AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Rilke's Granddaughter

form_srcid: Rilke's Granddaughter

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.162.139.105

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Rilke's Granddaughter

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 'Rilke\'s Granddaughter%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2005/03/28 17:32:54, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I'm sorry, I must have missed the initial challenge; could you direct me to some documentation on the subject?  Thanks.

Date: 2005/10/17 08:27:36, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2005,11:41)
Quote
Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest.
You are committing a fallacy here: you equate evolutionary biologists (and scientists and laypersons in other fields who accept the theory of evolution) with people who amoral - presumarly because you are under the mistaken impression that one must be an atheist to accept the theory.

You are wrong.  Just thought you should know.  The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.

Quote
In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry.
You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words.
Quote
Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively.
Again, you are factually incorrect - your quote-mining was demonstrated to be nonsense, and more valid citations were provided.  

Quote
However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible.
Factually incorrect.  I know a large number of devout Christians who accept evolution.  According to you, they can't exist.  Will you now admit that you are wrong?
Quote
As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists.
You draw different conclusions not on the basis of your faith but on your lack of understanding of basic biological science.  You shouldn't confuse the two.

Quote
Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes.
No, actually it doesn't.  Cite the actual research that demonstrates this.
Quote
IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would.
Since there is no IDT, I'm afraid this statement is factually incorrect.  ID has no theory - it has, at best, a blatantly true hypothesis: somethings in the universe are the result of intent.  That's not a theory, I'm afraid.
Quote
In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously.
Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry.
Quote
Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything?
Because we don't.  We use the Modern Synthesis as the best explanation to fit the facts.  You need to read some more modern science.
Quote
Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism.
Oh, dear.  Lack of knowledge of history does not make a refutation.

But an excellent simulation of a creationist.  Bravo!  Well done!

Quote
Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest.
You are committing a fallacy here: you equate evolutionary biologists (and scientists and laypersons in other fields who accept the theory of evolution) with people who amoral - presumarly because you are under the mistaken impression that one must be an atheist to accept the theory.

You are wrong.  Just thought you should know.  The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.

Quote
In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry.
You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words.
Quote
Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively.
Again, you are factually incorrect - your quote-mining was demonstrated to be nonsense, and more valid citations were provided.  

Quote
However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible.
Factually incorrect.  I know a large number of devout Christians who accept evolution.  According to you, they can't exist.  Will you now admit that you are wrong?
Quote
As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists.
You draw different conclusions not on the basis of your faith but on your lack of understanding of basic biological science.  You shouldn't confuse the two.

Quote
Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes.
No, actually it doesn't.  Cite the actual research that demonstrates this.
Quote
IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would.
Since there is no IDT, I'm afraid this statement is factually incorrect.  ID has no theory - it has, at best, a blatantly true hypothesis: somethings in the universe are the result of intent.  That's not a theory, I'm afraid.
Quote
In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously.
Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry.
Quote
Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything?
Because we don't.  We use the Modern Synthesis as the best explanation to fit the facts.  You need to read some more modern science.
Quote
Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism.
Oh, dear.  Lack of knowledge of history does not make a refutation.

But an excellent simulation of a creationist.  Bravo!  Well done!

Date: 2005/10/19 09:49:04, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I said [quote=]The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.[/quote]

The Ghost apparently didn't bother to read what I wrote and answered with a charming non-sequitur:
Quote
So say the evilutionists when the cameras are on. Some spokesmen (Dr. Kenneth Miller) claim otherwise. He's a useful sort, I guess.


We weren't talking about what the people think - we're talking about the theory.

Use some simple text, like Futuyma, and find me the precise part of the theory which makes theological claims.

Hint: you'll be unable to.

Why be wrong in public?  Don't discuss things you are not well-versed in, and avoid straw-men.

But again, superb paradoy of a creationist.  Spot on.

Date: 2005/11/15 03:47:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
You don't have to give your reasons unless you want. I'm more interested in the general spiritual malaise wrought by Darwinism - or whoever wrote that imbecile's books. And thanks for the extension.
Your statement appears to contain two errors - claiming an association between 'Darwinism' and spiritual malaise (an error because there is no evidence whatever of any causal connection); and claiming that Darwin was an imbecile (easily disproved by any reading of the man's works).  Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken?

Date: 2005/11/15 07:06:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
By the way, Mr. Paley's Ectoplasmic self, sir - the Elon plan calls for forcible deportation of undesirables.  The United States has been doing this for some two hundred years - so now we have NA casinos.

It's facist.  Deal.

Date: 2006/02/13 02:24:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Guthrie, you should realize that if phishy is John Davison, he's not actually responsible for his actions.  It doesn't appear to be simple senility, it looks more like an undiagnosed stroke of some kind.

Date: 2006/02/13 10:52:11, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
That thread is a classic, Sir TJ.  To me, it points out two key things about the various ID supporters: first, that they are inacapable of appreciating or being swayed by any kind of rational argument; and second, that they can be made to look like blithering idiots without any effort at all.

Date: 2006/02/14 11:24:47, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I note that the 'challenge' posted by "whoever" has now disappeared from the Uncommon Descent front page.

One would have to archive the entire thing every five minutes to keep up with the various attempts to cover up ill-considered, ignorant, or simply idiotic statements made over there.

Date: 2006/02/14 18:42:06, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 14 2006,19:15)
no, it's still there. look in the list on the right-hand side

Well, bother!  'twasn't there when I looked.  Perhaps they added it back, in order to avoid embarrassment?  :p

Date: 2006/02/15 03:36:35, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Actually, I think it's JAD's attempt to be 'funny'.  'though I admit that he needs some serious medical help.

Date: 2006/02/15 06:42:46, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
The OT contains a web of times, names and places that can and has been used to form a tight and consistent chronology of events going from Adam to the first exile.

This appears to be another example of Carol deliberately avoiding answering a question.  This does NOT explain how you can blithely assign precise dates when the actual correlation of the current calendar to the First Exile cannot be more than approximate.
Quote
And the duration of the flood was about a year.
Since the flood did not actually occur, you mean that the Tanakh states that the flood lasted about a year.  Or more.  Or less.  Consider the fact that the flood may have lasted forty days (Gen. 7:17) or 150 (Gen. 7:24)?
Quote
who is not claimed to be the first human in the OT
Oh? The Jewish Encyclopedia disagrees with you:
Quote
Man, the crown of Creation, as a pair including man and woman, has been made in God's image. God forms the first man, Adam, out of earth ("adamah"). This indicates his relation to it in a manner that is fundamental for many later laws. Man is a child of the earth, from which he has been taken, and to which he shall return. It possesses for him a certain moral grandeur: he serves it; it does not serve him. He must include God's creatures in the respect that it demands in general, by not exploiting them for his own selfish uses. Unlawful robbery of its gifts (as in paradise), murder, and unchastity anger it, paralyze its power and delight in producing, and defile it. God breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of man, whom He formed out of earth. Therefore that part of him that is contrasted with his corporeal nature or supplements it—his life, soul, spirit, and reason—is not, as with the animals, of earthly origin, existing in consequence of the body, but is of divine, heavenly origin. Man is "toledot" (ii. 4) of heaven and earth.
from Jewish Encyclopedia

Date: 2006/02/15 07:16:28, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 15 2006,13:00)
Ok, ok ok ok ok ok. This has become strange. Just throwing my 2 shillings worth here but, does anybody care whether the hebrew creation myth is coincidentally, semi in agreement with our new understanding of the world garnered through observation and evidence? Religion has been shattered and the pieces are laying around writing about how they are still relevant as shattered pieces. I mean, I consider it an act of pity to allow people who desperately cling to the ideas of zeus, horus, jesus, yaweh, mohammed, krsna, tlketklotl, and the like to speak their minds about these utterly and totally defunct political/creation myths. Someday, I plan to put a Caananite bone up on my mantle as a religious relic. As soon as someone finds one.

Mind you I am not knocking religion here, it's just that well, you know, I am more interested in what Carol does with her new improved and ever so much more accurate translation of her historical artifact and curiosity.

Do you believe in the god of your particular regional deity?

She doesn't actually seem to be interested in doing anything with it.  Except sell Landa's book, of course.

Date: 2006/02/15 09:32:08, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
Rilke,

Dummy - your ignorance is actually beginning to astound me. Either get an education first, then come here an argue, or shut up and you just might learn something.
Classic response from someone who is 'thick-skinned'.

Do you actually have an response to my points?  How can I 'learn' anything unless you 'say' something?

Date: 2006/02/15 17:06:53, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
The Bible is referred to as "torah" in Hebrew. That word means "teaching". It is all there to teach us, if only we would harken.
Crikey.  Carol, while you throw around accusations of 'dumb' etc. with great abandon, I recommend to you the Biblical tale of the Mote and the Beam.

The Bible is NOT referred to as "torah" in Hebrew.  Perhaps you'd like a little lesson in terminology?  I thought you would.  
Quote
Torah (úÌåÉøÈä) is a Hebrew word meaning "teaching," "instruction," or "law." It is the central and most important document of Judaism revered by Jews through the ages. It is also called the Law of Moses (Torat Moshe úÌåÉøÇúÎîÉùÑÆä) . Torah primarily refers to the first section of the Tanakh–the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, but the term is sometimes also used in the general sense to also include both of Judaism's written law and oral law, encompassing the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history, including the Mishnah, the Talmud, the midrash, and more. (emphasis added)
from wikipedia (I thought I'd best use a source you can actually find.)

Or if you'd like a less neutral source, let's try the Jewish Encyclopedia:
Quote
Name applied to the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.


The tanakh is the Hebrew Bible; and the Christian Bible (which you might, in your tremendous ignorance of things Hebrew have been referring to) has no name, since the Jews don't accept the "New Testament."

From someone who claims to know about this, this is a shockingly ignorant error.  It appears that Mr. Emba is right: this isn't your field.

And are you seriously advancing the argument that God slaughtered the entire population of the world so that Noah could tell them how evil they were being?  Folks who were going to die in any event?

Tell me, do you actually have a coherent argument?

Date: 2006/02/16 04:46:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
A lot off naive theologians work off the assumption that Judaism was somehow the 'first religion', or at least that it owed nothing to other religions that came before it. That ain't the way these things happen....


It's also intriguing that the Ten Commandments include "thou shalt have no other Gods before me".  That almost looks like an acknowledgement that they accepted that other Gods existed... they were just being very exclusive about it.

Date: 2006/02/16 07:19:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
Unless you think someone has actually manually added those two large numbers?
Puck, I don't think that's what's going on.

The point is that folks such as Avo (and indeed, people like Dembski and Behe, etc.) honestly believe that the difference between, say man and chimp isn't a quantitative difference ('2' vs. '3x10^113' ), but a qualitative difference ('2' vs. 'B' ).

That's why the math examples don't work for them.  They honestly do not see life as a continuum; they see it as a set of 'islands'

F'r instance: can I add integers and get an imaginary number?  Nope.  The integers and the imaginary number are both numbers, but you can't incrementally get from one to the other.

They're wrong, of course, but that's why the math stuff doesn't appear to make much headway.

Date: 2006/02/17 07:35:59, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Puck, you are completely correct.  Dembski's filter is useless because the primary two characteristics it requires: complexity and correspondence to a 'mental pattern' (which is all the 'specified part means';) don't actually apply to the large majority of 'human-designed' artifacts.

Consider a billiard ball: low complexity or high complexity?  Specified or non-specified?  Your pyramid example; etc.

Date: 2006/02/18 05:10:16, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
That's the point: the real world of science doesn't take him seriously.  Those who've heard of him at all think he's rather a joke.

It appears to bother him a lot.  I mean, does the admiration of morons really make up for an utter lack of interest in one's work by the scientific community?  Really?

Date: 2006/02/18 17:07:34, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
It would appear that the folks over at UD are getting a bit peeved that no one wants to take them up on their "nuclear evolution" topic: No takers

It must be hard to have such a nice sandbox that no one wants to play in.

Date: 2006/02/20 05:15:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I found this remark by DS quite amusing, given his recent foray into whomping on anything that smacks of religious connection to ID:
Quote
All it tells me is Myers is an anti-religious ass with a lame argument.


It simply tells me that one couldn't possibly invent such a person as DS.  He's so incredibly precious.

Date: 2006/02/20 05:20:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Does anyone know what Springer's background is (aside from being an ex-jarhead)?  Based on his style, aggressive censorship, and slavish worship of anyone who even appears to be remotely 'scientific' (his comments on John Davison are so implausible as to invite disbelief), I'd say marketing or commercial sales.

Date: 2006/02/20 11:00:46, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
PZ Meyers debunked this in October of last year.  And here is snopes: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/center.htmsnopes"

Date: 2006/02/20 16:58:50, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dembski has posted what is purported to be an email exchange between Dennett and Ruse. It's surreal. Read.

Date: 2006/02/23 05:57:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 22 2006,21:41)
Wow, Sal's used the Schrodinger equation to prove the existence of God!  This, of course, has nothing to do with design detection.  I'm sure it's relevant somehow.

It's relevant to ID in Sal's mind.  The amusing part is that he's the very poster-child for the sort of 'religious-nut' ID advocate that Dave Scot keeps trying to keep off of Uncommon Dissent.

For Sal, as for Dembski, this is all about God.  If it's not, then it's not worth doing.

What's more interesting is how UD is becoming a recycling center for arguments that various clueless ID advocates such as Sal and JAD have made before (and been soundly refuted before) on places such as ARN and ISCID.  Of course, ISCID is a ghost town and ARN is a joke these days - perhaps they think that UD is going to get more press?  Or is it a case of UD so desperate for material that they'll take anything?

Date: 2006/02/23 09:56:02, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
But you have to admit that Dave Springer is an absolute classic: bombastic, ignorant, and flagrantly contradictionary.  (I thought about correcting that.... but's it too funny to cut out.  I meant "contradictory", of course, but the other fit, too.)

You couldn't invent someone so funny.

Consider just a couple of points:
Quote
I almost feel sorry for the vocal minority that refuses to allow a school board to insist that students be informed that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and as such should be carefully studied and critically considered.
Since any competent science class does this anyway, Davie is saying nothing here.  It's as if he said, "schools should teach things!"  People will simply look at him as if he were bonkie and go on with their business (it must be tough to try to stay on the cutting edge when no one cares).

Quote
In so doing they’ve allowed us to frame them as atheist zealots out to censor any interpretation of empirical data that doesn’t conform to an atheist worldview
But Davie, sweetie, you've just spent months slapping anyone who claimed any 'religious' association with ID.  Now you're admitting that this is an 'atheist vs. theist' argument?

I'm torn here: who is the better advertisement for the Modern Synthesis: Sal "I'm a religious bigot" Cordova or Dave "I'm a religious bigot - I just won't admit it" Springer?

And why if their masters have any brains at all, do they let these kids make the ID movement look like idiots?  Why?  That's what always baffles me.

Date: 2006/02/28 02:37:34, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
I don't think it's okay to teach biblical creationism, scientific creationism, or any religion in public school.

I think it's okay to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design if a local school board legitimately in charge of the curriculum vote to teach it.
Well, for once I'm in sort of in agreement with Dave "posting deceitfully as PicoFarad" Springer.

After all, it's certainly legitimate to teach about religion and/or creationism in a social studies or theology class.

And I'm perfectly happy to see "the scientific theory of intelligent design taught".

What would that be, exactly?  No one has ever presented one.

See, Dave, this is why you've attached your highly vocal, but scientifically illiterate personality to a perpetually losing cause: there is no such 'scientific theory of intelligent design'.

Go ahead - show some actual guts - try to present one.

I can guarantee you'll fail.  But at least you'll be doing something you're good at...

Date: 2006/03/03 02:37:57, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 03 2006,08:29)
So, anyone else agree with me that it looks like picofarad has just admitted to multiple previous identities?  Or does the entity known as picofarad have a longer posting history that I do not know about because I've only been on here a month or two?

No, PicoFarad is Dave Scott Springer, resident idiot on UD who was banned from here for being a jerk and making threats.

Unforunately, he's not bright enough to realize that admitting to being who he is is simply grounds for being banned again.

Unbelievably dumb behavior.

Date: 2006/03/05 18:48:27, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 04 2006,20:43)
When at the second-worst Barnes and Noble in the world this afternoon, at the Southpoint Mall in Durham, I picked up Jeeves in the Morning, having heard great things about Wodehouse by people such as Hitchens. I wasn't sure which one to start with, but they all looked somewhat self-contained, so I picked the cheapest one.

Anybody here a Wodehouse fan? Any recommendations?

Oddly enough, "Joy in the Morning" is one of the very finest B&J; if you don't like that, you won't like anything else.  "Uncle Fred in the Springtime" is also superb, as are some of the golf story collections.

And being 'dated' is part of the charm.

Perhaps you can tell I'm a fan?  :)

Date: 2006/03/05 19:04:28, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Fascinating.  It brings to mind an interesting question.  Who is stupider and more pig-ignorant of science: Dave Springer or Larry Fafarman?

Date: 2006/03/07 02:43:27, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (sir_toejam @ Mar. 07 2006,00:35)
Quote
what is the point?


indeed, not uncommonly have i wondered about the point of Uncommon Descent.

It sure isn't winning over any converts.

Must be just Dembski's way of laughing at the nutters on his own "side".

This is an excellent point - why on earth does Dembski allow the lunacy that is UD to continue?

Possibilities:

1) He genuinely doesn't realize how much damage it does to the entire ID movement (perhaps he's spent too much time with fundies, most of whom debate like four-year olds).

Implication: he's stupider than I thought he was.

2) It's a joke on everyone (including us).

Implication: he's smarter than I thought he was.

3) He's aware that it's useless, but it serves as a propaganda tool to keep the troops happy.

Implication: he's subtler than I thought he was.

Going by the 'best case scenario', I'd say #1.  :0

Date: 2006/03/07 02:48:58, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
steve, do you have a link to that DaveScot lunacy on the energy of photons?  Even for him that's pretty darn stupid.

And what baffles me about these people is that the web exists: why post in ignorance?  Why?

Date: 2006/03/07 02:52:55, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
What other things?  And does it bother him that it makes ID look like a collection of religious fundies and lunatics?

Or is he simply old-fashioned enough to believe that the web doesn't matter?

Date: 2006/03/07 02:59:14, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 07 2006,08:50)
Quote

This is an excellent point - why on earth does Dembski allow the lunacy that is UD to continue?
I talked with someone who is behind the scenes at Uncommon Pissant, but who didn't give me permission to repeat their remarks. What I can tell you is that Dembski doesn't really care what happens on the site. He's busy doing other things.

Rilke:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/886#comments

Why post in ignorance? that's the amazing part. the words 'energy in photons' in davetard's post is a link to a wikipedia page which contradicts davetard. see for yourself, it's just fantastic.

Thanks for the link.  That thread is full of some truly mind-bogglingly stupid remarks on Dave's part.  I had forgotten how little he knows.

Date: 2006/03/08 04:05:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I think my favorite quote is from the end:
Quote
n the not too distant future, as top scientists of the day work feverishly to follow the real evidence where it really leads, they will only barely notice a faint cry from the distance – that of the shrinking Darwinian army screaming from their crumbling pulpit of lies, coercion, deceit, and intellectual dishonesty: “Come back here, Darwinism is invincible”.
Who are these 'top scientists'?  What work are they 'feverishly' doing?  What evidence are they finding?

All very vague and confusing.  It reminds me of Alice in Wonderland: jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today.

Date: 2006/03/10 07:41:15, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
For a man who doesn't like to lose, Dave Scot (pico, etc.) does an awful lot of it.  Pretty much every statement he makes (aside from "you're fired!") turns out to be bogus, incorrect, or just plain idiotic.

And to have us continually point this out must be galling.

Ah, well.  What else would one expect from a pseudo-engineer?

Date: 2006/03/16 05:32:52, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:23)
Can anyone tell me what looks different about this thread now?

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

Didn't there used to be some DT comments in the thread?  His stuff in bold, I mean.

Date: 2006/03/16 05:52:44, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:36)
A bunch of really retarded ones like where he says that his typing this sentence violates the 2nd Law? Yeah, where are those?

I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

I'll tell you where they are. They're on my harddrive. Anybody who wants a copy of the page, send an email.

I rather suspected that sooner or later he would remove all that obvious evidence of his stupidity.

But you note his technique?  He waits until the thread has dropped down off the top page and nobody's actively looking at, then edits it to get rid of his idiotic remarks.

Since he knows that nothing ever disappears in cyberspace, and that the evidence of his ignorance is always available, I'm not sure what it demonstrates.

Except that I am beginning to doubt that he worked for Dell in any capacity: no one who worked there could be this dumb... could they?

Date: 2006/03/20 02:28:55, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
What my views on public schools are deserves a different post. Let me offer briefly that I think it very unpractical to get non-ID teachers, or teachers who despise ID, to teach ID. Furthermore, a lot of creationist parents wouldn’t want their kids learning creationism from non-creationists. Thus to a great degree, some issues are moot…
by our friend Salvador "ID is religion" Cordova.  With friends like this, how can Dembski sleep at night?

Date: 2006/03/20 03:31:40, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I admit that only a moron or someone who doesn't care about what's going on would put folks as ignorant, heavy-handed, and generally dumb as Springer and Moran in charge of a web-site on ANY topic.

So Dembski is simply another theistic con-man, out to make a fast buck from the gullible.

At least that absolves him of the charge of being irremediably stupid.

Date: 2006/03/21 08:35:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
So, by your logic, if the supernatural is part of the truth, then science and scientists will have no chance at all of discovering the whole truth.
If the 'truth' involves non-testable supernatural aspects, then yes - science will not 'discover' that.
Quote
If science only seeks limited truth, by what rights do scientists have in claiming that the scientific way is the way to truth.
Scientists don't claim that.  Folks who are confused about science claim that.  Science investigates that which can be investigated.  Science cannot investigate the supernatural, because the supernatural isn't testable or observable.
Quote
Why do they imply that other forms of knowledge, like religion and mysticism, have less truth?
They don't.  Theists do.  Scientists (even that lightning rod of atheism Dawkins) don't claim truth.  Just science.
Quote
Why do they teach the layman to trust science and scientists?
Because scientists produce testable, workable results.  Theists produce opinions  
Quote
Science is about things that can be measured repeatedly.  But nature is a lot more than that.
There is no evidence whatever that there exist things in nature that we can't measure.  There is no evidence for "God" for example.
Quote
My thought in writing this note will never be repeated again in the future.  So my thought or mind is not a subject of science.
This reveals your fundamental misunderstanding of both science and 'repeatability'.  This note is empirical evidence that you had that thought.  We can check the note again and again (repeatable).  We can check other notes to see if they are consonant with you having written this note.  By your definition, nothing is amenable to scientific investigation.
Quote
When the most important phenomenon of nature, consciousness, is not a subject of science, scientists should stop fooling the laymen that they should only trust science as their only way to understand nature.
Perhaps if laymen took more time to learn and understand what science is and isn't, and how it works, strawmen such as the one you just stuffed would not be needed.
Quote
Indeed, people are not that easy to be fooled and religion remains popular, even among scientists.
Which clearly demonstrates that science doesn't actually say anything about faith.

Think more.  Post less.

Date: 2006/03/23 06:08:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Stranger than fiction @ Mar. 23 2006,11:55)
Anyone know what dougmoran does for a living?  How does he know 30 to 40 MD's well enough to have had conversations about evolution with them?

Based purely on an analysis of his other posts, I'd say that he doesn't.  He simply made it up.

Date: 2006/04/05 06:30:57, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,10:37)
Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

Just wish he would go-to and stay at UD.

Does Larry post at UD?  Under which of his many, many, many aliases?

Date: 2006/04/24 07:06:28, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2006,07:07)
While a few bad words might give some people the vapors, the seriously off-the-rails stuff involves indirect death threats.

That is a very seriously worrisome post.  I mean, I know that JAD is nutters, but I didn't realize he might be... well, homicidal.

Date: 2006/04/24 08:43:02, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Oddly enough, my last three posts have not appeared.  Is Larry's blog out of memory?  Or is Larry going to impose a censorship policy after all?

I would be very disappointed if he did - his willingness to permit any and all comments was very commendable.  And that's about the only thing I've ever said that was positive about Larry!  I must be slipping.

Date: 2006/04/24 09:09:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Larry is posting at PT again.  As 'nobody' in This thread.

Date: 2006/04/24 09:56:51, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ April 24 2006,14:21)
Old news, RGD.  He last posted in that thread a month ago.  No point bringing it up now.

According to Larry, some comments are slow loading.  I'm inclined to believe him - the symptoms he described matched what I was observing.  Might be the traffic he's getting.

My bad.  Thanks.  Sometimes I'm just a little slow.

Date: 2006/04/28 08:03:10, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I'm afraid I have to agree with the aftershave; none of these 'predictions' actually follow from the hypothesis.  One could predict precisely the opposite with equal validity.

F'r example, let's choose the first one.
Quote
A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.
Why?  Most engineers I know try to design simple systems.  I could predict that an Intelligent Being would be expected to design extreme simply simple machines and systems.

You've provided absolutely no why to support your predictions.

Date: 2006/04/28 09:38:24, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
He has already changed it and removed the internal contradiction.

Dave, why do foolish things when you know you're going to get nailed?

Date: 2006/04/29 04:41:53, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave, are you quite sure you understand what a 'hypothesis' consists of?  And what 'predictions' consist of?

Your predictions do not follow directly from your hypothesis; therefore they cannot be used to confirm your hypothesis.

This matter of logic needs to be settled before we go into the details of why you are wrong.

Date: 2006/04/30 18:08:38, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
afdave, I should point out that Carol is spelling-challenged, scientifically illiterate, prone to lying, deception and malice, and generally clueless about the Tanakh.

Other than that she's probably a fine person, but she's certainly an embarrassing faux scholar.

Ignore her.  We usually do.

Date: 2006/04/30 18:08:38, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
afdave, I should point out that Carol is spelling-challenged, scientifically illiterate, prone to lying, deception and malice, and generally clueless about the Tanakh.

Other than that she's probably a fine person, but she's certainly an embarrassing faux scholar.

Ignore her.  We usually do.

Date: 2006/05/01 04:39:54, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2006,04:51)
No no, answer her.  I want to see afdave and carol have an argument.  It would be interesting...

Godzilla vs. Mothra?

Date: 2006/05/01 04:39:54, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2006,04:51)
No no, answer her.  I want to see afdave and carol have an argument.  It would be interesting...

Godzilla vs. Mothra?

Date: 2006/05/01 04:42:49, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
And afDave goes for the jugular:
Quote
Can you tell me what your basis would be for not reading the Hebrew word 'yom' as a literal day?  In all my study of the Hebrew scriptures, it appears to me that the word 'yom' is almost always one, 24 hour day.  My opinion is that some people think it is NOT a 24 hour day in Genesis only to accomodate what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence of the supposed long ages of evolutionary geology.
I'm impressed: he's already managed to nail Carol.

Date: 2006/05/01 04:42:49, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
And afDave goes for the jugular:
Quote
Can you tell me what your basis would be for not reading the Hebrew word 'yom' as a literal day?  In all my study of the Hebrew scriptures, it appears to me that the word 'yom' is almost always one, 24 hour day.  My opinion is that some people think it is NOT a 24 hour day in Genesis only to accomodate what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence of the supposed long ages of evolutionary geology.
I'm impressed: he's already managed to nail Carol.

Date: 2006/05/02 01:58:59, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)
Quote
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool - he's just in love.
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.  Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."  Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Pardon me if my answers are very short over here ... I will be spending most of my time over on my other thread and would welcome your comments there.  I will be discussing the First Point in my Hypothesis today.

Typical guy: all talk, no action.  You keep promising data, but you never deliver.  In that sense you are exactly like every other creationist we've seen.

Date: 2006/05/02 01:58:59, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06:03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.
Quote
Of course the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that it's just one of many creation myths that intertwine an prehistoric attempt to account for how we got here with some kind of moral message.  Many Christians quite happily accept the morality tale without having to make a big deal about its historical veracity.  I suspect afDave does not.

You suspect right!  And there is a very good reason which we will get into.  So are you telling me that I'm a different YECer than you've encountered before?  I hope so, because then if nothing else, reading my stuff will be some new entertainment for you :-)
Quote
Does this make him a fool? No. He might have an IQ of 165 and act that way- and worse. He's no fool - he's just in love.
You might be interested to know that I was madly in love with a girl in 1983, proposed and was about to get married, when suddenly a whole string of hard evidence hit me in the face one night. I already knew this stuff ... I had just been sweeping it under the rug.  I struggled with the decision a long time and finally broke off the engagement. So I know how to rise above my feelings and make hard decisions.  Now people do say that "it takes one to know one" so to speak ... could it be that the situation you are describing is YOUR situation?  Maybe YOU are so "in love" with the idea of "millions of years" and "chance origins" and "no God" (not sure if that is one of your positions) and "the Bible is a nice myth" that you are blinded by the truth?  There is no question that this is possible with all of us. Faid-- At first glance, it appears to me that you see many APPARENT problems in the biblical record and it sounds like you say something like "unless all these apparent problems are cleared up, I would never believe in biblical inerrancy."  Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  Then begin a rigorous study of the apparent contradictions ... start by going to a Christian bookstore and getting a good book on the subject (I think Geisler writes on this topic) ... if you then find that you can prove the errors after considering much evidence, then discard or modify your hypothesis.

Pardon me if my answers are very short over here ... I will be spending most of my time over on my other thread and would welcome your comments there.  I will be discussing the First Point in my Hypothesis today.

Typical guy: all talk, no action.  You keep promising data, but you never deliver.  In that sense you are exactly like every other creationist we've seen.

Date: 2006/05/03 02:50:09, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 03 2006,07:40)
Quote
Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author.
What a pitiy that no ones agree with you.  While it must be enjoyable (and certainly fits in with your martyr complex) to be the 'lone voice of reason', your inability to actually support your position with anything but bad logic and bad Hebrew is embarrassing to intelligent Jews everywhere.

Quote
Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this.
Anyone with a good grip of Biblical Hebrew can see that you are forcing interpretations that do not fit.
Quote
The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.
Liar.  You really should try to get your facts right, Carol.

Quote
The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.
Nor did the author care about your opinion.

Failure to support your case with anything but your personal opinion (or Landa's, since you don't appear to have opinions of your own) does not make an argument.

Quote
So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.
Factually incorrect.  Perhaps you ought to try reading the book, rather than pontificating about it.

Quote
The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!
What a good thing then that scholars don't make the argument for that reason!  What a good thing that you offer your personal and second-hand opinion as somehow superior to the work of more than two thousand years of scholars.

Quote
It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.
Perhaps, then, you ought to demonstrate some of this objectivity.

See above.

Date: 2006/05/03 02:50:09, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 03 2006,07:40)
Quote
Bystander,

I repeat what I have stated on other threads - there are no two creation stories in Genesis, nor is there a shred of evidence for more than one author.
What a pitiy that no ones agree with you.  While it must be enjoyable (and certainly fits in with your martyr complex) to be the 'lone voice of reason', your inability to actually support your position with anything but bad logic and bad Hebrew is embarrassing to intelligent Jews everywhere.

Quote
Anyone with a good grip on Biblical Hebrew should know this.
Anyone with a good grip of Biblical Hebrew can see that you are forcing interpretations that do not fit.
Quote
The myth of two creation stories has been propagated by so called "scholars" with jobs to justify, most of whom have a tenuous grip on Hebrew at best.
Liar.  You really should try to get your facts right, Carol.

Quote
The first chapter in Genesis provides a general overview of the history of creation, covering only highlights. The second chapter reviews these highlights with more elaboration and detail. The Bible itself makes this abundantly clear by beginning the second chapter with the comment, "These are the generations of... in the era when God created...." The widely established rule in all the Hebrew Bible is that it is not organized chronologically. You may not like this writing style, but the author did not ask nor care about your opinion.
Nor did the author care about your opinion.

Failure to support your case with anything but your personal opinion (or Landa's, since you don't appear to have opinions of your own) does not make an argument.

Quote
So chapter one does not state that animals came before humans, not does chapter two state that humans came before animals.
Factually incorrect.  Perhaps you ought to try reading the book, rather than pontificating about it.

Quote
The fact that God is referred to differently in places also does not imply two or more authors. That is like encountering a text about Queen Elizabeth and upon discovering that in chapter one she is referred to as "the queen" and in chapter two she is referred to "queen Elizabeth" and in chapter three she is referred to as "Elizabeth" and concluding on that basis that each chapter had a different author. Malarky!
What a good thing then that scholars don't make the argument for that reason!  What a good thing that you offer your personal and second-hand opinion as somehow superior to the work of more than two thousand years of scholars.

Quote
It behooves scientists to approach Bible-related issues with the same dispassionate objectivity that they (supposedly) reserve for scientific work.
Perhaps, then, you ought to demonstrate some of this objectivity.

See above.

Date: 2006/05/03 09:15:20, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (tacitus @ May 03 2006,13:27)
I give up.  With every response Dave makes he confirms he's simply the same old run-of-the-mill young-earth creationist fundamentalist Christian who just happens to believe he has some novel approach to the tried old arguments.  Well, I;ve got news for him.  Expanding the definition of science to encompass supernatural phenomena is not a novel approach.   It is at the very heart of what both the creationist and ID movements have been trying to do since the beginning.  It's never worked before, and will never work in the future.

Have you ever met theist who actually had a novel take on these arguments?  I haven't.  The boilerplate is the same no matter what they claim or think.

But you are right about afDave: he hasn't actually responded to a single logic point raised.

He's boring.  ???

Date: 2006/05/03 09:19:43, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 03 2006,14:16)
afDave, please prove to me that Mr Potato head did not create the world and universe.  In fact, show me scientifically that mr Potato Head is not in fact God.

Be prepared to show your work.  Thank you.

Silly Mr. Christopher; we know it was Mrs. Potatohead.

Date: 2006/05/05 03:40:30, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
[quote=dave] However, the question still remains to me ...  "Are ND's really such poor marketers of their ideas that only 20% of the public is buying their story?"   I mean, they've got all the museums showing evolution, all the textbooks, all the encyclos, most of the media, etc, etc.  I draw one of two conclusions from this ... (1) either the ND's are just REALLY bad at marketing their origins ideas or, (2) their origins ideas don't make any sense and the public rejects them[/quote] There is another reason, which Faid was, I suspect, too polite to touch on.

The reason, Dave is that most people are stupid.  Yes, that's right.  Stupid.  Civilization advances and is sustained on the minds of a vanishingly small percentage of the race.  The rest are drones - useful for evolutionary purposes, no doubt, but contributing nothing, unable to reason, unable to do much of anything except eat, sleep, and procreate.

AIG is a case in point: an entire organization of such drones.

Quite frankly, I'm astonished that the percentage of cretins is as low as it is.

"Most people can't think, most of the remainder, won't think, and those that do mostly don't do it very well."

Robert Heinlein.

Date: 2006/05/05 08:48:29, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 05 2006,12:08)
See folks, as I have maintained all along, creationists CAN be reasoned with. It just takes patience and perseverance.

Now, if we could only nail down their misguided reading of the Bible. That would obviate the need for Panda's Thumb and we could all go home.

But Carol, you exist as the perfect counter-example.

And since the Thumb has nothing to do with religion, your point is meaningless.

Date: 2006/05/05 11:34:28, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Flint @ May 05 2006,16:27)
A more interesting question might be, do humans STOP aging when they die? If not, at what point might they be considered to stop? Time just flows along, but after a while it makes sense to say "this stuff just isn't a person anymore."

OK, here's my question.  If only two things are inevitable, death and taxes, and when you die you stop paying taxes - does that mean that if you stop paying taxes you won't die?

Date: 2006/05/12 09:17:11, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Oh, by the way, Larry appears to have posted at PT again: here.

Date: 2006/05/12 18:21:53, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Poor afDave.  I have to admire your chutzpah, considering the extraordinary scientific illiteracy you display.

Quote
THINGS THAT ARE AF DAVE'S GOALS HERE AT PANDA'S THUMB
Gentle hint: you've failed on all counts.  Just thought you'd like to know.

Quote
(1)  Find out firsthand why Darwinists believe humans and apes have a common ancestor and evaluate if this is reasonable.  We're making good progress here.
No, actually we're not.  In order for you to understand why we accept the CA as the best current explanation, there is a certain irreducible amount of biology that you must know.  Comments such as
Quote
Your mistake in logic is that you have ASSUMED that humans and apes at one time in their history actually had a functional GLO gene.  This has to be your assumption if you say it is "broken" now, and the fact is that you do not know this.  Also, you are assuming that you (or the genetics researchers, rather) know enough about the genetic language to even recognize an error.  My contention is that we (genetic researchers) know SO LITTLE about any genomes, that we cannot assert that this gene or that gene is broken.
demonstrate that you know so little of the relevant genetic theory that it is not possible to educate you.

You have to educate yourself to a base level (say, 12th grade biology) before you can even start to understand.  Once you've gotten there, we'd be happy to help you.

Until then, we'll just have to laugh.

Quote
(2)  Find out firsthand why Darwinists are apparently losing the PR game in the USA.  I find it strange that Darwinists have been so unsuccessful in convincing the public of their views because of the virtual monopoly that Darwinists hold over schools, museums, magazines, the media, etc.
Never understimate the stupidity of the human species.  Ever.  Most people can't think; most of the remainder don't think; and the few who do think mostly don't do it very well.

That and the fact that ignorance and stupidity (as you are demonstrating in this thread) are always easier.  You don't have to use your brain that way.

Quote
(3)  Present my evidence that supports a Designer, followed by evidence for YEC, the Flood, the inerrancy of the Bible, etc.
Well, you've posted dozens of times, and have yet to present any evidence whatever.  Are you planning to start anytime soon?

Quote
(4)  Help as many open-minded folks as possible who read my threads walk through all of my "SEVEN STAGES IN THE EVOLUTION OF A FORMER DARWINIST."
Poor baby: you're hear to preach.

Sorry, no one is listening.  I mean really and truly, there are NO lurkers here who find you convincing.

Any lurkers find Dave convincing?  Speak up now!

(Crickets chirping)

Date: 2006/05/12 18:28:39, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
:08-->
Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2006,19:08)
I can't even respond to AFDave's latest post. I'd just get mad and call him names. It's that combination of complete ignorance and arrogance that angries up the blood.

Oh, but one can't get mad at Dave; it would be like getting mad at a four year old for explaining that he can make you disappear by closing his eyes.

It's cute.

I admit it's rather tedious, since he's not saying anything we haven't heard several hundred times (and quite often better expressed - clarity and logic don't seem to be Dave's strong points), but it's impossible to get angry.  It would take an actual argument from Dave to get me angry.

Date: 2006/05/15 09:04:03, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I note that Dave has still failed to provide any of the actual evidence he claimed for his 'Big Brother Designer' type.

Did I miss something?  Or does he simply assume that if he blathers on long enough, we'll forget that his unsupported assertions are, well, unsupported?

Date: 2006/05/18 06:09:16, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave said
Quote
Qetzal-- I have not changed the subject on this thread or any other thread.  I have stayed right on topic on other threads, and will continue on topic on this thread also.
Now, we note that the OP is about evidence for God.  Unfortunately, Dave has yet to present any evidence for God.
Quote
I have given you three good evidences for the veracity of the Bible's claims about God, namely that Someone  Somewhere is a Brilliant Designer and Engineer, that Someone Somewhere probably set the parameters in the cosmos just right for life to exist, and that Someone Somewhere likely caused the universe to have a beginning because it looks like it did indeed have a beginning.
Dave, it's a darn good thing you're a businessman, because you know nothing about logic or argument.  Consider those three claims:  
Quote
Someone  Somewhere is a Brilliant Designer and Engineer
You have not provided evidence of this - you have made this assertion but failed to support it.
Quote
that Someone Somewhere probably set the parameters in the cosmos just right for life to exist,
Again, this is not evidence.  This is assertion. There is no way to distinguish a case of the universe existing by chance with these characteristics and a God having set them.

In fact, the existence of humanity in a universe where the constants were not favorable to the existence of humanity would actually be something approaching evidence.

Making things up is dishonest, Dave.  And dishonesty is one of those no-nos for Christians, right?  So why do it?

Quote
and that Someone Somewhere likely caused the universe to have a beginning because it looks like it did indeed have a beginning.
Hilarious.  Now you're indulging in logical fallacies to support your unsupported assertions.

This is an actual logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent"  For example: "If it is raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore it is raining." Since there exist things other than rain that cause the ground to be wet, you cannot logically conclude that it rained from a wet sidewalk.

Provide some evidence Dave; some real data.  Your Bible-based presuppositions don't count as actual data.


Quote
And I have shown you the plausibility of the concept of some Being "living outside of time and space."
No, actually you haven't.  You have claimed that such a thing can exist, despite the failure of logic involved in the claim.
Quote
 Now if that is not evidence to you, then I cannot help that.  It is what it is and it's excellent evidence to me.
But Dave, at the risk of offending you, you're not very bright: it's not evidence.  To claim it is is akin to claiming that fewmets are evidence that Bill Clinton is eight feet tall.

Quote
To all the lurkers out there, I trust you will have sense enough to read all my posts on this thread and make your own judgment.
They have.  They think you're an idiot.  Should we start a thread on that topic?  We could let the lurkers vote.

Quote
And now we will look at the "Phenomenon of Morality in the Universe."  Why does this provide evidence of a Creator?
It doesn't, because it doesn't exist.

Do try to stop making things up and uttering falsehoods long enough to hold an actual discussion, won't you Dave?  Thanks.

Date: 2006/05/18 10:22:26, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Carol said:
Quote
As to why Noah couldn't escape to a nearby mountain, first, that is none of your business

My vote for funniest stupid remark by a fundie this week.  What's even more hilarious is that she goes on to answer for God, even though it's none of our business.

Carol, do you even read what you write?  Or is this some peculiar form of aphasia?

Date: 2006/05/18 10:27:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,15:20)
Aftershave said ...  
Quote
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.


BWE's was funnier. He's still in first place.  But keep trying.  You might pull off a good one yet.

Dave, I note that you are ignoring the various points made by the posters in favor of letting your personal and petty anger through.  You should work on that anger management - it's unbecoming to a Christian to lie.

Now, about your other lies....

Where is the evidence?  Why do you use logical fallacies as a form of argument?  Why are you unable to learn from the excellent cheap education you're getting?

Date: 2006/05/18 17:16:30, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,16:29)
Quote
letting your personal and petty anger through

I was? Hello??  McFly?  

Toejam-- Could you use some of that straight talkin' of yours and tell Mrs. Rilke what planet we're on ...

Well, Dave, whatever planet you're currently occupying seems to be related to Colney Hatch.  And I'm sorry that you find us so disturbing to you that you resort to lies, obfuscation, deliberate misinterpretation, and general stupidity.

But then, you're a creationist.  We would expect that!  :p

Date: 2006/05/18 17:26:23, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,22:21)
Well, well ... the old 'Prove Evolution to AFD' thread came back from the dead ...

Don't tell Wesley!  He thinks I have too many balls in the air already!

Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

I'm not sure which is the older tradition ... the planet thing or the 'God made the world in seven days' thing.  Nice item for study some time though.

I've pretty much got Google down pat ... sometimes I just like to hear what links you guys refer me to, but thanks for the tip!

Uh, Dave?  If you knew how to google, you'd have found out that Portuguese is not Spanish and French mixed.  
Quote
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.
from a source that even you can probably find.

Idiot.

And from a historical point of view, the Babylonians (who developed the seven day week) predate the Jewish scriptures by a thousand years or so.

Do try to learn something from all that 'googling' you do, won't you?  Thanks.

Date: 2006/05/18 17:35:14, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 18 2006,22:31)
####, you beat me to it.  I was kinda hoping he would expound on the history of the portuguese language for us.

oh well.

My apologies, sir.  'twas a moment of weekness on my part....

Date: 2006/05/19 03:13:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave, this was your statement:
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).


As I pointed out in my citation, you are blatantly, embarrassingly, painfully wrong.

But like most fundies, your ego doesn't permit you to admit that you could ever be wrong.  So you lie about it by claiming something different:
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.


So now you are lying about what you said because you're not man enough to admit to being mistaken.

You're hilarious Dave.  Dumb, but hilarious.  You're not related to Dave Scot "Springer-Spaniel", are you?

Date: 2006/05/19 03:26:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Oh, and Dave, when you wrote "googling", perhaps you meant "goggling"?  It would explain why you got the break-out of Portugal wrong.
Quote
Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.
also from Wikipedia.  Henry was already dead.

Admitting that you made a stupid statement is quite easy Dave; and it would demonstrate that you have some shred of intellectual integrity.

But if you really wish to continue to dig this particular grave for yourself, you go right ahead.

Oh, and remember: the seven day week preceeds the Bible by a thousand years or so.  And remember the Jews went into exile in... Babylon - where that week was invented.

It's fairly clear what a rational person would conclude from that.  Let's see what you conclude, shall we?

Date: 2006/05/19 03:54:04, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave made a remarkably uninformed and idiotic remark,
Quote
This person claims that my 'evidence' is not evidence at all ... he says evidence would be something like bits of hair or blood from a murder scene.  Where you go wrong is this.  The bits of hair and blood from the murder scene do the very same thing for the truth search that my evidence does.  They make it "look like" so-and-so committed the murder and the judge really can only say that "probably" this man is guilty--he really cannot say for sure and there have been plenty of people that were erroneously prosecuted, or the reverse--they were guilty, but got let off.  Sorry ... your objection doesn't fly, but I'm sure people will keep raising it around here because you all apparently have been programmed to reject certain classes of legitimate evidence.  Hopefully you will see in time that this is a mistake.
Dave, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you're simply unused to discussion, logic, and argument rather than just presume you're dumb.  The point being made by the poster is that you are claiming that your suppositions are evidence.  This is, of course, utter nonsense, and the reason people keep asking you for evidence.

Let's take your 'murder' scene.  What you are doing is the following:

you claim that the "hair and blood allow us to suppose that a murder has occured" IS THE EVIDENCE.

It's not.  The hair and blood are the evidence.

You have presented nothing but suppositions based on your (apparently total) ignorance of science and logic.

But claiming that your 'suppositions' are themselves evidence is simply wrong.

Feel free to try again when you understand what evidence and supposition are; 'cause quite frankly, you don't have a clue.  :p

Date: 2006/05/19 04:07:38, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,08:37)
Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.

Embarass me?  When you're the one who made the bone-headed statement?

To paraphrase out local village idiot: what planet are you on, my child?

Besides, you haven't addressed the fact that you're changing your story again.

Why should I take your money when you can't even tell the truth about what you've said?  No statement you've made to date can be considered reliable.

Admit it: you're just a sixteen-year old who can't get a date.  :D

Date: 2006/05/19 05:57:23, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,09:40)
Rilke--

Here's my statement again ...  
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.


In short, Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, which is what I said at first.

Are you going to challenge me or not?

Are you repeating your factually incorrect statement for some reason, Dave?  Argument ad nauseum, perhaps?

You should save your money for your goggling habit; you would lose it.  is that what guys do?  Assuage their loss of manhood by offering money?  Tacky.

Date: 2006/05/19 06:04:57, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I really should take your money, but I know you need the pocket change:
Quote
1137   Moors attack Leiria and Dom Afonso Henriques fails to conquer Lisbon from Moors
1139 26th July - Battle of Ourique - Dom Afonso Henriques defeats on the Almoravids army led by Ali ibn Yusuf and four other Emirs - Dom Henriques Afonso declares himself King of Portugal and its independence from the Kingdom of León and Castile
1139 1st November - Dom Afonso Henriques (Afonso I), crowned King of Portugal in Bragança (1139 - 1185) - Reign of House of Burgundy
1140 The Knights "Hospitalier" receive lands and privileges from Dom Afonso Henriques
1140 Tournament and Armistice of Arcos de Valdevez - Dom Afonso Henriques takes possession of southern Galicia which causes Don Alfonso VII to invade Portugal. After a joust between the Knights the Portuguese win and are granted part of southern Galicia
1142 Leiria receives town rights and privileges from Dom Afonso Henriques
1143 Treaty of Zamora - Don Alfonso VII of Castile and León recognises the Kingdom of Portugal and both Kings agree to a peace period
1143 Afonso I declares his allegiance with a payment of money to Pope Innocent II and places his kingdom under the protection of Saint Peter and the Holy See
1144 The Muridun (Disciples) led by Abul-Qasim Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Quasi rebel in the Algarve against power of Seville - Ibn al-Mundhir takes Silves with the support of the Governor of Beja, Sidray ibn Wazir. Ibn al-Mubndhir and Sidray ibn Wazir take Monchique castle - and with only a further 20 men they take by surprise the castle of Mértola - the Taifas of Mértola and Silves return to independence from Seville
1144 The Order of Cistercians is installed at Tarouca
1145 Moor army retakes Leiria
1145 Taifa of Badajoz becomes independent and conquers the Taifa of Mértola
1146 Taifa of Mértola in the Alentejo regains its independence from Taifa of Badajoz
1146 Marriage of Dom Afonso Henriques with Dona Mafalda of Savoy
1147 March - Dom Afonso Henriques captures Óbidos, Santarém, Tomar and Torres Novas from Moors
1147 Crusader Fleet on route to the Holy Land arrives in Porto and are convinced by Bishop of Porto to sail onto Lisbon to assist Dom Afonso Henriques
1147 October - Capture from Moors of town of Lisbon with assistance from Gilbert of Hastings and the Crusaders. Gilbert appointed Bishop of Lisbon
1147 Dom Afonso Henriques orders construction of Church and Monastery of São Vicente de Fora
1147 Dom Afonso Henriques captures Almada, Palmela and Sintra from Moors
1149 New Berber Dynasty of the Almohades conquers north Africa and invades Iberian Peninsular
Hm. No Henry in there, Dave.

Here's the thing: a real man would simply admit error, and we could move on.  But you can't do that, can you?  Your fundie-ego won't let you admit that you made a goof; inerrancy is your stock in trade.

But just think of the intellectual integrity you'd display if you were to do so!  From 0 to 0.000005 in only a single statement!

Date: 2006/05/19 06:10:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Occam's Toothbrush said
Quote
What I don't understand is why the others here bother trying to teach you anything when you clearly have no desire to learn, and are primarily here to feed your own egotistical delusion that you are fighting a good fight against evolutionary theory.  You're every bit as dense, pedantic, and unable to learn as Larry Fafarman.  Come to think of it, PT was so willing to feed that troll that he'd still be the #1 OT blatherer there, if he had been able to control his egomania enough to keep himself from being banned.
Because he's funny, that's why.  :p   We're not trying to teach him anything - he's made it clear that he's not here to learn, he's here to preach and feed his ego.  But there is entertainment to be found in watching the ignorant demonstrate their ignorance.  I know it's not nice, and it's certainly not polite.  But it's entertainment, the best of which is usually neither.

Date: 2006/05/19 06:16:58, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,09:49)
Quote
you claim that the "hair and blood allow us to suppose that a murder has occured" IS THE EVIDENCE.
Rilke, Rilke ... you put that in quotes as if that's what I said.  Go read it again.  You are confused and yet you say I'm confused.

Combine this blunder with your nonsense about me not knowing the origin of the Portuguese language on the Evolution thread and I'm going to rank you right up there with Aftershave and BWE.

You don't want that do you?  Retract it all and I will still respect you.

Apparently Dave doesn't understand metaphor and analogy either.  A pity.

Dave, my child, you are offering unsupported assertions as evidence.

This is, of course, the sign of a fairly confused (or blatantly ignorant mind).

The funny thing is that you DON'T know the origin of the Portuguese language.  You can't even get the history of Portugal correct.

Your ignorance is hilarious; almost as funny as Larry's.  And I'm sure that if you just push it a little more, you could be even funnier.  Yes, you too could be dumber than Larry Fafarman!

I know you can do it, Dave!  Go for it!  Push on!

STAND UP FOR YOUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO BE STUPID!

Date: 2006/05/19 11:50:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,13:44)
Quote
Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.


Rilke--  Check to see who Afonso's father was.  You'll find in was Henry of Burgundy, a French nobleman who helped fight the Muslims.

Now, since everybody is whining on your behalf, I'll lower the wager.  You tell me what you are willing to risk to prove you superiority and my idiocy.

I wouldn't hold your feet to the fire, Rilke, but you were pretty rash and blatant and bold.  I'll give you a hint ... Sometimes you get what you pay for on Wikipedia.

If you want to keep being a jerk, I'm going to shine a bigger and bigger spotlight on you ... otherwise, I'll drop it and we'll move on.

Now Dave, lets be exact here.  You said several things:
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).
We can see from every single resource that you were lying.  Or fabricating nonsense.

When challenged on that particular piece of fatuous nonsense, you changed your story completely to
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.
 But alas!  Once again we find that you were lying or fabricating: Henry was already dead by 1143.

Dave, you are the stupidest, clumsiest, most egotistical liar I've seen in years.  You don't know a single thing about Portuguese, and you're too vain to admit that you were completely wrong.

So let's see....

David makes a factually incorrect statement.

When caught, he changes the statement and lies.

When caught at that, he blusters and tries to bet his way out with more lies.

Dave - [i]this is flagrantly unChristian behavior.
 How can you call yourself a Christian when you're a liar, and stupid, and ignorant.  (Well, wait a minute, you could certainly be a Christian and the last two of those.  :D )

How can you do it, Dave?  How can you be a Christian and be so dishonest?

Idiot.  :p

Date: 2006/05/19 11:53:48, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
To the other posters: wow!  What an incredible yutz you've got here.  Amazing.

Date: 2006/05/19 12:10:58, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
BWE, my heartfelt apologies.  Go ahead and challenge Dave.

Hey, Dave!  If I'm right about the Portuguese thing (your original claim, mind you) then you have to have a one-on-one debate with BWE.

Actually, since you were wrong about your second claim as well, I guess you lose twice.  Debates all around!

I guess all that "goggling" really pays off, eh what?

Date: 2006/05/19 12:16:10, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,13:59)
Rilke-- You are foaming at the mouth because you are afraid of my wager which you know you will lose on the "Evolution" thread ... go check an encyclopedia that you have to pay for (instead of Wikipedia).

Rilke went into a tirade and called me an idiot on the "Evolution" thread because I said Portuguese was a mixture of Spanish and French.  I challenged her to a wager that I'm right and now she realizes she's in a hole.

Maybe someone would loan her the money?

But Dave, you've already lost - how could we wager on that?  Do you really want to wager on something that you've been shown to be wrong about?

That's not logical.

And I don't do tirades.  I do laugh at stupid people (a truly bad habit, I know, and I keep meaning to do something about it).

I've check several other references: you're simply wrong, Dave.  More amusing still, when you changed your claim, YOU WERE STILL WRONG.

Amazing.

But by all means bluster some more.  It's interesting to watch you bluster when you're in error.

Date: 2006/05/19 12:22:42, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave, BWE makes a sound point.  Your ignorance per se is not a problem.  Your over-inflated ego is not a problem.

What is disturbing is your complete and total lack of intellectual integrity and your highly unChristian behavior.

A person with intelligence would have recognized that he had made a stupid statement.

A person with intellectual integrity would have admitted it and moved on.

A moron would have done neither.

Guess which of these courses of action you took.

Need a hint?  :)

Date: 2006/05/19 12:59:12, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,13:59)
Rilke-- You are foaming at the mouth because you are afraid of my wager which you know you will lose on the "Evolution" thread ... go check an encyclopedia that you have to pay for (instead of Wikipedia).

Rilke went into a tirade and called me an idiot on the "Evolution" thread because I said Portuguese was a mixture of Spanish and French.  I challenged her to a wager that I'm right and now she realizes she's in a hole.

Maybe someone would loan her the money?

Oh, by the way Dave, you said I should check a 'real' encyclopedia.  So I did.
Quote
Portuguese  Português,   Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.

Typical of the Portuguese sound system is the use of nasal vowels, indicated in the orthography by m or n following the vowel (e.g., sim “yes,” bem “well”) or by the use of a tilde (~) over the vowel (mão “hand,” nação “nation”). In grammar its verb system is quite different from that of Spanish. Portuguese has a conjugated or personal infinitive and a future subjunctive and uses the verb ter (Latin tenere, Spanish tener “to have, to hold”) as an auxiliary verb instead of haver (Latin habere, Spanish haber “to have”; in Spanish used only as an auxiliary verb).


It's from the Encyclopedia Brittanica.  I don't see much in there about a 'mixture' of French and Spanish.

Would you like me to loan you the money?  :)

Date: 2006/05/19 13:04:53, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Faid @ May 19 2006,17:23)
OK, Dave-bashing aside, now I'm really curious.
The only French influence I can find is supposed to occur in the 18th century, creating the difference in syntax between Portugal and the colonies:

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

???

Yes.  Unfortunately, that still doesn't make it a mixture of French and Spanish.

Dave will, of course, find some way to twist his own words (and others) to try and avoid looking like an idiot, rather than displaying intellectual integrity and admittibg he was mistaken.  Any bets on that?

Date: 2006/05/22 03:49:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Been studying.  Let's see if Dave came up with anything.
Quote
Let me deal with Steve's little deal first.  I won't bet you on that because you are correct that Henry was dead long before 1143.  I composed my sentence ambiguously ... it should have read "Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control.  The break away was begun by a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy" --  little more specific.
Sorry, Dave, you lied, pure and simple.  This isn't ambiguous:
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.
This is factually wrong.  It is incorrect.  It is a statement written by a moron so that morons will have something to read in the morning.

In fact, you just admitted that you were wrong!  But your ego (typical fundie) won't let you admit that, so you attempt to claim 'ambiguity'.

Since I predicted that you would be unable to acknowledge that you made a stupid statement, I win.

Dave, we realize that you're a fool; we realize that you're ignorant of history, linguistics, philosophy, theology, science, etc.  We understand that, and we pity you - really we do.  It must be #### to be so illiterate that you can't even write a simple statement about history without botching it completely.

But don't you think you could show a little Christian integrity?  By not lying?  By admitting error?  By not making yourself look any stupider than you already have?

Quote
Again, what we are doing here, though is answering a claim by Rilke that I am an idiot for thinking Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French.
And indeed, you are an idiot for claiming that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'  There are no other possibilities here: you are wrong.

Quote
There will be several lessons learned here.
Are you planning to learn from any of them?  I doubt it, since that would require you to actually both and understand one of our posts.  Your track record isn't very good so far, I'm afraid.

Quote
One will be that I have met many people like Rilke on these threads who are very arrogant about their supposed intellectual superiority and at the same time are quite vehement about attacking the supposed lack of intelligence they see in YECs like me.
Aha!  Once again we see that the problem here is poor Dave's ego.  Wound his vanity by pointing out that he's an idiot and he reacts like a cat that's had it's tail stepped on.

Dave, such vanity is blatantly unChristian.  You should not let your ego get in the way of actual knowledge.  That would be stupid.

Quote
This from Rilke's source of choice (Wikipedia): Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French
Interesting.  Nothing in there about Portuguese being a 'mixture of French and Spanish.'

Dave, when you cite something in your support, you really should cite that something that actually supports you.  Otherwise you simply come across as illiterate and illogical.  Do try harder next time, won't you?  I forgive you this time, since you're clearly young and inexperienced with discussion and argument, but if you want to debate with adults you're going to need to practice.


Quote
Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.
Of course.  That's what history books are for, Dave.  Perhaps you should try reading one?
Quote
What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].
Ok, so far we've established that Burgundians helped dear old Alfonso VI.  What, precisely, does this have to do with 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Quote
Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.
Well, for snails, perhaps.  The rest of us have gotten bored waiting for you to make a point.  Unfortunately, nothing you have regurgitated so far establishes 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'.

Quote
Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.
Dave, I wouldn't suggest math as a career choice.  I'll hope you're not an engineer, because only a moron would make such a claim.

You have stated that 'Burgundians were involved during a formative period of Portuguese politics.'  This does NOT establish that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'.

In order to establish that fact, you'd have to deal with linguistic history.

Quote
Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).
Which does not give you any understanding of the linguistics or linguistic history of these tongues.  After all, any moron can be taught language.  But it takes some actual intelligence to understand it.
Quote
I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

Ah, so you have now tried two different arguments:

1) there were Burgundians in Portugal during a formative period.

2) I, Dave, personally think these languages sound mixed.  That, of course, is based on the fact that you're not the one who speaks all three - you just listen to them.

Neither of these arguments establishes that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Quote
And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here),
You do have a problem with lying and blatant dishonesty of the intellectual kind, it's true.
Quote
instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots,
I haven't.  I have pointed out that you, Dave, are

1) ignorant of history
2) ignorant of science
3) ignorant of theology
4) ignorant of logic
5) ignorant of debate
6) ignorant of manners

and

7) not terribly bright.

That hardly applies to all YECs.  Just you.  Otherwise I'd be generalizeing.

Quote
you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...


phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)[/quote] So?  In what fashion does that establish that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Answer: it doesn't, of course.  Can you demonstrate that Portuguese possesses a mixture of French and Spanish grammar?  A mixture of French and Spanish vocabulary?  A mixture of French and Spanish pronunciation?

Apparently not.

Quote
Either choice you make, I'm going to take this thread back to it's intended content and expand it a bit.  I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.
I see.  Choosing to run away?  How Christian.  How brave.

Quote
(Rilke--you probably knew about this little detail in Wikipedia, but just withheld it, right?  Very honest of you)
Not at all.  I presumed you might have the intelligence to read it yourself... and understand it.  Apparently, I was wrong.

Let's sum up, shall we?

Dave claimed, 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Dave has tried to support this by stating that:

1) Burgundians were involved in early Portugese history.

2) Portuguese has phonetic similarities to Catalan and French.

3) Dave thinks that Portuguese sounds like Spanish and French mixed.

What are we to make of this?  

1) Having Burgundians present doesn't mean that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)' - especially since neither of these two languages existed in anything like their present form at the time.  More importantly, the historical fact of the presence of Burgundians doesn't demonstrate anything about the linguistic history of the language.

2) Catalan.  Well, the amusing part here is that Catalan is not French.  From our ever reliable source, Wikipedia (I use it primarily because Dave seems to trust it):
Quote
Ethnologue, its specific classification is a member of the East Iberian branch of the Ibero-Romance branch of the Gallo-Iberian branch of the Western sub complex of the Italo-Western complex of the Romance group of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family. It shares many features with both Spanish and French, and is the language nearest to Occitan, and is often thought of as a sort of "transitory" language between the Iberian and Gallic languages when comparing the modern descendants of Latin.


So claiming, as Dave did, that the Wikipedia quote concerning the Catalan pronunciation was meaningless.

More importantly, the statement that Portuguese is phoenetically similar to French does nothing to establish the truth of 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)' unless Dave also demonstrates that Portuguese is ALSO PHOENETICALLY SIMILAR TO SPANISH.'

Which he has, of course, not done.

Finally, (3) - Dave's personal opinion that the language sounds that way.  Not actual evidence, Dave - just your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion, as established by your unfortunate ignorance noted above, has been determined to be worthless.


Finally summary:

1) Dave made a blatantly incorrect statement.

2) When called on it, rather than demonstrate any intellectual integrity by admitting his mistake, he stated something quite different (ignoring his original error).

3) When called on the fact that his [i]different
statement was also wrong, he denied it and offered money to salve his ego.

4) Finally brought to bay, he offered various clippings and his personal opinion to try to establish that his second statement was still correct.

5) But his clippings do not establish the truth of his original statement; and his personal opinion is valueless.

Dave, it is unChristian to lie; and disappointing to see you show so little intellectual integrity.

You are, I'm sorry to say, a moron.

But I appreciate that you're not very good at this 'debate' thing, and we'd like to help you learn more.

The first thing to learn is to admit your mistakes and errors, and not commit sins in covering them up.

Christ would like that.  I understand he's your hero; you could do worse than try to emulate him.

If there is anything else we can do to help, you just let us know.

Date: 2006/05/22 03:52:16, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I'm cross-posting this for Dave's benefit: he has a bad habit of ignoring any argument that he is unable to deal with.

Been studying.  Let's see if Dave came up with anything.
Quote
Let me deal with Steve's little deal first.  I won't bet you on that because you are correct that Henry was dead long before 1143.  I composed my sentence ambiguously ... it should have read "Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control.  The break away was begun by a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy" --  little more specific.
Sorry, Dave, you lied, pure and simple.  This isn't ambiguous:
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.
This is factually wrong.  It is incorrect.  It is a statement written by a moron so that morons will have something to read in the morning.

In fact, you just admitted that you were wrong!  But your ego (typical fundie) won't let you admit that, so you attempt to claim 'ambiguity'.

Since I predicted that you would be unable to acknowledge that you made a stupid statement, I win.

Dave, we realize that you're a fool; we realize that you're ignorant of history, linguistics, philosophy, theology, science, etc.  We understand that, and we pity you - really we do.  It must be #### to be so illiterate that you can't even write a simple statement about history without botching it completely.

But don't you think you could show a little Christian integrity?  By not lying?  By admitting error?  By not making yourself look any stupider than you already have?

Quote
Again, what we are doing here, though is answering a claim by Rilke that I am an idiot for thinking Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French.
And indeed, you are an idiot for claiming that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'  There are no other possibilities here: you are wrong.

Quote
There will be several lessons learned here.
Are you planning to learn from any of them?  I doubt it, since that would require you to actually both and understand one of our posts.  Your track record isn't very good so far, I'm afraid.

Quote
One will be that I have met many people like Rilke on these threads who are very arrogant about their supposed intellectual superiority and at the same time are quite vehement about attacking the supposed lack of intelligence they see in YECs like me.
Aha!  Once again we see that the problem here is poor Dave's ego.  Wound his vanity by pointing out that he's an idiot and he reacts like a cat that's had it's tail stepped on.

Dave, such vanity is blatantly unChristian.  You should not let your ego get in the way of actual knowledge.  That would be stupid.

Quote
This from Rilke's source of choice (Wikipedia): Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French
Interesting.  Nothing in there about Portuguese being a 'mixture of French and Spanish.'

Dave, when you cite something in your support, you really should cite that something that actually supports you.  Otherwise you simply come across as illiterate and illogical.  Do try harder next time, won't you?  I forgive you this time, since you're clearly young and inexperienced with discussion and argument, but if you want to debate with adults you're going to need to practice.


Quote
Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.
Of course.  That's what history books are for, Dave.  Perhaps you should try reading one?
Quote
What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].
Ok, so far we've established that Burgundians helped dear old Alfonso VI.  What, precisely, does this have to do with 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Quote
Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.
Well, for snails, perhaps.  The rest of us have gotten bored waiting for you to make a point.  Unfortunately, nothing you have regurgitated so far establishes 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'.

Quote
Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.
Dave, I wouldn't suggest math as a career choice.  I'll hope you're not an engineer, because only a moron would make such a claim.

You have stated that 'Burgundians were involved during a formative period of Portuguese politics.'  This does NOT establish that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'.

In order to establish that fact, you'd have to deal with linguistic history.

Quote
Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).
Which does not give you any understanding of the linguistics or linguistic history of these tongues.  After all, any moron can be taught language.  But it takes some actual intelligence to understand it.
Quote
I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

Ah, so you have now tried two different arguments:

1) there were Burgundians in Portugal during a formative period.

2) I, Dave, personally think these languages sound mixed.  That, of course, is based on the fact that you're not the one who speaks all three - you just listen to them.

Neither of these arguments establishes that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Quote
And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here),
You do have a problem with lying and blatant dishonesty of the intellectual kind, it's true.
Quote
instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots,
I haven't.  I have pointed out that you, Dave, are

1) ignorant of history
2) ignorant of science
3) ignorant of theology
4) ignorant of logic
5) ignorant of debate
6) ignorant of manners

and

7) not terribly bright.

That hardly applies to all YECs.  Just you.  Otherwise I'd be generalizeing.

Quote
you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...


phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)[/quote] So?  In what fashion does that establish that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Answer: it doesn't, of course.  Can you demonstrate that Portuguese possesses a mixture of French and Spanish grammar?  A mixture of French and Spanish vocabulary?  A mixture of French and Spanish pronunciation?

Apparently not.

Quote
Either choice you make, I'm going to take this thread back to it's intended content and expand it a bit.  I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.
I see.  Choosing to run away?  How Christian.  How brave.

Quote
(Rilke--you probably knew about this little detail in Wikipedia, but just withheld it, right?  Very honest of you)
Not at all.  I presumed you might have the intelligence to read it yourself... and understand it.  Apparently, I was wrong.

Let's sum up, shall we?

Dave claimed, 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)'?

Dave has tried to support this by stating that:

1) Burgundians were involved in early Portugese history.

2) Portuguese has phonetic similarities to Catalan and French.

3) Dave thinks that Portuguese sounds like Spanish and French mixed.

What are we to make of this?  

1) Having Burgundians present doesn't mean that 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)' - especially since neither of these two languages existed in anything like their present form at the time.  More importantly, the historical fact of the presence of Burgundians doesn't demonstrate anything about the linguistic history of the language.

2) Catalan.  Well, the amusing part here is that Catalan is not French.  From our ever reliable source, Wikipedia (I use it primarily because Dave seems to trust it):
Quote
Ethnologue, its specific classification is a member of the East Iberian branch of the Ibero-Romance branch of the Gallo-Iberian branch of the Western sub complex of the Italo-Western complex of the Romance group of the Italic branch of the Indo-European language family. It shares many features with both Spanish and French, and is the language nearest to Occitan, and is often thought of as a sort of "transitory" language between the Iberian and Gallic languages when comparing the modern descendants of Latin.


So claiming, as Dave did, that the Wikipedia quote concerning the Catalan pronunciation was meaningless.

More importantly, the statement that Portuguese is phoenetically similar to French does nothing to establish the truth of 'Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed)' unless Dave also demonstrates that Portuguese is ALSO PHOENETICALLY SIMILAR TO SPANISH.'

Which he has, of course, not done.

Finally, (3) - Dave's personal opinion that the language sounds that way.  Not actual evidence, Dave - just your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion, as established by your unfortunate ignorance noted above, has been determined to be worthless.


Finally summary:

1) Dave made a blatantly incorrect statement.

2) When called on it, rather than demonstrate any intellectual integrity by admitting his mistake, he stated something quite different (ignoring his original error).

3) When called on the fact that his [i]different
statement was also wrong, he denied it and offered money to salve his ego.

4) Finally brought to bay, he offered various clippings and his personal opinion to try to establish that his second statement was still correct.

5) But his clippings do not establish the truth of his original statement; and his personal opinion is valueless.

Dave, it is unChristian to lie; and disappointing to see you show so little intellectual integrity.

You are, I'm sorry to say, a moron.

But I appreciate that you're not very good at this 'debate' thing, and we'd like to help you learn more.

The first thing to learn is to admit your mistakes and errors, and not commit sins in covering them up.

Christ would like that.  I understand he's your hero; you could do worse than try to emulate him.

If there is anything else we can do to help, you just let us know.

Date: 2006/05/22 04:25:34, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Ah.  And once again, Dave demonstrates ignorance of another topic.  In this case, one that he should understand: theology.  Apparently, he doesn't.

[quote]I do understand the claim ... I know it is that "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place"?  And the answer is "the same way parents can permit their children to experience evil."[/quote] Unfortunately for Dave's case, this analogy is invalid, parents are not God. (Much as I'm sure Dave would like his children to THINK that they are.)  [quote]Obviously parents are not all-powerful, but the analogy works because parents do indeed have the power to keep their children from evil.[/quote] No, actually they don't.  Otherwise the instances of child murder would not occur.

But having an invalid analogy hasn't ever stopped Dave before.
[quote]How?  By not having them, or by going to Radio Shack and buying robot "children" instead of having natural children with CHOICE.[/quote] Oh, Dave, Dave, Dave.  You really need to learn some logic, my child:

A person X cannot prevent person Y from doing Z by preventing the existence of person Y.  If person Y doesn't exist then they cannot be prevented.

[quote]God also had the power to keep us from experiencing evil, but chose not to because of the greater good that would result in the big scheme of things.[/quote] Unsupported assertion and fatuous nonsense.  Prove it.

[quote]He could have either not created us, or created us like little robots.  That would be no fun though, just as it would be no fun for human parents.[/quote] And this demonstrates how little Dave understands theology.

God could have created beings who freely and of their own volition choose the right.  In other words, God (being God) could create beings who freely chose not to sin.  We know that such a condition can exist (based on Christian scripture) since heaven exists.

In other words, Dave is reduced to denying the truth of his own sacred scriptures in order to avoid the embarrassment of demonstrating his ignorance of those self-same scriptures.  Like Uncommon Descent, you simply can't buy this kind of entertainment value.

[quote]Omniscience and omnipotence are separate issues.[/quote] Wow!  What a dazzling observation!  What a pity that folks have been making it for a couple of thousand years or more.

[quote]We obviously cannot comprehend this type of thing because we have never experienced it.[/quote] Certainly Dave hasn't.
[quote]Why is this a proof that it is a wrong idea?[/quote] It's not.  But we've demonstrated that Dave doesn't understand 'proof'.
[quote]To say it is wrong as you do would be equivalent to a jungle native who had never seen an airplane fly saying that "airplanes are impossible."  Both are denials based upon ignorance.  Truly open minded people say, "there are things I do not understand, but let me try to understand as much as I can, and I will not rule out any possibilities until I have solid evidence to do so."[/quote] And only a moron would make such an argument.  Therefore Dave is a moron.  QED.
Quote
The notion of an Intelligent Designer is the only plausible explanation for the phenomena we find in the universe.
Factually incorrect statement, based on your personal ignorance.
Quote
I (with Paley) have given intuitive arguments.
Actually, you have given no arguments at all.  To give an argument would imply that you have given evidence.  To give evidence would imply that you have pointed out facts about the universe.

You have not done so.

You have offered your personal opinions as unsupported assertions and stated that they are facts.

Poor Dave.

Quote
Bill Dembski is all about giving those intuitive arguments rigorous mathematical proofs, based on our recently acquired knowledge that life is essentially INFORMATION which assembles raw materials.
 ANd has conspicuously failed to do so.  Dembski's 'filter' is a joke that has never been applied.  Never.

Quote
While neo-Darwinism has been excellent in explaining the variation we see within specified boundaries, it is bankrupt in explaining where the information came from in the first place, and how the information was added to organisms  to add new gross morphological features.
So speaks the man ignorant of such simple counter-arguments as Avida.
Quote
The answer is Intelligent Design and this in turn supports Theism quite nicely.
Oddly enough, it doesn't.  ID is worse theology than it is science.

But since Dave, like every other scientifically illiterate fundie we deal with can't even define his terms (such as 'information';), it's unlikely that he can actually try to argue his point.
Quote
And Theism has no difficulties explaining the 'omnipotence and omnibenevolence problem' as I have shown.
Gosh - and when are you going to 'show' that?  So far, you haven't.  The POE remains insoluable.

Norm:
Quote
So, if God's will is that the worshippers of the golden calf must be killed by melting down their calf and making them drink it, that's not evil because it's God's will?  If God's will is that Muslim hijackers crash planes into our skyscrapers, that's not evil because it's God's will?  So, if you get  ebola and die a  horrible death, that's obviously God's will since no man decided you should get that disease? The problem with assuming you have to do God's will is figuring out what God's will is.

Dave pontificated thusly:
Quote
You are correct that figuring out God's will is a very big deal and should not be taken lightly.  We also have the question of "Why is it OK for states to execute a convicted murderer?" and the like.  And the answer to all these questions really boils down to an authority question.  And this in turn boils down to the question of "Is there a Creator?  Or is there not?"  Which is precisely why I am so interested in these questions.  Here's the deal.  IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us.  IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"  Now of course, you do have the problem of determining if it was really the Creator who created the Amalekites who is now saying go destroy them.  Maybe the Jewish prophet is just a religious scheister and he's just pretending to speak for the Creator.  And this should not be determined lightly.  And it was not.  God went to great lengths to make checks and balances with the Jewish people to make certain that the prophets were validated before they were trusted to give guidance on weighty matters such as destroying entire people groups.  Contrast this with the modern claims of Jihadists.  They have no authority from anywhere that has been rigorously validated by anyone.  
Excellent!  So whatever God says, goes.  And if tomorrow God ordered you to murder your children, sell your wife into slavery, and castrate yourself, you'd do it, because that's what God wants.  And when God orders Muslims to burn every copy of the Bible as pure blasphemy, that's what God wants too.

Sadistic little bastard you worship, Dave.

Quote
Now regarding the obvious question of "How can God ordering the killing of people groups be considered good" the fact is that IF there is a Creator God, then there are things that we do not know or understand, and how can we say that God is not good if he orders the killing of certain people groups.  In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off.  Killing people is a good thing under certain conditions and if done with the proper authority -- i.e. with government sanction in today's world (God has given life and death authority to governments--see Romans 13).  Did it not do the Americans good to kill off those British soldiers?  Look at all the good that has come to America as a result of killing those Brits and founding an independent nation.  Ditto for Hitler and the Nazis (yes, I know ... Godwin ... OK fine).  As for getting ebola and dying a horrible death, this too can be good if you are looking at it from God's perspective.  Remember, this life is only a small portion of our total life.  Humans will live forever somewhere and this short life within a physical body is nothing in the big scheme of things.
Ah!  And another piece of creationist boilerplate gets trotted out:

If something good happens, that's what God wants.

If something awful happens, that's what God wants.

I'm too stupid to understand that God is violating the moral rules She laid down for humans to follow; I'm too stupid to see the logical contradictions in the concept of God; so I'm just going to worship God no matter what horrible things (tsunami, anyone) God does.

Quote
So, God must feel the same way about things that you do? Could it  be that you have made God in your own image?

Dave opined:
Quote
It's logically possible, yes, but you cannot escape the empirical evidence for a real Creator God, so no, when all things are considered it makes more sense to believe that WE were created in His image, rather than vice versa.
Since Dave has not offered any empirical evidence for God, his argument is moot.

Quote
So, AFDave's 'evidence' that god intervenes on earth is (a) an event that didn't happen and (b) a mythical event that he thinks will happen in the future.


Dave sputtered:
Quote
There is more evidence for the Global Flood of Noah than there is that George Washington lived.  As for the future event which I cannot verify, I believe in this after I have established the authority of the Bible as a whole from a rigorous examination of the claims I can verify.
There is no good evidence for the flood, Dave.  None whatsoever.  And all of the other evidence from geology and paleontology and history and a few other fields contradict it.

The Bible is a tissue of lies, distortions, and dull stories.  And some really good smut.  Come to think of it, maybe there is some reason to read it!


Quote
He then drew parallels between parenting, and god's handling of mankind. Does it follow, by extention, that parents should then subject those children who defy their will to unending, inescapable pain and torment? Where is the line drawn in this "in his image" concept? I found his explanation of "Evil in the World" to be kind of creepy.

Dave made another meaningless rejoinder:
Quote
Actually parents in a way do subject their kids to inescapable pain and torment by not always intervening.
I see.  Parents subject their children to eternal torment for finite transgressions?  Parents murder their children for no known reason?
Quote
Parents all the time choose not to intervene in the lives of kids who make bad life decisions.  These kids end up in pain and torment all their lives because of their own decisions, not because the parents consigned them to this pain.
So, Dave: if your child decided to drink acid and bleach mixed together, you would let him?  If your child chose to take a blowtorch to your wife, you'd let him?  If your child chose to cut his hands off with an axe, you'd let him?

You're one nasty dude, my child.

Quote
Why should God be any different?
Why, indeed.  We see from the Bible that God does things like that all the time.  He kills innocents; he murders just and good men; he lies; he punishes unjustly.

Everything you'd want an omnipotent being to do.

Quote
He offers eternal life to anyone, but He does not force himself on anyone.  If people want to choose to reject Him, it is they who are choosing their destiny, not Him.
Proof?


Quote
yes, what a surprise that everyone here doesn't see the author of fictional children's novels as authoritative in the world of science.

Dave again:
Quote
Do you all not realize that the children's novels are allegories of Lewis' Christian faith?  He is primarily a Christian philosopher.  His brilliance is shown in his children's novels because he not only writes exciting kid stuff, but also weaves in essentials of the Christian faith in a hidden sort of way.
Hidden?  How oblivious are you?  Lewis is blatant in his Christian symbolism.

Are you really that dense?

I repeat: you can't buy entertainment like this.  It's a pity though that Dave can't come up with an original attempted argument.  I'd pay good money to see one.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:55:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
The comments so far:
Quote
  1.

     Right on!

     Comment by William Dembski — May 22, 2006 @ 9:21 am
  2.

     You might want to check further on this post. It is likely a fraud. See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-marines.htm. There are others questioning the truth of this.

     Comment by jerry — May 22, 2006 @ 10:33 am
  3.

     There are more reports of it’s inaccuracy:
     http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/marines.asp

     Including this troubling assertion, “The ACLU has also never had a spokesperson — quoted by news organizations as ‘Lucius Traveler’ — by this name.”
     http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_9

     This post doesn’t even pass the google test.

     Comment by JeffK — May 22, 2006 @ 10:42 am

Date: 2006/05/22 06:01:41, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Ed Brayton makes a similar (and as always, excellent observation):
Quote
There are some people who are so ridiculous that it would be impossible to invent them if they didn't actually exist. Larry Fafarman is one of them. A psychologist would have a field day with someone so utterly convinced of his own importance that he prefers to make a fool of himself for attention rather than risk non-existence.
 What difference, really, is there between Dave and Larry?  Has anybody noticed one?

Date: 2006/05/22 06:13:51, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 22 2006,11:08)
Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,11:04)
 
Quote
I think it's gotten to the point where Dave now thinks that if he admits a mistake on ANYTHING that his Christian arguments are all threatened.
Oh really?  How do you explain my very forthright and honest concession that I was wrong about the AIG-chimp-chromosome thing?

Arden, precisely the REVERSE of what you say is true.  

YOU are the one that will never admit defeat no matter how looney you look.

Ah, I missed that. Sorry. And I'm glad you admitted it.

So, now, in an attempt to prove to us that you're not 'looney', are you now willing to admit you were wrong on your linguistic statements, the founding fathers all being Christians, a Young Earth, Noah's flood, and scientists all 'jumping ship' on evolution? 'Cause none of those things are true, either...

Yes, but where did he admit it?  I can't seem to find any forthright and honest statements in any of Dave's posts.  :p

Date: 2006/05/22 06:28:04, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!

Date: 2006/05/22 07:01:47, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I'm just going to cross-post this, since apparently Dave is engaging in his usual (and unChristian) practice of ignoring threads or posts in which his position is demolished.
Quote
What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!


Dave, doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Wouldn't you like to be right occasionally?  Do you really like looking like a fool?

Date: 2006/05/22 09:00:03, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (normdoering @ May 22 2006,13:05)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 22 2006,12:41)
But I agree, no language is 'pure' or exists in a vacuum.

A little fact that let afdave try to move the goal posts on you guys.

I suggest you drop the whole language argument and next time nail down the goal posts so he can't move them. For example, before we argue about kinds we have to get afdave to clearly define them... to nail down  where creationisms predictive goal posts are.

But as with most fundies, his 'arguments' are simply not sufficiently coherent to 'pin down'; they are just a mush of cut-n-paste goo from fundie sources. Nothing to get a handle on, because no real content.  ;)

Date: 2006/05/22 09:06:49, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave, I realize you have reading comprehension problems and you are a chronic liar.  (Naughty, that: Jesus is weeping for you right now).  So I'll repeat this for your benefit.

What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!

Dave, doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Wouldn't you like to be right occasionally?  Do you really like looking like a fool?

I mean, if you honestly enjoy looking stupid, we're more than happy to oblidge: you're fun to laugh at, I'll grant you that.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:32:21, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 22 2006,12:46)
I don't like hurting people, Dave. I don't need a god to tell me about ethics or morals. I feel bad that you are wrong. I feel bad that you think the way you do.

(Deuteronomy 24:16) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

(II Chronicles 25:4) But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

(Ezek. 18:19) The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

I am sorry you feel otherwise.

More importantly, those verses demolish the entire 'Curse' thing that Dave was blaming all that nasty evolution on.  After all, God isn't going to punish Adam's children for their father's sin?

Or is God simply an immoral agent?

Something to think about.

Date: 2006/05/22 10:19:51, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave, I realize you have reading comprehension problems and you are a chronic liar.

Now these are highly unChristian things (well, the lying part, anyway).  Why do them?  Why be so immoral?  Why be so stupid?  Why not actually try addressing an issue for a change?

For your benefit (and, of course, the benefit of the lurkers).

What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!

Dave, doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Wouldn't you like to be right occasionally?  Do you really like looking like a fool?

I mean, if you honestly enjoy looking stupid, we're more than happy to oblidge: you're fun to laugh at, I'll grant you that.

Date: 2006/05/22 10:48:55, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 22 2006,15:29)
Quote
... and we like when people help us when we're ignorant about something.
Yes. So you should be very happy right now since I've helped you so much :-)

Oh, Dave?  You might try addressing the Portuguese issue.  I'm afraid you continue to be mistaken.

Just for you, my child, since I know you wouldn't want to fail to address something:

Dave, I realize you have reading comprehension problems and you are a chronic liar.  (Naughty, that: Jesus is weeping for you right now).  So I'll repeat this for your benefit.

What's most amusing about Dave at the moment is the fact that he's struggling so badly making an argument: the accuracy of his original statement having been swiftly and thoroughly shown to be non-existent.

Let's consider: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

Option 1) A linguistic history of the language showing that it had developed from these two other tongues.

Unfortunately option 1 is eliminated because these languages did not exist when Portuguese developed.

Option 2) Show, by linguistic analysis, that Portuguese is comprised of an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish grammar; and French and Spanish pronunciation.

Unfortunately, option 2 is eliminated because Dave can't actually show those things.

Now Dave, we realize that you can continue to make yourself look like a fool by persisting in your inability to admit that your first statement was idiotically wrong; your second statement a cover-up AND idiotically wrong; and your continuing statements a cover-up, irrelevant, AND idiotically wrong.

Or you can demonstrate some intellectual credibility and Christian ethics by admitting that you were mistaken, that you lied, and that you're ignorant.

Feel free to start any time.  

Remember - we are trying to help you.  I know that arguments and discussion with adults can be trying and hard, but if you just persevere and do your homework, you'll be ready for it!

Dave, doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Wouldn't you like to be right occasionally?  Do you really like looking like a fool?

I mean, if you honestly enjoy looking stupid, we're more than happy to oblige: you're fun to laugh at, I'll grant you that.

Date: 2006/05/22 10:55:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 22 2006,14:39)
Quote
If you are referring to the origin of life this is a seperate issue form evolution. Also do you know what you mean by Darwinism?


you're kidding, right?  Dave doesn't even know what he means by 'information'.

I thought we conclusively established his overwhelming ignorance weeks ago.

True.  I'm divided in my mind, though.  Who is funnier: Dave Scot?  Or  2nd Lt. Dave?

Right now, my money is on Dave Scot (he's smarter, which means his jokes are more... oblivious).

Date: 2006/05/22 11:15:26, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Colin @ May 22 2006,16:09)
Quote (Faid @ May 22 2006,16:02)
Oh  my, it's so obvious that the Franz Mesmer of Information Theory wants to bury Dave's thread...

Perhaps UD has exceeded its monthly quota of apologies for libelous mischaracterizations?

As Ed Brayton points out on "Dispatches from the Culture Wars", what Dave Springer has done is just about the stupidest possible action: shown that he doesn't actually care that he's wrong, wrapping himself in the flag, and making sure that Dembski continues to be tarred with the same feather of stupidity.

The man really is quite astonishing.  I thought he wanted to be on the winning side.  :p

Date: 2006/05/22 17:05:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 22 2006,21:30)
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.

Given his other claims and his somewhat tenuous grasp of reality, I don't think we're dealing with an actual ex-pilot.  Second Lieutenant, perhaps, but that's about as high as his intelligence would seem to go.  :p

Date: 2006/05/22 17:14:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (BWE @ May 22 2006,22:07)
Shhh. He's logged in. He'll hear you.

I doubt it.  He's too dumb to notice.

But I do think that 2nd Lt. Dave is the funniest poster we've got.  Funnier that Carol.  Funnier that Larry.  Funnier than... well, that guy who's crazy about boneless things.

Date: 2006/05/23 06:00:19, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Oh, goodie!  2nd Lt. Dave is back to provide amusement, entertainment, and a source of fun.

2nd Lt. Dave, shall we look at your statements again?  Sure we should.

2nd Lt. Dave said  
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).


This is, of course, utter nonsense.  By citing various sources (available on the internet so that 2nd Lt. Dave and the lurkers could check them for accuracy) we demonstrated this.

2nd Lt. Dave, embarrassed by his stupid remark, tried to change it to  
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.
Now this is even funnier, since it's easy to demonstrate (and we did, using easily available sources that 2nd Lt. Dave should have had easy access to) that this entire statement is a lie.  Henry was already dead; French was not the primary linguistic influence on the divergence, etc.

2nd Lt. Dave - continuing his usual unChristian behavior, then started bloviating, ranting, raving, and behaving like the four-year old that we have seen him to be.

He then tried to demonstrate that he was right (even though he was completely wrong) by offering the following wacko piece of nonsense:

1) Lots of French guys were present in Portugal around 1143.

2) French and Catalan had some influence on the phonetics of Portuguese.

3) 2nd Lt. Dave thinks the languages sound alike.

We pointed out (swiftly and accurately) that this did nothing to prove 2nd Lt. Dave's claim about the admixture of French and Spanish: the presence of a group of noblemen in a given area does not correlate to a linguistic change (and since French as we know it didn't exist then, 2nd Lt. Dave's original statement is still fewmets); in order for Portuguese to be French and Spanish mixed, 2nd Lt. Dave would have had to show that Spanish and French elements were both present (which his claim above does NOT show); and that 2nd Lt. Dave's personal opinion is worth as much as water-logged TP).

We also predicted that 2nd Lt. Dave's ego would be unable to bear the fact that he had shown himself to be

* ignorant
* stupid
* unChristian

I am happy to state that we have been proved correct on every point.  I am particularly interested in 2nd. Lt. Dave's extremely unChristian, immoral, dishonest, and deceitful behavior.  Puzzling, but explainable when we realize that YECs are not, after all Christians.

It has been a pleasure making you look like an idiot, 2nd. Lt. Dave, but I admit it was all too easy.  Is this the reason you never got to be even a full lieutenant?  General idiocy?

But I salute you sir, for your determination to be a public moron!  Power to you!

Stick up for your God-given right to be a moron!  You earned it, 2nd Lt. Dave!

Date: 2006/05/23 06:35:47, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
There was a lieutenant named Dave,
Whose faith made him foolishly brave.
Though he thought he was bright,
His brains were a fright.
His ignorance made him a knave.

Date: 2006/05/23 06:41:23, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave, I thought I had better cross post this, in case you forgot that you embarrassed yourself over your loss on the whole Portuguese thing.  After all, we know you've got some memory and honesty problems.

Oh, goodie!  2nd Lt. Dave is back to provide amusement, entertainment, and a source of fun.

2nd Lt. Dave, shall we look at your statements again?  Sure we should.

2nd Lt. Dave said  
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).



This is, of course, utter nonsense.  By citing various sources (available on the internet so that 2nd Lt. Dave and the lurkers could check them for accuracy) we demonstrated this.

2nd Lt. Dave, embarrassed by his stupid remark, tried to change it to  
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

Now this is even funnier, since it's easy to demonstrate (and we did, using easily available sources that 2nd Lt. Dave should have had easy access to) that this entire statement is a lie.  Henry was already dead; French was not the primary linguistic influence on the divergence, etc.

2nd Lt. Dave - continuing his usual unChristian behavior, then started bloviating, ranting, raving, and behaving like the four-year old that we have seen him to be.

He then tried to demonstrate that he was right (even though he was completely wrong) by offering the following wacko piece of nonsense:

1) Lots of French guys were present in Portugal around 1143.

2) French and Catalan had some influence on the phonetics of Portuguese.

3) 2nd Lt. Dave thinks the languages sound alike.

We pointed out (swiftly and accurately) that this did nothing to prove 2nd Lt. Dave's claim about the admixture of French and Spanish: the presence of a group of noblemen in a given area does not correlate to a linguistic change (and since French as we know it didn't exist then, 2nd Lt. Dave's original statement is still fewmets); in order for Portuguese to be French and Spanish mixed, 2nd Lt. Dave would have had to show that Spanish and French elements were both present (which his claim above does NOT show); and that 2nd Lt. Dave's personal opinion is worth as much as water-logged TP).

We also predicted that 2nd Lt. Dave's ego would be unable to bear the fact that he had shown himself to be

* ignorant
* stupid
* unChristian

I am happy to state that we have been proved correct on every point.  I am particularly interested in 2nd. Lt. Dave's extremely unChristian, immoral, dishonest, and deceitful behavior.  Puzzling, but explainable when we realize that YECs are not, after all Christians.

It has been a pleasure making you look like an idiot, 2nd. Lt. Dave, but I admit it was all too easy.  Is this the reason you never got to be even a full lieutenant?  General idiocy?

But I salute you sir, for your determination to be a public moron!  Power to you!

Stick up for your God-given right to be a moron!  You earned it, 2nd Lt. Dave!

Date: 2006/05/23 07:04:27, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Young Dave was a second lieutenant,
With "ignorance" stitched on his pennant.
He made people laugh,
'For his posts were all daft;
his embarassment always immanent.

Date: 2006/05/23 09:00:03, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,12:08)
Rilke-- I'm past Portuguese now ... got anything to defend Evolution?  Maybe some new great discovery that will finally make the lightbulb come on for me?

Thanks Dave, for admitting you were wrong. Brave of you to risk the embarassment.

Date: 2006/05/23 09:11:36, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,13:40)
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
I predict that Michael Denton will probably go down in history as one of the most influential scientists of the 20th Century.  Henry Morris may actually claim the leading title for his leadership of the modern Creationist revival, but there is no doubt that men like Michael Denton, Michael Behe and William Dembski will be names long remembered once the rotting corpse of Darwin's General Theory of Evolution is buried and forgotten.

And so we take one more look at one of my favorite books, "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton and discuss briefly, the Anthropic Principle.  From the fly-leaf of the book ...

 
Quote
In Nature's Destiny, Michael Denton marshals a stunning range of biological, chemical, and physical evidence to answer systematically a simple question:  Could life elsewhere in the universe be significantly different from life on earth?  Must it rely on carbon, water, DNA, amino acids, and proteins?  COuld there be an alternative to DNA, or could DNA be constructed out of different components?  Could cells be designed differently?  From these building blocks he dares to ask the boldest questions:  Is it possible there are life forms radically different from those realized during the course of evolution on Earth?  And even:  Is a Homo sapiens--like creature the only possible highly intelligent species, given the laws of biology that exist throughout the universe?

The stunning answer to this last question is yes.  Life is highly constrained by the laws of nature.  If, for example, the ratio between strong and weak chemical bonds had not been what it is, if the thermal properties of water were not precisely what they are, if the atmosphere of the Earth had not had just the right properties to filter out harmful radiation, then a flourishing biosphere such as exists on Earth would be impossible.  For like to develop beyond the most primitive stage hinted at by the famous Mars fossils requires an earthlike planet, with earthlike atmosphere and oceans.

Over the past twenty years, such physicists as Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Martin Rees and Paul Davies have argued that the universe is fine-tuned for carbon-based life.  Now, Michael Denton extends their argument all the way from the carbon atom to advanced and complex life forms closely resembling ourselves, showing that our biosphere is central to nature's destiny.  Though we may have six-fingered cousins elsewhere, the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind.


Denton goes on to make an excellent case for his claims and concludes with this ...

 
Quote
All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact ... As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millenium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished--the "defender of the anthropocentric faith.


Now for some objections from our good friends at Talk Origins ...

 
Quote

The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.
Yes.  Life in its present form IS a given.  (This author is bright!;)  No.  You cannot fine tune life, then build a cosmos.  Sorry, doesn't work that way.  You know ... gotta do site prep then build the foundation before you build the house.  See? (Wow, these are convincing rebuttals, guys.  I can see why you got taken in!;)

 
Quote
We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.
Oh yeah, sure.  The old "alternate universe" theory.  I know of an alternate universe in Alice and Wonderland.

 
Quote
Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.
This author couldn't think of a new rebuttal, so he re-used the second half of the first one.


 
Quote
If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?
 Good question.  Worth investigating.  But that doesn't argue against the fact that it is indeed fine tuned for life.  Try reading the Bible for clues to WHY it is here and no place else.


 
Quote
Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).
Gimme a break.  Elsewhere on the Talk Origins site, the authors had ample opportunity to refute Cosmic Fine Tuning and they did not.  Why not?  Because they could not.  You can see this Here.

 
Quote
How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.
 No, it is very objective.  Sorry.  It's very well defined.  Read Dyson, Hoyle, Rees, Davies and Denton.


 
Quote
The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.
 Maybe so, but are you telling me that this weakening is a big deal when you are talking about some 70 different parameters that have to be right for life to exist?  Come on.


 
Quote
If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.
Oh boy.  The brain damage is bad.  Call the neuro-surgeon!  Wow.  That is a brilliant statement: "If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it."  I think there's an echo.  Isn't that what we've been saying?  I thought I just got through saying  this very thing ... "If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it."  How exactly is this a rebuttal of my argument?  Oh, and of course the multiple universe thing again, which Faid told me had been dropped, but here it is again.

 
Quote
Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).
Well, it is a logical conclusion in OUR universe.  But I understand ... you guys are in a different one.  Sure, there could be other causes. Like chance for example, with a probability of 1 in 50 gazillion googolplex.


 
Quote
In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.
OK. So the anthropic principle might argue against an omnipotent creator if you are in one of those alternate universes, but again, in this universe, it argues FOR one.  Fine.  Postulate a God anyway you like.  But the fact is humans are here and the universe is fine tuned for them.  The fun question is WHY?  Again, enter the Bible.

OK.  Fire away if you can!  I'll cut and paste some of your "Ape Objections" onto this thread so you don't think I abandoned you.  As for Portuguese ... you guys can go argue that one among yourselves.  You don't like what I have to say anyway, so why would you want me involved?  To me it sounds like "The sky is blue. No it's not ... you're an idiot.  Yes it is, see, look at it.  It's not EXACTLY blue, see, it's really Royal Blue. And here we have all these sources that don't say anything about it being blue to prove that it's Royal Blue.  Come argue with us, please, Davy.  We really want to show you how smart we are and how dumb you are.  OK?  Please?"


Until manana! Or manhao! (for you Portuguese fans) (I don't know how to do the tildes)

Dave posted some words in a thread,
That showed that his knowledge was read
From pages of men
Who were smarter than him
Since nothing is found in his head.



:D

Date: 2006/05/23 09:19:35, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
As for Portuguese ... you guys can go argue that one among yourselves.  You don't like what I have to say anyway, so why would you want me involved?  To me it sounds like "The sky is blue. No it's not ... you're an idiot.  Yes it is, see, look at it.  It's not EXACTLY blue, see, it's really Royal Blue. And here we have all these sources that don't say anything about it being blue to prove that it's Royal Blue.  Come argue with us, please, Davy.  We really want to show you how smart we are and how dumb you are.  OK?  Please?"

Small Davey admitted his error,
With weasel words showing his terror
Of knowing that we
Are much smarter than he,
And can trim all his crap with a parer.

:D

Date: 2006/05/23 12:55:22, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,16:43)
Faid--  The sky is Royal Blue.  

There.  Is that better?  You won!

I'm glad you are leaving my thread.  I would rather have people respond to me who care about representing ToE well (that is honestly).  I've had several.  I'll probably have a few more.

Dave's hopes have gone down the drain,
Of proving that France and that Spain,
Had given their speech
To enlighten and teach
The poor Portuguese how to say "plain".

Date: 2006/05/24 03:39:33, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,05:43)
OK.  I said I was going to let this thread die, but I got to thinking that I really don't want to clutter up my "God Hypothesis" thread with Anti-Evolution arguments.  And I learned something new this morning which dispels a persistent myth that I have heard.  It's amazing how many good scientists are jumping the Darwinist ship and writing good new articles which support Creationist Theory.

RESISTANT BACTERIA:  NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION
I have always thought that most mutations are harmful, but that there are a few that are beneficial.  Bacterial mutations which confer resistance to anti-biotics have been cited most often to me as an example of beneficial mutations.

So, I thought I would investigate.  Here's a recent article which appears to dismantle the idea of resistant bacteria supporting the ToE.  What do you think?

   
Quote

Is Bacterial Resistance
to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?

Kevin Anderson, Ph.D.
© 2005 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
This article first appeared in Vol. 41, No. 4 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal published by the Creation Research Society.

Abstract
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change.  However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption.  Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer.  Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria.  Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution.  Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems.  While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.”  Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria.  A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions.  Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.


Now here is an excerpt from the discussion of what is required to support the idea of Common Descent With Modification ...  
Quote
Thus, common “descent with modification” provides a more appropriate and functional definition of the theory of evolution, and this article will refer to evolution in this context.  This definition also entails several “predictions” regarding the types of genetic change necessary for common evolutionary descent (predictions that are in sharp contrast to the “predictions” of a creation model).  Such changes must provide more than mere changes in phenotype; they must provide a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of cellular functions and activities (i.e., regulatory systems, transport systems, enzyme specificity, protein binding affinity, etc.).

Genetic changes that reduce or eliminate any of these cellular systems provide no genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.”  Rather, such changes are actually the antithesis of this descent, reducing or eliminating a pre-existing system of biological complexity (a reversal of “descent with modification”).  Therefore, these genetic changes offer no example of a genetic mechanism for the “evolutionary” acquisition of flight by non-flying organisms, cognition by non-cognitive organisms, photosynthesis by non-photosynthesizing organisms, etc.  Yet the theory of evolution requires such events to have occurred, and requires mutations capable of such genetic changes.  Hence, the predictions of evolution require specific types of changes, not just so-called “beneficial” mutations.  Therefore, despite the great claims that have been made, it is imperative to question whether acquisition of antibiotic resistance is a valid example of evolutionary change that supports the predictions of the evolutionary theory (i.e., the theory of common “descent with modification”).


Here is a particularly telling table showing LOSS of function, not gain.  

 
Quote

In the presence of a particular antibiotic (or other antimicrobial), any mutation that protects the bacterium from the lethality of that compound clearly has a “beneficial” phenotype.  Natural selection will strongly and somewhat precisely select for those resistant mutants, which fits within the framework of an adaptive response.  But, molecular analysis of such mutations reveals a large inconsistency between the true nature of the mutation and the requirements for the theory of evolution (Table I).

Table I. Mutation Phenotypes Leading to Resistances of Specific Antibiotics. Antibiotic  Phenotype Providing Resistance  
Actinonin  Loss of enzyme activity  
Ampicillin  SOS response halting cell division  
Azithromycin  Loss of a regulatory protein  
Chloramphenicol  Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein  
Ciprofloxacin  Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein  
Erythromycin  Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein  
Fluoroquinolones  Loss of affinity to gyrase  
Imioenem  Reduced formation of a porin  
Kanamycin  Reduced formation of a transport protein  
Nalidixic Acid  Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein  
Rifampin  Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase  
Streptomycin  Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity  
Tetracycline  Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein  
Zittermicin A  Loss of proton motive force  

Bacterial resistance to the antibiotic, rifampin, can result from a commonly occurring spontaneous mutation.  Rifampin inhibits bacterial transcription by interfering with normal RNA polymerase activity (Gale et al., 1981; Levin and Hatfull, 1993).  Bacteria can acquire resistance by a point mutation of the ß-subunit of RNA polymerase, which is encoded by the rpoB gene (Enright et al., 1998; Taniguchi et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2001; Williams et al., 1998).  This mutation sufficiently alters the structure of the ß-subunit so that it loses specificity for the rifampin molecule.  As a result, the RNA polymerase no longer has an affinity for rifampin, and is no longer affected by the inhibitory effect of the antibiotic.

In fact, the level of rifampin resistance that a bacterium can spontaneously acquire can be extremely high.  In my laboratory, we routinely obtain mutant strains with a resistance level that is orders of magnitude greater than that of the wild-type strain.  When rifampin is present, this mutation provides a decided advantage for survival compared with those cells lacking these specific mutations.  But, each of these mutations eliminates binding affinity of RNA polymerase for the rifampin.  As such, these mutations do not provide a mechanism accounting for the origin of that binding affinity, only its loss.


Dr. Anderson summarizes thusly ...

   
Quote
Summary
Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.”  However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”).  Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes.  Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.  Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated.  Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution.  These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.  Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion.  The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.


Now you can read the rest of the article if you like  HERE.

OK.  Shoot me down if you can!

AFD

For 2nd Lt. Dave

Young Dave is uncommonly dense,
For he thinks that his 'theory' makes sense.
But for it be
A theory, you see,
He has to show real evidence!

:p

Date: 2006/05/24 03:49:12, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (skeptic @ May 24 2006,08:34)
Maybe I started too broadly.

This is what I think, ID and creationism are not science.  If you make the statement God did it, that just begs the question, How? Then we're right back where we began.

Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.  I just don't accept the current theory.  I believe it must be reactive and mechanism based.  Thats what I'd like to discuss, but I was amazed at how quickly the attack dogs were loosed.

Thats where I stand.

The current theory is reactive and mechanism based.  What precisely are your concerns?

Date: 2006/05/24 04:05:34, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Skeptic, one of the reasons you were savaged by the 'attack dogs' was that your OP contains a large proportion of factually incorrect statement.  F'r example:

Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.
Current theory is not fatally flawed for this reaon - we perform experiments, collect data and make predictions (for example, the existence of a species similar to Tiktaalik was predicted.

As for a list of recent evolutionary research, see this.

Quote
Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?
We already have.  Look at the Avida experiments, for example.

Quote
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.
Another factually incorrect (because completely misstated comment).  Random mutation is NOT the sole mechanism for diversity.  Genetic and developmental variation plus selection is more than adequate as a mechanism for diversity.

Quote
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.
This is simply meaningless.  Responsive in what way?

Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.
Again, observationally not true.  The consistency of the deep sea environment in which Coleolanth persisted, for example, is quite striking.  And random mutation isn't particularly slow.  Speciation may be, but we have seen that rapid speciation in those very dynamic environments is quite probable.

Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?
The activity occuring at the molecular level is a macro-consequence of the activity occuring at the 'sub-atomic' level.

When you being your OP with such inaccurate, misleading, or confusing statements, it is natural to question the depth of your knowledge of the topic.

Questioning your sincerity, on the other hand, is unacceptable until you demonstrate (like 2nd Lt. Dave) that you are simply a creationist.

Date: 2006/05/24 05:04:16, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
2nd Lt. Dave commented  
Quote
Now everyone who speaks both Spanish and Portuguese (as I do) knows the similarities b/t those two.
Which shows nothing about Portuguese being a mixture of French and Spanish
Quote
But this table shows something which is not as commonly known - the similarities of Portuguese to French.
Which shows nothing about Portuguese being a mixture of French and Spanish.
Quote
This is why I don't need to spend hours and hours researching documents with Arden.  This is so obvious, folks.  Anyone with their eyes open can see the commonality with the French language.
Which shows nothing about Portuguese being a mixture of French and Spanish.
Quote
Also, I have noticed that many of you lose focus on the goal of a discussion.  Again, let me remind you that my goal on the Portuguese thing was not to make a rigorous research project out of it.
You made an incorrect statement.  You lied about it.  You lied about it using incorrect history.  You were caught both in your lies and your ignorance.
Quote
My goal was simply to show Rilke that she does not help the cause of evolutionists by ranting and raving about how idiotic Creos are, which is what she did.
I pointed out that you were wrong.  You lied about my response, then too.

The Bible says folks should not lie.
But young Davey ignores that to try
To recover some grace
When there's egg on his face
And he'd rather not break down and cry.

Quote
While it may turn out after Arden spends hours and hours of rigorous research that my "Portuguese is Spanish mixed with French" statement is overly simplistic, it certainly is not idiotic to say this, and it doesn't help evolutionists look bright to just blindly blather that "Creos are idiots".
We pointed out that you were wrong; you lied about that.

You're not ignorant and stupid 'cause you're a creo.  You're  ignorant and stupid AND you're a creo.
Quote
But again, I have no desire to spend hours and hours on this.  I proved my point.
No, actually you didn't.  You simply lied.

Young Dave says the Bible's his book,
But we think he should give it a look,
For it says not to say,
Such big falsehoods each day,
If you want to get off the he11-hook!

Quote
There are 3 lines of strong evidence that support that my statement was not idiotic, even though it may prove simplistic.
You provided no evidence whatever to support your case.
Quote
If Rilke wants to disagree with me in the future, I might suggest using the "Jstockwell" approach which makes evolutionists sound a lot more sane.

But Dave, you're here to make fun of.  I would engage in intelligent discussion...with an intelligent person.

You're not.

Quote
I do have to ask ... why would you want to spend hours and hours proving the Portuguese thing?  It does seem to me like you are trying to prove that "the sky is royal blue" instead of just "blue."
It took me thirty seconds to google the truth.  I'm sorry it took you hours to be wrong.

Young Davey is such a known liar,
That if he were caught in a fire,
While burning to death,
With his last bated breath,
He'd say, "it's not a fire, 'tis a tire."

Date: 2006/05/24 06:30:08, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Drew Headley @ May 24 2006,11:01)
Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,09:28)
Drew Headley ...    
Quote
AFDave's anthropic argument is like saying if somebody wins the lottery it must have been rigged because the chances are so slim.
This betrays your ignorance of the comparison.  With the lottery, someone always wins everytime you draw a number.  In other words, there is no "specificity."  With the anthropic principle there is an extremely high degree of specificity.  

Drew again ...    
Quote
Hey guys, I just poured a glass of water and the water took the exact shape of the glass. I am not kidding, there is an amazingly small probability that the water will arrange itself into the exact shape of the glass, but it does. Must be divine intervention!
Stop Drew, before I conclude you are not a scientist.  Right now I think you are simply a scientist who has said some goofy things.

You are wrong, somebody does not always win the lottery. That is how jackpots can get so high periodically, because nobody wins for a while.

Yes, what I am saying is goofy because the points you make are goofy too. My example, while sarcastic, does illustrate a point. If the constants are constrained by laws we do not know about yet, then the probability of the universe being able to sustain life could be quiet high. Honestly, I am not a cosmologist so the answer eludes me.

Well, the interesting thing is that in the 'evolution lottery' somebody always wins: the survivors.  And this is the specificity.

That's why Dembski's filter is such nonsense.  CSI is a matter of drawing bull's-eyes after the fact and then claiming, "wow!  Look at that!  How improbable!"

There is an inherent presupposition on the part of fundies that the current biodiversity IS WHAT GOD INTENDED.  Particularly man.

What's really funny is that fundies can't see that 'beam' in their own eye.  It's puzzling.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:00:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
But as I have said many times, this whole exercise here at Panda's Thumb is helping me educate the public, which I have become convinced is the only way to solve this problem, since scientists heads are in the sand on origins.
My vote for the single funniest, most illogical comment 2nd Lt. Dave has made so far.

Young Dave wants the public to know,
'Evolution' has nothing to show,
So he posts on this site,
Where we show he's not right,
And the public as such doesn't go!

Go for it 2nd Lt. Dave!  Stick up for your right to look silly!

Date: 2006/05/24 07:11:35, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2006,12:02)
No, don't ban him. He hasn't done anything worth being banned. Being stubbornly ignorant does not merit banning. He sticks to the AFDave threads, and if you don't want to be around him, don't go to them. As long as he doesn't grossly misbehave like a Larrry Falafelman or a Davetard, don't ban him.

Besides, his entertainment value is high, and it's useful to have someone to present the failed, illogical, ignorant creationist 'claims'.  We can hone our ability to respond to them.  

In that sense, having Dave learn anything would be counterproductive!  He's like a punching bag: useless if his pompous idiocy deflates.

Keep 'em coming, 2nd Lt. Dave!

Date: 2006/05/24 07:19:27, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2006,12:06)
Quote
But as I have said many times, this whole exercise here at Panda's Thumb is helping me educate the public, which I have become convinced is the only way to solve this problem, since scientists heads are in the sand on origins.


This is consistent for AFD, tho -- and for all other Creationists. Their whole agenda depends on convincing people that the more you know about a subject, the LESS qualified you are to speak about it. Thus the often-seen notion that biologists are the LAST people who should be talking about 'origins' -- much better to have mathematicians, engineers, pastors, or retired Air Force pilots. The less education they've had, the more 'objective' they are.

The goal of the religious right is to completely redefine what 'knowledge' and 'reality' are. If they can convince people that the most ignorant people are the best-qualified to make pronouncements on anything, their work is complete.

But who does he think he's educating by posting here?  On PT and ATBC, the posters and the lurkers are aware that Dave's an ignorant idiot.  Does he somehow assume that the great unwashed masses start every day by looking at ATBC?  Does he somehow think that thousands of educable members of the public are listening to him soapbox?

Even amongst his illogical ramblings, the idea that this is a forum to 'educate the public' is astonishingly stupid.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:23:34, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave commented,
Quote
I got married and then lost interest in fighters because of all the deployments and also my "afterburner urges" were fulfilled already.
So Dave went into the military because he couldn't get laid?

War as a sublimation for sex.  Typical guy (no offense meant to all the other folks here of the male persuasion).

Date: 2006/05/24 08:16:43, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 24 2006,12:38)
(All non-meaningful content snipped)

Dave thought that his own intuition,
Should replace evolution's position,
But since that demands,
That he understands -
He's lost in a hopeless position.

:p

Keep 'em coming, 2nd Lt. Dave!

Date: 2006/05/24 10:05:09, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2006,13:22)
Rilke's granddaughter has the best response to AFDave of all of us.

AFDave, since he walked through the door,
Has been a creationist bore
"Your Darwinist proofs,
"Are all due to Poofs!
As for my schooling, less is more!"

:p  :)  :p

(Where is a 'thumbs-up' smilie when you need one?

Date: 2006/05/24 10:17:58, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
WOnderful.  Here you go then.  Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French among other things.  Happy now?  Go tell Rilke and Arden and Faid that you are happy.

Poor Dave can't admit that we've won,
And showed that of facts he had none,
For Spanish and French,
Can't be joined with a wrench,
To make Portuguese under the son!

Date: 2006/05/24 11:02:22, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
(1) AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.
(2) So he comes to PT and finds some willing participants at ATBC, some of whom, like Rilke, have absolutely no clue what his goals are, but they try to guess.
(3) AFD has immense fun debating, achieves his goal of honing his arguments, the ATBCers are happy because they think they are honing their arguments, or watching a comedy, practicing their insults, or whatever.
(4) No one gets bored contemplating their navels. (or someone else's)

So Dave's just the perverted kind,
Who plays games with a little kid's mind,
To make them like him:
Unknowing and dim,
UnChristian, uncouth, and unkind.

Keep 'em coming, 2nd Lt. Dave!  You da man!

Date: 2006/05/24 11:15:16, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
2nd Lt. Dave said
Quote
AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.
In America, that's called child-abuse.  Should we report you?

Date: 2006/05/24 11:20:47, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Y'know how Dave is so fond of Lewis?  I think it's appropos that today in the WSJ, there is a quote from Lewis:

Quote
There are few things more easily corruptible, Lewis observed, than religious belief and practice. "We must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better," he wrote a friend, "it makes him very much worse."


It's good to know that Dave exemplifies that observation of Lewis'.

Date: 2006/05/25 07:11:05, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
2nd Lt. Dave blathered
Quote
Actually, I think the physicists who I cited regarding Cosmic Fine Tuning do get into calculating the odds.  But we do not even need to calculate the odds to know that they must be very high if there are even close to 70 parameters and most of them have to be very close to a particular value for life to be possible.  We only need our intuition for this.
And this is a classic example of why what Dave is doing is child-abuse, pure and simple.  He wants to shut off children's brains; force them to NOT THINK, just the way he does.  It's not his ignorance of science that comes through this particular statement; it's his complete and total inability to reason.

You have to wonder how folks like this can tie their own shoelaces, let alone type.  It's amazing.

Date: 2006/05/25 07:20:01, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Faid @ May 25 2006,12:09)
Oh and, "Disease-resistant bacteria"? WTF?

dave, do you even try to understand what you are arguing against?

No.  It's reasonably clear at this point that our friend 2nd. Lt. Dave is

* ignorant of science; pretty much all science
* unable to reason in any coherent way
* a nasty-minded unChristian type who revels in child-abuse
* boring

It's number (2) I find so interesting: how anyone who has managed to reach the age of more or less adulthood can demonstrate so little ability to construct or understand a logical argument is amazing.

I'm not surprised he never made it beyond 2nd. Lt.; I think they require the ability to think for anything higher.

And that's why responding to him is such a waste of time: he literally cannot understand the counter-arguments.  Can't.  This isn't a question of willful stupidity; this is a case of actual inability.

But he is funny.

Date: 2006/05/25 07:36:03, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,12:29)
Yes.  I meant ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA.

I had just read this ...

"disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way."

...and used the wrong word ...

Poor Davey, he can't even read,
No matter the theistic need,
To find some excuse
To be dumb and obtuse.
His poor brain has all gone to seed.

:p

Keep 'em coming, 2nd. Lt. Dave!  Stick up for your God-given right to make a fool of yourself in public!

Date: 2006/05/25 07:42:04, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
Nope. Your link's busted. But I without reading the article, I can pretty much guarantee it will not have an explanation of the methodology used in Dr. Anderson's "experiment," if he actually did one, which is a pity, because without insight into his methodology, we have no idea whether his results are credible. But given the nature of the publication he's writing in (a "peer-reviewed journal"? Yeah, right), I'm pretty sure we can guess anyway. I'm going to guess that he actually didn't do any kind of experiment at all, but basically did a meta-analysis of others' experiments, which is what I warned you about yesterday. After all, what kind of experiment would he do, Dave?
The journal is the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Anderson didn't do any research; it's just another creationist argument from ignorance.  Anderson's not even doing science any more; he's director of the Van Andel Creationist Research Center - another worthless non-science shack in the wilderness.

Date: 2006/05/25 16:15:11, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ... Apes and humans are so similar, and look at the fossil record, and look at the age of the earth, and look at evolution in bacteria, and on and on ... who needs to invoke God did it?
Since there are many, many scientists who accept both evolution and God, your bizarre contention that the theory of evolution somehow eliminates God continues to make you look like the greatest a55 in Christendom.

You're stupid Dave - that's why you buddies in the Air Force ignored your little 'pamphlets' and probably laughed at you behind your back.

You're stupid Dave - cause you can't even understand evolution well enough to argue against it.

You're stupid Dave - cause your blind 'science vs. theism' diatribe won't go over with the public; only with innocent children too inexperienced to realize that you're crippling them for life.

It's child abuse, Dave.  That's what you're doing to them.  To teach that one must choose between evolution and Christianity is the stupidest, most illogical, most unreasonable position you can hold.

No wonder you only made 2nd. Lt.  ;)

Date: 2006/05/26 17:03:47, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
For the amusement of the board, may I draw your attention to the fact that Skeptic refuses to deal with any post which points out that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about?  The fact that he refuses to acknowledge that his claim about no transitional fossils is factually incorrect and impossible given his claim that he accepts evolution?

Skeptic, I'm sorry to say that you're not very convincing as an 'evolutionist'. Do try harder, thanks.

Date: 2006/05/26 17:19:38, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 26 2006,22:13)
Quote
Do try harder, thanks.


there is only 'do' or 'do not'; there is no try...

Like Dave?  That's about as complete a 'non-try' as I've seen in ages.

Date: 2006/05/26 18:10:39, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,22:29)
Steve, you're kidding right.

To compare calculation of planatery orbits to molecular interactions is apples to oranges, but if YOU have figured it out then you need to call Stephan Hawking and tell he can die now because you've solved THE problem.

And as far as not addressing the transitional forms issue, its just been a matter of volume and time, I respond to what I can in the time available.

The whole point of the transitional form example was to point out the changing interpretation as to whether or not the fossil record was evidence for or against Darwin's theory.  He predicted it would ultimately support him but it isn't accepted in the way he predicted.  The gaps were a problem that is now explained away because some transitional forms have been found and their existence have closed the case as far as biologists are concerned.  This is not the same abundance of forms that was predicted and even given the difficulties in fossilization, etc I find it somewhat disappointing and thats where PE came in to try to address that issue and propose big jumps and long periods of stability which is more what we see.

No, the point of the comment regarding transitional forms is that you were either completely mistaken (in which case your knowledge of evolution may be considered 'zero';) or you were lying.

Which?

Date: 2006/05/26 18:14:38, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Indeed, Skeptic, it has been pointed out that that most everything in your OP is incorrect.  You have failed to respond to this.  You continue to make statements which indicate one of two things:

Your understanding of the Modern Synthesis is almost nonexistent,

Or

You are a creationist in disguise (and not a terribly good disguise, since most of your material appears to be canned creationist twaddle).

Which?

Date: 2006/05/30 04:07:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Skeptic said:
Quote
The easiet example is, again, the fossil record.

We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist my the multitude

The fact that they don't exist is not really a glowing endorsement an yet now the fossil record is used as evidence to some degree and the lack of transitional forms has been addressed, but how adequately?


I pointed out:
Quote
For the amusement of the board, may I draw your attention to the fact that Skeptic refuses to deal with any post which points out that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about?  The fact that he refuses to acknowledge that his claim about no transitional fossils is factually incorrect and impossible given his claim that he accepts evolution?

Skeptic, I'm sorry to say that you're not very convincing as an 'evolutionist'. Do try harder, thanks.


Skeptic responded with:
Quote
Rilke

I went back and looked at what I said to make sure I remembered it clearly

I did say "they don't exist" but that was in reference to the previous statement alluding to the expectation of finding them in multitude.  There are specific examples, in fact I was reading about a potential whale precurser that lived in fresh water and had nostrils half-way between current land mammels and whales. I don't deny that.  The whole conversation at that time was talking about the changing expectations over time of the implications of the fossil record.  Sorry I was not clear, I'm trying to keep up and avoid writing a dissertation but I just don't type that fast.


Unfortunately for Skeptic, this is a lie, pure and simple.  There was no 'previous statement'.  Skeptic initiated the post discussing the fossil record.


Skeptic, given that your ingorance of the theory of evolution is profound; that your OP consists almost entirely of false statements; and that you are a demonstrated liar - why should anyone bother with you?

Just curious.

Date: 2006/05/30 05:43:14, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Faid @ May 30 2006,10:34)
Wait wait, what did I miss: Didn't skeptic already admit he was an OEC, and post a relevant link? Or something like that? Or was he being sarcastic?


<edit: whoops sorry skeptic... I thought your "cat's out of the bag" comment after posting that thing about Schroeder and his book was about you. Well you can't blame me, now can you?>

If he did I missed that.

What I have NOT missed is that he's playing by the usual creationist handbook:

Evade replying to comments about ignorance

Avoid responding to comments about lies and inaccuracies

Always make vague, unsupported statements and then ignore responses to them

etc.

If he weren't so utterly predictable, this would be funny.

Date: 2006/05/30 05:55:02, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Faid @ May 30 2006,08:27)
Quote
And we've got a long way to go through this outline.  What names will you be calling me by the time I get to D3?

No names besides the ones your record here has earned you, dave. At least, not by me.

You see, I do not think you are an idiot. Not because of what you believe. Like I've told you before (I wonder if you even paid attention), I think that people must be judged for their actions, not their beliefs.
And when you say this:
 
Quote
A1 was a pretty easy win.  You guys came at me with "what about multiple universes?"

You are LYING, dave. Period.
There's just no way around it anymore. I have pointed you a dozen times (literally, I believe) to the link you posted, three paragraphs down, where it says we don't need multiple universes. I quoted the darnn thing more times than I can remember. You deliberately ignored me every time. Then you say this.


Dave: Even an actual retard (one below border intelligence) would understand people are trying to tell him something and would address it, even to say "I don't understand", or "that can't be right". So in your case there is just no alternative: First you are being deliberately evasive, and then you say that all we founded our disagreement on (besides semantics and name-calling) is parallel universes. And you are obviously, blatantly, shamelessly, lying.

So, there's no point to address any of your other ridiculous claims -about how you won the GULO debate, or the resistant bacteria issue- where all you did was to demonstrate your complete inability to understand basic terms in biology and genetics. I tend not to take Liars-for-Jesus seriously enough to bother pointing their flaws to them.
Again, others who are more patient can once again pulverize your absurd claims- not that it will make any difference to you, of course. Not if little children still buy them, right dave?
You go ahead and smash our arguments with your fiery blade of truth, you poor deluded thing. I can only hope that this ridiculous mix of ignorance, stone-headed stubborness and arrogance is just your internet persona, and not the way you really are in everyday life. For your sake.

Well, yes.  As many of us have pointed out, Dave's basic problem isn't intelligence per se - it's the fact that he's a liar, pure and simple.

That's what Christianity does best: provides liars with a defense mechanism; provides cowards with some cover so that they don't have to face the real world; provides excuses for murder, child-abuse, rape, slavery - pretty much any ill you can name.

As Nietzsche correctly pointed out, there was only ever one Christian...and he got nailed to a tree.  The rest cover up their inability to actually live the way that Christ demanded that they live by worshipping of false idols, and lying in the name of their god.

If Dave weren't abusing children by forcing them not to think, the whole thing would be hilarious (it's pretty darn funny as it is).

Date: 2006/05/30 09:22:40, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (jeannot @ May 30 2006,12:13)
I think Dave wants to become a martyr here, and be like crucified in public. Seriously.
The more you insult him, the better he feels.

No, actually Dave claims that he's developing some course material for publishing on the web, and he's using our responses to 'vet' it and improve it.

That's one of the reasons he's oblivious to reason: he doesn't care; he's already written his material, he's incapable of understanding the science that refutes his claims; he's incapable of dealing with criticism; he's incapable of pretty much anything but spouting his nonsense.

And his classes are for kids.

As I say - child abuse.

Date: 2006/05/30 12:10:16, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (skeptic @ May 30 2006,16:29)
[quote=skeptic,May 25 2006,00:25][/quote]
Rilke's

Normally, I wouldn't respond to a post like yours but you've really rubbed me the wrong way, so here goes.

The previous statement I was referring to was MINE and here it is:

Quote
The easiet example is, again, the fossil record.

We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist my the multitude

The fact that they don't exist is not really a glowing endorsement an yet now the fossil record is used as evidence to some degree and the lack of transitional forms has been addressed, but how adequately?


So next time before you shoot your mouth off you might want to learn to read and then pick up an Oxford and look up "liar", and while you're at it why don't you look up "stupid" too.  You just may learn something and don't waste you breath, I'm through with you.

Well, that is certainly ONE way to avoid answering the various posts which have clearly demonstrated that you are making factually incorrect (and knowing incorrect statements) about evolution.

Here is the point: you claimed that no transitionals exist.  This is a lie, since it has been pointed out to you that you are incorrect.

I was doing you the credit of presuming you were intelligently deceptive, rather than ignorant.  My bad.

Carry on, child.  When you grow weary of having your non-arguments demolished; your scientific illiteracy exposed; and your false protestations of naivetee called to order, you will no doubt vanish like the other creationists we get here.

Embarrassed and in dudgeon.

But, like all the rest, you are funny.

:p

Date: 2006/05/30 12:16:20, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (improvius @ May 30 2006,16:52)
Quote
We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist [b]y the multitude


It seems that either skeptic is just making this up, or he is using a significantly different definition of "multitude" than that of most biologists.  Maybe that's what Rilke is really getting at.

I don't think he's making this up - it's standard creationist boilerplate.  And it's false, to boot.

Date: 2006/05/30 14:44:26, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Russell @ May 30 2006,11:37)
I, for one, am not ready to conclude that Skeptic is dishonest, or an out-and-out creationist. My guess is that he (I'll stick with "he" unless corrected) is sympathetic to creationists (a "fellow traveler", if you will) and is eager to show that "evolutionists" are closed-minded, unfair, arrogant, rude, etc. I don't think we are, of course, but his continued intimations that he recognizes some real, definable inadequacy in current evolutionary theory - without ever defining it - that he is a Big Picture thinker, while we're all mired in details... I think that's goading people into appearing to confirm his stereotype.

So I'll just say again: whatever your problem is with current theory, Skeptic, you have either not succeeded in communicating it (at least to me), or it's pretty basic stuff - hardly a compelling call to "reinvent" the theory.

Regrettably, skeptic has done nothing whatever to disabuse us of the notion that he is a closet creationist.

Consider: his OP was riddled with errors.  When it was pointed out that this betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of even the basics of evolutionary theory, and that he ought to spend some time educating himself, his response was simply to accuse us of bias and bad manners.

This pattern has continued; that anyone who is a biochemist could make the absurd and semantically meaningless remarks about fundamentals of chemistry.

Sure, he might be honest - but dealing with the various posts exposing his evolutionary illiteracy would be the place to start, not his haring off onto non-essentials.

But I have to thank him for the entertainment.

Date: 2006/05/30 16:56:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
And I thought you weren't speaking to me!  No such luck, I guess.

Here's a list of some of the factually incorrect (that is blatantly untrue statements you have made).  Some are about history, some are about biochemistry, some are about physics, biology, evolutionary theory, etc.  You don't bother to respond to any of our comments on them.

Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.
Science, biology, evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.
Mathematics, biology, evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.
Biology, mathematics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.
Ecology, biology, mathematics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?
Biochemistry.  Meaningless bafflegab.  No logic here.

Quote
but more difficult is the actual mechanics of random mutation, it taken at its smallest component, the substitution of a single AA, it mosts cases that it actually has an effect upon the structure of the protein you have a non-functioning, or reduced-functioning protein.  In the case of an entire gene mutation, now we're talking long odds, you still only have a single protein that may or may not have an effect and when it does it is almost assuredly detremental to the organism.  What we really need is for the random emergence of traits and this may require mutiple proteins, very very long odds.
Biochemistry, evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
I think biologists have just operated under the assumption that evolution is true and they're results reflect that.
History, science.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
and, if I may, Einstein never really embraced quantum theory, remember the famous 'God does not play dice' quote
History, physics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Traits must almost assuredly be made up of many genes and the expression of each may or may not be dependant upon the other
Evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Look at protein assembly.  Currently, protein folding is completely unpredictable.  We have to syntheize the protein and then look back to see how it folded.  Either the interactions are too numerous to model accurately or we're missing something.  When you look at the chemistry behind this it can be overwhelming.  Biologists are typically big-picture people observing at the organism and population level.  I really wish that this had started with chemists and physists but that was impossible.  
Chemistry, biochemistry.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Newtonian physics was law and no one really was looking for an altrenative and if they were they certainly weren't talking about it, people would have thought they were crazy.
History and physics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Then along come this patent clerk and drops a bomb-shell, of course it was initially refuted but later accepted and thats kinda where we are today.
History and physics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
As to the progression in evolutionary theory, I'm not so sure that we'd end up in the same place.  One thing I find very interesting is that Mendel sent Darwin a copy of his research, but Darwin never remarked on it.  Did he read it, was he too busy.  If he knew what we know now where does his inspiration lead him.  Genetics has killed random mutation for me, especially given the propensity for lethal mutation.
Biology, history, and evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.



Why on earth should we bother to engage you in dialogue?  You've pretty much demonstrated that you don't care about discussion, that you can't respond to points made to you, and you don't understand a single part of what you're ostensibly criticizing.  Those last two points are important.  Several people before I made the point that your comment "there are no transitionals" was utter nonsense.  Even in the context of your preceeding statement, it is utter nonsense.  Yet at no point did you respond to those comments.

Either you can hold a coherent discussion of points that trouble you or you can't.  Considering your ignorance of biology, biochemistry, basic logic, science practise, science theory, physics, and history, I'm betting you can't.

But feel free to try. :p

Date: 2006/05/31 02:37:40, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
I remember this game but in my anger I've allowed myself to be sucked in, Socrates would be so proud of you, but turn about is fair play so lets look at one of your statements and if we prove its wrong then we prove that you have no idea what you talking about in any respect and maybe even we extrapolate from there that you probably shouldn't even be wasting the precious oxygen on this planet by drawing breath.  Thats your method, right?
I'd say you have some serious anger management issues to work out.  Best of luck to you!

Quote
and, if I may, Einstein never really embraced quantum theory, remember the famous 'God does not play dice' quote
RGD: History, physics.  Factually incorrect.

It is a fact that Einstein made the famous quote "God does not play dice" and he did so in an ongoing agrument with Niels Bohr over quantum theory and its implications that raged back and forth through the 20s.  Now I certainly wasn't there but I've read about it and I'm pretty sure that it happened regardless of what you, Rilke, say.
What Einstein said was, "you believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture."  Accuracy is important here.

Quote
As to the rest of your comments, they are meaningless.  "Factually incorrect" means what?
It means that your statement is factually incorrect.  It is wrong.  It is in error.  Plain, simple, English.

Quote
That you don't actually know what you're talking about but it makes you look smart to respond in some way on all these statements.  If you'd care to actually address anything thats been said in something more than a one word answer, feel free, but I doubt if you can.
These points have all been addressed; that's what I stated above.  The fact that you haven't responded to those addresses is what indicates that you are incapable of conducting an actual discussion of the issues.

So far on this thread you have posted a large number of scientifically illiterate statements, followed by a continual argument from ignorance.  When questioned on your inaccurate statements, you simply ignore the point and drift on to something else.  It is not feasible to hold a serious discussion with a person who 'debates' in such a fashion.

Quote
And as far as transitional forms, I'll make my final statement on that because we've moved well beyond that.  There just aren't enough hours in the day to talk about everything.

The fossil record is either a proof in support of the current theory or a proof against it, depends on who you are and when in history we talking about.
Which is a logically meaningless statement.  Of course evidence varies in importance and indication according to the state of the theory.  But the fossil record has always and without exception been good evidence for the theory of evolution.  Your ignorance of science history blinds you to the truth on this point.  The nature of the fossil evidence supports varying speciation timeframes, and that's where the debate over 'punctuated equilibrium' arose.
Quote
Current thinking is that the record displays exactly what we would expect to find.  Historically speaking, this is not what was anticipated because we were told that all the transitional forms were there we just needed to find them.
And we did.  Darwin made no particular claims about the precise number and frequency of fossils - since he made no precise claim about the timeframe of speciation.  You'd know this if you had read Darwin. (Feel free to go find some web-site to yank off a quote or two to 'demonstrate' to me that you've already read him.  You'd be more fun if you weren't so predictable.)  Moreover, this is a meaningless comment: the theory has come a long way since Darwin's basic outline was put forward.  His mechanisms for variation, for example, are pretty much discarded (at least at the macro level).  So what Darwin anticipated is not relevant to the validity of the theory nor to the state of the fossil record.

I repeat: if you understood anything about the theory, you'd not have made that asinine remark about the lack of transitionals.  Therefore you don't understand anything about the theory.  QED.
Quote
Now there have been enough potential forms found to close the book in some peoples minds that the fossil record supports evolution (current theory).
The fossil record has always supported the theory.

Geez.  Learn some science before you start blathering.

Quote
I, myself, think that the jury is still out on this issue and may never come to a verdict.
You, yourself, can think whatever you want.  Your opinion, uninformed as it is, is meaningless.
Quote
Debates among  paleontologists over new finds, classifications, dating, etc highlights the difficulties inherent in the science.
They reflect the difficulty of creating precise histories of events that occured millions of years in the past and are definitionally characterized by limited data.  

Quote
Now going back to the original question as to an example of data that had been "falsely fitted", I think you see in the fossil record what you want to see and that makes resolving it problematic.
I see that you remain ignorant of the theory; while you do so, your opinion on the fossil record remains valueless.

Quote
There, you got your answer and now if you wish to contribute productively, so be it.  If all you wish to do is spew your hatred, you're wasting your time and you might want to do alittle self-examination and figure out why you feel so threatened.
I find you amusing and rather sad; highly defensive and rather stupid.  I'm sorry for your vanity, but you don't rise to the level of 'hatred'; that would require dialogue of actual substance on an emotional topic.  These are my impressions based on what you've posted which - as I pointed out - is really content free.  I also think you need to work on that anger management thing, my child.

We've demonstrated that you're ignorant of some fairly basic science.  You can correct that, or you can continue to embarrass yourself.  Your choice, of course!

Go read a textbook (Futuyma is good).  Learn something about basic evolutionary theory.  Learn some logic.  Learn some manners.

Then come back and debate.

Date: 2006/05/31 03:14:20, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
No, that looks like a pretty good summary.

That's why I like folks like Dave: ignorant and proud of it!  Predictable and proud of it!  Utterly non-christian and proud of it!

That's why I don't like folks like Dave: child molesters.  There is no essential difference between Dave and some onanist obsessed with eight-year-olds.

Date: 2006/05/31 07:29:41, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 31 2006,12:22)
Quote (jeannot @ May 31 2006,11:34)
This is not correct, Tyranosaurus is not an ancestor of birds, but your message is clear.

Nevertheless this argument is not sufficient. You have to assume common descent first. A fossil alone doesn't prove that it is transitional.

Of course, we have a lot of evidence for common descent. I suggest you examine them Skeptic. Also, have you read the article by Wesley about the alleged lack fo transitional fossils?

Hey, I'm not a paleontologist or a taxonomist (or a scientist at all, for that matter), but T. rex is at minimum transitional between earlier and later theropods. :-)

Now, is any particular fossil transitional between two other forms? Well, not if it didn't reproduce, for one thing. And is it transitional between one particular fossil and another particular fossil? Extremely doubtful. But that's not really the point, is it? Is any particular set of bones in a human cemetery the ancestor of any other particular set of bones in some other cemetery? About as likely, I would think. After all, assuming common descent (which is about a solid an assumption as one can make in all of science), what we're really talking about is a gigantic genological tree, extending all the way back to the origin of life. There are probably not many fossils of organisms that left descendants that fossilized themselves, given the rarity of fossils in general, but there are certainly many fossils that are of the same species as organisms that left descentants that fossilized, and essentially all of those fossils are transitional between one organism and another.

I think the point is that any particular fossil is representative of a conjectural species; it is the species which is actually transitional.

And I think that using transitional in this fashion robs of it of meaning.  Is there some better word we could use?  Or should we just junk the whole 'concept' of transitional?  ???

Date: 2006/05/31 15:59:59, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
And as predicted, skeptic continues to ignore any post contradicting his erroneous position of ignorance.

Geez, we should just boilerplate our answers; the creationists never come up with anything new.

:D

Date: 2006/05/31 16:39:13, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (skeptic @ May 31 2006,20:24)
Interesting discussion, but I will stick to my guns on this.  The major limiting factor are the fossils themselves.  We can infer relationships and recognize patterns and see what we want to see but ultimately nothing conclusive is possible.  What I'd really love to see is if we could somehow recover DNA from these species and make meaningful comparisons, but to date I don't think thats possible.  Although I seem to remember an attempt at recovering DNA from a preserved mastadon.  This was a few years back but did anything ever come from that?

Once again, this appears to demonstrate a fundamental inability to understand science (and quite incidently puts quit-claim to the boast of being a 'biochemist';).  Of course nothing conclusive is possible; that's not what the scientific method produces.

The theory of evolution is the best current explanation to fit the observed facts.  That's all.  Like all models, it's imperfect; like all models it's incomplete.

The irony of skeptic here is that he's now contradicting himself: first he claims that no transitionals exist - a nice, clear conclusion - but now he claims that nothing conclusive is possible.

This complete inability to reason makes me pity those for whom he writes his computer programs.

Skeptic, you have a choice: you can discuss like an adult - in command of actual facts, an ability to reason, and some indication that you're actually paying attention....

Or you can continue in the juvenile fashion you've adopted here.

Your choice, of course, but you're beginning to rival afDave for sheer stupidity, ignorance, and deceit.

And that's pretty good!

:p

Date: 2006/05/31 16:50:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 31 2006,21:31)
hey skeptic -

congratulations on becoming the replacement scratching post at ATBC.

There's not much left of AFDave and T-diddy.

Your timing couldn't be better, really.

Did someone here send out an ad for a new resident troll?

Sorry, it was me!

I thought maybe I could entice BillyGrahamIsCool over from IIDB, since his position was so thoroughly annihilated that he seems to have abandoned posting there.

So I'm the one that placed the advert.

:O

Date: 2006/06/01 04:01:33, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
I couldn't agree more but my main limitation on this topic is that I'm just not passionately moved by the fossil record.  Others may see evidence here, those who are trained to see or those who accept their opinion and I am neither.
In other words, despite the fact that you admit you know little or nothing about this field, you refuse to accept the conclusions of those who are experts.  In what possible fashion is this not an 'argument from personal incredulity', one of the great logical fallacies?

Answer: it's not.

Quote
But ultimately the validity of the current theory will not rise or fall on the strength of the fossil record.
This is, of course, nonsense: the existence of a chronologically-graded fossil sequence is crucial evidence for the current theory.
Quote
Ironically, it could do more harm then good if fossils were to appear out of time chronology, but thats neither here nor there.
Again, nonsense: fossils appearing out of time sequence would have a significant impact on the current theory, since it would throw some doubts on the concept of intermediates and their relationships.  Your use of the term "ironical" in this context is forgiven, given your admitted ignorance of the topic.

Quote
But I'm going to finish up Wes's rebuttal, although its more of a translation than analysis for me.  Wes, do you happen to have the english version, LOL? (I'm claiming a half-point assist on all the barbed comments from that statement)
Again, I wonder at your valuation of your own opinions - opinions based on self-admitted ignorance of the field.

If a programmer were to off the opinion that Java is, after all, much more efficient that machine code, and completely not 'object-oriented', you would treat him with the same disdain we are now treating you - and for similar reasons.

Quote
Anyway, someone is really going to have to let me in on this "troll", I have no idea what you're talking about
To your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, we must add an inability to use 'google'.

Learn to; it is your friend:
Quote
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion (see Anonymous Internet posting).
from the very first entry.

Took all of .5 seconds.

Nice to see you Billy.  I thought you'd show up here eventually.

Date: 2006/06/01 04:11:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
Another kind of troll is someone like AFDave who comes in pretending to have an attitude of "hey, I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say, let's talk!".  But very quickly you realize that you're talking to a brick wall.  They have their own agenda, little to no actual conversation takes place, and nobody learns much about anything.  The best that can be said about this kind of troll is that they make an interesting study in psychology.
Well, given that skeptic's OP contained numerous errors of fact, and given that skeptic has not really responded to any of those points by either (a) educating himself or (b) explaining himself, and given that skeptic ignores any set of questions which he apparently can't answer, and given that skeptic's entire concerns about evolutionary theory that he has shared to date consist of "I don't believe it," I think it's a safe inference that we are, at the moment, dealing with precisely this kind of troll.

Of course, skeptic could put all this speculation to rest - but I predict that he will not do so.  I predict that he will avoid any such discussion in favor of harping on increasingly small and irrelevant 'challenges' to evolution.  I also predict that he will continue to avoid making any response to our various demonstrations of his scientific ignorance on any point.

His behavior is classic, and amusingly familiar.

:)

Date: 2006/06/01 06:37:52, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
And once again, 2nd Lt. Dave gets the facts wrong.

Quote
Now I know that there are some of you who once claimed to be Christians as well, but have now rejected Christianity as both of these men did ... maybe you never really had true Christianity which involves a personal relationship with the Creator.  There are many flavors of false Christianity in the world today, and I probably would have rejected Christianity also if I had one of those flavors.
Flew didn't become a Christian - he has become a partial deist; and he has rejected ID now that he's found out that it's vacuous.

I wouldn't expect you to know this; you'd have had to google to find that out:
Quote
Philosopher Antony Flew, famous as an atheist for most of his career, briefly became a convert to ID a while ago, before suddenly recanting (as reported here, he said, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction"). I don't know his current position but his skeptical credentials on this issue are tattered.
from here.

From someone who claimed to be a google-expert, that's a shocking inability to use a computer.

Poor Davey is a little fool,
His brain just doesn't think,
And everything that Davey says,
is sure to make us blink.

Cheer up, Dave!  When you grow up, you too can learn to check your facts and google things.  It's easy!

Quote
But there is a true version and the fact is, true Biblical Christianity is the only thing that offers satisfying answers to life's mysteries--whether you are studying biology, cosmology, origins, history, human nature, government, the family and many other subjects.
Since the Bible doesn't speak to most of those things, and when it's done it's demonstrably wrong, that would be a silly statement.

Poor Davey is a silly fool,
He doesn't have a clue,
The Bible's worthless as a source
For anything but __.

Quote
Those of you who have never read the Bible, you at least owe it to yourselves to read it.  Don't pick and choose little snippets.  Just read it straight through.  If you only have time to read a little, read the Book of Romans, then John.  Then go back and start at Genesis.  Warning:  your life may never be the same!
I've read it cover to cover over a dozen times in varying translations; I've studied it for years; I've read dozens of books on it.

To any actually intelligent person, it's crap.

Quote
Here's one more nugget from Dembski that I just love because I believe it relates so well to Creationism and ID ...

Quote
Ignore, Laugh, Fight, Win
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. –Mahatma Gandhi


Where are we with Creationism and ID?  We are way past 'Ignore' judging from how much IDers and Creos are mentioned at Panda's Thumb.  And we are past 'Laugh' and well into 'Fight' although there is still plenty of laughter going on.
We're at the laughing stage.  We'll always be at the laughing stage.

Creationism is for morons, Dave.  Wake up and smell the reality of the world.  Otherwise we'll just keep laughing at you.  Like all your buddies in the Air Force did.  Like your children will when they grow up and find out how deluded, psychotic, and generally stupid their father is.

Do you really want your children to hate you for lying to them?  Are you really that bad a parent?

Quote
I guess it is only a matter of time before the 'Win' stage ...
Eternity is a matter of time.

Quote
Of course, I really don't care to win any arguments just for winning's sake.  What I really care about is the truth, which I hope that all of you will embrace at least on your deathbeds, if not before.
Well, you've lost every single 'argument' you've tried to make here, so I'm glad that winning's not important to you.

Poor Davey tried to argue that,
The moon is made of cheese.
We told him not to scrunch his face,
Because we knew it'd freeze.


:p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/01 06:47:24, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Poor Davey is a wordy fool,
With nonsense he does gush,
It's possible that this is 'cause,
It all comes from his .

Dave, when are you going to make an actual argument?  We're waiting to help you refine those classes so you can engage in your usual pederastic pursuits, but you have to give us something to discuss.

Date: 2006/06/01 06:53:05, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I said
Quote
That's why I don't like folks like Dave: child molesters.  There is no essential difference between Dave and some onanist obsessed with eight-year-olds.

Dave said,
Quote
Hey guys ... here's your poster woman for your cause.  She will no doubt add a great deal of credibility to the case for evolution.  Maybe PBS could do a series on why creationists are like child molesters.  That would go over big with the American public.

I'm glad you're not denying that you're a child molester, Dave.  That's the first step in your cure.

But do it soon; think of your children (or rather, perhaps you should NOT think of your children).

But at least get help before your kids have to see you in jail.

But thanks for admitting that you molest children.  That's a start.

Date: 2006/06/01 08:06:59, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (argystokes @ June 01 2006,12:11)
RGD,

While I think a case could be made that AFDave's intentional deception of children and his discouragement of their critical thinking may be a form of abuse, I think accusations of molestation are over the top and inappropriate.  Unless you can demonstrate that Dave derives some sexual pleasure from brainwashing the kids, you ought to stop referring to Dave as a child molestor.

You are correct, sir. My information only extends to the confirmation that Dave engages in child abuse.

Dave, I apologize for implying that molest children.

On the other hand, I will point out that lying to children and deliberately stunting their intellectual development is child abuse, and for that accusation, I will not apologize.

Date: 2006/06/02 07:14:14, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I said,
Quote
I predict that he will avoid any such discussion in favor of harping on increasingly small and irrelevant 'challenges' to evolution.  I also predict that he will continue to avoid making any response to our various demonstrations of his


Give the lady her prize.

But we do note that Skeptic is now exhibiting yet another creationist 'technique': the contention that it's all a matter of "interpretation".  After all, if the fossil record (which as indicated, he is now completely contradicting himself on) supports evolution merely because, well, we can see anything we want in it; then it supports creationism just as well.

Classic creationist doublethink.

Shall we take best on what other canards Skeptic is likely to drag out of the creationist playbook?

Date: 2006/06/02 07:19:15, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
What I have always wondered at is the ability of theist fundies such as our dear clown Dave here to lie outright and yet somehow reconcile that with their ostensible Christian beliefs.

How do they do that?  Doublethink?  Stupidity?  Some peculiar epinephrin-triggered shunt that the rest of us don't have?

Anyone have any ideas?

Date: 2006/06/02 08:32:02, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 02 2006,13:20)
Steve Story...
Quote
How exactly do the "Laws of Relativity" show that?
Something tells me that explaining this again to a guy who doesn't understand that Biological Machines and Cosmic Fine Tuning are good evidence for an Intelligent Designer, is probably a waste of time.  Oh well, I tried.

We've moved on ... the topic is now the RATE Group and helium and zircons.  Do you have anything that could salvage your buddy, Kevin Henke, part time instructor at the world famous geological lab (?) of the Univ of Kentucky?  Or was it W. Va.?   He's up against a Sandia guy and he needs your help ... will you resuce him?

So on top of being ignorant of science, theology, christianity, physics, PORTUGUESE, etc....

Dave is a coward.

About what I thought.  :p

Date: 2006/06/02 08:43:26, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 02 2006,13:34)
I do have an undergrad degree in physics, and I would love for AFDave to explain relativity to me.

But see, this is simply another PORTUGUESE INCIDENT - Dave has made a stupid, ill-informed statement that is demonstrably wrong.

He has realized that his statement is nonsense, but, being the devout coward that he is, he can't admit that.

So he just tries to evade and avoid.

Coward.

Date: 2006/06/02 10:53:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I said,
Quote
I predict that he will avoid any such discussion in favor of harping on increasingly small and irrelevant 'challenges' to evolution.  I also predict that he will continue to avoid making any response to our various demonstrations of his


Skeptic said,
Quote
I think common descent may be a possibility but I prefer a parallel descent theme to up the odds and also because if a reaction is going to occur then it will continue to occur and so the fundamental elements will accumulate across the spectrum.  Now I'm pretty sure that common descent does literally mean all life proceeded from one single organism (correct me if I'm wrong) but I think a parellel view has broader implications down the road.

Sorry to off topic for a moment, but has anyone heard of a mechanism in which unused genes or genes no longer expressed are excised from the genome?

I'll get back on topic shortly.


It's so satisfying to be proven right again and again.  Gives me the warm fuzzies.  :D

Date: 2006/06/02 10:58:29, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
the ludicrous notion that machines like that assemble themselves without help


This demonstrates why Dave "Springer-spaniel" Scot really is a closet theist.

Every single biological organism on the planet - his 'machines like that' assembled itself without help.

Unless, of course, Dave "I'm a loser 'cause I've hitched myself to this ludicrously stupid concept" Scot believes that intelligence is performing every single biochemical reaction in the birth and development process.

"It is not that they are stupid.  It is that they are stupid like sheep."

Date: 2006/06/02 11:01:35, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Poor Dave is just having a "Portuguese Moment".

Remember that one Dave?  Where you made a fool of yourself in front of people who actually have brains?

A truly great moment.

:p

Date: 2006/06/03 09:14:20, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 03 2006,11:24)
Hey Dave, I'm still waiting for you to explain relativity to me.

He can't.

First, he doesn't know how, and since no creo-site that he visits can do it either, he's stumped.

Second, he's having another PORTUGUESE MOMENT; he's made a stupid remark and his ego won't let him admit it.

He's a coward.  No wonder they busted him out of the Air Force.  ???

Date: 2006/06/03 09:18:18, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (skeptic @ June 03 2006,14:10)
Icky, why don't you save me some time and cite me a reference on the human chromosome example?  The more I think about it the louder the alarm bells sound.  That example really sounds interesting.  If not I'll find it on my own. It will just take longer.

It will take you about three seconds on google.

Or are you simply too lazy to do any such search?

Date: 2006/06/03 09:28:10, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Skeptic, it would appear that like most closet-creationists we get here, you have a very short memory and even shorter attention-span.

So I'll repeat this for your edification.  Keep in mind that you can, at any point, demonstrate that you're not an actual ethically-challenged creationist by actually dealing with all these points of demonstrable ignorance and falsity that you ignore.

But the longer you ignore them, the sillier you look.

Here's a list of some of the factually incorrect (that is blatantly untrue statements you have made).  Some are about history, some are about biochemistry, some are about physics, biology, evolutionary theory, etc.  You don't bother to respond to any of our comments on them.


Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.

Science, biology, evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.

Mathematics, biology, evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.

Biology, mathematics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.

Ecology, biology, mathematics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?

Biochemistry.  Meaningless bafflegab.  No logic here.

Quote
but more difficult is the actual mechanics of random mutation, it taken at its smallest component, the substitution of a single AA, it mosts cases that it actually has an effect upon the structure of the protein you have a non-functioning, or reduced-functioning protein.  In the case of an entire gene mutation, now we're talking long odds, you still only have a single protein that may or may not have an effect and when it does it is almost assuredly detremental to the organism.  What we really need is for the random emergence of traits and this may require mutiple proteins, very very long odds.

Biochemistry, evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
I think biologists have just operated under the assumption that evolution is true and they're results reflect that.

History, science.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
and, if I may, Einstein never really embraced quantum theory, remember the famous 'God does not play dice' quote

History, physics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Traits must almost assuredly be made up of many genes and the expression of each may or may not be dependant upon the other

Evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Look at protein assembly.  Currently, protein folding is completely unpredictable.  We have to syntheize the protein and then look back to see how it folded.  Either the interactions are too numerous to model accurately or we're missing something.  When you look at the chemistry behind this it can be overwhelming.  Biologists are typically big-picture people observing at the organism and population level.  I really wish that this had started with chemists and physists but that was impossible.

Chemistry, biochemistry.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Newtonian physics was law and no one really was looking for an altrenative and if they were they certainly weren't talking about it, people would have thought they were crazy.

History and physics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
Then along come this patent clerk and drops a bomb-shell, of course it was initially refuted but later accepted and thats kinda where we are today.

History and physics.  Factually incorrect.

Quote
As to the progression in evolutionary theory, I'm not so sure that we'd end up in the same place.  One thing I find very interesting is that Mendel sent Darwin a copy of his research, but Darwin never remarked on it.  Did he read it, was he too busy.  If he knew what we know now where does his inspiration lead him.  Genetics has killed random mutation for me, especially given the propensity for lethal mutation.

Biology, history, and evolutionary theory.  Factually incorrect.

Why on earth should we bother to engage you in dialogue?  You've pretty much demonstrated that you don't care about discussion, that you can't respond to points made to you, and you don't understand a single part of what you're ostensibly criticizing.  Those last two points are important.  Several people before I made the point that your comment "there are no transitionals" was utter nonsense.  Even in the context of your preceeding statement, it is utter nonsense.  Yet at no point did you respond to those comments.

Either you can hold a coherent discussion of points that trouble you or you can't.  Considering your ignorance of biology, biochemistry, basic logic, science practise, science theory, physics, and history, I'm betting you can't.

But feel free to try.

P.S. You latest utterly inane statement - and one of the many, many statements that you've made that demonstrate that you're no more a scientist than I am Genghis Khan relates to your response to Wesley.

Your contention that the fossil record, because it is in agreement with the current theory of evolution does not constitute evidence for that theory is so inordinately stupid and that I'm baffled that you would say it.

So perhaps you should stop lying about being a biochemist - a couple of courses in college and a career as a computer programmer doesn't make you much of a scientist.

But you are funny.

Date: 2006/06/03 10:04:34, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
Kepler won the day over the lemmings of his time and I predict that today's creationists will also win the day over the  lemmings of our time.
Oh, and Dave?  You're having another PORTUGUESE MOMENT: Lemmings don't thrown themselves off of cliffs.

That's an urban myth.

Like Christianity.

:D

Date: 2006/06/03 10:33:30, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I said, [quote]I predict that he will avoid any such discussion in favor of harping on increasingly small and irrelevant 'challenges' to evolution.  I also predict that he will continue to avoid making any response to our various demonstrations of his ignorance.[/i]

Skeptic said,
Quote
plink-plink. Icky.


It's a tough burden - always being so darn correct.  It's a lonely destiny.

But somebody's got to do it!  :)

Date: 2006/06/03 10:48:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (skeptic @ June 03 2006,15:27)
Thanks Jean, I just want to make sure we're all working off the same material.  The internet is a big place.

Rilke
I'm compassionate so here's my last comment for you.  I've read your posts and seen your other posts on other threads and I'm beginning to see a pattern.  I can see regardless of the topic, you are a person I wouldn't hold a very long conversation with.  You're hatred, intolerance and bigotry are tiresome and a waste of my limited time to respond to.  Besides that I'm firmly convinced that english must be your second language because you really don't know what the words you use actually mean.  Use your time more wisely.  Go attack AFDave or GoP or whomever else you wish to because you're wasting your breath, or in this case your extensive cut-and-paste skills, on me.  I think that just about sums it up and I hope I've been clear enough for you.

That's so generous of you, Skeptic.

You will note - if you actually read the posts made here, that I began by being quite civil to you.  And I continue to be civil to you.

But you have make a large number of statements on this thread which are quite factually wrong.  They are egregious errors, quite unlikely to be committed by someone who is actually a scientist.

These errors are errors of fact (claiming that it is impossible to test evolution, for example); errors of history (claiming that Einstein's Special Relativity was a complete shock, for example); and most important, errors of civility.

A civil person would actually address their demonstrable errors of fact.  A civil person (or at least one who is interested in actual debate) would deal with counter-arguments, comments, and postings made in response to yours.

But you do none of these things.  You make posts which contain factual errors.  When this is demonstrated to you, you ignore the demonstrations and continue to make posts containing factual errors.  You make statements which are directly from the standard creationist playbook - yet you claim not to be a creationist.

You evade difficult questions; you ignore posters; you ask for help when you could have found the answer in the time it took to post your request.

While I am amused and interested in the various other poster's patience, I am puzzled by your inability to address the actual topics.

As well as your patently non-sequitur moments of complaint about topics such as the English language.

But since I still have hope for you, I will continue to draw your attention to your mistakes, errors, faults of logic, inconsistencies, and lack of support for your assertions in the hope that you can learn something and eventually be able to engage in actual debate.

I'm so sorry that you find this practice to be one that you are unable to deal with.

But then answer me this question: why can't you deal with it?  Why are you apparently unable to deal with criticism, logic, or any counter-arguments?

A scientist should be able to do so.

And as I pointed out before, you hardly rise to the level of hatred, intolerance, or bigotry - though I do have those emotions about some folks.

I hate the cruel and the malicious.

I am intolerant of stupidity and ignorance and sloppy-thinking.

I'm not bigoted at all - that's yet another completely unsupportable non-sequitur on your part - are you quite sure that English is your first language?  You don't seem to understand what these words mean, or you are so full of yourself that you think I actually would waste time hating you.

Poor child.  Do grow up.  In the great scheme of things, you're pretty trivial.

Now, if you wish to conduct an actual discussion, offer some argument other than, "I don't personally believe X."  Because that's all we've seen so far.

Date: 2006/06/03 12:37:59, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (qetzal @ June 03 2006,16:42)
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 03 2006,14:28)
Skeptic, ...[h]ere's a list of some of the factually incorrect (that is blatantly untrue statements you have made).

You forgot one, RG:
 
Quote
I'm a biochemist...

Ah, thanks.  I must have missed that.

What is most obvious here is that Skeptic doesn't understand how science works: how theories are confirmed (or modified or rejected) or how evidence is interpreted.  This is shocking in someone who claims to be a biochemist.

And quite frankly, I've never seen someone who is both a biochemist AND a computer programmer.  Quite puzzling.

Date: 2006/06/04 10:28:01, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (MidnightVoice @ June 04 2006,14:27)
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 03 2006,17:37)
And quite frankly, I've never seen someone who is both a biochemist AND a computer programmer.  Quite puzzling.

I think that can happen.  Many of the people (of an advanced age, who grew up before computers :D) who are carrying out in silico experiments, were in fact biochemists at first.  They then developed advanced math and computer skills.  It can be done.

I'll take your word for it.  Does that imply that our friend Skeptic is actually older than the 4-year-old mentality he displays would indicate?  Astonishing!

So Skeptic old man ( :D ), would you like to present some actual arguments?

Would you like to address the various inaccurate, illogical, or just plain idiotic statements you've made so far?

Would you like to have another little hissy fit?

Pick one.  I'll just keep posting your errors so that you don't forget them - who knows, you might actually have the chutzpah to respond to one of them.

Date: 2006/06/04 12:08:19, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 04 2006,16:30)
Quote
saying "X is evidence for my claim" is not an argument. You have to explain why X is evidence for your claim.
I have done that several times.  The problem is that explaining things over and over again to people who have their minds made up a certain way is pointless.  I have encountered this same thing with the Cosmic Fine Tuning and Biological Machines.

You're not going to agree with me on the relativity thing and that's quite alright.  I have never been under any illusions that people here would agree with what I say.

Only cowards, lie, Dave.  Is that why you avoided actual combat to fly 'simulators'?  Pretty cowardly way to "be" in the Air Force.

You have presented nothing, as yet.  You are unable to support your relativity argument because it wasn't an argument - just a random stupid statement like that nonsense about PORTUGUESE.

You have offered no arguments; no logic; no evidence.

You have made lots of scientifically inaccurate, logic-challenged, rather stupid assertions.

Tell me, child, do you actually enjoy looking like a loon?  Do you mind the fact that everyone here is laughing at how simple-minded, vain, cowardly, and generally stuipid your arguments are?

Honestly - do you enjoy looking stupid?

Date: 2006/06/05 02:46:58, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Skeptic continues to demonstrate that his understanding of how science works (and what the theory of evolution actually says) is nil:
Quote
This comparison is faulty and it illustrates. I think, the false thinking around this whole issue.  The shape of the Earth can be directly observed and verified.  You can send a satelite into space, circle the Earth and photograph it and collect conclusive data.  Any resolution of the question of common descent must be inferred from the available data and we are about 4.6 billion years removed from the event.
The theory of evolution is not the theory of abiogenesis.  Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the topic you are trying to discuss.  As we have pointed out from your initial, almost entirely nonsensical OP, you are ignorant of the theory of evolution.  And by these remarks, it's pretty darn clear that you are ignorant of how science actually works.  There is no 'direct' evidence of pretty much anything; we infer to best possible explanation given the observations we've got.

For over one hundred and fifty years we have been testing the theory of evolution.  We have made changes to it: we have found new mechanisms, new ideas about time-frames, new mechanisms of heritable morphology - but what we have not done in that time is found a single piece of counter-evidence.

This is important (not that you would understand why, of course): literally thousands of experiments (which you're unaware of since you apparently haven't read anything in the biological sciences) demonstrate that evolution is the best possible explanation to fit the facts.
Quote
We will never know conclusively if common descent is true we just have to keep looking at the data and evaluating the results.
And that's how science works.  The fact that you think this is a problem makes it crystal clear that you are not a scientist.  You are most probably (based on your posting to date) just another ignorant fundie troll with arguments that we've seen (and refuted) a thousand times.

Of course, you could always prove us wrong by demonstrating that you actually have read and understood something about science.  Or that you can correct all of the errors in your posts (I think that virtually every post you've made has had some real howler of an error in it).
Quote
Think of it this way, I would bet my life on the shape of the Earth.  Would you really bet your LIFE on common descent?  Think about that seriously.  I think you'll see that there is a very real difference between the two and yet you describe them both as "fact".
Sure.  I'd bet my life on common descent.  (It looks like we've got a hidden 'Pascal's Wager' going on here.

Quote
To go even further, if I were to say that the three divisions of life, eukaryotes, archaea and eubacteria, developed independantly and are only similar because the mechanisms that are responsible for their development are the same and promote similar outcomes, it would be difficult to dispute that since we have no direct evidence of the common ancestor.
So?  That wouldn't change the theory of evolution at all.  Since you haven't read Darwin (or pretty much anything in the sciences, Mr. "I'm just an ignorant fundie troll pretending to be a scientist"), you wouldn't know that Darwin did not claim a 'single' ancestor; nor does anyone else that I am aware of.

Why persist in being scientifically illiterate when the internet allows you not to be?  Why keep posting things that make you look stupid, ill-informed, and irrational?  Why keep embarrassing yourself when you could correct it?

'cause truly, I am puzzled.

Date: 2006/06/05 02:55:33, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
can anybody else think of anybody who has ever posted here that has been as illogical, intractable, and incapable as Dave?

I really think Dave sets a unique standard that should be documented.
Take a look at 'Skeptic'.  At the rate he's going, he'll give Washout 2nd. Lt. "I'm a coward 'cause I only flew simulators 'cause bullets make scared" Dave a run for his money.

Dave just says stupid things, is soundly refuted on every single one, and ignores the refutations.

Skeptic doesn't even get around to saying anything except "I don't understand, I don't believe it".  Plus he lies about being a creobot.  Dave at least doesn't lie about being a creobot.

Both of them are hilarious.  Poor ghost isn't even in the running any more.

Date: 2006/06/05 03:37:13, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Caledonian @ June 05 2006,08:01)
I propose that what AFDave *wants* is for people to waste their time talking to him.

Given that you've minced, pureed, sliced, diced, shredded, torn, and gooified AFDave over and over again, and then proceed to do so *again* over and over again, I'd say that he's won the metadebate:  you may have refuted his points, but he's tricked you into remaining in the debate long after his points were refuted.

The important thing to realize is that's not a 'waste' on our part, necessarily.

AfDave is useful for three basic reasons:

1) As a representative sample of the "too stupid to tie his own shoelaces" brand of fundie, he presents the kind of non-arguments that they use; and consequently allows us the opportunity to hone our counter-arguments.  In that sense, he has been invaluable.

2) As a McGuffin (since we don't actually care about his illogical ramblings) he stimulates some interesting research (into Portuguese, or relativity, or ERVs, etc.)

3) He's funny.  Bottom line, he's remarkably easy to laugh at, and that's a great stress reliever.  And I don't even have to feel guilty at laughing at a fellow human being because he's too dumb to realize what an ass he's making of himself.

Fundies like Dave and Ghost and Skeptic are MacGuffins, nothing more.

Date: 2006/06/05 07:55:13, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 05 2006,12:36)
Small correction to my post about pre-Columbian Mesoamerican writing: apparently speakers of Aztecan, Mayan, Zapotec, and Mixtecan languages all had writing. It's probably safe to assume that Mesoamerican writing was created de novo once, and that all the later groups simply borrowed the idea. I think the consensus is that the Zapotecs created writing first, tho this isn't my specialization, so I'm not positive of that.

Like I said a week ago, it's thought that writing was probably only ever invented three times (Mesoamerica, China, Mesopotamia), and that every other writing system is an example of borrowing either someone else's system, or just the idea itself.

Naturally, none of this has the slightest effect on the validity of AFD's main idea. I.e., none of this somehow 'proves' a Young Earth.

More likely the Olmecs; they preceeded early Mayan development.

Date: 2006/06/05 08:22:45, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Poor Washout Dave is getting desperate:
Quote
Your a dead man, Deadman, at least about your anthropology.
Sad, too.

The amazing thing about Dave is that if he weren't so incapable of using critical thinking skills, I'd feel guilty for making fun of him and demolishing his various idiotic non-arguments.

But the willfully ignorant are fair game.

Date: 2006/06/05 08:45:49, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 05 2006,13:38)
Quote
...Seriously, sceptic, are you past eighth grade yet?


hmm, I'm thinking the opposite direction.

past 60.

only skeptic knows for sure...

Nonsense - there is no evidence for his age.  All those cakes are suspect; the later ones didn't have enough candles!

Date: 2006/06/05 12:10:13, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Wonderpants @ June 05 2006,13:51)
Quote (Faid @ June 05 2006,09:47)
Quote
I love the peanut gallery at ATBC. They’re better than The Three Stooges, The Keystone Cops, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and The Benny Hill Show rolled into one! None of them are actually banned. Some just don’t get all their comments posted. Some hardly ever get a comment posted. A few aren’t even on the moderation list because they’re not stupid or trollish. -ds


Aww shucks, Davesy! Thanks! We remember well your warm welcome and our hospitable stay in your forum, and we're honoured that a genious of your magnitude still finds time from single-handedly disproving evolution in his basement, to bother with us!
And I'm personally honoured to be compared to Monty Python by you. *fights a tear*

That reminds me of the single most infuriating thread/post I ever read on UncommonlyDense. Some of the UD posters started a Life of Brian quote game.

Dunno about anyone else, but the sight of the finest comedy film ever, which is entirely based around the concept of ridiculing the blind faith, dogmatism, and sheeplike behaviour of fundamentalist religion being quoted on a board which defines the above behavour made me want to put my fist through the screen.

Clearly you have not watched "Kind Hearts and Coronets" if you think some mere trifle like "Life of Brian" has any claim to be the finest comedy film ever.  :D

Date: 2006/06/05 16:53:12, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2006,20:51)
A runaway winner. Man. I wasn't expecting that. No competition.

Ghost is sincere, just looney.  Skeptic is a lying troll. Only Dave really demonstrates that is incapable of critical thinking. That's what's so funny - he has no actual ideas of his own: he' just a plagarist. And THAT is truly sad.

Date: 2006/06/06 03:24:04, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I think Sal's most amusing trait is his blatant narcissism; have you ever noticed how often he draws attention to that article in Nature (in which he was characterized, for better or worse, as a fundie moron)?

Fifty years from now, when it's still his sole claim to any kind of fame, he'll be bragging about it to yet another generation of uncaring, unadoring, creobots.

Of course, his other excellently idiotic trait is his fundamental idolatry: he doesn't just approve of Dembski - he worships Dembski.

Date: 2006/06/06 03:30:23, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Oh, I think Washout Dave will be back; he's jealous that we would spend any time on anyone else's threads.  He feels neglected.  :p

Date: 2006/06/06 03:49:43, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 06 2006,07:05)
Who is dumber, the fool, or the fool who argues with him?

When the "fool" is a MacGuffin, then it's OK to argue with him.  :D

Date: 2006/06/06 03:56:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I was thinking that there might be a nicer way to examine our local crew of creobots (I really must find another word for them) or MacGuffins.

Sure, they are all challenged by fact, logic, and manners, but is one more stimulating of interesting side-tracks than others?

Note the excellent divergences into Mesoamerican languages and PORTUGUESE found in the "Cut-n-Paste" Dave thread.

Note the amusing side-tracks into mathematics and cosmology in the "Crystal spheres" Ghost thread.

Note the.... well, sorry Skeptic, I'm having a hard time finding a good side-track from your thread.  But you're just beginning here - I'm sure we can come up with something.  Oh, yes!  N-body problems!

Let's face facts: none of these guys is here to develop any undertanding; they're here to preach, troll, argue, rant, etc.  But their value as intellectual MacGuffins needs recognition!

(And it's much nicer to see the postive side of someone's presence.  This'll get me good points in Paradise, I betcha!  :)  )

Date: 2006/06/06 08:58:27, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Well, Mr. Ectowisp, since the score was 0 before you posted, and 1 after, the only logical conclusion is that

you voted for yourself.

Now that represents the most entertaining example of trolling we've seen in a longish while.

Date: 2006/06/06 10:11:32, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Jonf said,
Quote
Boy, Dave, you really don't have a clue about aanyting, do you?  Geology, physics, chemistry, math ... all closed books to our Dave.  But you're ballsy enough to make it up as you go along.  Too bad you're so bad at making stuff up.
Actually, I think that's the problem.

Ninety-nine percent of the stuff that 2nd Lt. "I washed out" Dave posts is straight cribbing from AIG or some other science-challenged website.  This is the stuff that he defends by talking about it being 'on-topic'.

Occasionally he slips in an original comment of his own, and look what we get!

Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French

Relativity proves God

etc.

Every one of these really stupid statements is an actual original thought by Dave.  And every one of these really stupid statements is indefensible.

That's what these gaps are about: Dave looking for web-site material to crib and copy.

I don't know which is more pathetic: his stupidity or his lack of original thinking.

Programmed and unimaginative.

No wonder he never flew anything but simulators.

Date: 2006/06/06 16:38:38, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Oh, bother!  I'm so sorry.  My bad.

OK, now that we've gotten THAT out of the way:

Quote
A MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or Maguffin) is a plot device that motivates the characters and advances the story, but has little other relevance to the story itself.
from Wikipedia.
Quote
The element that distinguishes a MacGuffin from other types of plot devices is that it is not important what object the MacGuffin specifically is. Anything that serves as a motivation will do. A true MacGuffin is essentially interchangeable. Its importance will generally be accepted completely by the story's characters, with minimal explanation. From the audience's perspective, the MacGuffin is not the point of the story.

The technique is common in films, especially thrillers. Commonly, though not always, the MacGuffin is the central focus of the film in the first act, and then declines in significance as the struggles and motivations of the characters take center stage. Sometimes the MacGuffin is all but forgotten by the end of the film.

Because a MacGuffin is, by definition, ultimately unimportant to the story, its use can test the suspension of disbelief of audiences. Well-done works will compensate for this, with a good story, interesting characters, talented acting/writing, and so on. Poorer works, which fail in those areas, often only highlight a MacGuffin, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness. MacGuffins may be acceptable to the general audience, but fail to be believable for experts in the subject matter (such as a particular technology, or historical detail). (emphasis added)


Does that make it any clearer?  Sue me: I can't spell worth a darn.

Date: 2006/06/07 03:00:13, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Gee, Dave, as has just been pointed out, you lied.

Plain, pure, simple, outright lie.

But you claim you don't lie.

So that's TWO lies.

Hear that sound, Dave?  Laughter.  At you.  For being a liar and getting caught.  For being stupid and getting caught.  For being a liar and getting caught.

No wonder they washed you out of the AF - you probably lied about being ready to fly all those really dangerous simulators.  And you probably lost that last business of yours because you lied to your customers.

Liar.

Date: 2006/06/07 03:23:24, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Skeptic, once again demonstrating that he doesn't understand how science works, despite having had it explained to him multiple times, says
Quote
I'm just going to try and prove that it is not the only possible answer and that addresses that issue of "fact".
Dolt.

Of course it's not the only possible answer.  God could have created the whole thing last Tuesday.  Space aliens might have tinkered with multiple life forms and introduced multiple life forms at multiple times in Earth's history.

Once again, your basic problem is that you do not understand how science works.

The TOE is simply the best current explanation to fit the facts.  It's so darn solid (i.e. thousands of experiments by hundreds of scientists over more than a century) that we treat it as fact.

There is pretty much the same likelihood that you're a troll; you are certainly a McGuffin, and I'm sorry you didn't get more votes in the poll.

But I'm sure if you try harder, you can correct some of your more egregious errors of fact in this thread.

Starting with the OP, for example:
Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.
This is, of course, utterly false.  And since it has been pointed out to you that it's false, and you have not corrected yourself, we know that you're lying.

Quote
Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?
Of course.  It's been done.  Hundreds of times.  Go learn something about evolution, rather than relying on your ignorance (which isn't very convincing, by the way).

Quote
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.
Liar.

Quote
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.
Incorrect bafflegab.

Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.
Utterly incorrect.

Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?
Meaningless bafflegab.

I know that you're hurt that you didn't get a higher vote in the McGuffin thing; and I know you're hurt that we realized early on that you were a troll - but I have faith that you too can become as great a McGuffin as Dave "I washed out of the air force because I lied about the 'cowardness' thing" Hawkins.

I'll help by pointing out your errors of fact, illogical assertions, baseless ignorance, and general bad manners as often as needed.

I'm here to help!
:p

Date: 2006/06/07 04:45:26, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
I think when AFD tells us to 'get a life' on this it really means "please quit discussing this, since it makes me look stupid and I have no intention of ever admitting I was wrong".
I think this is precisely what is going on here.  Just like the whole 'relativity' thing.

Dave is comfortable arguing over stuff he got from other people's websites; but when he makes some asinine remark on his own initiative, it invariably turns out to be a complete howler.

But Dave, the 'Cowardly Liar' as it were, is incapable of permitting himself to look bad.  So his ego and vanity compels him to this unChristian, lying, disingenuous behavior... which simply confirms our opinion of his completely lack of ethics and intellectual integrity.

That's why he gets off these topics so soon (like relativity, Dave?  You lied about that, too.)

Here ya go, Dave, memorize this and you'll be in good shape:
Dave is a liar.
Dave is a liar.
Dave is a liar.
Dave is a liar.
Dave is a liar.
Dave is a liar.
Dave is a liar.

Got it yet?

Date: 2006/06/07 04:48:28, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
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.
Yes, Dave.  Here is your golden opportunity.  You can actually show us that you didn't lie.

You made the claim - you support it.

Date: 2006/06/07 04:54:33, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Russell @ June 07 2006,08:45)
I don't want to initiate yet another official "poll" - but I decided this morning I would use my spare time either to decipher Paley's mathematical "proof" of geocentrism, or to read and contemplate Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity". Which do you suppose would be a better use of my time?

[ ] Paley
[ ] Smolin

Smolin.  Three falls to a submission.

Date: 2006/06/07 07:58:55, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,12:38)
Quote (normdoering @ June 06 2006,13:38)
 
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,13:19)
 
Quote
Anyone know any evolutionary biologist who thinks Christians ought to be sent to prison camps? Nope, me neither.


The believers in the Darwinian religion regualarly assert believers in the Christian religion are somehow in need of psychiatric "help." Now, exactly what does this mean? Good little liberal evolutionists do not want to condemn people, for that would be "judgmental"--and only pale-faced right-wng Christians are like that, right? Hence, by claiming those with whom they disagree are "sick" in need of "treatment" as opposed to moral abominations who need to be thrown in a prison camp, they can keep their "nonjudgmental" image of themsleves intact.

Why is someone who professes to think Michel Foucault is evil echoing exactly what Foucault wrote in "Madness and Civilization"? Another name for  "PSYCHIATRIC FASCISM."

Foucault claimed that the rise of scientific and "humanitarian" treatments of the insane were no less controlling than previous methods.

 
Quote
I do not claim evolutionists have taken over America and are throwing Christians in mental hospitals. I am pointing toward the logical implications of what this attitude might lead to in practice.


It might be a good idea after all. Maybe we should? It would keep them from engaging the kind of mass  killing they're doing as leaders of various countries and terrorist groups.

First, I will explain my love-hate relationship with Comrade Foucault. While I disagree with his phiosophy, he brought evolutionistic liberalism to its logical conclusions. He embraced the nihilism at the core of the evolutionary worldview, while other liberals scurry around in attempts to evade it. For example, in a  debate with Noam Chomsky, Chomsky desperately squirms to hold on to the Christian ideal of justice but without the Christianity. Foucault cuts to the chase and explains jutice is a mere appendage of power. In an atheistic worldview, it must be so. Comrade Foucault kicks Comrade Chomsky's butt in this verbal sparring. Upon seeing part of this on television, and then hunting down the transcript of the rest, I realized what being a liberal was all about, and I opened up to the Gospel of Christ.

Foucault's thoughts on psychiatric oppression must be viewed in the context of his full philosophy. In his nihilistic worldview, there is no right or wrong, and hence no need to sugar-coat repression with theraputic "caring." (I'm sure he would have had no problem with throwing the "bourgeois" elements of society in explicit concentration camps.) However, his revelations about what is really going on made an impression on me. Since coming to Christ, I am always on the lookout for scientific-sounding, compassionate schemes to deprive men of their liberty.

As far as your last paragraph goes, you have bared Darwinain ethics as plain as day, plainer than Foucault, even. I will link to your post whenever I hear Christians being accused of "intolerance" and "bigotry."

Got jealous of all that attention Dave got in the polls and you didn't?  'cause your last rant has no relevance to this thread, no relevance to what 'liberals' believe, and no relevance to any topic of intellectual interest.

Sorry, Mr. Ectowisp, but you'll need to get your jollies elsewhere.  This thread is reserved for us making fun of a scientifically illiterate, dishonest, cowardly fundie fruitcake.  You volunteering for that role?

Date: 2006/06/07 08:32:36, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Hiya Dave.  Are you going to explain relativity and God, now?  Or perhaps you'd like us to discuss your mistakes and lies regarding Portuguese?

You said something stupid; got caught; and lied about it.  But you said you never lie.

So that's two lies right there.

And there's a lie you made above that you need to address:

Dave lied
Quote
Evos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Creos in.  Creos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Evos in


Dave was caught in his lie
Quote
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.
Would you like to try to lie your way out of that?

Date: 2006/06/07 08:58:25, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,13:51)
Quote
Got jealous of all that attention Dave got in the polls and you didn't?


Well babe, that hardly makes sense in light of the fact Nurse Ratched the fish-boy set up a poll just for ME ME ME!

Quote
yeah, this thread is devoted to the guy voted dumbest creobot, Paley, not for you to entertain fantasies about liberalism.


Well Stevie, tell me if Norm-Dung's suggestions Christians be thrown in some unspecified institutions where they would be watched closely some hallucination on my part, or did I really quote that?

Quote
Hey GoP--  Got anything to say about RATE?  As you can tell, I'm a little outnumbered by hordes of 'Evobot warriors.'  Maybe you could take up the Foucault piece on a different thread, no?


Dave, you are doing a great job kicking their butts all by yourself. I am fighting the same orcs on the cosmological front. I am sorry, brother in Christ, I have nothing to add to the RATE discussion, but as I mentioned, you have cleaned their clocks. I will no longer post on this thread.

Finally, if anybody else is interested in continuing this discussion, I would invite them to start another thread. If I can find the time, I might start one myself.

Narcissist.  :p

Date: 2006/06/07 09:01:34, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2006,13:58)
Quote

Well Stevie, tell me if Norm-Dung's suggestions Christians be thrown in some unspecified institutions where they would be watched closely some hallucination on my part, or did I really quote that?


I don't know what you're talking about, but this is the thread for the regnant champion, AFDave, not your fantasies about liberal nihilism. Why don't you start a thread called "Terrible Things I Imagine About Liberals"

Gosh - you don't think that Mr. Ectowhisp and Ann Coulter are an item, do you?  That would explain... oh, so many things.

Date: 2006/06/07 09:07:05, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
2nd Lt. "I Washed out 'cause I lied to my drill instructor about doing all those sit-ups" Dave said,
Quote
Yes. And if you go back and read you will see that you are making a ridiculous fool of youself by climbing onto Rilke's 'Portuguese branch.'  Just keep going and I'll cut the branch off again for you.
Geez, Dave - are you still smarting from having lost that PORTUGUESE MOMENT?  You do seem awfully sensitive about making a fool of yourself on that one.  Are you really sure you want to make yourself look like a complete and total idiot...again?

I know you're a glutton for punishment (look how well you've done in this thread alone by slogging on after ever thing you've said has been demolished as misinformation and lies), but really - another PORTUGUESE MOMENT?

I hated watching you look so flustered, nervous, and scared the first time.  The second time will be much harder.

But I'll love watching you fall flat on your face.

Again.

:p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/07 09:17:48, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,14:11)
Here's a snapshot of the current confusion in the helio/Darwin camp. I sense that someone's getting a little nervous!

Mr. Ectowhisp, by quoting Barry Setterfield, one of the great kooks of our generation, you've forfeited whatever possible shred of intellectual respectability you might have still had.

And just explain the model; explaining your rationale for using QM is utterly irrelevant.

Date: 2006/06/07 09:30:57, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 07 2006,14:18)
Rilke--  Do you know ANYTHING about ANY topic on science?

I'll even let you get by without saying anything about the RATE Group.

Chromosome fusion?  Cosmology?  Geology?  Anything?

2nd Lt. "I went into the AF 'cause I couldn't get a date" Dave, it is not possible to discuss science with someone who is, like yourself, utterly ignorant of science.

You crib all your 'science' from creationist web-sites or wikipedia.  You are constantly and consistenly shown to be wrong, mistaken, factually incorrect, illogical, or utterly lacking in any kind of argument on every point you have raised.

It's not fair to play mind-games with you; you would need a mind....  :p

Date: 2006/06/07 10:16:40, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Oh, and lest we forget that 2nd Lt. "PORTUGUESE MOMENT" Dave also said
Quote
You guys are getting way too complex about the relativity thing.  All I am saying is that there are many passages in the Bible that collectively give us the idea that God "lives outside of space and time."
No, Dave.  This would be a lie.  That is NOT what you said.  Should we remind you of what you actually said?  Just for fun?  Sure we should.

Dave "I never lie except about anything I've ever said - including that" said
Quote
I can show how the Laws of Relativity make it conceivable that someone could "live outside of space and time" (even though I don't understand how this works).


Note the difference there, Dave?  You claimed you could show this.

You lied.

Simple as that: you lied.

Quote
Now honestly I cannot conceive of this but I am not so arrogant as to say it cannot be so.
Well, yes: imagination seems to be one of the things you lack.  That's why you crib your stuff from elsewhere.

Quote
With the phenomenon of time dilation, it is now possible to conceive of God 'running on a different time scale' from humans, or even running on no time scale at all, which is what 'eternity past' and 'eternity future' sounds like.
How?  Be precise.  After all, you said you could show this.  Were you lying?
Quote
With the phenomenon of length contraction, it is also possible to conceive of God being able to reach all points in the universe instantaneously if all three dimensions approach zero.
How?  Be precise.  After all, you said you could show this.  Were you lying?
Quote
 Now this is sci-fi sounding stuff to be sure.  But can you see now what I am saying?
No, because you haven't actually said anything.
Quote
I am not saying that I can explain relativity.  I am saying that just the existence of these phenomena gives powerful (OK, drop the powerful if you like) support to the concept of an eternal, omnipresent God.
How?  Be precise.  After all, you said you could show this.  Were you lying?
Quote
And again, if you don't like this, fine.  What's new?
Nothing much.  What's gnu with you?  :p

Date: 2006/06/07 10:26:32, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
2nd. Lt. "Let's wash!" Dave said
Quote
Again, you don't understand the definition of a lie.  A lie is an outright, willful untruth.  I believe my statement above to be true.  I may be wrong.  It is probably an oversimplification.  But I think it is true as a generalization.  In any case, it's not a lie.
 Here is an interesting point, for which we can use the 'relativity' issue as a case example.

Dave said,
Quote
I can show how the Laws of Relativity make it conceivable that someone could "live outside of space and time" (even though I don't understand how this works).


Now, Dave has since denied that he can show this.

So - when Dave made that statement was he lying?

If Dave said, "I can leg press 2,000 pounds," would he be lying?

Yes.  And yes.

Date: 2006/06/07 10:31:45, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I see that Dembski has 'shut-down' the thread.
Quote
#

Thanks Mark Frank. I’m closing this thread and referring people to the next thread — “Casting pearls before swine — okay, I’ll do it [take #2].

Comment by William Dembski — June 7, 2006 @ 2:06 pm


How do you think he's going to bluster his way out of this one?

Date: 2006/06/07 10:36:03, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Ah.  By withdrawing... sort of...
Quote
I therefore withdraw the charge of egregious quotemining.(emphasis added)

Date: 2006/06/07 10:49:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave "I also washed out of the air force" Springer said
Quote
The author of the PT article is Pim Van Meurs (PvM) of talk.politics.guns fame 10+ years ago when he was an undergrad foreigner studying marine biology at UC San Deigo. As far as I know he failed to graduate, married a U.S. citizen (rumored to be an illegal marriage of convenience)in an attempt to remain in the country, and eventually moved back to the Netherlands (deportation rumors swirled). Rumor had it he was fired from a NOAA job in Seattle for spending all his time at work surfing the net. Maybe he should have been less interested in gun laws in a country that wasn’t his home and more interested in his college studies and his job. Interestingly, of all the contributors on Panda’s Thumb, Pimmy is the only one who doesn’t have an entry in the list of contributors. He is also the most prolific contributor at PT by far. My take on that is it would be too embarrassing for PT to list his dismal record along with the people who’ve actually done something constructive in their lives but they want him around because he’s willing to lie and perform hatchet work on people like Bill Dembski and they can remain at arm’s length with plausible deniability of agreement with anything Pimmy says.
Somebody steal his rattle?  I've seen three-year olds display more style and class.  And certainly more creativity  - that's the most hilariously boring mish-mosh of mash I've seen since... well, since 2nd Lt. Dave posted.

Not to mention the fact that Dembski himself admitted that Pim was correct.  
Quote
He probably hooked up with talk.origins, antievolution.org, and PT founder Wesley Elsberry (who also does marine biology work) in San Deigo or Seattle and switched his net surfing addiction from gun control to evolution at that time. And/or maybe he’s like Wesley’s pet monkey who everyone knows stinks and flings feces but can’t criticize because his owner loves him.
See, Dave, what we're looking for here is something interesting.  Something actually insulting.  You'll work on that, won't you?  In your copious free time?

That was really funny.  Is he always that silly?

Date: 2006/06/07 10:55:05, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (skeptic @ June 07 2006,15:43)
Quote (jeannot @ June 07 2006,15:31)
Clearly, you don't want to prove something based on facts, but try to twist reality so it fits your religious beliefs.

What religious beliefs?

A classic example of why Skeptic appears to be a simple troll.  He does not reply to the actual substance of the last two posts - the fact that his proposal is impossible given the nature of the data - but instead focuses on a completely irrelevant throw-away point.

That's why you didn't win the poll, Skeptic; you can't focus on anything except minutiae.  And since you never address the fact that your posts demonstrate lack of understanding of both science and logic, you appear to be engaged in the unethical behavior of trolling.

But cheer up!  You'll beat Dave yet!

Date: 2006/06/07 17:30:19, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (steve_h @ June 07 2006,21:17)
Quote
Every time I get into it with PT, I get this sick, dirty feeling, like I&#8217;ve been to an outhouse that&#8217;s in constant use but hasn&#8217;t been cleaned in years. I&#8217;m closing this thread down as well and will be more careful in the future about taking their bait.
Translation: This thread is making me and my obnoxious following look bad. To make things worse, I can't just "disappear it" as in the past, because I kicked up such a fuss about having to archive what they, or as it turns out, I, said, in order to prevent them from revising and/or disappearing their (and/or my) comments.  Therefore, in the interests of damage limitation, I am going to pre-censor any further embarrasing comments on this subject. Is there no depth below which those vile PT people will not sink?

I don't follow UD very much, so this question is asked in ignorance.

Once upon a time, I thought that Dembski was simply a misguided theist with enough mathematical training to compose sloppy diatribes.  But those posts show a truly juvenile mindset: it's the sort of thing one might expect from a poor-white-trash fourteen-year-old male.  It's not even very intelligent.

What happened to him?  Is it simply the fact that at an age when other mathematicians are doing interesting and intellectually challenging work at important institutions, he's stuck teaching stupid fundies how to add and subtract?  Is that the only people who think he's got anything to say are brain-dead morons such as Salvador and Dave Springer?

It must be very depressing to be adored by people that you despise.

Date: 2006/06/08 06:27:57, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Well, faid did a lovely job of pointing out why Dave is, yet again, wrong.  But since it's a PORTUGUESE MOMENT for Dave - one of those moments of such amazing ignorance, illogic, and bad manners on his part that it becomes famous, I thought I'd comment.

Let's begin, shall we?

Quote
And for all you Portuguese fans who joined Rilke on her branch again (Faid, Arden ... anyone else?  I think there were not as many this time ... I've got this saved in a separate file now so that whenever Rilke wants to look foolish, she can just bring up Portuguese again and I will respond with this for the benefit of our readers) ...
Dave at his best.  He lied the first time; he lied the second time; and now he's enshrined his lies in a text document so that he can lie via (wait for it!;)

CUT AND PASTE

Yes, here is a key thing to remember about Dave "I'm just a coward who cut and ran from the air force when they threatened to put me in actual danger" Hawkins: all of his 'arguments' (such as they are) consist of cut-n-paste from elsewhere.  He is incapable of creating and following a chain of logic on his own (no doubt the reason he lost his last company).

Quote
PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS
(Illustrating how some 'Evobots' overlook evidence which is as plain as the nose on their face, then call Creos 'idiots' for recognizing the evidence.)
Now, see, here's another classic 2nd Lt. "I abuse children and lie about it" Dave.

He lies.

He lies continually.

He lies by omission, comission, and pretty much every other way there is to lie.

He lies in public, here on this board where people with actual degrees, intelligence, and real jobs (not unemployment, Dave) can see that he lies.

What did Dave say?
Quote
Portuguese (which is a mixture of French and Spanish)


Excellent.  But note!  Dave has changed his story.

And of course, he's still wrong.  French and Spanish are modern languages descended from the same parent tongue (Latin) as Portuguese.  Like most languages, they influence each other in those geographic areas where their speakers intermingle.

But note that Dave didn't say "influenced by".  Note that Dave didn't say "has elements of".

2nd Lt. "I lie for God so that makes it all right" Dave claimed that the language was a mixture of two modern languages.

Alex Trebeck would be embarrassed for you, 2nd Lt. "I washed out of the air force 'cause it takes honesty to stay in it" Dave.

What would it take to show that Portuguese was a "mixture of French and Spanish"?

It would take linguistic evidence.  It would take a demonstration that Portuguese contains an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; French and Spanish pronunciation; French and Spanish grammar; AND NOTHING UNIQUE TO PORTUGUESE ITSELF.

Let's look at the stuff that Dave has posted and see if he has provided any of the relevant lingustic evidence, shall we?

Quote
(Hint: the big news is that they do this exact same thing with Origins evidence!;)

This from Rilke's source of choice (Wikipedia) ... I guess she just didn't read far enough ...

Quote
Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French
Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

Quote
and...
Quote
Portuguese and Spanish were essentially the same language until about AD 1143, when Portugal broke away from Spanish control. World Book, 1993, "Portuguese Language."
 Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

Quote
And the local linguist, Arden Chatfield, said that this may be true if you can show significant French influence on Portugal (which I did ... it's right here ... it happened in the 12th century).
 Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

Quote
Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of contingents of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].
 Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

And here Dave conveniently overlooks his initial lie: that it was Henry who engineered this influence.

Yet another 2nd Lt. "I claim to google, but I always get my facts wrong 'cause I'm pretty darn stupid; too stupid to fly real planes anyway" Dave moment.

A HENRY MOMENT.

Quote
Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.
 Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

Quote
Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone. (Dictionary of the Middle Ages, v. 10, 1988, American Council of Learned Societies) (From the public library, a famous, non-YEC source)
 Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

Quote
Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.
 Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

And we note that Dave has done another of his incredibly stupid mind-leaps and abandoned his claim that Portuguese = Spanish + French + other stuff.

Stupid, stupid, Dave.  Can't even keep his own story consistent in the same post.

And he does this right in front of intelligent, well-educated people who are laughing themselves silly at him.  That's what's so priceless.

Quote
FRENCH AND PORTUGUESE WORD COMPARISONS
Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK.

Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm

Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.
 Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

See the pattern Dave?  You have to present actual linguistic evidence.  But you can't, 'cause you can't find a web-site to cut and paste from.

Quote
And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here), instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots, you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...

We can see that you are a dishonest liar; an incompetent businessman; and a fool.  Other than that, your YEC inclinations don't mean anything - we don't think you're a fool because you're a YEC; we just think you're a fool.

Quote
phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)
 Hmmm..... Nothing in there about the linguistic admixture of French and Spanish.

Well, there ya go Dave.  You lost again.  Made a complete idiot of yourself in front of us.

I feel rather sorry for you, lying there in the mud, claiming that it's a gossamer bed.

I feel rather sorry for you, looking like a dolt, screaming loudly about how brilliant you are.

Is this why they washed you out of the air force?  For lying?  Figures.

Quote
Arden said ...
Quote
The 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy. The sites you showed me acknowledged no more influence than a late layer of French loanwords that postdates the splitoff of Brazilian Portuguese.
No. The influence begins during the 12th century, right when World Book says the languages start diverging.  


Of what?

Let's do this again slowly for you:

In order to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish, you have to have linguistic evidence.  That evidence can take the form of a demonstration that Portuguese contains an admixture of French and Spanish vocabulary; that Portuguese contains a mixture of French and Spanish pronunciation; that Portuguese contains a mixture of French and Spanish grammar; AND NOTHING UNIQUE TO PORTUGUESE ITSELF.

You haven't done that.

You've done nothing but lie.

Dave loses.  Again.  And we all do the happy dance.

Don't feel bad about being a loser, Dave - at least you won the poll for supidest creobot!  That's something to cherish in the future when your children have turned against you for lying to them the way your father lied to you.

I mean, I'm sorry your Dad lied to you.  I'm sorry he prevented you from developing anything resembling 'critical thinking apparatus'.  But don't take it out on your children - that's abuse.

Date: 2006/06/08 06:42:02, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 08 2006,11:36)
Dave, please explain why you are incapable of finding any citation from any linguist which confirms your theory, why all the linguists everywhere disagree with you.

Quote
Now anyone with an 8th grade eductaion can see this logic and it makes perfect sense.  


Well, at last we know what AFD's level of 'eductaion' is..

Actually, that would explain a lot.  Went straight into the AF without completing high school?

Date: 2006/06/08 08:51:44, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
2nd Lt. "I'm so dumb I repeat myself 'cause I forget things..." Dave said
Quote
1) Portuguese and Spanish were essentially the same language until about AD 1143, when Portugal broke away from Spanish control. World Book, 1993, "Portuguese Language."  I'm not sure why Faid could not find my reference.  It's right there in World Book (the hard copy, Faid, you know ... a real book like you tell me to buy all the time?).  Faid is almost correct with his quote ..
The reason Faid make his comment is that you lied about the source of the quote Dave.

Doesn't do much for your credibility when pretty much every other statement out of your mouth is a lie.

But you claim you don't/ lie?  How can we reconcile this?  By pointing out that you were lying.

'tis simple.

Boy you really took a drubbing this time, Dave.  Almost like a "wash-out"!

Date: 2006/06/08 09:41:45, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave, professional scholars make professional arguments. You have not done so. F'r example, if you make a claim about linguistics, you need to support it with linguistc arguments.

You have presented irrelevant historical claims.

That's why you lost this argument, and lost it in a fashion that made you look both ignorant AND stupid.

You've lost embarrassingly - don't make yourself look stupider by repeating defeated and irrelevant arguments.

Date: 2006/06/08 09:57:54, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
The longer you avoid actually trying to deal with the various issues presented to you, the stupider you look, Dave.

You lost embarrassingly because you were unable to support you linguistic claim with linguistic arguments.

You lost. You made yourself look stupid and ignorant in the process.

And now you simply look like a coward and a liar.

Poor Dave.

Date: 2006/06/08 11:00:14, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,15:24)
Faid ...
Quote
What do you have to say now that you know that all fusions are not harmful, dave?
Fusions?  You haven't begun to convince me that they are not harmful.

Chris Hyland says they are.  You say they are not.  Chris seems more honest.

Hmmm ... we'll see.  I need more data.

And once again, Dave simply the ignores the fact that he once again embarrassed himself with his ignorance, illogic, and general cluelessness.

Dave, in order to present yourself as something other than a laughing-stock, as something other that the winner in the 'dumbest creobot' contest, you'd have to address things posted to you.

But you're having a PORTUGUESE MOMENT.  Or a HENRY MOMENT.  Or a RELATIVITY MOMENT.

We know you can't actually address any of these lies and misstatements, because you've tried and failed.  We know that you're ashamed of your inability to hold discussions with people who actually know what they're talking about.

But cheer up! Maybe we'll hold another poll about most Homer Simpson moments and you might win that.

Date: 2006/06/09 06:09:58, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (GCT @ June 09 2006,10:28)
So, Dembski decided the best way to push his embarrassment over the non-quote mine affair was to publish right wing political commentaries?

It would appear so.  He's been burned so often (and rightly so) for just causing entire arguments to 'disappear' (and especially since he knows that no longer works) that he just buries under a ton of marginally relevant postings any trace that he has, once again, made a colossal ass of himself.

Dembski doesn't appear to understand a very basic rule of the internet: it is not possible to bury the evidence that you are a moron.

And he is, indeed, a moron.  Not in the 'intellectual sense'; he can still compose a readable sentence.

But he really does have nothing left.  Wesley is correct: his position has gone from important (to the DI and ID advocates) with his CSI concept and the Baylor center, to irrelevant (to the same crowd) by his fumbling away the center, failing to push CSI in any kind of intellectually significant direction, and his increasingly paranoid, juvenile, and ethically questionable behavior.

It must be hard to respect yourself when the only people who respect you are ignorant idiots.  ???

Date: 2006/06/09 06:15:40, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
2nd Lt. "I lie, but I lie about lying, cause I'm lying for Jesus who hates liars" Dave said
Quote
Yes. I'm such a liar. I know Rilke ... you've mentioned that.  And your ancestor is pond scum.  You really think it is, don't you!
There ya go.

Dave has admitted that he's a liar.  In pixel; black and white.

Quote
Yes.  I'm such a liar.


You read it here first, folks.

Of course, this makes his earlier claim that he doesn't lie something of a lie, doesn't it?  But that doesn't matter 'cause he admits he's a liar.

So some light does occasionally break on poor Dave's head.  :D

Date: 2006/06/09 07:57:38, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Buddhist and weak atheist.  The two are completely compatible (depending the vehicle you choose).

Date: 2006/06/09 08:04:13, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,12:02)
Steve Story...
Quote
I'm through with people who claim to have models and arguments, but don't.
I have a good model, plenty of arguments and I have given plenty of good evidence.  Maybe you don't understand the significance of the RATE Project ... and thus have no comment?

Dave, you have no coherent model, lots and lots of arguments, and you have given no evidence whatsoever.

No matter how many times you continue this logical fallacy of argument ad nauseum you will still be wrong.

You were completely wrong about the Portuguese thing.

You were completely wrong about the relativity thing.

You are completely wrong about the RATE thing.

And you're so embarrassingly wrong that you win top spot in a poll of dumbest creobot.

We don't help you, Dave.  We just laugh at you.  We laugh at your lies; your cowardness; your inability to reason; your mindless, unimaginative almost anti-Christian attitudes.

The only thing we don't laugh at is your child abuse.

But go ahead: make us laugh some more.  :p

Date: 2006/06/09 08:13:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I think a key part of the problem with holding any attempt at a dicussion with Dave here is that he does not understand what 'evidence' is.  Certainly he doesn't understand even the concept of scientific evidence.

Hence his inability to provide evidence for the Portuguese claim; his inability to provide evidence for the relativity claim; his inability to provide evidence for the RATE claim, the GULO claim; the fusion events; etc.

Because he doesn't even know what evidence looks like, of course he can't produce a coherent argument.

Do you suppose he can be educated on this point?  I've seen no sign that he is capable of learning or understanding pretty much anything, but I put it out to the various lurkers as a question:

Should we take pity on poor Dave's foundering around cluelessness and educate him on what evidence actually is and how one uses it to construct a coherent argument?

Or should we just wait for more Portuguese Moments?

Date: 2006/06/09 11:10:00, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Personally, I think he's just desperately seraching for a new way to become 'relevant' again: "Hey, that Dembski guy's sweet!  He just got a whole new name!"

After all, he can't do research; he doesn't do any relevant math (technically sound, but situationally irrelevant math games don't count); and apparently he's a pretty lousy teacher.

What's left?  Sitting around and being appreciated by Sal and Dave "butt-licker" Springer-Spaniel Scott must get rather dull after a while.

Date: 2006/06/09 12:22:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,17:02)
Quote
Or do you make them do it themselves because they learn better that way?
I'm happy to go search it out.  But it was Deadman who brought up the issue, not me.  Silly me ... I thought he was going to present some new great insight that he had.  All he did was spout stuff from Henke I had already read.

Ah, it's 2nd Lt. "Portuguese Washout" Dave being lazy yet again.  We've also read the stuff from Henke.

And you are, again, wrong.

Like you were about the Portuguese thing.

Like you were about the relativity thing.

Like you were about the fusion thing.

Like you were about the "Dave doesn't lie" thing.

Doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?  Is THAT why they washed you out of the air force?  Sheer incompetence?

Date: 2006/06/09 17:28:50, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,21:57)
Deadman is comparing zircons to tennis balls now ... mmm ... yes, quite similar in their ability to hold their Helium no doubt ... :-)

I note with considerable amusement that Dave is no longer even able to pretend to be able to adress the various arguments now pending.

What a lovely joke you are Dave; what an exquisite laughing stock you have become.

Washed out of the af.

Failed in business.

Too stupid to even attempt to engage in scientific discussion.

You like Lewis, don't you Dave?

Gentlemen, I give you 2nd Lt. "Child abuser" Dave:

Loser.
Liar.
Lunatic.

:p

Date: 2006/06/09 18:15:04, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 09 2006,23:01)
meh, screw this noise, the season finale of Dr. Who is on!

My roommate threw a boot through the picture tube.

Date: 2006/06/10 09:33:25, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2006,14:24)
I'm still stunned by how completely he won that poll.

Who's dumber?
Skeptic 1
Ghost of Paley 1
AFDave 35
Salvador 12

It also beautifully enforces the notion of Dave as a 'creobot'.  It's eerie, the way that no actual mind or thinking is displayed in this posts.  When he loses something big time; when he makes a complete and utter ass of himself such that he is unable to recover, he simply reboots his brain and starts repeating the same, refuted, irrelevant, non-arguments over again.

It's fascinating.  And it's actually quite sad in a way, since he'll die and have his God bitch-slap him for being such a complete moron (if his God exists, which seems to be pretty much impossible based on the non-evidence that he's given).

But I think it's clear that here we have a real winner: more fun that Larry; less monomaniacal than Thordaddy; more useful as a MacGuffin than Skeptic; and far, far stupider than Ectowhisp.

Gentlemen, I give you Dave "Lying for Christ" 2nd. Lt. Washout Hawkins:

Loser.
Liar.
Lunatic.



:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/10 09:42:46, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2006,12:48)
He's an arrogant idiot, but there's no reason to call him a business failure or a child abuser. Stick to the fact that he understands science as well as a brain-damaged monkey.

But I think an excellent case can be made for both claims.

First, the child abuse:

Dave is advocating deliberately lying to children.  He is planning to feed them misinformation, lies, distortions, and stupidity.  He is advocating making them unable to think for themselves, engage in creative thought, or even be able to understand the universe.

He is, in fact, deliberately attempting to produce brain-dead sheep.

Quote
Helping a child

Many people are afraid of reporting child abuse. They think, "I don't want the person I reported to know," or, "I'm afraid it will come back to haunt me," or, "it's not my business."
Ironically, if you asked people if they should help if seeing a nearby car accident, most will say yes. But in a case of suspected child abuse, that thinking may be different. Why? Because of prevalent attitudes that someone else's children are either "their responsibility" or "their property."
Without aware adults, some children might never receive help. Be an advocate for children by knowing the signs of abuse and reporting child abuse. Remember, you are reporting suspicion of child abuse. Even if you aren't sure, it's better to let authorities check it out. You might save a child's life!
You should know about these signs...

When you have concerns for a child's well-being, the indicators listed below may help guide you in your thought process. Many of these "symptoms" or "signs" could be caused by things other than abuse or neglect. Generally, these indicators do indicate that a child's safety may be at risk and, at the very least, the situation should be assessed by a professional who is able to determine the causes of these symptoms and offer the help and assistance necessary to reduce the risk to a child.
from here.

Note the following carefully:
Quote
Behavioral Indicators:

   * Behavioral extremes (withdrawal, aggression, regression, depression).
   * Inappropriate or excessive fear of parent or caretaker.
   * Antisocial behavior such as substance abuse, truancy, running away, fear of going home.
   * Unbelievable or inconsistent explanation for injuries.
   * Lies unusually still while surveying surroundings (for infants).
   * Unusual shyness, wariness of physical contact.
and
Quote
Behavioral Indicators:

   * Habit disorders (biting, rocking, head-banging).
   * Cruel behavior, seeming to get pleasure from hurting children, adults or animals; seeming to get pleasure from being mistreated.
   * Age-inappropriate behaviors (bedwetting, wetting, soiling).
   * Behavioral extremes, such as overly compliant-demanding; withdrawn-aggressive; listless-excitable.


Isn't it clear that Dave exhibits these tendencies?  Isn't it also clear that his program of mental and intellectual abuse is a repetition of the same abuse pattern he admits have suffered at the hands of his father?

Dave needs more than our help - he needs professional help.  And he should ideally be removed from any contact with children (his own especially).

As for the business thing... well, if he weren't unemployed, why would he have so much time to post nonsense here?
:p

Date: 2006/06/10 10:46:32, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2006,15:21)
Quote

First, the child abuse:

Dave is advocating deliberately lying to children.  He is planning to feed them misinformation, lies, distortions, and stupidity.  He is advocating making them unable to think for themselves, engage in creative thought, or even be able to understand the universe.


I really think he might be so stupid he can't tell his 'arguments' have been strangled to death, autopsied, and put in the ground. I think he might honestly still think that somehow he's correct, and all the evidence and all the scientists are completely wrong. If this is true, he's not deliberately lying.

I'm not sure that's relevant: does it actually matter whether Dave is consciously or unconsciously abusing children?  The fact is that he's doing it.

I'm always a little conflicted on the whole 'lying' thing because there are only really three possibilities.

Let's look at the situation:

1. Dave makes an incorrect claim.

2. We demonstrate that Dave is incorrect by supplying actual evidence and logic chains.

3. Dave usually changes his story; we demonstrate that he's incorrect there, too.

4. After some time has passed, Dave claims his original claim was correct.

Now, as I say, we've got three possibilities

A) Dave is lying.  He has been shown the information; he is aware that he is wrong; but he's just too egotistical to admit it in public (given the nervous, tentative, blustery nature of his most recent spew, I'd say that's what's going on).

or

B) Dave is literally too stupid to understand that he's wrong.  I feel bad about this one because it's not nice to kick morons; it's not nice to abuse morons; and this would certainly imply that Dave is a moron.

or

C) Dave is insane (like Larry Fafarman).  He's blathering without any clue that we're responding.

So what's it to be?

He's lying - in which case he's behaving in an unChristian fashion.

He's stupid - not flattering.

He's insane - we should call for the guys with the little white truck and the butterfly nets.

I think it's pretty clear that he's just lying - too vain, too egotistical, too unChristian to actually act like a Christian to act.

I think it's also pretty clear that he's stupid - he has too much trouble even understanding what 'evidence' consists of or how it works.

I think we can also make a good case for insanity; the whole mindless, robotic repeating of points that he's already lost on is just eerie.

So, gentlemen, I give you 2nd. Lt. "I washed out 'cause I'm a lying, stupid, bonkie" Dave:

Loser.

Liar.

Lunatic.

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/10 11:10:22, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Faid said,
Quote
As for the Portuguese thing, which wasn't about God in any way... I dunno. I think that dave probably thinks he's got a "get out of jail free" card from his God, which allows him to lie about anything, as long as he's a faithful christian soldier, fighting for the Cause.
No, I think the Portuguese thing is all about Dave's inability to admit error.  It's about his vanity and his ego.  He can't admit to a mistake, because his internal vision of himself is that of a champion of right and reason.

That's why he has stopped even trying to address it, and just dismisses the fact that he uttered inane stupidity and was caught flat-out lying about it.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Prophet, all is vanity.

2nd Lt. Dave "I was wrong about the Portuguese thing, but too vain to admit it" Hawkins

Loser.

Liar.

Lunatic.

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/12 07:56:59, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I feel somehow that I have achieved: a known liar, scientific illiterate, cowardly non-Christian has labeled me a troll.

Glory.

The amusing point, of course, is that it's not important what QFDave says (since QFDave has no respect on this thread or board, what matters is what the lurkers understand from our use of Dave as a target drone.

And as a target drone, he is magnificent.

Lurkers, take note!  The following summary of QFDave's errors will be repeated as often as necessary to remind any newbies about the mistakes, errors, and stupdities of the Dave-Drone

Dave was wrong about the fine-tuning of the universe: he doesn't understand that if you can't demonstrate that the variables are, in fact, variable, then the argument falls apart.

Dave was wrong about the significance of chromosomal fusing, and he lied about his understand of the sources.

Dave was utterly wrong about the Portuguese thing - he claimed that Portuguese was a mixture of Spanish and French.  It has been shown to him that he was completely mistaken, but his ego and vanity won't let him conceded that he made an idiotic remark. When it is pointed out to him that he needs to present linguistic evidence, he merely presents historical data which has no actual bearing on the case.  He is also guilty of mis-quoting, quote-mining, and lying about his sources. The interesting thing about this particular issue is not in his original error, nor the various factual errors that he made in an attempt to explain himself, but his complete and total inability to withdraw a stupid remark.

Dave was not only wrong about the use of relativity to show the existence of God, but he lied about his ability to do so.  Again, as with the Portuguese thing, he was unable, owing to vanity and ego, to accept that he had made a stupid remark.

Dave consistently shows that he is unable to understand and deal with basic scientific data and mathematics.

Dave is only able to discuss topics which has cribbed or copied off of various creationist web-sites.  This demonstrates his inability to come up with a single, original thought on any topic (not uncommon with creationists who are indoctrinated and brainwashed at an early age).

Dave is, unfortunately, merely a product of brainwashing as a youngster and a fundamental inability to engage in critical thinking.  He's also an arrogant moron, but that's beside the case.

Gentlemen (and Ladies, if there are any), I give you TARGET-DRONE DAVE.

Invaluable as a training excercise, since he can't learn and doesn't understand.

Invaluable as a target of laughter, mockery, and derision (we don't even have to feel guilty about it, since it feeds his fundie martyr complex).

Invaluable as a demonstration of how mental child-abuse can warp someone.

Invaluable as an object lesson in how not to be a Christian.

Dave "Target-Drone-Bot-Washout-Liar-Idiot" Hawkins

Loser.

Liar.

Lunatic.

P.S.Please note that any and all of the points I make above can be substantiated from this very thread.  I caution you, you're going to need a strong stomach - some of the things Dave says are so mind-numbingly stupid that it's hard not to retch.


:p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/12 08:04:43, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave:
Quote
I meant exactly what I said ... It is an accurate GENERALIZATION to say that 'Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French'


What did Dave actually say?

Quote
I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).


So QFDave did, in fact, lie.

A clear demonstration that QFDave, despite his claims, lies fairly regularly and apparently without conscience.

Well, God lies (says so in the Bible), so I guess it's not surprising that QFDave would lie to emulate his imaginary friend.

Date: 2006/06/12 09:16:32, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2006,22:33)
Quote
(and yes, Steve, I am sincere about the things I am saying)

thought so. the people who think you know better, and are lying, are giving you too much credit.

That is truly sad.  You really think so?  I mean, occasionally he says something that sounds intelligent.  Not often, but occasionally.  And I am trying hard to be polite and presume he's smarter than he appears.

Date: 2006/06/13 05:49:21, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 13 2006,10:34)
Quote (Nebogipfel @ June 13 2006,06:16)
So after reading the the last couple of pages in this thread, I think I can summarise the following:

After both demonstrating and admitting ignorance in the fields of biology, genetics, nuclear physics, relativity, geology and linguistics, afdave, you repeatedly assert that:

Those who do have expertise in these fields, and whose conclusions contradict your religious beliefs, are just plain wrong.

and

Many of those who have expertise in these fields are knowingly propogating supposed falsehoods for ideological reasons.

It's funny, it was extremely predictable that Dave would dismiss anyone contradicting his Young Earth/Creationist silliness on religious grounds -- they're obviously not TrueChristians, therefore they can't be trusted on anything. But he has a harder time dismissing the entire field of linguistics, since he can't construct an argument that anyone who disproves his ideas in the history of language is by definition a wicked heathen. So he had no recourse there but to respond to being refuted by repeating himself, ignoring everyone's counterarguments, and repeatedly declaring he'd already won. So it's an interesting case study of how AFD argues when he can't drag Jesus into it.

It's also one of those cases where he has no 'pre-canned' argument that can be taken from AIG or any of the other fundie websites he uses as his material.

That's another key thing to realize about QFDave: nothing that he posts is original - except the occasional oddball idiocy that he later sputters, fumbles, and grossly embarrasses himself trying to defend (e.g. Portuguese; e.g. Relativity).

Everything else - and I mean everything, even the counter-arguments to our demonstration that he's wrong - come directly from creationist sources.

This total lack of originality in his thinking; this inability to construct an argument on his own volition; this rote and mechanical regurgitiation of other's people's work; this plagarism, in short, is what keys me into the fact that QFDave is incapable of critical thinking.

It's also his most disappointing aspect.  These are old arguments; oft made; always refuted.  There's nothing new here, no startling revelation, no 'gee whiz!  Maybe the ignorant fundie has a point'.

Just the same old, same old.

Gentlemen, I give you Target-Drone Dave.

Loser.

Liar.

Lunatic.

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/13 12:49:30, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Because it's useful for QFDave to realize that he's wrong (and has been wrong on every single issue he has raised - a very impressive record of consistent stupidity); I thought I'd annotate his "list".

[quote](A) YEC proposes a Super-Intelligent Creator God.[/quote]

Yup.  He did propose it.

[quote]Evidence:
 (1) Finely tuned cosmos
    (a) Hoyle, Penrose, etc., summarized by Meyer at
[/quote]

It has been pointed out to him that the 'fine-tuned' argument is bogus without evidential support that the universe can be tuned; or that the universe was tuned on purpose.

Dave: 0
Posters: 1

[quote](2) Biological machines
    (a) Dawkins admits 'designed appearance' ('Blind Watchmaker' etc)
    (b) Bruce Alberts, Pres. of Nat. Academy of Sciences
        Uses terms like "assembly lines and machines to describe cells
    (c ) Denton: "Evolution-A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny"
        Wonderful cell descriptions, clear statement of anthropic principle
    (d) Behe: "Darwin's Black Box" - flagella, blood clotting, immune system[/quote]

It has been pointed out that no one has yet to establish that the analogy between certain features of biological organisms and machines constructed by humans is (a) valid, (b) would, if valid, demonstrate anything other than the fact that humans built all biological systems.

Dave: 0
Posters: 2
[quote]  (3) Universal Moral Code--C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity
    (a) There is a curious, universal moral code among humans
    (b) In spite of cultural differences, major portions are the same
    (c ) Everyone acknowledges the code, but no one lives up to it perfectly
    (d) There must be a source of the code outside of humans
    (e) It is possible that this 'Source' could be the God of the Bible[/quote] Even funnier.  Note that d does not logically follow from a, b, and c and that e just throws the entire thing out as an argument of ignorance.

Dave: 0
Posters: 3
       
Quote
 (4) The Problem of Evil in the World
    (a) Skeptics say 'If there was a God, why is there evil in the world?'
    (b) Evil is a natural result of Choice
    (c ) God could have made robots instead of humans
    (d) Human parents prefer to have babies over robots
    (e) Babies have the potential to experience great evil
    (f) Parents go on have babies anyway, in spite of possible evil
    (e) Why should God be any different with his 'babies'?

The old chestnut.

Natural evil is not a consequence of human action; therefore God is evil.

The Bible makes it plain that God lies; therefore we can't trust the Bible on the issue of God's morality.

It is entirely possible for an all-powerful, all-loving being to create humans as creatures who of their own volition freely choose the right.

The argument from Evil, therefore, stands unrefuted (certainly by Dave's incredibly primitive and childish counter-argument).

Dave: 0
Posters: 4
       
Quote
 (5) Laws of Relativity--Show plausibility of Biblical Theism claims
    (a) Makes it possible to conceptualize God on a different time scale
    (b) Gives some hints that God's claimed omnipresence may be plausible

This, unfortunately is a total lie on Dave's part, since he has NOT done any of this.  When it was pointed out that he was unable to even support his contention (despite his initial claim that he could show that relativity did this), he simply abandoned the topic.

Dave: 0
Posters: 5

       
Quote
(B) YEC predicts a Young Earth (<10,000 years old)
Sure.  And Hinduism predicts an infinitely old earth.
       
Quote
 (1) Why world history begins 5500 years ago, not earlier
It doesn't.  Tools and cave art predate all that.
       
Quote
    (a) Evolutionists claim H. Sapiens has been on earth for 200,000 years
    (b) Historians note that written history begins about 6000 ya
    (c ) It is implausible that humans waited 194,000 years to invent writing
Regrettably, this isn't even an argument.

Dave: 0
Posters: 6


       
Quote
 (2) RATE project: High He Retention in Zircons
It has been shown that Dave is wrong, and unable to respond to the arguments via anything more than paraphrasing Humphries.

Dave: 0
Posters: 7
       
Quote
 (3) Why Kevin Henke fails in his 'Helium-Zircon Debunking'
He doesn't.  But QFDave has indicated and indeed admitted that he's not qualified to even have the discussion.

Dave: 0
Posters: 8


       
Quote
 (4) RATE project: C14 in Coal and Diamonds
 (5) RATE project: Polonium radiohalos
 (6) RATE Project: Radiometric dating discordance
Already covered a dozen times elsewhere.

Dave: 0
Posters: 11

       
Quote
 (7) Multitude of young earth physical evidences explored
There is not such physical evidence.

Dave: 0
Posters: 12

       
Quote
(C )  The Antediluvian World
 (1) Cain's wife
 (2) The origin of civilization
 (3) Misunderstandings about cavemen
 (4) Kinds and speciation
   ... and more
Already debunked elsewhere.

Dave: 0
Posters: 16+

       
Quote
(D)  The Global Flood
 (1) Huge water-laid sediments all over the earth
 (2) Volcanism and tectonics
 (3) The Grand Canyon and Mt. Saint Helens
   ... and more
Already debunked elsewhere.

Dave: 0
Posters: 19+

       
Quote
(E)  Anti-Evolution Topics
 (1) Chimp Chromosomes--Did they fuse to form human chromosome 2?
Dave lost.

Dave: 0
Posters: 20+

       
Quote
 (2) Shared 'Broken GULO' gene between Apes and Humans?
    (a) 'Mistakes' are similar, but not identical
        --Dr. Max's Talk Origins article is thus N/A
    (b) GULO could have broken independently (ref. guinea pigs)
    (c ) GULO gene not determinative between Common Descent and Common Design
Dave lost.

Dave: 0
Posters: 21+

       
Quote
 (3) Bacterial Resistance
    (a) Commonly used to support macroevolution--see Talk Origins
    (b) Loss of information, not gain
    (c ) No help to 'macroevolution'
Dave lost.

Dave: 0
Posters: 22+

       
Quote
(F)  Miscellaneous Topics
 (1) Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French (among other factors)
    (a) Generalization, like 'the sky is blue' or 'the grass is green'
Not what Dave claimed, and is, in fact, linguistically incorrect.  Dave lost.

Dave: 0
Posters: 23+

       
Quote
    (b) World Book:  P and S were essentially the same language until 1143
Irrelevant datum.

       
Quote
    (c ) 12th Century: A large French influence began in what is now Portugal
Irrelevant datum.  Dave has not shown that this actually produced any 'admixture'. Dave lost.

       
Quote
    (d) Comparison of F, S and P words shows the mixture
Factually incorrect: Dave doesn't understand linguistics, I'm afraid.

       
Quote
    (e) Wikipedia acknowledges closeness of S and P and of P to F.
Nope.  Dave can't read.

       
Quote
    (f) EB: Standard P is based on Dialect of Lisbon (where F influence is greatest)
Which does not establish his initial stupid statement.

Net result?

Dave has raised or mentioned some 23+ issues.

He has lost every single one of them.

Gentlemen, I give you QFDave - the atheist's and scientist's best friend (since he shows how stupid the YEC arguments are)

Loser.

Liar.

Lunatic.


:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/13 12:55:57, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (jeannot @ June 13 2006,16:07)
Quote
Bad assumptions on carbon dating.

And what about dendrochronology, varves, stalactite sections etc? All wrong?
Will you argue that before the flood, tree sections accumulated more than one ring per year?

Oh, I'm still awaiting your opinion on plate tectonics.

He is incapable of giving it to you.

The thing to remember about QFDave is something that Aquinas nailed long ago in contra gentiles:
Quote
4. What is natural cannot be changed while nature remains.* But contrary opinions cannot be in the same mind at the same time: therefore no opinion or belief is sent to man from God contrary to natural knowledge. And therefore the Apostle says: The word is near in thy heart and in thy mouth, that is, the word of faith which we preach (Rom. x, 8). But because it surpasses reason it is counted by some as contrary to reason, which cannot be. To the same effect is the authority of Augustine (Gen. ad litt. ii, 18) : " What truth reveals can nowise be contrary to the holy books either of the Old or of the New Testament." Hence the conclusion is evident, that any arguments alleged against the teachings of faith do not proceed logically from first principles of nature, principles of themselves known, and so do not amount to a demonstration; but are either probable reasons or sophistical; hence room is left for refuting them.*


Dave has admitted that he is ignorant of all the fields he's discussing.  He has admitted that he doesn't even understand the remarks that we've made.  He has shown that he can't google or find facts on his own.

But Dave knows because of his faith - brainwashed or just defective in mental capacity - that something MUST be wrong with our arguments.

He'll fumble around it forever (since he's admitted that he is unversed in the fields we're discussing), but he can't admit that we're right - because his faith tells him otherwise.

That's why this is so futile and so sad: nothing whatever that we could say is acceptable as an argument.  Nothing.  Because it contradicts the Bible.  Not because it's scientifically wrong; not because it's logically wrong - Dave can't demonstrate either of those.  But only because the Bible says otherwise.

What's sad is that he probably never got a chance to develop enough of a brain to counteract all the years of brainwashing and mental abuse that his father inflicted on him (and, like all cases of abuse, he is now busy inflicting on his children).

It's truly sad.

Date: 2006/06/13 13:02:22, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 13 2006,17:55)
Rilke-

Why do I keep think of the Washington Generals vs. the Harlem Globetrotters?

I've no idea.  I don't know what your context is.  I've heard of the Globetrotters - are they still playing?  Who are the "Washington Generals"?

Oh, and I forgot to highlight the truly relevant passage in that Aquinas quote:
Quote
Hence the conclusion is evident, that any arguments alleged against the teachings of faith do not proceed logically from first principles of nature, principles of themselves known, and so do not amount to a demonstration; but are either probable reasons or sophistical; hence room is left for refuting them.* (emphasis added)


He's like a handicapped child that can never learn, can never grow as a person to any understanding of the universe.

I am reminded of the old saw, "Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It won't work and it annoys the pig."

Date: 2006/06/13 13:06:08, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Ah, the Washington Generals,
Quote
The Washington Generals were the mainstay opponent of the well-known Harlem Globetrotters for years, but were best known for their spectacular losing streak in fixed exhibition games. Founded in 1953 by former NBA point guard Louis "Red" Klotz, the Generals' only win came in a 1971 game against the Globetrotters, with Klotz scoring the winning basket. During the 1971-72 season, the Generals' name was changed to the Boston Shamrocks. Klotz disbanded the Generals in 1995, forming a new team, the New York Nationals, which also boasts an impressive losing streak.


You are implying that we only have to wait 19 years for QFDave to be right about something?

Sweet!   :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/13 18:25:09, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 13 2006,13:26)
Quote
Complexity in Dembski's CSI does NOT refer to "parts of a system". "Complexity" in CSI is just the same as improbability of occurring due to chance or regularity. Nothing about parts there.

This seems to be the most overlooked point. It is absolutely impossible to calculate the probability of the evolution of the flagellum. In No Free Lunch Dembski calculates the probabilty that all of the proteins in the flagellum formed at the same time from random combinations of amino acids. Any other criticism is unessecary, if fun.

That's what has always struck me about CSI: if something is designed, then there is no pathway from which a probability can be calculated.

In other words, you cannot, by definition, calculate CSI.  'tis impossible.  Or, more accurately:

If you can calculate it, then it's not designed.

If you can't calculate it, then you can't use the filter to determine if it's designed.

It simply amazes me that Dembski is so mind-bogglingly stupid.

Date: 2006/06/13 18:29:11, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (jeannot @ June 13 2006,15:07)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 13 2006,13:19)
Complexity in Dembski's CSI does NOT refer to "parts of a system". "Complexity" in CSI is just the same as improbability of occurring due to chance or regularity. Nothing about parts there.

But doesn't this probability depends on the number and/or arrangement of parts?

No.  Dembski is quite clear: the complexity is simply the inverse of the probability of that 'entity' having occured through unintelligent algorithms and chance.  The number of parts argument is entirely from Behe.

Date: 2006/06/13 18:40:24, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2006,23:37)
Quote

It simply amazes me that Dembski is so mind-bogglingly stupid.


Dembski isn't stupid. Ann Coulter isn't stupid. Neither believes what they say. They know that their fan base Is mind-bogglingly stupid, and they know there is plenty of money to be made off the rubes.

If I had an 'honest face', I would have been a televangelist a decade ago. Unfortunately, my features convey the 'dishonest snake' impression you see in Peter Lorre type characters. It's all very superficial.

But did Dembski get into this whole thing strictly to make money?  In that case he's a dishonest, hypocritical git.  if he honestly believes in what he says, then he's a moron.

How do we parse this?  :D

Date: 2006/06/14 04:58:05, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Caledonian @ June 14 2006,08:58)
The fact that Coulter can induce such a strong and violent reaction demonstrates that she's already won -- her goal is to incite reaction, and you're giving her everything she's looking for.

I'm afraid you don't understand Coulter at all.

Coulter is in the entertainment industry; she's controversial in order to sell books.  This isn't about politics any more than Limbaugh is about politics or Madonna is about music.

This is about money, pure and simple; she's a businesswoman trying to make money.  Like the strippers of old, she has a 'gimmick' that she uses to market herself.

But if we don't buy the books, then she has failed in her primary mission.  And we get free entertainment out of it!

:p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/14 08:44:10, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Ah! Finally an intelligent topic on which Dave can engage.
Quote
You may not be on a crusade personally.  But the NCSE is and I think they run this forum, do they not?
No, they don't run this forum.
Quote
If not, I think it is at least fair to say that you are probably supportive of the NCSE's agenda.
Most scientists are, since the NCSE agenda isn't what you apparently think it is.
Quote
To me, they are crusaders on a 'religious mission to sanitize schools of any mention of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer or a God.'
It's interesting that you chose to put that phrase in quotes; did you copy it from somewhere?  The NCSE is engaged in the business of making sure that religions remain as free as possible.  They have no 'religious' mission of any kind, since they are not a religious organization.  They're in favor of your (yes, that's right Dave, your) freedom.  Their point is that in science classes we should teach science.  In religion classes we should teach religion.  And one should not teach the one in the other.
Quote
They apparently think that 'Separation of Church and State' is in the constitution
It is by implication, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Quote
and they think that 'no establishment of religion' means no mention of a Creator or God in public settings.
This is utter nonsense; the separation of church and state simply means that the government cannot make mention of any specific religious belief in such a fashion as to endorse it.  Tell me, Dave - do you really want schools to teach your children religion?  Do you really want the federal government to be in the business of chosing which faith is correct?

We're a representative democracy; it could happen that we vote in a government of Muslims.  Are you quite sure that you want the government in the religion business?

This is about non-discrimination and religious freedom, Dave.  It's about removing (in cases such as the 'ten-commandments' instance) pre-existing bias on the part of the Goverment in favor of one, particular religion.

Or would you rather we simply burn everyone you consider a heretic at the stake?  This country was founded on the idea of religious freedom - why do you wish to remove that freedom?

Quite false interpretation, thus they are 'religious crusaders' with an agenda to promote.  Are you with them?[/quote]

Date: 2006/06/14 08:49:10, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
Oh, and why do you ignore those revolutionary Creationists who established that the Earth was much older than a few thousand years, hmmm?
My guess is that Dave will either ignore this or engage in the usual "No True Scotsman" fallacy: these couldn't have been "real" Christians, since they disagreed with Dave's "personal interpretation" of the Bible.

Dave is very predictable that way.

Date: 2006/06/14 10:09:13, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2006,15:03)
Quote
I still maintain that he is so dumb and crazy that he doesn't know he's wrong.


well, progress is being made.  You used to think he was just dumb.

Look, folks, in case you haven't noticed by now, trying to argue logically with someone who MUST reject logic or risk having to deal with his cognitive dissonance is rather a frustrating prospect.

If you enjoy it, fine, but don't whine that Dave isn't listening to your arguments.

He simply CAN'T.  You can't "fix" him in an online forum, so if you feel you need to sharpen your arguments on him, enjoy, but don't expect your arguments to be fruitful on Dave himself.

In case you had forgotten, early on Dave was shown how AIG lied to him about aspects of the GULO controversy, he at the time admitted that they were wrong.... and within two days had completely reversed himself.

Someone even made a thread to note this fact, and even ask him why he had never confronted AIG.

You really ARE fooling yourself if you believe for one second that when Dave says he can be convinced by evidence, that he really means it.

It was clear after his second post that he is incapable of reason: "their arguments, not being founded in reason, cannot be swayed by reason".

I stay for the entertainment, and to watch the way a fundie mind works.

They are, after all, a danger to their fellow Christians, to their families, and to society at large; it's important to understand how their brains work.

Oh, and did I mention the entertainment value?  :D

Date: 2006/06/14 10:48:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 14 2006,15:22)
Well, no, but nobody ever expresses themself perfectly. I always thought he was some combination of the two. I think religion is a typically mild and very limited kind of craziness which only very slightly hurts people. But in a few people who take it too seriously, it makes them actively, dangerously crazy, to the point that they'll do things like shoot abortion doctors or suicide bomb a cafe. On a 'Crazy Religiosity' scale where the average American is a 1, Jerry Falwell is a 5, Eric Rudolph is an 8-9, and Osama bin Laden is a 10, I'd put AFDave somewhere around 3-4. Crazy enough to go around telling all the experts they're wrong and refusing to believe otherwise, but not crazy enough to shoot the evil opposition.

To paraphrase the Hitchiker's Guide,

Dave is mostly harmless.

:p

Date: 2006/06/14 11:48:04, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (JonF @ June 14 2006,16:12)
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,12:14)
You may not be on a crusade personally.  But the NCSE is and I think they run this forum, do they not?

They do not.
 
Quote
If not, I think it is at least fair to say that you are probably supportive of the NCSE's agenda.  To me, they are crusaders on a 'religious mission to sanitize schools of any mention of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer or a God.'

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
 
Quote
They apparently think that 'Separation of Church and State' is in the constitution...

And so does the Supreme Court, the final arbiter on what is and is not in the Constitution.
 
Quote
and they think that 'no establishment of religion' means no mention of a Creator or God in public settings.

Another lie, Davie-ol'-chap; they think that "no establishment of religion" means that the government may not promote one religion over any others.  Mentioning a Creator or God in public settings is fine (althouth it's inappropriate to do so in science class, for non-Constitutional reasons).
 
Quote
Quite false interpretation...

Yup, your interpretation is indeed quite false.

Dave: 0
Posters: 25+

Gentlemen, I give you Target-Drone Dave:

Loser.

Liar.

Lunatic.

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/15 06:20:43, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Randy said,
Quote
What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution?
I have yet to read a book that actually challenges evolution using real data and sound arguments.  I have read pretty much everything the ID advocates have published, and a bunch of old 'creation science' works (such as the Genesis Flood).
Quote
It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc.
Except that we do not do that.  Behe's work has been rejected because the arguments are poor and inadequate, not because we feel that Behe has an agenda.  We recognize that the existence of an agenda on Behe's part may, to some extent, explain the nature of his arguments, but we are not engaged in ad hominems.  If you read our responses to AFDave, you will note that our initial response was to deal with his arguments (or lack thereof).  It was only when he demonstrated that he was incapable of understanding or reacting to criticism that we found him amusing.
Quote
So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution?
No.  See above.[/quote]Or are you convinced that there is no such scientist, no such book, and that it's just a bunch religious zealots trying to push creation into the classroom?[/quote] You have now offered a false dichotomy; simply because I have not seen any valid counter-arguments does not mean that I am convinced that someone could not present one.  Just that I've never seen one.
Quote
 I'd be interested in seeing where YOU think the theory has been most capably challenged, and by whom?
It hasn't.  As yet.  I encourage you, if you feel you have a valid counter-argument, to make it.

But we see a great many strawmen, logical fallacies, special pleading, etc. so we are sensitive to those.

Date: 2006/06/15 06:28:50, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Randy said,
Quote
I'd also like to hear whether people feel that a scientific theory can be disproven in order to make it legitimate science.
That doesn't appear to make sense; could you clarify?  If we disprove a theory, then it's not legitimate science.  If you are asking whether a theory must be falsifiable to make it legitimate science, then I can agree that it must be.
Quote
Can evolution be disproven (even theoretically).
Which part?  Remember that evolution is an entire collection of mechanisms, and the proposal that those mechanisms operated over a historical period to produce the current biodiversity.

A rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata would be a good sign that something is wrong, for example.  The continued persistence of a phenotypic feature that decreased reproductive success, for example.

Part of the problem with evolution is that we've been doing experiments for 150 years and have found nothing that contradicts that evolution happens - though we've found data that makes us think about the contributory factors and priorities of various evolutionary mechanisms.

Quote
What would it take to disprove it?
See above.
Quote
What would it take to actually change anyone's mind about it?
Valid counter-arguments based on actual data.  Just like any other science.  There's nothing special about evolutionary theory.

Date: 2006/06/15 06:36:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,11:27)
I have some concerns about the current state of peer-reviewed science.

Is it really a 'victors make the rules' place?

I ask because (and no I haven't researched this so I'm admitting up front I only have one side of the story).  There was an incident with regards to, I think it was Smithsonian magazine engaging in a so-called witch hunt on someone because they allowed to be published a paper that DID pass peer review, but seemed to call into question some tenets of evolutionary thought.  There were references to an investigation, and an investigation OF the investiga  This was alluded to in Coulter's book and I hadn't seen it elsewhere.

Is anyone familiar with this issue and can point me to 'the other side' of that one?

Randy

For the whole Smithsonian thing, start here.

And what do you mean by 'the victors make the rules'?

Science is the process of investigating those things which can be investigated.  When it proposes a hypothesis, that hypothesis must be testable not because the various members of the EAC sit around in a room and define it that way, but purely because that's what five hundred years of experience have taught us is the best way to find explanations that everyone can agree on.

Science is, in an interesting way, is intensely pragmatic discipline.  The whole "ivory tower" image is fostered by those who aren't scientists (or who work for the federal government.   :p )

Date: 2006/06/15 06:46:03, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I think Dave's jealous that we're paying attention to someone else.  Yawn.

Date: 2006/06/15 06:59:49, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Randy said,
Quote
So evolution is falsifiable?  Hmm..I always thought it wasn't.
You were mistaken.  All scientific theories are falsifiable.  That's why I don't consider string theory to be a valid scientific theory (as yet).

Quote
I want to clarify my previous point about peer review.  I've become far more skeptical of 'consensus science' because of the global warming debate.  Far more so than evolution.  You start following the grant money on both sides and things get really dicey.  Then you start seeing grandiose claims that "all scientists agree".  You can find people with all the right letters and doctorates after their name disagreeing with 'consensus science'.  So anyway, my issues with peer reviewed science are more concerned with climatology than evolutionary biology.  Several scientists (again, they have all the right letters after their names) have said Al Gore goes WAYYYY too far and defies scientific reason in his latest movie...(but I see here I'm danger of thread drift, so I'll move on - I just wanted to clarify the background of my previous remark).
Yes, this is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.  The biggest problem with the climate data is that there is so little of it, and the models are very, very poor.

Quote
The biggest problem in discussing this issue, in my opinion, is that it's very hard for any layperson (or even a fairly scientific literate person in another specialty) to be in any kind of position to debate some of these areas.
Not at all.  What you need to make sure that you do is leave your agenda (if any) at the door.  That's what AFDave can't do - everything has to conform to the literal reading of the Bible for it to be valid, so of course he has to discard any rational argument that is made that contradicts it.  Even a layman can get the basics and gist of the science in evolutionary theory fairly quickly - enough to discuss it intelligently.

What we see far too often in boards such as this are morons like Dave who are incapable of learning, and incapable of critical thinking.  If you've got those skills, you'll do fine.
Quote
I saw in the amazon reviews of Ernst Mayr's book some criticisms that if you didn't have a big background in biology, you'd be lost.  We are like the crowd in the arena watching our teams go at it and cheering for 'our side'.  But just because we can Monday Morning quarterback doesn't mean we are qualified to strap on the helmet ourselves.
The interesting thing is that the usual counter-arguments offered by fundie's like Dave are invalid considered as arguments.  They're pretty much at the level of "Well, the Bible was written in Swahili, so that means that John the Baptist was the man who murdered Moses' children".

They really are that bad.  You don't need to be a Biblical scholar to dismantle arguments like that.

Quote
The theme seems to be: "we've spent x years in school, then graduate, then post doctorate on this. Either match my level of education, or just take my word that I'm smart and you're dumb and that I know what's best for you".
Nope.  I promise we don't do that.  And if you can find an example, then draw our attention to it.
Quote
 Then you get someone else saying "He's not smart.  I have the same degree and the first guy is full of it".  How can you possibly, even with reasonably good faculties of reason, evaluate the claims and counterclaims of two (or more) people who all have respected degrees and hold respected positions in their fields?  You can't.  You can't rewind the clock and spend your life getting the same degree they have.  So you are forced to pick the side that either a) has the most adherents, or b) makes the best argument, from your limited vantage point.
The main point is to examine the arguments, not necessarily the details of the biology.  Most creationist arguments fail because they are bad arguments and secondarily because they're ignorant of biology.

Quote
I'm uncomfortable with both options.  A is the appeal to consensus science and the infallibility of popular opinion (which doesn't have the greatest track record).  B is the somewhat egotistical idea that I can read two books from two PhD's in Biology or Biochemistry or whatever, and, without having their level of education, deduce which of them is right and which of them is wrong.
You probably can't just by reading the books.  Discussing the content is usually helpful, too.

Remember: check your agenda at the door; examine the arguments for logic errors; admit only valid data.


Quote
It's a source of endless frustration. Accusations here that they are practicing pseudo-science or have 'abandoned scientific method' fall generally flat on me.
But we can, and often do, demonstrate that they have abandoned the scientific method.

Let's take a trivial example from Behe:

Behe says that IC structures can't evolve.  But in the same book, he also admits that IC structures can evolve, it's just not probable.  But he never provides any probability estimates.

Even someone without much understanding of biology and evolution can see that is a flawed argument; and it has nothing to do with his religious convictions.
Quote
I mean, what else would I *expect* to be said here?  Of COURSE you're going to say that!  Do I have the the background to either bash or verify the claims Behe makes?  Or Dawkins?  Or anyone else?
Yes.  Any intelligent, rational adult who's willing to expend a little study can distinguish between 'good' arguments and 'bad' arguments.

Quote
Sorry, maybe I'm just getting cynical here, but it seems that the academics on both sides are just saying: "either get my degree and debate me, or take my word for it".
 Try us and see.  We're mostly polite (except for AFDave, but then, he's technically on your side.  We won't hold that against you, though.   :p  )

Date: 2006/06/15 07:25:33, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 15 2006,12:19)
Quote
This is un-American and naive.  The USA was founded as a Christian nation in the sense that the laws and practices were founded upon the general principles of Christianity without favoring a particular sect of Christianity.


Could you explain something, please? If 'the USA was founded as a Christian nation', then why do the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights fail to mention Christianity in any way?

It's simple.  The US was not founded as a "Christian" country; and Dave's contentions that the NCSE and the ACLU are attempting to remove mention of the Christian God from public discourse are essentially complete nonsense.

The point of the 'no law respecting relgion'; the basis of the separation clause, is that the government of the United States and it's various agencies (such as public schools) may not favor any particular religion.  So  public-school mandated prayer specifically favors religions which engage in them.  Displays of the Ten Commandments on public property explicitly favor Judaism and Christianity.

What Dave wants is for the existing bias on the part of the government of the country and the several states to be preserved.

The laws of the land don't support him.  Heck, even the vary source he cited doesn't support him.

Date: 2006/06/15 07:49:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Faid @ June 15 2006,12:28)
Quote
The laws of the land don't support him.  Heck, even the vary source he cited doesn't support him.
This is becoming kind of a pattern with dave.

Becoming?  :D

Date: 2006/06/15 08:43:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (improvius @ June 15 2006,13:39)
Quote
Blinded by what they want to believe.


And this is it folks, the BIG question: why don't all of these scientists want to believe in the literal, scientific truth of the bible?

Worse yet, what do you do with all those Christian scientists?  "No True Scotsman"?

According to Dave, one can't be a scientist and a Christian at the same time.

Date: 2006/06/15 09:18:24, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 15 2006,14:02)
Quote
According to Dave, one can't be a scientist and a Christian at the same time.
Do what??!!

(Oh ... it's Rilke.  Never mind.)

Your inability to actual deal with your own arguments is duly noted.  Scientists point out that your arguments are specious.  Scientists point out that the Global flood didn't happen; that there is evidence that decay rates have not changed; that the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Scientists.

So according to your logic, one cannot be a scientist and a Christian at the same time, because you claim to have the one and only Christian viewpoint.

Ya wanna burn those heretics now, Dave?

Tell me, Dave - a straight question, mano-a-mana:

Can a person be a Christian and accept that the world is 4.5 billion years old?

Date: 2006/06/15 10:00:08, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 15 2006,14:33)
Quote
Can a person be a Christian and accept that the world is 4.5 billion years old?
Of course.  They would merely be a Christian who is misinformed about the age of the earth.

"No True Scotsman"

Oldest fallacy in the book.

:p

Date: 2006/06/15 10:36:39, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Randy, the only way to find out is just to start.

If you have a counter-argument against the theory of evolution being the best explanation for the history of evolution, then present it.

There is no other way to go about it.  And quite frankly, this is the way that scientists go about it.  Their discussions can get pretty darn heated (I know, I just defended... successfully!  Yay!;)  They argue; they bicker.

But they support their contentions with sound arguments, and actual facts.

I've already demonstrated why Behe's argument isn't valid (or sound, for that matter); and it's a demonstration that any layman can understand.

If you have an argument, present it.

If your argument is not valid, we'll tell you.  We won't simply say, "nah, nah - you're a poopy-head".  We'll explain.

If your argument is valid, then everyone will be very excited and happy.

Really!

Date: 2006/06/15 10:45:01, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2006,15:29)
Doesn't look like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me, Rilke.

Sure it does.  "If you are a True Christian, then you know that the world is 6,000 years old."  It is not possible to be a True Christian and know that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

Dave is just playing the card in reverse; he's still claiming that there is a single, true, unarguable set of Christian beliefs (his), and that anyone who believes differently isn't a Christian.  He's just being "polite" and offering them the option of claiming to be mistaken.

Date: 2006/06/15 10:54:48, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 15 2006,15:44)
Quote
I know, I just defended... successfully!  


WOOT!!!  congratulations!

wow, that's two thumbites who defended successfully this week.

now the serious question:

Why aren't you partying yourself comatose at this point, instead of posting here??

'cause you can really do a lot from a phone!  And 'cause my "drinking partner" hasn't shown up yet!

Date: 2006/06/15 11:12:27, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Post-doc.  Research.  MD.  Second PhD.  MA Fine Arts.  Get drunk.  Get married.  Have babies.  Save the world.

Not necessarily in that order!   :D

Date: 2006/06/15 11:53:57, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 15 2006,16:13)
Congratulations!

I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere and I just missed it, but what's the title? Or, if you don't want to give DaveTard material to track you down on the web and slander you, what's it about, roughly?

I try to stay away from stalkers  :)  but the title is "Transporter Malfunctions: Speculative Correlation between Inclusion Body Formation and Dopamine Transporter Reversal"

Catchy title, huh?  It didn't turn out to be quite as descriptive as I was hoping.

Date: 2006/06/15 12:30:51, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Randy, do you actually have any counter-arguments to evolution at the moment?  If so, why not post them.  If not, why complain about bias on our part?

Just puzzled.

Date: 2006/06/16 04:58:14, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
George, AFDave makes anyone ashamed to be a Christian.  He's the finest recruiter for atheism I've ever seen.

Date: 2006/06/16 06:15:35, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Now Target-Drone Dave has started replying to himself:

Quote
AFDave...  
Quote
I do.  It's called the SAT Test.  You go find the gorilla and the chimp.  I'll provide the human, the SAT test and the testing room. We'll give them each the same amount of time.
You all do have a good point ... namely, that it is probably not good semantics to talk about "non-biological differences."  I do need a different word.  Maybe "intangible differences"?  I don't know.  In any case, here's the deal.  My point is simply that if one is to look beyond the genetic similarity, one will see huge differences between humans and both apes in question, while the differences between the apes is very minor by comparison.  And the SAT Test would be a good indicator of this, but it would not be a fair test to use a 2 year old human and other such 'equalizers' to perform the test


:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/16 07:13:50, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
It would appear that Dembski's math skills have declined considerably since he stopped using them for anything except getting his degree.  Andrea Bottaro has excellently fisked Dembski completely misunderstanding how google searches work.  Classic.

Date: 2006/06/16 07:19:14, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Do us a favor, Dave, and change your modus operandi.

You claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.
Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

Date: 2006/06/16 07:28:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Do us a favor, Dave, and change your modus operandi.

You claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.

Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

2nd time of asking.

Date: 2006/06/16 09:28:36, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (apollo230 @ June 15 2006,22:27)
This is the time of year for new PhD's to sprout!  Congratulations, and I do hope that your work gives you both pleasure and satisfaction!

Best regards,
apollo230
:)

Y'know, what's funny is that I thought I'd be much more... excited or happy or something.  But I didn't party late last night, and had a strong urge to crawl back into bed and pull the covers over my head this morning.

'tis very peculiar.

Anybody else feel "let down" when the pile got dumped?

Date: 2006/06/16 09:34:19, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Do us a favor, Dave, and change your modus operandi.

You claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.

Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

3rd time of asking.

Date: 2006/06/16 10:24:19, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Do us a favor, Dave, and change your modus operandi.

You claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.


Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

4th time of asking.

Golden opportunity to demonstrate that you're not  liar, Dave.

Date: 2006/06/16 10:31:13, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 13 2006,00:07)
Paley, do you have anything to actually say about your scientific ideas? Because if all you have is rightwing 'culture wars' silliness, we have DaveScot for that...

Out of curiousity, why bother to respond to him?  He's 'soap-boxing' and wasting bandwidth, apparently because he feels that this is his own personal blog.

He shows about the same level of intellectual acuity as Gribbit.

Date: 2006/06/16 11:04:32, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dembski pines for the old days, when he was somebody:
Quote
....whom I know from a Templeton funded Oxford seminar at which I spoke (on ID) in June 2001 and at which he was a participant (this was still in the days when I used to be invited to Templeton events).


Sad, really.  As I say - to admired by the likes of Sal and Dave "I'm too stupid to actually look at the plane I'm flying; and too stupid to land when something's wrong" Springer-Spaniel Scott must be really depressing.

To paraphrase Bolt: "Why Dembski, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world.  But for the adulation of syncophantic morons?"

Date: 2006/06/16 11:13:52, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
And his spam contains such marvellous contradictions:

Quote
(2) Evolutionary theory needs to be defeated not because its defeat would promote theism but because it is demonstrably false — period, full stop.
Right.  Got that?  This is all about science.  Not about religion.
Quote
Moreover, ID is the key to demonstrating its falsehood scientifically. Look, I could live in the fantasy world of Ken Miller where evolutionary theory was overwhelmingly confirmed and where God acts as a master of stealth, never leaving his fingerprints for science to detect. I could be a Christian in such a world. But that’s not the real world. There is no “overwhelming evidence” for the power of purely material processes to create biological information.
Wait, we've shifted from "it's scientifically false" to "there's no evidence that God's fingerprints aren't all over it".

What little shreds of intellectual integrity and ability to think coherently have obviously been leeched away from Dembski - probably by his association with folks who can't even fly their own planes (or are illiterate - that might explain Dave "I'm an agnostic theist, dammit" Springer-Spaniel Scott ("Heel, boy!")).

I never realized before the close connection between air travel and intellectual vacuity.

Date: 2006/06/16 11:17:30, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 16 2006,16:11)
I agree. He's been riding his Explanitory Filter for a while now. No one uses it, because its unusable. Why isn'y he pressed on this?

Nothing new in the pipeline either.


Also, it looks like is giving up w'ith ID is not religion' and is trying 'MN / Darwinism is religion'. Good luck with that. He obviously wont go to court himself but will arm stooges with 'vice type strategies' and send them like fodder to their doom. Meanwhile, he makes a living from his books.

I don't even think he's finding the book trade too rewarding (emotionally): look at how pathetically eager he was to promote his connection with Coulter's "Godless".

Dembski has gone from being interesting in his own right to being interesting solely because of the company he tries to keep.  And I suppose Coulter is better than the lap-dogs and zombies he's collected on his site.

Date: 2006/06/16 11:27:56, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Look, I know you're jealous of the attention that Target-Drone Dave is getting, but that's the whole point of a target-drone.

Get over yourself, my child; you're not that important.

Date: 2006/06/16 12:19:47, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 16 2006,16:55)
Quote
Look, I know you're jealous of the attention that Target-Drone Dave is getting, but that's the whole point of a target-drone.

Isn't it funny how quickly speculation transforms into settled fact in the evo mind? It appears that you're enamored of Number Nine's random guesses, and recognising him as the "alpha male" of your tribe, proceed to parrot his every thought. This is so unworthy of you; I know women are usually timid about proposing uncomfortable ideas, but don't be afraid: think for yourself.
Quote
Get over yourself, my child; you're not that important.

But my ideas are.

Look, Mr. Ectowhisp, when you actually have an idea, you just come and tell us all about it, OK?  Otherwise we'll be watching the amazing entertainment provided by the 2nd Lt. "I lie for God." Dave.

He's got you beat all hollow.

Bye, now.

Date: 2006/06/18 18:40:54, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave lied,
Quote
Deadman ... you forget what the issue was with the Portuguese discussion, so I will remind you ... I made a casual generalization: P=F+S, in a conversation about something else.  Rilke very rudely intruded into the conversation and said I was an idiot.  So I challenged her and she lost.  Then Arden and Faid got all wrapped around the axle wanting to split hairs about the precise origin of Portuguese.  There was no need for this because I was simply making a generalization similar to "the sky is blue."  So what we ended up with was something like this ...

AFD:  The sky is blue
Arden/Faid:  No it's not
AFD:  Yes it is
Arden/Faid:  No it's not, it's raining here and the sky is gray.
AFD:  OK. Fine, so it's not blue all the time.  I agree.
Arden/Faid:  It's nighttime and the sky is black
AFD:  OK. Fine, guys.  Whatever you say.  I still say the sky is blue.
Arden/Faid, etc.: AFD is a liar and a lunatic.  He says the sky is blue.
Norm:  Quit splitting hairs.
Ved: Let's just say "The sky is blue most of the time"
Improvius:  can we just come to a compromise?

You lost, Dave.  We demonstrated that both your intitial statement, your various inaccuracies and cover-ups for your embarrassing errors afterwards, and your attempt to change your story and cover up were lies.

Simply lies.  You lost on the Portuguese thing because you made an idiotic comment - vacuous, illiterate, and generally brain dead.

I just like reminding you of that particular loss on your part because you keep lying about it.

Gentlemen, I give you Dave "I'm a liar for Christ and too stupid to know it" Hawkins.

Loser.

Liar.

Lunatic.

But God is he funny.

Keep it up, Dave - stick up for your right to make a complete and total fool of yourself simply by writing a post.

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/18 18:45:24, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,20:41)
Aftershave...
Quote
You'll have to understand if no one believes you anymore.  You've broken too many promises to 'get to it' to have any credibility.
Yeah, no one except those lurkers that you said you were worried about.  You'd better get with it refuting me with some sciency stuff so they don't get corrupted with my 'moronic beliefs.'

Well, based on the fact that every single lurker who has delurked has basically agreed that you're an idiot of the first water, I don't think you have much going for you, Dave.

Date: 2006/06/18 18:49:45, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave commented,
Quote
What's troubling is that only about half the population buys into your long age Darwinian fantasies in spite of all these excellent, smart scientists who are peddling the theory.

It's amazing to me that you don't scratch your head and say ... 'Hmmm ... with all this opportunity that we Evos have to indocrinate everyone with our theory, why don't they buy it?  Could it be wrong?'
If you are a sample of that general population, then I'd say the reason we're not reaching them is that they are simply too stupid to understand.

I mean, there really is no other way to put it, Dave - you made a stupid statement about Portuguese, and were put in your place; you made a stupid statement about relativity and were put in your place; you made stupid statments about Helium, diamonds, history, pretty much every branch of science, and were put in your place.

And you lied about yourself and your 'military' record.

Be a christian: own up to your own sins.  #### is nasty place, Dave - I'd hate to see you there.  :p

Date: 2006/06/18 18:58:50, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave said,
Quote
I know you were miffed about the Portuguese thing because you are a linguist and all, but that little incident illustrates beautifully how a trained professional like yourself can be completely wrong about something from his very own field of study.
Regrettably, since your arguments were bogus, you didn't manage to show Arden anything except your extraordinary ignorance of linguistics.
Quote
You keep claiming that all the linguists in the world disagree with me and you've never shown me one.
A flagrant and outright lie.
Quote
I don't even think the linguists of the world CARE about Portuguese enough to even study it in the detail that I gave you.
But since you took all of the little detail your provided from other's people's research, this is yet another lie.
Quote
The linguists of the world say 'Portuguese is a Romance language descended from Latin ... blah, blah, blah' and that's about it, which I have consistently agreed with.
Nope, you haven't.  You've blathered on irrelevant topics.  But you still lost, Dave.  I don't mind pointing it out to you, because I'm sure you wish to be honest with yourself.  You lost.  Get over it.
Quote
But they don't give the details that I gave you.
But since the details you provided were irrelevant details, they don't matter.
Quote
The only reason YOU are interested is because you don't like my views on origins and you want to refute me on something.
No, it's because you were completely wrong on a topic that Arden knows well.

If someone told you that the NT was obviously wrong because Jesus and Moses were gay lovers who adopted Judas for a little S&M bonding, you'd probably be annoyed when they couldn't prove it.

Well, Dave - they were.  And your argument is just as bogus.

Let's see: what would it take to show that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish?

You'd have to show that Portuguese vocabulary was made of French and Spanish words.  

Have you done this?  Nope.

You'd had to show that Portuguese prounciation was made of French and Spanish pronunciations.

Have you done this?  Nope.

You'd have to show that Portuguese grammar was made of French and Spanish grammar.

Have you done this?  Nope.

Dave: 0
Posters: 30+

Look, Dave, I know you feel embarrassed for being wrong; I know you feel frustrated that you can't show that you were right; I know you hate being defeated so easily by non-Christians.....

Get over it.  It's going to happen to you for the rest of your life.   :D

Date: 2006/06/18 19:07:54, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.


Here is a gold chance for Dave to show some Christian integrity:

Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

5th time of asking.

Date: 2006/06/19 06:20:08, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
This post is really aimed at the various lurkers, so that no one forgets that Dave is unable to back up any of his claims.  I don't actually expect him to answer, since he unable to answer.  After all, when you lie the first time, it's difficult to support it without lying a second time.

Dave claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.


Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

6th time of asking.

Date: 2006/06/19 08:32:10, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave "I lie about being a theist 'cause I sound more adult that way" Springer-Spaniel Scott says,
Quote
The other dishonest thing Paul does right off the bat is uses the term “evolution” in the loosest sense of descent with modification and then presumes that Coulter is disavowing that broad definition of evolution when in fact Coulter is doing nothing of the sort but is rather only bashing, and bashing really well, the baseless notion that evolution is a purposeless process driven solely by chance and necessity. It’s a good thing Meyers is a flaming atheist because if he thought for a moment he might be held accountable by a higher authority for his flaming dishonesty he’d have to rethink the whole equation. (emphasis added)


And this has nothing to do with religion...how, exactly?

I find it more than usually hilarious that Dave "I'm a loser, but I hate to admit it" Springer-Spaniel Scott can't seem to make up his mind if he's a raving theist, or a raving agnostic...or just raving.

But it's fun to note that he can't compose a single post without fundamentally confusing himself.

Date: 2006/06/19 08:43:44, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave said,
Quote
I love it!

"Don't forget, lurkers, Davie doesn't know what he's talking about even though he sounds like he does.  He's very clever with words and very sneaky like all the rest of those dumb ol' Creos.  You might get confused!  Trust us!  WE are the experts!"
It is good for Dave to admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  I don't think any of the lurkers have any real doubts at this point, but I'm glad Dave confirmed it.

I am also realizing that the poor children that Dave is going to try to abuse by feeding them nonsense are a great deal more intelligent that he has demonstrated them to be.  Most of them (I hope) will demonstrate criticial thinking skills and laugh at him.  I'm sure that the first time one of his children points out that he's a moron of the first order he is going to be "surprized" and "hurt".  But such a day will come, no doubt of it.

Now, Dave, it's time for you to demonstrate that you possess ethics.  You haven't so far, but I have hope.

Dave claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.


Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

7TH TIME OF ASKING

Date: 2006/06/19 09:07:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Yes kids, it's time for yet another PORTUGUESE DISCUSSION.

The advantage of the Portuguese posts is that it's possible to demonstrate just how poorly constructed, how badly argued, and how generally worthless Dave's arguments are.  In particular, they are good for getting at the fundamental inability to reason which so characterizes our poor Dave.  In other cases, he can simply cut-n-paste his rebuttals from various creationist sites (thus demonstrating that he's incapable of original thought, but that's another story); in the Portuguese case, it's entirely his own stupidity that we've defeated.  And when poor Dave is out-gunned, it's pretty appalling to see.

Now, Dave's original assertion: that Portuguese was just Spanish and French mixed, is absurd without even any supporting argument.  All three languages are modern end-points of the evolution of Latin; to claim that one of them is a mixture of the others is as absurd as claiming that selasphorus rufus is a mixture of homo sapiens and Tachyglossus aculeatus.

A nonsense statement, in other words.

However, one could try to fashion an argument to support the contention; by examining the nature of language, and how the various parts interact.

A language, basically speaking (Arden, I'd appreciate corrections as necessary) consists of a vocabulary (words for things); grammar (rules both formal and informal for assembling and modifying those words to convey meaning); and pronunciation (rules both formal and informal for vocalizing those words).

Now, how could Dave show that Portuguese is French and Spanish mixed?

1) He could demonstrate that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish vocabulary.

2) He could demonstrate that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish grammar.

3) He could demonstrate that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish pronunciation.

Or some combination of 1, 2, and 3.

What has Dave actually done?

Well, first of all, he's done none of the above: in other words, Dave made a linguistic claim and has not attempted to defend it with linguistic arguments.

So what has Dave done?  He has presented a historical argument; and a personal opinion argument.

Dave claims that the presence of Burgundians in a particular region of Spain at the time of the initial divergence between Spanish and Portuguese implies that "Portuguese is French and Spanish mixed".

But note - this is simply another claim.  Dave has not demonstrated that the presence of a small number of speakers of another language is sufficient to make Portuguese a mixture of that language and its initial parent.

Dave has offered his personal opinion that the three languages sound similiar.  But sounding or appearing similar does not imply that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish.

So, let's sum up:

1) Dave made a linguistic claim that is false.

2) Dave attempted to support his linguistic claim with non-linguistic arguments (which contained numerous inaccuracies that poor Dave had to be corrected on).

3) Dave completely failed to show that his inappropriate arguments were supportive of his position.

4) Dave lied about the whole thing.

So we see that Dave's major problem is an inability to apply critical thinking to a problem: he doesn't understand how to construct an argument; how to defend an argument; and his volatile temper leads him to make indefensible and indeed mind-bogglingly stupid claims in the first place.

Note that nothing in this chain of problems directly stems from his theism: the elements of the chain stem directly from poor Dave's limited intellectual capacity.

For poor Dave, there is little hope: he is condemned to a life of embarrassment, ignominity, and harrassment for his stupidity.  Let us hope that his children don't take after him, and show some actual critical thinking skills.  For their sake. (She wipes a tear from her eye as she thinks sadly about poor Dave's even poorer, more unfortunate children.)

Date: 2006/06/19 10:42:06, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
test

Date: 2006/06/19 10:59:42, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave lied,
Quote
Then child abuse.  Spanked again.
Sorry Dave; what you are doing is child abuse: the deliberate mistreatment of children in order to ensure that they remain intellectually stunted and cognitively crippled for their entire lives.

Just like you, my child.

:p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/19 17:36:56, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave said,
Quote
I love it!

"Don't forget, lurkers, Davie doesn't know what he's talking about even though he sounds like he does.  He's very clever with words and very sneaky like all the rest of those dumb ol' Creos.  You might get confused!  Trust us!  WE are the experts!"(emphasis added)

It is good for Dave to admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  I don't think any of the lurkers have any real doubts at this point, but I'm glad Dave confirmed it.

I am also realizing that the poor children that Dave is going to try to abuse by feeding them nonsense are a great deal more intelligent that he has demonstrated them to be.  Most of them (I hope) will demonstrate criticial thinking skills and laugh at him.  I'm sure that the first time one of his children points out that he's a moron of the first order he is going to be "surprized" and "hurt".  But such a day will come, no doubt of it.

Now, Dave, it's time for you to demonstrate that you possess ethics.  You haven't so far, but I have hope.

Dave claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.


Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

8TH TIME OF ASKING

Date: 2006/06/19 18:05:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Young Davie broke bread with his brother,
Though his brother was covered with hair.
And even though Dave tried to snub him,
His brother tried hard to be fair.
He knew that young Dave was just yearning
To show where he was on the tree,
So now the great zoo has poor Davie,
To be laughed at by you and by me.

Gentlemen, I give you Dave "I'm just an ape" Hawkins.

Loser.

Liar.

Lunatic.


:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/19 19:03:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Henry J @ June 19 2006,22:35)
Re "he can't compose a single post without fundamentally confusing himself."

fundamentally confusing himself, hmm?

Was that on purpose? :)

---------------------------

Minor thought about the demonstration of relativity via the GPS system - while that's obviously not "in a lab", it is an experiment with observable results, which is imnsho a more important point that whether or not said experiment is contained within a building.


Henry

Yes, thanks for noticing!
:D

Date: 2006/06/20 09:01:31, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

Howdy Lurkers!  Time for another session of "Stump the Chump"!  Yes, it's time to ask Davie another question!

We have demonstrated that Davie is a coward.

We have demonstrated that Davie lies.

We have demonstrated that Davie is ignorant of science.

We have demonstrated that Davie has no original ideas.

But can we still "Stump the Chump"?  You bet!

Dave said,
Quote
I love it!

"Don't forget, lurkers, Davie doesn't know what he's talking about even though he sounds like he does.  He's very clever with words and very sneaky like all the rest of those dumb ol' Creos.  You might get confused!  Trust us!  WE are the experts!"(emphasis added)


Note: Davie admits that he's a fool.  But he he also shows that he lies, since he says, "he sounds like he does".  Sorry, Davie, you don't sound like you know what you're talking about.  That's why no lurker believes you.

It is good for Dave to admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  I don't think any of the lurkers have any real doubts at this point, but I'm glad Dave confirmed it.

I am also realizing that the poor children that Dave is going to try to abuse by feeding them nonsense are a great deal more intelligent that he has demonstrated them to be.  Most of them (I hope) will demonstrate criticial thinking skills and laugh at him.  I'm sure that the first time one of his children points out that he's a moron of the first order he is going to be "surprized" and "hurt".  But such a day will come, no doubt of it.

Now, Dave, it's time for you to demonstrate that you possess ethics.  You haven't so far, but I have hope.

Dave claimed:
Quote
Says who?   Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.


Supply proof.  Prove that this statement isn't simply your personal opinion.  Show that these scientists actually WANT the earth's age to be that.

Make George proud to be a Christian: be ethical for a change.

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING

9TH TIME OF ASKING


(To the tune of "He's a jolly good fellow")

Poor Dave's an ignorant fundie,
Poor Dave's an ignorant fundie,
Poor Dave's an ignorant fundie, a coward, and he lies.

He lies because he's scared,
He lies because he's vain,

Poor Dave's an ignorant fundie,
A coward and he lies!

Date: 2006/06/21 05:38:43, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
I find the ability of Dave Springer-Spaniel "Gee, I measured my IQ with the SAT" Scott to deny the place of religion in ID, and yet accept the various and flagrant comments by Dembski, such as
Quote
The whopper, in the case of Darwinism, is this: all organisms, including ourselves, are the result of a blind, purposeless evolutionary process (namely, the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation) that at no place required the services of God or any guiding intelligence.
to be fascinating.

Apparently Dave doesn't enjoy the fact that he's make a stupid mistake and chosen the intellectually vacuous and losing side in this particular debate, so he substitutes bombast, rhetoric, and a certain colorful stupidity for actual scientific work, such as this charmer
Quote
#

“Indeed, the grand claim of Darwinian evolution has never been tested: all the evidence and experiments cited to support it have no rational connection with it. At best, they support that there was a gradual progression of living forms. But they do not support that such a progression occurred without the need for intelligent input.”

This would be a good time to cite the evidence to support that such a progression occurred WITH intelligent input.

That’s where Dembski, Behe, and others like them come in. Have you read any of their books? Granted I’m not convinced beyond any reasonable doubt but what I am convinced of is that intelligent agency best explains certain patterns found in nature. Furthermore, this better explanation is being excluded from public education because a vocal minority of anti-religionists who don’t like the philosophical implications of any intelligent agency other than humanity have managed to torture the 1st amendment establishment clause in such a way that it legally precludes even criticism of their preferred theories of origin and diversity of life in public schools. Since when did science operate by using federal judges to stifle criticism? Answer: science doesn’t. Science itself has been corrupted by Darwinian dogma and its adherents. -ds

Comment by Raevmo — June 21, 2006 @ 5:24 am
What I love is the fact that he doesn't even bother to answer Raevmo's question.

If Dave showed even the slightest spark of intelligence and ability to read (apparently that college vocabulary didn't include the written word), this wouldn't be half so much fun.

Date: 2006/06/21 05:48:12, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Now we find, interestingly enough, that Dave has begun to admit that he's a liar.  Very intriguing.  Note the following post by Dave "I lie for God.  I might even lay down for God, if that's what God wants." Hawkins.

OS said
Quote
I bet myself before I logged on this morning that I'd find another lie-filled, fact free post from QFDave and - *ding* - there it was.  Now I owe myself lunch.

Dave, being the idiot that he is, agrees with OS:
Quote
Pretty risky bet, there, OA.  Maybe you could bet yourself that the sun will rise tomorrow. :-)
In other words, Dave admits that it's a given that every day will bring a lie-filled, fact-free post from Target Drone Dave.

Right there.  Black and white.  Dave confesses that he's a liar.  Ya gotta love this man: stupid, ignorant, dishonest, but willing to admit that he lies and his posts are free of facts.

That's real progress Dave; a real step forward.

Now if you could just bring yourself to stop abusing children, we'd be making some real progress.

Date: 2006/06/21 09:45:38, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 21 2006,11:51)
High IQ scores are noted to correlate fairly well with high SAT scores.  I don't know how to get an IQ score off of SAT scores, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't come up with a  table, graph, or some such thing to get a good idea of IQ from SAT scores.

IQ scoring is adjusted by age, so that the average at all ages is supposed to come out to 100.  So it is not surprising if anyone has an IQ of 150 at the age of 50, 60, or 70.  But having an IQ of 150 at the age of 50 does not imply the same intelligence as an IQ of 150 at the age of 25.

The correlation isn't the real issue.  The issue is that Dave claimed that his IQ was demonstrated to be 150 by means of the SAT.  This is, of course, nonsense.

It's reasonably clear that Dave has significant problems with self-esteem; his need to invent a glorious past for himself (and note that whatever he claims is all in the past) is simply a way of coping with the fact that he's pretty much a nobody - merely one of the numerous ignorant fools who post about various lost causes around the web.

Date: 2006/06/21 10:00:24, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
My God, Dave - you really are stupid.  I thought so at first, but then I thought - no, no one can be this dumb.  I was wrong.

YOU WROTE THE POST.  YOU'RE THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT THAT IT'S A SURE BET THAT YOU (DAVE) WILL POST A LIFE-FILLED, FACT-FREE POST EVERY DAY.

Shall we run over this for you?  Of course!  You want the lurkers to be reinforced in their understanding that you're a moron, and this one is classic.

You replied to a posty O[/i]ccam's [b]Aftershave.  OA said
Quote
I bet myself before I logged on this morning that I'd find another lie-filled, fact free post from QFDave and - *ding* - there it was.  Now I owe myself lunch.


Got that?  OA?  You can read, can't you Dave?  O and A?

Now, what was 2nd Lt. "I'm so illiterate I can't spell" Dave's response to the Aftershave?

Quote
Pretty risky bet, there, OA.  Maybe you could bet yourself that the sun will rise tomorrow. :-)


See, Dave compares OA's bet to one on whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow.  But the sun rising tomorrow is a sure bet.  Hence, betting on Dave making a stupid post is a sure bet.

And Dave himself posted it.

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/21 10:05:01, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 21 2006,15:00)
Well sure, RD, I wouldn't disagree with any of that.  

The truth of the matter is that general competence in intellectual matters is not the issue, nor is even scientific competence the most important issue.  He needs to show that he actually knows something about which he claims to be competent.

Since he is ignorant in evolution, as well as in physics, he has no proper role in these debates.  He does, however, represent Dembski well enough on the scientific competence score.

Glen D

Dave Scott also seems to represent Dembski's personality well.  He's belligerant, prone to adolescent bathroom humor, unsubtle, and generally unable to deal with any kind of criticism.  In that sense, they are an excellent fit.  (No secondary humor was intended by that last comment - I'm sure that Dembski is quite happy with Sal.)

Date: 2006/06/21 11:33:46, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Apparently Dave Springer-Spaniel Scott, the boy-wonder, has not been trained in logic.
Quote
Oh goody, the dopey little contributors at ATBC now proclaim that SAT scores don’t measure IQ. How can computer literate people make bogus claims like that when it’s so easy to do a little fact checking and they can be shown to be idiots making things up out of thin air so easily? It boggles my 99.97th percentile mind.
Got that?  We have pointed out that SAT scores do not measure IQ.  A completely accurate statement.  So what is Dave's reponse to that?

Quote
Almost all the High IQ societies accept SAT scores to meet entrance requirements. My SAT score was 1480 in 1978. I took it during my last few months in the Marine Corps after having been away from school for 4 years (except for a few business classes at Pepperdine). I can’t quite make it into the best of the best as my test score is only in the 99.97th percentile while societies like Prometheus and a few others require 99.99 or better scores.


A classic example of why Dave is rightly and fitly the master of a web-site for dolts.

Dave: "I have an IQ of 150 as measured by SAT!"
Us: "SAT doesn't measure IQ"
Dave: "Well, high IQ societies accept SAT scores in lieu of IQ tests.  And my SAT scores were really high."
Us: "But Dave, that still doesn't show that the SAT measures IQ"
Dave: "Oh, yeah?  Look at this site!"
Us: "Dave, that site points out that the correlation is very rough; and the point is still you made a fundamentally incorrect and rather stupid statement: that your SAT measured your IQ"

If we think about the law of averages, it's fairly clear that Dave is doing his part by holding down the low end of averaging intelligence by balancing out several hundred geniuses at the high end.

Dave, why waste your time on a losing proposition like ID?  Or is your amateur interest in science enough to balance out being a nobody?

Date: 2006/06/21 12:24:05, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Tiax @ June 21 2006,17:18)
I have a better SAT score than Dave.  I'm pretty sure this gives me a carte blanche to make wild statements in any field regardless of my total lack of expertise.

The Sun weighs about 250 lbs.

The Granddaughter shakes her head in disgust.

Idiot!  The sun weighs 250 kilograms.  What do they teach children in school these days?

:D

Date: 2006/06/21 12:53:53, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Now, I found this remark rather odd
Quote
The longest and bestest thread at ATBC is called Uncommonly Dense and it was created to honor me (in the manner of little boys pulling the hair of little girls they lust after because they don’t know any other way to get their attention) after Bill Dembski made me blogczar here.
Not for the juvenile attempt at humor, but because it is, as far as I know completely false.  Could Dave be so narcissistic that any mention of him counts as 'honor'?

Somehow I doubt it.  This post, like many of his recent ones, seems to betray a personality that is bitter about having chosen the wrong side in this little matter; incredibly insecure (hence the need to bolster prestige by "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"; and boasting about his incorrectly calculated IQ); and embarrased that he's the butt of innumerable jokes.

Poor Dave.  (And what is it with engineer's named Dave who are fundamental idiots?  Dave from Texas over on IIDB; our own 2nd Lt. Dave; Dave Springer-Spaniel Scott at UD; etc.  Is it some kind of unwritten law that in order to be a fool you have to be an engineer named Dave?  Perhaps we should start a 'Dave' list - like the 'Steve' list - of non-stupid Daves!;)

Date: 2006/06/22 10:39:53, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave said,
Quote
1) I am not looking to justify any skepticism, although I would become one if given some good reasons.  And I am sincere when I say that.  It has been interesting to me to watch 'skeptic' on his thread talk about how evolutionary theory needs to be re-invented.  He knows there is a glaring problem, but he cannot bring himself to be 'crazy' enough to embrace the real truth--YECism.

OK, Dave.  Here is a completel sincere and honest question on my part.

What evidence would convince you that you were wrong?  What data would persuade you that YEC is not true?

Be precise.  Give actual details.

So far, you have not demonstrated that you would even entertain contrary data.

So tell us exactly what evidence would convince you, and we'll see if such data exists.

Date: 2006/06/22 11:17:45, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
The problem remains the same one that Dave has had since the beginning of this entire exercise: he quite simply, literally, and completely does not understand what "evidence" is.  Not in the slightest.  That's why he's so clueless when we point out that he hasn't presented evidence.  He doesn't know what it is.

Now why he doesn't is entirely a matter of speculation.

Date: 2006/06/22 11:40:15, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Here's another point I've been curious about.  Dave said the following
Quote
I've earned respect in every endeavor I have undertaken.
Note the phrase earned.  This is important to my question.
Quote
I earned the respect of the EE faculty at my university and was given a great graduation job working on SDI, even though they knew I was going into the AF and would only have me a short time.
Once again, Dave uses the phrase earned.
Quote
I earned the right to be a fighter pilot by graduating 4th in my class of 40 at ENJJPT (google it if you like).  I had many friends who were fighter pilots and earned their respect as a PIT Instructor while training them to be IPs.  I had two fighter pilots in my wedding--one F-15 guy and an A-10 guy.  All my fighter pilot friends understood why many of us 'FAIPs' didn't get our fighters that we earned--a rule change in the AF--some would say an unlucky break--but from my perspective, the hand of God who knew best for me.
I re-emphasize: the term is earned.\
Quote
I earned the respect of my wife for whom I tabled my fighter pilot dreams--I could have continued to chase it even after the rule change, but decided my family was more important.
Again, earned.
Quote
I earned respect in the business world by putting my customers needs first and building a unique company which was acquired by a global transaction processing company.  I am now retired because I earned my retirement, not because someone gave it to me.
The important point, the one that Dave emphasizes is earned.  He earned these things.

Quote
So there is no need to lecture me on 'earning respect.'  I understand it at least as well as you do.  But I can only do my part.  I cannot make anyone here respect me if they refuse to do so even when I give respectable arguments.
So there's the bafflement: Dave, what do you think you've done to earn any respect here?  Whether or not you think our counter-arguments are correct, did you earn respect from your faculty by not listening and ignoring what they said?  Did you earn the right to be a pilot by simply stating "I'm a pilot - you're wrong?"  Did you earn the respect of your wife by simply telling her you were a great person?

All you have done here is present arguments that we disagree with.  In what sense does that earn you any respect?

The bottom line here, Dave, is that we tease you, make fun of you, laugh at you, and generally treat you like an amiable buffoon because you have not earned our respect.  More importantly, you have not even tried to earn our respect.

That you are the butt of jokes, that you are treated in much the same fashion that we treat chewing gum stuck to the bottom of a chair is that you have done nothing whatsoever to earn our respect.

And without respect, we're not going to listen to anything you say.

Let me offer you an example, to help you understand this issue:

Let's say that someone came to you and said, "The Bible is a poopy-head book because it's written in Swahili, and Moses shot Isiah with a magnum 44 while Jesus was watching!"  And when you pointed out that this was nonsense, he claimed, "No!  It's true!  You just don't want it to be true!"

Would you take this person seriously?  Would this person have earned your respect?

You want respect for your arguments, Dave?

Earn it.

Date: 2006/06/22 11:50:54, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Now there is wholly predicable response you can make, Dave: you can whine (as you have already done), "Boo-hoo!  You guys just won't respect 'cause I'm Christian.  Boo-hoo!"  To which there is only one rational response:

Stercor.

We respect someone with rational arguments; we respect someone with the ability to reason; we respect someone who commands facts; we respect someone who can reason on their own; we repsect someone who can admit mistakes.

Those kind of people we can respect, whether or not the person is YEC, OEC, atheist, Taoist, etc.

Respect isn't handed to you here for being an atheist, nor denied you because you're a Christian.  It's earned.

And that you haven't done.  Why?

Date: 2006/06/22 19:56:37, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
So, Dave, your entire response to the fact that you have yet to earn any respect is a pointless quip?  
Quote
How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that you've been listening to me for 83 pages?  Actually more counting the other threads.  Huh, Rilke?
We haven't been listening to you Dave - we think you're an idiot who is good for a laugh.  That's all.  If you thought you were showing us anything, well, then it's back to the question of respect.

You claimed that you earned respect in your college.  But did you earn respect by writing a paper and demanding an "A"?  Not a bit.

You earned respect by writing a paper (or taking an exam - English doesn't seem to be a field you excel in, given the poorly-worded posts you present) by actually writing a paper that your professors accepted.

And so on through your life.  Do you think your customers would have accorded you any respect if you had simply said, "here's a product.  You'll love it.  Now shut up and give me your money"?  No.  You earned your respect by producing a product they wanted.

But here on this forum you haven't done that.  You haven't even tried to earn any respect.  You've never once tried to make an argument that your opponents - the ones whose respect is essential would accept.

And without that, you've got nothing.

We treat you as a clown, Dave.  A performing circus monkey who - predictable as clockwork - trots out some outmoded argument we've refuted a thousand times.  You're the court dwarf; the butt of derision and laughter.  We refute your points so that you spring back up and say something even stupider.

And all because you've never even tried to earn any respect.

An intelligent person could do it.  A Christian would do it.

Why don't you?

Date: 2006/06/23 16:38:49, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote
Now, have you got anything to refute my evidence that Genesis is literal, eyewitness history?  (Since that is your specialty?)
Oh, Davie?  Do you have any evicence to support your claim?

Nope.  Didn't think so.

You are the most amazing trained monkey, monkey-boy: we crank the music and you dance with wild abandon.

Supply proof.

Or admit that you're a liar.

Date: 2006/06/23 16:44:15, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Oh, and Dave?  Here's the deal:

you said,
Quote
you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists..


What Deadman has done is point out that you lied.

You completely, 100% lied.

A whole lie.

A completely untruth.

A lie, monkeyboy.

Because Deadman has never said that.

Ever.

Never.

And when Deadman asked you to support your lie:
Quote
Really, Dave? So point to where I said that here.


You lied again and avoided the answer.

Quote
OK.  You disagree?  Then fill me in.  You certainly don't seem to believe in the same God I believe in.  Do you believe in a God?  Fine.  Tell me where I can read about him.


You lied Dave.  You lied about someone on the board (not that you don't lie on a regular basis about pretty much everything, including your so-called air force record).

Prove you're not a liar, Dave.

Show where Deadman said that.

Hint:

You can't.

You're simply an ignorant liar, monkeyboy.

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/27 18:10:35, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Dave admitted he lied
Quote
OK.  I admit it.  I embellished a little.  Norm correctly observed that cotton picking would have been N/A in Southern Guyana.  Yes, yes, and the fans and the tequila on the veranda were my invention as well.

Yup.  A lie.  A large, fat, inexcusable lie.  Dave lied to make his daddy look like less of a reprehensible jerk.

Of course, this makes about a thousand lies that 2nd Lt. "I lie for Christ - no, wait, I lie sheerly for my own vanity and ego" Dave has told.

####, Dave.  It's waiting for you.  Sulfur, brimstone, and pitchforks.  Smell it, Dave?  it's your future.

Date: 2006/06/27 19:19:04, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (stevestory @ June 27 2006,23:59)
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 28 2006,00:48)
 
Quote
This thread is where AFDave acts retarded, but I haven't seen people address what makes him so much dumber than the others.


  Personally, I think mainly a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," combined with an ego that masks a deep underlying insecurity. Alexander Pope said ""A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
  In other words, Dave's tiny brain is drunk on the commensurately small amount of information it does have, and like a lot of drunks, it tries to pick fights that it can't win, gets beat up and starts fixating again on how much *better it is* than others and how it should be kicking ass, so it gets all wasted again , goes out and gets slapped around over and over.
  To combat that, it excuses itself of any wrongdoing and begins to employ tactics that are flat-out dishonest so it MIGHT "win"
  He practices hard against the local yokels at his church group and figures he can be like the 97-lb weakling that returns to win the girl and kick the big boy's asses--he comes up and poses as a martial artist of the mind, forgetting that the guy with the most scars on his knuckles  and actual *experience*is usually way more dangerous.
  He gets his ass handed to him again and again, but he's too deep in it, so to save face, he's pretending that his busted nose and beaten body = "victory!!!"

That's my view of the boy. Of course, he could be just a lying f-in' idiot

Superficially, he's not doing anything creationists haven't done here before. Make dumb arguments, misunderstand the very basic knowledge of the field, disagree with the evidence, imagine all the experts are deluded misinterpreters...

...yet he's the landslide winner for dumbest. What is it he does, which makes him so obviously dumber than Ghost and the rest? What's he doing differently?

Well, Ghost is clearly just playing games; as is Skeptic.  Both of them are smart enough to understand that they are simply posting nonsense (whether maliciously or with humor aforethought I don't know).

But Dave is genuinely stupid.  He loses every argument he starts, but he claims otherwise.  He's genuinely arrogant.  He loses very argument he starts, but claims otherwise.  Etc.

I think it's the combination of arrogance and genuine stupidity that's so amusing.

Date: 2007/02/16 13:55:14, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 16 2007,13:49)
I'll tell you what's REALLY funny is that the only way the Myth of Darwinism™ can persist is if the Smithsonian harasses ... er ... controls ... "renegade  scientists" and  "Open Minded Science Forums" *cough* ... like AtBC move my posts--like my "Thought Police" one above--from the thread where they were posted to the Bathroom Wall.

Do you guys think no one notices this stuff?  How long do you  think you can keep up the charade?

We have science on our side, Dave.

We win.

:D

Date: 2007/02/16 14:10:39, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 16 2007,13:56)
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 16 2007,11:55)
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 16 2007,13:49)
I'll tell you what's REALLY funny is that the only way the Myth of Darwinism™ can persist is if the Smithsonian harasses ... er ... controls ... "renegade  scientists" and  "Open Minded Science Forums" *cough* ... like AtBC move my posts--like my "Thought Police" one above--from the thread where they were posted to the Bathroom Wall.

Do you guys think no one notices this stuff?  How long do you  think you can keep up the charade?

We have science on our side, Dave.

We win.

:D

Welcome back, Dr. RGD! You've been missed.

Why thank you, sir!  <Waves and blows kisses>

Date: 2007/02/18 16:25:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 18 2007,16:07)
Quote
Good grief. That comment makes me angry.

This forum is about as open as can reasonably be expected. I know it, you know it and everyone who has been around here a while knows it.
You're angry because I'm pointing out the truth.  And the truth is, again, that AtBC is only open to people who are not informed, persistent creationists like me.  This has been proven in writing from the owners of this forum.  Wesley and Steve had no idea how quickly I would become informed in the relevant fields of science and they had no idea how persistent I would be.  They hoped I would go away on my own.  Early on Steve was pretending that my thread was "good for science" because it showed "how stupid the YEC position is."  But when he saw how persistent I was, and how bad rational scientists were being made to look by the likes of Occam and Deadman, he changed his mind and tried to figure out how to get rid of me without making Wesley look biased.  But he failed.  Wesley DOES look biased and he has shown himself to be a pretender.  One of his big goals in life is to fight Creationism and promote Darwinism.  He does so in organizations with misleading names such as "National Center for Science Education" ... change that word "Science" to "Evolution" and it would be an honest title.  And he does so with this forum by restricting people like me while maintaining a pretense of being open minded.

Dawkins forum, on the other hand, is truly open to all.  The mods have confirmed in writing to me that I can stay as long as I want and open as many topics as I want.  And for that I respect Richard Dawkins even though we disagree on many things.  I believe Richard Dawkins is an honest atheist and evolutionist.  But I believe Wesley Elsberry and many of you are dishonest evolutionists and your actions prove this to me.

As for my blog and comments ... 1) it is a blog, not a forum, 2) anyone can say anything adverse they want to me at my Dawkins thread, 3) my main purpose at my blog is just that ... a "web log."  As for answering questions, it is true that there are many unanswered ones from AtBC.  My topics were too broad.  This is why I have narrowed them at Dawkins.  I have only tackled one topic there so far -- "The Nature of the Origins Debate" -- and I don't think there is a single question that I have not answered on this topic.  If you think I am wrong, then post it -- not here though -- wait until Dawkins server is back up.  We need to leave Steve and Wesley alone if that's what they want.

If I ever have a forum with some prominent YECs, I will not restrict people because of POV as Wesley does.

'course then you'd need a forum in Portuguese, 2nd Lt.

Dave, you need this:Internet Addiction

Date: 2007/02/19 23:16:50, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 19 2007,06:44)
So here's the deal ... allow me (a YEC) the same privileges here as all the non-YECs, with the understanding that I will agree to not create another humongous AFD_CGH thread here, and I will remove the unfavorable information about Wesley on my blog and replace it with a positive article about how open-minded he is.  I will also make positive posts here and at the Dawkins forum.

Keep me chained up at the Bathroom Wall and I will keep writing the truth about Wesley, Steve and AtBC wherever I go.  (I won't call names, mind you ... I'll just state the facts)

Nobody cares, Dave.  No one has the slightest interest in your opinion of Wesley, ATBC, or anything else about this site.

No one listens to you.  No one believes a single thing you say.

Your threats are hollow, 2nd lt.  Just hot air.  Just a little kid threating to hold his breath until the US gets out of Iraq.

Nobody pays any attention to your opinions, Dave.

No one.

Date: 2008/07/22 01:08:35, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Ftk @ July 21 2008,23:18)
Quote
Well, you certainly shouldn’t take my word for it, and I can assure you that no one here does.  I’m just providing you with my POV.

Your POV is based specifically on IGNORANCE.  You have just admitted that.

A POV based on ignorance is worthless, therefore your POV is worthless.  Are you entitled to your opinion?  Of course.  Is your opinion of any value to anyone who knows anything about this topic?  Not at all.

Every now and then I take a break from actual lab work - y'know, actual science - that stuff that you know nothing about?  I come to creationist sites to see if any creationist has been able to produce either

a) a rational argument

b) an understanding of the actual facts

I've never found one.

Date: 2008/07/22 13:10:17, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Assassinator @ July 22 2008,12:50)
Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,09:31)
Beats the heck out of looking at pictures like this...



...and trying to figure out what it is that renders it the jaw of a transitional.

Perhaps you can help me out.

[Devil's Advocate] To be honest, that looks like a question worth answering. Because when I'm honest, I do not understand the anthropological methodes very well as well (I only had Moleculair Biology, and just for a year) and I am amazed about how you guys do that. [/Devil's Advocate]

It may be a good question, but that's irrelevant.  It's just FTK trying to distract from the main point: that she ADMITS that her opinion is based on ignorance and illogic, but she still seems to feel it has value. Why is that? She's a liar, a fool, and a danger to hers and others' children.  She is not fit to be a mother.

Date: 2008/07/22 13:18:26, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (stevestory @ July 22 2008,13:13)
Calm down RG.

I am ALWAYS calm.  But such silliness from someone in charge of children worries me.  As a potential mommy myself, I'm rather interested in the topic.  If we entrust the rearing of children to delusive, ignorant, narrow-minded fanatics; we're going to have a generation of delusive, ignorant, narrow-minded fanatics controlling nuclear weapons.  Oh, wait...   :p

Date: 2008/07/22 17:30:52, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

[quote=Ftk,July 22 2008,14:02][/quote]
Quote
Quote
If we entrust the rearing of children to delusive, ignorant, narrow-minded fanatics; we're going to have a generation of delusive, ignorant, narrow-minded fanatics controlling nuclear weapons.


So, what would you suggest, sweetie?  Ya wanna do away with me and anyone who doesn't agree with your version of the OOL?
My version of the OOL - which you know NOTHING about, I might add - is irrelevant: your ability to raise intelligent, knowledgeable children capable of being more than toilet attendants and burger-flippers is non-existent.  Sorry, but those are just the facts.  In order to raise worthwhile kids, you need to tell them the truth.  You just lie about it.  And you're abusive.  Again, those are just facts.

Quote
You must be a big Dawkins fan.  Call in the Darwin police and rip those kids away from their parents because they question Darwinism.
You're apparently incapable of listening, too.  I'm not talking about Darwin and Dawkins.  I'm talking about your ignorance, illogic, and intellectual abuse of children.  You really need to get out and read what people write to you - otherwise we might think you're just a narrow-minded, ignorant fanatic.  See?

Quote
Good grief, and you call me a fanatic?  I sure as hell have never suggested that Darwinists shouldn't procreate or that the children you have should be entrusted to someone else merely because our worldviews differ.
So what?  That's not what I'm talking about.  It's not a question of your worldview - I know numerous Christians capable of raising good kids.  But none of them are quite as pig-ignorant, stubbornly stupid, or (given your behavior here) quite as sluttishly silly as you are.

As I said - you're a menace to your own kids.  Raised by you, they're going to become servants, not scientists; janitors, not doctors; idiots, not valuable members of society.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Date: 2008/07/22 22:58:07, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2008,18:33)
Crown of thorns needed, isle nine:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-293024

That is SO funny.  Does FTK always have this persecution complex?  And this tendency to not read ANYTHING of what folks write to her?  Does she really believe the nonsense she wrote there?

Date: 2008/07/24 14:43:42, Link
Author: Rilke's Granddaughter
Quote (Louis @ July 24 2008,04:24)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]<br/><br/>I'm just concerned that whilst I was sleeping a large section of thread has turned into a combo of "Look christinanity is ridiculous/nuh uhhhh" and "Louis masturbates like a caged spider monkey".

Of the three propositions contained within this derailerisation only one is true.

Louis

P.S. Ok, well maybe two. But only when no one is watching.....except for that one time in Hyde Park.

P.P.S. I find it curious that that dedicated manual autoexseminator Chatfield is the one who started this element of derailment. I think the boy has some kind of fetish. I'm slightly repelled by the very thought.

Christianity is ridiculous in Hyde Park?  Who knew?

I understand your concern about my feelings on the FTK issue; but we have demonstrated proof that she lies, deliberately misunderstands, refuses to deal with facts, distorts the truth, fails to understand what is being said to her, etc. etc.

These are general traits that work against being an effective and reasonable parent, IMO.  Is the starving them?  Probably not.  Depriving them of love?  Probably not.  Ruining their minds?  Damn straight, keemosabe.

 

 

 

=====