision. I asked you to provide concrete example of evidence that should have overturned (not just modified or refined) the ToE but didn't because of the scientific community's assumptions, or retract. By the amount of wriggling you're doing it looks like this assertion you made
was nothing but more of your personal incredulity based on ignorance. Why should anyone think differently? Clue no. 2: Personal incredulity based on ignorance will never count as evidence |
| Date: 2006/05/24 19:38:38, Link 209.209.14.215 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
***BREEP! BREEP! BREEP!*** IGNORANT CREATIONIST ALERT! IGNORANT CREATIONIST ALERT!
Well, it was fun while it lasted. Skeptic lasted almost 24 hours before he couldn't contain his Creto ignorance any longer. Just for fun Skeptic - Define what you think a transitional fossil would look like, and why. Then go Google Tiktaalik, read up on it, and tell us why it's not a transitional fossil. Do that and we’ll treat you kindly, like Fuji on McHale’s Navy. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 04:08:22, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
So that's why AFDave identified himself as a Pisces. It all makes sense now. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 09:56:19, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
AFDave Evasion Watch 28 days since AFDave made his promise of evidence to support his original GOD hypothesis YEC claims. 24 days since AFDave's Updated GOD hypothesis with the same YEC claims Still no positive evidence of YEC from AFDave Presented as a public service for those who can't stand a liar of any belief, from atheist to religious fundy. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 17:13:04, Link 209.209.14.56 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Rilke's Granddaughter says
There's one silver lining to AFDave's dark cloud of lies and child abuse. Many of Dave's child victims will realize when they get older that they were lied to and used. Hopefully they will develop a great resentment not just for AFDave, but for all the other evangelistic liars and charlatans like Dave who abuse children for their own selfish egotistical reasons. They will make great champions for science because they will understand first-hand the damage that the pseudoscientific liars-for-Jesus like Washout Dave can cause. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 09:15:48, Link 209.209.14.125 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Washout AFDave says
Of course Dave, we have all know from the start that you wouldn't post anything on the "AFDave's YEC evidence" thread because you have NO YEC evidence TO post. Zip. Nada. Zilch. None. The thread was only started to highlight the fact of what an arrogant but ignorant liar you are. Face it Washout, your only value here now is for comic relief. It's a hoot seeing fundy clowns like you strut and crow, and manage to get almost every last bit of scientific information dead wrong. Does being that stupid cause you actual physical pain, or have you gotten use to it by now? It's a shame you're such a chickenshit and run from all the serious challenges to your "hypothesis". You seem to be used to being thought a coward - I bet you've been hearing it your whole life, right? If you every decide to stand and fight instead of running away, here are the questions on peer review for the seventh time: 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? Call us when you decide to slink out of your chicken coop. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 09:35:04, Link 209.209.14.125 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Washout Dave says
Actually Dave, I'm having great fun! It's been a while since we've seen any Fundy fanatic with his head stuck up his ass as far as you have managed. You have your pinhead shoved in so deep you need a glass belly button as a porthole to see out. Oh, and besides cowardly ignoring my questions again, you also forgot to answer Joe the Ordinary Guy's question:
|
| Date: 2006/05/26 18:14:37, Link 209.209.14.86 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Plucked. I've been using that for over 35 years now, but can't take credit. As a kid I swiped it from my older brother, who picked it up on his tour of duty in VietNam. When he got back he would talk about "getting a case of the ass at those G*ddamm glass belly button REMFs" -------------------------------- AFDave, Just a quick question: Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence? |
| Date: 2006/05/26 18:41:48, Link 209.209.14.86 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Yep, the need for more and better science education is one of the most pressing issues in the U.S. today. It's scary to keep reading reports like this one, where U.S. high school science scores keep dropping. U.S. Science scores declining Our students' overall science ratings compared to the rest of the industrialized world are just abysmal too. Almost every indicator shows the U.S. lead in science and technology keeps slipping every year. Unless the trend is reversed, and soon, countries like India and China will blow right by us and leave us in their dust. This is a very real and very dangerous problem for the U.S. IMHO, which is why ignorant fundy pseudo-patriots like AirFarceDave really piss me off. Here's a guy who wraps himself in the flag to preach his cause, and yet he's doing everything in his power to weaken the country by undermining the science education of our children. Assholes like that just make my blood boil. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 18:48:54, Link 209.209.14.86 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
What makes you think I'm not? Shrub is the worst thing that ever happen to science in this country, ever. Why couldn't Cheney have gone quail hunting with him? |
| Date: 2006/05/27 03:28:11, Link 209.209.14.129 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
AFDave Evasion Watch 30 days since AFDave made his promise of evidence to support his original GOD hypothesis YEC claims. 26 days since AFDave's Updated GOD hypothesis with the same YEC claims Still no positive evidence of YEC from AFDave
|
| Date: 2006/05/27 16:42:16, Link 209.209.14.38 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
AFDaveTard2 the ball-less wonder says
Hey DT2, when you trot out your 'evidence' that world history begins "5500 years ago, not earlier" don't forget to explain prehistoric art like the cave paintings at Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc and Lascaux, which have been reliably dated to 17,000 years B.P. (before present). Info on other prehistoric art here. Info on the radiocarbon dating method used here. To lying cowards like AFDT2, this is what is known as a 'pre-emptive strike'. |
| Date: 2006/05/27 19:25:11, Link 209.209.14.137 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Skeptic says
Wow, maybe you're on to something! I mean, just look at these fossils of the vicious blood-thirsty killer pond turtle. Real apex predators, eh? Some turtle lineages have been around unchanged for over 150 million years. On the other hand, maybe it's as simple as: creatures that are well adapted to an environment that doesn't change much undergo very little selection pressure. Maybe you should think things through a bit better next time. |
| Date: 2006/05/27 19:59:25, Link 209.209.14.137 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Skeptic:
No, the population of "Mr (and Mrs.)Turtles" keeps experiencing random mutations just as they always have. What happens is, in any population the average measurement for any morphological feature (say, size and shape of a turtle's carapace) will vary in a bell shaped curve around a central point. Genetic mutations that cause outliers in this data (i.e larger size, or flatter shape) will only be selected for (and spread to the population, causing the central point to move) IF they confer a reproductive advantage. If the central point moves far enough, we declare that case a new species. If the environment DOESN’T change (as in the case of the turtle), then the outliers WILL NOT confer an advantage, NOT be selected for, and the morphological “average size and shape” will not change. That's not to say that mutation rates never change. They certainly have been seen to increase under the effects of, say, chemicals or radiation. However, I've never seen any study or evidence anywhere that says mutation rates decrease to near zero when a creature is well adapted to its environment. |
| Date: 2006/05/28 03:38:57, Link 209.209.14.34 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
AFDaveTard2 says
OK Washout, tell us your address and we will have a seeing eye dog delivered to you so he can lead you to the " Reserved for AFDave's YEC evidence " thread, where you can post your often promised but never delivered 'evidence' for a 6000 year old Earth. Fair is fair, right? |
| Date: 2006/05/28 11:05:02, Link 209.209.14.236 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
AirFarceDaveTard2 has now been reduced to scurrying to and fro like a cockroach with the kitchen light turned on. Over on his blog, AFDT2 writes
Oh, you mean the mindset that requires actual peer-reviewed results, and doesn't accept ignorance-based personal incredulity as evidence? That's a brand new concept for you I'm sure. Also, thanks to you AFDT2, we now have had a look at the mindset of an arrogant, dumbass, lying, shit-for-brains creationist stooge. It ain't pretty, that's for sure. It would be funny, except for your stated desire to abuse children by teaching them the same lies you swallowed up to the hilt. |
| Date: 2006/05/28 15:46:03, Link 209.209.14.31 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
After his World Book encyclopedia 'evidence', I'm only going along because I want to see him cite from another peer-reviewed scientific literature source like Reader's Digest Ya gotta admit though, stupidity and hubris of his magnitude is rare, even for a brain damaged Creationist. |
| Date: 2006/05/29 05:06:42, Link 209.209.14.65 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
AirFarceDaveTard2 says
Once again AFDT2 resorts to by far the strongest technique available to a Creationist - the ability to make sh*t up as he goes along.
That's correct, sometimes they do, but NOT on topics relevant to the YEC position. They DON'T write papers that present positive evidence for a literal Bible. And since you now want to discuss peer-review, please tell what you know about the scientific peer-review process: 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? Eighth time I've asked you these, you cowardly Liar-for-Jesus. |
| Date: 2006/05/29 19:15:39, Link 209.209.14.58 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
AirFarceDaveTard2 says
No DaveTard2, I was poking fun at you for being such a mental midget as to think one line from a high school level overview somehow negates 10 million other pieces of evidence about the history of early humans.
Of course not you f*cking moron. My position is that you took this simple one line generalization about human history from a high school level reference "But the story of world history begins only about 5,500 years ago with the invention of writing." and somehow, with a leap of intellectually dishonest tarditude unseen in these parts, extrapolated that into "this is evidence that the whole world and all life on it was created only 6000 years ago" I used to think your were just a confused but otherwise normal guy. Seems like you won't be satisfied, however, until you convince everyone that you're the biggest f*cking idiot on the planet. Well DaveTard2, all I can say is: mission accomplished. Washout, your desperation is becoming more apparent with each passing day. Your arguments are getting smoked before they even leave the hangar, and you look more and more like a complete lying dork with each post. Did your father teach you to it was OK to lie to the 'ignorant savages' because it was for their own good? Or are you just a naturally born cowardly lying piece of dung? |
| Date: 2006/05/29 19:45:03, Link 209.209.14.58 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Skeptic says
I think you are confused by the terminology. ‘Random’ mutation means random with respect to fitness. The physical mutations themselves are not purely random at to where they occur in a DNA strand – some areas of the genome are more susceptible to error than others. The atoms and molecules still follow the fundamental laws of chemistry, some chemical bonds are easier to break than others, etc. |
| Date: 2006/05/30 03:41:50, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Can we call you Sir Ickky? |
| Date: 2006/05/30 17:44:27, Link 209.209.14.90 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
Paul Flocken says
I tried questioning AFDave about his flying career a week and a half ago on the "Apes" thread Posted by OA :May 22 2006,21:30
and Posted by OA :May 22 2006,22:44
AFDave got all miffed that I questioned his experience, but provided no relevant details save a boast about some award he claimed to have won. Personally, I couldn't care less about his AF achievements (or lack of them) except to note his hypocrisy. To wit: AFDave continually claims that professional scientists working in the fields covered by evolutionary biology are all incompetent dupes who don't know real science. He makes these claims despite the fact that he himself has proven to be the most scientifically illiterate dumbass around. Now, when anyone else questions AFDave's bluster about his own experiences as a flying professional, he cries like a little girl. It seems AirFarceDaveTard2 was so busy memorizing the Bible that he never learned the Golden Rule. |
| Date: 2006/05/31 13:36:35, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Tango Juliett says
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Best belly laugh I've had in a while! One of the major draws for me here is not battling the fundy boobs; it's the intelligence, humor, and clever wit of the regulars. Good job to all! P.S. Looks like old AirFarceDaveTard2 has gone Tango Uniform! |
| Date: 2006/05/31 18:47:14, Link 209.209.14.105 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Nah, just ask him why there is an International Agency devoted strictly to measuring the irregularities and wobble in the Earth’s rotational axis (necessary to precisely track LEO and GEO satellites). International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) Then ask him his explanation of why spacecraft are almost always launched in an Easterly direction to take advantage of the extra velocity boost provided by the Earth’s rotation. Spacecraft launch phase Then ask him why geostationary satellites (those with a very low eccentricity geosynchronous orbit), which are launched into orbit over the Earth’s equator at an altitude of 22,235 miles and a velocity of 6878 MPH (which matches the Earth’s rotational velocity) appear stationary to an observer on the ground. Geostationary orbits That should keep him busy refining his model. |
| Date: 2006/06/01 09:19:04, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Cool AFDaveTard2, you're still here! I would have bet the farm that you finally wised up to what a fool you have made of yourself and vanished but NO, you're too dense for even that. You're still here to entertain us with your babbling idiocy and feeble attempts to "save our souls" Bet no one ever lost money overestimating your stupidity level, have they Washout? I won't bother rebutting your latest batch of Creto PRATT bullsh*t about radiometric dating or Da Flud - any 6th grader with a search engine could do it in 5 minutes. Also, we both know that you’re an intellectually dishonest coward and will ignore the contradicting data that will be presented anyway. I just want to ask you: The IDiot crowd bends over backwards and screams bloody murder telling us that ID has nothing to do with religion. Yet here you are, citing articles by the head IDiots Dumbski and Behe about how ID supports a literal Biblical creation. One of those statements must be a lie. Which one is it? |
| Date: 2006/06/01 13:40:39, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
| I toured the new MBARI facility a few years ago and they showed a film of a life-sized plastic mannequin head that was attached to the outside of a deep submersible vehicle on a dive to the bottom of the Monterey Canyon (almost 2000 meters down). The water pressure squished the head to the size of a tennis ball. I can only imagine what would happen to a real human noggin. Hey! Maybe that’s what happen to AFDaveTard2! |
| Date: 2006/06/01 17:46:05, Link 209.209.14.88 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Breaking news story! AFDave claims victory, says he crushes the atheist inspired Theory of Evolution and provides irrefutable evidence for YEC and a literal Bible by posting a peach cobbler recipe he found while perusing The Ladies Home Journal. Film at 11. |
| Date: 2006/06/02 10:46:38, Link 209.209.14.234 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
When William J. Bennetta wrote
he must have had AirFarceDaveTard2 in mind. I wonder if we can really blame AFDT2 for his f*cked up mental state. It seems he was taught as a child by his Missionary father that it is OK to lie in order to push your religious agenda. AFDT2 was also never allowed to develop critical thinking skills, but instead was taught that rote regurgitation of memorized Bible verses was all the data he would ever need to consider. I feel almost guilty watching Washout Dave get the snot knocked out of him and his "YEC evidence" day after day after day - almost. There still has to be some level of personal accountability, and if AirFarceDave keeps being a liar and a coward then should still be held responsible for his own actions. It's just a pity, the bad light he shines on other Christians with his continued dishonest and craven behavior. |
| Date: 2006/06/03 12:02:04, Link 209.209.14.88 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
AFDaveTard2, why do you keep cowardly avoiding the questions about your claims? Who peer reviewed the RATE results Dave? No one? Who do you think is qualified to peer review their results, and why? Dembski says ID has nothing to do with religion, yet you keep quoting him as evidence for your literal Christian God. Both of you can't be telling the truth, but you both can sure be lying. Which is it Davey? Did your father teach you to lie for your religion like you so often do Dave, or is that a skill you developed on your own? Is it genetic - do you come from a long line of liars? Did you f*ck up in the air to get yourself demoted from flying supersonic jets to flying Vietnam era Huey choppers, or did your arrogant big mouth get you busted? |
| Date: 2006/06/03 18:19:03, Link 209.209.14.232 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
Washout Dave says
Sure thing Washout – whatever you say. Of course, you’ve lied about just about everything else you’ve posted here, so why should anyone believe you now? Do you get it yet? You whine like a schoolgirl when someone questions your credentials and qualifications in an area you spent years training in. However, you feel that it is perfectly acceptable for you to say that thousands of professional scientists with PhDs and decades of experience who are recognized as leaders in their scientific fields are incompetent, and that their work is shoddy and all wrong. The only reason I give you so much grief about your professional skills is to make you aware of your hypocrisy. Tell me about the Golden Rule Dave – have you ever heard of it? What does it say?
No one said you are profiting from your lies. Many here, including me, think you are practicing a form of child abuse by willingly teaching children the same anti-science lies you were taught when you know they are lies. The U.S. is already losing its technological and scientific edge to countries that emphasize science education, namely China and India. Why do you want to hurt the U.S. by giving our students the extra burden of having to overcome the unscientific horseshit you are feeding them?
Idiot is a five letter word, Washout. AirFarceDaveTard has sixteen letters. Take off your shoes and socks if you need to count that high. And BTW Washout Dave, I’ve been trying to get you to discuss your asinine anti-science claims ever since you came here. Problem is, you’ve been way too much of a chickenshit to answer. I have asked you these questions seven times already... 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? ...and am still waiting for your first answer. I also asked you how do explain the human cultural artifacts that date back over 30,000 years, like the Lascaux cave paintings? And since you champion a literal Bible, I asked if you believed in the Geocentric theory. Then, I asked you who peer reviewed the RATE results? And who do you think is qualified to peer review the RATE results, and why? He11, I even started a whole separate thread just for you to post your YEC scientific evidence on. I listed four separate "literal Bible" topics I wished for you to discuss, but you were too much of a dickless wonder to even post anything there. You haven't answered a single one of these - not one dammed answer from Washout Dave. Now tell me again who is unwilling to discuss scientific issues? |
| Date: 2006/06/04 03:34:08, Link 209.209.14.104 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Washout Dave whines
Well Dave the Cowardly Lyin', I see you kept true to your chickenshit form and avoided all attempts at scientific discussion again. Not that anyone is surprised. I'm starting rabbit trails? I asked each of those questions in response to statements and topics you raised, bonehead. I ask tough questions to stimulate discussion and to judge your understanding of the subject. In each case Washout, you failed miserably. The threads are still here for anyone to see - why do you think lying about it will help your cause? You want something substantive about the RATE group? I'll ask you again, for the third time: Who peer reviewed the RATE results? Who do you think is qualified to peer review the RATE results, and why? Your turn to answer Washout - but I bet you'll just cowardly run and avoid the questions again.
Who would you rather have working on an Avian Flu virus: A PhD in Immunology who understands and can track the evolutionary history of the disease, and can use that knowledge to make predictions and help isolate a cure, or A graduate of Bob Jones University who thinks all diseases are God's will and were brought on by mankind's "fall from grace"? I keep telling you Washout, idiot is a five letter word. |
| Date: 2006/06/04 14:27:59, Link 209.209.14.21 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
deadman_932 says
Ha! Five times is for losers! AirFarceDaveTard2 has ignored my questions on scientific peer review eight times now. That makes me the "winner"....I think |
| Date: 2006/06/04 16:02:37, Link 209.209.14.21 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Washout Dave backpedals with
I see that Washout Dave still can’t bring himself to type without lying. The ‘on topic’ questions I ‘finally asked’ were the exact same ones on RATE peer-review I previously asked three times, and very similar to the general peer-review questions I have asked eight times. I will now demonstrate a feat of magic. I will channel the Great Karnak, and he will predict here and now what Washout Dave’s weasel word answers will be (if WD gets the balls to answer at all that is). OA asked: “Who peer reviewed the RATE results?” Great Karnak predicts: Washout Dave will reply “The RATE committee presented several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism)” What he won’t mention is that the ICC’s “peer reviewers” are a hand picked cadre of other YEC ‘scientists’, and that the papers only got published in anti-scientific comic books like Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) website. No non-YECs were allowed as reviewers, and nothing was submitted to any relevant leading journals such as the Geological Society of America. Of course this Creto “peer review” is nowhere near a true scientific peer review, since the whole purpose of peer review is to have external reviewers with no conflicting interests take a hard, critical look at the results. Having them review their own work is like having a cheating student grade his own final exam. OA asked: “Who do you think is qualified to peer review the RATE results, and why?” Great Karnak predicts: Washout Dave will reply “The RATE committee itself is qualified to review its own results since they have many unbiased scientists on their panel”. Which will also be total bull****(edited to not hurt AFDaveTard's girish feelings) for the same reasons given above. Washout Dave will then launch into a big tirade about the evil atheist science conspiracy against Creationists, and how Creationists like the third-RATErs can’t get published in peer-reviewed journals because of the scientific community is trying to keep the ‘Darwin status quo’ and that conflicting Creationist ideas are automatically blackballed…yadda yadda yadda. It will be the same old pitiful whining we hear from Creationists every day. Washout Dave won’t even consider that the Cretos like the RATE goobers won’t submit their work for serious peer review because the work is worthless crap. What’s more, the RATE Cretos know it is worthless crap and they know it will get torn a new one if it had to undergo a real critical review. The only reason the RATE group exists at all is to fleece money from other gullible Creationist pigeons like Washout Dave. Sorry to steal your thunder Dave, but everyone here has heard the same Creationist lies so many times we can repeat them in our sleep. Please don’t let that stop you from coming up with some new lies – it would be entertaining, and shows off your skill at what you do best. |
| Date: 2006/06/04 20:15:50, Link 209.209.14.177 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
Washout Dave sobs
Awww Dave, you disappoint me. I was all set for your next batch of creative lies, and all you can do is vomit back the same old stale ones. I expect better from you.
Of course you can provide evidence to back up this conspiracy claim, like a list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs. What’s that? You can’t provide any evidence? I see - you were just lying again. What does the Bible say about bearing false witness Dave? Or is it that in Washout Dave Fantasyland, all peer reviews are created equal, just like the validity of scientific theories can be decided by majority vote. That means your AF wings are equal in meaning and value to my ones that I found in a Crackerjack box this morning. Got it.
It’s amusing to see you wriggle and squirm as you slip from one lie to the next, making it up as you go. But you really need a new writer – the quality of your lies has slipped lately. But hey, since you’re here and want to talk about scientific peer review, maybe you’ll finally answer these questions: 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? That’s the ninth time you’ve been asked. Go on Dave - make Jesus proud by lying in his name some more! OT: sorry deadman_932, you were getting too close in the “who can make AirFarceDaveTard2 look like the biggest coward” contest. |
| Date: 2006/06/04 20:32:07, Link 209.209.14.177 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please: Regarding the current influx of idiotic Creationist RATE claims, we will now open the floor for bidding on who gets to bitchslap AirFarceDaveTard2 with the Lake Suigetsu varves and C14 calibration data. I'll start by offering to donate $10 U.S. to the NCSE for the privilege. Who'll raise me? - OA |
| Date: 2006/06/05 04:29:44, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 05 2006,01:32)
Ericmurphy says
OK, I'll hold off. (Puts big stick away for now) You guys never let me have any fun  |
| Date: 2006/06/05 09:34:03, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Washout Dave evades with
Half a dozen people have already pointed out the fatal flaws in the RATE Helium/zircon assumptions, and you ignored every last bit of evidence. Nothing I can say would add to the information you're already received but decided to ignore. Frankly Washout, you're not worth the effort. You, however, have provided no evidence at all for any of your goofy YEC claims I'm still waiting for you to explain the thousands of human artifacts that have been radiocarbon dated back to over 40,000 years. Your RATE buddies can't bail you out this time - their C14 gripe was that "coal and diamonds have high levels of C14 so can't be over 58,000 years old". Even if that were true (which it isn't BTW), that doesn't explain the objects that date less than 58,000 but older than 6000 years old. Kinda torpedoes your “Earth is only 6000 years old” nonsense, eh? And if you REALLY want to look like a complete moron, start arguing that all C14 dating is wrong – I dare ya. (OA readies his big stick again). Also, I’d like to see your evidence for this latest claim you made
Please provide a list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs. You won’t do it because we all know you’re a lying coward who can’t do it. You continue to be the Creationist idiot flunky who can repeatedly put his head through his assh*le quicker than a bug hit by the windshield of an F1 racecar. |
| Date: 2006/06/05 15:30:46, Link 209.209.14.214 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
The proper answer is, they're all dumb in their own special way. How can you make us choose between our dear little board retards? |
| Date: 2006/06/05 16:32:29, Link 209.209.14.173 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Washout Dave’s desperate need for attention surfaces with
Washout Dave, maybe you should take a long hard look at your own skewed personal perceptions, since the “Christian seeker of Truth" has managed to insult and alienate not one, not two, but almost EVERYONE who regularly posts on this board. You claim to act with complete objectivity towards scientific data, but most everyone else has you pegged as a lying, arrogant, ignorant coward who has yet to post anything of substance. That’s an AWFUL LOT of contradictory data points that you seem to be ignoring, Washout. I'll give you a real world example. In Japan, many companies have installed exercise rooms for their employees to work out during breaks. One of the more popular pieces of gear are punching dummies. The dummies are all made up with likenesses of the middle-level managers, so that employees who feel abused make take out their hostilities. The kicker is, every few months the CEO swings by to inspect the dummies. If any of them show undue wear, then that manager is called on the carpet and asked to explain why his people are so unhappy with him. So Washout, go check out the results of stevestory’s poll. Why does AFDave the Dummy get pummeled so continually? How do you explain all the negative feelings you’ve generated here? Everyone else’s fault, or yours? |
| Date: 2006/06/06 04:07:27, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Had to go with T-Daddy. He's so screamingly over the top and clueless that it's hilarious. Every time I read one of his rants I picture him looking like David Spade in Joe Dirt. Hard to take someone that goofy seriously. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 20:35:16, Link 209.209.14.132 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
Dumbest AFDave mumbles
No Dave, I think you’re a liar because you have been caught lying by at least half a dozen people here. You lied about your motives for coming here. You lied about your desire for honest scientific discussion. Many folks have invested quite a bit of time in debunking your AIG PRATT claims, only to have you totally ignore their inputs and say “Well, no one could answer me”. The few times you do decide to not ignore the critiques that smoke your arguments, more often than not you misrepresent what was said, and often twist peoples’ words into things they didn’t say. Those aren’t just “winning debate techniques” when you do that Dave; those are lies. When you tell them, that makes you a liar. People are upset with you not for your YEC views, but for the dishonest and patronizing way you have gone about trying to proselytize. I have to believe you understand that, but like a good little Fundybot missionary you don’t care what the “savages who need saving” think of your actions.
There you go lying again. You were given example after example of human artifacts dating back over 40,000 years, and you ignored every last one. The RATE findings on radiocarbon dating don’t help you, so how does your model accommodate all that >6000 year old data? Humans and their culture did not appear “abruptly, simultaneously, and recently” only 6000 years ago as you claim. Your latest whine is accusing other posters of “not discussing science” when in fact you are the coward who has run from discussing all the contrary scientific evidence.
No, you’re an arrogant yet ignorant YEC drone who recently got voted dumbest board user by a wide margin, and who has lost the respect of virtually everyone here. Why is that Dave? Is everyone else to blame, or did your actions bring it about yourself? I guess cowards like you aren’t big on accepting personal responsibility, either.
Yes, when you read the Bible you missed the parts about honesty (not bearing false witness), integrity, and the Golden Rule. Would you like someone here to explain those concepts to you? |
| Date: 2006/06/07 04:37:22, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||||
AFDave the Cowardly Lyin’ sobs
No, they don’t. The RATE findings on C14 only say that coal and diamond can’t be more than 58,000 years old. They say nothing about the span from 58,000 YBP to 6000 YBP. And you have made many firm statements that there is no evidence for humans older than 6000 YBP, even though evidence was held up right in front of your face. Another day, another batch of lies from AFDave.
Oh, like Dembski’s street theater bit. You can lie and twist people’s words, but when you get caught it was all just a silly joke.
OK Washout. On June 04 2006,23:24 AFDave wrote
That’s a lie Dave, pure and simple. It’s not you joking around, it’s not an honest misunderstanding, it’s a lie. It’s a lie on your part to avoid responsibility for admitting the fact that the RATE results you champion were not properly peer reviewed by qualified, unbiased geologists. Want to prove it’s not a willful lie on your part? Then provide a list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs.
“I’m not religious, but….
…I just want you to believe as I do in a literal Bible, especially the Biblical model of Creation and the Flood” (OA shakes head and chuckles) THAT piece of AFDave “logic” needs no comment. You’re really gonna make Baby Jesus cry now. Time to be a man and ‘fess up Dave – You got caught lying, and you keep trying to wriggle out by telling more lies about the data that’s been presented, and your motives, and your desire to learn. Did you look up “thou shalt not bear false witness” and the Golden Rule in you Bible yet? |
| Date: 2006/06/07 09:45:26, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
Bullshit Dave. Show us the evidence that caused you to believe this. Show us your list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs. Your claim is wrong, and you know it is wrong, but you repeat it anyway. That makes you a liar. |
| Date: 2006/06/08 04:35:19, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Hey AFDaveTard2, You ever gonna get around to addressing all that evidence you were shown that human culture and artifacts exist that date back over 40,000 years? What's your explanation for anything that dates over 6000 YBP? Today's Hints for AFDaveTard2: The RATE helium/zircon battle is over. YOU LOST. Get over it. The origin of Portugese battle is over. YOU LOST THAT ONE TOO. Get over it. |
| Date: 2006/06/08 07:54:40, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
AFDaveTard2 says
Forget the C14 in coal and diamonds for now. You said
Tell us how the RATE group explains C14 dating results that fall in the range 58,000 YBP to the present. Show us the data that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere. Or were you lying once again? Deal with your failure to address all that evidence you were given that human culture and artifacts exist that date back over 40,000 years. Dave, what's your explanation for anything that dates over 6000 YBP? |
| Date: 2006/06/08 09:34:03, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
Hey AFDaveTard2, Since you have time to whine about the negative image you cultivated, you surely must have time to discuss the scientific topics you raised. You said:
Tell us how the RATE group explains C14 dating results that fall in the range 58,000 YBP to the present. Show us the data that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere. Deal with your failure to address all that evidence you were given that human culture and artifacts exist that date back over 40,000 years. Dave, what's your explanation for anything that dates over 6000 YBP? C'mon Dave, are you incapable of discussing the scientific details??? |
| Date: 2006/06/08 11:54:36, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Waaaaay back in April, when AFDave first began posting his "Proof of God / ToE is wrong" stuff here, I said this to him:
AirFarceDaveTard2 sure can't complain that he wasn't warned. |
| Date: 2006/06/08 12:00:43, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
English American Australian Canadian, eh? a smattering of Cat (mostly I speak, they ignore) |
| Date: 2006/06/08 14:14:24, Link 209.209.14.57 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
Great, just what we need. Another f*ckin' forty pages of ThorIdiot spouting off his homophobic bigotry. Good stinkin' guys! |
| Date: 2006/06/09 19:07:48, Link 209.209.14.71 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Dave the Cowardly Lyin’ wriggles with
But Dave, you didn't say that there was 100X more organic matter present. You claimed there was 100X more C12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere Here are your exact words
Please provide the evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 (but not a corresponding higher level of C14) in the atmosphere. I have to thank you in advance Washout - by attacking radiocarbon dating you are going to make yourself look like the biggest chump going, even worse than your helium/zircon debacle. Want to know why? Radiocarbon dating is an extremely well known and well researched branch of science. It is one of the backbones of archaeology, especially paleoarchaeology. The scientist who pioneered it, Willard Frank Libby, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960 for his work. Today there are over 130 labs worldwide providing radiocarbon dating services, doing millions of dollars in business. The science even has its own peer-reviewed journal, Radiocarbon, to keep up on the latest developments. C14 dating does have limitations, but these are understood and accounted for. It is well known that the level of C14 in the atmosphere can vary due to external factors – cosmic ray level due to solar activity, climate change that disrupts the carbon flow between the ocean / organic matter into the atmosphere. It is also know that the C14 level in individual samples can vary due to external factor such as sample contamination. That is why radiocarbon dating has been subjected to rigorous multiple independent calibration methods. These methods include denrochronology (tree-ring dating), ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, and speleothems (cave deposits). All these methods combined have provided calibration curves accurate to +/- a few percent for dates up to 60,000 years old. Go do your homework now Davie Girl, because we will be addressing all of these methods in detail. See, you’re got a really tough job ahead Washout You can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 ratios being 100x different You can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 decay rate being not constant You can lie about trees growing 10-20 rings a year instead of 1 You can lie about all the ice core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10. You can lie about all the ocean core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10. You can lie about all the lake varve samples being off by greater than a factor of 10. You can lie about all the cave deposits being off by greater than a factor of 10. But what is really going to tax your lying circuits is explaining how all the above methods are wrong due to completely different causes but still all give dating results that agree precisely with each other. It’s gonna be great fun watching you fall on your lying face again Washout. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 11:28:03, Link 209.209.14.208 | ||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||
Good catch Faid. Who'da ever thunk it - a fine Christian Creationist role model like AFDave guilty of dishonest quote mining. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Well AFDave, what have you got to say for yourself about this latest time you were caught lying? |
| Date: 2006/06/10 11:45:17, Link 209.209.14.208 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
JonF - Thanks for the radiocarbon calibration curves, although I was going to wait and let AirFarceDave stick both feet in his mouth before presenting similar data. I was really looking forward to hammering his sorry ass with the Lake Suigetsu studies. Oh well, guess I'll have to use the Green River varves instead to dope-slap him and his '6000 year old Earth' nonsense. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 14:10:25, Link 209.209.14.121 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
The only "scientific movement" Dumbski ever experienced came as a result of his college experimentation with mixing Ethyl alcohol and prune juice. ETA: I forgot the one he had when he read the Kitzmiller decision. That sure left skid marks in his tighty whiteys. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 17:10:26, Link 209.209.14.192 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
AFDave the Cowardly Lyin' brags
But Dave, you never made it to being a fighter pilot. You weren't good enough to be a fighter pilot. You were only deemed competent enough to fly in an unarmed trainer. Trying to pass yourself off as a fighter pilot just to stroke your own ego is an insult to the real men who were good enough to earn a seat in a fighter aircraft. As we have all seen, you live in your own little fantasy world anyway - what's one more lie among the thousands, eh? |
| Date: 2006/06/10 17:56:04, Link 209.209.14.192 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
AFDave the cowardly Lyin'
YOU are the one who continually brings it up Numbnuts, about every third post it seems, not us. Is it suppose to somehow affect the scientific evidence you have promised but failed to deliver here? Does your ego think we'll be impressed like the rest of your sheepish congregation and go "Oooohh! Dave flew JETS!!!, He must be really SMART and IMPORTANT!!"? I don't know any mature person in any of my daily dealings who creates a web page that stresses what they did some 20 years ago. All your blog needs is a soundtrack of Bruce Springsteen singing "Glory Days". You want to get back in everyone's good graces? Then stop being a lying chickenshit. Stop misrepresenting what people say to you Stop ignoring all the tons of verified scientific evidence that contradicts your bullshit AIG and ICR claims. Acknowledge that it exists even if it you have no clue how to deal with it. Actually read the information and web links people provide you to try and decrease your profound ignorance. Explain why you dishonestly quote-mined the World Book Portuguese article Explain why you think it is OK to call professional scientists incompetent, but your career is off limits. Explain why you think an ignorant layman like you is a better judge of technical evidence than profession scientists in the relevant fields. Did I mention – stop lying. Folks around here can deal with ignorance. As Will Rogers said: “we’re all ignorant, just on different subjects”. What we cannot tolerate is lying. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 18:10:44, Link 209.209.14.192 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Cue music tape from South Pacific "Call me a cockeyed optimist...." |
| Date: 2006/06/10 18:41:00, Link 209.209.14.192 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Cool! I'm jealous But I assume you mean the 2001 made-for-TV version with Glenn Close and Harry Connick Jr. The original 1958 classic film was shot on the northern coast of Kauai, near Princeville. I was lucky enough to spend a week there once - indescribably beautiful place. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 19:13:11, Link 209.209.14.192 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_(musical) 1958 musical film The musical was made into a successful film of 1958, starring Rossano Brazzi and Mitzi Gaynor in the leading roles, with Juanita Hall in the part of Bloody Mary that she had played in the original stage production. Metropolitan Opera star Giorgio Tozzi provided the voice for the role of Emile de Becque. Kauai, one of the Hawaiian Islands, served as the filming location for the movie. The film is notorious for the use of colored filters during many of the song sequences, which has been a source of criticism for the film. Director Joshua Logan wanted it to be a subtle change, but 20th Century Fox, the company that would distribute the 35mm version, made it an extreme change, and since tickets to the film were pre-sold (it was a roadshow attraction), they had no time to correct it. Criticism of the filtering did not prevent the film from topping the box office that year, and the 65mm Todd-AO cinematography (by Leon Shamroy) was nominated for an Academy Award, as was the music adaptation and the sound, winning the latter. All the songs have been retained, and a song entitled "My Girl Back Home," sung by Lt. Cable and Nellie, which was cut from the Broadway show, was added. The soundtrack album has spent more weeks at Number 1 in the UK album chart than any other album, clocking up an astonishing 115 weeks at the top in the late 50s and early 60s. It spent 70 consecutive weeks at the top of the chart and was Number 1 for the whole of 1959. Originally shown in a nearly 3-hour roadshow version and later cut to two-and-a-half hours for general release, the film is currently under restoration by rights holders MGM and Fox. Fox (which currently holds both the video rights and the film's copyright) is scheduled to release a "special edition" DVD in 2006. This would include the restored roadshow version with scenes not shown since its original Todd-AO theatrical release. Television production South Pacific DVDAn elaborate television production, Rodgers & Hammerstein's South Pacific, was directed by Richard Pearce in 2001. A production with Glenn Close, Harry Connick Jr., Rade Serbedzija, Robert Pastorelli, Lori Tan Chinn, Natalie Mendoza, and Jack Thompson, it was filmed primarily in Australia, with some scenes shot in Moorea, an island close to Tahiti). Sixteen songs are featured in the movie. This version omitted the well-known song "Happy Talk", although not for "politically correct" reasons as has been rumored, and cut the even more popular song "Bali Hai" in half. Several new scenes, such as Nellie and Emile's very first meeting at the officer's club, were added, and a new character was created to serve as Nellie's best friend and confidante. The sex scenes between Liat and Lt. Cable were also dealt with more frankly than in the original. The film was harshly criticized by some because the order of the songs was somewhat changed, and because Rade Serbedsija, who played Emile, does not have an operatic singing voice, as have all other "Emile"s before him. Unlike the movie version of "The Sound of Music", the structure of this "South Pacific" was said by some to be damaged because of the change in the order of the songs. In the stage original and in the 1958 film, for instance, the song "Twin Soliloquies" expresses musically what Emile and Nellie do not actually say to each other and leads to Emile's "Some Enchanted Evening", sung only a minute later. In the television version, however, the two songs are sung in two entirely different scenes. A soundtrack from the movie was also released. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 19:28:22, Link 209.209.14.192 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Wasn't trying to claim Wiki is correct, just tossing it out for thought. You were there, I wasn't, so I will take you at your word. Really doesn't matter, it's an awesomely beautiful place where ever it is. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 19:35:29, Link 209.209.14.192 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Actually we're not arguing, we're discussing like two adults - politely exchanging ideas and checking each other's sources. Maybe if we're incredibly lucky AirFarceDavceTard2 will learn by watching. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 19:51:50, Link 209.209.14.192 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
It sounds trite, but I really am doing it for the lurkers. I want them all to say "look at that, they gave that arrogant Fundy dumbass every possible chance to back up his empty talk but he couldn't. I may have to rethink who really has the correct scientific point of view". For Ichthyic: I found this that supports your memories http://www.summitpacificinc.com/2004/11/seacoastonline.html
|
| Date: 2006/06/10 20:07:33, Link 209.209.14.192 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Deal! |
| Date: 2006/06/11 04:09:46, Link 209.209.14.184 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Sorry DreamerDave, all you have earned here is derisive laughter with your "respectable" regurgitation of crap by AIG and ICR. You continue to ignore contradicting data and to lie about virtually everything involved. You most certainly did dishonestly quote mine that EB (not WB, my bad) article. It was presented right here in black and white for all to see, yet you still choose to lie about it.
Boo hoo hoo Davie-poo! And yet you still cry like a little girl about how it hurts your delicate ears when some people use harsh language Mr. "I'm a macho fighter stud". You can't have it both ways, you lying hypocrite. You were given a quota of respect based on the benefit of the doubt when you first showed up but you pissed that all away with your arrogant condescending attitude and dishonesty. Don't think for a minute that whining about how you hold some nebulous "moral high ground" will erase your past behavior. Now if you want to talk science, let's talk science. Please present your evidence that there was up to 100x the concentration of C12 in the atmosphere as little as 6000 years ago. Please give your explanation for all the data you were presented that shows the Earth and human culture to be way older than 6000 years. Please give your explanation for why so many independent lines of evidence all agree with each other on dates that show you are wrong. You can start with the C14 calibration curves presented by JonF. |
| Date: 2006/06/11 05:17:45, Link 209.209.14.160 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Hey AFDave - there's a term commonly used in the military for the lazy goldbrick soldiers who routinely use dishonest excuses to avoid the difficult assignments and try to slide by with just doing the minimal amount of easy work. I bet your "fighter pilot barroom buddies" know what it is, and who it applies to. Do you know what it is? I can tell you if you like, but it might hurt your sensitive girlish ears... |
| Date: 2006/06/12 05:07:36, Link 67.97.184.242 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
LOL!! So I'm a 'troll' now, eh? I guess so, if we accept your new definition of 'troll' as 'anyone who asks tough scientific questions that AFDave is too ignorant or cowardly to address.' Last time I looked, my actions didn't convince 35 complete strangers that I was the dumbest poster on ATBC. You must be pretty proud of that one, right Dave? Davie-poo, I noticed that you're back to talking about your favorite topic - yourself. If you spent a tenth as much time on learning some actual biological and geological science as you do patting yourself on the back, you wouldn't be such an ignorant dumbass, ya know? Now, when are you going to present the data that refutes all radiocarbon dating you promised us? Please present your evidence that there was up to 100x the concentration of C12 in the atmosphere as little as 6000 years ago. Please give your explanation for all the data you were presented that shows the Earth and human culture to be way older than 6000 years. Please give your explanation for why so many independent lines of evidence all agree with each other on dates that show you are wrong. You can start with the C14 calibration curves presented by JonF. You keep singing and tap-dancing, but still no data to back up your claims. Why is that Dave? Do scientific details frighten you, is that it? Did you ask your fighter pilot buddies yet about that term for what a dishonest shirker is called? It starts with Shi… |
| Date: 2006/06/12 05:39:08, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
QFDave drones on
Sorry Davie-poo, I'm gonna stay right here in your face, asking those tough scientific questions you refuse to answer. I don't expect or need an answer from you actually. The whole point is to show the lurkers what an ignorant chickenshit you really are, and how empty your anti-science nonsense claims can be. Every non-answer by you is a victory for me, capisce? BTW, I've decided a good nik for you is ‘QFDave’. For the lurkers, 'QF' is the Air Force designation for a target drone. It's an unmanned aircraft used as a training target so real pilots can practice firing live weapons at it. It flies slow and straight, and has a bright red tail so it’s easily identified. That's you to a T Davie. You're nothing but a target drone to the scientifically knowledgeable folks here. You fly your stupidity-based YEC arguments slow and straight, and everyone else gets to practice blowing the sh*t out of them in front of the lurkers. When you get mad, you’ve even got the bright red tail thing going just like a big assed baboon. We couldn’t ask for a better training aid. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 06:30:40, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
AFDave says:
A polite question for AFDave: Please explain and justify your qualifications for determining what the 'truth' actually is when dealing with scientific data. Thanks in advance. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 07:47:54, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Thanks for replying, but I'm afraid you did not answer the question. I will clarify: PhDs with YEC beliefs constitute an extremely small minority of the biological and geological scientific communities, approximately 0.15% (Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation.). Data interpretations presented by YEC PhDs in support of their young earth hypothesis have been critically examined and rejected by the other 99.85% of all non YEC PhD scientists working in the relevant fields. Please provide your qualifications and justifications that let you determine that the extreme minority YEC PhD interpretations are the 'truth', while the opinion of the other 99.85 % of the professional scientific community is wrong. Please try again to answer the question, thanks. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 10:31:52, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
|
Tsk tsk people, such negativity! AFDave has shamed me into seeing the error of my ways. No more trolling for OA, no siree! From now on, I will listen and learn from someone better than me. I mean after all, he flew jets! JETS! He even had two other AF pilots at his wedding! How much more convincing of his sincerity do you lunkheads need?!?! I’m learning a lot of good sciency stuff from AFDave. One big lesson he taught me is that all peer reviews are equal in value. I discovered this when I asked AFDave who peer reviewed the RATE results. Turns out the RATE papers were only peer reviewed by other YECs from the same place (ICR, Institute for Creation Research) that sponsored the study. When I pointed out the possible conflict-of-interest issues, he said the peer review was still valid because:
There you have it! It was peer reviewed, so it must be correct! I guess it wouldn’t bother me so much except I recently read a paper published by ISR (Institute for Satanic Research) that claimed 99% of all Christian missionaries are motivated by the desire to steal from the impoverished native peoples and sexually abuse their farm animals. I didn’t believe it, until I found out the paper was peer reviewed by other Satanists from ISR! Since AFDave has demonstrated conclusively that if a study passes peer review by the very group that sponsored it, it must be accurate and I have to accept it. Darn shame about those Christian missionaries though, I'm really disillusioned... Now quit picking on AFDave just because he can’t match your pathetic level of detail with his YEC views. Look at the BIG picture, like saving your own soul! |
| Date: 2006/06/12 19:07:26, Link 209.209.14.90 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
Hey you potty mouth! Don't pick on my friend AFDave, he's a hero. While all those other cowards in the military took the easy way out by drawing fire in hostile countries and active war zones like Desert Storm, AFDave volunteered for an important job; providing a taxi service for rear echelon VIPs in his helicopter and defending the center of the country from a sneak attack. You should be grateful. So what if AFDave doesn't have any evidence to back up his arguments? All you scientific types with your fancy facts and peer review and high falutin' empirical evidence – BIG DEAL. AFDave is a teammate of Jesus, the Big J himself! As long as TeamJC can oppose those ignorant atheist scientists, then AFDave doesn’t need no stinkin’ evidence. After all, how could a Bible written, altered, and translated countless times in the last 2000 years by fallible men possibly not be literally true ?? ?? ?? That highly modified Bible says it, AFDave believes it, that settles it. Why don’t you just accept what he has to say is the TRUTH, so he will stop being so hard on you? (Don’t worry Dave, I’ve got your back against these atheist trolls) |
| Date: 2006/06/12 19:32:42, Link 209.209.14.90 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
I admit I used to be, always stumping AFDave with those tough scientific questions, but AFDave made me see the error of my ways. I'm a born again supporter of my fellow EE AFDave. I'll now do everything I can to support his cause, just watch. I wouldn't want to burn in he11 for all eternity just because all those professional scientists can't accept the TRUTH of a literal Bible, now would I? |
| Date: 2006/06/13 07:56:21, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||
AFDave says
Hey Dave, you inadvertently skipped a step. Please go over the reasons why you think all human history or all world history must be tied to the start of written human history. Explain why the large amount of evidence showing non-written human culture (cave art, archaeological sites that show group habitation and planned agriculture, musical instruments, etc) that predates written history by tens of thousands of years doesn't count as human history. I'm trying hard to put on my 'literal Bible' hat, but it just won't fit over all that contradictory data. Just because you, personally, think something is implausible is not valid evidence in anyone's book. Give us evidence why we should think it is implausible too. Thanks in advance |
| Date: 2006/06/13 13:39:04, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||
Dave, please make an attempt to read what was written. I didn’t ask you to prove anything. I merely ask you to list the scientific reasons (i.e. please omit any personal incredulity) that make you think your dates are accurate.
But Dave, Radiocarbon is only one of a dozen different, independent methods used for archaeological dating. I already pointed out many such methods just a few days ago, but you seemed to have forgotten them already. Let’s look at just one – dendrochronology. This is the science of dating by matching individual yearly tree-ring growth. It is a science that developed slowly in the last 100 years but is now widely used in archaeology. For example, Cornell University has had a 10+ year research project going using dendrochronology to accurately map dates in the Aegean and Near East areas. http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/ Using just dendrochronology from wooden house beams, a prehistoric farming village in Catal Hoyuk, Turkey has been dated back to almost 7000 B.C, or 9000 years ago. That’s considerably older than the 5500 years ago you claim. (The dates were also cross verified by radiocarbon dating, BTW) http://www.catalhoyuk.com/ Now I’m sure you have a good scientific explanation for this large discrepancy between your claims and the dendro data too – I’ll be interested to hear it. When you present that info, please be sure to explain why the independent dating methods using C14 and dendro agree with each other. One more small request. You say you will present the bad assumptions on carbon dating that give bad dates. Fine, I’ll wait for that data. But could you please list the assumption you use when calculation your <10,000 year old Earth and 5500 year old date for human history? I’m sure they’re probably fine, but I’d like to check your assumptions for myself. Fair is fair, right? Thanks again |
| Date: 2006/06/14 18:40:44, Link 209.209.14.117 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
|
Hi AFDave, I know you’re a busy man, what with you being retired and spending all that time reading up on literal Bible scientific evidence, but you seem to be having problems with your memory. You keep forgetting to provide evidence to back up the claims you make. For example, you said this
It’s been four days now and you’ve been politely asked multiple times, but we still haven’t seen your evidence for this claim. We don’t need a detailed explanation, just a reference to the scientific paper or peer-reviewed journal you got this from will be sufficient. I know you're here every day writing many one-liners; just tack the data on to one of those many posts. Also, when asked what you would consider a successful refutation of one of your claims, you replied
Well, you claimed that radiocarbon dating was faulty based on incorrect assumptions about decay rates and C12 concentrations. You were then show how dates from C14/C12 decay rates are precisely calibrated by at least six different, completely independent methods (denrochronology, ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, speleothems, coral samples) and are accurate to within a few percent for dates back to 60,000 YBP. You were provided the actual data, including the calibration curves themselves that all overlap almost exactly. Now I’m sure you can C&P some ICR or AIG argument as to why each individual calibration curve method is wrong, but you were asked your explanation as to why the independent curves all agree with one another. If you see six independent sets of data that you say are all screwed up, then how do you explain that all six are screwed up but screwed up in precisely the same way as to give precisely matching results over the whole date range? If you can’t explain it, shouldn’t that make you reconsider your original claim? Why shouldn’t you be going “Hmmm ... really? I never noticed that glaring error before. OK, you're right” ? Here’s a great chance to show all the Christian lurkers that you don’t back down from a challenge, or be big enough to admit that you are wrong. Thanks in advance for not forgetting again to answer these questions. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 18:54:43, Link 209.209.14.117 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
|
This just in: Vegas giving 3 to 2 odds that he's ex-Air Force, or at least a pilot. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 19:21:54, Link 209.209.14.117 |
| Author: Occam's Aftershave |
| Bye Randy, it was 'real'. Don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on the way out. |
| Date: 2006/06/15 06:22:17, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||||||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||||||||
There is no 'best book', only a pile of pseudo-science dribble filled ones with some that suck less than others.
No, it means he totally abandoned the scientific method, including peer review of his work, to push his religion-based anti-science claims.
Nope. No such book exists. And I have read most all of the popular creationist and ID diatribes.
That sums it up nicely
The overarching ToE hasn't been seriously challenged for over a hundred years. The fine details of certain areas have certainly been challenged and modified as new data comes in - that's the way good science works - but no capable challenges to the overall theory have been raised. |
| Date: 2006/06/15 07:48:22, Link 67.97.184.242 | ||||
| Author: Occam's Aftershave | ||||
Actually Dave, I only questioned the 100X more C-12 in the atmosphere claim because you brought it up. How tough would it be for you to provide your reference source to us (assuming that a reference actually exists that is)? All I'm asking for is a C&P link - 5 seconds' work at best. Why can't you do even that simple thing? And it was in the context of your claim that there is no evidence for human existence older than 6000 years ago. That is a topic that you seem to have abandoned altogether when folks began asking you for your evidence there too. When will you be addressing that 11,000 year old human village in Turkey that I pointed out to you?
If by "moved on" you mean you bailed out on many of your other claims before addressing any of the contrary evidence, I'd have to agree. |