AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Rob

form_srcid: Rob

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.243.23.129

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Rob

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/08/16 09:01:22, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 16 2006,13:04)
I'll probably regret asking, but may I have the link for it?


Huperborea

Date: 2006/08/16 10:34:30, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
DaveScot is an idiot but David Heddle is not.

Date: 2006/08/16 10:46:49, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 16 2006,14:46)
I saw no references to Arabization there -- am I missing something?

No Arden. I have not addressed the concept of Arabization on my blog. I posted my responses to the PT thread.

Date: 2006/08/16 13:27:41, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 19 2006,00:25)
I weep for the Ann Coulters and Kent Hovinds of the world that no longer have a champion for their cause. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. But surely, Dave the computer expert and autodidactic 180-IQ Scientific American Marine Agnostic that believes god created all animals equally...will stand up to the occasion like the  mushrooms he raises so lovingly.

Don't forget that DaveScot is the lover of many men's wives, who beg him to impregnate them.

Date: 2006/08/16 14:14:27, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 16 2006,18:29)
Hey O'Brien, Paley is a geocentrist.

Do you agree with him?

You must be s***ting me.

Date: 2006/08/16 14:22:10, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 16 2006,18:38)
Hey Robbie, isn't that a sinful thought . . . . ?

For whom? I definitely don't get off on the thought of DaveScot spreading his seed. In fact, I find the prospect f'ing terrifying.

Date: 2006/08/16 16:18:01, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
My goodness,Robbie, you certainly do seem to have an obsession with, uh, "precious bodily fluids".


You must be projecting.

Quote
Anything you want to, uh, tell us . . . . . . ?


No.

Date: 2006/08/16 19:12:05, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 19 2006,13:03)
More importantly, in the area of psychology we have reason to suppose that if she didn't look like a chain-smoking dyke, while apparently having a fundy background, she might be more open to scientific ideas.  She's reacting against the more knowing/better looking/cooler than Dembski (yes, we exist) types.

What does psychology tell us about an unjustifiably arrogant dick who likes to hit below the belt like you?

Date: 2006/08/21 13:01:55, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 21 2006,12:26)
(BTW, there's a pretty good Davison/Springer Tardfight right here)

LOL! That should have followed the Shatner Roast on Comedy Central.

Date: 2006/08/21 13:05:48, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
My run in with DaveScot. (Fortunately, he didn't stick around.)

Date: 2006/08/21 15:44:36, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 21 2006,18:13)
fair warning:

Obrien is the master of the inept one-liner.

watching him argue with Davetard should be amusing if you keep that in mind.

I find neither one of them amusing myself, but that's just me.

I was amused to see that not only was my imposter disemvoweled by PZ but so were you for replying to him. Please continue to do so; I prefer your comments that way.

Date: 2006/08/22 19:46:58, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 22 2006,23:05)
Or maybe he’s just angry because Morphodyke O’Leary gets more p*ssy than he does. ;)

Comments like these make me think the admin should institute a "no posting until your balls drop" rule.

Date: 2006/08/22 20:40:40, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (mcc @ Aug. 23 2006,01:37)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that DaveScot would never agree to work for those terrorist french traitors at the U.N..


DaveScot only eats freedom fries and he freedom kisses the many women who want him to knock them up. (He then skips out in the morning before they wake up and have a chance to make him some freedom toast.)

Date: 2006/08/23 08:30:47, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2006,00:49)
http://jacquelinepassey.blogs.com/blog/2006/08/dating_tip_qual.html


The words "Bitch, please" sprang to mind when reading her self-aggrandizing post.

Date: 2006/08/25 09:09:54, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 11 2006,15:47)
I wonder if he's a Christian? If so, that explains it. Surely Christians have no place teaching science classes. Teaching math at Bible colleges in the South, sure, but not science.

I'm going to write my liberal Congresswoman this very afternoon.

####, Arden/George, this comment far exceeds the stupidity benchmark I previously calculated for you!

Date: 2006/08/25 09:32:58, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (don_quixote @ Aug. 25 2006,14:21)
Would you describe yourself as a Fundamentalist Christian, O'Brain?

No.

Date: 2006/08/25 15:41:38, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 25 2006,20:38)
In fact, didn't PZ, of all the posters on pharyngula, only identify RO and Jason by name as being trolls?

food for thought...

Jason is an upstart; I was causing Peezee dyspepsia long before he came along.

Date: 2006/08/25 16:06:31, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 25 2006,20:44)
but of course, being proud of being a troll is certainly something to consider in your case.

As my friend Alan once wrote about me (before we became friends :)):

He's not your garden variety troll; seems more like a legendary, chromatic dragon riding troll from the ethereal plane AC:-1, HP: 150, 100% resistant to magic. Bearing a sky-blue banner with a white integral sign between the limits of heaven and ####. Gauntlets of digging and crushing.

Anyway, my banishment from Peezee's blog is a good thing in that fall term will be starting soon and I should not be wasting my time wading through the offal there.

Date: 2006/08/27 21:29:33, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 27 2006,18:15)
My apologies if it has already been mentioned, but John Davison abandoned his old blog, and started a new one, The End Of Evolution, at http://theendofevolution.blogspot.com/2006/08/end-of-evolution.html

(Along the lines of the old joke, apparently the ashtrays were full again.)

Classic!

Date: 2006/09/03 10:24:03, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
Don’t you know that altruism is EXACLY what evolution would predict?


Pull the other leg.

Date: 2006/09/03 10:30:16, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 01 2006,12:52)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,02:39)
after the Enron fiasco, there was a specific rich republican who funded a drive to recall Gray Davis

That rich republican was Howard Ahmanson.

The same guy who funds DI's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture and sits on its board of directors.

According to whom? As far as I know, Darrell Issa was the "rich republican." (Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory parade, Lenny.)

Date: 2006/09/03 10:38:03, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
The problem with Arnold is that he is not conservative enough. I voted for Tom McClintock in the recall and would do so again.

Date: 2006/09/03 13:02:37, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
[quote=Arden Chatfield,Sep. 03 2006,16:34][/quote]
Quote
Fortunately no one like McClintock will ever get elected to the California governorship.


There is nothing fortunate about it.

Quote
California ain't Texas and it ain't the sixties anymore.


Apparently, you have forgotten that Deukmejian was governor in the eighties, right after Governor Moonbeam. (Pete Wilson was also a Republican governor, of course.)


Quote
You may remember McClintock did quite poorly in the recall. Californians are willing to vote for an economic conservative, but the religious right routine will not fly here any more than it would in New England, New York, or Illinois.


Those states do not have a large influx of Mexicans, who tend toward social conservatism. If the Republicans are ever able to successfully court them then California liberals will be SOL.

Date: 2006/09/03 13:18:39, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 03 2006,15:56)
Robert Obrien,
What do you think of global warming, peak oil, deforestation, and land salinanization in terms of large problems that we should be dealing with politically?
-I only know a few repubs of the McClintock variety.

Global warming--If the null hypothesis is that there is no global warming and the alternate hypothesis is that there is global warming, I think the cost of making a type II error is such that we ought to curb our "greenhouse gas" emissions even if some climatologists continue to dispute there is sufficient evidence to conclude global warming has occurred and continues to occur.

Peak oil--eh?

Deforestation--deforestation certainly concerns me and I think, on the whole, the government's management of our forests has been inept. I disliked Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior and I am glad to see her go.

Land salinization--I'm afraid I don't know about this issue. I am alarmed by the loss of topsoil, however.

One thing you did not mention is power in CA. I would like to see a move toward decentralized micropower alternatives in the future.

Date: 2006/09/03 13:52:28, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
What makes you think Tom McClintock is a "religious conservative," especially in the mold of Southern politicians? When he was in the recall race I saw him talking about issues like taxes and CA infrastructure, not posting the 10 Commandments.

McClintock is a social conservative but he ain't a politician with only one string on his banjo.

Date: 2006/09/03 13:57:19, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Tom McClintock's "OnTheIssues" profile.

Date: 2006/09/04 20:02:22, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
You have forgotten that Deukmejian and Wilson weren't religious conservatives.


Planned Parenthood has criticized  George Deukmejian for being "anti-choice." That combined with the fact that he is a Christian should make him a "religious conservative," according to your "reasoning."

 
Quote
Yeah, and if my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle.


And if you had nuts?

 
Quote
Won't happen, the California GOP is much much more comfortable demonizing Mexicans for cheap political points. That's what Wilson did, and it cost the GOP the California Hispanic vote ever since. The tipping point in California politics came when Hispanics finally started voting in big numbers in the late 80's. With the exception of Schwarzenegger, California Hispanics have voted Democratic ever since, including Congressional races, Senate races and the presidential races.


Yeah, history tells us that a race will never embrace a party they believe slighted them in the past.

 
Quote

And the political future of California does not lie in the hands of conservative White Protestants.


What else do the cards reveal, Miss Cleo?

Date: 2006/09/04 20:15:42, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
No legal rights for same-sex couples

Q: Do you support the bill to give same-sex couples most of the same legal benefits as married couples?
McCLINTOCK: I would veto it. I do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But I draw the line when they ask the government to approve or disapprove it of it.
Source: Recall debate in Walnut Creek Sep 3, 2003


Absolutely!

   
Quote
Why the Pledge Matters
By Tom McClintock

...Words matter. Ideas matter. And symbols matter. The public furor fomented by the Ninth Circuit Court over the Pledge of Allegiance must not be devalued as a mere defense of harmless deistic references and quaint old customs. The principle at stake is central to the very foundation of the American nation and the very survival of its freedoms.


Right!


   
Quote
...he's the former director of economic and regulatory affairs for Ahmanson's Claremont Institute.


Give Lenny his tin-foil hat back. It is not Ahmanson's Claremont Institute; it is just the Claremont Institute, where he serves on the board of directors.

Date: 2006/09/08 07:09:12, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,10:28)
If all you knew about David Heddle was his "cosmological ID", you might assume he's a patient drooling in an institution somewhere.

No.

Date: 2006/09/11 17:40:57, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2006,10:18)
Plantinga spent years trying to philosophically prove that 'god exists' was something that can be assumed a priori, and therefore didn't have to be proven.

I agree with Plantinga on that point. In Mathematics we have axioms, which can only be shown to be reasonable, consistent, etc. but not proven.

Date: 2006/09/12 20:57:22, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2006,19:33)
11) Worst defender of evolution.

Peezee

Date: 2006/09/12 21:49:45, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,20:12)
This renders [David Heddle] basically useless as a scientist...

Wrong again, Ardo.

Date: 2006/09/12 21:55:08, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 12 2006,23:08)
Here are the results from a pubmed search for "myers pz"

Quote
Dudkin EA, Myers PZ, Ramirez-Latorre JA, Gruberg ER. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with calcium sensitive dye.
Neurosci Lett. 1998 Dec 18;258(2):124-6.
PMID: 9875543 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2: Stachel SE, Grunwald DJ, Myers PZ. Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Lithium perturbation and goosecoid expression identify a dorsal specification pathway in the pregastrula zebrafish.
Development. 1993 Apr;117(4):1261-74.
PMID: 8104775 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Growth cone dynamics during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone.
J Neurosci. 1993 Jan;13(1):127-43.
PMID: 8423468 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Cell-cell interactions during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone in the embryonic grasshopper.
J Neurosci. 1993 Jan;13(1):115-26.
PMID: 8423467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract NeuroVideo: a program for capturing and processing time-lapse video.
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1991 Jan;34(1):27-33.
PMID: 2036787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Metcalfe WK, Myers PZ, Trevarrow B, Bass MB, Kimmel CB. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Primary neurons that express the L2/HNK-1 carbohydrate during early development in the zebrafish.
Development. 1990 Oct;110(2):491-504.
PMID: 1723944 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Myers PZ, Eisen JS, Westerfield M. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Development and axonal outgrowth of identified motoneurons in the zebrafish.
J Neurosci. 1986 Aug;6(8):2278-89.
PMID: 3746410 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8: Eisen JS, Myers PZ, Westerfield M. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Pathway selection by growth cones of identified motoneurones in live zebra fish embryos.
Nature. 1986 Mar 20-26;320(6059):269-71.
PMID: 3960108 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Myers PZ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Spinal motoneurons of the larval zebrafish.
J Comp Neurol. 1985 Jun 22;236(4):555-61.
PMID: 4056102 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Green DM, Myers PZ, Reyna DL. Related Articles, Links
Abstract CHROMPAC III: an improved package for microcomputer-assisted analysis of karyotypes.
J Hered. 1984 Mar-Apr;75(2):143.
PMID: 6546940 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


I suppose that makes him a productive graduate student and postdoc, but perhaps only one paper since becoming a full professor.  I don't think this is uncommon for a someone who is primary a teacher at a small liberal arts school, and he is responsible for 4 courses.  Developing an undergraduate curriculum is surely time consuming, and few researchers (at least in my department) do so.  That said, it seems to me he puts more effort into Pharyngula than his research program (completely unverified).

I don't think Peezee is a full professor. In any event, don't post that PubMed search to Peezee's wikipedia article because it will be deleted.  ;)

Date: 2006/09/13 04:19:26, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2006,09:14)
Isn't there some award named after you, Robert?

Yeah. I seem to recall a college drop out/failed comedian/usurer named an award after me back in 2004.

Date: 2006/09/13 14:37:02, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 13 2006,13:51)
why do i keep feeling like telling RO just to STFU?

Cuz' you ran out of Prozac?

Date: 2006/09/19 18:29:05, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,21:09)
Let me make a few minor corrections. I'll just cross out the bits that are completely wrong

   
Quote
"Design can be mathematically demonstrated" except that nobody has ever actually done it, although there are plenty of excuses as to why it hasn't happened "yet." The irony here is multifaceted. Dembski's mathematics, which is touted as putting ID on solid mathematical footing, actually does nothing of the sort. His work says some interesting things applicable to genetic algorithms, but genetic algorithms resemble actual evolution (the way it is supposed to work) in only a superficial way. However, in a move analogous to leaning into rather than away from a left hook, evolutionists often proclaim genetic algorithms as a sort of proof of evolution. This lunacy then plays into Dembski's hands by extending the shelf life of his arguments which should, by now, be dead. It's all kind of crazy, when you think about it.

No, David Heddle was right about that, too.

Date: 2006/09/19 18:32:37, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 19 2006,22:57)
And in his case.....a bigger one never existed.

Heds up prof. have you considered it is a REQUIREMENT?


Bwhawhawhahwhwhwhwwhahahahaha.

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

Date: 2006/09/19 18:47:35, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2006,22:13)

Quote
I wouldn't even go that far.

And I can't even imagine what 'saving ID' would even look like. How can you 'save' something fundamentally fraudulent, with no substance?


Teleology ain't "fundamentally fraudulent," Ardo.

Quote


I guess the bizarre thing is that half of Heddle's brain knows ID is a load of shit, but the other half has to stay loyal to it, and spends a lot of its energy suppressing the other half.


Ardo, you should take your clairvoyance on the road with Dionne Warwick.

Date: 2006/09/19 18:51:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,23:39)
By 'too', do you mean Heddle's sentence "Dembski's mathematics, which is touted as putting ID on solid mathematical footing, actually does nothing of the sort." was correct?

Nah, I was seconding his criticism of computer simulations being touted as evidence for speciation.

Date: 2006/09/19 19:38:48, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 20 2006,00:26)
I especially found this response by Ed appropriate:

 
Quote
RO  
Quote
Ed responded to my message with all the wit of a schoolyard taunter (I refer interested parties to his blog for the full exchange) complete with schoolyard back up.



I'll take psychological projection for $1000, Alex.


yup.

I find Ed's frequent Jeopardy! allusions insipid and annoying. (It is no wonder that he failed as a comic; he gets his hands on an idiom and runs it into the ground.)

Date: 2006/09/19 19:45:06, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,23:58)
So what's the 'too' reference?

Ah, I see what you are getting at. I agree with David Heddle that Bill Dembski's mathematical arguments have yet to deliver from what I have seen. (I guess my answer to your question should have been 'yes.' )

Date: 2006/09/19 20:20:03, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Addendum:

Even a couple of years ago, when I was knocking heads for Bill, I thought it odd that he said (in an e-mail to me) that he left it up to Wolpert to fill in the details of his (i.e., Bill's) argument. Why would Wolpert do that? Anyway, I would like to try that on one of my exams; I will just give a sketch of a proof and then write the instructor a note saying, "I leave it to you to fill in the details."--Robert O'Brien

Date: 2006/09/20 06:31:15, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 20 2006,10:45)
Hey Wobert Obrien are you single like Heddle .....?

it might be time to change your motto

Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

If his blog picture is acurate, You and Him would would be the last word in those bon mots.



I'm sure he appreciates help from intellectual giants such as yourself...or not...but anyway keep up the good work of confirming his premise....ID has brought ridicule on his little cult of REPROBATION.


From the Devils Dictionary


REPROBATION, n. In theology, the state of a luckless mortal prenatally damned. The doctrine of reprobation was taught by Calvin, whose joy in it was somewhat marred by the sad sincerity of his conviction that although some are foredoomed to perdition, others are predestined to salvation.


Enjoy...... I rarely cast pearls to swine...it won't happen again..... in your case. Twit.

Dude, lay off the chronic.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:53:46, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 20 2006,11:50)
Well actually yes I am still a Kiwi.
Just living in Oz, I had the operation and Aussies will niggle the buggery out of you if they detect the slightest Kiwi accent so I'm a Kiwi incognito. If I go home I get picked on for my Aussie accent and if I spend long enough there the bloody Aussies notice when I come back.

To a Kiwi the Aussie pronunciation of "fish" sounds like 'feeesh' and to an Aussie the Kiwi "fish" is 'fush'.

Like writen Ukrainian there are practically no vowels in spoken Kiwi. :p
Oh and 'Crikey' is used on both sides of the Tasman Sea.

From here on out I shall address you as Weta, when I bother to address you at all.

Date: 2006/09/21 07:49:50, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Dave:

I liked your Watchmaker animation. (Peezee posted it to his vapid blog.)

Date: 2006/09/21 09:03:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2006,13:02)
Robert--  Glad you liked the "Watchmaker" ... feel free to join in any time on my thread here.  As you can see, I'm slightly outnumbered.

Hi Dave. I can't help you with YEC, since I accept that the earth is billions of years old. I can only help you to the extent that I am a theist who thinks the biological sciences rest on an inferior epistemological foundation.

Date: 2006/09/21 09:23:49, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I don't see my response to Dave on the other thread, so I am posting it here:

Quote
Hi Dave. I can't help you with YEC, since I accept that the earth is billions of years old. I can only help you to the extent that I am a theist who thinks the biological sciences rest on an inferior epistemological foundation.

Date: 2006/09/23 07:44:16, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 23 2006,10:01)
Yes, Dave, please do take it away. It's starting to stink.

If only Wynne could stand downwind from his own posts.

Date: 2006/09/23 09:45:48, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I thought it might be nice to dress up as a crusader.

Date: 2006/09/24 07:36:48, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 24 2006,06:19)
Love San Diego, especially the Gasslamp/Gasslight? area.

Yeah, San Diego is great. I also recommend Santa Barbara and San Mateo County (where I'm from).

Date: 2006/09/24 07:41:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 24 2006,11:18)
In the UK, churches are a good source for local history.

I live right next to one. It is the oldest building in Windsor. I do not consider it a "waste".

Here.

Good for you; instead of spending an inordinate amount of time kvetching online about Christianity (in lieu of, say, doing research) it appears that you have developed a healthy attitude toward it.

Date: 2006/09/24 13:18:56, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (tiredofthesos @ Sep. 20 2006,17:54)
My medium's powers have detected some discarnate spirit naming itself "Robert O'Brian" [sic] attempting to contact us from the aethers...  
  Who exactly is this O'Brainless jackass's hole?  It isn't just me that finds him a useless and unfunny bore, is it?  I mean, I notice that the posts under that name have as great an effect on the thread as a priest praying over bread and wine does at a Catholic mass.

Apparently, this dude climbed back into his garderobe.

Date: 2006/09/25 10:11:42, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Shirley Knott @ Sep. 25 2006,09:52)
I will cheerfully argue that judeo-christian culture strictly defined has NOT contributed more to human knowlege than any other culture, but is surely in the running for having destroyed and impeded more knowlege than any other culture.

Now, about that geocentric model...

Shirley Knott

First of all, let's drop this "Judeo-Christian" nonsense. Secondly, you may "cheerfully argue" that Christianity has destroyed or impeded more knowledge than any other culture but it would be an argument you would lose.

Date: 2006/09/25 12:48:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 25 2006,15:16)
I understand what you're implying WRT Ms. Knotts, but we both know the Judeo belongs there.

No, we do not. I think Judaism is superfluous.

Date: 2006/09/25 13:10:50, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2006,18:03)
Judaism feels the same about you.

What Judaism "feels" does not concern me. It is a relic.

Date: 2006/09/25 13:26:51, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2006,18:22)
What do you think ought to be done about the problem?

What problem?

Date: 2006/09/25 13:40:51, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2006,18:32)
The problem of this relic religion lying around.

I do not consider it a problem; Judaism is innocuous enough. (Although, Israel is a problem.)

Date: 2006/09/25 15:34:36, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (doering @ May 2 2006,13:23)
There is nothing more "absolute" in human knowledge than technological proof, it is more certain than mathematical proof.

Nonsense

Date: 2006/09/25 17:11:06, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,21:54)
You'll also note that there is a huge gap in your list, ranging from before the beginning of the current era until around the renaissance, a period during which arguably the Christian church was at its most ascendant. The Church essentially ran Europe from the fifth century until at least the fifteenth century, and yet we see a noticeable lack of important mathematicians during that period.

Fibonacci, Nemorarius, Nicole Oresme, etc.

Date: 2006/09/26 05:00:51, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2006,09:45)
Oh by the way AFD what's the fastest growing religious group in the USA?  ....Yes AFD.....Atheism.

You can take some of the credit for that AFD.

Weta:

According to whom? (Hint: non-religious != atheist)

Date: 2006/09/26 06:27:20, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2006,11:12)
Hang on, 6/10 in a region where >90% are Christian says 'christianity is an impediment'.

Thanks, GOP.

Non sequitur (The cap really does suit you.)

Date: 2006/09/26 06:50:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2006,11:41)
Then why aren't 9/10ths of the scientists GoP listed Christians, then?

LOL. It might have something to do with the fact that Archimedes and Euclid lived before the advent of Christianity.

Date: 2006/09/26 06:56:17, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2006,11:44)
Oh, the perils of using latin phases you don't understand.

Semper Tard!

I understand the concept of non sequitur quite well, tardcap.

Date: 2006/09/26 07:18:27, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2006,11:52)
Fair enough, and the first time I've ever seen you actually explain something. But why *are* scientists disproportionately nonreligious?

With regard to Christianity, perhaps some of them are put off by some of the same things I am, i.e., Old Testament, Trinity, transubstantiation, Mariolatry, chiliasm, and forced clerical celibacy/abstinence.

In any event, modern scientists cannot, in general, hold a candle to the (more) religious scientists of yore, so it don't make no never mind to me why modern scientists tend to be non-religious. (It should be noted, however, that mathematicians are more religious, on the whole, than other scientists.)

Date: 2006/09/26 07:29:16, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2006,12:11)
Robert, roberto, robertas, robertat

"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione"

Weta:

Ne sutor ultra crepidam

Date: 2006/09/26 07:35:12, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2006,12:26)
That explanation doesn't work. If that was the explanation, we'd see an en masse conversion of scientists away from Catholicism to Protestantism, instead of scientists actually leaving Christianity and religion in general. Besides, the Genesis story is no more emperically supportable than 'trinity, transubstantiation, Mariolatry, chiliasm, and forced clerical celibacy/abstinence.'

Some of those doctrines apply equally as well to Protestantism. Anyway, my point was if Christianity were revised somewhat you might see more Christian scientists (but not Christian Scientists.  :) )

Date: 2006/09/26 08:05:38, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2006,12:55)
....ah Robert......are you gay?

Weta:

No. Why, are you interested?

Date: 2006/09/30 08:11:56, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,16:56)
Dang, maybe we should invite him HERE? He's certainly brighter than GoP or ROB.

If you exhumed your head from your nethers you might notice that David Heddle does not particularly care for PT.

By the way, Chattie, I am still waiting for the adverse academic repercussions you warned me about a year ago to materialize.

Date: 2006/09/30 08:19:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I posted this to UD in response to David Heddle's banning:

The heavy-handed suppression of criticism here is disappointing, to say the least.

I doubt it will ever make it out of the queue.

Date: 2006/09/30 17:52:53, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 30 2006,13:19)
I posted this to UD in response to David Heddle's banning:

The heavy-handed suppression of criticism here is disappointing, to say the least.

I doubt it will ever make it out of the queue.

I stand corrected.

Date: 2006/10/01 13:30:55, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Bhaskara

Date: 2006/10/01 13:35:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,23:05)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 25 2006,22:11)
Fibonacci, Nemorarius, Nicole Oresme, etc.

…and how many of these made the top-ten list? So one is left to wonder why, when the church was at its most ascendent in Europe, its mathematicians seemed to be more-or-less second-tier.

And this still begs the question of what is it about Christianity do you think makes it responsible for the quality of Western culture?

There can only be ten in a top ten list and these did not make it into that guy's list. Fibonacci is most certainly among the greatest of mathematicians, though.

Date: 2006/10/01 17:24:25, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (dhogaza @ Oct. 01 2006,19:55)
Don't let the excitement over OE lead you to neglect UD.   In  this thread JasontheGreek sez

 
Quote
I’d bet that a lot of people here and others in ID, in general, would disagree that avida shows what you claim. Even if it did show this in a computer simulation, again- it’s not the real world. On top of that- I’d say a lot of honest IDers would disagree with you and do so honestly. It doesn’t make a person dishonest to discount avida as a fantasy.


OK, Jason, you're not dishonest.  You're just dumb.

The thread's fun.  Tom English, Karl Pfluger and others trash self-proclaimed CS experts DaveTard and Gil Dodgen thoroughly.

I agree with Jason; avida appears to be much ado about nothing.

Date: 2006/10/08 14:40:29, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 08 2006,04:19)
RO is just... irritating.

And you were the one who invited me here.  :D

Date: 2006/10/08 14:45:45, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (tiredofthesos @ Oct. 08 2006,16:55)
Not being a scientist...

That much is clear.

Date: 2006/10/08 16:05:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 08 2006,20:22)

Quote
i invited reasoned response from you on a specific thread, which, btw, you never gave, as usual.


I disagree.

Quote
indeed the same can be said of yourself [sic], but at least sos is honest about his limitations.


I am in the mathematical sciences.

Date: 2006/10/08 16:57:27, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 08 2006,21:18)
...and the fact you do math doesn't make you a scientist, but of course you couldn't admit that, as I expected.

Not all sciences are empirical.

Date: 2006/10/09 04:27:24, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (tiredofthesos @ Oct. 09 2006,05:00)
Since we're at the wall, Robert O, whatever intelligence you may have is the sort that pond scum might produce.  You are a silly, pompous, and blitheringly dull fraud, whatever your tinkering-with-numbers skill may be (perhaps some sort of "Rainman" talent, eh?).

 You are a really dull, shitty human being, by any sensible person's judgement.

 Fuck you and the horse's ass your head has been surgically attached within.  You aren't worth the cow that died to make your stinking belt.

   :D

That is an anencephalic rejoinder if I have ever seen one.

Date: 2006/10/09 16:59:54, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 09 2006,18:26)
Shorter Glen D:  Don't be an a-hole, stupid!

I think you should translate all of Glen D.'s posts (Like in those GEICO commercials; next time be sure to include the bit about "Mashed potatoes and cranberry sauce!")

Date: 2006/10/24 12:20:18, Link
Author: robindch
Ken Ham of AnswersInGenesis seems to have run into financial difficulty and is appealing for funds.  And he wants them fast.  Ham has made a desperate appeal in an online video here:

https://www.answersingenesis.org/donate/onlinedonation.aspx
Quote
We've reached another period where the donated funds are not keeping pace with the required construction expenses.  This time, however, we can't delay contracts [...etc...]
Anybody got the inside scoop on this one?

Date: 2006/10/27 16:01:29, Link
Author: robindch
> Why doesn't he just start calling all the AIG employees
> 'volunteers' or 'missionaries', and stop paying their Social
> Security tax to the Feds?


I think Hovind took out a patent on that idea :)

Where's that animatronic of a caveman with his smalls?  I could do with a laugh!

Date: 2006/10/28 06:34:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 28 2006,10:23)
This is unspeakably tragic:
   
Quote
I flunked most of my highschool math and science classes, and lost interest in science altogether until ID became a popular topic. Thanx to you and other ID proponents, my interest in science is reinvigorated. Science is exciting now! There is new life in what was once a dead and meaningless science.

And I lost interest in fine dining until I discovered Twinkies.

Ugh.

Date: 2006/11/01 06:07:10, Link
Author: robindch
From http://www.evolutionsucks.org/what.htm

"Does God Exists?"

Grammar sucks too.

Date: 2006/11/21 01:07:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?


...

Date: 2006/12/13 17:20:12, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
There is the Creation & Evolution forum at Christian Forums. (Although, some of what passes as discourse here would not be tolerated there.) Gary Hurd posts there and I post there on occasion.

Date: 2006/12/16 23:18:50, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
David Heddle responds to the animation here.

Date: 2006/12/17 01:22:59, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 17 2006,00:41)
Nick's post shows Dembski's email to critics, which has to be seen to be believed.

That e-mail is #### peculiar.

Date: 2006/12/21 00:35:35, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 20 2006,18:10)
Um, Heddle, no one gives a flying fock about your opinions.  They are, after all, no better or more important than the opinions of the counter girl at the deli where I had lunch today.  (shrug)

So go preach elsewhere, at someone who gives a #### about your opinions.

I care about what David Heddle has to say, lunkhead. Who gave you the right to employ pluralis majestatis?

Date: 2006/12/21 00:40:02, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 20 2006,17:04)
The question still remains, unanswered and evaded myriad times by you Heddle, why are your religious opinions any more or less correct than mine, my best friend's, my mother in law's, my hot food delivery operative of choice's, or a person of indeterminate sex from the end of my road?

Because you are English. Next question.

Date: 2006/12/21 15:28:07, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 21 2006,07:30)
Robert O'Brian [sic],

Wow. Your WHOLE reasoning is that my religious opinions (and thus those of an entire nation of around 60+ million people) are invalid because I am English. Whoa. Dude. That's some STAGGERING arrogance there on your part.

What are you? Five years old? "You're wrong because you're not American! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah."

Wow I really am glad I'm not a christian with advertisments [sic] for your faith like you and "I lie for jesus" Heddle [sic]. I hope those people on this board who ARE christians are thoroughly ashamed to have vermin like you pissing out of their tent.

Louis

Louis:

I was being facetious. I realize not all English are like you or Dawkins, and, in fact, I like Stephen Elliott well enough and I certainly like Richard Swinburne. (Also, I have been told my great-great-grandmother, Emma Rigsby, was English.)

Date: 2006/12/22 00:21:49, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I am from San Mateo County, California. I have lived in CA all of my life except for brief stays in a few other states which I did not much care for.

Date: 2006/12/24 14:44:33, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 24 2006,14:07)
Fat jokes. Reminds me of ROB. Way to go, Dave. We hereby cede the moral high ground to you.

I merely pointed out that the college drop out/failed comedian whose award you are wont to cite looks as if he could win an award for putting away jelly doughnuts.

Date: 2006/12/24 15:58:31, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 24 2006,15:22)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Dec. 24 2006,14:44)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 24 2006,14:07)
Fat jokes. Reminds me of ROB. Way to go, Dave. We hereby cede the moral high ground to you.

I merely pointed out that the college drop out/failed comedian whose award you are wont to cite looks as if he could win an award for putting away jelly doughnuts.

So Robert, did you actually make those posts under Dave Scot's name yourself? I noticed that the link for Dave Scot's name linked to a non-existent 'davescot.com', which isn't something I'd think Dave would do.

No, I did not make those posts. I usually try to identify myself, but even if I were posting pseudonymously, it would not be as "DaveScot".

Date: 2007/02/26 15:00:17, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
phonon:

I love your Dembski-as-Newton avatar; it's a hoot!

Date: 2007/02/26 17:24:42, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 26 2007,16:08)
It's a little puzzling to me how bad they are at the PR. I mean, would you ever put Davetard in charge of your movement's website? Denyse O'Leary, who writes like one of the least promising 6th graders in the english class? Patrick, Gil, Salvador, any of those dimbulbs?

I am pretty sure DaveScot was chosen for his fawning sycophancy rather than his perceived mental acuteness.

Then again, Bill appears to be off the rails at UD much of the time these days; maybe he needs to eat a Snickers to cure his impaired judgment.

Date: 2007/04/04 12:01:44, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2007,10:49)
Writing in Latin doesn't make you sound any smarter, Robert.

Writing in any language does not make you sound smart, Arden.

Date: 2007/04/04 12:24:37, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Louis @ April 04 2007,12:15)
Ooooooooh! Handbag!

Saucer of milk for one. Etc.

Any substantive comment to make Robert? Anything? Anything at all?

...

Louis

I agree with FtK that the learning curve for biology is not nearly as steep as the physical or mathematical sciences.

Date: 2007/04/06 10:37:11, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I don't think MCAT scores are a particularly good metric. The old GRE (i.e., with the analytical section) would be better.

Date: 2007/04/09 21:09:58, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,18:15)
(every time Davetard starts babbling about the Second Law of Thermodynamics I imagine showing up at his door with a test from my sophomore thermo class)

At the very least, you should provide DaveScot with a suitable book. (I like this one.)

Date: 2007/04/09 21:22:48, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:17)
I liked this one. If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.

I am not familiar with that text. I think this one is good for straight stat mech but "milk before the meat," as they say.

Date: 2007/04/22 02:58:22, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I used to defend Bill Dembski, but since he flew off the rails I have become disillusioned with him. I think it is a shame he is wasting his talents.

Date: 2007/04/22 23:20:07, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (guthrie @ April 22 2007,05:14)
I'm curious Robert, at which point do you think he flew off the rails?  I'm sure you appreciate that to most of us here he did so as soon as he started publishing on ID.

Bill's "street theater" post was the beginning of the end for me. The faux pas since then, including the infamous flatulence animation, have only served to cement my disappointment and disillusionment with him.

Date: 2007/05/05 20:16:51, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
That don't make no never mind to me. I would like to know what each think about America's poor showing in mathematics, though.

Date: 2007/05/12 14:42:11, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
Any idea why his blog,

http://huperborea.blogspot.com/

links to the skeptic's Quran , the Skeptic's book of Mormon but not the Skeptic's Bible? Oh the intellectual honesty of these folks.


I do not cite sources I cannot fully endorse. However, for those who are not lacking in native intelligence, you can get to the SAB from the other two very easily. Also, if you had bothered to look more closely, hayseed, you would have noticed the link to "The Hundredth Sheep," which is critical of the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon.

Date: 2007/05/12 14:44:18, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
Anyway, I hope you mention the trophy on your CV should you finish grad school.


No thanks. Unlike you, I have standards.

Quote
After all, Florida didn't work out, right?


That's right.

Date: 2007/05/12 14:56:14, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,14:51)
You can't fully endorse any of the skeptic's rescources [sic] if you can't endorse part of them, Silly Billy.

According to whom, the skeptic police? I'm pretty sure there is a fallacy of composition or division behind your statement.

Date: 2007/05/12 14:58:05, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,14:52)
Unlike him, you have an award for Tard named after you. That's the real difference.

Ah, but I do not accept awards from college drop-outs/failed comedians; that's where the standards come in.

Date: 2007/05/12 15:09:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,15:00)
Let's look at your two blogs and their viewerships...

Wow, he's outperforming you by such a wide margin, and you're so smart and edumacated, BobTard.

Yes, Ed has an audience several orders greater than mine, but I attribute that to the fact that stultorum infinitus est numerus. Moreover, anyone who cites blog readership in lieu of actual accomplishments is pretty pathetic.

Date: 2007/05/12 15:41:14, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,15:15)
BobTard: arbitrary judge of "actual accomplishments". Ed's blog is a fictional accomplishment? Theoretical accomplishment?


Are you and Davetard related? You both have ego's that are the inverse of your abilities.

Edit: and I'll bet dollars to donuts that the mean of those 'infinite fools' has achieved more than you, BobTard.

Ah, Richard, your praise of Ed's "accomplishments" is a fine example of Asinus Asinum Fricat.

Date: 2007/05/12 16:00:50, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,15:46)
Bobtard, put down your "bumper book of Latin phrases" and stop being so vainglorious. I'm not praising his accomplishments, just pointing out they're much more impressive than yours.

quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur

Twat.

My good Richard, when are you going to realize I am unflappable?

(Incidentally, I confess that I had fun imitating you here.)

Date: 2007/05/12 16:28:22, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,16:04)
Yes, I'd change the subject too if I were you, BobTard.

What no latin?

Your skull cave keeps yammering, Richard, but all I "hear" is blah, blah, blah, f'ing blah.

Date: 2007/05/12 17:17:19, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,16:33)
Bobtard:

http://huperborea.blogspot.com/

 
Quote
I sent this e-mail in support of Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer at Iowa State and author of The Privileged Planet after reading (via Telic Thoughts) that he has been denied tenure.


Dr. Gonzalez:

I am sorry that you have been denied tenure thus far at Iowa State; you
deserve better. Clearly, quality of scholarship is not the issue, since
the university is willing to grant tenure to Avalos and Allen (Duae
tabulae rasae in quibus nihil scriptum est) but denies it to you.

In any event, you have my best wishes. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra
audentior ito.

Sincerely,

Robert O'Brien

He must think you're so smart with all that latin, BobTard.

;)

No doubt. I also forwarded it to Avalos as a courtesy.

Date: 2007/05/12 17:18:47, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,16:37)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 12 2007,16:28)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2007,16:04)
Yes, I'd change the subject too if I were you, BobTard.

What no latin?

Your skull cave keeps yammering, Richard, but all I "hear" is blah, blah, blah, f'ing blah.

Playground taunts, BobTard?


Are you going to call me a

Poopus Headus

?

:)

Nah. Nor will I call you Biggus Dickus.

Date: 2007/05/13 13:48:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 12 2007,18:59)
Quote
 
Quote
After all, Florida didn't work out, right?


That's right.


Buck up, there, big guy. Maybe someday some grad school will let you finish, someone might publish something you write, and you might stop simply being a laughing stock of the internet. In other words, you'll acheive some of the things that people who ridicule you so have taken for granted for so many years. Someday your life might get better.

Or not. It could go either way.

I traded up, Arden. Besides, if I wanted an easy out I could have become a linguistics flunky like you.

Date: 2007/05/13 13:51:45, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
Hey, Bob, a quick search on the internet (BTW, congrats that they gave out an O'Brien trophy last month) seems to indicate that certain people cite this as a real photo of you. Any truth to this?


Whatever pic you were trying to link to, it appears that you mistakenly linked to a photo from your scat fetish folder instead. Perhaps you should clear your browser cache every so often.

Date: 2007/05/13 14:08:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 13 2007,14:05)
Don't worry, we don't judge you harshly for not finishing grad school...

You would not have cause to in any event, since I am still in grad school.

Date: 2007/05/13 14:13:12, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 13 2007,14:10)
And we're sure you had the best of reasons for not making it at Florida.

Absolutely.

Date: 2007/05/13 14:47:36, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Refusing to grant tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez is clearly ideologically/politically motivated. He has at least 55 publications in his field according to ISI Web of Knowledge, which is more than his most vociferous critics have accomplished.

Date: 2007/05/13 16:57:18, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 13 2007,16:03)

Quote
'Clearly'?


That's what I wrote.

Quote
So why were the other two professors denied tenure?


Dunno.

Quote

Should someone who thinks Noah's Ark carved the Grand Canyon be given tenure at a geology department?


Possibly, but in any event that is far removed from Guillermo Gonzalez's "cosmological ID."

Quote

As anyone who's been around academia any length of time can tell you, people have been denied tenure for far less.


And people have been granted tenure for far less.

Date: 2007/05/13 17:10:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 13 2007,17:07)
Alas, universities are under no obligation to provide people with secure pulpit from which to preach their religious opinions.

Let him go to the Texas School of Seminary or whatever, with Dr Dr Bill.

(shrug)

Lenny, where are your 55+ publications in astronomy? Anyway, he did not introduce his avocational cosmological ID ideas into his classroom.

Date: 2007/05/13 17:23:52, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 13 2007,17:14)
I think it's long past the time when nutters should be treated like. . .. well . . . like nutters.

I am glad you finally came to that realization. When will you start taking lithium bicarbonate?

Date: 2007/05/13 17:30:37, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2007,17:26)
Wow BobTard you're the funniest thing since..erm...eh...a burning orphanage.

It's a gift.

Date: 2007/05/14 15:55:38, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2007,17:44)
I hope you kept the receipt.



*jumps into ROFLcopter to escape the LOLocaust*

Good comeback.

Date: 2007/05/14 15:57:25, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (J-Dog @ May 14 2007,14:03)
Thank you DaveTard for the link - Here is my email

'president@iastate.edu'

Dr. Geoffroy,

Thank you for leading a university that has to courage to stand up for the separation of church and state and deny tenure to an idiot like Guillermo Gonzalez. “Privileged Planet” my gluteus maximus!  He made Iowa State a laughing stock – now maybe he can seek tenure at a more suitable environment… like Liberty University.

Thanks again for the truly “intelligent” decision!

Thank you for demonstrating the lack of native intelligence of the opposition.

Date: 2007/05/14 15:58:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 14 2007,15:00)
Quote

And people have been granted tenure for far less.


And, as Sean Carroll's case shows, people have been denied tenure for far more.

I think that the remaining perturbation, that of people having been granted tenure for far more, need not be explored.

Was he denied tenure?

Date: 2007/05/14 16:02:33, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 13 2007,23:23)
I find it hilarious that a person who's published nothing (Robert) regularly insults anti-ID people for not publishing enough.

I am surrounded by people who have impressive publication records in mathematics and statistics, and they are my measuring stick.

Date: 2007/05/14 17:03:45, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2007,17:17)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 13 2007,13:51)
 
Quote
Hey, Bob, a quick search on the internet (BTW, congrats that they gave out an O'Brien trophy last month) seems to indicate that certain people cite this as a real photo of you. Any truth to this?


Whatever pic you were trying to link to, it appears that you mistakenly linked to a photo from your scat fetish folder instead. Perhaps you should clear your browser cache every so often.

No, its hyperlinked by your name, BobTard. Seriously.

Yeah, by "raindogzilla," who is even a bigger loser than Arden.

Date: 2007/05/14 17:38:50, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 14 2007,17:19)

Quote
'Loser'?


Yes.

Quote
I did not bomb out of my first grad school, Bob.


Nor did I.

Quote
I do not have an internet award for idiocy named after me, Bob.


I don't accept awards from college drop-outs/failed comedians.


Quote
I finished my PhD (University of California), Bob.


That's nice. I am also at a UC, in a more demanding discipline.

Quote
I have over a dozen peer-reviewed publications, and my diss was published through a major academic press, Bob.


That's nice.

Quote
So, who precisely is the 'loser', Bob?


You.

Date: 2007/05/14 20:25:04, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (blipey @ May 14 2007,18:11)
Quote
That's nice. I am also at a UC, in a more demanding discipline.


I'm assuming that the discipline is not Law and that you were rejected by the debate team?

Not even close buckwheat.

Date: 2007/05/14 20:27:28, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 14 2007,17:50)
Quote

Was he denied tenure?


Yes, Carroll was denied tenure at the University of Chicago. He moved to CalTech without instigating an email campaign about how he'd been robbed or otherwise showing anything but some disappointment that the UoC thing didn't work out.

I'm not sure that Dr. Gonzalez has instigated such an e-mail campaign but I do not fault him if he has. People who are wronged should not roll over.

Date: 2007/05/15 16:42:15, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 15 2007,00:11)
something tells me you constantly attempt to overcompensate for your rather tiny "measuring stick", bobbo.

Maybe I should demonstrate my manhood by teaming up with you and Peezee to pick on another high school student.

Date: 2007/05/15 19:52:36, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 15 2007,18:45)
Not an English major either, I see . . . . .


(snicker)  (giggle)

True. Nor am I a psychiatrist, but I still recommend medication to counter your anoetic rants.

Date: 2007/05/16 23:09:12, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (phonon @ May 03 2007,18:14)
Last week there was a historian on and FDR came up. You might think this guy's opinions are funny. He loves Warren Harding and hates FDR.

Replace Harding with Hoover and that describes my view. (Well, I don't "hate" FDR, but I certainly dislike him as a president.)

Date: 2007/05/17 01:08:51, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 17 2007,00:10)
A tenure committee should take note of someone advocating a scam as if it were legitimate science.

I do not think that criticism applies to Guillermo Gonzalez.

Date: 2007/05/17 01:11:00, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (blipey @ May 16 2007,23:49)
Replace Harding with Hoover and that describes my view. (Well, I don't "hate" FDR, but I certainly dislike him as a president.)[/quote]

I thought he was dead.

No, he has been fitted with cybernetic parts and rules as shadow leader of the US.

Date: 2007/05/17 01:19:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (blipey @ May 16 2007,23:58)
Ah, I see, massah.  You ARE majoring in Law at the Johnson School of Dumbassery BUT the debate team still turned you down.   Is that it massah?

I'm afraid not, buckwheat.

Date: 2007/05/17 01:27:41, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 17 2007,01:25)
Should we ever go on another church burning spree, BobTard has first dibs on the cross.

I'm not interested, DickTard.

Date: 2007/05/17 01:59:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 17 2007,01:43)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 17 2007,01:27)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 17 2007,01:25)
Should we ever go on another church burning spree, BobTard has first dibs on the cross.

I'm not interesting, DickTard.

Corrected your typo for you.

Good one, DickTard.

Date: 2007/05/17 02:02:35, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 17 2007,01:44)
And you critique Ed Brayton's humour...

Humour? I think it is safe to say you are not from the U.S.

Date: 2007/05/17 13:25:20, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 17 2007,06:18)
According to the DI, it does. Emphasis added:

 
Quote

“There are two issues here: academic freedom and the First Amendment. Gonzalez has gained attention for his advocacy of intelligent design as legitimate science in his book, "The Privileged Planet."

You should know as well as anyone that there are two schools in the ID "big tent," one for "biological ID" and one for "cosmological ID." Guillermo Gonzalez is in the latter group, and as far as I know he has not specifically endorsed Of Pandas and People.

Date: 2007/05/17 13:40:24, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 17 2007,13:32)
Two schools; one manifesto, BobTard.

I refuse to lump them all together, DickTard. Guillermo Gonzalez is several steps above the Apostle of Savior-King Moon, for example.

Date: 2007/05/17 14:14:28, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 17 2007,13:48)
Nothing like arbitrary Fundy dichotomies.

DickTard:

When you use "labels" indiscriminately they lose their force. If I'm a "fundy" then what's this guy

Date: 2007/05/18 19:14:47, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 17 2007,15:49)
To be fair, the IDC-as-scam link is about the drafts of "Of Pandas and People".

However, the point that Gonzalez may not have explicitly endorsed OPAP doesn't affect the validity of my statement. OPAP is not the only evidence going that IDC is a sham.
Also, some people involved in a Ponzi scheme may sincerely believe that they are engaged in legitimate multi-level marketing business practices; they would still be wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the sort of ID Guillermo Gonzalez writes about. The flagellum may have been unspun but the Anthropic Principle and teleology have not.

Date: 2007/05/18 19:24:01, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Iowa State denies tenure to an intelligent design advocate with impeccable credentials

(via Telic Thoughts)

Date: 2007/05/19 21:04:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 18 2007,23:33)
In case you haven't noticed, Bobbie, ID is illegal to teach.  

Indeed, ANYTHING that invokes a supernatural creator or designer an an explanatory mechanism, is illegal to teach.

Game over.

Lenny, I realize you are limited to a certain set of cognitions, but I did not write anything about teaching ID.

Date: 2007/05/19 23:07:15, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 19 2007,21:20)
BobTard, why not start up a thread about your blog? It'd get more views and comments than your blog does - presumably you want your ramblings looked at?

That seems a little narcissistic.

Date: 2007/05/21 00:10:49, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 20 2007,07:32)
Quote

Lenny, I realize you are limited to a certain set of cognitions, but I did not write anything about teaching ID.


Lenny's cognitive processes seem not to ignore relevant information, since the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, the place where Gonzalez is a Senior Fellow, has written plenty about teaching ID.

Privileged Planet Teaching Guide by Gonzalez and Richards:

   
Quote

We are pleased that Dr. Keas has granted us permission to expand on and adapt his guide for a broader audience. It is appropriate for high school through advanced undergraduate students. It can be used as a supplement for an introductory astronomy or general science course, along with The Privileged Planet and accompanying documentary, an introductory astronomy textbook and perhaps a set of readings on the history of science (e.g., selected chapters from The Book of the Cosmos by Dennis Danielson).


(Emphasis added.)

I suppose a demonstrated inability to ignore inconvenient information could be viewed as a cognitive limitation. To others, it may appear as an essential component of intellectual honesty.


Not everyone affiliated with DI is interested in the politics of ID, and I have seen nothing to suggest Guillermo Gonzalez has pushed his teleological musings in his classes.

Also, you neglect to mention the person they are addressing teaches at a Baptist university.

Date: 2007/05/21 01:39:41, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
As I posted to Rob Knop's blog, perhaps the inquisition will soon extend to Owen Gingerich and John Polkinghorne.

Date: 2007/05/21 14:54:59, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2007,13:44)
I had to edit this post a bit. Robert O'Brien's here, and therefore he qualifies for the minimal courtesy of not being insulted.

I didn't mind, really, but thanks.

Date: 2007/05/22 15:48:49, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2007,15:42)
I'd finish school (if you can) before getting all Smarmy.

I think I am entitled to a little smarminess. :)

Date: 2007/05/22 16:39:38, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2007,16:04)
Now with 100% less Latin!

:angry:

Ugh, you people and your demands. Look, I'm not here to fulfill your every frickin' whim, alright? I want to see more Latin. Send Trogdor over to my house. Put on a purple thing and dance around! Well, I've had it!

Date: 2007/05/22 18:05:05, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 22 2007,16:34)
Hannity - I'm talking to you, you big girls blouse!

Hannity annoys me.

Date: 2007/05/23 17:07:15, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2007,16:52)
Yikes.

Seconded.

Date: 2007/05/24 17:31:48, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Please leave Dawkins on the islands.

Date: 2007/05/24 19:24:08, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
He was close by, apparently.

Date: 2007/05/24 20:14:16, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Hector Avalos, professor of corn pone and erstwhile nemesis of Guillermo Gonzalez, responds to his critics here.

Date: 2007/05/24 20:47:30, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,20:42)
as usual, you're way late on the uptake there, bobbo.

btw, I'll take Avalos' "corn pone" over your witless wonders any day.

also, he is certainly not a "nemesis" of Gonzales, in that he readily admits to having absolutely no bearing on Gonzales' tenure issue.

or didn't you actually bother to even read his statement, lackwit?

man, you are SUCH a waste of good air.

Icky, if you would kindly remove your head from your nethers you might note that Avalos shadowed Gonzalez during his speaking engagements, which evinces his fixation with Dr. Gonzalez.

Date: 2007/05/24 20:56:29, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 24 2007,20:50)
You should look up "erstwhile" and find out what it means.

As far as I know, Avalos' shadowing and attempts to incite the faculty against Gonzalez were in the past.

Date: 2007/05/24 21:13:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
By the way, I recently forwarded this to Avalos:

Quote
Dr. Gonzalez:

I am sorry that you have been denied tenure thus far at Iowa State; you
deserve better. Clearly, quality of scholarship is not the issue, since
the university is willing to grant tenure to Avalos and Allen (Duae
tabulae rasae in quibus nihil scriptum est) but denies it to you.

In any event, you have my best wishes. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra
audentior ito.

Sincerely,

Robert O'Brien


And, of course, I previously sent him this:

Quote
Avalos: I have to laugh at the claim you are a Biblical scholar. I am very well read in the field, and I have you to encounter your name. As an undergraduate I took Attic Greek from a favorite prof of mine who studied under Gregory Nagy and James Kugel at Harvard; even with those "once removed" credentials I would not hesitate to take you on.

Date: 2007/05/24 21:19:24, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 24 2007,21:08)
So Avalos is not a current "nemesis" of GG.  So wtf is your point here?

What do you think? Even though his harrying of Gonzalez may have tapered off, I still think Avalos is a toad and an unspectacular academic. (Sort of like another Midwestern professor who shall remain nameless.)

Date: 2007/05/24 21:38:26, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,21:34)
Quote
As far as I know, Avalos' shadowing and attempts to incite the faculty against Gonzalez were in the past.


that and a swift kick might get you out the door, but that's about it.

why do you insist on flaunting your lack of knowledge on a continual basis, bobbo?

Quote
By the way, I recently forwarded this to Avalos:

Quote
Dr. Gonzalez:


so you uh, forward a message to Dr. Gonzalez to Avalos...

very impressive bobbo!

you uh, do realize everyone here just laughs at you, right?

just to be clear, that's AT you, not with you.

fool.

Gee, Icky, does that mean you have knowledge that Avalos continues to be as strident in harrying Guillermo Gonzalez?

Date: 2007/05/24 21:41:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,21:34)
you uh, do realize everyone here just laughs at you, right?

just to be clear, that's AT you, not with you.

fool.

You might want to find another, healthier, outlet for your sexual frustration, Icky.

Date: 2007/05/24 21:49:55, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote
I take it you don't mean the British Isles? Because that's where he is now.


No, they are not remote enough.  

Quote
Meanie. Don't you pick on him!


Not even a trip to Fantasy Island aboard the Loveboat would endear Dawkins to me. Besides, I "pick on him" regularly on his website.  :)

Date: 2007/05/24 22:16:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ May 24 2007,21:46)
I believe that Avalos laid out his credentials in his post. Care to maybe address them instead of following the party line and siding with the persecution complex folks?

What's there to address? I am not impressed by his degrees (Are you impressed with the degrees of the Apostle of Moon?) or by the publications he has listed:

Quote
Selected Publications
This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies, co-edited with Sarah Melcher and Jeremy Schipper (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, In press)

The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, In Press)

Strangers in Our Own Land: Religion in U.S. Latina/o Literature, (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005).

Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005)

Introduction to the U.S. Latina and Latino Religious Experience, (Editor; Boston: Brill, 2004).

Se puede saber si Dios existe? [Can One Know if God Exists?]. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press, 2003).

Health Care and the Rise of Christianity (Peabody: Mass: Hendrickson Press, 1999).

Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel (Harvard Semitic Monographs 54: Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).

Date: 2007/05/24 22:20:20, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 24 2007,22:04)
Quote
I am very well read in the field, and I have you to encounter your name.


I'll bet that the fact that you don't seem to know the difference between "you" and "yet" but blither in Latin impressed the crap out of him.

You must be his pedantic twin, since he also noted that typo.

Date: 2007/05/24 22:23:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Kristine @ May 24 2007,22:16)
you gave me the filthiest fantasy just now. I thank you. Of course I don't know what you look like.

Angels and ministers of grace defend me.

Date: 2007/05/24 22:25:58, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,22:24)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 24 2007,22:20)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 24 2007,22:04)
 
Quote
I am very well read in the field, and I have you to encounter your name.


I'll bet that the fact that you don't seem to know the difference between "you" and "yet" but blither in Latin impressed the crap out of him.

You must be his pedantic twin, since he also noted that typo.

oops, now you've gone and done it bobbo.

I gotta see the response letter you implicitly claim to have received from Avalo.

really, at least that would be something.

*sigh*

most likely you just fantasized he responded to your idiocy.

which of course, makes me wonder why, other than sheer boredom, I'm even bothering to respond to your idiocy.

put up or shut up, bobbo.

He responded to me both times, Icky.

Date: 2007/05/24 22:29:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
By the way, Kristine, I wrote Fantasy Island, not Fire Island.

Date: 2007/05/24 22:33:43, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,22:28)
put up or shut up, bobbo.

you're goddamn boring.  at least the responses would be interesting.

I'm not sure I still have the first. Anyway, I don't think I will post his e-mails without asking, and I'm not about to ask.

Date: 2007/05/24 22:37:06, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,22:35)
sure, bobbo, sure.

I believe you, based on the fantastic content and substantive arguments you have so often presented in the past.

give it up already.

And yet you keep engaging me.

Date: 2007/05/24 22:58:34, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Kristine @ May 24 2007,22:44)
Love, exciting and new...come aboard, we're expecting you! You're a naughty boy. Belly dancer like your kinky suggestion very much.  :p

Well, I can't blame you for having a jones for me, Kristine. I am quite a catch.

Date: 2007/05/24 23:00:15, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ May 24 2007,22:43)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 24 2007,22:33)
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,22:28)
put up or shut up, bobbo.

you're goddamn boring.  at least the responses would be interesting.

I'm not sure I still have the first. Anyway, I don't think I will post his e-mails without asking, and I'm not about to ask.

Convenient

The first e-mail exchange was back in 9/2005.

Date: 2007/05/24 23:09:39, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Kristine @ May 24 2007,23:02)
Now less talky and cough up some photos, please! I have been cooperative in this area. :)

If you insist:

Date: 2007/05/24 23:11:46, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ May 24 2007,23:06)
Care to address his credentials now? Exactly how do they make him a professor of "corn pone"?

Cuz' Chuck Norris told me so.

Date: 2007/05/24 23:15:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,23:11)
However, good point.  I'm completely bored at this point, and  watching the same lame pun get played out over and over again by you has become more than tiresome.

So long.

Date: 2007/05/24 23:16:44, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 24 2007,23:12)
Bradus Pittus.

LOL!

Date: 2007/05/24 23:17:44, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,23:14)
I hereby officially vote for bannation.

You first, Icky.

Date: 2007/05/24 23:23:50, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ May 24 2007,23:18)
Brilliant. I suggest you run off now like Ichthych says. You're only digging deeper. If you can't back up your childish accusations against a man who more than likely doesn’t even read this forumn, then I think it's time for you to take your place alongside the other cowards.



What more is there to say? I reject Avalos' assertion that his B.A. in anthropology qualifies him as a scientist and I think his work in religious studies is pedestrian at best.

Date: 2007/05/24 23:26:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,23:21)
oh, and do feel free to be the first to ban me from a forum by banning me from posting on your site.

since I've never had the slightest interest in posting there, it would be appropriate.

I can't ban people who don't post.

Date: 2007/05/24 23:28:18, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2007,23:26)
Not at all, Bob is quite an expert on not publishing.

And Arden is an expert regarding not getting noticed.

Date: 2007/05/24 23:42:05, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,23:33)
then I guess we can't ban you either, bobbo.

or do you call what you write "posts"?

seems like nothing but noise to me.

I thought you were done, Icky.

Date: 2007/05/25 00:11:51, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 24 2007,23:49)
Corn pone
biscuits and gravy
chicken fried steak

Now I'm hungry.

Dang.

LOL.

Date: 2007/05/25 02:28:43, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (BWE @ May 25 2007,02:14)
Bob, may I call you bob? I had to catch up on this a bit but wow. Do you engage strangers in coffeeshops in political or religious arguments?

Do you have any friends? Seriously.

1. yes
2. no
3. yes

Date: 2007/05/25 17:52:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Darth Robo @ May 25 2007,05:00)
You talking about richarddawkins.net?  I don't recall seeing you there, do you have a different handle?

No, I also post there with my real name. If they had a decent search function you might be able to find my posts.

Date: 2007/05/25 17:55:59, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Louis @ May 25 2007,08:27)
After all, look what he wanted to do to Dawkins. I'm telling you he's as mentally healthy as a padded cell inmate, and twice as tragic.

Strand him on the Galapagos Islands? Yeah, that's positively pathological. Do you test the drugs on yourself, Louis, cuz' that would explain a lot.

Date: 2007/05/28 03:08:35, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ May 27 2007,19:36)
LOL at that fark link:


ROFL

Date: 2007/05/30 14:28:55, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Mark Perakh was so offended by my use of "dumb arse" that he deleted that comment as well as the one addressed to Clouser, so the fight was over before it began.

Date: 2007/05/30 17:56:00, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 29 2007,23:51)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 29 2007,22:31)
This from PT:

 
Quote
Posted by Mark Perakh on May 29, 2007 9:18 PM (e)

I have removed a comment by Robert O’Brien because he had the gall to use obscenity addressing a comment by some other commenter. There was nothing in the deleted comment besides that obscenity. Such offensive and contents-empty comments will not be tolerated. Although O’Brien has most brazenly overstepped the boundary of the tolerable behavior, there are other comments, albeit not as offensive as that by O’Brien, still using ad-hominems. Ladies and gentlemen, please behave as ladies and gentlemen. Ad hominems only weaken your arguments. Thank you.


Out of curiosity, did anybody see what obscenity our beloved ROB hurled?

he called someone an arsehead for asking him to followup on an ancient driveby he did.

typical RO.

Actually, I wrote:

"What do you want to know, dumb arse?"

Date: 2007/05/31 17:43:20, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Guest @ May 31 2007,12:53)
More fanaticism from PZ.

Of course he slams faith, as he continues to rely on it.

He asserts that the existence of the universe, life, mind and reason itself are the result of mindless processes, but such has not been demonstrated.

But, he assure us, these questions will be answered; he has faith in the mindlessly evolved organic brain and its ability to comprehend the true nature of a mindlessly developed mathematically ordered universe.

In the meantime, to make up for living in Morris, he can spew invective on those who don't see it his way.

Yeah, I can't think of a better punishment for him than being stuck in Morris.

Date: 2007/05/31 19:53:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 31 2007,19:17)
I can:

being locked in a room with YOU, in Morris.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees with me, either.

now go back and thwack the Clouserbot on the head again.

she STILL hasn't adequately addressed your question.

I think I might outsource that task to Lenny. He is better at harping than me.

Date: 2007/06/03 19:01:47, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ June 02 2007,19:05)


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/the_swooning_begins.php

Where is Avalos' dunce cap?

Date: 2007/06/04 13:27:42, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 04 2007,09:37)
...Mark Chu-Carroll, a mathematician of not being qualified to review a book on its mathematical competency.

MCC is in computer science, not  mathematics.

Date: 2007/06/04 13:49:37, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
BigDumbChimp:

I was not commenting on the quality (or lack thereof) of MCC's review. I simply was correcting your misstatement.

Louis:

Please get a chimp (not necessarily BDC) to test your drugs on instead of testing them on yourself.

Date: 2007/06/05 03:24:46, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 04 2007,18:41)
Hey Bobbie, do you write your own material?

If so, you need to hire a writer.

If you do not care what I have to say (as you stated the other day) then why address me? Apparently, you believe "...consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Date: 2007/06/05 03:25:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 04 2007,19:08)

A floppy disk? What's that? (Is it at all related to the horse-and-buggy?)

Date: 2007/06/07 15:05:08, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
[quote=Ichthyic,June 04 2007,14:14][/quote]
Quote
still think he couldn't be qualified as a mathematician?


MCC is qualified as a mathematician in those areas of mathematics which overlap with computer science.

Quote

what was your degree in?


Mathematics & Statistics.

Quote
you came SO close to actually having a substantive argument with the Clouserbot, and yet you ran away from that too.


I made my point. I do not feel the need to harp on it, especially since Mark Perakh thinks it is tangential to his thread and he is ultimately in control of its content.

Date: 2007/06/07 19:31:34, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Jack Daniels is nice on rare occasions.

Date: 2007/06/14 03:50:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 12 2007,21:13)
Oh great, now we'll have to listen to some tedious snarl by Robert O'Brien.

I could not bring myself to read through all of Peezee's blah-blah-blah.

Date: 2007/06/15 12:23:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Louis @ June 14 2007,05:39)
Quote
I could not bring myself to read through all of Peezee's blah-blah-blah.


Translation: Can someone help me with the big words please?

Louis

Don't quit your day job to become a translator. (Or should I write translatour. I never know with that odd spelling you have over there.)

Date: 2007/06/17 18:23:10, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
The Brookfield Institute of Transparadigmic Science

WTF?

Date: 2007/06/29 22:00:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I debated Bob Price re: the historicity of Jesus on Reginald Finley's debate hour. It should be available as a podcast soon.

Date: 2007/07/07 13:34:04, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2007,23:29)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ June 29 2007,22:00)
I debated Bob Price re: the historicity of Jesus on Reginald Finley's debate hour. It should be available as a podcast soon.

What was your position, Robert?

I argued for the historicity of Jesus.

Date: 2007/07/07 13:36:37, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 30 2007,03:07)
A debate *hour*?

I will have to give that a listen. Let us know when that is up.

It still isn't up yet, and I don't know why. Perhaps Reggie does not think our discussion is of general interest, although I don't think the content is much different than Bob Price's "Bible Geek" segments.

Date: 2007/07/08 23:02:58, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2007,14:17)
Jesus as a man, or son of god?

I argued that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person. Arguing for Christianity will have to wait for another debate hour. :)

Date: 2007/07/08 23:19:39, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 08 2007,23:09)
Can I ask you a favour, Robert?

PM me if interested.

PM sent

Date: 2007/07/09 12:43:06, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2007,06:22)
I haven't located my copy of NFL after the move yet, but on p.75 there's text beginning with, "The presumption here is that". The presumption is that a valid specification is made so because it describes how or why the designer actually made his design. But if somebody could copy the original text, that would be best.

The presumption here is that if a subject S can figure out an independently given pattern to which E conforms (i.e., a detachable rejection region of probability less than alpha that includes E), then so could someone else.  Indeed, the presumption is that someone else used that very same item of background knowledge -- the one used by S to eliminate H -- to bring about E in the first place.
No Free Lunch, p. 75

Of course, this blatantly contradicts what Dembski says elsewhere:
But designers are inventors of unprecedented novelty, and such creative innovation transcends all probabilities.

So design consists of unprecedented novelty, and yet we detect design by finding precedents in our background knowledge.  Brilliant.

Date: 2007/07/11 17:42:46, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (creeky belly @ July 11 2007,04:43)
Podcast is up.

Thanks for the heads up!

Date: 2007/07/13 12:23:48, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ July 13 2007,09:16)
It's a sham/scam from Demsbki and this Robert Marks person.

Yep.  The project is based on a concept that they call Active Information, which is Yet Another Information Metric that will end up being used by nobody, just like CSI.  They wisely avoid explicit references to ID in their work, but their papers are riddled with problems nonetheless.

Date: 2007/07/14 14:22:40, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 12 2007,20:38)
http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=234090#

 
Quote
Biblical Scholar, Dr. Robert Price and Autodidact Robert O'Brien discuss whether or not history adequately supports that Jesus existed.



NooooooooOOOOOooooooooo!

Emphasis mine.

What, are you saying that watching the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, and the Passion is not sufficient preparation?  :D

Date: 2007/07/14 21:41:33, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I'm not sure what the problem is, Stephen. You might check to see what program mp3 files are associated with on your computer.

Date: 2007/07/16 16:02:35, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 16 2007,14:47)
Dembski shows his shameless side


Here's my quote mine of the day...

Dembski:  
Quote
My books sell well. I get a royalty.

Date: 2007/07/17 18:06:13, Link
Author: Rob
BarryA:  
Quote
Sometimes one is tempted to despair that journalists will ever understand even the most basic principles of the philosophy of science.  Then one reads a sentence like this one in a story on the Fox News web site:

“Global warming can no more be “proven” than the theory of continental drift, the theory of evolution or the concept that germs carry diseases.”

That little (very little) light you see in the distance is a glimmer of hope.


So when a journalist puts global warming and evolution on the same level as continental drift and the germ theory of disease, Barry sees a glimmer of hope.  That glimmer is, no doubt, the glint of the soldiers' helmets as they advance on Waterloo.

Date: 2007/07/19 17:59:30, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (GCT @ July 19 2007,17:48)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2007,04:09)
TARDGASM!!!! OMG OMG WTF LOL?

So, to summarize, if you say that ID is a threat, then it is, and if you say it isn't, then you are just putting up a false front.  Heads I win, tails you lose sucka.

Yep.  I especially liked the closing line:
   
Quote
Just as they would scoff at the notion that their laptop computers were plucked fully developed from a field in Silicon Valley.

But wait a minute...  Why would IDists scoff at the notion of laptops growing in fields?  If the designer can make biological machines like flowers and vegetables grow in fields, then why can't he do the same with simpler electronic machines?

Date: 2007/07/19 18:29:00, Link
Author: Rob
Joe:  
Quote
I can construct a scheme containing mythical creatures. Does that mean they exist in reality? No

I can construct a scheme based on Roman "gods" (or Greek "gods"). Does that mean they exist in reality? No

And Joe can construct a scheme based on fathers.  Does that mean that they exist in reality?  No

The onus is now on you, Blipey, to prove that fathers exist in reality.  When you're done, you might want to also prove that transitive is not the same as intransitive.  That would really clear some things up for Joe.

Date: 2007/07/20 16:00:45, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (J-Dog @ July 20 2007,15:51)
He's also a lier - no surprise - by omission.  

He says:  Well, actually, my work on the explanatory filter first appeared in my book THE DESIGN INFERENCE, which was a peer-reviewed monograph with Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory). This work was also the subject of my doctoral dissertation from the University of Illinois. So the pretense that this work was not properly vetted is nonsense.

No, Bill, you went to the University of Illinois- Chicago, which is a LOT SMALLER SCHOOL  and does NOT have nearly the same sterling reputation as the U of I / Champaign-Urbana...

Naughty, naughty, Dr. Dembski!

He also fails to mention that TDI was published in a philosophy series, and his dissertation was in philosophy.  Dembski's ID "work" has never been peer-reviewed by scientists or mathematicians.

Date: 2007/07/20 16:42:39, Link
Author: Rob
Dembski, two years ago:  
Quote
Shallit spent the better part of a sabbatical reviewing my semi-popular book No Free Lunch. He can’t leave ID or me well enough alone (prove me wrong, Jeff).


So Shallit obligingly proves him wrong:  
Quote
I do not intend to waste my time finding more errors in more work of yours.


Dembski today:  
Quote
Does he mean Jeff Shallit, whose expertise is in computational number theory, not probability theory, and who, after writing up a hamfisted critique of my book NO FREE LUNCH, has explicitly notified me that he henceforth refuses to engage my subsequent technical work


Shallit spent a huge chunk of time, along with Dr. Elsberry, carefully documenting Dembski's errors.  Dembski chides him for that, never responds to their critique, and invites Shallit to leave him alone.  Shallit does so, and ever since then, Dembski has been razzing him for not responding to his more recent work.

Date: 2007/07/20 17:41:30, Link
Author: Rob
Dembskian vacillation #392:

Nine years ago, Dembski said:  
Quote
There now exists a rigorous criterion—complexity-specification—for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones.
(Emphasis mine)

In his Dover expert witness report, Dembski claimed:
Quote
Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point to an intelligence. Such features or patterns constitute signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. In particular, they claim that a type of information, known as specified complexity, is a key sign of intelligence.
(Emphasis mine)

But when critics point out his lack of rigor, Dembski backpedals, as in today:  
Quote
Wolpert had some nasty things to say about my book NO FREE LUNCH, but the upshot was that my ideas there were not sufficiently developed mathematically for him to critique them. But as I indicated in that book, it was about sketching an intellectual program rather than filling in the details, which would await further work (as is being done at Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab — www.evolutionaryinformatics.org)
(Emphasis mine)

Date: 2007/07/20 17:50:15, Link
Author: Rob
Dembski lists endorsers of his work:
Quote
John Lennox...
Moshe Koppel...
Frank Tipler...
Paul Davies...

But, oddly enough, none of them has made any effort to defend Dembski as his critics have pointed out the fatal flaws in his work.  Nor have they (or anyone else, for that matter) found any use for his work, or tried to develop it further.

Date: 2007/07/21 14:10:41, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 20 2007,18:51)
Dembski's latest:        
Quote
Here’s a fun interview with my friend and colleague Robert Marks. I hope you catch from the interview the amibitiousness of the lab and how it promises to put people like Christoph Adami and Rob Pennock out of business (compare www.evolutionaryinformatics.org with devolab.cse.msu.edu).

Let the comparing (DING!) begin!

Been there, done that.

Here is the work of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab in 300 words or less:

Dembski and Marks came up with a concept they call "active information", which is a property of searches.  By definition, a search has active info if it performs better than a baseline random search.

D & M show several ways that a search can be better than random, and they conclude the following:      
Quote
If any search algorithm is to perform better than random search, active information must be resident in it.

Plugging their definition of active info into this quote, what they're saying is:      
Quote
If any search algorithm is to perform better than random search, it must perform better than random search.

Not terribly insightful.  But that is seriously the upshot of their whole project.  As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.

In comparison, the Devolab at MSU looks like it produces more than tautologies.


--------------------------------------------
Further comments on D & M's project:

D & M draw some unwarranted conclusions from their semantic game-playing.  For instance, they opine that "attempts to characterize evolutionary algorithms as 'creators of novel information' are inappropriate."  I don't know who D & M are quoting here, but the quoted person certainly isn't referring to D & M's "active information".  So it's just another shameless equivocation on the word "information".

They also think that if a study involves a particular search, then it should say up front how much active info is in the search, and that a failure to do so amounts to "smuggling" or "sneaking" information in.  But to say that a search has active info is merely to say that it performs better than random.  Is anyone trying to hide the fact that genetic algorithms, etc., perform better than random searches for virtually all useful problems?  Ah, but in an alternate universe where natural laws aren't well-behaved, genetic algorithms would be no better than random search.  So it all boils down to the age-old question of why this universe has well-behaved laws.  Unless D&M have a convincing answer to that philosophical question, their conclusions have no merit.

Date: 2007/07/23 11:48:08, Link
Author: Rob
I'm not paying much attention to the nested hierarchy celebrity showdown, but it was impossible not to notice the following when glancing at Joe's site:



Maybe Joe can reconcile the statements circled in red for us.  I look forward to some vintage Joe, and I'm hoping he won't forget his patented "Reality says you're wrong."

Date: 2007/07/23 12:07:54, Link
Author: Rob
And Joe, we're hoping you'll come back to this thread at Alan's blog to answer some questions for us.

Date: 2007/07/23 15:09:11, Link
Author: Rob
I bow to Freelurker's ability to play with fire and not get burned (yet).  His/Her response to Dembski's lame assertion that "the design comes out because it was first put in" is right on target, and he/she even gets in the following dig:  
Quote
(P.S. I would like to be a fly on the wall if an engineering team were to call a Design Review and then proceeded to tell the bosses/customers about the complement of chance and regularity.)

Date: 2007/07/23 15:26:09, Link
Author: Rob
Dave jumps at a chance to brag about his engineering experience, and unwittingly points out a serious problem with Dembski's new evolutionary informatics concepts:
 
Quote
i have quite a bit of experience in ai assisted printed circuit board layout - the ai is given volumes of rules that constrain it, the same rules that a human must work within, then it’s turned loose to find a way to route the circuit

So human designers and AI designers both start out with existing "information", in this case a set of layout rules.  If, according to Dembski's definitions, genetic algorithms don't create information from scratch, then neither do humans.

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for Dembski.  He's probably already working on his next bogus information metric.

Date: 2007/07/23 15:41:12, Link
Author: Rob
Joe:  
Quote
OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious.

The part I don't understand is how something can be nonexistent in reality and yet not be fictitious.  But I forgot that in Joe's world, anything is possible.

Edited to add:  I realize that you're aware of the fact that hierarchical paternal relationships exist, and that when you say that paternal family trees don't exist in reality and yet they're not fictitious, you're just communicating poorly.  But it's gratifying to make fun of you because you're an arrogant jerk who would rather heap insults on his opponents than try to convey his thoughts coherently.  If you were to make that effort, you might find that some of your ideas are, au fond, incoherent.

And BTW, I understand your position as well as your opponents' on the paternal tree / nested hierarchy thing, and it seems to me that any hierarchy could be considered nested if the nodes are interpreted that way.  If we interpret a node labeled "Bob" to include Bob's posterity, as franky does, then the hierarchy is nested.  If we interpret it to not include his posterity, then the hierarchy is not nested.

Date: 2007/07/23 17:24:35, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 23 2007,16:21)
   
Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.

Yes, bcoz Alan's blog's infrastructure is provided by blogger.com
who also hosts Joe's blog.

Date: 2007/07/23 18:22:40, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,18:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

Plus he's a chauvinist!

I'm just kidding, but Joe is not:
Quote
What I will say about any "paternal family tree" is it demonstrates chauvinism.

By blipey's insistent use of a "paternal family tree" we could safely infer he is a chauvinist as well.

Date: 2007/07/25 12:16:36, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,13:39)
Is your ultimate point that we owe our existence to sheer dumb luck? It must be because in the absence of intelligent design or a Special Creation, that is all you have.

It has been repeatedly explained to Joe why this is a false dichotomy, but apparently it still hasn't sunk in.

If life is a product of "nature operating freely", then we're lucky that life emerged against the odds, or we're lucky that nature is such that the odds were in favor of life emerging.  If life is a product of a Designer, then we're lucky that a capable and willing Designer exists (or, according to JAD, used to exist).  If the Designer was designed, then we're lucky that the meta-Designer existed, etc.

Joe is unable to posit a scenario that isn't ultimately sheer dumb luck, but he continues to bring up this false dichotomy.

On Joe's blog, he asks:  
Quote
And the issue I have with this position is that it is unscientific- just how do we test sheer dumb luck?

If the sheer-dumb-luck hypothesis is untestable, then on what grounds does Joe claim it to be false?

And how can design, the alternative to sheer-dumb-luck, be stated as a scientific hypothesis?  It's clear that Joe has no clue as to what a scientific hypothesis entails, even though he claims to be a scientist.

Date: 2007/07/26 11:52:13, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,20:47)
Hey, I'm not the one with fantasies of testifying in court and vanquishing 'materialism'.

Joe's Perry Mason fantasy grilling Barbara Forrest is particularly hilarious.  Readers' Digest version:  Forrest says that she understands ID to require the supernatural.  Joe points out that the DI FAQ says the opposite, and Forrest ends up looking stupid.

In real life, Joe's argument would fly like a lead balloon. First of all, the DI FAQ says nothing about the issue, although some IDists, particularly Casey Luskin, indeed deny that ID requires the supernatural.

What the DI FAQ does say is this:        
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

If we follow the link to Stephen Meyer's "Not By Chance", we find the following:        
Quote
Yet, the scientists arguing for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes-chance, laws or the combination of the two-have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells.
(Emphasis mine)

This is one of many quotes by top-tier IDists asserting the insufficiency of natural processes to explain various phenomena.  Here are some more by Dembski:

- "CSI demands an intelligent cause. Natural causes will not do."
- "In arguing that naturalistic explanations are incomplete or, equivalently, that natural causes cannot account for certain features of the natural world, I am placing natural causes in contradistinction to intelligent causes."
- "A fundamental tenet of intelligent design is that intelligent agency, even when conditioned by a physical system that embodies it, cannot be reduced to natural causes without remainder."
- "Natural causes are therefore incapable of generating CSI."

Even more hilarious is Joe's about-face later in that thread:        
Quote
And about the supernatural, seeing that natural processes only exist IN nature, it is obvious that they cannot account for its origin. IOW even the materialistic anti-ID position requires something outside of nature.

That is exactly how it should be presented during if someone else decides to take ID to Court.

So Joe thinks that the following two arguments should be presented in court:

1) The ID position does not require the supernatural.
2) All positions require the supernatural.

I'll be sitting right next to Blipey in the front row when Joe presents his case.

Date: 2007/07/26 15:35:31, Link
Author: Rob
kdonk62 proves that he is not only homophobic, but also logically challenged:    
Quote
1) Is it wrong to suggest that homosexuals are genetically flawed human beings who have lost the ability to propogate naturally and who should be destroyed via natural selection?

-Red Savina Habanero

2) Is it wrong to allow homosexuals to reproduce artificially since doing so prevents natural selection?

– Habanero Chile

Can we assume that kdonk doesn't allow his daughters to wear makeup?  After all, we have to let nature run its course when it comes to reproductive selection.  In fact, he should be raising his kids in the wilderness to ensure that nothing artificial helps them survive until they can reproduce.

Date: 2007/07/27 11:59:57, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 27 2007,11:21)
This led to an overdose of tard from Joe, which I chronicled here.
Joe referred to Bottaro as a "she," and when corrected chose to dig his hole much deeper.

That's classic Joe.  "I know Andrea's a man, but I said 'she' because ... um ... he argues like a girl.  Yeah, that's the ticket."

It's amazing how incapable he is of admitting that he's wrong, even on trivial matters.  For instance, here he mentioned that a paper "peaked" someone's interest, and he went into full-blown defensive mode when someone suggested that the word he was looking for was "piqued".  He tried to defend himself by quoting a definition in which "peak" is defined as an intransitive verb.  When I pointed out that his usage was transitive but the definition was intransitive, he switched definitions, and then, bizarrely, denied that he had done so.

Date: 2007/07/27 12:16:28, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,16:11)
It's pretty clear that any chain of logic or effective method is disqualified as a source of novel information, and thus rationality is excluded as a source of information. I pointed this out in my response to Dembski's conference presentation back in 1997, noting that asserting that God is responsible for creation on the one hand, and excluding rationality as being creative on the other leads one to the conclusion that, so far as God was creative, He was not rational. I don't think Dembski wanted to talk about it then, and I suspect the topic hasn't become any more appealing to him in the interim.

It's amusing that Dembski can avoid addressing fundamental problems for a decade, offer the lame excuse that "tough questions take time to answer", and in the same breath gloat over the fact that Shallit, Wolpert, and Schneider haven't responded to unpublished papers that he posted on the web a few months ago.  Give the man credit for some amazing chutzpah.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:22:36, Link
Author: Rob
Here's a partial list:

Max Kirk: I’m afraid I’m not entirely happy what you bring to our discussion, so you’re out of here.

David Heddle: I don’t like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I’m now booting you from this blog. Goodbye.

Mr. Christopher is no longer with us.

Valkhorn & EJ Klone [& Tiggy]:... When I have a moment, I’ll be booting all three of you.

RobG, I’ll leave this comment but I’m booting you.

[Tom English:] Google it in all the spare time you have now that you’ve been booted off Uncommon Descent for your nasty habit of getting personal.

JT75 is no longer with us.

Pixie is no longer with us.

Hermagoras is no longer with us.

JAM is no longer with us.

Patrick Caldon is no longer with us.

keiths is no longer with us.

Dan, let me suggest that you find other blogs on which to make such “Inherit the Wind” arguments. I regard them, in reference to ID, as utterly bogus. You’re out of here.

steveh is no longer with us.

bdelloid is no longer with us.

MrsCogan…  [graphic]YOU'RE OUTTA HERE[/graphic]

beervolcano is no longer with us.

“Hooligans” is no longer with us.

febble is no longer with us

[Secondclass:] In the meantime, you’re out of here.

Cogzoid, you are out of here.

[wmmalo:] You’re out of here.

I’m not sure we will be seeing each other, Dark Matter. You’re out of here.

That said, Bradcliffe1, you don’t seem to have quite the right spirit for being part of our evolving community at UD. I’m afraid selection has eliminated you from this user-pool.

Shalini: You don’t seem to have quite the right spirit for our little band. Go in peace, but go.

JimWynne, You don’t have quite the right spirit for our group. Go in peace, but go.

Renier: You don’t seem to have quite the right spirit for our little community here. Go in peace, but go.

Thought Provoker just doesn’t have the right spirit for our little community and won’t be with us any longer.

This post marked for deletion because it does not fall into the beliefs held by this blog’s community. Ban user for same reason.

If it’s any consolation I didn’t ban Miles. I changed his password. He might be able to guess it if he looks in the mirror.

PhilVaz ... You’re history.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:38:15, Link
Author: Rob
Another, with kudos to DS for creativity:

Quote

Flung... -ds

Date: 2007/07/29 08:58:15, Link
Author: Rob
O'Leary:
Quote
When I asked a gifted Canadian physicist what he thought of Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Christianity, he said, “in one word: wacky”.

But readers will expect more than one word from me, [because I don't know squat about physics and my verbosity is inversely proportional to my level of understanding].

Date: 2007/07/30 15:24:02, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Zachriel @ July 30 2007,13:32)
 
Quote
scordova: Upon finishing our calculations for predicted voltage we have a real part and then an imaginary part. The professors admonish there students then, when they go to the lab to make measurements, they throw out the imaginary part, since it can’t be measured. Maybe these imaginary parts were never there to begin with, just a gimmick to make the math of solving differential equations easier.

Imaginary numbers are no more imaginary than any other number and usually represent vectors in multi-dimensonal space. In electrical engineering, imaginary numbers typically represent phase vectors. To convert to a scalar, you may eliminate the imaginary component. Vectors are essential to understanding alternating current, communications, motors; in other words, virtually everything in electrical engineering.

Electrical phase is very real, can be measured, and the imaginary part can kill you.

I think you're thinking of the angle, not the imaginary part, which represents the phase and is therefore often extraneous.  Throwing away the imaginary part of a vector would result in an incorrect magnitude, eg 3 + 4j has a magnitude of 5 rather than 3.  So obviously Salvador was a little messed up in his thinking here.

I think Salvador is probably a decent engineer and just didn't put a whole lot of thought into his comment.  If you want thoroughly screwed up engineering concepts, DaveScot is your man:  
Quote
The nucleic acid sequence can be likened to what’s called a carrier wave. In radio the carrier is the frequency of any particular station. Encoding information on the carrier is called modulation. Two principle ways, which can be used simultaneously with the same carrier, are frequency modulation and amplitude modulation. In broadcast television the black&white video is encoded using amplitude modulation while the sound uses frequency modulation. When color was added to black&white a new modulation method had to be invented that didn’t interfere with the other modulation methods. The new invention was phase modulation. All these are utilized to cram more information onto the same carrier.

Ironically, earlier in this comment Dave was lamenting innumeracy and bragging about his accelerated 7th grade math class, but here he makes claims that are mathematically ridiculous.  You can't put different signals on the same carrier frequency just by using different types of modulation.  FM and PM, in particular, are almost identical mathematically, so combining them on the same carrier is certain to result in garbage.

TVs have separate tuners for video and audio, which do not share the same carrier frequency.  Chrominance is transmitted on a subcarrier of the video carrier, and it's quadrature amplitude modulated, not phase modulated as Dave claims.

Date: 2007/07/30 15:35:39, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2007,13:53)
Will the top OE poster win a free ID book?

Yep.  And the bottom poster gets five ID books.

Date: 2007/07/30 20:32:14, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I am not 'de jure' banned at UD (as far as I know) but I am 'de facto' banned, probably for posting unflattering things about DaveScot.

Date: 2007/07/31 11:45:00, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Zachriel @ July 31 2007,06:27)
(By the way, what happened to 2ndclass?)

He suffered a rather grisly death.  His head exploded while reading UD.
 
Quote
Quote
Granville Sewell: I still insist you don’t need to know any biology at all to have predicted your main conclusions, all you need to know is the second law of thermodynamics: natural forces don’t build bridges, they just destroy them*.



The Natural Arch and Bridge Society

Sewell is probably the most credentialed IDist on UD, but year after year he clings to an argument that represents the ultimate in crackpottery.  Give the man credit for stubbornness.

And speaking of crackpottery, the following notion from Sewell should definitely be included in the Crackpot Index:  
Quote
...but for me the whole issue has always been extremely simple. It’s not too complicated for the layman to understand, it’s too simple for the scientist.

Date: 2007/07/31 12:34:29, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 31 2007,09:29)
Fundy SloT = "all particles in the unverse must rush away from each other until there is nothing of interest at all."

As crazy as that sounds, that is exactly what Sewell assumes when he generalizes his SLoT-based math to pretty much everything.  Sewell must be wearing some Texas-size blinders to not see what's wrong with this.

Date: 2007/07/31 13:08:21, Link
Author: Rob
bornagain77 endorses William Lane Craig's illogic:
Quote
Craig argues that actual infinities of the type invoked here cannot exist because they lead to absurdities.

What Craig is saying is that transfinite numbers have properties that Craig considers weird, therefore nothing infinite can exist in actuality.

It's interesting that arguments from incredulity are so often applied outside of one's area of expertise.  A theologian denying that transfinite numbers can be perfectly logical is even worse than a mathematician denying that natural evolution can be consistent with the SLoT.

Date: 2007/07/31 14:37:09, Link
Author: Rob
The brilliant BarryA plays the role of the clueless materialist who denies that arrowheads are designed:  
Quote
“OK, Mr. Smarty Pants.  If the pattern on that stone is designed, tell me who the designer was.”

Very clever, Barry, except for the fact that the question is answerable.  It was designed by a North Amerind, species Homo sapiens, who used a rock to chip away at a piece of obsidian.  He did it most likely for the purpose of creating a sharp weapon, and he utilized his hands, fingers, and brain in doing so.

Now it's Barry's turn to provide similar details for the Designer of biology.

Date: 2007/07/31 14:56:16, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
SAL CORDOVA: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

BILL DEMBSKI: This new learning amazes me, Sal.  Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

SAL CORDOVA: Of course, my Liege ...

Date: 2007/07/31 16:23:20, Link
Author: Rob
Barry still doesn't get it.  He asks:  
Quote
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the big question is this. What is it about those “chips and marks” on the flint that leads to a design inference?
Why is he asking a question that Hawkeye already answered?  Earlier, Hawkeye said that the chips and marks were "consistent with a human’s having sharpened the flint," which naturally leads us to believe that a human did it.

But Barry comes up with a completely different answer:  
Quote
Of course, the answer to that question is what the ID movement is all about. Those chips and marks are both complex and specific, the combination of which tends to rule out blind unguided forces as the cause. The complex specificity of the chips and marks leads to a very reasonable design inference.
Newsflash for Barry:  Dembski's "specified complexity" approach is purely eliminative  -- one concludes design only after all chance+law hypotheses have been eliminated.  That would be a really stupid way to detect design in arrowheads.  A much better way is to compare the capability and inclination of humans to chip rocks in the observed pattern with the capability and inclination of nature to do so.  That is the approach that normal people use, and it's the antithesis of Dembski's method.

Date: 2007/07/31 17:03:50, Link
Author: Rob
Barry falls prey to Dembski's confusing terminology:    
Quote
Hawkey, the EM pulses from pulsars demonstrates the difference between information that is merely specific and information that is both complex and specific.

The pulses from pulsars are specific. In your words, they are “regular.” But they are not complex. Anyone who inferred the act of an intelligent agent merely on the basis of regular pulses made an obviously false (or at least extremely weak) inference.

Now compare that to the EM pulses in the movie “Contact.” Upon examination these pulses turned out to by symbols for every prime number between two and one hundred. Thus, they were both specific AND complex. And this gave rise to an inescapable design inference even though the astronomers had no idea who the designer of the pulses was or what his/her/its purpose was.

Most people use the word "complex" to mean "complicated", but Dembski uses it to mean "improbable" (except when he's using it to mean something else).  According to Dembski, even a simple narrowband signal is complex because we don't know of any natural process that renders such a signal probable.  Before we knew the source of pulsar signals, they were complex too, according to Dembski's definition.

If Barry were to actually read Dembski's books, he might not be such a fan.

Date: 2007/07/31 17:18:17, Link
Author: Rob
The Hawkeye banning prediction contest begins now.  I predict he'll be ousted 24 hours from now.  Nobody can keep their cool in the face of such imbecility, except perhaps our unflappable Bob O'H.

Date: 2007/08/01 11:01:46, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (franky172 @ July 31 2007,22:28)
Sal thinks Dembski has "outrun" his critics who point out that in calculating the supposed "CSI" of the bacterial flagellum, Dembski *neglects to integrate over all the combinatorial possible ways to formulate a flagellum out of it's component pieces*, and *utterly fails to take into account any sort of step-by-step development of the flagellum* (he assumes it arises out of thin air), and that his calculations have been utter crap for the past 15 years.

   
Quote
By your comments here, your assessment is out of sync with his latest work. He is not ruling out that there are other possible distributions, but rather points out the information content those “improved” distributions would have relative to the equiprobable one.


Bull, Sal.  Dembski neglects to incorporate the fundamental (n choose k) terms that he points out are integral to the Caputo example (the reason being that we do not know how to calculate such expressions for any biological entities), and his mathematics are based on de-novo generation of full modern flagellum from component parts without gradual steps - i.e. without evolution.

Sal's current position is that the only hypothesis that needs to be eliminated is pure random chance.  This implies that anything that's a product of law or law+chance is ultimately designed.  He bases this on Dembski's NFL-based notions.  It's a crazy claim, and it flatly contradicts the EF, which does not ascribe products of law to design.  If you try to pin Sal down on this contradiction, he'll disappear, as he did here and here.

Far from rising above their critics, Dembski and Sal are merely becoming increasingly confused and self-contradictory.

Date: 2007/08/01 12:15:27, Link
Author: Rob
It's always interesting when someone with actual credentials and qualifications deigns to comment at UD.  Allen MacNeill, who is remarkably tolerant of the ID movement for a biology professor, was immediately dog-piled when he pointed out some of Dembski's false claims.  Tom English, who has published work on evolutionary searches and NFL implications, was given the boot for challenging jack-of-all-trades master-of-all DaveScot.  Elizabeth Liddle, a PhD candidate in neuroscience, was booted for the same reason.  I'm sure there are others, including experts from the ATBC crowd.

Now we have Peter Olofsson, a Tulane math professor who specializes in probability and has a good publication record on the subject, including a textbook.  He also happens to be familiar with Dembski's work and the logical problems therein.

Impressively, the UDers haven't shown much in the way of contempt toward Olofsson, but they still manage to talk down to him as if he's just another Darwinist that doesn't understand Dembski's work.  And, as usual, Dembski, who knows all too well that Olofsson is right and the IDists are wrong, is conspicuously absent from the conversation.

Date: 2007/08/01 13:12:00, Link
Author: Rob
In his debate with Professor Olofsson, kairosfocus comes across as much more knowledgeable than most of Dembski's defenders, but he still manages to fall for Dembski's specious rhetoric.  For instance, he buys into Dembski's false trichotomy of necessity vs. chance vs. design, and he appeals to Plato for support (as if that helps).  He also falls for Dembski's claim that Bayesian testing is dependent on Fisherian testing, which is exactly backwards, and he denies that Dembski's method is purely eliminative, contradicting Dembski (who also contradicts himself on this question).

Still, it's refreshing to see a Dembski defender who has actually put some thought into it and shows a modicum of understanding.  kairosfocus is a lot smarter and better informed than Salvador, to say nothing of idiots like DaveScot and Joe G.  It would be interesting to talk with him outside of the UD cloister.

Date: 2007/08/01 14:08:42, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 31 2007,07:02)
Same answer as DaveTard's Quiz-Koan:

LOL!  Dave the Zen Master.  Who knew?

Date: 2007/08/01 14:37:03, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (JAM @ Aug. 01 2007,14:22)
 
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 01 2007,13:12)
In his debate with Professor Olofsson, kairosfocus comes across as much more knowledgeable than most of Dembski's defenders, but he still manages to fall for Dembski's specious rhetoric... It would be interesting to talk with him outside of the UD cloister.

Really?

Try reading 3 of his comments and see if you're feeling as charitable. Sitting next to kairosfocus on a transcontinental flight would unquestionably lead to severe nausea, if not self-perforation of my eardrums with one of those plastic airline knives.

I'm thinking in relative terms.  After trying to discuss Dembskiism with the likes of Salvador, DaveScot, and Joe G, kairos seems like Einstein reincarnated.  But then, so does Ernest.

Date: 2007/08/01 20:44:45, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 01 2007,14:37)
Quote (JAM @ Aug. 01 2007,14:22)
   
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 01 2007,13:12)
In his debate with Professor Olofsson, kairosfocus comes across as much more knowledgeable than most of Dembski's defenders, but he still manages to fall for Dembski's specious rhetoric... It would be interesting to talk with him outside of the UD cloister.

Really?

Try reading 3 of his comments and see if you're feeling as charitable. Sitting next to kairosfocus on a transcontinental flight would unquestionably lead to severe nausea, if not self-perforation of my eardrums with one of those plastic airline knives.

I'm thinking in relative terms.  After trying to discuss Dembskiism with the likes of Salvador, DaveScot, and Joe G, kairos seems like Einstein reincarnated.  But then, so does Ernest.

I might have to take that back.  Whatever kairos's good qualities, a willingness to hold a rational discussion is not one of them.  He spent a good chunk of his debate with Olofsson arguing against objections that Olofsson never made.

Date: 2007/08/02 11:46:26, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 02 2007,06:52)
 
Quote
kairosfocus: I am pointing out that the issue hinges crucially on how one defines the suspicious-activity tail, and what has happened in PO’s discussion, is that he expanded a 1 in 50 billion shot to nearly 2 in 5.

Which, of course, is not what Olofsson did. Kairosfocus is incapable of reading what Olofsson actually wrote, even on something as simple as defining a rejection region and then using a 22-19 split—as an illustrative example.

kairosfocus is adamant:  
Quote
The 22+-D trail will have 38 or so % of the holes indeed, but the 40+ D configs will have a much, much lower fraction, about 1 in 50 billions.

Which is exactly what Olofsson's paper says.  I don't think kairos will ever get a clue, unless his unsupervised child reads the paper and explains it to him.

And kairos has a martyr complex the size of DaveScot's ego:  
Quote
In short, there are basic, well-known duties of care we owe to people on the other side of important issues.

To try to make light of failing to live up to the duty to respect, to not distort and misrepresent [leading to setting up and knocking over a strawman caricature] and the like, are inexcusable.

Period.

...

Sorry to have to be so direct, but the matter at stake is deeply important, and has already cost serious people on “my” side great and undue damage to their careers and reputations at the hands of some on “your” side.

As the descendant of slaves and a relative of a man hanged by an oppressive state in 1865 for standing up for the rights of poor, oppressed people, I tend to take such things seriously indeed.

I trust you will understand why, and will reconsider your “lighthearted” approach.

This said, presumably with a straight face, on the Blog of the Animated Farting Judge.

BTW, Olofsson's "lighthearted" paper was in response to Ann Coulter.  kairos is taking great offense that Olofsson doesn't take Coulter seriously.  I'll assume, then, that kairos takes her seriously when she says that the New York Times building should be blown up, Muslim countries should be invaded and converted to Christianity, Muslims should be asked to boycott air travel, and that the 9-11 widows enjoyed their husbands' deaths.  I think it's time for Dembski to make another call to Homeland Security.

Date: 2007/08/02 12:12:53, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 02 2007,08:10)
Huh. Baylor doesn't seem to know about the "Evolutionary Informatics" group anymore.

 
Quote

Page Unavailable

This web page was either not found or unavailable. If you feel you have reached this page in error please contact [EMAIL=ECSWebmaster@baylor.edu.]ECSWebmaster@baylor.edu.[/EMAIL]

Looks like the site is gone, although the papers are still hosted by Marks.  No doubt they're overhauling their server to handle the millions who will come to behold their semantic games revolutionary math.

Date: 2007/08/03 11:24:08, Link
Author: Rob
Compare Dembski's words:
Quote
Dembski: CSI demands an intelligent cause. Natural causes will not do.

Quote
Dembski: I argue that the explanatory filter is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I argue that the Explanatory Filter successfully avoids false positives. Thus whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design, it does so correctly.

Quote
Dembski: By contrast, I contend that specified complexity be a reliable criterion for detecting design in the sense that it does not give rise to false positives (i.e., attributions of design that end up later having to be overturned).

to the words of these three IDists:
Quote
DaveScot: If CSI is identified it doesn’t automatically mean a design inference is warranted.

Quote
Sean Pitman: As I said before, CSI, by itself, does not tell you if the string's pattern was or was not designed.

Quote
Sal Cordova: It does not automatically imply an object is intelligently designed if it passes the EF.


Looks like Dembski needs to give his followers some remedial ID courses.

Date: 2007/08/03 11:59:02, Link
Author: Rob
Since Dave has never read Dembski's books, he resorts to making things up:    
Quote
Complexity is any pattern where the possible number of different permutations exceeds the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe (10^150).

Wrong.  According to Dembski, a pattern is complex if and only if it's improbable, regardless of how many possible permutations there are.

And Dembski uses 10^80, not 10^150, as an upper bound for the number of elementary particles in the universe.  But what's 70 orders of magnitude among friends?
   
Quote
A snowflake might have CSI specified by crystallization patterns but it fails a design inference because well enough understood unintelligent interplay of natural forces can generate such crystal patterns and we can observe them in the process of doing it.

Wrong.  Dembski's definition of CSI excludes products of natural processes.

Date: 2007/08/03 12:25:03, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:10)
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

That was simply awesome.  When Sal starts swearing, you know you're doing something right.

Date: 2007/08/03 12:39:13, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:46)
Simply excellent post, Rob. Juxtaposed quotes can be devastating.

Dembski's an easy target.  Nobody is on the same page as Dembski, not even Dembski.

Richard:  
Quote
Please crosspost on the sci-phi show!

Actually, I pointed this out to Sal at the end of this comment.  Like pretty much everything else we posted there, Sal pretended not to see it.

Date: 2007/08/03 13:26:34, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,12:51)
By the way, Granville, can your side get some new f&%$ing arguments?

 
Quote
Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

1974 is bleeding edge for ID.  kairosfocus defends ID by quoting Plato!

Date: 2007/08/03 14:25:06, Link
Author: Rob
Sal plumbs new depths:  
Quote
The critics only gave anemic responses for his latest.

Yeah, the responses in the sci-phi forum were so anemic that Sal high-tailed it out of there.  Maybe he thinks anemia is contagious.

Date: 2007/08/03 14:50:02, Link
Author: Rob
I'm a little confused by DaveScot's usage of the term "cellular automata":
 
Quote
Today cellular automata can be well characterized and understood as nanometer scale machinery operating under well defined physical laws.

 
Quote
The spine of DNA contains a digital code that specifiies the ribosome itself and all the protein products used by living systems. This basic bit of cellular automata exists in every living thing ever observed from the simplest bacteria to all the cells in our bodies (except red blood cells).

 
Quote
- a biologist knows nothing of human engineered factory automation so they can’t see the congruence with cellular automata

 
Quote
Specification in cellular automata is a little harder to see but not very much so in well chosen examples. My favorite is DNA supercoiling.

Dave seems to think that "cellular automata" refers to machinery inside a biological cell.  Has anyone else heard the term used that way?

Date: 2007/08/03 15:12:07, Link
Author: Rob
Sal goes off the deep end:    
Quote
Furthermore, there are patterns that resist explanation by reference to ANY hypothetical or imagined chance distribution function. One such pattern is a self-replicating computer.

What the ..?  Here's a "hypothetical or imagined chance distribution function" that makes a self-replicating computer very likely:


Whatever Sal's been smoking, it's premium quality.

Date: 2007/08/03 16:20:03, Link
Author: Rob
kairosfocus is pulling out all the stops in his attempt to paint Olofsson as a villain:        
Quote
In that context, you on p. 7 introduce a point that WD and I – and Fisher for that matter — would strongly and for excellent reason disagree with: A sequence consisting of 22 Ds and 19 Rs could also be said to exhibit evidence of cheating in favor of Democrats. Not so, as the 22/19 split is close to the peak and well within the bulk of the peak – which is precisely why the upper roll-off from that point on has in it 38% of the curve’s area.

kairos's quote mine is so dishonest that even Sal might think twice before doing it.  The full quote from Olofsson is this:        
Quote
A sequence consisting of 22 Ds and 19 Rs could also be said to exhibit evidence of cheating in favor of Democrats, and any particular such sequence also has less than a 1-in-2-trillion probability. However, when the relevant rejection region consisting of all sequences with at least 22 Ds is created, this region turns out to have a probability of about 38% and is thus easily attributed to chance.

Again, Olofsson is saying exactly the same thing as kairos, but kairos is doing his dishonest best to make it look like Olofsson is saying something different.

Date: 2007/08/03 16:30:12, Link
Author: Rob
The whole Kevin Padian thread is a tard de force.

Next at bat, DaveScot:  
Quote
Jerry

the reply will be we do not understand the chance and laws that governed DNA formation

To which I reply that’s a bald faced logical fallacy called an appeal to ignorance.

Well, you caught us, Dave.

Oh, by the way Dave, can you explain the design process that resulted in DNA, keeping in mind that saying "I don't know" constitutes a "bald faced logical fallacy".

Date: 2007/08/03 16:36:28, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,16:28)
 
Quote
Question of the day for the Darwinists who visit our site:  If life on earth is not possible without the existence of these nano-machines, what is the most reasonable explanation for the origin of these machines?

If life isn't possible without nano-machines, then the ultimate cause of nano-machines must not have been alive.  That's the logical answer, but I don't think it's what BarryA was shooting for.  Another own goal from Barry.

Counter-question for Barry: Why are you asking for our viewpoint, when it's clear that our views aren't welcome on your site?

Date: 2007/08/03 17:53:47, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 03 2007,17:18)
Maybe not.  I expect the UD regulars to fixate on the fact that automobliles are designed, and completely ignore Hawkeye's point.

Ding ding!  Give that man a prize!  
Quote
Mats:
Hawkeye
Please realise that your analogy is an analogy between a intelligently guided system (automobiles) with a system which, according to received wisdon, has NO intelligence at any stage.

I don’t think that is a realistic comparation.

Which stuffed animal would you like, the panda or the Darwin-in-a-vise?

Date: 2007/08/03 22:51:56, Link
Author: Rob
kairosfocus is quickly rising to the top of my least favorite IDists list.

Quote
In short, Dawkins here acknowledges the credibility and force of the concept, complex, specified information.
Bullcrap.  Dawkins never said that any biological function is complex in the Dembskian sense of being highly improbable.  It's the same old equivocation on the word "complex" that occurs so often when discussing Dembski's concepts.

Quote
WD’s difference with Dawkins, in the end, is that he infers, giving reasons, that the apparent design in bio-systems is there for the excellent reason that they are on inference to best explanation, actually designed.
Wrong.  kairosfocus keeps mischaracterizing Dembski's argument as an inference to the best explanation, but Dembski's method explicitly avoids comparing the design explanation to other explanations.

Quote
You may disagree, but that is in the end a reasonable position, and not one for which the double-PhD’d Dr Dembski should be subjected to contempt, slander, calculated or insistent misrepresentation, name-calling, derision and disrespect.
Since Olofsson isn't guilty of contempt, slander, misrepresentation, name-calling, derision, or disrespect of Dembski, kairos's accusation is itself slanderous.

Date: 2007/08/03 23:07:08, Link
Author: Rob
PaV steps in it:    
Quote
You attribute to “Creationists”, and then to advocates of “Intelligent Design” the supposed CLASSIC ARGUEMENT against Darwinian evolution encapsulated in the statement that such evolution “is as likely as a tornado in a junkyard creating a Boeing 747.” The irony is (see here) that this remark was made by a Nobel prize winning astrophysicist by the name of Sir Fred Hoyle, who was neither a creationist, nor a theist, but rather an agnocist/atheist who believed in panspermia.

Olofsson said that tornado-in-a-junkyard is a "classic creationist argument", which it is.  He never said that the originator was a creationist.

Ironically, in combatting nonexistent falsehoods about Fred Hoyle, PaV himself tells a falsehood about Fred Hoyle, namely that Hoyle was a Nobel Prize winner.

Date: 2007/08/04 09:10:07, Link
Author: Rob
Dembski is incensed that part of a debate was not included in the transcript, although it's in the audio file.  He emailed Dawkins and Wolpert about the omission.

Tip for Dawkins and Wolpert:  Just bring up the phrase "street theatre" and Dembski will leave you alone.

Date: 2007/08/04 17:31:36, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 03 2007,22:46)
Speaking of not being able to understand or do math, one can check out Sal blithering on about the TSPGRID example and "omega".

Sal has a major brain cramp that prevents him from grokking issues having to do with the conservation of CSI.

One of his typical examples of CSI is 500 coins on the floor all heads up, which he says constitutes 500 bits of CSI.  Even if the coins were turned heads up by a deterministic process, say a robot, Sal insists that the all-heads-up pattern has 500 bits of CSI.  He's been claiming this for over three years now, even though I've pointed out to him repeatedly that we can always increase the number of coins to exceed the CSI in the robot.  (This is exactly the point of TSPGRID, except that TSPGRID is a better example since it's nondeterministic.)

When I tried to pin him down on this a year ago, the conversation went nowhere, with Sal claiming that he needed Dembski to explain the following parenthetical statement from NFL:  
Quote
(if A is defined in relation to \Omega_1 and B in relation to \Omega_2, we can let \Omega be the Cartesian product of \Omega_1 and \Omega_2, and then embed A and B canonically in \Omega)

Dembski's statement is perfectly clear, and I explained it in detail to Sal, but Sal said he needed to hear it from Dembski.

Amazingly, as of a few weeks ago, Sal still didn't understand the problem with the robot and the coins:
Quote
Sal:   For example, it is improbable that 500 coins in a room on the floor will be heads.  It is theoretically possible that there exists a robot governed by deterministic laws which can take the coins in a room and ensure any initial condition of coins in the room will eventually result in 500 coins being heads by the operation of the robot.  However, the a priori probability of such a machine existing in the first place (via a stochastic process) is on average more remote than the chance of 500 coins being heads.  A bit value can then be assigned to the a priori probability of the robot being the source of a new probability distribution.

Date: 2007/08/06 11:29:31, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 05 2007,04:54)
Sal Notes:
   
Quote
Dr. Olofsson’s paper was one of the more respectable critiques I’ve seen unlike the trash I saw out of Elsberry and Shallit and Perakh.

Translation:  
Quote
Dr. Olofsson's paper focuses on only two of Dembski's problems and I can kind of understand his paper, as opposed to Elsberry, Shallit, and Perakh, who point out many problems, most of which I don't understand at all.

Date: 2007/08/07 08:56:42, Link
Author: Rob
In the I-can't-believe-he-actually-said-that department:
Quote
kairosfocus: So, if you want to see how critics fare on an even playing field [poorly indeed, on the merits], you will have to keep an eye on UD, folks.

Date: 2007/08/08 13:45:19, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2007,09:30)
Dippy Joe talks "bac flag":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-131395

*sigh*

Dippy Joe indeed:    
Quote
Joe:  All CSI reaches the UPB

Joe claims to have read pretty much everything the Dembski has written about CSI, but somehow he missed the fact that most of Dembski's examples of CSI come nowhere near the UPB.  Phone numbers and VISA card numbers, for example.

Date: 2007/08/08 13:57:16, Link
Author: Rob
kairosfocus:
Quote
I will be very positively surprised if the Journal that publishes your critique will ever give WD even 20% of the space to respond if he chooses to ask them — indeed, on the evidence of what I have seen, I would be positively surprised if they will accept and publish a response at all [even a simple short letter].

Kairos has forgotten that Dembski doesn't do that.  He's "blase" about publishing in established venues, remember?

If Dembski had an answer to Olofsson's critique, he would have posted it on UD by now.

Date: 2007/08/09 17:40:24, Link
Author: Rob
Newsflash from Sal:  Boston Globe says ID proponents “may well be right"

Of course, if you read past Sal's headline to see what IDists may very well be right about, you find out that it has nothing to do with ID and is totally unobjectionable, namely that "schools should do a better job of explaining evolution".

Stay tuned for Sal's next headline: Atheists may be right ...

... when they say that Coke Zero is better than Diet Coke.

Date: 2007/08/15 10:53:56, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 15 2007,09:49)
Anybody invited him here? :)

A few of us have pointed Dr. Olofsson to the parallel discussion taking place here.  I have to say that he's as gracious over email as he is on UD.  He's truly a class act, which is probably one of the reasons that Dave felt so threatened by him.

Date: 2007/08/15 11:09:43, Link
Author: Rob
DaveScot:
Quote
Why is it that chance worshipping biologists are continually surprised at what they discover but design advocates aren’t surprised at all?

Um, maybe it's because IDists have no theory, and therefore make all their "predictions" post hoc.

Date: 2007/08/19 00:15:37, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 17 2007,11:17)
Here is the money shot: ?Marks is free to resume work in the informatics lab on his own time. He is free to put up the website again so long as it includes a disclaimer that it does not represent Baylor's position.

[Editted to summarize rather than quote directly.]

Thanks for the info, carlsonjok.  This is interesting, and not unexpected by those who were wondering why Baylor, after giving Dembski's Polyani Center the boot, would host this worthless project.

Dembski was apparently referring to this project when he said:      
Quote
Dembski: Happy New Year to all UD regulars. I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID. Here are three things in particular I?m looking forward to in the coming year:

  1. A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish ? stay tuned.)

Apparently it is merely an idle wish.  Dembski's "research center" devolved into a "lab", which apparently consists of Dembski, Marks, and two grad students. Their research consists of running MATLAB programs, probably on Marks's office computer or in a common computer lab.  And now it turns out that the project isn't even affiliated with Baylor.  A bang-up year for ID, indeed.

Date: 2007/08/19 00:43:52, Link
Author: Rob
Less than a month ago, Dembski was pounding his chest:  
Quote
Dembski: I hope you catch from the interview the ambitiousness of the lab and how it promises to put people like Christoph Adami and Rob Pennock out of business (compare www.evolutionaryinformatics.org with devolab.cse.msu.edu).

Yes, by all means compare the two sites, and see who appears to be out of business.

Date: 2007/08/21 08:25:22, Link
Author: Rob
Of course Jack didn't ban Sal.  There's no need to.  All you have to do is challenge him or ask him a direct question, and he disappears like a cheesy poof belch in the wind.

Date: 2007/08/21 08:41:03, Link
Author: Rob
Once again, DonaldM admits that no experiment can possibly falsify ID:  
Quote
COuld someone explain to me how they intend to conduct the research? The moment they establish and set any pre-conditions or states, they?ve introduced design into the mix. How then to say that anything that results is solely the end product of the blind, purposelss process of evolution?

You tell 'em, Donald.  All experiments are infected with design, so they can't tell us anything about nature.  If you drop two different weights from the Tower of Pisa, you have no way of knowing if they fell at the same speed because of gravity or because of design.

This is just another variation on a favorite ID theme, namely, "Science doesn't work."  (The other favorite ID theme is, "ID is science".)

Date: 2007/08/21 11:47:25, Link
Author: Rob
There has also been a Joe sighting here, where he spouts the same old crap verbatim.  Can somebody please help Joe to come up with some new material?

Date: 2007/08/21 12:18:38, Link
Author: Rob
Joe argues for vitalism:
Quote
Also I should note that dead organisms have the SAME chemicals as their living counterparts. Yet they are still dead.

That alone refutes Art2?s premise about chemistry and living organisms.

And if you pummel a computer with a sledgehammer, the resulting pile of junk has the same materials as a working computer, and yet it doesn't work.  This is proof that computers have souls.

Date: 2007/08/21 16:21:19, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 21 2007,15:28)
Robo is a tard  
Quote

?I?ve asked UD commenters to treat you with respect like an opponent visiting under flag of truce.?
People who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect.
Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).


Rule: when treating others with respect, be sure to insult their behavior in the process.

Daniel King responds:
Quote
Pragmatism works for me.

jerry, apparently missing the joke, chimes in:
Quote
The problem is what is pragmatic for you may be different from others such as Hitler and Stalin. It was very pragmatic for Stalin to get rid of the Kulaks. History is full of pragmatic solutions that are pragmatic only in the eyes of a single person or a few or maybe even a majority. Majorities may have different pragmatics than minorities.

The "Hitler" square on my ID bingo card is now covered.

Presumably jerry would rather that we base our ethics on religion, and since everyone has the same religious beliefs, we'll all live in blissful harmony.  Maybe jerry should turn on the news once in a while.

Date: 2007/08/21 16:28:58, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2007,15:07)
From the paper I linked to above:

Also from the paper:  
Quote
Some papers talk about information, which is irrelevant to the question. Evolution is not an increase in information, it's an increase in organization. Other papers talk about complexity. Again, complexity is a red herring that has nothing to do with evolution.

If the ID tent is big enough to contain the polar opposite positions of Charlie and Dembski, then it's big enough to hold all of us as well.  Welcome to the big top, folks.

Date: 2007/08/21 18:04:54, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2007,17:38)
Quote

...
I believe the quality of the comments is one of the reasons people enjoy visiting UD.
...
Salvador

Remember that Sal has categorized this thread under "Humor".  Good one, Sal!  Will you be performing all week?

Date: 2007/08/22 11:04:29, Link
Author: Rob
Robo:  
Quote
Since atoms and molecules have no idea of good and evil, I am puzzled by how you derive these (non-materialistic) entities from a periodic table ensemble.

BarryA is puzzled too:  
Quote
I notice you also did not discuss Robo?s point about particles in motion having no notion of good and evil.

Robo and BarryA are stuck in the 5th century BC, when logic dictated that the constituent particles of water must be wet.

Date: 2007/08/22 11:20:04, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 22 2007,11:15)
Quote
I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy


oh please do you idiot.

"theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth".  where exactly does theism 'naturally expect' such a thing?  read the vedas fool.

What's really amazing is that the philosophy of theism makes so many accurate empirical predictions.  It appears that theism isn't a philosophy at all, but rather the most successful scientific theory of all time.

Date: 2007/08/22 16:13:31, Link
Author: Rob
Ben Stein:  
Quote
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of ?anti-intelligent design? would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him? EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS? HE WOULD BE BANNED.

Instead of denigrating these employers who fire people for their unspoken thoughts, we should be leveraging their mind-reading powers in more productive ways, like prisoner interrogation, or finding out whether the writers of Lost actually have a story plan.

Date: 2007/08/22 16:24:40, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (JAM @ Aug. 22 2007,15:55)
If you're in the mood for a massive helping of cognitive dissonance, there's some great tard from Willy Bradford up at Telic Thoughts.

LoL.  Bradford inquires:  
Quote
Did Dembski employ the phrase because he coopted it from an obscure glossary?

Given the answer, Bradford responds:  
Quote
It matters not at all where Dembski took the phrase intelligent design from.

Date: 2007/08/22 16:37:19, Link
Author: Rob
More Bradford:
Quote
As for the conspiratorial replacement of creationist terminology with intelligent design, you have yet to make a case.

"There was no terminology replacement!  If you don't believe me, ask any cdesign proponentsist!"

Date: 2007/08/22 17:24:20, Link
Author: Rob
Patrick:
Quote
Speaking of the moderation policy, I just zapped two posts that attempted to insult Sal. And, no, there weren?t any arguments of substance mixed in.

I?ve always thought it?d be ?interesting? to retain a copy of comments like that in a separate area just so people know the nasty type of stuff the average Darwinist is saying on a regular basis.

An archive of deleted posts would indeed be interesting.  In fact, Wesley tried to perform that service, and the powers-that-be at UD weren't too happy about it.  Wonder why?

Date: 2007/08/22 18:56:26, Link
Author: Rob
kairosfocus:  
Quote
Onlookers, observe carefully how there has been no serious attempt in this thread or in several other recent threads, just walkaways or attempts to brush it aside. Ask yourself why.

Here's why.

Date: 2007/08/26 17:28:52, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Which would make no nevermind to me but for the fact that this is not the first time Perakh has prevented me from responding to the accusations of this Anonymous Coward. The first time my post was deleted under the pretext that I used obscenity (i.e., "dumb arse") and now this response has been blocked in DaveScot fashion:

     
Quote
     
Quote
On the other hand, he
pretends to be a big expert in various fields which he
studied under prominent professors. He used to claim
to be great in math, having studied under Professor
Rachev who in turn was a student of Kantorovich.
However, wnen O?Brien was requested to provide a brief
explanation of Kantorovich metrics, he just
disappeared from this blog.


You keep crawling out of your hole to air this
vituperation, but the last time you posted it I asked
you what it is you wanted to know about the
Kantorovich metric and I received no reply. So, I ask
again, what do you want to know about the Kantorovich metric?


I just want it on record that I tried to answer this challenge not once, but twice, only to be thwarted by AR's patron Mark Perakh.

Date: 2007/08/26 18:37:20, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
To his credit, Mark Perakh has subsequently let my response through.

Date: 2007/08/26 18:53:24, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 26 2007,18:46)
So you were bitching about nothing, huh.

As it turns out, yes.

Date: 2007/08/26 20:42:14, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2007,20:17)
TEH TARD!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Taftv6yrd_Y

See this video at 2:10. :)

Date: 2007/08/27 16:19:14, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 27 2007,12:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,10:37)

Oh, he's not interested in any dialogue.

I'll say! My comment never appeared.

You didn't invite him on a cruise with Dawkins to Fire Island did you, Kristine?

Date: 2007/08/28 11:14:33, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 27 2007,18:11)
It makes explicit the fact that what antievolutionists are talking about when they say "information" is "meaning".

That is indeed what IDists mean, even though none of Dembski's definitions support that interpretation.  It just goes to show that IDists don't read Dembski -- they just use his buzzwords and make up their own definitions.

I've already corrected Joe on this, but he's impervious to correction.  Joe says:    
Quote
IOW complex specified information is a term to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has a specific meaning.
Dembski says the opposite on page 147 of NFL:    
Quote
To define CSI requires only the mereological and statistical aspects of information. No syntax or theory of meaning is required.
...
In particular, the intelligent agent need not assign a meaning to the pattern.
...
Neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other. This in my view is a tremendous asset of CSI, for it allows one to detect design without necessarily determining the function, purpose, or meaning of a thing that is designed (which is not to say that function, purpose, or meaning may not be useful in identifying a specification, but they are not mandated).


And Joe still doesn't understand that "complexity" in CSI refers to improbability rather than actual complexity.  Says Joe:    
Quote
CSI stands for Complex Specified Information

Complex meaning it is not simple. Complex meaning it is intricate. And complex because it contains many parts or facets.
I've already pointed out to Joe repeatedly that many of Dembski's examples are, in fact, very simple, eg the Caputo sequence, a simple narrowband signal, and the monolith in 2001 A Space Odyssey.  And I've provided many quotes where Dembski explicitly equates specified complexity with specified improbability.  But like most IDists, Joe doesn't care about Dembski's actual meaning.  After all, it's not like anyone actually uses Dembski's methods.

So Joe doesn't understand specification or complexity, which means that Joe doesn't understand anything about CSI.

Date: 2007/08/29 18:29:44, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 29 2007,11:54)
   
Quote
Joe G: Dennett tells us in "Darwin?s Great Idea" that "there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time." (repeated in the PBS series "Evolution")

I assume that Joe's referring to Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Freudian slip?).  I searched it on Amazon and couldn't find anything like the phrase that he quotes.  I think Joe has been playing Chinese Whispers with himself.

Date: 2007/08/30 16:44:26, Link
Author: Rob
Granville:  
Quote
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: ?If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference??

If Granville really wanted to pose that question to ID opponents, he would be doing so on a site that allows ID opponents.

BTW Granville, if we DID discover a prime number between 7 and 11, would that justify the design inference?  If we discovered a plateau that couldn't be scaled from any side, even with a temporary ramp that's extensible to any length, would we infer design, or infer that it's time to check ourselves into rehab?

Date: 2007/09/01 08:51:32, Link
Author: Rob
Casey Luskin brings down the Evolutionary Informatics Lab: http://tinyurl.com/yuubas

Date: 2007/09/04 15:16:52, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2007,15:00)
 
Quote
So is God like an imaginary number, waiting to be discovered and accepted in a renaissance of faith?



Replace "ID" with "Astrology" / "faith healing" for giggles as you read.

Yeah.  Notwithstanding the weirdness of modern science, most things that seem absurd turn out to be, in fact, absurd.  The fact that imaginary numbers were vindicated does not mean that my theory about unicorns hiding under my bed will meet the same success.

Date: 2007/09/04 17:25:07, Link
Author: Rob
FtK:      
Quote
One would think that by placing Dembski or other ID theorists smack dab into the mainstream scientific environment, provide them with grants and demand that they produce results which will answer questions that have yet to be answered in regard to the design inference, it would allow for Darwin supporters to put more pressure on them to produce results. If no results were forthcoming, their case against ID would be solid.

Mainstream scientists in these debates tell us that that ID must produce results, and that the research must be considered in mainstream peer reviewed journals, yet every time it looks as if there is a minute chance of that happening, the plug is pulled. Why?

Three things that FtK doesn't understand:

1) Nobody pulled any plug.  The project is still up and going.

2) Benefactors don't generally offer a grant just so they can watch the funded project fail.  You have to show that your idea has some promise before it gets funded.

3) In spite of that, IDists have received funding, particularly from the Discovery Institute (see here.)  Dembski, for instance, was paid $40,000 a year for 3 years by the DI.  According to FtK, the lack of results from this funding renders our case against ID solid.

Date: 2007/09/05 17:43:41, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 05 2007,16:00)
Ben Stein manages what many have tried:

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1042

 
Quote
John A. Davison Says:

September 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I am obviously wasting my tme here. Adios.

Getting JAD to growl good-bye and head for the door in a huff is pretty easy.  Getting him to actually leave is another story.

Date: 2007/09/05 18:54:19, Link
Author: Rob
O'Leary:  
Quote
Baylor does NOT want anyone adding more mathematical bad news to the ol? Darwinian magic

Denyse doesn't know valid math from a puddle of cow puke.  Dembski must be positively giddy that his groupies lap up any old swill he pours in their trough.  I don't know who's more at fault, Dembski or his enablers.

Sorry, I just read some Joe G and it put me in a bad mood.

Date: 2007/09/06 11:30:05, Link
Author: Rob
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability.  There's gotta be something in the New England water.  Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?

Date: 2007/09/06 14:48:39, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,14:36)
Wait, isn't there some Joe Gallien legend from a couple years back where he got canned from his job for blogging during working hours or something like that?

(You know, around the same time period when he was a Muslim for a couple hours.)

One and the same, although he denies that his termination was related to his internet threats.

And here's one for the he's-even-dumber-than-we-thought file.  Joe actually thinks that the evolution of the vision system should be attributable to a certain gene or set of genes:

 
Quote
No, genes don't hang around for hundreds of thousands of years directing mutation and selection.

Can you verify that answer scientifically?

Or is assertion the best you have?

Date: 2007/09/06 15:06:35, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2007,15:01)
Oh, he was canned for actually threatening people online during working hours? Who and how?

That story's even better!

I think it was on the old NAiG site.  I don't know if it's archived any longer.  If someone remembers the old URL, maybe they can check the Wayback Machine.

Here are a couple of posts at Telic Snots discussing it after the fact.

Date: 2007/09/06 16:37:20, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 06 2007,13:32)
So maybe ol' David L ain't the brightest candle in the bunch.  Stupidity has never stopped the Loyal IDists from posting in the past.  :)

David is one of those rare IDists with a doctorate (engineering, if I recall), which means he has a modicum of intelligence, but he can also be quite dense, and sometimes quite snooty.  He used to hang around ISCID before it went to pot.

Date: 2007/09/10 11:04:05, Link
Author: Rob
Quote
He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.

Knowing Joe, this probably means that his job consists of collecting unemployment.  I mean, c'mon, can you imagine Joe surviving in the workplace, or any other environment that requires a modicum of rationality and emotional stability?

Joe's boss:  Joe, you said that this project would take two months.  What happened?

Joe:  Reality says that "two months" means "July and December".  Ya see, in the end, all you can do is quote-mine and take things out of context.  Thanks for demonstrating that you're a @#%*% #*$%@!

Joe's boss:  You're fired, you sociopathic cretin.

Joe: You're a sociopathic cretin.

Date: 2007/09/10 12:27:57, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (slpage @ Sep. 09 2007,14:49)
A coward at heart.

Here's another tale of Brave Sir Joe:

I proposed to Joe that we ask Dembski about one of our disagreements.  I also proposed some stakes:  Whoever turned out to be wrong, according to Dembski, would never post about ID on the internet again.

In Joe's response, he ignored the proposed bet, so I repeated it.

Joe responded with a quote from Meyer that supposedly supported Joe's position, and asked, "Do you still want to bet?"

I answered, "Absolutely. I'm just waiting for you to say yes."

Joe's responded with, "BTW I would love to bet you but I can only wager with honest people."

And he followed that up with, "Also getting you not to post has no value to me. IOW once Dembski confirms I am correct I won't really "win" anything (if we did bet)."

My response: "Okay, then what do you want the stakes to be? As this is a bet that you're sure to win, I'm sure you'll want to bet something really big."

I also proposed a separate wager on another issue that we were in the middle of debating, once again with Dembski as the judge.

Joe's response: "Ya see secondclass- no matter what the wager you will never pay up."

My long response:

"In which case, you would report my welching to the ID and anti-ID communities, which would be pretty embarrassing for me.

"My point in proposing the bets is for us to show that we stand behind our claims enough to put something at risk. Otherwise, we're all talk, and this discussion isn't worth our while. Talk is cheap.

"Besides, since you're obviously going to win both bets, you have nothing to lose, right? So I don't understand your reluctance to accept the bets."

Joe responds with more weaseling, concluding with, "I explained my reluctance. That you can't even understand my simple explanation is very telling."

My parting comment: "Well, Joe, the proposed wagers stand. If you ever decide to take me up on them, you can let me know in a comment at any of the high profile sites, ie Uncommon Descent, Pandas Thumb, etc. Until then, best wishes to you and your blog."

To which Joe responded, bizarrely, that I never even made any claims on which to bet: "And everything I said still stands.  Until you make a claim there cannot be any wager."


So there you have it.  Joe can't muster the measly courage to accept bets that would be adjudicated by Dembski himself, and for which Joe would get to choose the stakes.

Date: 2007/09/10 14:41:23, Link
Author: Rob
Oh, and another one of Joe's excuses that I forgot to mention:
 
Quote
To me, betting with imbeciles is not a fruitful endeavor.

And betting with anonymous imbeciles is just not worth my time.

That's strange.  Most people consider betting with imbeciles to be very fruitful.  Easy money.

Date: 2007/09/10 14:49:35, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 10 2007,13:51)
I would like to nominate Rob's comment as Comment of the Month in the category of "Most Exact Channeling of an IDiot"

Superb, sir.

Coming from the master of ID mockery, that's a high compliment indeed.  Thank you.

Date: 2007/09/10 15:45:54, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (factician @ Sep. 10 2007,14:52)
Denyse quivered:

   
Quote
They wouldn’t care if he won a Nobel Prize. It would be a huge embarrassment.

Look, it’s this simple, guys: They don’t want Marks around if there is any chance that he can demonstrate that Darwin was wrong.

Yeah, universities hate it when their professors win Nobel Prizes for successfully overturning established theories.  After Einstein disproved aspects of classical physics, no university in the world wanted him, and he had to settle for that backwater diploma mill, Princeton.

Date: 2007/09/10 17:01:10, Link
Author: Rob
O'Leary:  
Quote
What does Bob Marks want? He wants the right to run computer simulations at Baylor that might (possibly) reduce confidence in Darwinian evolution.

Has Baylor ever told Marks what simulations he can and cannot run on their computers?  Of course not.  He could be simulating a light saber battle with Darth Vader for all they care.

Denyse and several others are trying to exploit this incident by making it seem that the Darwinian establishment is shutting down ID's attempts at research.  But Baylor isn't slowing anyone down by saying, "Publish this stuff on your own server, not ours."  Whether or not Baylor has behaved poorly in principle, IDists can't add this to their list of excuses for not doing research.

Date: 2007/09/10 17:13:42, Link
Author: Rob
I don't know what to make of this.  Tom English, a Dembski debunker and a member of the banned, is now an affiliate of the Evo Info Lab.  And Dembski still isn't listed.

I can't tell if Dembski is really off the project or not.  As of Sept. 7, he was still saying, "Bob and I are committed to doing good work and letting the results go where they will."  But if English is in and Dembski is out, I think the lab will be legitimate.  I don't think that English will put up with having his name attached to junk pseudoresearch.

This is a very surprising twist in this story.

Date: 2007/09/11 13:11:22, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 11 2007,12:00)
Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (http://pro-science.blogspot.com) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade.

As far as shunning Joe's blog, you would think that would be easy to do, given the ugliness of his behavior.  I avoided his site for a long time, but then I made the mistake of reading his comments on your blog, and I got ticked off enough to break my silence with him.  I agree that he's utterly undeserving of anyone's attention, and there's no good reason to take his bait.

I think most of us have a hard time letting falsehoods and fallacies that are accompanied by arrogance and verbal abuse go unchallenged.  I know I do.  I think the thing to remember is that Joe's irrationality and hostility are so far beyond the pale that nobody lends him any credibility, except for those few benighted souls who are on his same level, heaven forbid.  Keeping in mind that correcting him is both unnecessary and futile, maybe I can do a better job of maintaining my silence in the future.

Date: 2007/09/14 19:18:18, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 14 2007,18:51)
Joe seems to find that three books constitute a horn of plenty, Tard-wise:

* Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
* Why is a Fly not a Horse?
* The Privileged Planet
(also available on video!!!)

Add "stochastic processes," "culled through genetic accidents," and random insults.  Stir.

Don't forget "sheer dumb luck".

Date: 2007/09/18 18:15:04, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 18 2007,17:08)
Oh noes,
DaveTard has got us beat...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-137802

   
Quote
ID is based on what I consider a fact:

All machines where the origin can be unambiguously determined are a product of intelligent agency.
...
Comment by DaveScot — September 18, 2007 @ 10:50 am

Dave really stepped in it when he made this argument last year.  His opening line:    
Quote
In every case where a machine is observed and its origin can be determined it is the result of intelligent agency.


Later, Dave chastised mj for not reading the wikipedia definition of machines that he linked in the OP.  Then, in response to mj's suggestion that simple machines such as inclined planes are found in nature, Dave said:    
Quote
No we don’t find examples of simple machines. You are using an incorrect definition of machine. -ds


But it turns out that Dave himself didn't read his linked wikipedia definition:    
Quote
Types of machines and other devices

Simple machines         Inclined plane...

Date: 2007/09/26 15:11:36, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2007,14:00)
DaveTard, wants "science" changed:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-138879

So Dave's universe consists of two categories:  systems that can be tractably modeled by statistical mechanics, and intelligence.  Does this mean that chaotic systems are intelligent?

Date: 2007/10/01 10:30:59, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (CCP @ Sep. 28 2007,17:26)
(Actually, the real miracle of Lancaster is that it produced both Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart, but I'd expect BA77 is more familiar with ALF.)

Don't forget this illustrious institution.

Date: 2007/10/01 11:44:45, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 01 2007,10:45)
All hail Rob, the Antichrist formerly known as 2ndclass.

Geez, a guy can't even post an innocent comment without being demonized.  Literally.

On a totally different note, more juxtaposed quotes.  Compare these quotes by Dembski about the EIL:  
Quote
Centers and institutes are university sponsored, have an annual budget, and need to cleared with the university. Labs and groups are not.
 
Quote
To compare Robert Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab with other Baylor centers or institutes is highly misleading. Centers and institutes at Baylor are organized by administrative fiat (as was the Michael Polanyi Center that I directed at Baylor 1999-2000).
with this:  
Quote
I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID. Here are three things in particular I’m looking forward to in the coming year:

  1. A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish — stay tuned.)
(Emphasis mine)

Note that Dembski made the latter statement after Baylor returned the EIL grant and handed Dembski his hat.

Date: 2007/10/01 12:39:20, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 01 2007,12:31)
If it is not too much trouble, please could you once again  arrange for Dr. Dr. Dembski to embarrass himself?  Preferably soon?

Ask and ye shall receive.

Date: 2007/10/01 13:35:30, Link
Author: Rob
Thanks for pointing this out, Wesley,  Here I thought I was the first one to question M&D's results in that paper, but it turns out that Tom scooped me by a long shot.  I wonder when (or if) Marks & Dembski became aware of his responses?

For anyone interested, the error in the results can be traced to an easily discovered bug in one of their MATLAB scripts (now removed from their site).  The error is so big that putting a number on it is dicey.  My method of estimating it is different than Tom's, and I come up with 20 orders of magnitude as opposed to Tom's 13 orders of magnitude.

It should also be noted that the erroneous results are still reported in one of M&D's other papers, and that both Marks and Dembski have repeated their now-falsified conclusion in interviews.  Also, Gil Dodgen included the erroneous results in one of his UD articles.

Date: 2007/10/01 15:58:52, Link
Author: Rob
Quote
11  jerry   09/29/2007    8:27 pm
Timothee,  You will be hit with a lot of counterargumens and hopefully, you will stay around to sort them all out.

As if that's up to Timothee.

Date: 2007/10/01 16:58:14, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 01 2007,13:57)
Good idea. Do you think DT will tell him and the other naughty boys about PCID? I'm betting a bottle of scotch that he won't mention it...

Speaking of PCID, the once semi-interesting ISCID forum has now hit rock bottom.  When the titles of the five most recent threads contain the words "John" and "Davison", it's time to put the site out of its misery.

Date: 2007/10/02 14:33:32, Link
Author: Rob
Now all that remains is for Dembski and Marks to apologize for maligning Tom Schneider's evolutionary algorithm without even sniff-testing their empirical results for accuracy.

Date: 2007/10/02 19:24:33, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 02 2007,17:48)
I have just been told by a secret informant that this detail was negotiated as well. As it stands now, Dembski's family gets to eat at the cafeteria, but they can't order pie.

I heard that the deal was that they don't get any more free lunch.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:38:53, Link
Author: Rob
Sladjo:
Quote
As we all know, there is nowhere in this Universe a source of information that is purely materialistic. An information source is ALWAYS a mind.

Tip for Sladjo:  Try cracking a textbook on information theory instead of trusting the Isaac Newton thereof.

Date: 2007/10/03 11:02:13, Link
Author: Rob
BarryA:  
Quote
Darwinists attempt to explain this complex information by resorting to the “numerous monkeys typing” randomness. In other words, the theory goes, if you have enough monkeys pounding on enough typewriters, sooner or later they will pound out the works of Shakespeare. We now know, thanks largely to the work of scholars like William Dembski, that appeals to randomness of this sort are mathematically unsound given the limits on probabilistic resources set by the apparent age of the universe.

Um, yeah.  Until Dembski came along, we all expected randomly typing monkeys to produce Shakespeare, and randomly combining molecules to produce homo sapiens.  Thank you, Dembski, for disabusing us of this.

Date: 2007/10/03 11:16:32, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Tom Ames @ Oct. 02 2007,15:57)
Anyone look at the CV of Dembski's colleague Thomas English?

Tom English has actually published well-regarded papers on NFL topics.  He has given Dembski his due on the rare occasion that Dembski deserves it, but he has no love for Dembski's pseudologic.  He made it clear to me that his joining the EIL does not constitute an endorsement of the work that they've done so far.

Date: 2007/10/03 14:43:45, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2007,13:53)
Sal disses GEB        
Quote
Hofstadter’s book, Godel, Escher, Bach explored the whole issue of what is intelligence. (The subtitle of Hofstadter’s book is “A metaphorical fugue on minds and machines”). After 800 pages, Hofstadter offered no definition of intelligence!!!

Kinda like his criticism of Elsberry & Shallit's paper, which amounted to, "They didn't mention my favorite definition of CSI."

Of course, the IDists haven't come up with a definition of intelligence either, leaving gaping holes in their pseudologic.  GEB is a classic, and it has far more interesting insights into intelligence (even when not discussing it directly) than anything that IDists have come up with.  People like Albert Voie (whom Sal likes to cite) who talk about Godel without grokking him would do well to read it.

Date: 2007/10/03 16:31:26, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 03 2007,15:54)
Sal is just an IDEA man.

Gotta love amateur night at AtBC.  Tracy gets my vote for last comic standing.  Watch for him on Leno.

Date: 2007/10/03 17:46:07, Link
Author: Rob
StephenB chides someone for not reading The Design Inference:  
Quote
Apparently, you are also not aware that Dembski has made an important distinction between “optimum design” and “perfect design.” You can read about it in his book, “The Design Inference.”

It makes no sense to keep shooting all these arrows hoping that one day you will hit a target. Why not just do the reading?

He did the same a week ago:  
Quote
It would be one thing if Ayala had read The Design Inference and said, “I don’t agree with the distinction between “optimum design” and “perfect design.” However, from what I gather, he has not even chartered that territory, much less formulated an intelligent objection to the principles brought forth. Unless I am missing something, I must conclude that he is not only unfair, but also uninformed.

Only one problem:  The Design Inference says nothing about optimum design, optimal design, or perfect design, so I'm wondering if StephenB has read it himself.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:07:23, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 04 2007,10:48)
 
Quote
scordova: I’m so glad to meet others who like Hofstadter’s book! It is a stealth ID classic, imho.

So is Origin of the Species, donchaknow.

And I love how Sal criticizes Hofstadter for not defining intelligence, and then turns around and says that intelligence should be undefined.

And why does Sal think that Dembski's philosobabble helps the ID cause?  Dembski says that in defining intelligence, we gain no substantive insight.  He then proceeds to define intelligence:  "We could therefore define intelligence as the capacity for rational or purposive or deliberate or premeditated choice."  But, as Elsberry has pointed out, Dembski's paradigm characterizes designers as manifestly irrational.  With Dembski's gift for doublespeak, he should have gone into politics.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:22:28, Link
Author: Rob
Newsflash from StephenB:  "Secular" does not mean non-religious -- it means anyone who disagrees with StephenB's particular brand of religion or science or politics or history.
 
Quote
Religion Prof: Here is my ten-part test for a secular professor. (10 points for every yes)

1) Evolution is a demonstrable fact, but the handiwork of God is undetectable.

2) a. The absolute separation of Church and state protects reasonable people from crazy Chrisitan fundamentalists and upstart critics of evolution.

3) Immanual Kant was the greatest philospher because he taught us how to be skeptical.

4) The Christians initiated all the wars with the Muslims

5) To speak about killing the unborn, especially in polite company, is far worse than doing it.

6) We should worry less about sexual immoralty and more about violence.

7) Jesus Christ did not physically rise from the dead, but we can all experience our own sense of “rebirth.”

8) All religions are more or less equal in value.

9) We should call illegal aliens “undocumented workers.”

10) The pope is a tyrant, but Stalin was minunderstood.

Date: 2007/10/04 14:44:02, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2007,02:47)
Actually, GIGO is a step forward for Dembski, who for years has been stuck in "garbage out" mode. Actually trying to pay some attention to data...

More like datum.  After a decade of philosophizing about ID, Dembski finally came up with a single empirical number.  Goal for next decade:  Come up with an accurate empirical number.

Date: 2007/10/05 11:07:32, Link
Author: Rob
Steve, best of luck to your friend.  Don't let this board take your time away from him.  ID will still be here when you get back.  Unfortunately.

Date: 2007/10/11 10:40:21, Link
Author: Rob
Note: If anyone wants a copy of the retracted paper, it's still on the Baylor server.  If you really want to be a troublemaker, you could write to President Lilley and ask him if Baylor endorses the paper.

Date: 2007/10/12 08:59:22, Link
Author: Rob
Mats:  
Quote
Has anyone ever seen mindless/impersonal process generating living forms?

My wife has complained about that.

(Oh, the blessings of anonymity.)

Date: 2007/10/12 12:34:13, Link
Author: Rob
gpuccio:
Quote
Finally, while darwinian evolution theory is simple, simplistic and wrong, and ID theory is fairly complex and right,...
(Emphasis mine)

So that's why they never tell us what the theory of ID is.  It's so complex that it's way over our heads.

Date: 2007/10/20 11:02:21, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2007,13:20)
I'm looking to get a website that performs the function of

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

except it tells the truth.

Hey, evolutionnews sometimes tells the truth.  Their latest headline is totally accurate:  
Quote
1% Genetic Similarity Between Humans and Chimps a “Myth”

Date: 2007/10/21 01:06:07, Link
Author: Rob
Today's Orwellian moment is brought to you by Dr. William Dembski.

Here is part of Dembski's interview with Mario Lopez, as displayed in the Google cache on Oct. 20, 2007:    
Quote
CA: Are you evading the tough questions?

WD: Of course not. But tough questions take time to answer, and I have been patiently answering them. I find it interesting now that I have started answering the critics’ questions with full mathematical rigor (see http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty....s.html) that they are strangely silent. Jeff Shallit, for instance, when I informed him of some work of mine on the conservation of information told me that he refuse to address it because I had not adequately addressed his previous objections to my work, though the work on conservation of information about which I was informing him was precisely in response to his concerns. Likewise, I’ve interacted with Wolpert. Once I started filling in the mathematical details of my work, however, he fell silent. Perhaps the most striking instance of silence is that of Thomas Schneider, whose article on the evolution of biological information in Nucleic Acids Research (2000) claims to refute my colleague Michael Behe. When Robert Marks and I recently showed that his evolutionary program was equivalent to a neural network and that it works worse than pure chance (http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/T/ev2.pdf), he too fell silent though in the past he would reply in a day’s time on his own website to any challenge from me. I have found that Darwinists make a habit of staying quiet about problems with their theory and ignore the best criticisms of it.

CA: Are there any major universities supporting the work of ID proponents? If not, why not?

WD: I wouldn’t say that universities as such support ID. They tolerate it if the faculty member doing ID research has tenure. And if they don’t have tenure, the university makes sure that they don’t get tenure (the tenure denial of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University is latest instance). Why this opposition? Darwinists have been very successful at demonizing anyone who dissents from their materialistic view of evolution. They have essentially established a Stalinist regime over the western academy.

CA: I know about the Biologic Institute and the work of Dr. Minnich. Are there any other laboratories currently doing ID work?

WD: Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab: www.evolutionaryinformatics.org. I understand another ID lab at Baylor is on the way.
(Emphasis mine)

If you look at the interview as it is reported now, the same part reads as follows:    
Quote
CA: Are you evading the tough questions?

WD: Of course not. But tough questions take time to answer, and I have been patiently answering them. I find it interesting now that I have started answering the critics’ questions with full mathematical rigor (see the publications page at www.EvoInfo.org) that they are largely silent. Jeff Shallit, for instance, when I informed him of some work of mine on the conservation of information told me that he refuse to address it because I had not adequately addressed his previous objections to my work, though the work on conservation of information about which I was informing him was precisely in response to his concerns. Likewise, I’ve interacted with Wolpert. Once I started filling in the mathematical details of my work, however, he fell silent.

CA: Are there any major universities supporting the work of ID proponents? If not, why not?

WD: Previously I would have said that universities don’t so much support ID as tolerate it if the faculty member doing ID research has tenure. But I can’t say that any longer. Robert Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab had a presence on the Baylor server until the work of the lab was linked to ID (there had been anonymous complaints), at which point the Baylor administration went into Marks’s webspace and, without his permission, removed the EIL site from his space on the Baylor server. For the whole sordid story, which gained national media attention and will be featured in the upcoming Ben Stein documentary (www.expelledthemovie.com), go to my blog Uncommon Descent (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/media-coverage-baylor-robert-marks-and-the-evolutionary-informatics-lab/). Mind you, Robert Marks’s title is Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering—he doesn’t just have tenure but he is (or was) a star professor at Baylor. In any case, Marks still remains at his university. Untenured faculty are not so fortunate. In the case of faculty members who support ID and don’t have tenure, most universities make sure that they don’t get tenure (the tenure denial of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University is latest instance). Why this opposition? Darwinists have been very successful at demonizing anyone who dissents from their materialistic view of evolution. They have essentially established a Stalinist regime over the western academy.

CA: I know about the Biologic Institute and the work of Dr. Minnich. Are there any other laboratories currently doing ID work?

WD: The Evolutionary Informatics Lab: www.EvoInfo.org. I knew of another ID lab that another faculty member at Baylor (not Robert Marks) was intent on starting, but with the witch-hunt against Marks, that’s not going to happen any time soon.

Most interesting is the bolded part, which is missing in the latest version of the interview.  Dembski has gone back in time and removed his false claim against Schneider's ev program and his crowing about Schneider's lack of response.  But hey, that was just street theater anyway.

I suppose it's Dembski's prerogative to change what he said, but I'm not impressed with the fact that he excised a false claim without acknowledging that it's false and noting the excision.

Date: 2007/10/21 01:45:27, Link
Author: Rob
P.S.  The original interview is found on the Baylor server.

Date: 2007/10/26 13:58:48, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 26 2007,13:10)
Wiping out the history would be, oh, I don't know -- say, silently removing an "in circulation" paper from a web site when it has been found to be full of holes without ever responding to the criticisms that eviscerated it or even acknowledging that the paper was ever there in the first place?  

I'm just spitballin' here.  Stuff like that probably never happens.

We could make your scenario even more extreme by imagining that the author of the disappeared paper surreptitiously changes what he said in an interview four months prior in which he crowed about said paper.

Date: 2007/10/27 12:27:47, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 26 2007,20:12)
I like Bitsko.  He seems new.  How long can he last before bannination?  

This thread drips with what Sal would call "unwitting" irony.

Indeed.  The ultimate irony would be for Dembski or DaveScot to erase Bitsko and his comments from the ¨public record¨, as they are wont to do when posters embarrass them.

Date: 2007/10/31 14:03:29, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2007,07:51)
"BarryA":

   
Quote

The class is assigned the task of identifying their blunder.


Heng and Green make the same error that Dembski and Marks do in misrepresenting Dawkins's "weasel" program. "Weasel" doesn't "fix" correct letters; all positions are open to mutation at every copy operation.

Added: I have sent an email to Prof. Green about the problem with the webpage.

Dembski´s misunderstanding seems pretty common, although certainly not universal.  The algorithm is described correctly in Dembski´s online journal, June 2003:    
Quote
All of the letter positions are subject to mutations and hence it is possible that all of the offspring can be worse than the originial parent at any one generation.

And the writer gets extra credit for noting the following:    
Quote
Hence the WEASEL program was never intended to be a demonstration of evolution (though it frequently is cited incorrectly as such).

I´m not sure why so many people misunderstand Dawkins.  Maybe it´s because his snapshots at 10-generation increments give the illusion that monotonic improvement is guaranteed.

Date: 2007/11/02 19:17:43, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
'Tis true. He was at Scripps, which is just across the way. I was not able to make his talk because the traffic was atrocious today and also because I remembered that I technically did not know where Scripps was. (I had to call my roommate. It is like another campus, really.) I made the post-talk discussion, though, and I introduced myself just as PZ was about to leave.

I guess I can say that PZ did not have horns and was not a terribly mean old atheist in person. (I may have missed that part, though!) I even told him to have a safe flight back. Do you think I am getting soft?

Date: 2007/11/02 19:56:29, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 02 2007,19:50)
Is it possible for you to post the photo somewhere?

I don't have it. One of the students who invited PZ took it. However, I believe PZ plans on posting it to Pharyngula. (If not, you can e-mail him and ask him for it directly. I know he plans on sending it to Ed Brayton)

Date: 2007/11/02 22:16:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2007,21:36)
I talked with Ed Brayton about you over dinner. I bet your ears wear burning, Rob*.





*I tease - nothing that nasty was said.

That's good, although I took a swipe at Ed recently, so he would've been a little justified in being nasty.  :D

Date: 2007/11/02 23:32:11, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2007,22:46)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 02 2007,22:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2007,21:36)
I talked with Ed Brayton about you over dinner. I bet your ears wear burning, Rob*.





*I tease - nothing that nasty was said.

That's good, although I took a swipe at Ed recently, so he would've been a little justified in being nasty.  :D

Linky?

It was a drive-by posting at his blog. I didn't stick around to watch the grenade go off, but I imagine Ed has deleted it by now.

Date: 2007/11/03 13:05:20, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
PZ posted the pic here.

This is a more natural photo (sans PZ).

Date: 2007/11/03 20:06:52, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
My box turtle youtube video

Date: 2007/11/04 19:42:38, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 25 2007,11:40)
Quote
You wouldn’t be wondering if you’d had a number of other men’s wives yelling at you in the height of passion “I want to have your baby!”. It’s a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it. It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it. Some guys prefer to make the world’s children smarter by becoming teachers and some guys prefer to make them smarter through better genetics. It’s all good.


You guys are being unfair to DaveScot by posting that pic of DaveScot, Sr., his father.

Date: 2007/11/05 15:08:46, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,14:47)
I'm interested to know how well these ID books sell nowadays since most everyone on planet earth knows IDc is a scam.

I would guess that a good portion of their customers buy these books because they know it´s a scam.  I´m betting that most of us on this board can´t wait to get our hands on a copy, which leaves us with a dilemma:  $31.50 is a great price for the entertainment value that the book is sure to provide, but do we really want to contribute to the ID cause?

Date: 2007/11/07 02:05:42, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2007,16:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:56)
Hey a bonus question, what's your take on the Discovery Institute?

That's kind of a silly question.  I think the Discovery Institute it great.  Though, I do prefer some of ID proponents over others.  And, no, I won't be sharing more on that comment.

They're not as funny as UD, but the on-going "no-research, only press releases" gag still has legs.

You'll be sorry when they emerge from their secret underwater lab to present their research.

Date: 2007/11/08 13:41:16, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 07 2007,02:05)
You'll be sorry when they emerge from their secret underwater lab to present their research.



Tragically, the DI realizes too late that implanting Hitler's brain in the body of a great white shark in order to cement the relationship between Nazism and evolution was a bad idea.

Date: 2007/11/10 20:32:37, Link
Author: Rob
getawitness skates on thin ice when he explains why MacNeill is blowing off ba77's CSI question:    
Quote
I think, thought, that one reason for the silence is that CSI is not a widely used concept in biology (or for that matter in mathematics). It remains a kind of “specialist” term.

Go GaW!  Just a couple of corrections:    
Quote
I think, thought, that one reason for the silence is that CSI is not a widely used concept in biology (or for that matter in mathematics). It remains a kind of “specialistuseless term.

Date: 2007/11/14 15:16:48, Link
Author: Rob
Bugsy is getting away with murder:  
Quote
“Speaking of which, does anybody know what happened to the paper with Dr. Marks called “Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites”? It used to be listed as “under review” at the evo-info lab but it’s not there any more. Does that mean it’s coming out in a journal? Where can I get a copy?”

I believe it’s been vanished, like a Bolshevik’s embarrassing relative.

Seeing that kind of thing is pretty disillusioning.
(Emphasis mine)

Get a snapshot of this thread while it's still there.

Date: 2007/11/14 18:26:39, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I enjoyed the interview with Phillip Johnson. I agree, though, that they really dropped the ball by not including DaveScot. (If only he had been at the Dover school board meeting, he would have shut down any talk of Jesus right quick!)

Date: 2007/11/17 17:58:59, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 16 2007,12:04)
For me, the link to the "retraction" and to the Powerpoint revision  are both working now.

The numbers in their presentation are still wrong.  They say that there are 131 bits of endogenous information, but there are actually 256 bits, which makes the active information about 5 millibits per query instead of 3 millibits.

Anyone familiar with their paper can see that they're wrong by bringing up the java version of ev and hitting the "step" button once, after which the upper right corner looks like this: This shows 229 mistakes in the worst sequence, which would be impossible if the search space were only 131 bits.

But the wrong numbers don't matter since their logic is flawed at a more fundamental level.

Date: 2007/11/19 16:45:49, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2007,12:20)
I would suggest that the "active information", ie the selection process resides in the environment itself and so poses no real problem for evolution.

Ah, but you forget that any environment that isn't uniformly random is necessarily designed.  At least, that's the tacit assumption that Marks and Dembski make.

Date: 2007/11/20 00:32:51, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
This is a (non-exhaustive) list of my favorites:

Ben Hur, A Man for All Seasons, Chariots of Fire, The Wicker Man (the original), Aliens, Star Trek II, Last of the Mohicans, Bridge on the River Kwai, Raise the Red Lantern, Empire Strikes Back, LOTR, Event Horizon, The Name of the Rose.

Date: 2007/11/20 01:04:39, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 18 2007,18:10)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 17 2007,05:27)
Quote
Also, if humans are simply genetic mutations of some simpler life form, then why are we the only species that wears clothes? why then the timidity?

That's your God of the argument.

That was clever Steve. Not as clever as my "DI placing Hitler's brain in a great white shark" gag but still pretty good.

Date: 2007/11/20 16:12:36, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Mister DNA @ Nov. 20 2007,07:37)
...John Carpenter's The Thing...

That's a good one, too. Wilford Brimley does a good job in a role that's atypical for him. The special effects are somewhat nauseating, though.

Anyway, I just remembered another one of my favorites: To Kill a Mockingbird.

Date: 2007/11/21 00:53:08, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
The lack of flatulence sounds leads me to believe Bill had nothing to do with the reworking.

Date: 2007/11/21 14:09:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Well, they could not have gone extinct before 1981, since they can be seen in Clash of the Titans.

Date: 2007/11/30 10:59:38, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Ed Brayton and Wesley Elsberry believe my suggestion re: deleting common descent from a curriculum is a violation of Epperson v. Arkansas but I actually cite the content of the ruling to demonstrate their error here.

Date: 2007/11/30 11:27:11, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 30 2007,11:13)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Nov. 30 2007,10:59)
Ed Brayton and Wesley Elsberry believe my suggestion re: deleting common descent from a curriculum is a violation of Epperson v. Arkansas but I actually cite the content of the ruling to demonstrate their error here.

Get them to remove division from maths, also please. I never liked it much.

Actually, we should just buy all secondary school students a subscription to Scientific American let them loose.  :D

Date: 2007/11/30 12:30:47, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Tom Ames @ Nov. 30 2007,12:15)
Can we see your 'turtle bashing its head against the mirror' video again? Somehow your posts always remind me of that movie.

Insightful self-referential commentary? I think maybe so!

Hey, I'll have you know that when I took an IQ test in Cosmo a few years back I scored 200. And that is without rescaling; my score would probably be twice as much under the current scale. (Incidentally, my suggested professions were autodidact, mushroom cultivator, or mushroom-cultivating autodidact.)

Date: 2007/12/03 19:22:07, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I stand by my analysis of Epperson v. Arkansas as applied to the hypothetical I raised. Since no one who has taken an interest in this exchange is a federal judge, the argument will have to remain where it is.

Date: 2007/12/13 17:29:06, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (ooberman @ Dec. 13 2007,11:38)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 13 2007,10:48)
I noticed this bit in the thread at IAP:

     
Quote

     
Quote

     
Quote

The Specified Complexity filter was peer reviewed and published.

It was published anyway. The work has never been reviewed in the appropriate journals.

Nonsense.  Dembski submitted "The Design Inference" for peer review and publication.  It was reviewed, adjusted, accepted and published by Cambridge University press.


Dembski had been asked to bring his documentation of the CUP review process to his deposition for the Kitzmiller v. DASD...

In addition to the points that Dr. Elsberry makes, there is also the fact that the book was published in a philosophy series, and was therefore presumably reviewed by philosophers.  I'm not denigrating philosophers, but why has Dembski failed to publish any of his ID stuff in math or science venues?

According to Dembski, there were two initial reviewers, one giving a thumbs-up and the other a thumbs-down, so Skyrms appealed to a third reviewer, who gave it a thumbs up.  Dembski managed to pull the wool over 2 out of the 3 philosophers' eyes, and the question of how they missed the gaping holes in Dembski's logic is a pertinent one.  Regardless, the math and philosophy communities have cast their vote on Dembski's revolutionary work by ignoring it completely for the decade that it's been in existence.  It's also worth noting that CUP was more resistant when it came to publishing NFL, so Dembski switched to a non-peer-reviewed venue.

 
Quote
Anyhow, thanks. For the sake of not letting a blowhard have free reign, I hope one of you guys will stop in, but I will heed the advice and stick to my strengths.


When someone waxes technical on Dembskiism, it's always for show -- there's no substance underneath.  Ask them really basic, fundamental questions, like:  What evidence does Dembski have that design, as we know it, does not fall in the law and/or chance category?  [Answer: None.]  Where are the data to support Dembski's claim that all observed specified complexity of known origin is designed?  [Answer: There aren't any.  No studies have been conducted on specified complexity.]


Edit: "data" singular -> plural to look cool

Date: 2007/12/14 10:07:39, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 08 2007,20:01)
Excuse my ignorance, but what computer simulations is he speaking of and how would he propose to overturn them?

They've mentioned Tom Schneider's ev and Devolab's Avida.  They overturn these programs by showing that they contain "active information", which, translated into non-obfuscatory language, means that the evolutionary algorithms involved are more effective than blind search.  Needless to say, scientists everywhere are shocked! shocked! by that revelation.

I've asked Sal twice what exactly the EIL is accomplishing with its framework, and he ignored the question both times.  Dembski claims that the EIL will put Devolab out of business, but I doubt we'll ever see him betting a bottle of Coke, much less single malt scotch, on that claim.

   
Quote
Also, what research was he doing that's so special he can't do it on DI money, if it was going to change the world?


I know your question is rhetorical, but I'll spell out the obvious answer:  Baylor's kibosh on the EIL funding (a whopping $30k for two years) makes for a great persecution story and a handy excuse for the EIL producing nothing of value.

Date: 2007/12/14 12:42:35, Link
Author: Rob
It looks like they're now acknowledging that their numbers apply to a much easier target than the one in Schneider's paper.  (A target of all positives is a cakewalk -- all it takes is a very low threshold value.)

Their numbers are still all wrong, since they're based on a misunderstanding of ev.  They think that the search space is 2^131, but it's really 2^256.  Had they stepped through a a few generations of an ev run, they would have known this.

But their biggest problem is still that their framework is nothing more than an obfuscatory semantic game.  For instance, they say that endogenous information is "a numerical measure of the inherent difficulty of the problem to be solved," but it would be more accurate to say that it's the inherent difficulty of a different problem with different probabilities.

Here's an example:  What is the inherent difficulty of rolling a 7 with a pair of dice?  We might naively think that the answer is based the number 1/6, which is the probability of rolling a 7.  Wrong, say D&M, the actual probability doesn't matter -- all that matters is the size of the search space.  D&M would presumably say that the inherent difficulty of rolling a 7 is based on a probability of 1/11, which is not the probability of the problem in question.

And how do we non-arbitrarily define the search space?  D&M seem to define it as the set of outcomes accessible to the algorithm in question.  But for non-trivial problems, we don't know what outcomes are accessible unless the algorithm's starting point is chosen randomly from a well-defined set.  But the java version of ev starts at the same point every time (it doesn't randomly seed the random number generator), so its set of accessible outcomes is much smaller than the set of all n-bit sequences.  So even if 131 were the correct number for n, the search space of ev would be much less than 2^131.

To see further see why D&M's notion of "inherent difficulty" isn't very meaningful, consider a problem that involves an infinite set possible outcomes.  Take, for instance, a Poisson distribution, which occurs commonly in nature.  For lambda=1, all non-negative numbers have a non-zero probability, but the outcome is virtually guaranteed to be 0, 1, 2, or maybe 3.  But according to D&M, the inherent difficulty of finding any of these very likely outcomes is infinite!  D&M's terminology simply doesn't mean what it seems to mean.

Date: 2007/12/14 13:04:13, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 14 2007,11:12)
And Sal, don't forget Sal who is currently proving god exists via math.

I just noticed this.  Instead of laying low like he promised, Sal is now jumping the shark.

Date: 2007/12/14 16:26:31, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 14 2007,16:03)
Where does this put the Jews and claimed "atheists" who support IDC?

And what about the pleasurists?  Dembski certainly doesn't want to disassociate ID from them.

Date: 2007/12/19 12:19:17, Link
Author: Rob
Fafarman:    
Quote
IMO anyone who has read several of the popular books about evolution should consider him/herself to be fairly expert in the field.

I'd love to watch Larry in court, especially when he brings in his "expert" witnesses.

Date: 2007/12/19 14:45:55, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 19 2007,08:45)
In anticipation of a special anniversary tomorrow...

I Am the Very Model of a C-Design-Proponentsist

We're not worthy!  I bow before Amadan.

Date: 2007/12/20 09:17:26, Link
Author: Rob
Frost waxes profound:  
Quote
The reason Darwinists try to redefine intelligence or ignore it is because they desire to grasp the universe as it actually is.
The horror!
 
Quote
Intelligence is not directly or purely quantifiable.
Except via SAT scores, whereby DaveScot discovered that his intelligence is north of God's.

Date: 2007/12/28 11:56:07, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,10:03)
 
Quote
50

DaveScot

12/28/2007

9:33 am
dcost

Actually you are asserting that that the fossil record is incomplete because it does not show the needed support for your preconceptions. I can’t have a reasonable discussion with you when you deny the substantiality of the fossil record as it’s the only real record we have of the history of life that doesn’t rely on speculation or self-reference.

1. The fossil record is the only real record we have of the history of life.

2. Therefore, it's complete, or at least substantially so.

3. Therefore, species have been created de novo.

4. If you say that the fossil record is incomplete, you're just trying to prop up your preconceptions.

Brilliant!  Dave at his best.

Date: 2007/12/28 12:30:03, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,18:00)
Sal is unemployable. I'm sure he can't wait to cry "persecution".

He's already started.

Date: 2007/12/28 18:17:21, Link
Author: Rob
dcost is escorted to the exit:  
Quote
dcost is no longer with us. He asserted that the fossil record is incomplete because (I kid you not) it is incomplete. I guess he is certain he is right because he is certain he is right. In the meantime I’m certain that arguments of that nature are not welcome here.

On the other hand, UD welcomes Dave's argument that the fossil record is complete because it's complete.  You're also free to argue that Judge Jones is a liberal atheist because he's a liberal atheist.

Date: 2007/12/31 10:23:46, Link
Author: Rob
Wes might be interested to know that Dembski and Marks have rewritten the response to Haggstrom, but they still claim that WEASEL is a partitioned search.

Date: 2007/12/31 11:12:21, Link
Author: Rob
Anybody know who Semiotic 007 is?  If you're here, Semiotic, can you PM me?

Semiotic lays waste to the "NFL debunks evolution" myth:  
Quote
To restate what I said above, only algorithmically compressible functions “fit into” the physical universe. There’s nothing new in that observation. You simply haven’t heard about it because your information on NFL comes by way of Dr. Dembski, who has not addressed the possibility that fitness landscapes might have predictable features due to compressibility.

Date: 2008/02/26 20:07:49, Link
Author: Robert S.
"My response is that you can't disqualify a theory merely b/c it is religiously motivated."

But you do know that Intelligent Design is not a theory, right?
Because it is not testable, verifiable nor repeatable. Doesn't qualify.

Date: 2008/04/20 17:36:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
As I commented on another version of that clip, it is hard to decide which one, Dawkins or Maher, is a bigger p.o.s. Their research output for the last twenty years is equivalent, though.

As for the talking snake, I see it as a literary fiction that has no bearing on the truth of Christianity, which is centered on the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Date: 2008/04/21 02:09:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps....0420009

He will be joining Grove City College as an associate professor of astronomy. I am happy for him. He won't have to deal with the slime balls he faced at ISU, who can rot away in obscurity in Ames.

(via Olorin)

Date: 2008/04/21 19:51:52, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (ERV @ April 21 2008,19:31)
Dont send him an email.

Send one to his uni.

Ask them if it is a Grove City tradition to have their professors hold part-time pan-handling positions.

I know you like to harass people associated with ID but I suggest leaving him alone and taking up another hobby.

Date: 2008/04/21 20:09:50, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 21 2008,20:03)
Quote
I know you like to harass people associated with ID but I suggest leaving him alone and taking up another hobby.


No, we stand up and oppose liars and charlatans who work to damage science education in this nation.  It is Gonzalez and the Discovery Institute who created this stink.  Every other astronomer who was denied tenure has gotten on with their work and careers without playing the religious persecution card in public.

Save it, Dilbert. I've heard your spiel before. Guillermo Gonzalez did nothing wrong and I think he was treated unjustly.

Date: 2008/04/21 21:10:34, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 21 2008,20:11)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 21 2008,00:09)
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps....0420009

He will be joining Grove City College as an associate professor of astronomy. I am happy for him. He won't have to deal with the slime balls he faced at ISU, who can rot away in obscurity in Ames.

(via Olorin)

"Rot away in obscurity"?

Robert, try thinking before you rant. Which do you think is more 'obscure': a Christian liberal arts college in Grove City, Pennsylvania, or Iowa State University? It's obvious you're pissed off, but you could try and make a *little* sense.

Now that Gonzalez has another job he should grow the fuck up, admit he fucked up his tenure track time at ISU, and tell the DI to quit panhandling for him. I see no reason to institute special rules of tenure for someone just because the DI likes him. And let's hope for his sake that if Grove City has a tenure process, they don't care whether their faculty publish or bring in grant money.

Iowa State is known for football, statistics, and agriculture (or so I assume). It is not known for physics. Add to that the fact that Ames is a soul-enervating ****hole (yes, I've been there) and I'd say Dr. Gonzalez comes out ahead of his opponents.

Date: 2008/04/22 09:38:45, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Louis @ April 22 2008,03:13)
To add to my previous comment: "Didn't we already know this?" I would like to append the following:

Don't we know that Bobby is merely trolling for yucks and poopies? Bobby, time and again, has demonstrated he is a TarTar of the lowest, most oleaginous rung. Even I'm not sufficiently stupid to credit this attempt at flamebait with more than cursory piss-taking!

Louis

P.S. Brief on topic addendum: GG goes to christian school to excape da perhersecushun? Big fucking surprise. I feel sorry for the guy. He sold himself very cheaply to a set of very dumb ideas and people.

My good knob,

As I wrote previously, you do not have to put yourself in the cart by testing the drugs on yourself.

Date: 2008/04/22 10:22:49, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,10:12)
Rob, do you get to hand these out / be at the award dinners?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....a_1.php

Nah. I do not accept awards from college drop outs/failed comedians. Did I ever tell you the initial cause of the bad blood between Ed and I? One day I decided to drop in on him and when he stepped out of his kitchen to take a phone call I ate his last Krispy Kreme. He has not forgiven me for that faux pas to this day.

Date: 2008/04/22 14:45:43, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 22 2008,06:45)


Even worse, he leaves out the number one cause of murderous anti-semitism, a group that was hating Jews 2000 years ago and which has been slaughtering them in wholesale lots for the last thousand years: Christianity. And not just any old Christians, either.  A few liberal Christians did oppose the Nazis.  Hitler killed about 600 of them.  The Conservative Christians were enthusiastic supporters of the Nazi party.
 
ALL of the top Nazis and all of their minions were Christians.  Hitler only got into power because the Roman Catholic church dismantled the Catholic Zentrum party in return for money and recognition.

See here for the gory details of Hitler and Christianity's role in his rise.

Gregory S. Paul is the phony who claimed that the more religious a country is, the more societal ills it will suffer from, which has been thoroughly debunked.

The Bible does not call for the persecution of Jews. The Roman Catholic Church and Luther, however, did.

Oh, and a Christian would not say the sort of things Hitler said in his table talk.

Date: 2008/04/22 14:51:55, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,14:47)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 22 2008,15:45)
Oh, and a Christian would not say the sort of things Hitler said in his table talk.

You mean like "Gott mit uns"?

That only signifies theism. I do not think Hitler was an atheist but neither do I think he was a Christian.

Date: 2008/04/22 14:53:22, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,14:49)
There is a biblical tradition of God mandated genocide.

In the Hebrew Scriptures!

Date: 2008/04/22 14:58:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,14:56)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 22 2008,15:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,14:49)
There is a biblical tradition of God mandated genocide.

In the Hebrew Scriptures!

Quote
[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
[2] And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
[3] And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.
[4] And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
[5] And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
[6] And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
[7] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.


Revelation, chapter 6

I do not see a call to genocide in your citation.

Date: 2008/04/22 15:02:17, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,14:59)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 22 2008,15:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,14:56)
 
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 22 2008,15:53)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,14:49)
There is a biblical tradition of God mandated genocide.

In the Hebrew Scriptures!

 
Quote
[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
[2] And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
[3] And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.
[4] And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
[5] And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
[6] And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
[7] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.


Revelation, chapter 6

I do not see a call to genocide in your citation.

Can you see it better now?

No. There is a distinct difference between saying "a lot of bad **** is going to go down" and the Israelites slaughtering the inhabitants of Jericho (for example).

Date: 2008/04/22 15:29:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (didymos @ April 22 2008,15:21)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 22 2008,12:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,14:49)
There is a biblical tradition of God mandated genocide.

In the Hebrew Scriptures!

Does anyone else see this as just a way of basically saying "No.  It was those bloodthirsty Jews"?  And, don't many Christians take the position that even though, maybe, God no longer mandates that sort of thing, at one time he did, and therefore it was to the good?

If you want to discuss this in another thread I am willing.

Date: 2008/04/22 17:07:28, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 22 2008,17:00)
As reported by the Iowa State Daily, GG said


Quote
Gonzalez said the movie shows a real climate of fear about this topic in universities.

"At one university where I sent an application, an assistant professor attended the meeting where faculty were going over applicants," he said. "He told me that someone said I was 'that ID guy' and that they didn't even look at my application. This person also told me he was a closet ID supporter and he didn't dare speak in my defense."


Personally, I don't believe this at all. Anonymous guy talking about "someone."  Typical creationist, making stuff up.  Good for GG working at a bible college where faith trumps integrity.  He'll do well there.

I believe GG. You obviously do not know the first thing about him or Grove City College.

Stick to strummin' your banjo, hayseed.

Date: 2008/04/24 10:29:57, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2008,03:15)
Quote
Ono is seeking Premise's profit from the documentary, as well as at least $75,000 in damages and a ban on the 1971 song's use in the film.


All the profit - potentially gone!
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695273188,00.html

EDIT: And if it makes a loss? Does Yoko owe them money? :)

Yoko Ono is a crazy bitch.

Date: 2008/04/24 14:28:39, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 24 2008,12:13)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 24 2008,08:29)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2008,03:15)
   
Quote
Ono is seeking Premise's profit from the documentary, as well as at least $75,000 in damages and a ban on the 1971 song's use in the film.


All the profit - potentially gone!
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695273188,00.html

EDIT: And if it makes a loss? Does Yoko owe them money? :)

Yoko Ono is a crazy bitch.

Yeah, they use her husband's song without permission and compare him to a Nazi, and 'the bitch' just freaks out! What's up with that?

I don't think they meant to compare Lennon to a Nazi. Also, using a refrain from a song does not count as stealing in my book, especially since the guy who actually wrote and sang the song is long since dead.

Date: 2008/04/24 14:36:00, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2008,14:32)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 24 2008,15:28)
Also, using a refrain from a song does not count as stealing in my book, especially since the guy who actually wrote and sang the song is long since dead.

I heard he was buried wearing a really nice watch.

Go for it, let me know how that turns out.

I'll pass. Tomb-robbing is only appropriate in archaeology and Dungeons & Dragons.

Date: 2008/04/24 14:38:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 24 2008,14:36)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2008,14:32)
I heard he was buried wearing a really nice watch.

Go for it, let me know how that turns out.

But he won't need that watch in Hell!

Silly atheists...

LOL!

Date: 2008/04/24 15:04:59, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 24 2008,14:42)
Were you a cleric or a paladin, Rob?

enquiring minds want to know!

A paladin.

Do you have some polyhedral dice (other than the familiar cube) in your attic? :D

Date: 2008/04/25 16:28:44, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 24 2008,15:37)
Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,15:32)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 24 2008,15:04)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 24 2008,14:42)
Were you a cleric or a paladin, Rob?

enquiring minds want to know!

A paladin.

Do you have some polyhedral dice (other than the familiar cube) in your attic? :D

Of course it would be the next post.

Onward Frankish So-oldiers!

This was his campaign*:

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/cannibalism.html

*teasing.

No. This was my campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7iH_83ovWs

I am the one who corrects the leader's math and says, "Let us taunt it!  It may become so cross that it will make a mistake."

Date: 2008/04/25 16:36:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,15:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 24 2008,14:42)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 24 2008,14:36)
 
I'll pass. Tomb-robbing is only appropriate in archaeology and Dungeons & Dragons.

Were you a cleric or a paladin, Rob?

enquiring minds want to know!

Roland is fierce and Oliver is wise.

There is a lot of understanding in literature.

I'm sure Bob was a Paladin.

I am impressed. The Song of Roland is one of my favorites. The Moors were the "Darwinists" of the Medieval Iberia. :D

(Actually, I am part Portuguese and thus part Moor myself.)

Date: 2008/04/25 17:11:11, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 25 2008,16:37)
Bob, it is with great sadness that I must point you to this:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

That is a classic Chick tract with a truly worthy spoof.

Another great Chick spoof is Who Will Be Eaten First?

Date: 2008/04/25 17:14:45, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 25 2008,16:39)
The Moor, the merrier, Bob.

Didn't DaveScot argue that it was the Moops who invaded Spain?

Date: 2008/04/26 21:38:06, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (ERV @ April 26 2008,20:02)
But [William Dembski] doesnt actually *work*--Hasnt published shit in math...

I am disappointed in Bill. He could contribute to mathematics but he does not. It is a waste of God-given talent.

Date: 2008/05/05 14:53:03, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 04 2008,17:50)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2008,16:02)
   
Quote (didymos @ April 23 2008,15:37)
OK, I'm tenatively calling bullshit on something, but don't know if it really is.  The next-to-latest DI "blog" posting claims that Guillermo Gonzales invented the concept of the Galactic Habitable Zone, as part of their ongoing "he wuz teh ekspelldz.  He can haz tenur?" campaign. As far as I know, he's just a proponent, and maybe introduced the term, as best I can tell, right?

This 2006 Paper On the “Galactic Habitable Zone” by Nikos Prantzos (.pdf) has these references:

     
Quote
9. Gonzalez, G. (1997), MNRAS, 285:403-412
10. Gonzalez, G. (2005), Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, 35:555-606
11. Gonzalez, G., Brownlee, D., Ward, P. (2001), Icarus, 152: 185-200


That should get you started looking...


Dr. Phil Plait of BadAstronomy has a weekly live video chat and I JanieBelle asked what he thought of Gonzalez' "Galactic Habitable Zone" and Prantzos' 2006 challenge of it.  (I had previously emailed him links to the papers in question.)

"Destroyed" is his word of choice.

He also was very explicit that he sees no problem at all with denying tenure to Gonzalez based solely on his creationism.

Rough quote to the best of my memory:

 
Quote (Dr. Phil Plait @ about an hour ago)
If you think the universe is 6000 years old, you shouldn't be teaching science.


Amen.

So let's review the Iowa State tenure decision:

Creationist.
No appreciable funding in the form of grants.
Little in the way of publications.
No grads.
and now Sole claim to scientific "fame" debunked within a very few years.

Any questions?

Edited for a format issue.

1. GG is not YEC.
2. The totality of GG's research output makes creepy Avalos' look absolutely anemic by comparison, yet he received tenure.
3. Dawkins' last research output is dated to the Thatcher administration, yet I've not seen calls for his ouster from Oxford.
4. Phil Plait is a jackass.

Any questions?

Date: 2008/05/05 15:01:14, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 05 2008,14:58)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,15:53)
Any questions?

Yes.

Do you have anything useful to add to any discussion whatsoever?

I just did. As someone currently in academia, I just bitch-slapped your half-assed assertions back to the unlit corner where they belong. By the way, will someone kindly forward my post to Lauri Lebo in the sticks?

Date: 2008/05/05 15:10:23, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,15:01)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,14:53)
1. GG is not YEC.
2. The totality of GG's research output makes creepy Avalos' look absolutely anemic by comparison, yet he received tenure.
3. Dawkins' last research output is dated to the Thatcher administration, yet I've not seen calls for his ouster from Oxford.
4. Phil Plait is a jackass.

Any questions?

1. Wrong comes in many flavours

2. What about his funding?

3. Because his role isn't research, it's helping the public understand science?

4. Ah, hybridization. More proof of common descent!

1. No doubt!
2. That, apparently, was a legitimate issue.
3. Sounds like they created the post especially for a dried-up Dawkins.
4. Thou sayest!

Date: 2008/05/05 15:15:26, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:07)
If he doesn't, he'll wind up another Berlinksi, and the world has too many of those as is.

I could never relocate to Paris, though.

Date: 2008/05/05 15:28:10, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:18)
Maybe RO'B's grudge against Avalos is because in 1998 Avalos saw through the fraud of the Bible Code, while Dembski approved of the Bible Code and linked it to ID.

You are being facetious, right? I think the "Bible code" is horseshit.

Date: 2008/05/05 15:43:46, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 05 2008,15:01)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,14:53)
1. GG is not YEC.
2. The totality of GG's research output makes creepy Avalos' look absolutely anemic by comparison, yet he received tenure.
3. Dawkins' last research output is dated to the Thatcher administration, yet I've not seen calls for his ouster from Oxford.
4. Phil Plait is a jackass.

Any questions?

Just a few.

What apples v. oranges comparison would be useful for comparing research output of a scholar in a department of Religion with a scholar in a department of Physics? Do you think that grants are needed to assure a positive tenure decision in a Religion department? Where would those grants come from?

What part of "tenure decision" don't you understand? The part where you don't have tenure until you prove yourself in a few years of effort (the case of Gonzalez), or the part where you have proven yourself and are quite a few years past that decision (in the case of Dawkins)?

Are you really as stupid as you seem to be?

It's more like apples and pears, not apples and oranges. They are distinct, to be certain, but both are pomes and share many characteristics. I am well versed in Biblical scholarship and I think Avalos' work is mediocre. His claim to "fame," other than displaying an unhealthy fixation with GG, is ancient sanitation and chicano religion.

That's right, folks, if you want to know which hand the ancients used to wipe their asses or how some Mexicans think there is a portal to Hell that opens on El Día de los Muertos then Avalos is your go to guy.

And, of course, there is still the issue of dried-up Dawkins.

Date: 2008/05/05 15:45:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:36)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,16:28)
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:18)
Maybe RO'B's grudge against Avalos is because in 1998 Avalos saw through the fraud of the Bible Code, while Dembski approved of the Bible Code and linked it to ID.

You are being facetious, right? I think the "Bible code" is horseshit.

Your boy Dembksi didn't.

I dropped Bill awhile ago. He is like the Jeremiah Wright of ID.

Date: 2008/05/05 15:51:25, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,15:25)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,15:10)
4. Thou sayest!

Are these two texts equal?




No, although I think Gary Gygax (of blessed memory) deserves to be sainted more than Mother Teresa (who seems to have been a phony).

Date: 2008/05/05 15:53:02, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 05 2008,15:48)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,16:43)
It's more like apples and pears, not apples and oranges. They are distinct, to be certain, but both are pomes and share many characteristics. I am well versed in Biblical scholarship and I think Avalos' work is mediocre. His claim to "fame," other than displaying an unhealthy fixation with GG, is ancient sanitation and chicano religion.

That's right, folks, if you want to know which hand the ancients used to wipe their asses or how some Mexicans think there is a portal to Hell that opens on El Día de los Muertos then Avalos is your go to guy.

And, of course, there is still the issue of dried-up Dawkins.

And this is your defense of ID?

Agumentum ad Igotnuthinum?

Did they teach you that in academia?

Sweet.

It's more like argumentum playbythesamerulesum or argumentum acrosstheboardum

Date: 2008/05/05 15:55:10, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,15:46)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,15:45)
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:36)
 
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,16:28)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:18)
Maybe RO'B's grudge against Avalos is because in 1998 Avalos saw through the fraud of the Bible Code, while Dembski approved of the Bible Code and linked it to ID.

You are being facetious, right? I think the "Bible code" is horseshit.

Your boy Dembksi didn't.

I dropped Bill awhile ago. He is like the Jeremiah Wright of ID.

Who's the main man in ID at the moment?

Are you asking for their de facto "leader" or the ID proponent(s) I like best?

Date: 2008/05/05 16:29:53, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,15:59)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,15:55)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,15:46)
 
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,15:45)
   
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:36)
   
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,16:28)
     
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:18)
Maybe RO'B's grudge against Avalos is because in 1998 Avalos saw through the fraud of the Bible Code, while Dembski approved of the Bible Code and linked it to ID.

You are being facetious, right? I think the "Bible code" is horseshit.

Your boy Dembksi didn't.

I dropped Bill awhile ago. He is like the Jeremiah Wright of ID.

Who's the main man in ID at the moment?

Are you asking for their de facto "leader" or the ID proponent(s) I like best?

Gimme the players, their strengths and weaknesses.

Rate them on a scale where RoB's are positive and Ed Braytons are negative so you can score from 5 Eds (Booo!) to 5 RoBs (Huzzah!)

tell me any that you have a man crush on, or suspect might be gay, or that Jesus might disapprove of.

Well, let's see. I give Bill 4 Eds for his litany of faux pas and inability/unwillingness to recognize legitimate criticism of his work. (Incidentally, I saw Bill's book whilst looking for some books in QA.) I might have given him fewer Eds but for the fact that with his education he should know better.

I give GG 4 ROBs for his previous research and also because like St. Heddle, I think "cosmological ID" is the stronger ID.

Fritz Schaefer also gets 4 ROBs. He may not have won the Nobel prize but his CV is impressive by any objective measure.

Behe gets 1 ROB. He deserves credit for putting his idea out there but it appears to me to have been sunk. Also, I feel sort of bad for him.

Paul Nelson gets 2 Eds. I disdain YEC.

Berlinsky gets deux ROBs. He'd get trois but he loses one for taking a swipe at the Big Bang and (allegedly) being dismissive of the cosmological argument.

David Heddle gets 5 ROBs. Like St. Heddle, I don't like much of the DI's politics, including the "tee-hee, it doesn't have to be God, tee-hee!" Also, I could probably get on board for 4 out of the 5 points of Calvinism.

Jonathan Wells gets 5 Eds for being a Moonie Cultist, for writing something as stupid as "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism" and for thinking that allegedly gluing moths to a tree for a photo is a big deal. Oh, by the way, I understand that the repentant ghost of Haeckel signed an affidavit in the presence of Wells and a Moonie notary public to the effect that his embryo drawings were a fraud. He also affirmed that Rev. Moon was the Savior of Mankind.





Date: 2008/05/05 16:36:33, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 05 2008,16:07)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,15:43)
It's more like apples and pears, not apples and oranges. They are distinct, to be certain, but both are pomes and share many characteristics. I am well versed in Biblical scholarship and I think Avalos' work is mediocre. His claim to "fame," other than displaying an unhealthy fixation with GG, is ancient sanitation and chicano religion.

That's right, folks, if you want to know which hand the ancients used to wipe their asses or how some Mexicans think there is a portal to Hell that opens on El Día de los Muertos then Avalos is your go to guy.

And, of course, there is still the issue of dried-up Dawkins.

Robert

"As someone currently in academia", and furthermore, as someone with tenure in a science department who has served on our tenure/promotion committee, I find your arguments incredibly fatuous.

Different departments can have different criteria for tenure; the gap widens incredibly when you start to compare different disciplines. So your asinine comparison of Avalos and Gonzalez bespeaks either incredible ignorance, or incredible dishonesty.

Secondly, your opinion of Avalos' work is just that, one outside opinion. Since it fails to take into account his teaching, his service within the department, his work with graduate students, and a whole host of other factors that his department colleagues considered before granting him tenure, it might even be a remarkably ignorant opinion. If you ever get to the point where your work, your collegiality, and your potential is subjected to the scrutiny that is given to most scholars who have earned tenure, you might be able to convince me that your opinion is anything but ignorance. Right now, it just smells like ignorance, or worse.

Finally, your assessment of Dawkins as "dried-up" is even more irrelevant. As noted before, his work prior to tenure (in yet another discipline!) was certainly deemed by his colleagues to have been sufficient for them to grant him tenure. That decision has been vindicated. Dawkins' body of work is substantial, and undoubtedly far exceeds the norm for most biologists. I have no doubt that it exceeds your output by a nearly infinite margin. So sniping at a productive and world-renowned scholar, in another discipline, is beyond just ill-advised. It borders on the ridiculous.

I'm not impressed with Dawkins' work. Not only because I think he is overrated but also because I think much of ethology is glorified haruspicy.

As for comparing GG and Avalos, Iowa State is not known for either physics or religious studies. If anything, GG was too good for Iowa State's physics department, the delusions of the chair notwithstanding.

Date: 2008/05/05 16:40:11, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 05 2008,16:34)
I have to ask: which point can you not get behind?

Limited atonement.

Date: 2008/05/05 16:55:06, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 05 2008,15:38)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,15:28)
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2008,15:18)
Maybe RO'B's grudge against Avalos is because in 1998 Avalos saw through the fraud of the Bible Code, while Dembski approved of the Bible Code and linked it to ID.

You are being facetious, right? I think the "Bible code" is horseshit.

Phhhh... Materialist chance worshiper!

Did you know Moby Dick predicted Princess Di's death?!

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/diana.html

Also, I understand that Bill is helping the son of an assassinated African king by transferring his father's millions into his bank account. The prince saw Bill's endorsement of the Bible codes and knew he was the right man for the job.

Date: 2008/05/05 16:56:17, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 05 2008,16:50)
Quote (Nerull @ May 05 2008,14:47)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,17:36)
As for comparing GG and Avalos, Iowa State is not known for either physics or religious studies. If anything, GG was too good for Iowa State's physics department, the delusions of the chair notwithstanding.

Flunking grad students, no grant money, no research output: A standard of excellence.

Doesn't matter: Dawkins sucks, therefore they should have tenured Gonzalez.

Argumentum ad Dawkins

Date: 2008/05/05 17:03:58, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 05 2008,16:47)
Quote
David Heddle gets 5 ROBs. Like St. Heddle, I don't like much of the DI's politics, including the "tee-hee, it doesn't have to be God, tee-hee!" Also, I could probably get on board for 4 out of the 5 points of Calvinism.

Do they have saints in Calvinism, and if so how does Heddle feel about being one? Don't you have to be dead first?

I dunno. I'll ask him next time I log into facebook. :)

Date: 2008/05/05 17:10:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 05 2008,16:56)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,16:36)
I'm not impressed with Dawkins' work. Not only because I think he is overrated but also because I think much of ethology is glorified haruspicy.

As for comparing GG and Avalos, Iowa State is not known for either physics or religious studies. If anything, GG was too good for Iowa State's physics department, the delusions of the chair notwithstanding.

As pointed out before, your impressions of work done in areas where you have no expertise, and institutions where you have never studied or worked, are, in the immortal words of Cactus Jack Garner, "not worth a bucket of warm spit".

In talking with my physics colleagues here, I am quite convinced that you have it backwards. GG would have been denied tenure in any reputable physics department. More critically, if he was "too good" for them, why didn't he move on prior to that tenure decision?  We lose productive faculty members prior to tenure all the time, particularly if someone tells them that they are "too good' for us here at a small state school. If GG was such a hot property, he would have vamoosed from there earlier. Since he didn't, maybe you can accept the fact that he was not really a good bet.

In the meantime, I'd urge you to quit commenting about stuff that you know next to nothing about.

I don't know why GG went to Iowa State. Astronomy research requires very expensive equipment and I doubt they are up to snuff there. Also, I think he should have stayed on with the people he was most productive with, but that is all water under the bridge. The tapering off of his productivity at Iowa State is a legitimate negative but it does not excuse the departmental backstabbing.

Date: 2008/05/06 13:29:07, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 06 2008,06:44)

Quote
Astronomy "equipment" (aka telescopes) does not exist on very many campuses. Observatories are usually situated in remote high places


Yes, which is why Iowa State, which is situated in the plains of BFE, is not an ideal location.

Quote

Your California provincialism is showing along with your ignorance.


The words "California" and "provincialism" do not go together. California is the Latium of the U.S.

Quote
ISU has a strong physics department...


It does not compare favorably to the sort of physics departments we have here.

Quote
And as for your notion that he should "have stayed on with the people he was most productive with", that is also ignorant. I think we can agree that he was most productive as a post-doctoral fellow. That is not a job; it is training, and it is usually funded by someone else's grant-getting abilities. Just like you can't stay in college forever, you can't stay a post-doc forever. Any scientist worth a damn wants to get a "real job" and their own grants and their own students after their training and education is over. Your conception of how Gonzalez should have managed his career is a study in massive ignorance

Again, please stop commenting about stuff you know next to nothing about.


Postdocs have been known to take faculty positions at the same institution. (Amazing, but true!) Some people even take faculty positions at the institutions they received their degrees from. Imagine that!

Date: 2008/05/06 13:42:05, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (ERV @ May 06 2008,12:23)
Poo pooing midwest schools is a sure-fire way to show your ignorance on a topic.  Wisconsin is a top school for virology research.  Alabama was the birthplace of all great HIV researchers (everyone in the HIV research world did their PhD or a post-doc there).

People bitch to me "Why didnt you go to Haaaarvard?  Y R U in Oklahooooma?"

Um, cause OK is in the Top 10 micro departments in the country, has a wonderfully low cost of living, I get a ton of attention from my professors (they arent assholes), its a very cooperative environment... But its not Harvard so it cant be a good school *rolleyes*

For the record, I was not poo-pooing all Iowa State programs. I happen to know that they are excellent when it comes to applied statistics. (Still, it is not worth living in the ****hole that is Ames, Iowa.)

Date: 2008/05/06 13:43:33, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,13:39)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,13:29)
The words "California" and "provincialism" do not go together. California is the Latium of the U.S.

HOMOCENTRIST.

LOL! It is worse than you think. I grew up in the suburbs of S.F.

Date: 2008/05/06 14:02:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,13:45)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,13:43)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,13:39)
 
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,13:29)
The words "California" and "provincialism" do not go together. California is the Latium of the U.S.

HOMOCENTRIST.

LOL! It is worse than you think. I grew up in the suburbs of S.F.

Lemme know when your Ted Haggard moment is comming... I can be on a plane with my camera in 2 hours!  ;)

Do I at least get his killer salary ($400,000 per year, I think--perfectly consistent with the Galilean peasant background of Jesus Christ)?

[Redacted the puerile bit.]

Date: 2008/05/06 14:06:48, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (improvius @ May 06 2008,14:00)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,14:29)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 06 2008,06:44)

 
Quote
Astronomy "equipment" (aka telescopes) does not exist on very many campuses. Observatories are usually situated in remote high places


Yes, which is why Iowa State, which is situated in the plains of BFE, is not an ideal location.

I don't know much about astronomy, but I went to college in Iowa (Grinnell).  One of the more striking features of the area was how clear the night sky was, even going just a few blocks away from the campus.  It was frequently possible to see the Milky Way with the naked eye.  We even had an observatory a little ways off campus.  I never checked it out, but it always seemed like it would be a good place for viewing.

My good friend Zach went to Grinnell as an undergrad (then to Iowa State). I understand it is a good liberal arts college.

Date: 2008/05/06 14:09:32, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,14:02)
Do I at least get his killer salary ($400,000 per year, I think--perfectly consistent with the Galilean peasant background of Jesus Christ)...

Correction: apparently Ted Haggard only made a measly $138,000 per year (not counting benefits).

Date: 2008/05/06 15:05:09, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 06 2008,14:21)
Really, Alby. I think my background in academia more than qualifies me to say which geology departments are good and which are bad. For example, I would assume a truly high quality geology department has to be near rocks.

Yes, and vulcanology departments have to be near active volcanoes. (Incidentally, I understand they are always looking for students and faculty.)

Date: 2008/05/06 15:22:37, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,14:14)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,14:09)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,14:02)
Do I at least get his killer salary ($400,000 per year, I think--perfectly consistent with the Galilean peasant background of Jesus Christ)...

Correction: apparently Ted Haggard only made a measly $138,000 per year (not counting benefits).

Phhh! PEANUTS. DAVESCOT'S VELVET UNDERCRACKERS COST MORE THAN THAT.

Yes, well, you'd wear special underwear* too if you had to satisfy scores of married women who want you for their baby daddy.


*Not to be confused with the kind Mitt wears.

Date: 2008/05/06 15:49:43, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 06 2008,14:26)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 06 2008,15:21)
This is the first time that I have noticed Dave argue with evidence/reason.

He's actually been on a bit of a binge lately.

Kinda like he's got a toe in the water...

Admiral Ackbar says:

IT'S A TRAP!

Your minds can't repel tard of that magnitude!

Date: 2008/05/06 19:03:00, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 06 2008,17:37)
If Mary existed, she was probably 13 or so when she birthed Yahweh Jr. Which makes God a child abuser.

1. The age you give for Mary is pure speculation.

2. The only ones I know of who think "God" is the literal father of Jesus Christ are some Mormons.

Date: 2008/05/07 02:10:37, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
I want to be a Doctor of Cubism.

A cube only has four sides!

Date: 2008/05/07 19:11:01, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Doc Bill @ May 06 2008,21:34)
I still have my trusty HP45 purchased in 1973 with hard earned dollars American.  It still works.



It must be heavy.

Date: 2008/05/07 21:07:08, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2008,20:53)
Dave will luuuuuurrrrvveeeeee this:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....owledge


Not.

Is Joel the guy who was supposed to be Bill Dembski's research assistant? (Whatever that entails.)

Date: 2008/05/12 17:49:08, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2008,16:39)
So its inerrant if you interpret it correctly?

Is there any allegory?

Flood?
Age of Earth / "days" / genesis account

Adding my unsolicited view:

I favor the "literary framework interpretation."

Date: 2008/05/13 14:04:05, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 13 2008,13:31)
I can top that.

According to Boxofficemojo, after this coming weekend the nearest theaters to the SF Bay Area that are showing Expelled are in Kirksville, MO and Cochranton, PA -- 1,594 and 2,235 miles from my zip code, respectively.

Roadtrip!

Date: 2008/05/15 18:24:07, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 15 2008,17:23)
I predict at least one thread on the California Supreme Court decision today will grace the cover of UD by tomorrow.  I mean it has to.

Well know the ghays lead to Nazis and intelligent design theorists will show us the science soon!

I now live in fear that I will be compelled to gay marry Arden.

Date: 2008/05/19 15:38:31, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 18 2008,15:04)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 15 2008,16:24)
 I now live in fear that I will be compelled to gay marry Arden.[/font]

Trust me Robert, I can do much better.

I forgot Arden was a chubby chaser.

Yes, Arden, you could do much better where high BMI is concerned.

Date: 2008/05/19 15:46:19, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Louis @ May 18 2008,18:28)


Voice over guy: Or will it be exciting Batchelor number 3, Bobby? Spend literally microseconds of fun acting the twat on the internet with Momma's Basement Baby, Bobby. Guaranteed never to see the inside of a lady, unless Arden relents and shows him his collection, Bobby will be reporting to a tower near you with a high powered rifle (because Daddy told him his penis made him a bad boy) any day now. Don't forget the meds with THIS one, Arden.

Cilla Black: So Chuck, we've had a lorra lorra laffs. Which one will it be? Find out, after the break.....

{Blind Date Theme Tune}

Louis

Lois (I took the liberty of Americanizing your name by removing the extraneous 'u'):

Don't quit your day job to become Miss Cleo. Also, if you are going to continue to test the drugs on yourself despite my repeated admonitions, then at least up the dose until your delusions of adequacy abate.

Date: 2008/05/19 23:31:35, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 19 2008,12:14)
To be fair, it's George Stroumboulopoulos, not Stephanopoulos.  Not to say anything for the latter, it's simply not he.

Stein's lying again, of course, and not just because he's too stupid to know that biology comes from physics (so to speak), and not vice-versa.  He said previously that he'd always disliked "Darwinism", one reason he got into this, now he's claiming that his personal beliefs never got into it.

No doubt  he's misquoting Darwin's statement about how complicated it all is.  In fact the whole of evolution is probably far to complicated to ever be fully understood, while the basic model is not so very difficult.  Too much for the idiot Stein (the man is stupid, I don't care if he once had the native intelligence to avoid his current raging idiocy) to understand, but not for a grade schooler to comprehend.

Glen D

Shouldn't this post be treble its length?

Date: 2008/05/19 23:36:35, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
If Uncommon Descent were a sitcom, it would have the same production value as Small Wonder. (Don't deny you've watched this show, Rich.)

Date: 2008/05/21 11:09:52, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richard Simons @ May 20 2008,23:32)
I'm in the sticks in Manitoba, an 8-hour drive north of Winnipeg and 3 hours south of Thompson, in a place where the cultural highlights are the Trappers' Festival and the ice fishing derbies.

I've also family in the UK (I grew up in the Manchester area) in Norfolk and Nottinghamshire, plus Calgary and Vancouver in Canada.

At least you don't live in Regina, Sasquatchewan (or however they spell it.) Whose idea was it to pronounce Regina like the female part?

Date: 2008/05/21 11:12:27, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,09:38)
[quote=lkeithlu,May 20 2008,07:13]Rural Middle Tennessee


(Oh, San Francisco Bay Area in California, BTW. Actually grew up here. But then again, I think Robert O'Brien did too, so whaddaya gonna do?)

Yes, although I am from the Peninsula and you are from the East Bay (IIRC).

Date: 2008/05/21 11:16:16, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2008,11:14)
[quote=Robert O'Brien,May 21 2008,11:12]
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2008,09:38)
Quote (lkeithlu @ May 20 2008,07:13)
Rural Middle Tennessee


(Oh, San Francisco Bay Area in California, BTW. Actually grew up here. But then again, I think Robert O'Brien did too, so whaddaya gonna do?)

Yes, although I am from the Peninsula and you are from the East Bay (IIRC).

Which is gayer?

The East Bay has Berkeley, so I think they win.

Date: 2008/05/21 19:41:08, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Hausfrau Hitler

Date: 2008/05/26 13:19:35, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,08:01)
Well, I have to admit that's the best explanation I've ever heard as to why Ham got punished...

When I first glanced at this I thought you were referring to Ken Ham.  :D

Date: 2008/05/27 21:45:45, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,20:53)
WAD operationalizes nixplanation:

63
William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.

What was Cue's transgression?

Date: 2008/05/28 12:06:21, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 28 2008,00:50)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 27 2008,19:45)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2008,20:53)
WAD operationalizes nixplanation:

63
William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.

What was Cue's transgression?


The usual, not kissing Bill's ass enthusiastically enough:

 
Quote
Cue
05/22/2008
7:33 pm
Bornagain, to say that it is artificial may be correct, but to say that it is unnecessary is not. The scientific method is a specific process. It is not the only process. It is, however, the process represented in the schools when natural science is taught.

Studies that don’t fit the scientific method, such as they aren’t conducive to experiments or aren’t readily communicable, can still be studied, but not as a natural science.

In 61 above, when you find imposed materialism to be the biggest hinderance to science, I suggest that simply doesn’t make sense. Science (natural science), by definition, has that imposition. If you mean that imposed materialism is the biggest hindereance to knowledge - appreciating that science is but one tool to gain knowledge - then the argument would make more sense.

Perhaps Cue can make it up to Bill by buying him a sweater that is two sizes too big.

Date: 2008/07/10 19:47:01, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
There is also the fact that Iowa State exists on the public dole and Grove City does not. Although, that does not keep some academicians from trying to establish their own fiefdoms at public institutions wherein they entertain the delusion that they are not accountable to the taxpayers.

Date: 2008/07/10 20:51:43, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2008,19:57)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 10 2008,17:47)
There is also the fact that Iowa State exists on the public dole and Grove City does not. Although, that does not keep some academicians from trying to establish their own fiefdoms at public institutions wherein they entertain the delusion that they are not accountable to the taxpayers.

So you're saying that Gonzalez should have been tenured because Iowa State receives government funds?

Is that your final answer, Robert?

No, but they are obliged to justify their decision.

Date: 2008/07/10 22:54:58, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2008,20:53)
Alright ROB. I'm dead nice to fundies now, me. Ask Dave.

Dave Heddle, my facebook friend, or AFDave?  :D

Date: 2008/07/10 22:57:00, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2008,21:01)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2008,18:53)
Alright ROB. I'm dead nice to fundies now, me. Ask Dave.


That's precious but in case there is any doubt Rich is the orange cat.

Date: 2008/07/15 02:51:57, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 11 2008,07:14)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 10 2008,19:47)
There is also the fact that Iowa State exists on the public dole and Grove City does not. Although, that does not keep some academicians from trying to establish their own fiefdoms at public institutions wherein they entertain the delusion that they are not accountable to the taxpayers.

That may be the dumbest thing said on this board today (and that is quite a feat).

Did you look at the list of institutions on the AAUP censure list (linked above)? Most of those institutions accept public funds. And do you have any evidence, other than listening to Limbaugh, that there are many administrators at public institutions who "entertain the delusion that they are not accountable to the taxpayers"?

Does the concept of looking before you leap ever occur to you, Robert?

I had in mind (some) faculty, not administrators. And my pundit of choice is Pat Buchanan, not Rush Limbaugh.

Date: 2008/07/16 12:53:08, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (keiths @ June 21 2008,01:17)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 20 2008,18:48)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 20 2008,12:49)
I was planning on attending TAM, but that went down in flames.  That was pretty much going to be the highlight of the summer for me.

What's TAM?

The Amazing Meeting.

There is a good video of Randi exposing Peter Popoff and other assorted frauds on youtube. Unfortunately, it is posted by the Rational [sic] Responder losers, but I just ignore their studied idiocy on other topics.

Date: 2008/07/16 13:05:42, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 15 2008,06:50)
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ July 15 2008,02:51)
I had in mind (some) faculty, not administrators. And my pundit of choice is Pat Buchanan, not Rush Limbaugh.

Excellent choice of pundits, Robert. Of course when you have to choose between a drug-addled pedarast and a Nixon-advising anti-Semitic culture warrior, it must be tough.

Re your other comment, two points. I know for a fact that faculty members have very little say in how universities operate. So to bash on a few faculty members for the sins of the universities is remarkably ignorant. Second point, re the taxpayers. Most public universities get precious little funding from their state taxpayers these days. At my institution, for example, even though the word "state" appears in the name, we get less than a quarter of our funding from the state. Most other state institutions get substantially less. So perhaps that accountability needs to go both ways before your naive expectations can be met.

Rush is a pill popper, no doubt, but I am aware of no persuasive evidence that he is a pederast.

As for your comments about Pat Buchanan, while your credulity is commendable, the charge of antisemitism is derived from the same folks who brought us the Iraq War and are currently fomenting for war with Iran.

Finally, I agree that most faculty have little say in how their universities are run on the whole, but that is ancillary to my claim that some think they are insulated from accountability to the people (in the case of public universities).

Date: 2008/07/20 21:03:40, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (Quidam @ July 18 2008,12:59)
Quote
Do you have any concrete evidence of the negative consequences you mention? Do you have any evidence of the "enormous hit" 1-800-Flowers' credibility has taken? Or is your support for both just anecdotal?


How about an overnight 12% ($17m) drop in market value?

which recovered after 1800Flowers took prompt and appropriate action.

As for equating this to 'tyranny and torture', I don't think this is in any way an apt comparison.  I think the actions are reasonable and appropriate.  She is not being whipped, waterboarded, deported or even imprisoned. She has lost a job.  It happens all the time for considerably less justification than this.

If my actions or negligence ever cause my company's stock to drop a 12% overnight, I think I might reasonably expect to lose my job too.

Hey, dude, there is this kick ass bridge I'd like to sell you!

Date: 2008/07/22 16:06:13, Link
Author: Robert O'Brien
Quote (J-Dog @ July 22 2008,08:55)
Looking at the bright side... you'll be able to dance on Ken Ham's grave.... unless they stuff him and put him in the Flintstone Museum.

LOL! Heaven forfend that they should make it animatronic. The only thing scarier than a stuffed body is a body stuffed with robotics that gesticulates and asks, "Were you theeeeeeere?"

Date: 2008/09/15 20:57:19, Link
Author: Rob R.
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 14 2008,13:19)
Sure, TP.  You might want to add this reference to a Wikipedia article showing two quarks emitting W or Z bosons that combine into a Higgs.

Hi Oleg,

Have you been banned from Telic Thoughts?  I was under the impression that you weren't, assuming that's true, why not post your comments there?

For what it's worth, thank you for the explanation; whether here or there, just curious.

Date: 2008/09/26 03:06:29, Link
Author: Rob R.
Dawkins on Reiss moments before he resigned:



   
Quote
Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I'd rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?






So, according to Dawkins, one should not be a member of the Royal Society and also ordained?  So Dawkins doesn't believe that what Reiss said merited his resignation but his being an ordaned minister did.  Pretty odd ironic hypocritical coming from a guy whom can't seem to talk (or write about) science without also talking about God.  How can you call what was happening to Reiss a witch-hunt and, at the same time, say he should resign his holy orders if he wants to continue his membership in the RS?

Date: 2008/09/26 13:31:22, Link
Author: Rob R.
Thanks midewifetoad, that clears sure clears things up.


Dawkins:

 
Quote
Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?


He obviously didn't mean to imply anything there.  Heck, he never even said it!  Thanks again, you're a peach.

Date: 2008/09/26 13:51:39, Link
Author: Rob R.
Well Dawkins is certainly known for his level-head when it comes to "appeasers," not sure what I was thinking.  Me just no can read good.  Thanks LouFCD, I didn't think anyone could lay it out any better than toad did.  Boy, was I wrong.  <i>Again.</i>

Sorry to waste your bandwidth with my uneducated inanity.  Won't happen again.

Date: 2008/11/18 01:23:20, Link
Author: Rob R.
Henry,

I remember this from a blog at TelicThoughts, both Jehu and Matzke commented there so this is most likely the exvhange Jehu's talking about.  http://telicthoughts.com/the-edge/



 
Quote


http://telicthoughts.com/the-edge/#comment-127937


Jehu:   This is true. We are supposed to believe that in fewer reproductive events than malaria has in one year, mammals evolved from small shrew like animals into humans, bats and whales? So mammals can create mammary glands, fur, wings, flippers, human intelligence, echolocation, and placentas in fewer reproductive events than Malaria has in one year, yet after 100,000 years Malaria cannot adapt to cold weather? Interesting.


http://telicthoughts.com/the-edge/#comment-127954


Matzke:  Um — is someone going to point out that the malaria parasite lives in adult mosquitos, but that in cold regions all the mosquitos (and all other flying insects) die when the temperature hits freezing, and that this provides a perfectly obvious explanation for the distribution of malaria which Behe and all his fans somehow, incredibly, shockingly, astoundingly missed?

Looks like I just did.



http://telicthoughts.com/the-edge/#comment-128295


Matzke:  If you live anywhere south of New England, malaria actually was common up into the early 20th century. It was only eradicated within the last 100 years. This is somewhat possible in temperate regions where all you have to do is temporarily break the transmission cycle and then prevent re-invasion from the south. (All diseases have to be transmitted at a certain rate to persist, and they collapse if transmission is decreased — often only a moderate decrease is required. This is epidemiology.) This is much more difficult in tropical regions with year-around mosquitos and year-around infections.

In other words, if you know anything about the subject and actually stop to think for a second about the biology malaria life cycle and how that must interact with mosquito populations and subtle things like…winter…then you realize Behe's "problem" is in his own head and not in reality.

I mean really, is it too much to ask for someone to ponder the role that seasonal freezing temperatures might play in the distribution of malaria before pontificating on how malaria distribution is some huge problem for evolution? This kind of thing is exactly why biologists are so dismissive of ID, and rightly so.



http://telicthoughts.com/the-edge/#comment-128103

Jehu:  Plasmodium falciparum  accounts for 80% of all human malarial infections and 90% of the deaths. According to a publication in Nature, current strains of P. falciparum are estimated to have arisen from a common ancestor  100,000-180,000 years ago.



So the limited ability of other organisms to diversify is an argument for Darwinism? I hardly think so.

The fact is, there is obviously significant selective pressure for Malaria to be able to reproduce below 60 degrees, a seemingly simple task, yet in spite of an astronomical number of reproductive events it has been unable to acquire this trait. Yet you believe that in exponentially fewer opportunities mammals have learned to swim, fly, give live birth, develop echolocation, and build space shuttles. A shrew like animal has become a bat, a whale, a human, and a polar bear in fewer reproductive events than it is taking malaria to be able to reproduce below 60 degrees? The absurdity of your belief is obvious.



Twas a long blog so I may have missed something relevant with just those quotes/comments.

Date: 2008/11/21 23:23:12, Link
Author: Rob R.
Wow, Z, you're easily impressed.  ToE that line brave soldier *wipes tear*

In other (TelicThoughts) news:  New blogger, Nullasalus, is welcomed to TT.

Date: 2009/02/23 17:58:34, Link
Author: Rob
Maya, can you save that page?  Thanks.

Date: 2009/02/23 18:11:30, Link
Author: Rob
No biggie. :)  You gotta have a pretty quick trigger finger to keep up with UD.

Date: 2009/02/23 18:22:22, Link
Author: Rob
No prob, Maya.  Thanks for trying.  I actually managed to save a few of the deleted comments, and reposted them in another thread outside of Dave's banning jurisdiction.

Edited to add:  Oops, I just realized that the other thread belongs to Dave, too.  Good thing I saved the page.

Date: 2009/02/24 10:49:09, Link
Author: Rob
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 23 2009,18:45)
I still have it on my screen.  I'll copy it and PM it to you.  Word doc OK?

Thanks for the PM, sledgehammer.  You rock.

Date: 2009/08/22 16:42:09, Link
Author: Rob R.
Via the Institute for Creation Research:  CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY

From the same site:

How Long Did It Take to Deposit the Geologic Strata?

Experiments in Stratification


Not sure if these are 'mainstream' YEC, nor how well-articulated your friend will find them, but ICR is usually where I look for info on young-earth creationism (they have many pages on 'flood geology' there.)  Hope that helps.

Date: 2009/09/11 09:29:25, Link
Author: Robin
I've been wondering, having been involved in discussions on PT with FL whether the moniker stands for Fringe Lunatic. Seriously...he is one odd thinking soul.

Date: 2009/09/11 13:29:41, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Jasper @ Sep. 11 2009,10:23)
"FL" are the initials of "Floyd A. Lee," a resident of Topeka, Kansas. He outed himself years ago on PT.

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

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

Date: 2009/09/15 12:39:57, Link
Author: Robin
I'll admit that my definition of Christian is not at all mainstream, but here it is:

One who understands and finds grounding in the history and culture of the Jewish faith and people at the time a rabbi by the name of Yeshua bin Yoseph showed up and why some began to preach a different message about the Law according to the Torah.

Date: 2009/09/16 08:36:46, Link
Author: Robin
I do so love Floyd's appeal to selective reading as a basis for his argument as in, "look Darwin gave up Christianity as he embraced his understanding of Evolution, ergo he gave up Christianity because it was incompatible with his new understanding!". Nevermind that this type of thinking is a logical fallacy (a la fallacy of the general rule), it holds no value because it is anecdotal at best and misrepresentative at worst. Yo Floyd - do you have any actual statistics showing that...say...60% of those who've abandoned Christianity did so because they found their beliefs incompatible with evolution? In other words, do you have something other than your opinion and speculation?

Oh, and btw, you need stop repeating bogus claims from the likes of the World Nut Daily or the equivalent. The 7th Circuit Court of Wisconsin did not rule that atheism is a religion. Here's the case law:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf

What they said was that for the purposes of holding of a belief, even a non-belief, about the purpose of life, any such concept, even if founded in "secular philosophy" is protected by the second amendment and cannot be infringed upon by the State. So yet again, your understanding of issues is demonstrated to be incorrect and your sources to be less than credible.

In any event, my definition and practice of Christianity is perfectly compatible with evolution as it requires no belief in any kind of miracles or special creation whatsoever. That your particular take on "Christianity" is incompatible with your particular misunderstanding of evolution isn't cause for any kind of concern on the part of rational people as far as I can tell.

Date: 2009/09/18 10:48:37, Link
Author: Robin
Quote
In this case, a child made a tragic, unsupported decision to disbelieve in God.


LOL! I would say that he made a tragic, unsupported decision to believe in some god in the first place and then just came to his senses. You've not yet established a rational basis for any belief in god or gods, let alone your particular belief.

Quote
Yet, as Gervais himself makes clear, that decision to jump into atheism did NOT rationally satisfy him -- he was aware that his atheism wasn't by itself providing any reason for his existence.

He could have said (in age-appropriate language), "My athiesm has failed to offer me a reason for being, for my existence, therefore I honestly don't have a rational warrant for hanging on to such a belief."  No intellectual fulfillment was being provided.

But nope.  EVOLUTION becomes his savior.  Evolution becomes the glue that reinforces his atheism in place, blinding him to his need to abandon it.


Oddly, you've yet to provide any evidence to suggest that people are better off with some security blanket reason for being rather than (as Gervais notes) the rational foundation to accept that there is no need for such a reason. Seems you are at odds with Gervais' statements, not that Gervais' statements are incomplete or irrational. But this goes back to your question begging - you assume the answer that such a reason is needed by assuming Christianity is the answer to some emptiness, yet you've provided no objective evidence to support such an assertion.

By way of refuting your circular claims, I'll just note that repeated polls note that there is a higher rate of divorce among conservative Christians than among those outside such circles in the US. While I won't claim this is direct evidence of less happiness among conservative Christians than non, it does indicate some kind of issue. What could that be, Floyd?

Of course that's neither here nor there since none of what Gervais notes in anyway supports your claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, though it does indicate that for some folks, some concepts of Christianity are incompatible with rational thinking.

Date: 2009/09/18 11:13:45, Link
Author: Robin
Nice thread. Pity I'm late to this party.

I got into birding a few years ago and I have worked on creating a set of wildlife habitat zones in my backyard. Sadly I have rural 300 acre aspiration on a suburban 1/3 acre lot here in Northern Virginia, but hey...I can dream.

I have managed to get some unusual (for my local) migrants to stop by, in particular a few Rose-breasted grosbeaks, both Golden and Ruby-crowned Kinglets, a pair of nesting Mallards (there's no water within a few miles of my house folks, nevermind no real cover - move along), and a flock (not in the hundreds, but more than I could count) Cedar Waxwings (them's Red Mulberries are apparently good eatin'). The most spectacular was an enormous female Red-tailed who thought the yard (and neighborhood as a whole) was just peachy, though it did make me wonder what food-source critters were around in enough abundance that kept her around for 6 months or so. We do regularly get Cooper's, but a Red-tail (as I understand it) doesn't general eat feeder birds, so that perplexed me. Currently I'm trying to make a good snag for a pair of Northern Flickers who have taken a liking to my yard. We'll see how that goes since several Red-bellied, Harrys and Downys are also vying for lodging space.

As far as unual encounters goes though, nothing (yet) beats the Rough-legged hawk I saw at a nearby pond two weeks ago. Seems very out-of-character given the information I've read, but I'd be interested in any information from the resident ornithologists here on that one. Beautiful bird and not nearly as skittish as most of the other resident hawks around these parts.

Date: 2009/09/18 12:20:53, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Dan @ Sep. 18 2009,12:03)
If this argument were correct, then Newtonian mechanics would also be incompatible with Christianity.

Quote
FL claims that evolution is unteleological and Christianity is teleological, hence evolution is incompatible with Christianity.


Actually I think that FL is claiming that evolution is antiteleological. The problem is that he hasn't provided any evidence that this is so.

Date: 2009/09/18 14:23:51, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Lou FCD,Sep. 18 2009,13:12][/quote]
Better late than never, Robin.

Today I found a very calm lizard...



and a very angry spider.



(In all fairness to the spider, I'd be kinda cranky too, were I missing a few appendages.)


Hmmm...Mr. Cranky Spider looks suspiciously like a Brown Recluse. They can be VERY cranky indeed! I'm surprised he didn't try to take your camera away!


http://images.search.yahoo.com/images....vadfvcn


http://www.brownreclusespider.com/info.htm

Date: 2009/09/18 14:53:26, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 18 2009,12:58][/quote]
Quote
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee


It would appear, Floyd, that your claim needs to be reworded since clearly you aren't claiming that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Evolution is, according to the proof above, absolutely compatible with Christianity (even your conservative take on it). What you have now indicated is that evolution doesn't incorporate a conclusion of literal-based Christianity. That strikes me as a rather different issue.

Date: 2009/09/18 15:06:37, Link
Author: Robin
Quote
You've been presented with a total of five self-testimonies in which a former Christian has clearly suffered "bad consequences" to their Christian faith (erosion, corrosion, even to the point of dropping their Christian faith and/or continuing in that decision) as a self-confessed partial or indirect result of their belief in evolution.


Hold the phone - you haven't yet provided any evidence that the erosion of one's Christian faith is somehow "bad" in any relative sense. As I noted earlier, the data seems to indicate otherwise. That people leaving the Christian Church is bad for the Church might be true, but there's no evidence of which I'm aware that suggests that a diminishing of the Christian Church is bad in any kind of general sense. Until you establish such, the 5 examples remain just an appeal to consequence that has no value to the argument. Even combined with your question begging doesn't raise them to a level of providing correlative implications of an incompatibility between Christianity and evolution. All they indicate is that the 5 people's experiences provided a foundation of understanding about the world such that they no longer needed Christianity to find comfort in the world or their lives.

Seems to me that if anything, your issue should be that Christianity is clearly incompatible with peace of mind with the knowledge of the world the way it is. Feel free to argue that point

Date: 2009/09/21 10:07:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 18 2009,16:15)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 18 2009,15:23)
Hmmm...Mr. Cranky Spider looks suspiciously like a Brown Recluse. They can be VERY cranky indeed! I'm surprised he didn't try to take your camera away!

That's where I keep ending up too, though Mr. Cranky doesn't have the signature violin on the back, the front end coloration is kinda off, and though it's hard to say for sure, I think Mr. Cranky has eight eyes in three rows (2-4-2, it looks to me like) where Loxosceles reclusa has only six, arranged in one row of three pairs.


Hmmm...you got me thinking and doing some research. Came up with either a male Southern House Spider (Kukulcania (Filistata) hibernalis):
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images....04ljfsq

See also:

http://www.spiderzrule.com/housespider.htm

Or maybe a male Brown House Spider (Steatoda grossa):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_house_spider

Not much else fits the description.

I found a really beautiful female Flat-faced Spider crawling around on my screen door on Saturday.

And that is a great photo of an Agiope, Lou! Nice stuff!

Date: 2009/09/21 10:11:09, Link
Author: Robin
Ooops...Broad-faced Sac Spider:

http://ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/broad-faced-sac-spider

Date: 2009/09/22 13:44:36, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:10)

Quote
continuing:
 
Quote
2. At no time (so far) has Floyd offered up any evidence that any part of evolutionary theory is invalid. (He has only made some disparaging remarks without any examples to support them)

Probably true.  The fact is that you simply DON't have to prove that "evolutionary theory is invalid" in order to establish that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Establishing that point can be accomplished whether evolution is scientifically 100% right or 100% wrong.


Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate? Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?

Date: 2009/09/22 14:06:30, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 22 2009,09:28][/quote]
Quote
By claiming that there's a God whose majestic great plan includes evolution, you've just said that God is the required explanation for origins.  Which evolutionists Mayr and Olford already told you evolutionary theory means that God is NOT required as a explanation for origins.


Floyd, your equivocating here by way of a poor generalization - you're trying to make not required = dismisses. Whether Evolutionary Theory (and the actual process of evolution) require God is irrelevant to whether the theory and process are compatible. As science (and you've already demonstrated that this is not a problem for your theology for the likes of astronomy or chemistry, so you're also creating a double standard in your equivocation) Evolutionary Theory can't say whether God (or gods for that matter) are required for such a process to occur, but that isn't the same thing as insisting God can't be involved. There is nothing about the theory that dismisses your God or any gods outright however and the Theory is perfectly capable of incorporating a discovery that some god (or your God) used the process to arrive at humans. There's nothing prohibiting such as far as the Theory goes.

Quote
By saying "the majesty of His great plan", you're also directly invoking Teleology and conscious forethought---which again, evolutionary theory itself DOES NOT admit. No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought, remember?


See above. Once again your are confusing not required with dismisses. Evolutionary Theory does not require teleology to work - in fact it can work just fine if there are no gods at all - but that isn't the same thing as dismissing gods outright. Evolution may well be unfolding according to "the majesty of His great plan" - there's nothing in the Theory itself that prohibits such. As science, however, it can't speak to such a concept because there is no way to test such, so Evolutionary Theory just doesn't include teleology. But it doesn't prohibit teleology either.

Now, whether you think that under Evolution, God's plan no longer looks "majestic" is a fascinating opinion, but highly irrelevant regarding whether the Theory and process are compatible with a belief in Christianity. Your opinion about what constitutes "majestic" may well just be in error. Personally, I happen to think that evolution is quite majestic. So naaaaah...

Date: 2009/09/22 14:11:51, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)

Quote
Quote
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?


I'll go one better; neither one thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.

Date: 2009/09/22 15:00:09, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 22 2009,14:36][/quote]
 
Quote
 
Quote
Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate?

Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?


VERY perceptive question there Robin.  Combine it with those evolutionist self-testimonies and the Big Five issues that you read earlier in the thread, and you will see for yourself that

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore


This suffers from the same type of equivocation as I earlier noted. While Evolutionary Theory may well be capable of "eroding and corroding Christian Faith", this isn't the same thing as actually demonstrating that it causes "erosion and corrosion of the Christian Faith". The latter would indicate incompatibility; the former does not.  

 
Quote
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.


Umm...no, there isn't. Thus far you've provided a lot of equivocation and opinions and quotes indicating atheistic opinions, but separately or taken together NONE actually demonstrate that the science of the mechanism (Evolutionary Theory) or the actual process (biological evolution) is incompatible with Christianity.

Of course, your response completely side stepped my question. Why are you even arguing this topic if you think that Evolutionary Theory is true or can be true? If it is, it doesn't matter if ET and and your take on Christianity are compatible or not because it would be a moot point - logically your take on Christianity - your Big Five issues -  would be false concepts.

So clearly for you, Evolutionary Theory must be false. And yet, you have provided nothing to support such a position.

Date: 2009/09/22 15:09:58, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 22 2009,14:45][/quote]
Quote
Quote
I'll go one better; neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.

And specifically how does this prove that the Big Five do not exist (especially at a time when evolutionists are clearly saying that they do exist?)

FloydLee


It raises the question of why you think those Big Five Incompatibilities are valid - my point demonstrates you have an internal conflict (a logical fallacy) in your claims. Here's the logic

A) Collins and Pope Benedict don't think there are Big Five Incompatibilities between Christianity and Evolutionary Theory

B) Collins and Pope Benedict are Christian

Conclusion 1: the concept of the Big Five Incompatibilities are not universally held by True Christians™.

Corollary: the Big Five Incompatibilities are questionable as there is no universal concensus on them.

Conclusion 2: FL is wrong; Evolutionary Theory is not incompatible with Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/22 15:23:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 22 2009,15:09)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:45)

 
Quote
 
Quote
I'll go one better; neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.

And specifically how does this prove that the Big Five do not exist (especially at a time when evolutionists are clearly saying that they do exist?)

FloydLee


It raises the question of why you think those Big Five Incompatibilities are valid -  Here's the logic

A) Collins and Pope Benedict don't think there are Big Five Incompatibilities between Christianity and Evolutionary Theory

B) Collins and Pope Benedict are Christian

Conclusion 1: the concept of the Big Five Incompatibilities are not universally held by True Christians™.

Corollary: the Big Five Incompatibilities are questionable as there is no universal concensus on them.

Conclusion 2: FL is wrong; Evolutionary Theory is not incompatible with Christianity.

Quote
my point demonstrates you have an internal conflict (a logical fallacy) in your claims. Here's the logic


My bad - I provided the logic demonstrating that your conclusion is false, not how your claim demonstrates internal conflict. In a nutshell you claim that there are these Big Five Inconsistencies between Evolutionary Theory and Christianity that are brought about by the doctrine that establishes the parameters that define Christianity. Yet you've also said that you accept that both Collins and the Pope are Christians. Yet these two do not hold that there are any such Big Five Incompatibilities between Evolutionary Theory and Christianity. So clearly your claims are inconsistant - either the Big Five Incompatibilities reflect THE absolute parameters of Christianity that Collins and the Pope subscribe to as Christians (as you agree they are) and they DO hold the Big Five as valid, OR Collins and the Pope can't be Christians, or the Big Five aren't valid. Which is it?

Date: 2009/09/23 08:37:28, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,17:24)

Quote
Stanton speaks of:
 
Quote
....the fact that the Pope is a walking, talking, benedicting refutation of all four of FL's points.

So, Stanton, sounds like you've worked your way through this.  Please do me a favor, then?  Please locate exactly (online, print, any way you can) where Pope Benedict has stated a specific refutation for each of the Big Four (actually, now it's the Big Five, so please include each of the Big Five.)  

Then show 'em to me so I can examine and consider them.

Thanks in advance!     :)


Burden of proof fallacy, Floyd. No no...YOU have to demonstrate (as I noted) that the Pope even thinks that the Big Five are valid since his statements clearly indicate a contradiction to such. So unless you can establish that he, as a Christian, accepts your Big Five, the only logical conclusion is that they are not valid. LOL!

Date: 2009/09/23 12:06:43, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,09:52)
 

Quote
In fact, this Pope angle has been really weak, coming from you guys.  

The Pope hasn't addressed the Big Five, hasn't provided ANY kind of reconcilations, the Pope hasn't addressed the self-testimonies of evolutionists who say that evolution was part of their loss of faith.


Now you're just trying to make an Argument from Silence. Unfortunately by your own claim it becomes apparent that the Pope has indeed addressed your Big Five. The Pope has said in no uncertain terms that evolution does not conflict with Christianity - a direct addressing (by way of dismissing) of your Big Five and, as I noted earlier, an address that creates an internal conflict for your argument. You've not addressed that conflict yet, so all we can conclude is that your argument is invalid. Feel free to point out how your claims do not conflict however.

Quote
Doesn't mean he's an ID guy, (he's a TE guy, not ID), but it DOES mean a solid endorsement of teleology.  God's teleology, even.  He's saying it's NOT optional.  That's the huge second gig of the Big Five.


And, as I noted previously, that's fine. Evolutionary Theory doesn't conclude or incorporate the notion that teleology doesn't exist - it merely notes that evolution require teleology. If you want to hold teleology as a necessity - fine - evolution still works the same way regardless.

Quote
But hey, by him insisting on God-Is-Required-Explanation and God-Teleology-in-Evolution, doesn't that directly contradict evolutionary theory's non-negotialte NT-NCF, doesn't that negate Futuyma EB-3rd Mayr Coyne Biology-391?  "Evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADMIT...", right?


Nope. Not one bit. You're just looking really silly.

Date: 2009/09/23 12:46:47, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,12:34)

Quote
Having said that,  let's look at one Quack statement.

Quote
That’s only the beginning, the whole bible stinks – and it reeks of symbolic language too.


Just curious, a sort of side inquiry:  how many of you readers agree with that specific statement?


I personally don't think it stinks. I find it holds the same type of inspirational thinking, guidance, and morale teaching as can be found in Aesop's Fables, Mark Twain's letters, Homer's Odyssey, and the Lord of the Rings as well as other great works. It is a set of fables that one can find some truly admirable and life rewarding concepts in. It can be fun collection of stories to read if one can get past the Old English, harshly translated Koine, and humorous Hebrew.

Date: 2009/09/23 13:37:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,13:02)

Quote
Quote
Floyd Lee's current tactic is to pretend his "Big Five " have not been addressed.

Certainly not by Pope Benedict, as we have seen.


False, as I pointed out. Furthermore it demonstrates an internal contradiction with your claims that you still have not addressed. I suppose I should not care about the latter however...

Date: 2009/09/23 15:47:37, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,14:42)
Quote
Since you post more than me, by my count....

Hmm.  I wonder if your honest concession that I post more than you do, might possibly undercut your claim that I am ignoring the issues/points.

After all, unlike you, I am responding to multiple posters within this debate.   :)

(At least you're not doing any more hand-wringing over the Flood post.  I should be thankful, I suppose.)

FloydLee

Quote
Hmm.  I wonder if your honest concession that I post more than you do, might possibly undercut your claim that I am ignoring the issues/points.


Umm...no, it really doesn't, because as has been shown, a number of your posts are non-sequiturs. But let's be frank...even if they weren't non-sequiturs, the fact that you keep repeating claims demonstrated invalid or questionable several posts (if not pages) earlier indicates that you are indeed ignoring the issues/points addressed.

Quote
After all, unlike you, I am responding to multiple posters within this debate.   :)


While this is true Floyd, you could be intellectually honest and stop pretending that your Big Five haven't been addressed even if you aren't going to respond directly to the posters. But when you say things like "certainly not by the Pope as we have seen" when there have been several posts noting this is inaccurate, you are demonstrating that you are ignoring the issues/points addressed and being intellectually dishonest.

Date: 2009/09/24 08:08:09, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 23 2009,16:24][/quote]
 
Quote
I think we can simpify this discussion regarding the Pope.  We won't agree on it, but it can be simplified.


LOL! Not if you're going to be disingenuous we can't...

 
Quote
 
Quote
So in fact, the Pope has NOT actually addressed the specific Big Five Incompatibilities at all, let alone provided a solution for them.

This statement is specifically true, (otherwise refuting that statement would be as easy as directly quoting the Pope on it and that's that.)


...and THAT would be an example of being disingenous, Floyd. The Pope has most certainly specifically addressed your Big Five by specifically stating that in no uncertain terms does Evolution conflict with Christianity. By saying that, he is most definitely addressing your Big Five by noting that for him there are no Big Five. Which brings us back to you have an internal conflict in your argument.

 
Quote
Robin ducks the point.


False. You are being dishonest. Let me ask you Floyd, is it possible to agree with your Big Five Inconsistencies AND hold that Evolution is compatible with Christianity? Yes or no would be sufficient. Answer that specifically please. Silence on this point will be taken as an admission that your claims are invalid.

 
Quote
after all, the Pope honestly has NOTeven addressed or reconciled the specific Big Five items.  


False. Repeating a false claim does not make it true.

 
Quote
All he has said (and you are challenged to prove me wrong) is that evolution is compatible with Christianity, and even then---and this is the part that you guys clearly ignored until I pointed it out---the Pope makes that statement only under specific conditions, conditions that not only re-introduce the first two incompatibilities, but actually REINFORCE those first two.


False as I demonstrated. You've yet to address how my explanation of the teleolgical reconciliation is a problem. But even beyond your silly verbal gynastics on the Pope statement about teleology (which in and of itself is no problem for evolution being true), the fact that he said (as you admit) that evolution is compatible with Christianity means that your Big Five Incompatibilities are a) not Big, b) not Five, and c) NOT Incompatibilities.

 
Quote
(And yes, I provided the quotations to back that up.  And no, the Pople hasn't yet issued additional statements to resolve the clash (for example) between his own teleological "intelligent project" statements and evolutionary theory's NT-NCF position, quoted earlier.)


I demonstrated those quotes as a non-issue. You are welcome to go back an address my points. Merely handwaving them away by saying I "ducked" the issue is laughable.

 
Quote
So, we might as well be laid back like a Pop Tart about everything, because clearly we can do mutual accusations of avoiding points/issues all day long if that's what you want, but that kind of thing won't resolve anything.


ROTFL! The only one avoiding anything is the person who insists he's the true servant of biblical Christianity. Nice example you set there, Floyd! LOL!

 
Quote
Instead, why not admit the possibility that the Pope, even though he's a TE for sure, is clearly NOT the best guy to use as a defense against the Big Five at this time?  Find me a TE that reconciles the otherwise irrconcilable Big Five.  Gotta be one somewhere in the Virgo Galactic Cluster, I'm sure.

FloydLee


The only thing to admit is that the Pope provides a great example of how non-credible your claims are because you can't seem to reconcile the three contradictions your claims create.

Date: 2009/09/24 08:14:18, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,18:06)

Quote
Quote
Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."


Notice that my paragraph--whether it's 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong--clearly places my response under your Option "C".


Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?

Date: 2009/09/24 08:21:52, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 23 2009,18:50)
Quote
For Floyd to say, as the irrelevant person that he is, that the pope has to address *Floyd's* PERSONAL points

You forget...(rather conveniently)...that those are NOT *my* "personal" points, but instead these are the published teachings and assessments of evolution and evolutionists.  

You were supplied with evolutionist statements, in direct quotation, for EACH of the Big Five Incompatibilities.   You were told exactly which evolutionist wrote it so there would be no mistake.  
Shoot, one of the extra evolutionist quotes didn't even come from me but from one of your own comrades in this forum!  

And, if I may say so, I think that's what is bothering you.   You've got a solid wall of major incompatibilites that come from YOUR OWN side of the fence, stuff that your own side agrees with and has been arguing for a long time.  

For example, has anybody in this forum come up yet with, say, any refutation of Jason Rosenhouse's knockout punch (the fifth incompatibility)?  Anybody at all?  

Nobody has?  At all?  Period?  No quickie quotations from the Pope to help you beat Rosenhouse's Rap?  

Well, I submit that this inability is determining the responses you're offering.  These are five bloody long nails in the coffin of "Evolution and Christianity are compatible."  

These Big Five make clear that a lot of Christians are in fact being asked to accept a totally discredited, refuted claim of compatibility that only hurts their own claimed religious beliefs and even fails to move secular evolutionists in the direction of TE.  The secular evolutionists know what evolution means.  They know the score.
 

Quote
Quote
"Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory  and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not.  He is also not a loving God who cares about his productions.  He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job.  

The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, and almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would want to pray."

---evolutionist David Hull, "The God of the Galapagos", Nature science journal, Aug. 8, 1991.  

See there?  And to be REALLY honest, some of you evolutionists in this forum are apparently trying to argue that evolution and Christianity are somehow compatible for "millions of Christians" while YOU YOURSELF personally reject Christianity and accept evolution!  You know THAT is a hot mess, don't you?  


Sorry Floyd, but as has been pointed out to you several times now, quoting someone's opinion about what evolution indicates about some aspect of your religion is NOT the equivolent to what Evolutionary Theory holds regarding your religion. Do try to avoid the fallacious arguments please. They make you look rather desperate and silly. Thank you.  

Quote
Anyway, I'm looking for ANY evolutionist---be they as religious as the Pope or as atheist as Dawkins---to step up to the plate and specifically reconcile or resolve these specific Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.


No problem - I already did. They don't exist as far as the actual scientfic theory is concerned.

Date: 2009/09/24 08:28:33, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2009,18:54)

Quote
Let's go back a bit and look at FloydLee's first point about why evolution is incompatible with Christianity:

 
Quote
1.  God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity.  Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.


Note that God is the "required" explanation.  FL's problem isn't with evolution, per se.  His problem is actually with people using science to examine biological origins.  Science, as it has been practiced for quite some time now, does not rely upon the supernatural (which I hope most of us can agree would include God) as an explanation for a given phenomenon.  Therefore, whatever scientific explanation we might come up with for biological origins--whether that is Darwinian evolution, inheritance of aquired characteristics, spontaneous generation, etc.--must necessarily be incompatible with Christianity, according to FL's rules.  

In effect, FL is saying that it is fundamentally unchristian to examine biological origins in a scientific manner.  As his entire argument rests on this premise, and since he is probably the only person here who agrees with it, this entire conversation is destined for futility.  Of course, you all knew that already.



From what I can tell, Floyd's argument is slightly different. He's insisting on equivocation - that Evolutionary Theory providing a naturalistic explanation for how evolution works (thus not requiring intervention by a god) is the same thing as denying his god. The problem is Floyd's definition, as I noted previously: not required is NOT the same thing as denied. Floyd refuses to address this fallacy of his claims.

Date: 2009/09/24 09:28:04, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,09:09)

Quote
Quote
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?

Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)


Pardon me if I don't find *your* opinion on the Pope being wrong very credible, nevermind relevant.  

Quote
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.


Good to know. Apparently a multitude of people you consider Christians are just plain wrong about their assessment of evolution. But then we are right back to noting that your claims are internally inconsistent - namely that you keep insisting that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, yet all these Christians (who you agree are indeed Christians) say otherwise. You insist they are wrong, but that's just your opinion. So...ummm...hhmmm...gee...seems that it would be just as reasonable (actually more so) to conclude you are wrong, particularly since your Big Five are erroneous.

Date: 2009/09/24 10:05:20, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:02)
Okay, to recap, you've seen the existence of two killer incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that are taking place right here and right now.

1.  God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity.  Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.

2.  God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought.  In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.
Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans.  No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches.

******

Okay, now let's present the last two incompatibilities.

3.  Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image.  Yet evolution denies this.

           
Quote
"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

---"Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007


   
Quote
"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view.  It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

--- pro-evolution philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals, c1990.


Okay, so you can see that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity on that one.  Don't even try to fix it.
Let's go to the final killer incompatibility.

******


This is a direct negation of Romans 5:12-17, which says that death historically entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned (this event is called "The Fall.")

That particular negation is very bad, because if Romans 5:12-17 is historically false, then it's NO longer possible for Christians to tell anybody the meaning of what Christ accomplished or didn't accomplish on the Cross.  

Because of the direct unavoidable historical parallels drawn between Adam and Jesus in Rom. 5:12-17, a non-historical Genesis necessarily means a non-historical Gospel.  A historically inaccurate Creation (and Fall) account necessarily means a historically inaccurate Cross (and Atonement) account.  Then you Christians out there got NOTHING to offer this planet anymore.  

BTW, both Christians and non-Christians have pointed out this stunning situation.  (For example, the Native American activist Vine Deloria Jr. in his book God is Red. calls attention to it)  

Here, check out this evolutionist example---this guy knows the score:
           
Quote
"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

"Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!"


---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978, p. 30.


Quite clear, yes?  You see that, Deadman?  How about you, Dale?  You, Stanton?  You see what evolution REALLY means, yes?

******

So there you go.  Four Incompatibilities between Evolution and Christianity.  Each one a killer, each one massive and huge, each one long-standing and intractable, each one clearly documented by evolutionists themselves.  

Please review them and think them over during the course of this discussion.  Sincere thanks if you choose  to do so.

FloydLee

Here's the problem with your thesis, Floyd:

Quote
1.  God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity.  Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.


Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins. Philosophers and physicists might have opinions on how things got started that don't include your god, but that isn't the same thing as the TOE.  Your god could very well have created the basis for everything and the TOE would be just fine.

So really, your Big First Point is that Some People's Opinions are incompatible with Christianity. Wow...that's some revelation there, but really it has nothing to do with evolution or the TOE.

Quote
2.  God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought.  In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.
Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans.  No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches.


This is the same argument as #1 above, but now you are just equivocating "does not include" with "denies". The TOE does NOT deny teleology, it just doesn't require such. Evolution can be explained without invoking some god, but that isn't the same thing as saying that some god didn't have a purpose in mind and used evolution to reach that goal.

Quote
3.  Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God.  Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image.  Yet evolution denies this.


Once again, philosophers and armchair quarterbacks may well have opinions about what "image of god" means, whether it is true, and whether evolution allows for such, but the fact is the actual science - again, the TOE - has no impact on whether we were created in your god's image or not and whether your god used evolution to create us in his image. The TOE need not include such as part of its verbiage either; it just can't conflict with such a condition. And it doesn't - there is absolutely nothing about the TOE that DENIES the possibility that humans are the image of your god.

Quote
4.  Evolution teaches (and absolutely requires) the historical claim of Death-Before-Adam, in clear violation and opposition to Romans 5:12-17.

Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions.


This one is a reasonable argument, Floyd...if you believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true and not allogorical and metaphorical. I would be very interested if you could actually point to a specific "Adam", where this "Adam" existed, nevermind when this "Adam" existed. The problem of course is that there is no mainstream Christian denomination that holds Adam to be a real figure and death before Adam having any meaning. In fact, considering that all biblical scholars and just about all Christian authorities agree that the story of Adam and Eve are allogorical, noting that the word "Adam" is hebrew for "Mankind", such is a very weak argument for the TOE being incompatible with Christianity. Seems to me that in this case you've just claimed that the TOE is incompatible with your fringe belief, which really isn't something that any other Christian will care about.

I can't seem to find the 5th point of the "Big Five", but I doubt that matters much.

Date: 2009/09/25 12:10:47, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)

Quote
Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?


Nope. Not at all. It is about the process of speciation, nothing more.

Date: 2009/09/25 12:36:30, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 25 2009,10:36)
.

Quote
Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?

The ToE doesn't depend on having a confirmed explanation for how life arose in the first place. It does require that first life did arise at least once, and it concludes that known current life descended from only one or a few original types[/quote]

Well, I'd go a step further and say that the ToE doesn't address origins in anyway. Book titles to get peoples' attention aside, evolution doesn't even address the origin of species if one sits and thinks about it - rather it explains that "species" are modified configurations of population groups that all relate to one another and that in many ways the term "species" doesn't mean much. All species developed from a single group of similar organisms; none of the species after that first group ever originated on this planet - they were all modifications of some related group.

I personally dislike the use of the phrase 'origin of species' because in my mind it gives the wrong impression. It implies distinct parameters and boundaries - distinct edges - that define species, thus implying a point in time when that specifically demarcated group "originated". But as anyone who's spent any time studying biological groups and systems can relate, such distinct edges don't actually exist. Sure, you can say that there's a distinction between cats and dogs or birds and fish - at THOSE levels distinctions are easy - but it becomes much more difficult when you are talking Spotted owls and Barred owls or Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers and Red-naped Sapsuckers. And while creationists routinely point to this sort of issue and try to use it to defend the concept of "macro" vs "micro" evolution, such misses the point that the relatedness these organisms is the same type of relatedness we can see between cats and dogs.

Date: 2009/09/25 14:28:02, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15)

Quote
Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes.

Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious.

Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?  

Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye?


Unlike you, Floyd, we keep up with the latest developments on theories in science. You might want to do a little reading because the last time I checked Modern Synthesis and the ToE as taught today is a bit advanced from what Darwin proposed. But you're more than welcome to keep attacking that strawman.

In any event, all modern life forms did not "originate from" any common ancestor - once again you demonstrate the problem with that term and the particularly inaccurate implications when combined with the term "species" - but rather evolved from a common ancestor, hence the reason we call the process "evolution" and not "origination" or "creation". You might want to take note of that.

Date: 2009/09/28 11:52:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dmso74 @ Sep. 28 2009,11:04)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 28 2009,10:13)
Corny's latest:


Religion drives science and it matters.


Hmmm...maybe Hunter is correct. Seems to me that religion drives science in the same way that a road drives a car. Sure, there are occasionally obstacles and debris along the road that bounce the car around a bit, but for the most part the car just rolls over the road.

Date: 2009/09/30 08:39:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 30 2009,01:58)

Quote
I, and others (notably Robin – and she has done so quite eloquently in my opinion),


While I truly appreciate the compliment, I do wish to correct one misunderstanding - this "she" is actually a "he". I realize that gender isn't obvious on the Internet (which is actually a good thing in many ways) particularly when folks like me have a double-barreled name (to use a phrase from an Elton John song I always thought creative) and that in many ways it's a trivial detail. still it's the identity I'm more confortable with. Nicely summarized btw.

Date: 2009/09/30 13:03:07, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,09:13][/quote]
[quote]  
Quote
 
Quote
".... evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does."

Well, let's look again.
     
Quote

(1st Incompatibility)

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires God as creator or designer..."


---Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000

     
Quote
(2nd Incompatibility)

"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought."

---Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3ed.

Let's be honest here.  So far, Robin's response (and your response) to these very clear statements is simply to talk as if these statements were never made at all.  


Sorry Floyd, but you're in error again. I do not deny these types of statements - I merely pointed out that there is a distinct difference between what the Theory of Evolution (your "Darwinism") actually states and some folks' opinions about the world based on the theory or an understanding of the process. Posting a quote by Ernst Myer that indicates he rejects a need for any god based on his understanding of evolution is not the same thing as demonstrating that the ToE is incompatible with Christianity. That's the problem with your argument - you've only demonstrated you can engage in equivocation.  

Quote
Futuyma, for example, gives you a very specific reason why evolution does not admit teleology:
     
Quote
"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."

Exactly how did Robin neutralize this specific statement?  And how did you neutralize it?  


Quite effectively - by pointing out that while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal. You can attempt to conflate the two, but they are quite separate concepts.

Quote
Answer:  She didn't.  You didn't.


"She" may not have; "he" (that is me) just did again however.

Quote
So you gotta do more than just say, "Evolution doesn't deny these things."  Obviously it DOES deny these things.  

FloydLee


Guess what...Evolution doesn't deny these things. You're insistance on substituting peoples' opinions for "Darwinism" is just plain old nonsense.

Date: 2009/09/30 13:04:50, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,09:24)

Quote
might as well refer to robin as "that chair over there"


Hmmm...depending on who wanted to do the sitting...Oops...wrong forum...nevermind...;-P

Date: 2009/09/30 13:12:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,09:44)

Quote
And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).


Outright false - neither one said that the position that God can't use the process of evolution is part of the Theory. You're being dishonest Floyd.

Date: 2009/09/30 13:26:18, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,09:44)

Quote
Quote
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...

...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).


It would be so nice if creationists would for once check a source and honestly represent it. Here's what Mayr actually said:

Quote
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena
and causations. The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to
believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
- Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Ernst Mayr, SciAm, July, 2000.


Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically? Why go through this elaborate argument without checking your sources, most importantly citing the context of your sources when they are so easily checked, Floyd? You really aren't setting much of an example for Christianity there...

Date: 2009/09/30 14:06:23, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,13:41][/quote]
Quote
Quote
.... while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal.

Understand carefully what you just said, Deadman.  You have just stated that somebody can direct an undirected process.  That's not a rational statement.


First, the quote is mine. Second, you are incorrect. I did not say that somebody can direct an undirected process. I wrote that someone could use an undirected process to achieve a goal. Subtly different, but different nonetheless.

The thing is Floyd, you don't know how your god does anything or what "he" is supposedly capable of, so to say that "he" can't use an undirected process to achieve something is purely inane.

Quote
Also, consider this:  you are attempting to "reconcile" the NT-NCF issue (the 2nd Incompatibility), by making a statement that actually contradicts what you said about "the process itself cannot have a goal."  

The fact is that you are claiming that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (teleological) ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!

FloydLee


???? Methinks you need to reread what I wrote. I did not claim that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (as I note above); quite the opposite actually. I DID note that a non-goal-oriented process can still be used to accomplish a goal. For example, a hurricane in and of itsef is most definitely not a goal-oriented process, but that doesn't mean that someone crafty enough couldn't devise a way channel a hurricane to a specific location and use it to destroy a city. Same with evolution -  the process itself has no particular goal, but that doesn't mean that crafty humans can't come along and use the process to select for traits we like in given organisms or change environments to put selective pressure on given organisms. Similarly, there is no reason that a god couldn't come up with really subtle ways to place specific selective pressures into the world that would ultimately select for humans. Certainly nothing in the theory prohibits such. Apparently you just don't understand evolution, or the idea that natural, undirected processes can be used to solve problems by really creative folks.

Date: 2009/09/30 14:44:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2009,14:21)

Quote
Quote
Similarly, there is no reason that a god couldn't come up with really subtle ways to place specific selective pressures into the world that would ultimately select for humans.

And even that presupposes that God's purpose requires that the intelligent creatures thus produced be bipedal, mostly hairless, have oppose-able thumbs and four other fingers on each forelimb, live on a particular planet, etc.


Oh no question. I'm humoring Floyd's vision of biblically literal utopia where god is some grandfatherly old man of pearly white locks and beard, keen eye, worldly wisdom, etc...and whom we are a direct physical image of. That there is no actual reason to come away from a reading of Genesis with that understanding is not the point - Floyd is arguing that evolution is incompatible with that kind of erroneous reading. The fact is, evolution isn't incompatible with just about any understanding one gets from the bible, Floyd's included.

Date: 2009/09/30 15:20:08, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,14:55)

Quote
Quote
Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically?

Mayr is not just talking about how things went in the dim dark historical past, as if somehow y'all evolutionists got it straightened out since then.  No, Mayr's clearly talking about the present-day too.

Indeed, notice how Mayr repeatedly uses PRESENT TENSE in his statements:
 
Quote
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

Present tense, not past tense.  And you'll notice that NOWHERE in the SciAm article (please check!) does Mayr take back any of these specific statements, nor relegates them back to any historical dustbins.

Present tense, Robin.

FloydLee[


Read the whole article Floyd, not a quotemine. The title of the article and the note in SciAm reveals that it is indeed Mayr's opinion on how Darwin's thinking influenced the modern world. Here's the title:


Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought
Ernst Mayr
Great minds shape the thinking of successive historical periods. Luther and Calvin inspired the
Reformation; Locke, Leibniz, Voltaire and Rousseau, the Enlightenment. Modern thought is most
dependent on the influence of Charles Darwin.

So no, the quote is not a reflection of what the ToE actually states, but rather the thinking it can lead to. There's nothing in the ToE that includes or insists on that thinking and nothing that prohibits placing God somewhere above the process.

Further, the fact that evolution doesn't require a god (any god, not just your god, as Mayr notes) is not equivalent to being incompatible with a religion that worships said god or even equivalent to prohibiting said god.  You keep trying to insist that for evolution to be compatible with evolution, evolution has to adopt the standards and beliefs of Christianity, but that isn't the case. The only issue is whether evolution (the process) and/or the ToE (the Theory about how evolution works) include specific aspects that outright prohibit the conditions you set forth about what you think "Christianity" is, but as I've shown nothing about evolution prohibits or even raises the Big Five issues you claim exist.

Date: 2009/09/30 15:31:17, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,14:55)

Quote
Mayr is not just talking about how things went in the dim dark historical past, as if somehow y'all evolutionists got it straightened out since then.  No, Mayr's clearly talking about the present-day too.

Indeed, notice how Mayr repeatedly uses PRESENT TENSE in his statements:
 
Quote
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

Present tense, not past tense.  And you'll notice that NOWHERE in the SciAm article (please check!) does Mayr take back any of these specific statements, nor relegates them back to any historical dustbins.

Present tense, Robin.

FloydLee


After consideration, it dawned on me that asking Floyd to accurately reflect the whole article, assuming he bothered to actually read the whole thing, wasn't going to accomplish anything. Here you go Floyd:

Quote
Darwin’s accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to distinguish three fields to which he
made major contributions: evolutionary biology; the
philosophy of science; and the modern zeitgeist. Although
I will be focusing on this last domain, for the sake of
completeness I will put forth a short overview of his
contributions - particularly as they inform his later ideas -
to the first two areas.

-Ernst Mayr, Scientific American July 2000


There you go Floyd, the opening paragraph to Mayr's article. Gee...sounds like he was doing an historic analysis to me.

Date: 2009/09/30 15:42:22, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,15:23][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote
Second, you are incorrect. I did not say that somebody can direct an undirected process. I wrote that someone could use an undirected process to achieve a goal. Subtly different, but different nonetheless.

Take a minute (you may need more than one!) and show me exactly how it's different.


Directing would outright interferring with the process itself; changing the parameters of the process from time to time and forcing it to be teleological. That would be inconsistent with the Theory. Using it as an intact, undirected process, however, doesn't change the Theory at all.
 
Quote
But right now, I gotta tell you upfront:  the sentence "Someone could USE an undirected process to acheive" sounds just as seriously not-rational as "Someone can direct an undirected process."


Can't help you there.

Quote
And like I said, you only pushed back the teleology one level anyway.


Sure. The issue is evolution being incompatible with Christianity, not meterology or the Kennel Club being incompatible with Christianity. My concern is only demonstrating the fallacy of the former; I don't care where teleology gets moved so long as it isn't in evolution.

Date: 2009/09/30 15:46:51, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2009,15:34)

Quote
Windmills use wind to achieve a goal (power). Wind is not a directed process.

Sails also use wind to achieve a goal (movement).


Excellent examples. Given Floyd's questions above though, I have to wonder if Floyd doesn't understand the difference between windmills and sails using wind vs directing the wind...

Date: 2009/10/01 08:14:37, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,18:02][/quote]
 
Quote
So, according to Robin, this particular paragraph --
       
Quote
Darwin’s accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to distinguish three fields to which he made major contributions: evolutionary biology; the philosophy of science; and the modern zeitgeist. Although I will be focusing on this last domain, for the sake of completeness I will put forth a short overview of his contributions - particularly as they inform his later ideas - to the first two areas.

---somehow negates and neutralizes these three specific present-tense statements also made by Mayr:
       
Quote
First, Darwinism rejects
all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains
the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

But where is the specific explanation of how that top quotation supposedly neutralizes that bottom quotation?  Robin doesn't offer any.  

And in fact, no such explanation is rationally sustainable anyway, given the actual text of Mayr's article.  As you'll see, Robin has no escape-hatches on this one.  His argument is shot clean through.


Oh good grief Floyd...nowhere did I say anything about any statements being negated. Man...would you just respond to what was written instead of responding to what you think was written or what you want someone to have written?

What I DID note was that Mayr makes it quite plain that the whole article is an historic analysis, NOT a treatise on what the ToE is or says. That you keep insisting his use of present tense in a paragraph that somehow indicates the latter just makes you plain old dishonest and/or idiotic. But that really doesn't much matter since even if the ToE did fully reject supernatural intervention (in general) that STILL wouldn't make it incompatible with Christianity (as Mayr also notes, but that you keep denying) because such DOES NOT preclude supernatural intervention OUTSIDE of the evolutionary process. So once again, there's nothing in that article that implies that your god is prohibited from using the evolutionary process for some goal. You can keep denying this is what I said, but it just continues to make you look foolish.

 
Quote
(1)  We've already seen that Mayr is directly speaking in PRESENT TENSE (not past tense) in each of those three statements.


Which, as noted, is irrelevant.

Quote
(2)  Mayr is careful to offer "Then And Now" corrective statements whenever needed.  Here's a good example:
       
Quote
The widespread thesis of social Darwinism, promoted at the end of the 19th century by Spencer, was that evolutionary explanations were at odds with the development of ethics.

We now know, however, that in a social species not only the individual must be considered - an entire social group can be the target of selection. Darwin applied this reasoning to the human species in 1871 in The Descent of Man.


But now, go back to those earlier three present-tense statements and look at the full context---does Mayr offer any "we now know" adjustments to any of those three present-tense statements?  

No, he doesn't.  Nowhere in his article does Mayr retract or even water down those three specific present-tense statements.  Check it yourself please.  Do it now.  Mayr does not retract nor modify any of it.


He doesn't have to retract or water-down those statements - as he doesn't retract or water-down any of the other statements. He puts those statements into context:

 
Quote
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena
and causations. The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to
believe in God even if one accepts evolution). Darwin
pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the
origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by
almost any aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the
“wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians
could be explained by natural selection. (A closer look
also reveals that design is often not so wonderful - see
“Evolution and the Qrigins of Disease,” by Randolph M.
Nesse and George C. Williams; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
November 1998.) Eliminating God from science made room
for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena;
it gave rise to positivism; it produced a powerful intellectual
and spiritual revolution, the effects of which have lasted
to this day
.
(bold emphasis mine)

What's this? Did Mayr really end the paragraph noting that the effects of...Darwinism rejecting supernatural causation..."have lasted to this day"? Gee...why did he put that in? Perhaps to continue the actual thread of this article - that Darwinism had profound impact on modern thinking? Odd you left that out Floyd...

 
Quote
(3)  Finally, just to MAKE SURE you understand that he's talking about right here and now instead of the dim dark historical past, Mayr actually REPEATS the Incompatibilities in his concluding wind-up:

 
Quote
I hope I have successfully illustrated the wide reach of Darwin's ideas. Yes, he established a philosophy of biology by introducing the time factor, by demonstrating the importance of chance and contingency, and by showing that theories in evolutionary biology are based on concepts rather than laws.

 But furthermore - and this is perhaps Darwin's greatest contribution - he developed a set of new principles that influence the thinking of every person: the living world, through evolution, can be explained without recourse to supernaturalism; essentialism or typology is invalid, and we must adopt population thinking, in which all individuals are unique (vital for education and the refutation of racism); natural selection, applied to social groups, is indeed sufficient to account for the origin and maintenance of altruistic ethical systems; cosmic teleology, an intrinsic process leading life automatically to ever greater perfection, is fallacious, with all seemingly teleological phenomena explicable by purely material processes; and determinism is thus repudiated, which places our fate squarely in our own evolved hands.  


Quite so Mayr! The world can now be explained without referring to any god - there is no need for any supernatural mumbo jumbo to explain how organisms arose. And yet, just because Darwinism can explain the living world without resorting to any gods doesn't mean it can't be used to explain the living world with godly intervention. You keep insisting the former means the latter, Floyd. Sorry, but it doesn't.

 
Quote
That paragraph simply destroys Robin's line of argument.  It's clear now that Mayr meant exactly what he said earlier, and most importantly, he WASN'T limiting those statements to the 19th century but was talking about modern times as well.  Read the article yourself, folks.  Mayr wrote it.  No escape baby.

Mayr's own concluding summary actually RE-AFFIRMS both the First Incompatibility (denial of God as the Required-Explanation) and the Second Incompatibility (No-Teleology-No-Conscious Forethought.).


No Floyd...the only argument that paragraph destroys is yours. Did Mayr mean exactly what he said? Yep. Does he mean what you keep insisting? Nope. He didn't say that evolution disproved God or gods nor did he say that evolution prohibits them from being involved in this world. He only said that Darwinism presented a way of understanding how life got here that doesn't rely on gods. You keep wanting to conflate that to removing teleology from every facet of the world and as I've already demonstrated, this just doesn't wash.

 
Quote
The first highlighted statement clearly would eliminate God (since God is supernatural not natural) as the required explantion, and the second highlighted statement (btw, did you see that word "all"?) clearly denies teleology---it's solid NT-NCF all the way.


ZZzzzzzz....

 
Quote
So, now you see the real deal.  The paragraph Robin offered, he offered with sincerity, but it clearly doesn't negate the three specific statements Mayr made.  PLUS Mayr was careful to re-affirm those statements and make sure that you knew those three specific statements belonged to "Right Now" in the theory of evolution, not just "Way Back When".

So, that's that, baby!!!

Floyd Lee


Yes Floyd...we see the real deal...that you can't seem to follow simple logic.

Date: 2009/10/01 15:47:56, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:23)

Quote
Quote
It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

Ummm, Dan.....Please notice Mayr does not offer you any rational reason to continue "believing in God" after pointing out that evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.


Well sure...he isn't obligated to come up with reasons why someone ought to continue believing in any god, nevermind the Christian one. All he is noting there is that evolution isn't incompatible with such a belief. That evolution doesn't require a god doesn't mean that a god can't exist, so people are perfectly free to believe in whatever god they like since evolution and the Theory of it doesn't impact such.

Quote
Mayr is NOT removing the Incompatibility, ohhhh no he's not.  


Oh oh...oh yes yes, my dear...he is.

Quote
He just says that, given the situation at hand, you're at least personally free to believe whatever you want about God's existence (but he's not supplying you any rational reasons for it).


See above. If you need a rational reason to believe in your god, Floyd, then your faith is even more tenuous than I originally thought. The fact is, believing in any god is not rational, so once again, there is no reason why Mayr would even consider offering an obviously erroneous comment on such. Why you choose to believe in a god is your business, not Mayr's. Mayr need only note that whatever god you believe in and whatever religion you follow regarding that god, such is need no longer needed as an explanation for how life diversified on this planet.  

Quote
You're free to believe whatever you want about God, he says, as long as you understand that,  because of evolution), God is NO LONGER the required explanation for biological origins, including the origin of humans.  Period.


Sure...god is no longer required. Funny how you keep ignoring that this isn't the same thing as god is prohibited and that the former is perfectly compatible with Christianity. If you want to invoke a god as having a hand in biological origins, have at it. Doesn't contradict evolution.

Date: 2009/10/05 08:33:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,17:11)

Quote
Quote
The fact is, believing in any god is not rational....

Hmmm.   Just gotta comment on that one.
 
Quote
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

----Rom. 1:20

Believing in God is a VERY rational act because you would be basing that decision on observational evidence, as Romans 1:20 makes clear.

In fact, it's so rational that anybody who chooses to adopt atheism or agnosticism is WITHOUT EXCUSE for doing so.  Something to think about, for sure.

Hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, Robin.....!


LOL! Hate to break it to you Floyd, but a) Paul is not an authority on or even a credible source for what is or is not rational (that's called an appeal to false authority) and b) using a biblical quote to try and validate the validity of the bible is...heh!...question begging and c) given that there is no substantiation for Paul's claim that the world reflects your god's invisible hands, you're left with begging the question there too.  You go Floyd! LMAO!

Date: 2009/10/06 11:22:17, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)

Quote
I won't lie to you---I think some of you are not enjoying this debate very much.


Well, I can certainly confirm that I'm having a great time. Heck, I laughed at one of your silly claims twice in one post yesterday! Heh!

Date: 2009/10/06 11:33:51, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,10:30)

Quote
Here's the deal:  this syllogism was claimed to be a proof.  It's not.  Why not?  Because a rational reason (in fact, more 'n' one) exists why (3) does not NECESSARILY follow (1) and (2).


LMAO!

Quote
(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.


Illogical argument, Floyd. You said that your Big Five were directly derived conditions of biblical Christianity. If the Pope is unaware of them, then either a) he isn't a Christian or b) they don't actually exist. There is no alternative.

Quote
(b)  The pope may acknowledge that "evolution happens" but only under certain conditions, which means that under different conditions, he is NOT in agreement that evolution is compatible with Christianity.


The Pope may say that wearing pink frilly underwear on one's head under certain conditions feels sexy, but unless you can established he did say such and actually [/i]established certain conditions[/i] that specifically conflict with the TOE, your speculation amounts to a hand wave. As of this moment, however, all we can go on is what the Pope has presented, which so far only conflicts with your claims

Date: 2009/10/07 07:59:20, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:44)
Quote
"Real deal" just like your doctored Oro quote that you've been bandying about the nets for a few years now?

Hardly doctored, SLP.  In fact, did you see what Nmgirl posted?
 

Quote
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories,"

That's a direct echo of what Oro wrote in Schopf 2002 which I have quoted over the past few years.  

Needless to say, the next time you guys try to suddently pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, I'll be quoting not only Oro but De Duve as well!!


Needless to say you'd be demonstrating your usual misunderstanding if you did, because there is no mention of abiogenesis in De Duve's quote - he is talking about "long evolutionary histories" of both organic life and the universe as a whole. Nothing about abiogenesis being a part of that. In fact, De Duve's quote doesn't even rule out your cartoon god from being the starter of those "long evolutionary histories". You really just continue to look sillier and sillier by the second Floyd.  LOL!

Date: 2009/10/07 08:03:01, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:19)

Quote
Quote
The Pope, as been repeatedly noted, rejects your so-called conflict.

But the Pope has not rejected the Big Five Incompatibilities, and in fact has affirmed the first Three of them in comments that were quoted in this thread.


Nope...sorry Floyd. Already demonstrated this to be nonsense. You can either address my point or accept that you are making an illogical claim here with regard to your Big Five. So far as we can tell, they can't possibly exist since your support for them is illogical.

Date: 2009/10/07 08:30:57, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,17:56)

Quote
Quote
In order to invalidate the logical proof, you must show one or more of the premises invalid. You haven't shown either invalid. The conclusion follows from those premises.


OR....one can invalidate the logical proof by showing that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises given.  That's where your "simple 3-line proof" is at, Deadman.  You got yourself a non-sequiter in there, as I've shown.  Messes up your game.

(a)  The Pope may simply be unaware of the existence of particular Incompatibilities.


False, as I previously demonstrated based on your claim of the basis for those Big Five. Sorry Floyd, but this is just nonsense.

Quote
So, with that in mind, let's check out Robin's comments briefly.  He commented on (a) and (b).

   
Quote
You said that your Big Five were directly derived conditions of biblical Christianity.

True.  Nobody here has even attempted a refutation of that.


We don't need to or care - they're yourbig five claims, not ours. And so far, you've demonstrated that those big five are merely products of your off-kilter imagination.

Quote
Quote
If the Pope is unaware of them, then either a) he isn't a Christian or b) they don't actually exist. There is no alternative.

And that's where Robin is wrong.  Remember, Robin's fellow evolutionists (the professionals, anyway) have stated ALL FIVE, in writing.


False again Floyd. I already demonstrated they were yourbig five incompatibilities based on your misuse of other's opinions. You've yet to show that your big five are actually derived from the TOE. Further, even if we were to accept such opinions as valid implications of the science, then as several people have demonstrated this would just mean that your version of Christianity is incompatible with philosophical materialism. Whoopee...no one cares.  

Quote
Therefore the Big Five "actually exist", quite honestly, whether the Pope is aware of their existence or not.  


False again Floyd. As you noted, since your little five are "based on biblical Christianity", either the Pope is a biblical Christian (as you've affirmed) and, ipso facto, understands them the moment he claims that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity, or he isn't a biblical Christian and merely ignores them. To claim he doesn't recognize them erodes your claim that that are based on valid biblical understanding.

In fact, all you've really done is admit that you could be wrong about your understanding of Christianity and the quotes by Mayr, Dawkins, Rosehouse, et al. How did you do this? Simple - it is more reasonable to apply option C to *YOU* (not understanding the big five) than to the Pope. Way to go Floyd!!!

Quote
For example, exactly how much more explanation is required to show that "God's teleology" conflicts with "No Teleology At All"?  Didn't Nature science journal flat-out say that the Image-Of-God thesis (which was directly concisely stated by the Pope) must be "set aside"?  The pope is putting out re-affirmations of Incompatibility here.  His own words.  Up Front.


I already demonstrated why this isn't an issue and further that the Teleological argument isn't. That you keep ignoring such is not my problem.

So, we are no back to the fact that you have no argument since you've failed to address the points that have been brought up innumerable times on this board that have demolished your claims, Floyd. Have a nice day!

Date: 2009/10/07 09:36:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,08:49)

Quote
Quote
From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.

You may want to go back to the first line of Deadman's "simple three line proof."
   
Quote
1.  The Pope is a Christian.

Now show me where I have disputed that specific premise at any time in this thread.  Good luck.


Non-sequitur Floyd. Whether you disputed or affirmed that the Pope is Christian doesn't have anything to do with Schroedinger's point - that your definition of "Christian" is so narrow as to make any discussion regarding such absurd. And he's absolutely correct - if (not the word "assuming" that Schroedinger uses) you are holding the Pope to the exact elements and parameters of your beliefs, then any discussion with you about anything is pretty much pointless. You have ruled out every possible point as valid through question begging.

Date: 2009/10/07 09:42:13, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,09:12)

Quote
Quote
I already demonstrated they were your big five incompatibilities based on your misuse of other's opinions.

What "misuse"?  Deadman's allegations of quotemining have already been specifically refuted for ALL FIVE imcompatibilities and each quotation therein, one by one.


Odd...I didn't use the word "quotemine" nor did I reference Deadman's points, so I can't image why you think that's what I'm addressing here. Might want to actually read and respond to what I wrote rather than presuming and responding to what you think I wrote. Makes you look silly.

The issue is that opinions about what evolutionary theory implies are just that - opinions. Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE. So all you've done (as I repeat myself again) is demonstrate that the opinions about philosophical materialism are incompatible with your beliefs. Whoopee.

Quote
At this point, you'll need to come up with some kind of rational support for a claim of "misuse."  Don't just assert it, show some proof.  So far, nothing sustainable has been offered at all.


Done and done.

Date: 2009/10/07 09:53:22, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,09:40)

Quote
Quote
you don't dispute the pope's christianity and since we know the pope says evolution is not incompatible with christianity, you have just scored an "own goal".
thanks.  it's been amusing.

Not good enough, Rhmc.  Not sufficient.


Of course it is. It proves you wrong and ends the debate right there. The ONLY issue you've presented here is that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. The Pope, an authority on what Christianity is, says evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. The only question is which opinion to accept, yours or the Pope's. And that, as you've demonstrated, is a no-brainer.

You can insist all you want that the Pope could be mistaken about your big five, but then that merely leaves open the possibility that *YOU* are mistaken about them. Again it just comes down to which of you to accept and again that's a non-brainer. You have yet to provide any reason for any rational (or even irrational) person to take your opinions and assessments over the Pope's.

And since I've demonstrated that your big five aren't, that leaves folks with no alternative BUT to dismiss your claims. They are free to dismiss the Pope's as well - nothing about what I've provided bolster's the Pope's statements in anyway, but of course that's irrelevant since there was no need for me to do so.

Quote
Quote
(You) cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict.

The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.


----evolutionist J. Rosenhouse, eSkeptic website, Oct 10, 2007


Absolutely. No one's disputing Jason's point, not even the Pope. But even those with the most rudimentary grasp of english can see that Pope provided a sound basis for that assessment. So Jason's point is answered with regard to the Pope. Done and done.

Date: 2009/10/07 12:09:16, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 07 2009,10:02][/quote]
Quote
Quote
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.

So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!


Easy:

Quote
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

Viola! Nothing about denying gods, divine human origins, teleology, god's or gods' images, or any of your other nonsensical issues. Nothing about philosphical materialism or philosophical naturalism or anything implied by the quotes you provided. Nothing about philosophy or religion in general and nothing denying either.

The fact is, your issue isn't with the actual scientific theory or even the actual, factual process, but rather with what you think (correction - what you assume) it implies based on your misunderstandings of science and Christianity. You try to rationalize those misunderstandings by pointing to selective quotes by folks you feel support your contentions, but the fact is you've either misunderstood those quotes, or mischaracterized them by taking them out of context. In either case, the quotes are shown NOT to support your erroneous conclusions and the fact that actual theological authorities have come to an opposite understanding completely demolishes your claim to begin with.

Date: 2009/10/07 12:13:23, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,10:33)

Quote
Quote
That was already done.

Then please copy and paste 'em.  Remember, these are supposed to be "actual summations" (of what ToE says), presumably from a published source and not just your own opinion.  Can you provide 'em?


Moving the goal posts, Floyd as well as providing a burden of proof fallacy. As I noted, the quotes you provided are opinions, not science. I provided the actual Theory, which of course includes nothing that implies the big five issues you claim exist. Sorry.

Date: 2009/10/07 12:17:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,10:37)
, could you maybe come up with some other Papal quotes that specifically negate or neutralize 'em?

Quote
And btw, since I DID quote the Pope directly where his own comments happen to affirm the first three specific Incompatibilities...


Now you are just being dishonest Floyd. None of the quotes you provided demonstrated the Pope affirmed your silly incompatibilities, and folks here even addressed the specifics for why they fail on that count. So much for you being a credible reference for what Christianity is...

Date: 2009/10/08 08:08:55, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,18:54)

Quote
Marvellous! All my friends will be there and hell has all the best bands. Plus, red hot poker up the jacksie, S and M-tastic my friends. I've been meaning to expand my kinks. Win win all round. Do we get beer?


Sorry Louis...hate to break it to you, but the reason you can donate your kidneys is that there is no beer in heaven (or heck).

Date: 2009/10/08 08:30:24, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 07 2009,21:44]
Quote
 
Quote
So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!

       
Quote
(Robin)

Easy:
       
Quote
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.


(berkeley.edu)


Okay.  Robin, what you've provided is merely a general, short, popular-level explanation of evolution.   Nothing more.  


Nothing more required. You have claimed from the beginning that the issue is evolution is incompatible with Christianity. what I provided *IS* evolution. Alas, your "five" don't apply - in fact CAN'T apply here. Give it a shot though - go ahead and try to demonstrate that your "five" can be derived from the actual definition. I won't hold my breath...


My reference, simply stated, demonstrates that your problem isn't with the actual science or the process itself (as I and others have noted repeatedly), but rather with the opinions and philosophies some people have adopted that happen to oppose your opinions. Once again all I can say is...wooohooo...

Why should anyone care?

 
Quote
It clearly does not even address, let alone "negate and neutralize" as I previously asked for, the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given in support of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  It doesn't say anything one way or the other.

You mentioned Mayr, for example:  How does that little googly shpiel eliminate what Mayr specifically wrote in SciAm? Answer:  it doesn't.  At all.

Yes, it IS a summation.  No, it doesn't do ANYTHING to resolve negate eliminate or neutralize any of the Big Five Incompatibillities.  IOW, given what was clearly asked for, you've got nothing there.

(You'd have far better luck with the Pope argument, skimpy as that is!!)

FloydLee




You got that slightly wrong there, Floyd. It most definitely does not address those people's statements - and THAT is precisely my point. Those folks made those statements from their own feelings and philosophies, not from the science of evolution. So thank you for proving my point here Floyd. I didn't provide the definition to negate or neutralize their statements; I provided the definition to neutralize your bogus claims about those statements. Bottom line - your claims are only relevant to some people's opinions and actually have nothing to do with evolution. Yet again...woo...hoo...

Date: 2009/10/08 10:14:45, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,08:40)

Quote
Quote
Those folks made those statements from their own feelings and philosophies, not from the science of evolution.

Hmm ......why did the evolutionists ascribe their claims to the theory of evolution itself, instead of to "their own feelings and philosophies"?  Are you saying that these evolutionists are lying, Robin?


You're either being disingenuous or obtuse here, Floyd. They didn't ascribe their claims to the ToE - they presented opinions about the ToE, either in the form of impressions of the theory itself, or (in Mayr's case) about impressions of the impact of the theory on modern thinking. If you want to wail against the impressions of those folks, have at it, but to assume that these statements somehow represent evolution itself and present the foundation that the science is somehow incompatible with Christianity in general is just plain silly. But hey, if you feel the need to erect that strawman just so you can having something to feel good about knocking down, be my guest. Just realize that only the lunatic fringe will nod in agreement with you; the rest of us rational folk will just shake our heads and roll our eyes at the utter absurdity of your claims.

Date: 2009/10/08 10:24:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,08:48)

Quote
Quote
You have claimed from the beginning that the issue is evolution is incompatible with Christianity. what I provided *IS* evolution.

Does this mean that what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.  is NOT evolution?  Does this mean that Mayr's denial of teleology in his book What Evolution Is, (the same kind of denial as in his SciAm article) is NOT evolution?


Once again you're trying to knock down a strawman instead of evolution. Nothing about what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology creates any inconsistency as has been demonstrated over a half dozen times on this board alone. And as I already noted, whether evolution (the process) incorporates teleology is irrelevant to whether the process is part of some teleological plan. From a scientific standpoint, [i]no natural process on this planet incorporates telelogy; by definition they cannot. Which means that the process such as hurricane creation, El Nino, entropy, enthalpy, doppler effects, and sun spots - all occur without incorporating teleology. If reality is incompatible with your beliefs, Floyd, it isn't my problem.

Date: 2009/10/08 10:28:32, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,09:12)

Quote
Quote
I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.

Sure, Dale, I'd be shocked if that kind of thing took place.  I think anyone with a working knowledge of John 3:16 would be visibly surprised.


Hmmmm...not really. Anyone with a real working knowledge of John 3:16 would realize they are just words on a page of paper that have no more or less significance that what one can find in any newspaper, paperback, encyclopedia, and comic book.

Date: 2009/10/08 11:36:23, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,10:32)

Quote
Quote
For the Pope, my understanding is that he and others have formulated a view of God that merely allows evolution to come into existence and effect, like other natural phenomena -- like water flowing downhill.

And yet, for some strange reason, nobody here can explain the specifics of that alleged "view of God" --- or even quote those specifics.


Why should we care about those specifics so long as they are compatible with reality?

Quote
I have in fact provided a few quotes from the Pope about his "view of God"---but they all directly affirm the first three Incompatibilities.  Imagine that.


False statement. You have claimed (begged, insisted, wished...) that quotes you provided affirm some incompatibilities you claim exist, however others have demonstrated that they don't actually affirm your claims at all. Oddly, what you can't seem to digest is that since the Pope definitely affirms that evolution is compatible with Christianity without question, he automatically denies your silly inconsistencies regardless of the illogical mental gymnastics you think rationalize the situation otherwise. LOL!

Date: 2009/10/08 11:40:55, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 08 2009,11:14)

[quote]
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 08 2009,10:28)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,09:12)

 
Quote
 
Quote
I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.

Sure, Dale, I'd be shocked if that kind of thing took place.  I think anyone with a working knowledge of John 3:16 would be visibly surprised.


Hmmmm...not really. Anyone with a real working knowledge of John 3:16 would realize they are just words on a page of paper that have no more or less significance that what one can find in any newspaper, paperback, encyclopedia, and comic book.

By the same token, we can point to the Koran, which contradicts John 3:16.  Or the Book of Mormon, the Rig Veda, etc, etc - why should we give any one credence over any other?  They all seem to have the same "evidence" for being true as each other, so they each seem to have the same probability of being true (I'd personally rate it as a fraction of a percent, but hey...).  Floyd pointing to his texts as reason to believe he is right is laughable to someone who does not already believe.[quote]

Quite so. The whole basis of religion (and this is pointed out quite often in the bible) is that such statements can only be taken faith as they have no objective basis that can be verified except that they "feel" right in one's heart. That there are those folks who insist that such claims can be checked objectively are merely demonstrating weakness of faith and a need for some support for their beliefs. Seems that Floyd has no faith at all if he's so concerned that his religion is eroded by science.

Date: 2009/10/08 15:29:01, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)

Quote
Quote
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,

....Because you and others kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  


Two problems with this statement - 1) The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states and 2) since your five issues don't actually exist visa-vis the ToE, but rather with people's particular opinions and claims as demonstrated, there is no reason why the Pope's statements need be shown to address these in any way.

Quote
So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."


Well this would go hand-in-hand with your errors above. Firstly, we aren't going to bother demonstrating that Pope negated something that doesn't exist and second the only relevant point in all of this is that the Pope (a Christian and an authority on Christianity at that) affirms that evolution is most definitely NOT in conflict with Christianity. Once again it boils down to which statements to accept - his or yours - and as noted, that's a no brainer given his credentials on the subject and your lack thereof.

Date: 2009/10/08 15:33:58, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:44)

Quote
Quote
Nothing about what Futuyma provided in Evolutionary Biology creates any inconsistency as has been demonstrated over a half dozen times on this board alone.

I take it you don't have access to Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed (not even for free at your local library), right?



LOL! Sorry Floyd, but I'm intimately familiar with the textbook. Of course, given your errors wrt reading of textbooks as has been demonstrated on multiple occasions, even if I didn't know the text, your claims about anything in them is invalid from the get go without a scanned reference of the entire section showing the context of the subject you wish to submit for evidence.

Date: 2009/10/08 16:00:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,15:16)

Quote
Quote
It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.
 
Even more basic than that, Ogre:  I need merely prove that the Big Five Incompatibilities EXIST.  

That task, I have carefully executed, one at a time.  Comparing published evolutionist statements one by one with the position given by the Bible texts.  (Remember, the Bible is my authority, not the Pope).  Supplying reasons why each incompatibility really IS an incomptability with Christianity.  There's five in all.


Once again because you are clearly a slow learner and hard of hearing (err...reading...): conflating people's opinions about a given subject with the definition of the subject only demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding with the subject or a genuine attempt at intellectual dishonesty (or perhaps both). Your call on which one describes the path you're on.

Perhaps an illustration of the point will drive it home:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon....This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13]that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

[Martin Luther in one of his "Table Talks" in 1539]

"What shall we Christians do now with this depraved and damned people of the Jews? ... I will give my faithful advice: First, that one should set fire to their synagogues. . . . Then that one should also break down and destroy their houses. . . . That one should drive them out the country."

[Martin Luther]
"The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes."

[Martin Luther, Works 12.94]

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) Martin Phipps, October 18th, 2004

David Chilton:
The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers - the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel.


The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (1984)

Jerry Falwell:
I think Mohammed was a terrorist.  He - I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and – and - non-Muslims, that he was a - a violent man, a man of war.  And I do believe that - Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses.  And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.


60 Minutes, October 6, 2002

Jeff Fugate:
If you don't want a Christian nation, then go to one of the many nations that are heathen already, rather than perverting ours.

You're welcome to come, but leave your religions, your bibles, all your other things back where you came from.

Islam and America are opposites. They hate us. They want to kill us.  I'm not anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic. I'm anti-Islam because that religion right there is anti-American.


Jeff Fugate, pastor of Clays Mill Road Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, July 3, 2002.

Francis J. Lally:
The Church has through the centuries, understood that ideas are really more dangerous than other weapons. Their use should be restricted.


Francis J. Lally, American Roman Catholic Monsignor. Interview with Mike Wallace, 1958.

Joseph Morecraft:
Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol.


Rev. Joseph Morecraft, Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, "Biblical Role of Civil Government" speech delivered on August 21, 1993 at the Biblical Worldview and Christian Education Conference.

Gary North:
The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.


Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (1989)

Randall Terry:
When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.


Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue. Speech before the U.S. Taxpayers Alliance on doctors who perform abortions. August 8, 1995

James Watt:
My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.


James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Rondald Reagan. Washington Post, May 24, 1981.

James Watt:
We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.


James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Rondald Reagan. Washington Post, May 24, 1981.

Wow! Seems the Constitution of the United States is incompatible with Christianity according to your logic there Floyd. Or should I not take these quotes about Christianity to be the definition of Christianity?

Date: 2009/10/09 08:22:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,16:07)

Quote
Here's a quotation from Deadman:
 
Quote
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

Here's a quotation from Robin:
 
Quote
The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."

And then you guys wanna declare victory despite all that contradiction?


The only contradiction is in your statements and head. The theory does not exclude a role by any god, yours or any other. So yeah...victory. Or at least, your claims are still inane.

Date: 2009/10/09 09:16:56, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,04:46)

Quote
Quote
So, it's now established that some evolutionists have opinions about theology and teleology. So what?
That doesn't mean their opinions are logical deductions from the premises behind evolution theory.

Well, let's check that out Henry.  Let's do the Second Incompatibility.
       
Quote
"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")
But evolutionary theory does not admit anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought),
either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development of or behavior of an individual organism."

---Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition, p. 342  

       
Quote
"(Darwin's) alternative to intelligent design was natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree.  Thus the adaptations of organisms have indeed been 'designed', but by a completely mindless process.  

"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."  ---EB3, pg 342.  

       
Quote
"Evolution has no goal." --- Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 2009.

"Evolution has no goal." -- Online Lecture Notes for Biology 391, Organic Evolution, at the University of Tennessee-Martin.

Okay.  From this, we can see that Futuyma, and others, are clearly talking about evolutionary theory itself.


...and we see that you are conflating the process with [/i] outcome of the process[/i] and thus we demostrate (again) that your issue is that  philosophical naturalism (and thus all natural processes) is incompatible with your particular take on the bible. And once again I say wooooo...hooooo. Nobody cares Floyd because you've demonstrated that your particular take on the bible is incompatible with reality.

Bottom line, as I noted previously, whether the process of evolution includes teleology (or whether the process of gravity, speed of light, entropy, etc includes teleology) is irrelevant to whether any natural process "in the grand scheme of things" has a purpose or has been used for a purpose. You can keep ignoring this all you wish, but actual Christians recognize the distinction and realize there's no conflict there.

Date: 2009/10/09 09:21:16, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,04:46)

Quote
Now, at this point I have to mention something.  Back on page 27, I pointed out that this particular claim of "Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science" (stated by Reed and echoed by Deadman and several others) is in fact UNSUPPORTED.  


False Floyd. Reed and Deadman are quite correct and you are just handwaving on this. The very basis of the scientific method requires that teleology be denied in regards to ALL natural processes. Once again you are conflating statements about outcomes with the scientific study of processes and you are just looking stupid for doing so.

Date: 2009/10/09 09:24:11, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,09:05)

Quote
Quote
The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.

Well, evolutionist Rosenhouse said it best:"The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions."
Quite true and as pointed out, the Pope does and you don't. End of discussion.

Date: 2009/10/09 12:38:55, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,10:25)

Quote
Quote
The New Testament's clear postion (Romans 5:12-17) is that death entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.  Romans 5:12-17 draws a very huge, very tight historical linkage between Adam and what Adam did (the problem) and Christ and what Christ did (the solution).  


So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.

Discuss.


The problem I have the silly thinking that goes into thinking Paul meant NO DEATH before the fall is that such a situation requires the absence of any form of energy transfer whatsoever. Think about it - no death as Paul describes creates a world where even grass didn't die. No eating of any kind because such consumption for nutrition requires death of the source of energy. Unless all life was solar powered prior to the fall (which then would beg a number of logistical issues in and of itself) a literal interpretation of Paul automatically leads to a world without any life at all.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:06:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:41)

Quote
Quote
I'll deal with these in a bit, but may I point out that your "incompatibility 5" is not in the least in conflict with Christianity's vision of a fallen world?

You appear to severely misunderstand what evolutionist Rosenhouse was saying there.  Perhaps misunderstand Christianity's vision a bit as well.

In Christianity's vision, God is not cruel and sadistic.  However, we know for a fact that, as Rosenhouse points out, evolution honestly IS cruel and sadistic.  Nature red in tooth and claw, you know.  Wasps laying their eggs in their still-living victims so the eggs can hatch and the wasps-in-training slowly eat up their living victims from the inside out.

Rosenhouse is asking what sort of God would do a gazillion years of bloody sadistic evolution just to come up with a couple of human beings.  What kind of theological justification can a theistic evolutionist provide for THAT? Wouldn't a loving ethical God "fast forward" the tape and spare all those gazillion years of animal suffering a death, Rosenhouse is asking you.

Biblical Christianity already has an answer.  The Fall is the reason for nature red in tooth and claw.  Everybody, every animal, was a herbivore until Adam and Eve sinned.  That's the testimony of the Bible.  God did NOT engage in bloodsport, God did NOT use a gazillion years of sadistic cruel evolution and natural selection to originate human beings.  We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.

But notice:  Biblical Christianity's answer NECESSARILY denies the evolutionist claim that humans originated via evolution/common descent/etc.  Now you rationally have a irrconcilable Either-Or situation to deal with.

You either must say that God is sadistic and cruel (and amazingly, some of the posters have actually tried to pull that stunt!) or else you must say that humans didn't evolve from a non-human "common ancestor" animal as the evolutionists claim.)


LOL! You really don't understand Rosenhouse's point at all Floyd. It is quite evident from reality that if your god exists, he is a sadistic, horrid monster because he would have designed a world with death and misery in mind. OTOH, if your god doesn't exist (and I am positive it doesn't) then the world as it is just is - there's nothing cruel and sadistic about a non-intelligent process and nothing to even hold to human standards of "goodness" or "badness".

Oh...and further, you clearly don't understand Genesis either apparently. The Hebrews are were quite clear that animals could not sin in any way, shape, or form. The only one responsible for the fall was Adam ("man") and thus the only redemption (according to some twisted logic) could be attained by a man (god's son or god himself, depending on your interpretation of YHWY). It is no wonder you can't reconcile evolution with your version of "Christianity"; your version isn't remotely accurate based on the fundamental stories.

In any event, given that you don't understand Rosenhouse's point or even Genesis, it is moot to point out that Rosenhouse's point doesn't conflict with actual Christianity. If you believe that a god created everything as it is, with evolution a teleological process, then that god is definitely a cruel and sadistic creature. OTOH, if you believe in a Christianity wherein God created a universe of unfolding, unintelligent processes, knowing that such processes would eventually lead to a creature capable of witnessing the vast creation and who, in the image of the Creator, would eventually be able to understand those processes and harness them to create things of his own, that Christianity is perfectly compatible with any science.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:11:56, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:41)

Quote
God did NOT engage in bloodsport, God did NOT use a gazillion years of sadistic cruel evolution and natural selection to originate human beings.  We humans brought down all that "nature red in tooth and claw."  Not God.


False. If you believe in an omnipotent and omniscient god, then everything that has ever unfolded is directly his responsibility. There's no way around it, for an omniscient AND omnipotent god would both know the outcome of the creation of humans *before* they existed AND would require no resources for either the creation of said humans (and all other things) and/or changing any condition that led to evil and sin. In other words, if you believe in an omnicient and omnipotent god, he would have had to specifically create a mankind that would rebel against him. That's a cruel and sadistic monster in my book.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:13:54, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:06)

Quote
Quote
So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.
Discuss.

Biblically, that's correct Ogre.  You may disagree with the claim itself, but you will not be able to deny that the Bible is making that specific claim.
 
Quote
Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. --  Gen. 1:30


Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall. Ooops...

Date: 2009/10/13 10:08:30, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

Quote
Quote
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.

Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.


LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.

Date: 2009/10/13 15:47:37, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,13:03)

Quote
Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.


Hmmm...yet another indication that you don't know of what youe speak, Floyd. Last time I checked (within the month, so it hasn't been that long) the bible is silent on the subject of reality. In fact, it's silent on EVERY subject. Go ahead and check - hold one up to your ear and listen; there isn't bible out there that is going to say anything itself. No, a bible, like all books, speaks not a word, but rather the authors of the bible make statements in texts. Those texts are read and the reader comes away with an impression of what the authors wrote. Of course with the bible, there are all sorts of competing impressions of what the authors were trying to get across. You can insist your understanding is correct there Floyd, but given your track record on claims, so far there isn't any good reason to go along with you. I'll take the multitude of actual biblical scholars (my sister included) work on the subject of your obviously erroneous interpretations. Thanks.

Date: 2009/10/13 15:50:53, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 13 2009,14:27)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 13 2009,10:08)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

   
Quote
   
Quote
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.

Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.


LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.

A man noticed a farmer walking with three-legged pig on a leash. It looked very odd. He said, "Farmer, why are you walking a three-legged pig?"

"Why, stranger, this is no ordinary pig," the farmer replied. "One night our barn caught on fire, and before my wife and I even woke up, the pig had called the fire department, and herded all the other animals out of the barn. The next week, a burglar got into the house, and the pig had him tied up and the police were on their way before I even realized what had happened. Then just last week, I fell into the duck pond and was like to drown, except this pig jumped in and pulled me out. Like I say, this is no ordinary pig."

"Well, that truly is a remarkable pig. But tell me, how did he come to have only three legs?" "Are you kidding? A pig this good, you don't eat all at once."


LMAO! Well played! Now that is a great story!

Date: 2009/10/15 08:30:09, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)

Quote
Quote
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities

Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?


Still lying I see, Floyd. tsk tsk...

Date: 2009/10/15 08:36:24, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,16:16)

Quote
Quote
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!!

Hmmm.  Judging from your current stress level, I'd say that at YOU care about those incompatibilities, and  quite a bit!!!!  Heh!!


Wow! Demonstrating your dishonesty previously and now demonstrating that you don't understand basic psychological logic. Care to go for three claims in a row that make you look silly, Floyd?

In actuality, assuming you could discern peoples' stress levels on a message board such as this, the only thing high stress could tell you is how someone feels about the particular discussion with a given individual or set of individuals. You couldn't actually determine anything about a specific subject. And since those folks who have demonstrated some level of agitation on here have specifically directed said agitation at you and noted that said agitation was in response to your behavior and insistance on repeating faulty and false claims, I'd say you yet again are full of BS, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/15 08:45:51, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:29)
 


Good job Reed.  Got some good incompatibilities there, thanks!

(Rosenhouse was right:  reconciling Christianity and evolution is NOT as easy at theistic evolutionists--or their secular homies, for that matter--try to make it sound.)

Quote
Quote
The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic.

So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.


Whoohoo!! Three silly statements in a row! You get a free TARD hat, Floyd!

The fact is that it is quite easy for evolution (the process) to be mindless while an intelligence uses the knowledge of evolution (uses the process) to breed short haired dogs, fruit flies with white eyes, horses that can jump, etc. That you don't understand this distinction is not our problem.

Quote
And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.


Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god as the guider of evolutionary (or any physical) processes leads to the realization that such a god is a monster, but who cares? The bible presents that monster anyway, so clearly that god is not incompatible with evolution.

Date: 2009/10/15 11:01:17, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,10:04)

Quote
Quote
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god as the guider of evolutionary (or any physical) processes leads to the realization that such a god is a monster, but who cares? The bible presents that monster anyway, so clearly that god is not incompatible with evolution.


So honestly, you do believe that evolution is compatible with Christianity because both evolution and God are cruel and sadistic and monster-ish.  Is that correct?


For the seventh time Floyd read and respond to what I write, not what you think I said or what you want me to have said or what you presume I said or what you think my statement implies or anything else. My statement is quite clear and in no way offers or implies a causal relationship of any kind. I merely presented recognition that invoking a god (any god, even your god) as the guider and forethought behind any process (e.g., rationalizing a "purpose" or "goal" for the outcome of natural processes) makes such a god responsible for the conditions of the  process itself and therefore a cruel and sadistic monster. But since that's what the OT does anyway (example, presenting god as the reason for Noah's Flood or the Commander of Joshua's raids), it becomes a mute point. Your god is a monster - that is any god based on a literal reading of the bible - so it really is irrelevant for you to complain about such with regard to your god being the guider of evolution.

Bottom line, I do NOT think that evolution is compatible with Christianity because a biblically literal reading and evolution both present a cruel and sadistic god. That happens to be a compatibility, but is not the only one nor is it even a relevant one since biblical literalness has nothing to do with Christianity.

Date: 2009/10/15 15:13:47, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,13:27)

Quote
Quote
Certainly invoking your 2000 year old primitive sun-god

Actually, even THIS much of your post is a painful exercise in Biblical illiteracy.  The God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT, but that's another post), is NOT "a primitive sun god" at all.  That much you could glean just by reading the Bible period!  

Exactly how is it that the Creator and Ruler and Sustainer of the Entire Universe At All Levels All Time All Space All Dimensions (both Testaments make that clear, Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16) be limited to a mere "god of the sun" like some heathen half-patootie job?  That's irrational baby!

FloydLee


Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions. Please don't try to lecture me on what constitutes biblical illiteracy as any such claims make you look beyond absurd. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you do not know and do not care to know about actual biblical literacy and contruction, preferring rather to approach the bible as a basis of literal and factual information a priori, which right there removes any possible credibility and validity from your claims about about appropriate "literacy".

Now that we've dispensed with your credibility on such claims, let's move on to the extensive and well-documented evidence that your OT biblical god *IS* in fact nothing more than a reflection of the Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian, and Babylonian sun-god, with sprinklings of Canaan and Sumerian beliefs:

http://www.cresourcei.org/baal.html

http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html

There are many other scholarly sources on the origin of the Old Testament god, which you are welcome to ignore all you want. But the fact is, your god is not much more than a glorified primative Sun-god.

Date: 2009/10/16 10:37:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 15 2009,16:29)

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 15 2009,15:13)
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 15 Not to mention the strong Mithraic elements in the NT.


Quote so. The biblical writers and stories that came out of that time period were heavily influenced by the changing events of the time, other stories heard from other cultures and nations, and the beliefs people brought themselves.

Quote
I am interested - professionally, rather than spiritually - in the isolationist ignorance with which most theists such as Floyd approach their own Holy Texts.

Ignorance of the context, development, antecedents, and connections of the Bible seems to be a primary requirement for fundamentalists.  Whatever the basis of inspiration, Holy Writ is created by men for their own reasons and carries with it their own emotional and cultural baggage.  To pretend - as does Floyd - that such baggage does not exist is singularly foolish.


Indeed. And I personally do not find that such an understanding in anyway undermines one's faith in the religion. On the contrary, I find that those people who can approach their religions and holy text with such willingness and appreciation gain a greater depth of strength in the faith. That, at least, is the example set by my sister and her group.

Date: 2009/10/16 10:42:31, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,18:14)

Quote
Quote
Floyd, let's get one thing straight here - my sister is a professional biblical scholar with degrees from Yale and Oxford and I have studied extensively not only on the bible, but also in ancient Greek and Hebrew history, culture, and language, along with several years of study in literary history and cultural constructions.


Then how in the world did you come up with such an utterly totally un-biblical conclusion about what kind of God is presented in the Bible?


Well that's would be your opinion. As noted earlier, your opinion is not based on actual factual information or eduction, so your claim that my understanding is "unbiblical" is not credible, nevermind not valid. The god presented in the bible, particularly the OT is a cruel and sadistic monster. There is no getting around that.

Quote
 I can't speak for your sister, (and I like Greek and Hebrew too!) but YOU got it messed up seven ways to Hades!!  


The only one demonstrating an inaccurate understanding of the bible here thus far is you, Floyd.

Quote
I'm sorry, but in addition to study tools, languages, historical notes, etc, you gotta start allowing the Bible to speak for itself.  That's the truth.


Without the former and in particular an understanding of the cultures involved in the development of the stories, the bible doesn't indicate squat.

Date: 2009/10/16 14:38:16, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,14:34)

Quote
Quote
Even in Genesis 1, God does not directly create animals and plants; they are created by the earth and sea and indirectly by God.

Nope, nowhere in the Bible (especially Genesis) does the earth and sea ever create life forms.  Only God creates.  And in this case, He literally spoke water and land animals into existence---otherwise they would not have existed at all.


Geez Floyd...it's bad enough you do it to me and others, but claiming that the bible indicates what you want it to indicate rather than what is actually written is just pathetic. Seriously, you need help with those delusions of yours. No way to take anything you say seriously when you can't even relate simple facts as they are presented in black and white text.

Date: 2009/10/16 14:39:25, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 16 2009,14:36)

Quote
Quote
Every animal, plant, or human born in the Bible is done without God's direct intervention.

Contradicted by Genesis 1 and 2.  Life forms below humans, God speaks them into existence;  Humans, God creates 'em by hand.  In both cases, it's very very direct.


Just plain stupidly false based on the text Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/19 07:48:51, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Lou FCD,Oct. 17 2009,18:23][/quote]
Quote
And he was all like, "No way. That place is for TARDs and Liars. Here's what I got for scientists:"



I want to go to there.

Date: 2009/10/20 12:01:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:06)

Quote
Oh, and btw Deadman, I am very confident that you are not a Christian.  Do I know your exact beliefs?  Nope, because when I asked in sincerity, you refused.  I believe the refusal was out of fear.  So yeah, you've convinced me you're not a Christian.  

But lots of people are not Christians.  The problem here is that whatever you are, you have convinced me that you're unethical as well!


Oh please...like such a statement on your part has any meaning, Floyd. You claiming someone like deadman is unethical is like a multiple rapist/murderer pointing to someone with an expired registration sticker and screaming, "what a bad person you are!" Yeah riiiight! LOL!

Date: 2009/10/20 12:16:54, Link
Author: Robin
Well...I'm now completely convinced. After 56 pages, Floyd has now convinced me: beyond any doubt whatsoever, the Theory of Evolution is absolutely incompitable with stupidity.

Date: 2009/10/20 12:25:16, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 20 2009,12:16)

Quote
Well...I'm now completely convinced. After 56 pages, Floyd has now convinced me: beyond any doubt whatsoever, the Theory of Evolution is absolutely incompitable with stupidity.


It's also incompatible... ;)

Date: 2009/10/20 15:37:49, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 20 2009,13:40][/quote]
[quote]  
Quote
Argumentum ad Google?

Quote
Nope.  A mere observation.


LOL! Yeah riiiight! If it were a mere observation, you might have merely observed that there are other posters out there on the Intertubes who disagree with those folks and you. Seems more like a selective observation to me.

Quote
Not intended to prove anything, but worth noting all the same.


LOL! Yeah riiiight! If it wasn't intended to prove anything, you wouldn't have bothered trying to defend it. Of course as others have noted, it isn't worth anything except that it demonstrates an argument by biased Internet poll or selective reading, take your pick.

Quote
You may be tempted to pretend such people don't exist, you may tempted to pretend that all Catholics don't see any incompatibility in there.


Ha! There's no reason to pretend such folk don't exist - we only have to realize such folks are offering opinions and that such isn't relevant to whether evolution is ACTUALLY compatible with Christianity.

Quote
But they do.  Many people do.  They can tell, even though they believe in evolution anyway.  I merely offered the reminder from an ordinary lay Catholic.  Seemed appropriate for this forum.


Here's something to really consider: anyone who says he or she believes in evolution (or any other scientifically described process, theory, law, etc) clearly knows little or nothing of what they are writing or saying. Saying one believes in evolution is no different than saying  one believes in solar power or that one believes in gravity.  So clearly not only do those folks likely NOT believe in evolution (as if one could), but they also likely don't know what it even is. Not unlike you, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/21 11:18:18, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 21 2009,10:40][/quote]
Quote
Just a quick note for tomorrow (Thurs):  Will post a somewhat shortened "Biblical Perspective on Biology".

Also (Thurs) will do a Final Summary of where the thread topic stands and why.   Also hope to finish printing things off.

Sometime Friday evening CST, will present the "ID is Science" argument.  

FloydLee


My genitalia is all aflutter over the thought, Floyd...

/sarcasm off

Date: 2009/10/21 13:44:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)

Quote
Quote
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh...Floyd...You're killing me here!! Why would anyone bother to address your claims at this point since you have demonstated time and again that you can't seem to respond to anyone with anything approaching a logically sound, factually-based argument? In fact,  you continue to ignore the very posts that have demolished your nonsense from day 1. You are, in fact, demonstrating that yet again with this nonsensical claim that evolution needs to account for the soul to be compatible with Christianity. It doesn't - at all. The soul could just magically bind to all humans upon birth through God's will. You don't know - there's no measure or observation of this supposed "soul" anyway, so who cares how it supposedly gets into humans. That your problem, not evolution's or science's. There is no need for the ToE to address souls in any way to still be compatible with even your complete lunacy, nevermind actual Christianity.

Date: 2009/10/21 13:53:26, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 21 2009,13:43][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote
Non sequitor.

How can it possibly be a non-sequitor?  The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest.

No Catholic concessions (and no compatibilities either!) to evolution AT ALL on that one.


HAHAHAHA!! What a riot Floyd! It's automatically compatible, based on what you just wrote! To wit, "The immaterial human soul, and human ensoulment by God alone (NOT evolution), is NON-negotiable, according to Popes Benedict ,  JP2,  Pius,  and the rest." Ok fine...so what does it matter if humans (material entities) developed via evolution (a material process) when such clearly would not impact whether or not God (an immateral entity) provided humans with souls (an immaterial product) via God's will (an immaterial process)? Are you suggesting that immatial processes and products can't affect material objects and processes? If so, that begs the question of how your God interacts with humans at all.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:36:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:29)

Quote
Quote
Yodel Elf just used JP2, Benedict and Pius' opinions to prove his point

And the specific point proven was that there exists a specific Incompatibility between clearly non-negotiable Catholic Christian beliefs and evolution.


False as noted Floyd. You're being dishonest again. Your argument is quite idiotic. Move on to ID.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:45:32, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)

Quote
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.


6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable.

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual is not the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.


Bottom line: never trust creationists' quotes - they always the important parts.

Date: 2009/10/22 09:22:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 21 2009,15:45)

Quote
Bottom line: never trust creationists' quotes - they always the important parts.


Dang...I guess no one noticed that I left out the word 'delete' in my sentence above. Illustration of a point is so hard to do on a message board...(sigh)

Date: 2009/10/22 09:36:12, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 21 2009,15:57][/quote]
Quote
Nmgirl quoted:
   
Quote
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Seems clear enough.


Well, it's certainly clear enough to those of us who don't try to quote mine or selectively read the essay:

Quote
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.


So indeed, what the pope is saying is that there are several concepts of evolution and some of them -those that insist that the soul is a product of naturalist development - are incompatible with evolution. Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution. Once again, Floyd only demonstrates that he can't read or refuses to do so accurately and honestly.

Date: 2009/10/22 10:00:46, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 21 2009,21:04)

Quote
Quote
Robin, posted 10/21/09 2:45 PM
[...]
Bottom line: never trust creationists' quotes - they always the important parts.  

Er, they always do what with the important parts? ;)

Or was that the point?

Henry


Yay! You did get it Henry! Two shiny new shillings for you! My bad on saying no one had caught it. Thank you for proving me wrong Henry!

Date: 2009/10/22 10:05:20, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Henry J,Oct. 21 2009,21:04][/quote]
Quote
Biblical perspective on biology:

How many legs do insects have?

Do bats have feathers?

Rabbit or whatever it was - does it chew its cud?

Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

Can a bird find fresh leaves in an area that's been under water for several months?

Did I miss any?

Henry


Well, there is the whole question of how snakes got around before they were cursed to go about on their bellies, eat dust, and bite women on their heals.

And btw, thank you Henry. I haven't had such a good weeping giggle fit in a long time. Very funny. Still trying to laugh and not disturb anyone around me...just makes it all the more funny!  :D

Date: 2009/10/22 10:21:02, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 21 2009,21:08)

Quote
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.


I've heard a lot about the philosophies inspired by evolution (much of it bullshit) but I've never heard about evolution inspired by philosophy.

Darwin, for example, was inspired by Smith and Hutton (both geologists) and by Culver and Lamarck (both biologists) and my Malthus (an economist).  But I've never heard anyone argue that Darwin was inspired by Plato, or by Descartes.  Certainly Darwin's writings don't reflect any such inspiration.

And then there are others who contributed to our knowledge of evolution: classically, Wallace, Huxley, etc. -- neo, Wright, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Stebbins, etc. -- modern, Margulis, Smith, etc.  I have never heard of them being influenced by philosophy either.

Could FL clarify what he means here?


Floyd didn't say that - it's from an essay by Pope John Paul II. What the Pope was getting at in the essay was that science in general and evolution as part of biology in specific is based on a philosophical perspective about how we can know things about this world and what constitutes truths and facts about it. Different people over the years have approached the concept of knowledge from different philosophies and thus different people who have adopted those different philophies in turn approach evolution differently. So the Pope is saying, look...it can be said there there are really a number of theories of evolution, not just one single accept theory, because different people see the world, and thus the theory of evolution, differently. And those theories of evolution that insist that all components of this universe, even those unseen conceptual components such as spirits and souls, as being products of materialistic evolutionary processes are incompatible with the Catholic understanding completely. However, those theories of Evolution that take no stand on such immaterial components and allow that God may well implant such substance within the human outside the parameters of evolution are not incompatible. That's what the Pope is saying. Pity Floyd either doesn't understand that or is dishonestly evading that point.

Date: 2009/10/23 08:12:26, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=nmgirl,Oct. 22 2009,16:46][/quote]
Quote
Quote
So indeed, what the pope is saying is that there are several concepts of evolution and some of them -those that insist that the soul is a product of naturalist development - are incompatible with evolution. Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution. Once again, Floyd only demonstrates that he can't read or refuses to do so accurately and honestly.

Robin, thanks for highlighting the relevant phrase that FL left out.


My pleasure, though it seems that while Floyd can't read, I can't proofread...The second to last sentence should have been, "Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with Christianity". (sigh) Oh well...I'm hoping the point was obvious...

Date: 2009/10/23 09:37:59, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,08:56)

Quote
Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.

 
Quote
Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.

And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.


All of them - there isn't a biology text book in use that presents ANY philosophy that conflicts with Christianity. In fact, that was already demonstrated with a few examples that you chose to ignore.


Quote
Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm


GASP! Oh NO! OH...oh wait...not a text book quote...Zzzzzzzz

Quote
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3


What did I say about trusting creationists with quotes...you left something out again Floyd. Tsk tsk...

Quote
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3


That certainly describes you as well Floyd. So are you incompatible with Christianity? But of course, that's irrelevant to the point since being a mindless process has nothing to do with what the Pope (and my summary noted above) was saying.

Date: 2009/10/23 09:59:02, Link
Author: Robin
I found the guide to creationist debate tactics:

http://www.heterodoxy.com/society....ed.html

Interesting stuff.  :p

Date: 2009/10/23 10:27:28, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)

Quote
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory

That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.


False:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Supernatural

http://science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method10.htm

Definition:
Science: 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
Merriam-Webster

I think that pretty much covers Floyd's silliness on that claim.

Quote
Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.


While not necessarily false, this does require question begging on the part of those presuming non-natural investigation. How exactly does one test that which isn't natural?

Date: 2009/10/23 10:31:48, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:01)

Quote
Quote
Evangilism = Fail

And what about you Ogre?  You used to know God.  Or you talk as if you once maybe did somehow, way way back in a dim dark past.

What happened, exactly?  Wasn't me that started you doubting God and hating God, that's for sure.   What exactly was going on back in those younger years?

Or was it, ummm, something about EVOLUTION that started greasing the slide down and away from God?

Unanswered questions.  Whatever the answers, they must have been quite severe, to have gotten you to his point.


I for one certainly don't hate God. Actually I love God. I just find that most of the man-made institutions devoted to celebrating, worshipping, and educating folks about God make him and the men and women in the institutions look ridiculous.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:40:23, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)

Quote
Quote
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.


Yeah...hmmm...let's see...

Here's the thought process, Floyd: Which alternative - do I accept the bible's claim of talking donkeys, talking snakes, etc when there is no evidence that such has ever actually occurred or do I accept the actual evidence presented thus far on this planet that donkeys and snakes don't talk and thus conclude the bible, a book written by men, is wrong? Hmm...so hard to tell which is the rational course of action here...

Quote
So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.


I believe that bit is just as much a metaphor as the talking snakes and donkeys.

Date: 2009/10/23 11:31:55, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:03)

Quote
Quote
You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.

Nope.  The thread topic is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

The thread topic was repeated multiple times on multiple pages.  You know that's the topic.

The scientific method is compatible with Christianity.  However, evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.


LOL! Silly Floyd, Trix are for kids! If the SM is compatible with Christianity, then by definition evolution MUST be compatible as well, unless you are saying that that the ToE is incompatible with or isn't based on the use of the SM. Is that what you are say Floyd? Is your argument really that evolution is incompatible with Christianity because the ToE isn't science? I'd love to see your arguments for THAT one if that is the case.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:51:09, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 23 2009,11:48)

Quote
As a service to all those who think that their religion isn't compatible with reality and therefore need to pick a new one:


One word: Awesome!

Date: 2009/10/23 13:23:06, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:28)

Quote
Quote
....unless you are saying that that the ToE is incompatible with or isn't based on the use of the SM

There would be no Big Five Incompatibilities if you guys had just stuck with the scientific method WRT the ToE and left off all that negative materialism-religion baggage.


LOL! I'll take that as a yes. In which case I'll repeat my previous request: I'd love to see your arguments for THAT one if that is the case! Hint: so far, you've all you've got is a claim without any substantiation. I know I know...it's soooo much easier just to declare you are right about something, but oddly most folks will just snicker at you until you come up with something that demonstrates your claim has some credibility.

Date: 2009/10/23 13:43:50, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2009,13:23)

Quote
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,13:13)
As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect

I agree totally.  Personally, I'd rather be having this debate with CM.


Sure, but really...how long or interesting would that debate be?

CM: Well, I don't see evolution as being incompatible with Christianity.

Us:  ...

Date: 2009/10/26 15:16:20, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,14:01)

Quote
Quote
There exist Christians who hold that evolution occurred.

Evolutionist Rosenhouse answered this one. Does there exist a sound basis for them holding that opinion?  If not, simply saying "they hold that opinion" won't work.


Floyd, you're misreading again. Rosenhouse only said that reconciling evolution and Christianity isn't something one does simply by stating such, but rather having to actually analyze the issue and come to well considered understanding. Seems that the other Christians hereon have done just that.

Quit projecting your own desires on what other people have written.

Date: 2009/10/27 08:52:41, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 26 2009,20:10)

Quote
You need to use some logic when you post, Floyd.

I will pray for you, you need the Grace of God to rescue you.


Nope...no way. I don't even think God is powerful enough to fix self-imposed stupid.

Date: 2009/10/27 11:32:44, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,09:01)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 27 2009,08:52)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 26 2009,20:10)
Quote
You need to use some logic when you post, Floyd.

I will pray for you, you need the Grace of God to rescue you.
Nope...no way. I don't even think God is powerful enough to fix self-imposed stupid.

Is that like the question of can God create a rock so big not even He could lift it?


I was thinking more along the lines of:

A man heard that his neighborhood was flooding due to a heavy rain storm. He got down on his knees and prayed to God: “Dear God, save me from the coming flood!”

The waters began to rise and a truck came by and the driver said, “Get in and I’ll drive you to higher ground.” The man said no, God would save him.

The waters continued to rise. A woman in a boat rowed by. She called, “Jump into the boat and I will row you to safety.” The man said no, God would save him.

The floodwaters continued to rise. The man was perched on the roof of his house. A helicopter flew by and let down a rope for the man to grab onto. “I will fly you to safety,” yelled the pilot. “No.” the man said, “I am waiting for God to save me.”

The man drowned.

He got to the heaven hopping mad. “What are you doing here?” God asked.

The man said, “God! I am mad at you! I asked you to save me from the flood and you did not!”

God smiled and said, “I sent you a truck, a boat and helicopter? What more did you want me to do?”

Date: 2009/10/27 11:36:01, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 27 2009,09:05)

Quote
I have a problem with the word "believe".

Like "Theory" in the wrong hands, as there are multiple meanings and some of them are very close, one can be easily tripped up into having their "belief" in the sun appearing to rise up from the East to be a statement of faith.

I don't "believe" the sun will appear to rise up in the East.  I THINK that with the absence of some most likely catastrophic event, the Earth will continue to rotate in a clockwise fashion when looking from a north to south perspective.

Likewise, I THINK that Evolution is the best at predicting the diversity of life here on Earth, etc, etc.


Bingo! I cringe every time I hear someone say he or she "believes" in evolution or asks me if I believe in evolution. Uggh! Do you also believe in light and gravity and that 2+2 =4? Grrr...

Date: 2009/10/27 12:37:02, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FrankH,Oct. 27 2009,12:03][/quote]
Quote
Just like a "straight historical narrative" shows the god of the literal bible not going on with regards to the other aspects that you are so quiet about?  
Quote
Scholar James Barr (who was NOT a fundie and didn't personally believe Genesis himself) wrote:  
Quote
"... probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

3. Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

(In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984).  

So nope, Genesis 1-11 is NOT metaphor NOT allegory NOT non-historical.  You can disagree with what it says, but you cannot rewrite it to make it fit evolution.
Yet another appeal to authority.

OBTW, what does the whole quote actually say?


What's that old saw about creationists and ellipses...

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html

Floyd just doesn't get it.

Date: 2009/10/27 14:09:52, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 27 2009,12:48)

Quote
I'm still trying to figure out how you get 24 hour days if the sun wasnt created until the 4th day.  how did these biblical experts measure 24 hours?


God told them. He said, "During the time before the creation of your sun I measured the days I worked in reference to my omniscience and my omniponent capability to measure how time passes relative to the speed at which your Earth rotates. One full rotation against a fixed spot of my chosing constituted a day. Oh yeah...I took a half day to argue with Satan about where to plant things in the Garden of Eden; he has this thing about layers and fruit bearing trees, so technically I worked five and half days. Put me down for a full six though."

Date: 2009/10/28 09:07:31, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:58)

Quote
Quote
In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.

This is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.  Long story short, the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.  Dead Meato.

(And just to make sure it STAYS dead, here are some extra nails for its coffin!!)

http://www.carm.org/christi....-theory

http://www.carm.org/christi....othesis

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html


ROTFL!!! OMG! Coffee all over the keyboard!! Um Floyd, hate to break it to you but neither you nor CARM carry any authoritative weight on whether the Documentary Hypothesis is valid and accepted or not. Last time I checked, actual, reputatable SCHOLARS (like my sister for one) actually accept it and present such not only on their textural analysis of the bible, but of other works from antiquity as well. So it appears those nails of yours are made of sugar and I just pored water all over them and you. LOL!

Date: 2009/10/28 09:17:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:44)

Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
     
Quote
Astronomy:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Geology:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Geology and Paleontology:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Astronomy and Physics:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Astronomy :  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Astronomy:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution and Geology:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution and Geology:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution and Geology:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Chemistry, physiology, physics, and geology:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution and Geology:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Chemistry, Bio-Chem, Physiology, Molecular Chemistry:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution and Geology:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution and Geology:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution and Geology:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Astronomy, Biology, Physics :  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 .


FloydLee


There, fixed it for you Floyd. Seems science is incompatible with your beliefs. Oh well...

Date: 2009/10/28 09:25:34, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:55)

Quote
Quote
It is up to those who hold on to something to provide the evidence for Genesis being historical.

You can believe that Gen is historically false all day long if you want to.  What I'm claiming here is that Gen is straight historical narrative, and not metaphor,...


And you can believe and claim that Genesis is historically accurate all day long if you want to, but without substantiation, we rational people are going to continue chortling at you and such an obviously absurd claim. LOL!

Quote
Examining the biblical text and context (such as the Gen 5 genealogy I provided you earlier) can confirm if the Gen text was meant to be a historical narrative or just a metaphor/allegory.


Having done so quite specifically, I can say with some authority that you are wrong.

Date: 2009/10/28 13:22:55, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:36)

Quote
Quote
Jesus does not say that Moses is the author of Genesis.

On the contrary, that was Jesus's own position.  No escape on that one folks.  
Jesus said the following:
     
Quote
"For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47).

Where did Moses write about Jesus, pray tell?  Right here when he wrote this Genesis Messianic prophecy:
     
Quote
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."   (3:15)  


Oh Floyd...that parable is not about Jesus you dope. Moses (supposedly) wrote about Jesus here:

Deuteronomy 18:15

15(A) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—

None of this even presents circumstantial evidence for Moses being the author of Genesis however. Try again.

Further, your reference to Matthew 19 is just piss poor. Here's what Matt 19 actually states:

1
1 When Jesus 2 finished these words, 3 he left Galilee and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan.
2
Great crowds followed him, and he cured them there.
3
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"
4
5 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'
5
and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
7
6 They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"
8
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9
I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
10
[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
11
He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted.
12
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

So no Floyd, your completely wrong. The only thing Jesus acknowledges moses writing was how to get out of marriage. He didn't say anything about Moses writing anything else and in fact contradicts you entirely - he notes that "from the beginning it was different" from what Moses handed you - meaning that Moses wrote exceptions to what Genesis states.

Your theology is just as piss poor as your understanding of science, Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/28 13:29:57, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:56)

Quote
Quote
Last time I checked, actual, reputatable SCHOLARS (like my sister for one) actually accept (the Doc. Hyp.) and present such not only on their textural analysis of the bible

No disrespect to your sister, but professor of Old Testament Dr. Gleason Archer, has already killed and buried the Documentary Hypothesis underneath multiple chapters of his textbook Survey of Old Testament Introduction.
(With extra coffin-nails to be found in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.)


Floyd, you're going to have to get something through your head - your claims about what people have done and what is don't amount to anything. Archer didn't "kill and bury" anything as a) it is still used in scholarly work and b) Archer is neither the most prominent nor even a notably respected scholar in biblical studies.

Quote
But do send me a copy of your sister's OT textbook and I'll gladly look at it.


When you demonstrate a capacity to actual read and understand what is written, I will be happy to. Thus far, you haven't demonstrated the ability to read and understand even short postings on this board, nevermind actual biblical passages and scientific theories and theses, so there's no way you're capable of reading actual scholarly research.

Quote
Meanwhile, here's some more Doc-Hyp-Equals-Stone-Dead confirmation:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm

FloydLee


LMAO! Sorry Floyd, but as I pointed out earlier, folks like CARM and UKapologetics are not authorities or credible sources. Try again.

Date: 2009/10/28 13:34:28, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,12:56)

Oh..contrary to Floyd's proclamation of the death of Documentary Hypothesis, here's what Wikipedia notes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis:

The documentary hypothesis still has many supporters, especially in the United States, where William H. Propp has completed a two-volume translation and commentary on Exodus for the prestigious Anchor Bible Series from within a DH framework,[22] and Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien have published a "Sources of the Pentateuch" presenting the Torah sorted into continuous sources following the divisions of Martin Noth. Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" (1987) and "The Bible with Sources Revealed" (2003) were in essence an extended response to Whybray, explaining, in terms based on the history of ancient Israel, how the redactors could have tolerated inconsistency, contradiction and repetition, indeed had it forced upon them by the historical setting in which they worked. Friedman's classic four-source division differed from Wellhausen in accepting Yehezkel Kaufmann's dating of P to the reign of Hezekiah;[23] this in itself is no small modification of Wellhausen, for whom a late dating of P was essential to his model of the historical development of Israelite religion. Friedman argued that J appeared a little before 722 BCE, followed by E, and a combined JE soon after that. P was written as a rebuttal of JE (c. 715–687 BCE), and D was the last to appear, at the time of Josiah (c. 622 BCE), before the Redactor, whom Friedman identifies as Ezra, collated the final Torah.

While the terminology and insights of the documentary hypothesis—notably its recognition that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands and many centuries, and that its final form belongs to the middle of the 1st millennium BC—continue to inform scholarly debate about the origins of the Pentateuch, it no longer dominates that debate as it did for the first two thirds of the 20th century. "The verities enshrined in older introductions [to the subject of the origins of the Pentateuch] have disappeared, and in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous, exceedingly complex, and often couched in an expository style that is (to quote John van Seter's description of one seminal work) 'not for the faint-hearted.'"[24]

Date: 2009/10/28 13:36:09, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,13:19)

Quote
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!


The only person refuted has been you, Floyd. You not only don't know science, you clearly don't know a thing about the bible and what it actually states.

Date: 2009/10/29 09:11:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,14:32)

Quote
Quote
Sorry Floyd, but as I pointed out earlier, folks like CARM and UKapologetics are not authorities or credible sources

In other words, you can't refute their actual statements on the Doc Hyp, your sister's not available to help out, and the only thing left is to claim out of the blue that they are not authorities or credible sources. Okay!


Umm...Floyd - your references have no qualifications or authority on the subject. That's called an appeal to false authority. I don't have to refute apologetics statements; I just have to note that they has no authority and thus the statements have no credibility. You want folks to accept those statements, then back them up with something AUTHORITATIVE and VALID. But of course, you can't.

Oh...and yes my sister is available, but why on earth would I bother her with trivialities that are not valid points that need refuting? Offer me something that requires actual examination and I'll send it on over however.

Quote
Meanwhile, readers can compare this source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis:

with this source (and all its sources therein):

http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm

....and see what's going on there.


Most definitely we can...

Date: 2009/10/29 12:40:19, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,10:02)

Quote
Quote
I don't have to refute apologetics statements

No, you don't have to.  But your inability to do so makes things a lot easier on me.     :)


LOL! Ummm...yeeaaahh Floyd...clearly you can believe anything you want...(rolls eyes)

Date: 2009/10/29 13:17:53, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:45)
 

Quote
A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.

Nope, they don't have to. [/quote]

My sister will be so relieved that you think so Floyd.

Date: 2009/10/29 13:45:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 29 2009,13:28)

Quote
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:09)
And btw, from now through Nov. 1, no matter what the topic is, I'm gonna keep on asking why Deadman won't answer my question---unless he does answer it.  

Turnabout is fair play boys.

Lol.

You're the one that made the claim that you could show Christianity and evolution incompatible, Floyd. It's very relevant for people to ask who you consider to be a Christian. Asking me about MY religious views serves what purpose in regard to the discussion? Particularly when you already have examples like the Pope to deal with? Answer: none. It's just another cheap ploy on your part, one that would embarass anyone with a sense of honor or honesty to use.


I noticed you didn't include sense of humor. That's good, because quite frankly those of us with a sense of humor aren't embarrassed by it and actually find the ploy pretty funny.  :D

Date: 2009/10/29 14:36:36, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 29 2009,13:46][/quote]
Quote
Quote
Put quite simply, my beliefs are (1) not pertinant

Ahhh, but they ARE pertinent--very much so.  Why?  

Because those religious beliefs you're hiding are where your pre-suppositions are coming from, and THOSE items---whatever they are-- DO have bearing on this particular debate and the positions you take.

Just as my being utterly honest and clear with everybody about MY specific religious beliefs (and hence my presuppositional positions) gives you a clearer target to understand and address and engage,
so your COWARDICE and refusal to be honest and clear with everybody about your specific religious beliefs has the effect of hiding your pre-suppositional positions through which you come to adopt the views you state.

You're hiding because you are afraid to have your pre-sups rationally examined in public.  What I am not afraid of, you are totally skeer'd of.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of 'avoidance' and not answering question while nervously hiding like that sir?


There are  a few problems with your tactic here, Floyd. You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Understanding where Deadman is coming from should have NO bearing on whether you can effectively prove that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. For example, it would make no difference to an argument regarding demonstrating that heavy rain storms are incompatible with a getting sheets dry on an outdoor clothes line what people's presuppositions are. If your argument regarding the incompatibility between evolution and Christianity is biased by presuppositions, your argument doesn't have a lot of objectivity to begin with. That makes it a rather weak argument since subjective arguments can't be proven at all and have little value to anyone.

Also, there's the little problem with the way you presented presuppositions as though they are some standard. They aren't. There's a facet of Christian apologetics that tries to establish a logical basis for biblical literalism by claiming that presuppositional positions require a valid starting point and that the bible is as valid (if not the only valid) starting point. The problem with this position, however, is that it is a) circular in nature and thus invalid, but b) easy to defeat by demonstrating a rational position that requires no presuppositions. I can demonstrate one if you like that cannot be defeated and has completely reduced Plantinga and Bahsen's arguments to moot points.

Bottom line, Deadman's position should have no bearing on your argument, but if it does, then your argument is of no value anyway.

Date: 2009/10/30 08:06:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)

Quote
Quote
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.



Floyd, Floyd, Floyd...(sigh)...I already told you that the Presuppositional Apologetics argument is nonsense. So here we go. You are begging the question Floyd. Your claim that Deadman et al have invoked anti-supernatural presuppositional appeals is circular - you haven't established that your presupposition that the supernatural exists is valid. Thus, any statement about denying the supernatural CAN'T be a presupposition - such is merely a neutral statement against the fallacious presupposition of the theological assumption. You lose again Floyd.


Quote
You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs.


False Floyd - I stated an assessment of evidence. There is no evidence that the story is factual at all, thus the neutral position is that the story, like all other such stories is metaphorical. Unless the Apologetic can provided objective evidence that supports the resurrection (and only the resurrection) as being a valid explanation, the position that the story is metaphoricall cannot be a presupposition. It can only be a response to a claim that is unsubstantiated.

Quote
I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid.


You're lying Floyd. Once again, Deadman's beliefs have NO BEARING on this discussion.

Date: 2009/10/30 08:21:16, Link
Author: Robin
Guys, c'mon...why are we even bothering with Floyd's issue #5? What's the first rule concerning a creationist taking a quote from some larger piece of work? That's right...it's likely take out of context.

Whoa...looky there! That's just what Floyd did with Rosenhouse's quote:

Quote
Frankly, the whole idea of niches existing in nature just waiting for animals to evolve their way into them is a bit dubious to begin with. Animals in part create their own niches, and the landscape is constantly changing as creatures evolve.

These are just a few of the scientific considerations that ought to dampen Miller's confidence in the inevitably of human-like creatrues. Curiously, though, this whole line of argument resolves one theological difficulty only at the price of creating other ones.

Yes, human inevitability would solve the problem of preserving human specialness in the face of evolutionary contingency. But just consider the view of natural history entailed by this. Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-awae creature finally appeared. What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years? Problem of evil, indeed.



OOOOOoooopsss...Seems Floyd's been dishonest about what Rosenhouse meant. His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position, so Rosenhouse's scenerio doesn't actually exist. Thus, neither does Floyd's argument.

Date: 2009/10/30 08:35:33, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 30 2009,03:08)

Quote
Wow. Playing catch-up and, I can't believe that no one jumped on this bit he addressed to Robin (bolding mine):

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,08:43)
(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)


I know he answered directly later, but I still think this is pretty funny, especially with how he was still dragging his heels right after posting it. That was some nice self-pwnage there, Floyd.  Only topped by finally just answering the damned question.  

I'd also like Floyd to note that the phrase 'hooking up with Jesus' is probably ill-advised and best avoided in the future as it does not mean what he thinks it means.  Or maybe it does, which is just really way too fucking disturbing to contemplate...


Just an FYI - I believe when Frank asked the question, he was referring to my sister, the theological scholar. I will say that she is a deeply devout Christian, though not a fundamentalist and/or an Apologist. She reads Koine Greek and Hebrew (and a little Aramaic), has degrees in ancient Romance Languages and Theology, and has put together various translations of religious works. I used to be a devout Christian like her, but I found over the years that the answers that Christianity provides are to questions that I discovered are not relevant to me. I enjoy discovering the answers to questions about the natural world.

Date: 2009/10/30 10:01:38, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 30 2009,08:55)

Quote
Actually Robin I was not asking about your sister.  It was for my sister who's a good Catholic girl.

She took my word on "Theistic Evolution" and when the Pontiff came out and said what he did on Evolution and Catholicism, she dropped all issues with Evolution and being a Christian.


Ahh...my bad. Interesting note though. Thanks!

Date: 2009/10/30 11:27:38, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 30 2009,10:02][/quote]
Quote
Quote
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position

But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.


 
Quote
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."


----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website

So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.


Double false Floyd. Dawkins is saying the exact same thing as Rosehouse in that quote from Scientific America, numbskull. Dawkins was noting what the natural world under evolution would imply about God if such a being existed. But as Dawkins notes, such isn't the case. This universe is the product of indifference, thus there is no "cruel god" issue at all. Bye bye to your issue #5.

You really need to learn to read, Floyd.

******

Quote
And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  


No we don't because Miller is begging the question by reversing a logical argument. How can we be "accidents" if there is no purpose or design to the universe, Floyd? Answer: we can't. It's like saying that heads coming up when you flip a coin is an "accident" or that rain falling is an "accident". Such statements are appeals to emotion based on inaccurate assumptions (such as the whole fine tuned universe) that don't actually mean anything.

Quote
(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)


False yet again, as noted above.
 
Quote
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.


Completely erroneous thinking Floyd. But thanks again for the entertainment and chuckle!

Date: 2009/10/30 11:30:24, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)

Quote
Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."

Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! What a laugh Floyd! Keep repeating that to yourself (religion of Materialism) that and $10 will get you cup of coffee!

But again Floyd, sorry, but that's just question begging (nevermind erroneous since there cannot, by definition, be a religion of Materialism). Care to try again?

Date: 2009/10/30 11:51:22, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 30 2009,10:57][/quote]
Quote
Quote
Of course I have no problem with me saying "all of science denies supernaturalism as a knowable cause"  -- because it does.

Nope, you were presented with three separate refutations from the professionals---and to this day you remain unable to refute a one of them.

In fact, this is a good way to start presenting the "ID Is Science" portion.....by dealing with your main objection (your main presupposition, more accurately) right off the top.

First, let's review the three refutations that were given to you, and which you are totally unable to eliminate.

Quote
snipped nonsense for space


Okay, now those three are back on the table.  The next post answers your one question and takes everything further.


False Floyd. We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science. We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science. Ignoring that doesn't make that refutation go away.

As to Meyer's statement, he's just begging the question by assuming there is a God by definition, but such isn't established and presuming such doesn't put the burden on science or the non-believer to prove there isn't a god or supernatural powers. Once again, science as administered by humans is limited to natural instruments for testing and natural perceptions for natural senses. Thus, we can ONLY deal with what is natural. So much for Meyer's thesis.

Date: 2009/10/30 11:59:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:57)

Quote
First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before the appearance of the first life on earth.

Further, as Bill Dembski argues in the next chapter, we do live in the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be known or inferred from empirical data. This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.


BTW Floyd, this argument by Meyer completely disassembles his own (and your) argument. If Dembski is correct and we can know about the "supernatural" from empirical data guess what? The data would come from a natural source and thus the explanation would be...(wait for it)...NATURAL! And actually, given the data of a natural phenomenon being natural, from a scientific perspective, the agent would also be considered natural. Such a tact completely demolishes the argument. Say thanks to Meyer for us!

Date: 2009/10/30 14:15:01, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:18)

Quote
Quote
We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science.

No you didn't.  Not ONE of the sources quoted offered ANY refutations to any of Meyer's specific points, nor Millam's huge point, nor even Ratzsch's for that matter.

Go ahead and re-quote your sources. if you'd like to compare notes.


Posted: Oct. 23 2009,10:27 by Robin
Quote
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory

That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.


False:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Supernatural

http://science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method10.htm

Definition:
Science: 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
Merriam-Webster

I think that pretty much covers Floyd's silliness on that claim.


Quote
Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.


While not necessarily false, this does require question begging on the part of those presuming non-natural investigation. How exactly does one test that which isn't natural?


Posted: Oct. 23 2009,10:15 by Frank H
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory
That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee

Which is a lie.  You have not refuted anything.  You reguriposted and left it at that.  Then you walked away claiming victory.  Your mind is so compartmentalized to make yourself unaware that you lie and lie often.

Ratzch's OPINION is his OPINION.  It is not shared by all.  Once you let supernatural in, anything goes.

As for Millam, Testable and Naturalistic is not an issue.  We can smash together and then test the decay of particles in a vacuum chamber.  That is not something that happens naturally on Earth.  No problem there.

Once again, Floyd EPIC FAIL who can't answer the questions like why is his god not needed to make the patterns in the dirt as water runs downhill but his god needs to have made the water.

Then he can't explain how a omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god can blame two completely clueless people when "he goes away" and somehow "the numero uno evil being" somehow is allowed in (only Floyd's god can allow things like that to happen, right?) and gets two innocents to do something bad.

Then this "perfect creation goes to hell because evil was let in.  NEWS FLASH:  Your "god" let evil into the garden before when that damn snake slithered in!

Deadman_932
Posted: Oct. 23 2009,13:42  

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:52)
     
Quote
No "theory" that has non-materialistic parts is not a scientific theory

That's the great fallback excuse that folks have used on this board, Frank.  Problem is, as I showed in response to Reed and Deadman, that particular line of argument is multiple-flawed and has been refuted.

Short version (Ratzsch):  There have been, and are, NO rationally sustainable blanket prohibitions against supernatural design being a subject of science.  Some design theories may not pan out as science, but that's entirely consistent in principle with other design theories being able to qualify as science.  The theories may also flop and come up empty or refuted upon investigation, but ALL scientific theories face that very same risk anyway.  So that's why nobody's been able to--and still hasn't--come up with a defensible BLANKET prohibition against supernatural design within science.

Short version (Millam):  Science is about what is TESTABLE, not necessarily what is NATURALISTIC.

Short version (Meyer):  Multiple known fatal-flaws exist with the notion of defining science in the way you described it (solely naturalistically).  See "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent"
Each of these rational fatal-flaws are longstanding and unsolved.  Nobody's been able to resolve them.  Among the biggest is "Circular Argument."

FloydLee

Damn, you're a total liar, Floyd. No surprise there, to everyone participating in this thread.
**********************************************

“[In Science] supernatural entities are inscrutable and inaccessible as a matter of principle” -- Mahner, M. & Bunge, M.: 1996a, 'Is religious education compatible with science education?', Science & Education 5(2), p. 117

----------------------------------

"…the existence of a supernatural designer...is a religious concept, not science, and therefore does not belong in the science classroom." -- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006
--------------------------------------------

"Because science is limited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations…Explanations employing nonnaturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science..." -- National Academy of Sciences:1998


"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by
the methods of science."  -- A View from the National Academy of Sciences: 1999
----------------------------------------

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

Judge William Overton, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
----------------------------------------

While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science…This rigorous attachment to ‘natural’ explanations is an essential
attribute to science by definition and by convention. -- Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
------------------------------------------------------------

“Science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.” -- Stephen Gould, 1992.
**********************************************

Remember that the topic HERE is the existence of DEISTIC supernatural beings, Floyd, not ghosts or "does prayer work" or faeries or leprechauns. It's about Gods, and neither Del Ratschz nor anyone else you tried to cite  has a way of making Gods part of science in the sense required in this thread.

As anyone can see, you haven't backed Ratsczh's empty opinion that such things as deistic supernaturalism (which IS the topic here) can EVER be studied by science.

I have asked you at least a half-dozen times to show me any scientific research model that would allow this...and you have refused to answer each time. Nor have you refuted the cites I gave above. I could give cites in each field, but it is already clear to sane people that deistic supernaturalism is simply excluded from ANY valid science.

Your "Floydian" Christianity is explicitly ANTI-SCIENCE, by your own dismal logic, such as it is. It's not just anti-evolution, it's against all science.


In other words Floyd, you no valid point from which to make your argument.

Date: 2009/10/30 14:20:06, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:23)

Quote
Quote
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.

Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?


They don't have the authority to determine what is or is not science. That is what I wrote, Floyd, and it is a fact. NO single scientist has such an authority. They can toss out their opinions all they want, but the fact is science is defined as an institution by the scientific community. So no Floyd - for the 3rd time - they don't have the authority and those who are actual scientists (including me as a researcher) can ignore their opinions and go with the actual accepted definition.

Date: 2009/10/30 14:35:12, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:11)

Quote
Since there are no sustainable BLANKET prohibitions against investigating supernatural design within science


False Floyd, as proven. At this point your just posting for the sake of reading your own words.

Date: 2009/10/30 15:49:12, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:29)

Quote
Quote
Please show that 'materialism' is a religion.

It's a religion to me.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Uhh...Floyd? Hate to break it to you buddy, but your opinion on what is and isn't religion does't mean anything.  

Quote
It sure ain't science (nor any part of the scientific method), and some of you seem to worship it most fanatically.


Neither is banking or running, but that doesn't make them religions. Besides materialism already falls into a category - it's called "Philosophy".

Date: 2009/11/02 13:57:18, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 31 2009,21:51][/quote]
Quote
Or this example:
         
Quote
(Robin)
Even opinions from the likes of Mayr are just opinions and are not actual summations of the actual ToE.
 
         
Quote
(Floyd)
So please provide me with these (ahem) "actual summations" that would negate and neutralize the published evolutionist statements that were specifically given for each of the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Thanks again!  

Request not fulfilled at all, let alone timely.


Umm...Floyd? I provided it the same day, dork. Nice try on the evasion though.

Quote
Another request that wasn't answered at all (let alone timely):
         
Quote
Here's 5 examples just to get started.

Futuyma, Mayr, Bozarth, Coyne, (and)
Whoever's currently teaching Biology 391 at the Univ. of Tenn. at Martin.

So, would you agree?  Are those professional evolutionist scientists there?

Even that one never actually got a straight answer.


False. I provided a simple straight answer less than an hour later. You're lying again Floyd.


Quote
And here's a contradiction that was never actually resolved (let alone in timely manner) by you guys:        
Quote
Here's a quotation from Deadman:
"The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God."

Here's a quotation from Robin:
"The Pope accepts evolution under all conditions as he states...."


Yep. Even demonstrated why it's true Floyd. You're lying again.

Date: 2009/11/03 14:20:58, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,12:39)

Quote
Quote
It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years.

But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference.


Yo Twinky Weeper - the notion was not coming from "pro- evolution" or Darwin propostion either, contrary to the nonsense you stated earlier.

Date: 2009/11/03 14:53:30, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,13:51)

Quote
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 03 2009,12:16)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,13:05)
Cosmological ID and biological ID are two different concepts, so bringing in cosmological when the subject matter of this thread wa