AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Robin

form_srcid: Robin

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 184.73.87.85

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Robin

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

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

"Does God Exists?"

Grammar sucks too.

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 was biological, was changing the subject.

Henry

I've noted that in the mind of a YEC, Evolution includes, but is not limited to:

Big Bang
Galactic Evolution
Stellar Evolution
Planetary System Evolution
Abiogenesis
Non flood Geology

and more!

Heavy element generation by supernova
Radioactive decay rates
Euclidean geometry
Axiomatic set theory

Well, maybe not those last two?


Oh their in there too, at least according to Greg Bahsen and other such presuppostional apologists and pastor Doug Wilson who's currently promoting his "discussion" with Christopher Hitchens.

Date: 2009/11/04 07:59:35, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)

Quote
Quote
Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.


LOL! Umm...negative Floyd. There is no question that Gonzalez assumes his conclusions AND starts with a faulty premise. He assumes that there must be a reason this universe is fined tuned and assumes that reason is humans, but there is no evidence this universe is fine tuned (there's no other universes to compare it to...for all Gonzalez knows EVERY universe MUST have these parameters) and there's no evidence humans had to exist.

Date: 2009/11/04 11:01:59, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,07:33)

Quote
Quote
....observing X leading to falsification of Y occurs if and only if X is an entailed consequence of Y. In those circumstances, observing X leads to falsification of Y, but such falsification does not occur if entailment does not hold.

But curiously, nobody around here has shown that "...entailment does not hold" for the specific X's that Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book (which I previously quoted).

So, at your convenience?


Burden of proof fallacy. It is incumbant upon Gonzalez to demonstrate that Y is an entailed consequence of X. Gonzalez et al did not do so, hence the reason that their argument is question begging.

Date: 2009/11/04 11:20:31, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,08:16)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 04 2009,07:59)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:55)

   
Quote
   
Quote
Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.


LOL! Umm...negative Floyd. There is no question that Gonzalez assumes his conclusions AND starts with a faulty premise. He assumes that there must be a reason this universe is fined tuned and assumes that reason is humans, but there is no evidence this universe is fine tuned (there's no other universes to compare it to...for all Gonzalez knows EVERY universe MUST have these parameters) and there's no evidence humans had to exist.


Actually there is compelling evidence that our universe is fine-tuned, if by fine-tuned you mean (what I mean): that the possibility of any kind of life at all is very sensitive to the values of the physical constants.

Or, more mundanely, the ability of our universe to produce rocks appears to rest on a razor's edge.


The problem is that such a concept is a reversal of logic. Instead of if P then Q the above is Q therefore assume P. But that doesn't work because you don't actually know that Q is the only condition that can be a result from P. Further, you don't even know what P is necessarily. Here's the logic:

A universe with life as we know it exists. This universe could only occur given a narrow range around the parameters we have. Therefore it must be fine-tuned. But you don't actually know what the range of possible universe arrangements could be. This universe could very well be with a range of possible arrangementst that would occur 99.99999999999% of the time, in which case this universe is anything BUT fined tuned. The other problem is the same issue a lot of folks have with respect to perspectives on islands. That is, this universe is supposedly fine-tuned only if you look at it from the perspective of "life as we know it" having to exist. Similarly, as Roy Scheider said in the movie Jaws, "An island is only an island if you look at it from the water". There's nothing that requires humans or any other life to be here; that just happens to be true. So assessing this universe as being fine-tuned for life is erroneous. It's no different than saying that water must be fine-tuned for sand since sand exists around almost all water on our world. Clearly it's actually the other way around in that case, and it's likely the other way around for life as well - it is logical to conclude that life is fine-tuned for the conditions of this universe and not the reverse.

Quote

Using that definition it is more or less universally accepted that our universe is fine-tuned.


Maybe, but it really isn't logical to hold that definition.

Date: 2009/11/04 15:32:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2009,13:49)

Quote
2. We can’t see but a very small fraction of the useful electromagnetic spectrum.


And most of us really poorly at that thanks largely to the invention of text that allows us to read silly things like bibles...

Date: 2009/11/05 10:32:59, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2009,03:08)

Quote
True, however if the universe is "designed for life" I'd expect to see evidence of it elsewhere in the universe right now, given how old it is. In a "designed for life" universe there would be innumerable species that would have come and gone before we made it into the scene and I'm sure we'd see the evidence in the sky at some level. Dyson spheres all over the place, that sort of thing.


Sure, but how do you think that evidence would be displayed? In other words, for all we know right now, our very own solar system may well be teeming with life, but how would we know? We've dropped probes on...how many planets and moons? Two? We have rovers on Mars and they've looked at...what...less than .0000012 percent of the planet? How many other planets or other orbital bodies have we looked even this well? We've certainly had several probes fly by a number of our orbital bodies...at what...a few hundred miles away? So given this, there could very well be be Dyson Spheres all over the place, but we just haven't gotten far enough to even detect them.

Of course, I don't disagree with your overall point. There really is a great deal that indicates this universe appears not to be designed for life (or if it is, designed really poorly for it), but I'm just noting that we really don't have any idea at this point how much life might be out there.

Date: 2009/11/05 11:45:35, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2009,11:33)

Quote
So, what is a testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and any other universe?


And while you're at it Floyd, please explain how Gonzalez, et al, aren't question begging to when they present the argument "the conditions to support life, particularly humans, are rare and a narrow range, therefore the universe must have been fine-tuned since any deviation of that range would not have allowed us to exist." As I've noted now four times, Gonzalez does not know what parameters are "normal" for any given universe - the parameters we see could very well be 99.99999999% necessitated by having matter and energy. The writers don't know Floyd, and neither do you. To declare this a "privileged planet" is question at best and likely disingenuous.There is nothing remotely valid about Gonzalez's argument from a scientific perspective.

Date: 2009/11/05 11:53:19, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,10:30)

Quote
Quote
It's the argument that because someone wins a lottery, he must have been selected by some magic agency.

It's not about magic at all.  Only about a rational, falsfifiable-via-observation inference of intelligent causation.

But your comment does illuminate what I was talking about earlier.  Intelligent causation of the fine-tuning we see in the universe, galaxy, solar system, and Earth, DOES at least carry a possible implication of a supernatural cause of that universe (the God of the Bible for example).  

Cosmo ID, if that hypothesis survives the falsifiers, would lend some measure rational support to those theistic philosophers and theologians and anybody who already agrees with the Bible's theism.

But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.


Ummm...quick question - if the "fine-tuning" argument a la Gonzalez et al is actually valid science, as you attest it is, why did Gonzalez et al publish the concept through a private distributor in a book form as opposed to any number of scientific journals? Why didn't they present it for peer review per the scientific method and have it submitted to a scientific society for scientific research?

Date: 2009/11/05 15:06:59, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (nmgirl @ Nov. 05 2009,11:45)

Quote
Help me out here guys.  i am new to posting to these boards with the IDiots but I see the same things everywhere.  Why are most of their posts cut and paste of other people's words.  Are people like FL incapable of presenting their thoughts in their own words?


By and large I think it is because they think that some of the statements made by other "smart" ID folk sound intelligent and correct even if they don't understand it. Keep in mind, a lot of the slock the FL (et al) post is specifically fuzzy about a lot of the details but very straight forward about supporting the Big Tent perspective. I'm sure the FL and most other ID/Creationist types haven't a clue what 80% of the stuff they post even means and why, when really examined, it falls apart, but they don't really care because they believe it's true because it sounds good and implies what they want to hear.

Date: 2009/11/05 15:15:52, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 05 2009,12:03)

Quote
Again I have to disagree. In our own solar system there are ~8.5 planets and ~175 moons. And it looks like only earth supports complex life. And I don't think any of us would be surprised if it is the only orb in our solar system with any life. So the question is not really whether earth is privileged, our own solar system sets the upper level of its privileged character at ~ one in a hundred.  The question is only one of degree.

And I also disagree that none of Gonzalez's arguments are valid. I see nothing scientifically invalid, for example, in his idea of a galactic habitability zone.That is independent of whether it turns out to be correct. As a scientific concept it it is valid in the sense that it merits consideration. Whether it stands the test of time--who knows.


See Ogre's post above. To add to that, as I noted earlier, how many of these 8.5 planets and 175 moons have we spent any time actually studying in any kind of detail? 2 of them? Woohoo...that presents a big area of assumption if one is going to say, "our solar system doesn't appear to have any other life." To move the goal posts and say "complext life" begs the question further - why are you presuming how to evaluate life and why are you presuming the complex is somehow an indication of something significant?

As to your statement about that you disagree that none of Gonzalez's arguments are valid, I wasn't trying to imply such - hence I used the term "argument" in singular. If I gave that impression, my apologies. The fine-tuned argument is, however, invalid and has no merit. It is question begging based on a reversal of logic and holds no place in science.

Date: 2009/11/05 15:19:52, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,13:17)

Quote
Quote
WHICH IS THE POINT!

I think the two points are that:

(1)  Very specific, empirically observable ID falsifiers have been presented by G and R.  You don't accept them, but you are unable to refute them either.


No they haven't as I've now demonstrated 3 times and argued against an addional 2 times.

Quote
(2)  You haven't read the book The Privileged Planet.


Irrelevant to the point that the fine-tuned argument is invalid.

Date: 2009/11/06 12:59:57, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 06 2009,11:55)

Quote
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 06 2009,11:49)
I'm waiting with bated breath for the day when someone, anyone (Bueller?) over there actually provides some data about the moral behavior of the religious vs. the non-religious.  If it's so freaking obvious that belief in goofy superstition is the basis of morality, you'd think it would be pretty easy to back up with evidence.

Haven't you heard? "Hitler was an atheist darwinist, and so was Stalin, and atheism made Klebold and Harris shoot their classmates at Columbine, and materialists see no reason not to sample the choice flesh of 13 year old girls, QED."


Hee hee...Nothing like selective observation for finding support for one's biased beliefs...

Just a comment on the whole "how do materialsts respond to being right and Polanski's defenders being wrong" schtick. I've oft wanted to respond to the conservative folk who post such question begging questions. My instant response is: the problem you are having is one of your own making - it's not that the answers to such questions are difficult for materialists, it's that the questions you keep asking with regard to your premise aren't the right questions. You presume there is something called "morality" and ask the question from that perspective. I don't so I have no way to answer from that perspective. For me the question that you ought to be asking is, "how do you evaluate what Polanski did in terms of right and wrong" and I would answer, "I don't think of it as right or wrong, I think of it in terms of the behavior's effect on people and society."

The fact is, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" as far as I can tell in any actual sense. I certainly use such words in polite, familar company, but in the company of strangers I make sure to note my perspective up front. I use the terms "right" and "wrong" in the same way I use the terms "hot" and "cold"; they are terms to describe relative points along representative scale. Like temperature, there is no actual, absolute point which we call "hot" - rather "hot" is relative to some other chosen temperature. And as with temperature, different people have different threshholds of relative comfort - some folks like temperature ranges between 50 -60 degrees F and say that anything above that is "hot" and temperatures below that are "cold", while others prefer temperatures in the 70-80 degree F range. It's all relative.

Given the above, determining whether my or other folks' views on condemning vs supporting Polanski are "right" or "wrong" is meaningless. As far as I can tell, the only issue to determine is what impact Polanski's alleged behavior has on society and what to do based on that assessment. From my perspective on the way our society is structured, a fair emphasis needs to be placed on the perception of safety, particularly in terms of expected behavior between adults and those people we've decided are 'not-yet-adults'. As such, the type of behavior Polanski allegedly engaged in should be labeled "unacceptable". Period. Punishment or recompense for being convicted of such behavior I leave up to other people.

Given the above perspective, the Polanski case becomes one of an evaluation  where this behavior falls on the effect on society scale.

Date: 2009/11/06 14:02:56, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 06 2009,13:04)

Quote
Assuming descriptions of the Polanski incident are not bullshit, only a moron would not see it as child rape.

Of course the descriptions could be bullshit.


Gotta agree with that assessment. But as a creationist buddy of mine is fond saying (in strawman mock of the notion that morals are relative): not that there's anything wrong with that...

...well, unless one evaluates the impact on society and notes that yeah...there is something relatively "wrong" with it - it diminishes the perception of safety in general and trust in the protection and strength of the society, thus weakening the fabric of society overall. Hence the reason we as society say it is unacceptable and send folks that engage in such off to the stockade.

Date: 2009/12/09 09:22:45, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2009,18:30)

Quote
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 07 2009,19:23)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
   
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

     
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

If all plants are the same kind, then, I'm afraid, marsupials, wolfs, dinosaurs, octopi, and probably sponges all belong to one kind, too.


Too limiting. Clearly everything is one "kind" except humans. We are another "kind", though as the bible shows we are, at least in God's eyes, anything but kind. And God is clearly still another "kind" and got a bit kinder as over the course of the bible...

Date: 2009/12/09 14:41:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 09 2009,14:33)

Quote
These guys need to go back to kindergarten


You think they'd get more out it the second time around?

Date: 2009/12/10 08:54:39, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 10 2009,04:08)

Quote
He prepared some selected quotes from each of them into a document. Then, pretending to be a representative of a public relations outfit, he arranged for a separate meeting with a group of people from either of the parties youth organizations. He carefully choose attire typical of the party group he would be addressing, carrying a folder with the party's logo clearly visible. His aim was to appear as a bona fide representative of the party group he would be addressing, doing his best to assume the air of authority his role required. The charade was made complete by setting up the meeting with tv cameras and making everything appear like a serious affair. He presenting himself and explained that his agency had been asked to make a write-up of some pertinent points from the party program that he was going to read for them. They were asked to listen carefully and determine whether they found the statements conformant with, and proper expressions of the party’s program.


I believe John Stuart just did something similar (albeit without trying to represent himself to both sides) by taking Obama's Afganistan war speech and matching it up with Bush's Iraq war speech. Creepily similar - as in just about identical.

Date: 2009/12/10 08:56:36, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 10 2009,05:58)

Quote
For Ray Comfort fans.  Make it last up to two weeks.

Caution.  Requires English money.  Or a credit card.


Oh for Pete's sake...don't they believe in banana bread in England?

Date: 2009/12/11 07:49:56, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 10 2009,14:54)

Quote
Robin: he calls himself Jon Stewart. I had no idea who you meant for a second there. :-)


D'oh! Well I feel sheepish...

Thanks for the correction.  :)

Date: 2009/12/11 09:05:04, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 10 2009,15:16)

Quote
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:31)
Since I had numerous responses I’m going to try to respond to as much as I can by posting a series of replies. I apologize in advance if you feel this is too much at once, but I figured it is the best way to address everyone’s (more or less) comments.

Evolutionary / Darwinian species  
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species


I think this most accurately defines what I mean by species. Additionally, species for me includes organisms that are asexual (bacteria for example), able to sexually reproduce, and no longer living (found in the fossil record).
Groovy. Now, what the heck is a 'kind'? I ask because now that you agree with real scientists that evolution can indeed produce new species, your 'reasons' for rejecting evolution appear to have been reduced to yeah, but that's just new species and not new kinds, so I really want to know what, exactly, this 'kind'-thingie decently is. Because if you can't tell what 'kind' a critter is, complaining that evolution can't produce new 'kind's is exactly as meaningless as complaining that evolution can't produce new 'zibbleblorf's. Okay?


Um...not really, no. Seems Inquiry is not quite on the same page as Wiki or scientists on what a species is:

Quote
The question I have is how do we go from species that are modified in some way (flies with differences in wing size, etc.), to a completely new species? (fish to amphibian, reptiles to mammals). JLT mentioned the possibility of two separate species coming about by the separation of a population that could eventually lead to an inability to reproduce (due to the genetic changes from the differing environments), hence two separate species.


Seems Inquiry isn't aware that there are many species of fruit flies within the family Drosophiladae and in turn there are many families of flies within the order Diptera and in turn there are many orders of insects within the class insecta and so on.

So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

Date: 2009/12/11 09:23:35, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=phantom menace,Dec. 10 2009,23:07][/quote]
Quote
Hey folks, just thought I would drop in on this conversation and add a few observations.

1) I noticed several refernces to natural law in relation to the origin of biological diversity, but I didn't see an account given of natural law itself from what appears to be some unexamined materialist assumptions. Anyone care to explain why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos? And by explain, I mean give us your empirical observations since that seems to be the only grounds for knowledge you guys consider valid.


Before I can answer this I need some additional information. For starters, why do you presume that there must be one or the other? In other words, what other universes have you seen or what evidence have you seen that leads you to conclude that there could be an alternative to this universe having laws? Why do you presume that there's a possibility that this universe could have been "just chaos?"

Quote
2) It would seem to me that the issue of isolated populations is an example of devolution and not evolution. In fact it is becoming quite clear that genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena much better than natural selection, beneficial mutations, etc. Since negative mutations far exceed positive mutations (assuming that there are some actual net-positive mutations) it is no wonder that organisims can actually lose functionality when isolated.


I need further information on this claim too. For starters, what do you mean by "devolution" as opposed to "evolution"? I mean, evolution - that is the process - doesn't describe a specific direction of change. It merely describes change. So gaining light sensitive organs and the ability to use light sensing as a means to make decisions about the environment vs losing light sensitive organs are both the result of evolution at least as far as the ToE goes.

Secondly, can you elaborate on what you mean by "genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena"? I can't find any need for a reference to entropy for the phenomenon of loss of functionality in isolated organism populations.

Quote
3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes. Don't worry though, Darwin's definition is just an assumption that he made and has no biological necessity to it. If we assume the process of evolution in defining a species then of course evolution has "produced" new species. What I would like to know is if your opponents can define a species apart from an evolutionary assumption?


Um...sure:

Species - American Heritage® Dictionary
NOUN: 1. Biology a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy. b. An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

Doesn't require an understanding of evolution at all. Does require an understanding of scientific taxonomy though.

Date: 2009/12/11 10:19:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.


So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?


There is abundant evidence to support macroevolution as provided - phylogenic evidence, historic evidence, molecular evidence, functional evidence, etc. Macroevolution isn't a separate process - it is merely an accumulation of microevolutionary events.

But then your question doesn't follow your preceding statements where you only mentioned "evolution" vs "kind", never defining "evolution", "kind", or "speciation". This was particularly confusing since you insisted that the development of new species of fly wasn't speciation, when in fact that is, by definition, an example of speciation and evolution - both micro and macro. So you seem not to understand the nature of the claims you are making.

Date: 2009/12/16 12:15:58, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=phantom menace,Dec. 15 2009,20:13][/quote]
Quote
Quote
So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation?


Their consistency, rationality, force, etc.


Already been done. See descriptions of Boyle's Law, E=MC^2, Laws of Thermodynamics. Quite lengthy explanations actually.

Quote
Why is there order when there should be disorder?


Two things come to mind here: 1) you are presuming there is order by definition, but you haven't actually explained what "order" is as opposed to disorder from a universe perspective. 2) You still haven't provided any evidence that there's a reason to think that universes could be any other way than the way this one is.

Quote
Just think thermodynamics - something within physics itself is working to burn this universe out, what started it up?


Inaccurate premise. There is nothing "in physics" period. Physics is an area of study, not a object. What I suspect you mean is that there is a property in the universe - in nature - burning things out. In any event, what evidence do you have that the properties of this universe could or should behave any other way?

Quote
Why are natural laws rational?


They aren't - natural laws don't think and aren't intelligent. Perhaps you meant to ask why natural laws induce organized processes. In which case I'd answer, because that's part of the definition of the term "law"

Quote
Why do you have a mind that grasps them
Why can you count? Etc.


We have a mind that can grasp laws because such a capability is an advantage to us. Ditto for counting.

Quote
It would seem to me that science PRESUPPOSES a rational universe, one that can be understood.


Well you'd be incorrect. Science doesn't presuppose a rational universe - science merely notes the parameters of the universe that have been discovered thus far. When someone shows that there are elements to the universe that do not behave in accordance to a repeatable process, science will take note of that instead.

Quote
That is precisely why science arose in a Christian worldview as opposed to a Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc. worldview. Early scientist believed in the order of the universe because they believed it was created by a rational God who ordered.


Perhaps, but such is merely question begging, not science.

Date: 2009/12/23 07:53:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 23 2009,07:25)

[quote]You say this is a "lie", Quack.  But you didn't give any reason why that's so.  Tell me why it's a lie?[/quack]

Funny, but I can't find where Quack said this was a lie. Can you point that out FL?

Date: 2009/12/23 07:55:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 23 2009,07:53)
[/quote]
[quote=FloydLee,Dec. 23 2009,07:25]

Quote
You say this is a "lie", Quack.  But you didn't give any reason why that's so.  Tell me why it's a lie?


Funny, but I can't find where Quack said this was a lie. Can you point that out FL?

Date: 2009/12/23 08:12:04, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 23 2009,07:55)

Quote

Funny, but I can't find where Quack said this was a lie. Can you point that out FL?


Ahhh...nevermind. Found it over on the geology thread. Why you didn't post your question there is beyond me, FL, but whatever. Have at it.

Date: 2009/12/23 13:54:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 23 2009,13:33)

Quote
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 23 2009,10:30)
   
Quote (ppb @ Dec. 23 2009,07:57)
 No, that whole "Paul is dead" thing is just a rumor.

Yeah, In fact Paul outlived John, and George.

Hmm... Paul and Ringo... bass and drums... Entwhistle and Moon are gone... whaddaya think? Peter, Paul, Roger, and Ringo? Could work...


I don't know...both Pete and Paul would want to lead. Some bad juju there...

Date: 2009/12/24 12:38:30, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 24 2009,10:50)

Quote
As long as they didn't have FCSI, it's OK with me.


Fellow of the Canadian Securities Institute? I didn't think chimps could get such a certification.

Date: 2010/01/15 14:44:00, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Albatrossity2,Jan. 15 2010,13:51][/quote]
 
Quote
The doctor just signed my parole papers, so I can walk the streets again. Thanks for all your good wishes and uplifting attitudes!


Congrats on the recovery and welcome back to the land of the living. We've been waiting:



Date: 2010/01/15 14:45:15, Link
Author: Robin
Darn...not sure why I can't post the pic. Here's the link instead:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GU66E0....ces.jpg

Date: 2010/01/20 09:11:54, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 19 2010,21:48)

Quote
Somebody should give them a list of the currently accepted theories that basically threw out the previous instinctive opinion(s) on something: round earth (it sort of looks flat), moons of Jupiter (they aren't stars), heliocentrism (we're not well centered), lightning rods (it wasn't Thor or Zeus after all), atomic theory (matter isn't continuous), germ theory (critters too small to see), big bang theory (un-steady state), plate tectonics (did the earth move?), photoelectric effect (energy isn't continuous, either), special relativity (time and space interdependent), general relativity (gravity from curvature of space-time), quantum mechanics (particles have wave-like properties; it leaves me wondering if space isn't continuous, either), biological evolution (species ain't constant after all, and unrelated species wouldn't fit in the same nested heirarchy as everything else), etc.

Henry


Umm...question from historical perspectives/physics ignorance. What does 'matter isn't continuous'/'energy isn't continuous'/etc mean? I'm not aware of the perspective and can't construct the two opposing concepts.

Date: 2010/01/20 15:26:28, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 20 2010,12:59)

Quote
Robin,
Quote
What does 'matter isn't continuous'/'energy isn't continuous'/etc mean?


Matter is made of atoms (hence the phrase "atomic theory" in my earlier note), with space between them - i.e., not continuous as I assume it was previously thought. (On a side note, the writers of movies like "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" apparently still believes that matter is continuous, since the stuff in that movie would not work if matter is made of atoms.)

Energy, at least electromagnetic energy, is contained in individual photons, so energy transfers by this means is discrete rather than continuous.

Henry


Ahhh! Ok. I got it. Thank you Henry.

Date: 2010/01/21 15:42:16, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 21 2010,15:27)

Quote
UD has these in it's adbox again:

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

Magic. That must get on their tits.


I love those! Got to get me one.

I confess I must be having a slow day though - there's one on there I don't get. The two old men, one bending over a water fountain (or bubbler for those of you still living up nort in the 1970s) and the two little babies. Don't know what controversy that is supposed to represent.

Date: 2010/01/22 08:48:12, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 21 2010,15:49)

Quote
Dr. GH
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 21 2010,13:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 21 2010,15:27)

 
Quote
UD has these in it's adbox again:

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

Magic. That must get on their tits.


I love those! Got to get me one.

I confess I must be having a slow day though - there's one on there I don't get. The two old men, one bending over a water fountain (or bubbler for those of you still living up nort in the 1970s) and the two little babies. Don't know what controversy that is supposed to represent.

fountain of youth


Ahhh...but of course. Thanks Dr. GH!

Date: 2010/01/29 15:52:00, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:26)

[/quote]
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 29 2010,09:17)
[/quote]
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 29 2010,09:06)
It took a negavite mutation, like sickle cell anemia to provide some measure of defence.

What could a "positive" mutation have done then? What is a negative mutation and how do you determine if a given mutation is negative or positive? Can a negative mutation be a positive mutation really, depending on the environment?

Overall, if more people survive infection by malaria because of this "negative" mutation in what way is it negative (ignoring obviously the human suffering aspect of SSA)?

Survival rates increase. Deaths from malaria decrease. You call that "negative"?

Ut-Well it seems to be a trade off between one bad situation for another bad situation. SSA just kills you much more slowly. It also make  you much weaker. Do you see this as a net benefit?

Cheers,
Ut

I got to get back to my day job.... :) I'll check back in tonight....


Hmmm...perhaps an analogy will provide a different framework to evaluate the concept of 'positive' vs 'negative' mutation.

There are a very large number of folk in the US with End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD). The specific statistics for ESRD are not pertinent to this analogy, but I'll be happy to provide them if you wish. At any rate, lots - in the 300,000-400,000 person range - in the US with ESRD. ESRD used to be an automatic cause of death; No functioning kidneys = not long to live. Dialysis, a mechanical process that takes the blood out and takes out many of the impurities (but not all) was developed and people no longer died immediately* from ESRD. However, they were extremely tired due to the chemical effects of the dialysate used to filter the blood and over time doctors discovered that dialysis lead to heart failure in many, if not most, patients due to stress. Now, it was still used - those with ESRD didn't die immediately, so it was better than nothing.

Even the transplantation we have today has fairly severe drawbacks. The drugs one takes for immuno-suppression, which is required to prevent the body from rejecting the foreign organ, happen to be nephrotoxic - that means 'kidney damaging' to the layman.

The point is, while certainly the best solution from our perspective to issues that result in death would be one that has no downsides, that isn't always feasible or the first thing discovered. When faced with the alternative of issue with death vs ehhh solution with not so hot side-effects, most times the latter is preferencial since it buys some time to do a few more things. And what you need to keep in mind is that evolution *does not have the foresight* that humans do. It doesn't 'know' about the concept of death or even illness or inconvenience. The only thing propelling it along is survival. So, if someone lives longer with SSA than with malaria, those folks - and here's the crux of evolution - [/i]have a better chance[/i] of producing offspring who will survive than those who do not have SSA in a malaria area.

So is SSA a 'negative' mutation? Not by my standards.

Date: 2010/02/03 12:12:45, Link
Author: Robin
Must be close to bird mating and nesting time here on the east coast of the US. Had the most spectacular display from a female Cooper's Hawk two days ago - at our sliding glass window! The bird puffed up and starting screaming - I thought at us because my wife and I were just getting up from breakfast and the door is right next to our kitchen table - but after watching for a bit it became evident she couldn't see us - or at least not well - because of the sun's angle on the window. All I can think is that she saw her reflection and was doing a territorial display, but I'm not positive. I'll have to look it up. At any rate, it was the most amazing sight I've seen in quite awhile. I've never been that close - maybe 3 feet - from a wild Cooper's. My wife was so stunned, she completely forgot she had her iPhone in her hand and could have taken a pic. (sigh)

Date: 2010/02/12 14:11:04, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Joy,Feb. 12 2010,13:03][/quote]
Quote
Mazur is no slouch herself,


Oh don't sell her so short; she's a a huge slouch.  'bout as effective in making ID and creationism look silly as Dembski in fact. Her piece on the Altenberg 16 was about as disjointed and uninformative as the current ramblings of Charles Manson. Well ok...and Manson's earlier ramblings.

Quote
Perhaps you don't consider Animal House tactics engaged by a scientific industry of greed and oversized egos to amount to dissent.


Two problems here: 1) by definition Animal House tactics engaged in by any group is NOT by definition, dissent. I'm not even sure why you'd think otherwise. 2) What dissent? Mazur doesn't provide any evidence or even actual anecdotes on such. She provides random quotes from (mostly) a group of philosophers of science from a fairly obscure workgroup. How does this represent dissent in the WHOLE of the scientific (or even just biology for that matter) community?

Quote
And maybe you don't consider scientific revolutions to be the least bit revolutionary.


Well, the term revolution used by scientific news reporting outlets merely refers to some breakthrough or new understanding, not an actual overturning of some major theory. Go ahead - read the actual articles you referenced. I'll wait. Find a reference to an actual - complete - Scientific Theory Revolution? I didn't think so.

Quote
But some other scientists obviously don't agree. It all looks like a good knock-down drag-out to me, and I've got plenty of popcorn. §;o)


Well, so long as you're entertained I suppose it doesn't much matter whether your undestanding of the entertainment is accurate or not. Enjoy.

Date: 2010/03/01 14:44:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (REC @ Mar. 01 2010,14:03)

Quote
O'Leary on Polyandry:

Words can't describe the dumb....

Quote
Most human cultures think marriage should be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

But very, very few human cultures have EVER thought that marriage should be Adam, Louie, Luigi, Sig, Syed, and … (organ music) Here comes the bride, here comes the bride!! … one little Eve for all of them.

Try selling that in the locker room … so long as you do not share a health insurer with me.

Most guys still want their own Eve, in the end.


Of course, she doesn't read the paper, on Drosophila species, which doesn't include the word human, vertebrate, etc. etc.  Fuck.


Drosophila aside, I thought most men wanted there own Eve, Yvette, Arlene, Bunny, Babs, Kristine, etc...

Date: 2010/03/04 15:34:45, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 02 2010,11:31)

Quote
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 29 2010,19:52)
There is now a Creation Letter Project in opposition to the Clergy Letter Project.

They're not doing badly. In two months they've had 11,000 visitors and 43 clergy signatures. :p


Late to the game on this, but I just saw FL's comment on the subject.

Seems to me that since the Creationist Letter Project is allowing just any ol' Tom, Dick, or Apologist sign on, perhaps there should be a simple Evolutionary Theory Letter Project on which anyone who affirms an understanding of evolutionary theory and process and can sign. It would be interesting to see just how many people would.

Date: 2010/03/05 07:46:41, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 05 2010,00:54)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 05 2010,06:34)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 02 2010,11:31)

 
Quote
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 29 2010,19:52)
There is now a Creation Letter Project in opposition to the Clergy Letter Project.

They're not doing badly. In two months they've had 11,000 visitors and 43 clergy signatures. :p


Late to the game on this, but I just saw FL's comment on the subject.

Seems to me that since the Creationist Letter Project is allowing just any ol' Tom, Dick, or Apologist sign on, perhaps there should be a simple Evolutionary Theory Letter Project on which anyone who affirms an understanding of evolutionary theory and process and can sign. It would be interesting to see just how many people would.

There is a facebook page trying to get 1000000 members by June


Excellent! I will take a looksy for that.

Date: 2010/03/05 12:36:16, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 05 2010,00:42)

Quote
R Byers: To prohibit by law this discussions is illegal.


Ironic POTW? You make the call.

Date: 2010/03/09 12:40:17, Link
Author: Robin
I. Am. Just. Dumb. Founded!

How can anyone who thinks the way this Vox guy does interact in actual society? How is it possible for someone like that to actually survive? How is it he is not constantly moving from community to community as he's run out of them by everyone he encounters?

I am just in...shock.

That is a whole new level of Tard I could never have fathomed...

Date: 2010/03/10 08:30:57, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 09 2010,15:54)

Quote
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands...


e.i.?

Date: 2010/03/11 10:34:46, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:39)

Quote
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
   
Quote
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.

Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?


At this point I'm now on the edge of my seat waiting in anticipation for an explanation of what else "Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it." could possibly have meant other than, 'writing planetary nebula(e) would have been correct while writing hydrogen cloud was wrong.' Oh...the agony of anticipation!

Date: 2010/03/11 10:57:01, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:13)
.

Quote
Quote
Planetary nebulae do seed heavier elements to molecular clouds, but that in no way disproves the claim that solar systems from out of molecular clouds.


You said HYDROGEN CLOUD you lying asshole


Umm Joe/IDGuy...I hate to burst your superior intellect and 100-physics-paper-reading bubble, but "hydrogen cloud isl legitimate casual conversation shorthand in astronomy for "Molecular Cloud" which in turn is routinely used to describe the conditions of a nebular hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._System

"The formation and evolution of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.55 to 4.56 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud."

Molecular Cloud:
"A molecular cloud, sometimes called a stellar nursery if star formation is occurring within, is a type of interstellar cloud whose density and size permits the formation of molecules, most commonly molecular hydrogen (H2)."

Last time I checked, Telic Thoughts didn't rank as any kind of actual scientific peer reviewed forum, so who cares what term Oleg used since they all present the same basic concept well enough for laymen and amateur astronomers.

Date: 2010/03/11 11:48:46, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:35)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 11 2010,10:34)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,08:39)

 
Quote
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:35)
Also there isn't anything in that which says you should have said planetary nebula instead of hydrogen cloud.

Of course there is, Joe.  Let me help you one more time.  Let's zoom in on this sentence:
     
Quote
Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it.

Can you read and comprehend that sentence?  Would you like to explain what else you might have meant when you wrote it?


At this point I'm now on the edge of my seat waiting in anticipation for an explanation of what else "Had he said "planetary nebula" as opposed to "hydrogen cloud" I never would have said anything about it." could possibly have meant other than, 'writing planetary nebula(e) would have been correct while writing hydrogen cloud was wrong.' Oh...the agony of anticipation!

Gee robin I have already explained it.

Do I have to spoon feed you too?


Clearly yes, since you seem to be the only person who thinks you've explained anything. I don't see any other way of interpreting that sentence, but please...feel free to enlighten me and any one else hereon that's asked.

Date: 2010/03/11 11:53:08, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:58)

Quote
But Robin, Joe is a professional astronomer!  He knows his planetary nebulae and he has read more than a hundred papers on the formation of planetary systems!


Silly me. I thought he was a professional astologer. ;)

Date: 2010/03/16 10:09:55, Link
Author: Robin
Good gravy! Apparently there's the possibility that Texas could in fact get some folks' New Reality into the curricula.  Yahoo! article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253.

Date: 2010/03/16 12:28:09, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=carlsonjok,Mar. 16 2010,11:58][/quote]
Quote



HA HA THIS IS YOU



HEY! I know where that pic was shot! It's a place called Spier in South Africa. There's a vineyard there as well as a raptor and Cheetah rehab center (don't remember the connection - oops...that SB 'connexion' since I'm referring to SA). You can do the whole pet the cheetah/pet the cheetah cub thing there and occasionally they get a bit frisky.

'Nice kitty...down kitty...hey that's my arm!' Brings a whole new meaning to I can haz cheeseburger...

Date: 2010/03/16 12:48:48, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=N.Wells,Mar. 16 2010,10:40][/quote]
Quote
A precious nugget of high-grade ore from Salvador, in the same thread:            
Quote
If we presume that all life descended from a single species and diversified, how can we logically argue that diversification happens through a process of removing diversification!
This of course explains why removal of diversity from Masai tribesman in Africa so that they all pretty much look the same* (tall & thin) and removal of diversity from Eskimos so that they all look rather alike* (e.g. Edmonton Eskimos sorry make that not tall & thin) means that humans are all
exactly identical.  

(*slight exaggeration for effect: no offense intended)

Heaven only knows what would happen if environments and mating preferences weren't uniform worldwide.


I read through Sal's post and for the life of me I can't figure out on what basis he claims that evolution states that 'lack of diversity =fitness'. Is there a history to Sal's nugget or did he just drop the thing from his pants as is?

Date: 2010/03/16 14:52:38, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 16 2010,13:02)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 16 2010,12:28)
HEY! I know where that pic was shot! It's a place called Spier in South Africa. There's a vineyard there as well as a raptor and Cheetah rehab center (don't remember the connection - oops...that SB 'connexion' since I'm referring to SA). You can do the whole pet the cheetah/pet the cheetah cub thing there and occasionally they get a bit frisky.

But that's a leopard in the picture, I believe. Do they have leopard cubs there as well?


I noticed that when I saw the pic. There were no leopard cups when I was last there, but they do have a number of paddocks, so it's conceivable they were rehabbing one for one of the game parks or some such. I could also be wrong that the pic comes from Spier, but the petting cell for the cheetah cubs I was in had the exact same wall art. Seems a bit too coincidental, but maybe there's something to that pattern that's more common than I know.

Date: 2010/03/16 14:58:41, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 16 2010,13:00)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 16 2010,12:48)
I read through Sal's post and for the life of me I can't figure out on what basis he claims that evolution states that 'lack of diversity =fitness'. Is there a history to Sal's nugget or did he just drop the thing from his pants as is?

I think, and I hesitate to apply that verb to slimy sal, that this comes from the old "natural selection just eliminates stuff" canard.


Oh. Silly me. But of course.

Date: 2010/03/16 15:02:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,14:38)

[QUOTE]
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 16 2010,13:57)
Heh heh, well spotted hrun0815.
PaulN:      
Quote
I’m going to be Frank, are you being a troll on purpose?

hrun:      
Quote
Hi Frank.(...)

A True Sense Of Humor at UD??? ... I fear the bannination button will soon get some use.  As all UD posters know, shirley there is nothing funny about ID, dammit![QUOTE]

Dr Dr Shirley? That explains a lot...

Date: 2010/03/18 11:40:11, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,23:12)

Quote
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 17 2010,20:03)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,20:48)
I'd cover that Girl with ...

This is really Bathroom Wall material.



You'd cover her with stuff they make bathroom walls out of? Plaster? Or are you talking tiles, here? :p

As I recall, the end of the line was "chocolate syrup."

Well, I am in fact re-doing the bathroom.

It must be one of those subliminal whatchumacalits.


Sounds like a Freudian Coat of Paint...

Date: 2010/03/19 14:26:38, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (rossum @ Mar. 19 2010,12:41)

 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 19 2010,04:00)
In addition, an example of the Explanatory Filter in action would be great.

Been there, done that, got the link: God and the Explanatory Filter.

rossum


*chuckles. That's pretty good.

It does bring a question to my mind though. In speaking of information for objects in the world, there's an issue I'm not sure is addressed, or if it is I've not seen an elaboration.

When I read or hear discussions on information associated with objects, I tend to hear or read someone refer to the information being within the structure - usually as in, "X contains some about of information". Is this correct conceptually? In other words, does an object contain information, reflect[/] or [i]project information, or both?

What I'm getting at is (as an example) conceptualizing information and DNA. My inclination is that DNA is information as opposed to DNA being like a hard drive or a book that stores or contains information, but this is by no means my area of expertise so I really have no idea.

Of course, that then takes me to another question. Even if we say that a book contains information, clearly the book itself - that is the structure of cover, pages, binding, etc...is some amount of information as well, yes?

Sorry for the serious question on a Friday. Feel free to drink beers instead.   ;)

Date: 2010/03/19 15:11:09, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=midwifetoad,Mar. 19 2010,14:33]
Quote
Of course, information is never actually defined by anyone arguing against evolution.


Ironically, that may well be my problem as well. Not that I'm a creationist.

Perhaps I should say that i don't really understand the definition of information in anything but a casual way. That may well be the root cause of my conceptual vacuum right there!  :D

Date: 2010/03/26 09:56:54, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 25 2010,17:22)

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 25 2010,17:22)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 25 2010,22:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2010,15:02)
Speaking of looking to fit perfectly into a sock of some sort:

cdanner!

Where are you?

Having established to his satisfaction that we are teh big meanys, I suspect he's done.

Surely he has established that we are big meanies and that he is very concerned about it. Oh, and that it is very mean of us meanies to point out that his concern is meaningless.

;-)

Louis





Meanie evolutionists

Date: 2010/03/29 08:26:30, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 26 2010,14:25)

Quote
Bill didn't win. again.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/religio....eligion


I don't get it. Dr. Dr. comes so close to getting it and then just veers off the road:

Quote
“If they are properly understood,” he said, “they cannot be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters.”

I don’t believe this, and Ayala, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, should know better.  Science is about finding out how the physical world works. The only way in which science and religion can “concern different matters” is if religion has absolutely nothing to do with the physical world occupied by its believers.


Umm...Earth to Dembski - you just noted (correctly) that science is about finding out how the physical world works. Unless religion is also about finding out how the physical world works (and last time I checked, it isn't) there can't be any contradiction. How could you miss this?

Date: 2010/03/29 15:31:44, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 29 2010,14:33)

Quote
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 29 2010,14:29)
StephenB is a tard:
 
Quote
In truth, theology is the noblest of disciplines, followed by philosophy, followed by science. There is more truth to be found in the former than in the latter.

Perhaps I am too much an engineer, but I have always thought of philosophy as essentially navel-gazing with a large vocabulary. Theology is that much worse because it is gazing at a god-shaped void in your navel.


Small quibble - philosophy allows for some a great mental exercizes that broaden and strengthen thinking in general. It provides a structure for exploring non-obvious and sometimes non-common sense avenues in our understanding of the world. The problem as I see it occurs when people (particularly philosophers) take it too seriously and begin to think the exercises and models more real and foundational than the training the expercises provide and concepts that are being modeled.

It is navel gazing with a large vocabulary, but in many cases that navel gazing can provide a method for discerning much about this universe.

Date: 2010/03/30 09:14:17, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 28 2010,18:30)

Quote
In the continuing tribute to Judus, from the Rock Opera, Jesus Christ Superstar here is Judus in the opening scene...

Link

EDIT - here is the Last Supper scene


Man...I still love that opening number.

Date: 2010/03/30 12:06:52, Link
Author: Robin
Making me thirsty here...

Date: 2010/03/30 12:11:33, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,12:03)

Quote
Old Speckled Hen should only be drunk from a bottle in an emergency.


Louis


Fortunately we have a lovely little "pub" here near me that gets it on tap. I quite enjoy, and would right now more so...

Date: 2010/03/30 12:29:37, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,12:16)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 30 2010,17:11)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,12:03)

 
Quote
Old Speckled Hen should only be drunk from a bottle in an emergency.


Louis


Fortunately we have a lovely little "pub" here near me that gets it on tap. I quite enjoy, and would right now more so...

Draught is ok. Bottles always seem to me, and de gustibus non est disputandum, to be lack a certain something.

Louis


I agree.

I have always wondered about the chemistry in this. Why are kegs and casks so much better for beer (it seems) than bottling? Is it volume related? Do they have to use a slightly different recipe for bottling?  Never quite understood that.

Date: 2010/03/30 13:17:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Wolfhound @ Mar. 30 2010,12:59)

Quote
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,11:15)
Obviously "bitch" is fine to use when referring to women. Especially if you are a rapper, when it's positively sexually alluring.

People who belong to a particular subset are also given free license to use the derogatory terms, too.  That's why it's okay for me to bandy about "bitch", "twat", etc.  And it's socially acceptable for you and a few others to call each other "homo" and suchlike.


Well it's certainly ok for Louis to use the term since he belongs to said particular subset (as you say) and everyone knows he's kidding* and worries too much***. The rest of us penis owners are left without I'm afraid; Old Bald Farts really hasn't caught on.

Date: 2010/03/30 14:18:04, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,13:30)

Quote
For kegs I'm going to go with vanillin. Anything in wood is going to have more vanillin and similar wood products in it, and thus be a much more "rounded" flavour.

If we ignore contributions to flavour from the "packaging" beer in presurised kegs (metal)/unpressurised casks (wood) will have advantages over bottled beer in (at least) three ways:

1) It is in the dark and therefore unlikely to be lightstruck. If memory serves the Hen bottles are clear glass and thus offer little protection from (UV) light. Also IIRC Hen is a "bitter" bitter, thus has lots of lovely isohumulones to turn into skunky thiols.

2) Aeration and oxygen. The method by which these things are poured aerates them, perhaps allowing for some oxidation of various compounds (not checked the GC profiles of various beers, so cannot comment accurately) and certainly for the formation of bubbles. Everyone knows bubbles make thing taste good! Taste a beer poured through a sparkler as opposed to a flat, open nozzle. It makes a difference.

3) Freshness. The turnaround of keg beer is usually pretty damn fast. Bottles can linger longer.

I have no idea about different recipes for bottles vs kegs, but the above are sufficient to produce big changes in taste.

HTH

Louis


Ahhhh! Much abliged! That all makes sense. Now I really want a draught!

Date: 2010/04/01 14:11:39, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2010,06:33)

Quote
Joe @ TT:
Quote
IOW if scales, fins and gills are part of what defines fish, and fish are allegedly our ancestors, we should have them.

Link.

ROFL.


I just can't read more than a few lines from Joe without going into a coma. He's got to be a Poe...has to be. You just can't be this type of ignorant for real.

Date: 2010/04/01 14:15:43, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (ReligionProf @ April 01 2010,12:52)

Quote
<a href="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/04/creationist-restaurant-shut-down.htmlCreationist" target="_blank">http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2010.......ut Down

(an attemt at April Fool's Day humor, which seemed just barely appropriate under the "comestibles" heading)


That's a goody! Thanks for the chuckle!

Date: 2010/04/07 14:24:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 03 2010,15:12)

Quote
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,15:36)
As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.

Ok. It would follow that the size of a statue also includes its height and weight.

So, how much taller would plaster David have to be than original David to be the same size as original David?


Seems to me that Joe is saying that a plaster cast David could never be the same size as a marble David.

Date: 2010/04/08 11:29:40, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Louis,April 07 2010,15:45][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ April 07 2010,19:24Seems to me that Joe is saying that a plaster cast David could [i)
never[/i] be the same size as a marble David.


I'd go further. Unless comparing two objects of identical dimensions, temperatures, compositions, densities and positions in spacetime (relativistic distortions count, ya'll) no two objects in the entire universe are the same size.


Yep...that seems to follow. Odd, but that's what he seems to be implying.

Quote
Take that evolutionists.

I propose an experiment that Joe will enjoy. Joe bends over and jams objects up his arse and tells us if they are the same size. I propose the first two objects are a 1 kilogram block of osmium and a 1 kilogram black of splintery balsa wood. I'm guessing Joe will rapidly detect the differences in size.

Louis



Oh he'll just call you a bunch of names, Louis, and then point out that since balsa has a different texture than the osmium, they can't possibly be the same size. Take that!  ;)

Date: 2010/04/09 10:45:33, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=fnxtr,April 05 2010,11:42][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 05 2010,05:30)
 
Quote (FrankH @ April 05 2010,07:59)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2010,06:34)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ April 04 2010,22:53)
I see my point holding up either way.
In other words, there's nothing anyone can say that will change your alleged mind.

Thanks for making that even more clear than it was before.

Too bad the ID/YEC crowd is not populated with young ladies who could contort their bodies as well as they can their minds.

Ah, the pleasing mental picture that makes.

But, given what lurks in their brains, would you really want to get close enough to their bodies to *ahem* admire them?  I'm sure that viewing them from afar might give you a false sense of security but who really knows the actual distance needed to safely avoid infection?  I'm pretty sure their mind virus is airborne.  *Brrrrrr*

Yeah, in my unfortunate experience, some of the finest vessels can have some of the vilest contents. Oh, well.  Book/judge/cover.


Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)

Date: 2010/04/09 14:03:26, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 09 2010,10:51)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,11:45)
Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)

S'okay, Robin, I'm certain that somebody here will pick up the slack.

*Paging Louis!  Louis, report to the "Can You Do Geology" thread for a dirty-up!


Heh! Thanks for moving this right along, Wolfhound!  :D

Date: 2010/04/12 08:28:35, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ April 09 2010,15:04)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,19:03)
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 09 2010,10:51)

 
Quote
 
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,11:45)
Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)

S'okay, Robin, I'm certain that somebody here will pick up the slack.

*Paging Louis!  Louis, report to the "Can You Do Geology" thread for a dirty-up!


Heh! Thanks for moving this right along, Wolfhound!  :D

I just don't get the joke. I think that there is no correlation between human female pulchritude and intellect, or at least none that I am aware of.

Maybe I'm just not as dirty as you people.

{Haughty sniff}

Louis

P.S. ;-)


I confess my thought went completely to the gutter. Something about contorted good "Christian" ladies' bodies who shouldn't be speaking their mind anyway and...

It's ok. Probably best it didn't go there since that bathroom wall is just getting filthy...

Date: 2010/04/13 15:34:02, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,13:17)

Quote
Quote
That case unambiguously decided that ID is religion


Unambiguously....?  Try "Incorrectly."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Remarks....609.pdf


Only to a small portion of uneducated fringe wingnuts who do not understand either law or science.

Date: 2010/04/14 09:37:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:12)

Quote
If Dembski's specific 3-point hypothesis survives the falsification process,


LOL! Sorry FL, but unless Dembski publishes his "hypothesis" under the guidelines of the Scientific Method - which would include an actual scientific body for peer review - it won't be taken seriously or accepted as science. Dembski refuses to actually treat his "work" scientifically, preferring instead to publish it as popular philosophy in book form to general audiences. That's up to him of course - I don't begrudge the man making a buck or two off the rubes. But the fact is, right now nothing from ID has entered any scientific process, never mind falsification specifically, because Demski has chosen not to go that route.

Date: 2010/04/14 09:46:43, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:59)

Quote
Quote
"And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there." --- Dembski

And if you don't think evolutionists aren't doing the very same thing to sell the masses on their evolutionary snake oil,  then you've never read Gould, Sagan, Ken Miller, nor Dawkins.  (Nor even Francis Collins!!).

FL


Ahhh FL...just can't help being disingenuous, can you? Oddly you seem to have left out that Gould, Sagan, Miller, Dawkins, and Collins (and a whole slew of other actual scientists, including, Hawking and Futuyama) all perform and published actual scientific research in actual science journals through actual scientific peer review processes. Not so for Mr. Dembski. Oddly still, NO ID research of any kind has ever been published through scientific channels, but I suppose that's a separate subject.

Bottom line, once again you provide a lovely example of why ID should be (and is) shunned and looked on as so much crap - it's proponents feel that lying and mischaracterizing are the standard approach to selling their snake oil. No thanks.

Date: 2010/04/14 09:49:31, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,20:58)

Quote
Quote
"naturalism, materialism, atheism, agnosticism" are "sewer-stenched idol gods"???

Honestly?  Yes.  Straight down the line.  

Baal-Mart Blue-Light Specials, every last blasted one of 'em.   Hopefully you haven't been shopping their clearance racks??

FL


I for one will take those "sewer-stenched idol gods" over your sewer-stenched idol gods of lying and general unpleasantness any day of the week.

Date: 2010/04/15 08:50:02, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 11 2010,21:02)

Quote
Been doing some traveling, and then some field trips for fun with a friend of mine, who is quickly becoming my partner in crime.

Along the way, I've popped off a few photos of interesting critters, mostly birds.


Great pics Lou! I meant so post this earlier, but over Easter my wife and went to visit a friend in Chapel Hill. She lives in this nice little wooded neighborhood, but it's basically suburban - not all that far from downtown Chapel Hill. There's a little walking path down from her house that cuts through this little park area over to nearby shopping center. Cute little park with a stream running through it. A few old sycamores and Carolina pines. Lots of joggers, walkers, and families with strollers too.

Nonetheless, we were walking along the path one day and we heard the unmistakable call of a Barred Owl. Now I have a notorious anti-owl aura - it may just be concidence, but the last half dozens owls I approached (even ones at this rehab center) all got excited when I came near and would not stop staring at me or calling, barking, whathaveyou. That said, we went looking for the hooter and I finally found her (pretty sure she was female) sitting on a branch of an old Carolina pine. Just beautiful. She chatted with her mate who was somewhere nearby and then took a bit of a nap. Then she decided to groom herself for a bit. We watched her for some 45 minutes and she didn't care we were there at all. Alas, no pics.

Date: 2010/04/15 13:35:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,12:36)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ April 14 2010,09:37)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:12)

 
Quote
If Dembski's specific 3-point hypothesis survives the falsification process,


LOL! Sorry FL, but unless Dembski publishes his "hypothesis" under the guidelines of the Scientific Method - which would include an actual scientific body for peer review - it won't be taken seriously or accepted as science. Dembski refuses to actually treat his "work" scientifically, preferring instead to publish it as popular philosophy in book form to general audiences. That's up to him of course - I don't begrudge the man making a buck or two off the rubes. But the fact is, right now nothing from ID has entered any scientific process, never mind falsification specifically, because Demski has chosen not to go that route.

I think the actual statement from Dembski was "[we don't need that] pathetic level of detail"

Makes one wonder what level of detail is required...


True, though I seem to recall the above statement was made in response to what ID actually explained and of what use ID actually was. Be that as it may, your question is still valid. To the FLs of the world, apparently no detail is required for those things that even hint at conforming to biblical understandings, though oddly explanations that do not conform to his biblical understanding do not get the same treatment and require detail that always has yet to be provided.

Date: 2010/04/15 13:40:52, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=FloydLee,April 14 2010,14:57][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote
Sez you. Who cares?

You never can tell.  Even down in Atheistville, you got some people who are quietly interested.  Think Antony Flew.

Who will be NEXT to defect from the atheistic camp??  Step right up, boys!!!!!

FL   :)


Lying again Floyd? Tsk tsk...though I suppose you don't care.

As noted many times beyond count, Flew did not embrace your Christian bible, nevermind your erroneous thinking in terms of religion. He, like me, embraced deism, not even remotely close to thinking that "the only god is the god of the bible." Nice try though.

Date: 2010/04/15 13:53:39, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ April 15 2010,09:51)

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

Here's an example:
 
Quote
Miller & Levine, Biology Prentice-Hall (1993), pp.342-348:

"From the jumbled mixture of ... in Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved."

And you guys are still in "somehow" mode, btw, wrt your chemical evolution OOL hypothesis.  
Another example:  many problems and Not-Known Mechanisms associated with the "RNA World hypothesis", but that hypothesis that is presented to science kids (with no mention of problems or blankspots) within Glencoe's latest high school edition of "Biology-The Dynamics of Life."  

That's your OOL life from-nonlife mechanism, effectively:  "Somehow."

So, you DO accept hypotheses as scientific WITHOUT having or knowing of any mechanism.  


I have a couple of problems with this:

1) What you quoted is not an hypothesis. It's a statement about a hypothesis. Once again you demonstrate a distinct lack of scientfic understanding.

2) There's a truism about creationsts putting ellipsis into quotes. Just sayin'...

Quote
And I notice that this item remained unanswered:
 
Quote
So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science?

So I'm just saying, rational and scientific consistency demands you treat the ID hypothesis the same way.

FloydLee


It doesn't need to be mechanistic to be science per se. It only needs to be mechanistic to be credible and useful.

Date: 2010/04/15 13:55:38, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ April 15 2010,10:46)

Quote
Again, the point is simply that you evolutionists don't require a scientific hypothesis to have a mechanism, when it suits you.


False Floyd. You just keep on ignoring what science actually is and does though.

Date: 2010/04/19 13:52:36, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 18 2010,17:33)

Quote
Dembski      
Quote
I’ll say it again, ID provides scientific evidence for where design is, not for where it isn’t.

Scientific evidence eh? Interesting.


I find it interesting that ID provides scientific evidence for design as opposed to science providing scientific evidence for design. I find it particularly interesting given that they keep claiming that ID is supposed to be science. If the latter is true, why even refer to ID?

Date: 2010/04/20 11:53:12, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:46)

Quote
Quote
Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious."

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages.  You guys aren't even listening.  Not even paying attention.  Repeating the same refuted claim.  

U gotta be kidding.   Honestly.


LOL! Ummm...no, we're not. The fact is, Floyd, your argument was fallacious - begging the question, moving the goal posts, engaging a strawman, etc - and did not in any way address the issue. The fact is, Dembski DID say that ID is religious. End of story. For you to insist that such isn't the definition of ID and thus doesn't count is completely irrelevant and missing the point. It doesn't matter whether ID being the Logos of John is the definition of ID or merely and logical summary of it, it still makes it based on religion and thus NOT based on science and that is the end of it. It thus can't be taught in any school no matter how well the 3-pronged definition is scientific.

Sorry Floyd, but that's reality, not your packaged, empty claims to the contrary.

Date: 2010/04/20 11:58:10, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:23)

Quote
You lost that one, and you can't get it back.


Oh yeah...then there's that other reality called Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District. You know...the decision that defined ID as religious for the courts.

So you're batting zero with the law, science, and philosophy there Floyd. Got anything else?  :D

Date: 2010/04/20 13:36:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (keiths @ April 20 2010,13:12)

Quote
William Dembski:
Quote


Why is it important to know about angels? Why is it important to know about rocks and plants and animals? It's important because all of these are aspects of reality that impinge on us. The problem with the secular intelligentsia is that they deny those aspects of reality that are inconvenient to their world-picture.


Incorrect, dingbat. The "problem" with the secular intelligentsia visa vis angels (and other such "supernatural" concepts) is that there is no way to study them because there is no consistent phenomena that one can point to and say, "that's the result of angels". How can anyone be sure that what one person calls the interaction of angels isn't merely psychological, biological, or chemical? In other words, the problem with those who wish to believe in angels is there is no way to control for the phenomena that some folks wish to attribute to angels, thus there's no actual way to use such information in any practical manner.

Quote

There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality.


Whatever you say, Dr. Dr. D. When you can provide a way to control for said "invisible world" such that phenomena can be shown to be a product of said invisible world and no other cause, I'll dub thee science. Until then, such claims have no practical value and thus are nie unto worthless.

Date: 2010/04/23 14:06:47, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (JLT @ April 23 2010,13:31)

Quote
StephenBS:
   
Quote
There are many other ethical practices that a Christian could execute that would normally be out of range for an atheist, including the act of loving his enemies, refraining from lust, fulfilling his moral obligation to worship the Creator, and pursuing his final end.

The problem is not in identifying the moral obligations that atheists cannot fulfill but rather in finding atheists who will acknowledge them as moral obligations.

Why would that be, do you think? A conundrum.


I don't think I understand Stephen B's comment at all. Is he really insisting that there are no atheists who love their enemies and/or refraining from lust (as if any fundamentalist/evangelical Christians ever demonstrate such abilities...) or is he insisting that being an atheist means that such behaviors can't be considered "good"? Both of course would be erroneous statements as there are plently of examples of atheists who do love their enemies and who refrain from lust and who define such behaviors as "good" based on their negative impact on others. So what is Stephen B getting at?

Date: 2010/04/23 14:16:57, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Robin,April 23 2010,14:06][/quote]
I had to ask...

Stephenb:
Quote


Second, both actions [loving (in a practical way, not just the avoidance of hating) enemies and refraining from lust] are impossible except for the grace of God which atheists obviously reject.


Nevermind...(rolls eyes)

Date: 2010/04/26 11:07:03, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 24 2010,16:13)

Quote
PS: This is not an example of a "transitional species."



But c'mon, admit it...it would be a really COOL one!  :D

Date: 2010/04/26 11:11:21, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,16:23)

Quote
And just so you know, as long as their is breath in my lungs, if my child's school board attempts to not teach weaknesses of any side, especially evolution (why because it is the primary scientific theory taught, not just one I randomly chose to "pick on"). Then I'll teach them myself.


Except that you've demonstrated that you don't actually have any weaknesses, only erroneous propaganda and lies. What's the point of "teaching" your child things obviously way outside your knowledge and interest when such has lead you to such erroneous conclusions?

Date: 2010/04/26 11:41:14, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=bjray,April 26 2010,00:12][/quote]
Quote
Is it not apparent to some of you that what you accuse me of doing you also have done exactly the same thing?


Not in general, no. But let's see what you think:

Quote
ie: You could replace me with any other creationists and still get the same conversation.


Perhaps you should ask yourself why that might be the case? Certainly it could be bias on our part, but if you are intellectually honest, you'd consider that it could very well be that you are all presenting the same fallacious arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...again and again and again and again.


Quote
There are many on your side of the argument and you all say similar things too.


Well sure - WE'RE REPONDING TO THE SAME EXACT CREATIONISTS FALLACIES AND ERRORS. Why would you expect our responses be any different? That you do indicates insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Quote
To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant, I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim. I misconstrue facts or arguments. I'm a typical creationists. I whine (which I never did, but nobody owned up to the fact that that was a false claim).


Not a bad summary. But you left out one key thing - you had and have the opportunity to avoid/change the above. You came here claiming you were interested in learning, then proceded to present fallacious and erroneous claims instead. Why would you think that we would react in any other way than calling a spade a spade? If you are actually serious about learning, then don't rely on your guesses, opinions, and assumptions. Further, don't just rely on claims by other creationists - go out and actually read the research being conducted and then discuss it.

Date: 2010/04/29 11:23:15, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Cubist,April 27 2010,22:21][/quote]
Quote
So just in case you are hanging around here, bjray,


Awesome post, Cubist! I think this should be sent to every Creationist/ID group, put before all apologists, handed to any folks entering into a formal or informal debate at any time in place with anyone of the conservative religious perspective, and nailed to the door of every church in the land.

Date: 2010/04/30 09:54:25, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 30 2010,08:40)

Quote
Somebody who frequents internet message boards and chat rooms and spews their ignorance all the while acting like they know soemthing.

They badger people with their ignorance and act as if their ignorance is meaningful discourse.


12:36 PM


I call POE.

Date: 2010/05/10 09:49:56, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 09 2010,16:29)

Quote
Well, it would tilt the balance in favor of the designer being an Alien.



Just as a silly aside, but did anyone else ever notice that the original alien offspring is born with blind eyes (you can see them in the pic) that get absorb into the creature's mantle as it grows. I so appreciated Dan O'Bannon's "eye" for detail on such things - he really had a mind for detailed organism lifecycles. Sadly that was lost in the later movies.

Date: 2010/05/12 12:37:35, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kristine @ May 12 2010,10:51)

Quote
Well, guys, I'm going to plug myself here. For my Reference Sources in the Sciences class I had to create a page of online resources. Unlike everyone else, who chose a specialty, I wanted to implement science communication techniques and so I created a transdiciplinary introductory science page.

I chose online tutorials that were interactive, attractive, and had clear language. Actually, for the assignment I eliminated some vetted links that I would like to incorporate later, or in another guide. It's amazing to see what scientists, educators, and designers are doing to bring science to the public.

Here it is, my pride and joy: Concepts, Scales, and Measures in Science

I am finished with classes, have earned my Master's (just need to get the grades), and just submitted my first paper for peer review. :)


Congrats Kristine! Nicely done!

Date: 2010/05/14 09:05:54, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 14 2010,07:23)

Quote
Quote (olegt @ May 14 2010,06:48)
Save that thread before it disappears.  A classic meltdown.

Theobald doesn't quite have the literary flair of an ERV, who called Sal Cordova a cottage cheese dripping pussy, but it was fun nonetheless.


Ohhh...uuggghhh! That just creates such an...unpleasant...image. Oh man...

Date: 2010/05/26 15:50:41, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Zachriel @ May 25 2010,09:06)

Quote
Quote
bornagain77: Dr. Nelson, the question of if Adam had a belly button is indeed a very important one:,,,

The all-important question is whether it was an innie or an outie.


I could care less about whether Adam had an innie or an outie - I want to know about Eve!

Date: 2010/05/26 15:51:06, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Zachriel,May 25 2010,09:06][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote
bornagain77: Dr. Nelson, the question of if Adam had a belly button is indeed a very important one:,,,

The all-important question is whether it was an innie or an outie.


I could care less about whether Adam had an innie or an outie - I want to know about Eve!

Date: 2010/05/27 09:34:57, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 26 2010,16:06)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ May 26 2010,15:50)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 25 2010,09:06)

 
Quote
   
Quote
bornagain77: Dr. Nelson, the question of if Adam had a belly button is indeed a very important one:,,,

The all-important question is whether it was an innie or an outie.


I could care less about whether Adam had an innie or an outie - I want to know about Eve!

Well, i suppose you evolutionary materialist Nazis have a just-so story for it.  But, I think people can look at the evidence and make up their own mind.  

Here is a picture of Eve. You decide.



Umm...uhh...ewww...

And I really used to like ribs...

Date: 2010/06/04 15:22:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 04 2010,06:18)

Quote


*Anyone bringing up that stuff about lighting fires with human dung will be rewarded a one-night-stand (please; let it be kristine or ERV or Monica**...) :)



Feh...amateur...

I'd give 'em at least a one-month-stand...probably several years of stands (and sits and even lie downs.)

:p

Date: 2010/06/08 10:23:18, Link
Author: Robin
Welcome back Albatrossity!

We've had a treat here in Northern Virginia of late - a pair of barred owls have established perminent residence in a nearby neighborhood park. They've been pretty much in the same spot every evening for the past 3 weeks (that's when we first discovered them) so I think they must have a nest nearby. No pics yet - they haven't been THAT social - as they tend to hang out waaaay up in the branches of older trees (with lots of dense folliage - bloody owls!) but hopefully at some point we'll see them closer to the ground.

Date: 2010/06/09 10:50:53, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 09 2010,01:35)

Quote
Quote
Yes, mice are cute, but they leave that annoying black rice everywhere...


Think Coco Pops...


Nope...that's lagomorphs. For mice it's more like shriveled Rice Crispies.

Date: 2010/06/09 10:53:14, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Peter Henderson @ June 08 2010,13:51)

Quote
Anyone have a good way of getting rid of mice ?

The ones I have under my stairs are damned clever. I think they've evolved


Black rat snake? Owl? Cat? Plejty of predators out there in the world who would be happy to take care of that smorgasbord.

Date: 2010/06/11 09:39:46, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Freddie @ June 10 2010,13:20)

Quote
Another rather unfortunate statement in the same thread from bantay.

     
Quote
3. He needs to sit down with William Lane Craig and deal with the Resurrection.


... my emphasis, although he probably doesn't see the irony.  Just what the hell is that comment supposed to even mean to a man who has had to contemplate his own proximity to death every day while sitting in a wheelchair for the last 40 years, the last of these almost completely paralyzed?   UD has now arrived at the point where it is just a magnet for people of like-minded extremist, anti-science and denialist views to congregate, there is no longer even a pretense that they are 'doing sciencey stuff'.  Apparently that's just peachy with the site admin.


I find the Bantay's phraseology quite telling - to him it's all a militant lock step with the 'Truth' and 'take that medicine that's good for you!'. Funny* coming from a supposed "Christian".




* Funny like Hannibal Lechter that is...

Date: 2010/06/15 08:14:53, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 15 2010,05:58)

Quote
Are you a wanker if you say retard?

An interesting article on ars technica about naughty words in England.  Surprisingly, retard didn't do too well:

 
Quote
Nutters
Finally, the survey explored the acceptability of words for people with mental health problems. Many respondents said they could see little harm in terms like "Nutter," "Looney," "Schizo," and "Mental."

"I have been hearing those words ('nutter' and 'looney';) for years…they are just humorous adjectives, they don't mean anything horrible," explained a Londoner identified as a "person with a mental health condition."

And yet almost all took strong exception to the use of the word 'retarded.' Our guess as to why—lots of people got called the word in and around the classroom.

"'Retard' is a word that should be banned," declared a woman from Manchester. "I think the only thing that may be offensive is the word 'retard' because it's derogatory to mentally disabled people," agreed a woman from Birmingham. "The other words are just swear words whereas that isn't really."

"I don’t like the word 'retard'. That offends me really, that would offend me… Cos of my condition [a mobility difficulty]," another chimed in. "At school they called me names, it's quite a hurtful name that."


Luckily, "tard" as opposed to "retard" appears to be a voluntary condition, so I'm going to continue to use it re ID.  Besides, as they are always pointing out, tards are in the majority over here.


Indeed.

And besides, how funny would Monty Python be without "looney", "mental", and "nutter". Oh...and "moistened bint", though that's not a reference to a mental condition...although the context of the discussion clearly is.  :D

Date: 2010/06/15 13:03:57, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2010,05:54)

Quote
Denial Smith:

The reality is that science could, given enough time and data, completely crush all their hopes and dreams with results that contradict all of their beliefs.


LOL..."The reality is..." Now that's irony.

Um...hate to burst your bubble Mr. Smith, but the reality is that actual scientists (as opposed to the pseudos at the Dishonesty Institute) don't really have any hopes and dreams when it comes to reality; they merely accept what the data tells them about reality and present an explanation that people can use to make predictions about reality which then lead to the ability to make tools to help live in the reality we have.

I would love to know what "hopes and dreams" Mr. Smith has in mind that he thinks are the horses scientists have bet everything on.

Date: 2010/06/16 11:13:35, Link
Author: Robin
Happy Birthday, John!

Date: 2010/06/16 11:16:24, Link
Author: Robin
Whaaa...happened??

I was reading a new topic by Wes and done got disappeared on me. Something 'bout him being mentioned on the Hannity Forum and his response there to. Didn't get to finish it and now it be gone. What happened??

Date: 2010/06/16 13:21:11, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Richardthughes,June 16 2010,12:40][/quote]
 
Quote
Bonus Tard: Skull and Crossbow!



toc offers ironic insight

 
Quote
5
toc
06/16/2010
1:02 pm

Debates offer opportunities for rebuttal on both sides.


Even at UD?

Date: 2010/06/17 12:21:03, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 17 2010,12:04)

Quote
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 17 2010,10:07)
Cowards, one and all.  Only brave when they can hide behind Clive's skirt.

I directly addressed BarryA and StephenB in the First Things discussion. So has Herm.

They've both tiptoed quietly away.


StephenB did respond to my post. Not sure if he'll continue, but we'll see.

Date: 2010/06/17 14:18:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 17 2010,13:46)

Quote
Torley at First Things:  
Quote
For the record, the Catholic Church has never had any problem with men loving other men. What it objects to is men performing physically intimate acts with other men.

Must . . . avoid . . . obvious . . . joke . . .


Attention! There's an INHIBITION ALERT on aisle 2! I repeat: there's an INHIBITION ALERT on aisle 2! Louis, please report to aisle 2!

LOL! "obvious joke"...no lie!  :D

Date: 2010/06/18 11:46:05, Link
Author: Robin
I know...I know...I shouldn't be saying this, but...

We tied we tied we tied we tied we tied with Slovenia!!!

:D

This is one American who really wants a few more Americans to get into this game

Of course, I'm offending my relatives in South Africa by saying all this, but I point out that it really would be better as a whole for the sport if more Americans came to enjoy it.




And Louis, I'll by you  beer next time I'm in England just for further annoying you with this.  :)

Date: 2010/06/18 12:35:18, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (JohnW @ June 18 2010,12:18)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ June 18 2010,09:46)
I know...I know...I shouldn't be saying this, but...

We tied we tied we tied we tied we tied with Slovenia!!!

:D

Had to be Slovene to be believed.


(Channeling his best Michael Palin) Stop it stop it! Right! They'll be no more o' that kind of silliness!

Date: 2010/06/18 15:02:50, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (fnxtr @ June 18 2010,13:09)

Quote
'course your right if you're thinking of the King of Swamp Castle. "And NO Singin'!"


That was it. Thought there was one from Flying Circus as well.

Date: 2010/06/22 08:21:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 17 2010,18:18)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ June 16 2010,11:16)
Whaaa...happened??

I was reading a new topic by Wes and done got disappeared on me. Something 'bout him being mentioned on the Hannity Forum and his response there to. Didn't get to finish it and now it be gone. What happened??

Here?

It was on the second page of topics, but it still exists. There are several thousand topics on the AtBC forum, so it can be a challenge finding just the right one.


Thanks Wes. Just completely disappeared on me.

Date: 2010/06/23 11:13:31, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (someotherguy @ June 23 2010,11:06)

Quote
Quote (someotherguy @ June 23 2010,08:46)
15 minutes until showtime!

America:  FUCK YEAH.


Well said! What a game!

And Louis...I'm very sorry that you have to put up with more of this from your own countrymen, but really - you should be proud of their amazing performance.

Date: 2010/06/23 12:16:24, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 23 2010,11:25)

Quote
Hilarious cartoon!


Heh! Very good! Thanks!

Date: 2010/06/24 12:53:15, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Louis,June 24 2010,03:39][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ June 23 2010,17:13)


And Louis...I'm very sorry that you have to put up with more of this from your own countrymen, but really - you should be proud of their amazing performance.


They didn't play too badly did they?


No. They did a bang up job against a really strong defense. In fact, they played to form - really smart.

Quote

I just want to assure the assembled masses that I was in no way watching any of the match on my office PCon the BBC website with the sound turned off whilst I was meant to be deciding on the best conditions to do a particular ring closing metathesis. That is a vile slandererous lie.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Louis



LOL!


Errmm...umm...I mean...me either...

Date: 2010/06/24 14:21:09, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 23 2010,18:33)

Quote
It always cracks me up when creationists back up their arguments by citing other creationists.

The banana was designed to be grasped by the human hand. (1)


1.  Comfort, R, J. Graspology Rev., 2002, Vol. 2, Issue 8, pp 125-129.



Funny then that the human finger generally fits perfectly into the human nose. Must be designed for such...

Date: 2010/06/24 14:46:14, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 24 2010,05:11)

Quote

I think I will start laughing at Perry in 2012, increase the laughing considerably in 2013 and declare him a fool in 2015.


Feh...why wait...

Date: 2010/06/28 08:37:21, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 26 2010,16:28)

Quote
Looks like the U.S. forgot to watch its back.

Once could be an  accident, but two or three times in one tournament looks like a strategic failure.


Uggh! We looked awful in the first half. Just ugly. Better in the second, but it was just 2006 all over again. Bahh!

Date: 2010/07/07 14:08:53, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=didymos,July 06 2010,15:25][/quote]
Quote
Then you have Behetard, with resources Muller probably would have killed for, who often can't even be bothered to look shit up on the google, much less read actual scientific papers, much, much, much, much less be bothered to do an experiment.  Fuck that noise! Man's got books to sell, baby. And stupid hats to buy:



Umm...I...well...err...like the hat.

Date: 2010/07/07 14:12:01, Link
Author: Robin
Indeed Rich! Hope it was (Happy that is...)

Date: 2010/07/07 14:22:53, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Zachriel @ July 06 2010,07:12)

Quote
So, if consciousness can directly interact with matter in humans, there is no reason why another consciousness (let’s call it an immanent non physycal consciuosness of some other kind of conscious intelligent being)


Wow! So the designer has a name (or perhaps a designation): INPCSOKCIB or SOB for short.

Date: 2010/07/07 14:42:02, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Zachriel,July 06 2010,11:24][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote
Cornelius Hunter: No, it seems to be another Google-ism. I've been having strange problems with my comments on this post.

It didn't seem like Cornelius Hunter to ban comments. But we were hoping the "hot" evolution was too hot.


Nah...just 'intelligent design' at work...

Date: 2010/07/09 08:27:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 09 2010,00:45)

Quote
I must recommend a most delightful Scotch Whisky, The Balvenie.


I will toss in a recommendation for Deanston. Just a nice Scotch. Very drinkable.

Date: 2010/07/09 08:39:19, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 09 2010,03:45)

Quote

I just spent 2 weeks in Belgium, and let me tell you: their gastronomy is quite awefull.


Really? I spent about 5 days in Hasselt (not exactly THE cultural center of Europe) and had some splendid meals - in a little pre-war hotel no less. They hotel house wine was a marvelous deuxieme cru from Graves - simply stunning from my perspective. This from the Flemish no less. Granted this a bit ago, so maybe things have changed.

Of particular interest, after some fantastic rack of lamb for me to wash down some luscious bisque and some Cornish hens my boss devoured, the waiter came out with a big grin and even bigger bowl of 'pomme frites' thinking, I suppose, that we 'Mericans needed some instruction on what actual fries are all about. They were completely unparalleled - nothing like anything one can get here in America.  

Perhaps that was a fluke?

Date: 2010/07/09 08:57:03, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Kattarina98,July 09 2010,03:14][/quote]
 
Quote
Should I get some popcorn?
http://tinyurl.com/335gcf6


This gave me a particular chuckle:

Nullasalus @13: "It’s not as if accepting evolution is a barrier to being an ID proponent."

Odd then that the entire theory movement is about attacking evolution.

Date: 2010/07/09 09:23:20, Link
Author: Robin
Just curious, but what has this warvarmint...thing...have to do with Vox Day?

Date: 2010/07/09 10:09:55, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (khan @ July 09 2010,09:27)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ July 09 2010,10:23)
Just curious, but what has this warvarmint...thing...have to do with Vox Day?

I think he invented it.


Ahhh...I thought it might be something like that, but I couldn't find a reference to him on the sites. Thanks!

Ok...as you were...continue the flogging!

Date: 2010/07/09 10:19:09, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2010,13:12)

Quote
Guest Room...


Well hell's bells, no hanky panky for Richard's guests I guess. Unless you have no modesty whatsoever.

Date: 2010/07/09 14:14:03, Link
Author: Robin
You all be makin' me bloody thirsty!

Date: 2010/07/15 11:06:56, Link
Author: Robin
Welcome Madbat! Congrats (I guess) on the quick bannination!

I will not state whether or no I've ever been banned from UD or when; they don't know if I've been posting there or under what moniker and quite frankly I'd like to keep it that way.    ;)

Date: 2010/07/15 12:15:46, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=carlsonjok,July 15 2010,11:46][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote (Robin @ July 15 2010,11:06)
Welcome Madbat! Congrats (I guess) on the quick bannination!

I will not state whether or no I've ever been banned from UD or when; they don't know if I've been posting there or under what moniker and quite frankly I'd like to keep it that way.    ;)

Don't think I didn't notice that letters in your username here can be rearranged to spell "I Born."  

<sotto voce>

Just between us, I think you are the ultimate Poe.  BA^77 has brought the magic for so long, he doesn't even get moderated when he is decidely uncivil.  Good work!


How's the saying go...'only the fool can survive the folly of the king'. Or perhaps "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"

...or some such... :D

Date: 2010/07/15 12:42:31, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (didymos @ July 15 2010,11:08)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ July 15 2010,09:06)
Welcome Madbat! Congrats (I guess) on the quick bannination!

I will not state whether or no I've ever been banned from UD or when; they don't know if I've been posting there or under what moniker and quite frankly I'd like to keep it that way.    ;)

Awww, you're taunting poor Clivebaby.  No fair!  How's he supposed to ban you?


:D

Incidentally, per my chosen symbol - owls are not actually wise per human anthropomorphism; the successful ones are just excruciatingly patient.

Date: 2010/07/16 13:52:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (fnxtr @ July 16 2010,12:56)

Just an FYI, but when I clicked on the links above an hour or so ago, I got a pop-up for some malware trojan called "Your Protection". Both seemed to redirect to the site where I got a message like "Warning: Your computer could be infected! Would you like to run a scan now?" There was no "no" choice". I just Went to Task Manager and shut down my browser, though it still tried to load.

I just tried the links now and they seem fine. Not sure If I clicked on something else by mistake, but AtBC was the only site I had open and this was the board I was on.

Date: 2010/07/16 14:01:11, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ July 16 2010,04:08)

Quote
Re-reading Gould at the moment. I'm up to "The Mismeasure of Man". Just wow.

A real lesson in how (unintentionally?) shitty social prejudice can inform (social) science. Terrifying.

Louis


I'm re-reading Bill Bryson's A Small History of Nearly Everything. It's one of the 'science made accessible' type books and it's just a fun read. Truly mind boggling when he presents some of the scales of things - like the actual size of our universe and the size of atoms.

Date: 2010/07/16 14:30:36, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Kattarina98,July 16 2010,06:07][/quote]
Happy Birthday you two! Or is that you four?

<img src="http://www.med.yale.edu/obgyn/kliman/placenta/twins/twindiagrams/Mono Twins 72.jpg" border="0" max-width="560" />

Date: 2010/07/16 14:33:20, Link
Author: Robin
Hmmm...trying again. It worked in the preview...



Happy Birthday you two! Or is that you four?

Date: 2010/07/22 09:49:46, Link
Author: Robin
There are some here who have been saying that Ceiling Cat is their hero. Personally I'm going with OM:

 
Quote
 
Quote
It must bother you to not be able to make a positive case for your own position...


I think you need a new bulb in that projector.


"...new bulb in that..." OM, you crack me up!

Date: 2010/07/26 11:20:06, Link
Author: Robin
Happy birthday Afarensis! Can't believe you're 49! You don't look a day over 2.9 million or so...

Date: 2010/07/26 15:28:43, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Kattarina98,July 25 2010,16:37][/quote]
Quote
The Explanatory Filter in action, used by Bilbo:
 
Quote
We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.


Ooo...I cn haz sigintr!

Date: 2010/07/28 10:55:29, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Kattarina98,July 28 2010,03:53][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 27 2010,20:50)
   
Quote
The Intelligent Design Facts Institute Launches Top Rated New Website To Defend Intelligent Design Through New Scientific Research

The site itself is here.
This could become a lot of fun.


   
Quote
Intelligent Design Facts has no theological agenda or perspective.

Si tacuisses ..


My personal favorite:

Moderator:

"Maria, it is not the goal of this website to make any declarations that fall anywhere outside the strict and rigorous scientific research process. Any individual of any faith or lack thereof must be able to read the articles on this site and be able to make a determination based strictly on facts. We do not want to cross the line into a religious discussion as that is clearly outside our purview. We deal exclusively in demonstrable and verifiable scientific research."

Uh huh...

Date: 2010/07/29 08:23:46, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 28 2010,16:54)

Quote
StephenB is living in the past:


...and he's thick as a brick.

Date: 2010/07/29 12:16:31, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=didymos,July 29 2010,11:02][/quote]
Quote
...leaving a dog, cat and a parakeet loose in the house (I put the animals there to cause the entropy to increase more rapidly,


WT...???

Date: 2010/07/29 12:58:30, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (didymos @ July 29 2010,12:43)

Quote
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 29 2010,10:22)
Quote (didymos @ July 29 2010,12:12)
Conclusion: StephenB is full of FAIL (and shit).

At least he had the presence of mind to mention that it is actually Luskin's FAIL, the weasel.

Oooh, some more pre-emptive weaseling on his part that I hadn't noticed 'til now (bolding mine):
Quote

However, my question still stands: Are Darwinists who use [and used]Haeckel’s drawings lying or were they [are they] telling the truth. Please answer the question. Or, are those who use remakes of Haeckel’s drawing promoting a double lie–i.e. the lie itself and the shameless plagiarism, lying or are they telling the truth.

You have not yet answered the question on the table. Please address it.


The actual original question on the table:

"Are those Darwinists who knowingly publish pictures of Haeckel’s bogus drawings in public school textbooks lying are they telling the truth?"

Honestly, I'm worried about his back, what with carting those goalposts around everywhere he goes.


Earth to StephenB...how are any "Darwinists" supposed to answer your loaded rhetorical questions when all those folks who are openly "Darwinists" are banned from UD?

Date: 2010/07/29 14:27:59, Link
Author: Robin
StephenB is such a swell guy:

Quote
Meanwhile, my quesion[sic] for you persists. Are Darwinists who knowingly use [used] Haeckel’s drawings lying or are they [were they] telling the truth.

If you are not up to answering this question, I can do it for you.

Date: 2010/08/02 13:05:01, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (socle @ July 30 2010,22:58)

[blockquote]
Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30
[/blockquote]

I'm a little hazy on my set theory these days, but based on Joe's approach, shouldn't the power set be 60?

'cause I get {{0}, {10}, {20}, {30}} = 60

...and 60 /=30


:O

Date: 2010/08/02 14:54:44, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Henry J,Aug. 02 2010,13:34][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote
I'm a little hazy on my set theory these days, but based on Joe's approach, shouldn't the power set be 60?

Only if you Xerox the {x} and {y} when making the {x,y}, and the Treasury Dept. doesn't like it when people do that.  :p


Yeah, but that's only if you treat it as an actual set. I got the impression that Joe thought it was a functional condition.

;)

Date: 2010/08/03 12:30:43, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 03 2010,09:43)

Quote
Quote
I got the impression that Joe thought [...]

You did? I had the impression that he avoids doing that...

(Did I say that?)


Oooo...touche!

Date: 2010/08/03 14:25:37, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 02 2010,10:36)

Quote
The other day, midwifetoad make a tongue-in-cheek comment on the PT Lamarck-thread. Just how tongue-in-cheek is this? Did we miss his/her birthday?


Speaking of, should Frank H be getting a birthday wish or two?

Date: 2010/08/03 15:39:48, Link
Author: Robin
A very happy birthday Frank! As the theme seems to be wishing you the wurst for your birthday, here's wishing it at least tastes good.

Date: 2010/08/04 09:32:32, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2010,09:09)

Quote
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2010,10:20)
Because statistically having three people test something on three units is all you need for very high confidence in mass produced electronic goods.

We call it .006 Sigma.

LOL. I am spending my week in Guadalajara listening to a strategic supplier prattle on about Lean - 6 Sigma.  I may be the only one here at ATBC that laughed at that, but I did, you magnificent bastard.


No, I did too. I had the fun-packed job of getting the company I work for to understand and adopt a "process Improvement Methodology" (a la CMMI, for those familiar) to achieve the proper "actualization" for two separate ratings. Yeah...gotta love that stuff!  ;)

Date: 2010/08/05 09:11:36, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Louis,Aug. 05 2010,03:40][/quote]
Quote

No. Just no. This is what we here call "A Bad Idea".

Frankly, I gave up going to these places after my fourth irony meter spontaneously combusted. I even went into irony meter design for a while, it's just not worth the effort.

Louis


I'm with you, Louis. I confess, I just can't do it anymore. When I read just the first line of any blog post from anyone of those tard clowns, I immediately feel like I tripped and feel in poo. It just stinks and I get revolted. I'm sure I need to learn to appreciate it in a different light - seeing it more like comical farce and old slapstick - but I think that takes time.

I with you Louis - the view from under the blossom-laden tree with the the lovely fresh air and a good glass of wine is just fine, thank you.

Date: 2010/08/05 09:53:14, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=oldmanintheskydidntdoit,Aug. 04 2010,16:16][/quote]
 
Quote
Gordon is a real piece of work.
   
Quote
Clean, simple and easily tested against experiment: just produce a known, directly observed case where credibly undirected stochastic contingency and/or blind mechanical necessity have produced such dFSCI. (Mind you, on the same grounds that warrant the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics, that will be predictably hard, indeed, ID suggests that it will be empirically unobservable on the gamut of our known cosmos.)


What experiment Gordon?  

Given that dFSCI seems much like obscenity in that Gordon knows it exists but can't quite define it but "everything on the Internet has it" I wonder at his motivation for asking as evidence that he is wrong that which he considers impossible.


After reading fairly extensively on IC, SCI, FSCI, and dFSCI I have concluded that the concept boils down to:

ID = anything that looks like it has a functional purpose.

As to how one measures the difference in the amount of information in anything purposeful thing or even how one objectively identifies this supposed purpose, you got me.


 
Quote
Weasel failed to convince people that life was not intelligently designed?????!!!oneone!!!!!one!!!


Actually, I think Gordo admitted it did convince folks that life is not intelligently designed:

 
Quote
Weasel didn’t make the grade in 1986, [b]despite[/d] how it persuaded ever so many


...or maybe I'm reading that wrong.

Date: 2010/08/05 12:58:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2010,12:52)

Quote
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 05 2010,12:46)
hmmm....

A butler instead of a maid, and a F(ather)ILF??!!??   Richard, have you changed your orientation since I’ve been away?  OMG....I’ve driven him to homosexuality.

F is for Fundy, cupcake!


Ahh...and here I thought it was 'floozy'. Guess I was close though...  :D

Date: 2010/08/05 14:59:54, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2010,14:49)

Quote
If Darwin=Hitler=Satan, then what does it mean to say that Marks=Darwin?


"I guess it goes from God, to Jerry, to the cleaners. Right Kent?"

- Real Genius

Date: 2010/08/06 11:45:02, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (socle @ Aug. 06 2010,10:39)

Quote
Wow, I just noticed the date on that thread:  December 5, 2006, closing in on 4 years ago.  And Joe still hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with elementary set theory.  Which primary school students master in a matter of hours.


I tried reading some of it and my brain locked up. I had to go read some insurance claims just to reboot it. His posts just completely disrupt the fabric of reality; he's so much tard he actually creates a negative force of stupid on other matter nearby. I can't believe Zach and others can actually read his stuff for any length of time without severe medication and/or psychiatric help afterwords.

Date: 2010/08/11 09:24:25, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 10 2010,18:57)

So, you've read the thread, now let's hear you say, "O'Leary is not on drugs."  No smirking, no crossing your fingers, no bursting in to peals of laughter half way through the sentence, just look us in the eye and say, "O'Leary is not on drugs."

I didn't think you could.  So the next question is, "What kind of drugs?"  I vote for industrial strength meth with a crack chaser.


Feh...she has a disorder, man! Like...you know...she's got this...thing...that's affecting her short term memory. But her friend is helping her remember that stuff.

Oh...and get snacks...for the munchies...

Date: 2010/08/11 14:04:34, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Richardthughes,Aug. 11 2010,11:20]
Can't find the right thread, feel free to copy or move:

15 examples of Christian propaganda


From the Archie comic:

"CHILD: You just didn't say you love me, you put your arm around me! And your arm says it better than your tongue, man!"

Ummm...hmmm...Well, that's an interesting way to phrase that...

..."Christian" my ass! Ooo...wait a minute...let me rephrase that!




:D

Date: 2010/08/12 12:53:50, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2010,09:32)

Quote
I still like to award points:


Seems everyone at UD and the Disco Tute started with at least 15 points!

Quote
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.


Dang! No way I can catch up even being a genuis (and yes, that's spelled CRECTLY!;) like Einstine and working on my own secret theory that I don't want you fanbois to steal!

 :p

Date: 2010/08/13 09:05:47, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 09 2010,18:04)

Quote
Meanwhile, I watched this huge moth fluttering around yesterday and stalked it until it finally landed in a bank parking lot.

Polyphemus moth (Antheraea polyphemus), I think.


Very cool pic!

Had a funny incident with a moth last year. I volunteer at this wildlife preserve out in Loudoun County, VA, and we have a number of interesting species on the property. We are actually trying to re-establish the Virginia Piedmont, so we get an interesting mix in the various habits and cross-zones this creates.

I was just arriving at the preserve one morning to do some work and I spotted a Royal Walnut Moth laying on its side near our visitor center looking very dead. So I picked it up to show the folks in the visitor center. We actually had our resident amateur etymologist there that day and he was quite excited to see it. We stuck it up on the mantel in the main room of the visitor center for other people to take a look at. Well, turns out that Mr. Royal Oak wasn't dead. Actually, he was quite sprightly and decided to take a few spins around the visitor center. Very exciting! He finally decided to take a rest on the greeter desk and I picked him back up and set him back outside. None of us, alas, had a camera, which clearly I need to remedy at some point.

Date: 2010/08/13 10:41:23, Link
Author: Robin
Clearly you have neglected to adjust for human behavior in your concept. Think about this for a minute: you are merely giving bridezillas (and the occasional groomzilla) the incentive to host ridiculously remote, logistically irresponsible weddings.

Bride: "Mmmmm...'Wedding Fine', ehh? Oh...I'll show him a fine..."

Announcement: Mr. and Mrs. Parents Bridezilla request the honor of your presence (and Presents) for the marriage of our daughter and that groomguy.

Date: February X, 2013

Reception: Bouvet Island, Norway. Try Google Earth.

Wedding: Aucanquilcha Mine, Chile, (6,176 m (20,262 ft) ). Please bring hiking boots

Bride: "Top THAT Mr. Wedding Fine!"

Date: 2010/08/18 12:18:44, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (socle @ Aug. 15 2010,16:47)

Her use of the "I ain't kin to no monkey" trope is interesting, though.  Why do we often find nonhuman primates repulsive?  Is it some sort of uncanny valley type phenomenon?  


I don't actually think the reaction is one of repulsion of non-human primates in specific, but rather the repulsion of any association to anything non-divinely imaged in general. Keep in mind, those folks who mock being a monkey's uncle have a worldview wherein some god gave them, as divinely created humans, dominion over all animals. In this worldview, humans are not animals. Thus any suggestion of association (and heaven forbid kinship) is blasphemy.

Date: 2010/08/18 12:42:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 17 2010,05:41)

Quote
And once again predicts the end of "darwinism" without realising that people have been doing the same since Darwin published.  
Quote
Unfortunately, if institutional science allies itself too tightly to such a doomed movement, it too will take a terrible blow when the collapse comes.


But when will that be?!?!?! C'mon, Gordo, do some...sciencey type calculations and come up with a specific prediction! Can't you...?

Date: 2010/08/18 14:34:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2010,12:38)

Quote
Quote
I don't actually think the reaction is one of repulsion of non-human primates in specific


Looking for the "cause" could lead down any number of blind alleys.

I have nothing to back up my opinion that non-human primates are creepier than cute, except the observation that there are all kinds of "cute" cuddly toys for children -- bears, dogs, cats, and so forth, but few non-human primates. I have a J. Fred Muggs left over from childhood, but it's one of the few such toys I've seen.


Good point, though I will counter that while not as prevalent at bunnies, dogs, cats, etc, I have a niece was really into monkeys and who had (at last check) some seven or so "cute" cuddly monkey toys on her bed. She claimed to be picky about her monkeys (a phrase that still breaks me in to a giggle fit), but I have to wonder how picky one can really be in that arena. At any rate, there are plush toy monkeys out there, but I guess you have to know where to look.

Still, maybe I'm completely wrong; maybe creationists are just disgusted by their tendency to have course hair and their habit of eating lice and ticks off one another.

Date: 2010/08/19 11:41:46, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 18 2010,17:11)

Quote
At a guess, when something is deliberately engineered, there are probably repeated patterns that are unlikely to occur (or not as often or as close together, anyway) when no engineering was involved.

But I'm just guessing.


You mean like the replication of DNA?

(runs and hides)

Date: 2010/08/19 11:55:00, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 19 2010,05:13)

Quote
I seem to have lost my edit button.  Has anybody seen it?


Just curious, but what does one have to do to get an edit button?

Date: 2010/08/19 12:36:58, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=khan,Aug. 19 2010,12:02][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 19 2010,12:55)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 19 2010,05:13)

 
Quote
I seem to have lost my edit button.  Has anybody seen it?


Just curious, but what does one have to do to get an edit button?

Send a PM to Wesley


Really? That's it? I figured it would take a certain amount of responses about a count of the number of sweaters the good Dr. Dr. owns or some such - something challenging like that at any rate.

But, I'll go ahead and give the message thing a try...

Edited to test and thank Wes, and also to accept Tracy P's request because there really isn't enough brain bleach.

Date: 2010/08/19 15:00:56, Link
Author: Robin
Continuing the LULZ found in the Corny post, Neal Tedford gets the Silly Walk POTW:

Quote
Quote
Derick posts, in response to Eocene: "You said, "Again, even if this were a tenable interpretation, it still doesn't solve the problem of seeded plants and fruit trees before the sun 'appeared'."


Neal, evidently having lost his dictionary privileges, responds: "Yes it does because if the sky is Opaque light shines but the celestial objects are not themselves clearly visible. Even a day with very heavy cloud cover still allows light to get to the biosphere."


Um...Neal? Might want to check the definition of opaque and then check the definition of translucent. Not that either term really helps your absurd attempt at reconciling the Genesis account with reality, but the former term makes Derick's point for him.

Date: 2010/08/24 08:48:25, Link
Author: Robin
No clowns here, but that doesn't mean it's not equally scary - you're a year older!

Have a happy one! Just don't think too hard on it!

Date: 2010/08/24 08:53:21, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2010,18:57)
Did.not.end.well.
Quote
John A. Davison says:
...

Consider me your mortal enemy.
jadavison.wordpress.com


I'm surprised he didn't post, you'll rue the day!

Date: 2010/08/24 09:07:22, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 23 2010,13:43)

Quote
 
Quote

Clive Hayden
08/23/2010
1:31 pm

Petrushka,
Quote

Disputing macroevolution is like disputing the orbit of Pluto because no one has seen a complete revolution.

I thought Pluto wasn’t a planet any longer.


Glad that's cleared up.


(opens mouth and starts to speak...stops...raises pointer finger...stops...rubs chin and then cheek...)

Uuh...bbuuu...

(thinks some more...)

Errr...ummm...(whines)...

Buuuu...whhaaa...what does whether or not Pluto is a planet have to do with its orbit?

(sits looking dejected)

Date: 2010/08/24 09:09:51, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 23 2010,14:28)

Quote
Heh. Jurassicmac buys some time:
Quote
I will read that article when I have a free moment, Lewis is one of my favorite authors and perhaps one of the best apologetic minds of the 20th century.


Whew...!

Date: 2010/08/24 10:05:45, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 24 2010,09:50)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 24 2010,08:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2010,18:57)
Did.not.end.well.
 
Quote
John A. Davison says:
...

Consider me your mortal enemy.
jadavison.wordpress.com


I'm surprised he didn't post, you'll rue the day!

Also needs the "Bwah-ha-ha" evil laugh, maybe with some hand-wringing at the same time.


And Davison wonders why most people remain anonymous on such sites. Hint to Davison: there are lunatics like you making death threats without chuckling about it!

Date: 2010/08/24 14:33:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 24 2010,10:45)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 24 2010,07:09)
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 23 2010,14:28)

 
Quote
Heh. Jurassicmac buys some time:
 
Quote
I will read that article when I have a free moment, Lewis is one of my favorite authors and perhaps one of the best apologetic minds of the 20th century.


Whew...!

It's like that insurance commercial where the guy follows up the "You're heavier than you look" comment to his wife with, "Uh... I love you?"



:D

Ain't that the truth!

Date: 2010/08/25 09:58:59, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 25 2010,07:01)

Quote
I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up confusion about the varieties of CSI. It's really not that hard (if you cook it right):




Ed: Spelling


Ahhh...so it's actually pasta all the way down?

Date: 2010/09/08 14:18:22, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 06 2010,05:13)
How belated do I have to be before i'm early?

happy birthday!


I second Vun Kannon's question. Dang...you go away on vacation for a week and everyone gets a year older! (Waiting patiently for the research to get published on this physical anomaly)

Happy Belated, Khan!

Date: 2010/09/08 14:44:19, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Kattarina98,Aug. 26 2010,03:05][/quote]
Quote
I bet she thinks moths are just those pesky things that want to devour her WAD's cardigan..


Feh...those aren't moths. THIS is a moth:

Date: 2010/09/08 15:44:13, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Pilchard @ Aug. 30 2010,18:25)

Quote
O'Leary
Quote
The fact is that monkeys and humans do not behave similarly in key ways, as should be obvious. Otherwise, why are they in our zoos and we are not in theirs?
Has she not seen Planet of the Apes?


How 'bout because monkeys think it's unethical to have zoos in the first place, nevermind their feelings against keeping humans.

I know, I know...I'm chiming in waaaay late on this, but I'm just back from vacation and catching up on my giggles.

Date: 2010/09/09 10:06:17, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 06 2010,16:36)

Yep, because until you do MathGrrl


Uhhh...I think you be missing a comma there, Old Man. I'm betting that Gpuccio ain't gonna get no invitation to do Mathgrrl.

Ok, I know it's an old post, but I couldn't resist...

Carry on...

Date: 2010/09/09 13:23:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 09 2010,11:51)

Quote

There is a common assignment in Physical Anthro classes to go to a zoo with a "behavioral checklist" to be filled out watching some monkeys.

I would send 1/2 my students to the shopping mall instead of the zoo, and we would then compare their results.


Awesome! Why do I get the feeling that the behaviors are strikingly similar?  ;)

Date: 2010/09/09 13:42:52, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 09 2010,11:05)

Quote
Random thought: I am still in awe that the Mésanges Charbonnières are refered to in english as Great Tits.

The wonders of languages...


Blame the English. They're the ones that came up with the bright idea to call any small passerine species a 'tit'. Though I must confess to the delight at the thought of explaining to other people in parks that the binoculars I carry are for looking for and at tits.  :D

Date: 2010/09/09 13:55:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Bing @ Sep. 09 2010,13:50)

Quote
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 09 2010,00:45)
I must recommend a most delightful Scotch Whisky, The Balvenie.

current contents of my whisky cupboard.  Not included are duplicates ( I have some doubles), cooking whisky, flask-in-the-sporran whisky (Johnny Walker, etc.) Irish whiskeys (4) or Canadian rye whiskeys (2).



Lagavulin 16 yo
Scapa 14 yo
Poit Dhubh
McLellands Islay
Glenfiddich 12 yo
Glenfiddich Special Reserve 12 yo
Glenfiddich Caoran Reserve 12 yo



Cragganmore 12 yo
The Macallan Fine Oak 15 yo
The Macallan Select Oak
The Macallan Elegancia 12 yo
Ancnoc 12 yo
Highland Park 15 yo
Té Bheag
Glenfiddich 15 yo
Dalwhinnie 15 yo

When a cherished bottle dies it is replaced by something new, hence the absence of The Balvenie, Oban, GlenRothes, Glen Morangie, etc.


Lordy! So when are we all invited to a tasting?



:D

Date: 2010/09/10 08:42:25, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 09 2010,16:23)

Quote
Haggis!!!

The bestest whole meal everest!!!*







*No, seriously, I love Haggis.


Egads! You can't be serious!

Personally I can't stomach it. (no pun and all that)

Tried it with several pints of Guinness and even that didn't help. I did eat the turnips, potatoes, and carrots though, so I suppose all in all I had a decent meal.

Date: 2010/09/10 08:45:21, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 09 2010,18:52)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 09 2010,11:42)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 09 2010,11:05)

   
Quote
Random thought: I am still in awe that the Mésanges Charbonnières are refered to in english as Great Tits.

The wonders of languages...


Blame the English. They're the ones that came up with the bright idea to call any small passerine species a 'tit'. Though I must confess to the delight at the thought of explaining to other people in parks that the binoculars I carry are for looking for and at tits.  :D

And I just got back from vacation in "Les Grande Tetons".  They were big, beautiful and pointy.



Feh...they're fake. Look at the way they defy gravity and point straight up.

Date: 2010/09/10 09:15:07, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=sparc,Sep. 10 2010,00:48][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 09 2010,13:23)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 09 2010,11:51)

   
Quote

There is a common assignment in Physical Anthro classes to go to a zoo with a "behavioral checklist" to be filled out watching some monkeys.

I would send 1/2 my students to the shopping mall instead of the zoo, and we would then compare their results.


Awesome! Why do I get the feeling that the behaviors are strikingly similar?  ;)

Maybe because the monkeys are aping you.


Really? How do you know that the mall denizens aren't just humaning me?

:p

Date: 2010/09/10 09:19:18, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 10 2010,03:10)

Quote
As to Chesterton: I’ve just read the first 30 pages of _Orthodoxy_.

This is philosophy for people who won’t read philosophy, written by someone who didn’t read philosophy either. As rhetoric, this is good enough to be notable, but compared to contemporaries like Borges, Orwell and Shaw it’s frankly quite shallow.


My hero! Of course noting such about Chesterton is tantamount to burning pictures of Elvis in Tennessee. Them's fightin' words!

Ahh Barry R...we hardly knew ya...

Date: 2010/09/10 11:05:27, Link
Author: Robin
In response to 07's question, "why the reduction to atoms all the time",  Uptight states the obvious, but doesn't seem to understand his own statement:
 
Quote

The reduction is because if there are only atoms, then there are only atoms.


Quite true there, Uptight, but then again you seem to be under the misconception that all atoms are the same thing. Given that, I dare you to dribble a little chloride and a chunk of sodium on your food and compare it to the same food with a little table salt sprinkled on. I mean, they're just atoms, right?

ETA: Oh...and given your drivel about where on the periodic table the concept of justice can be found assuming that in an atom-only world, all concepts must be material, I'll tell you what - I'll show where on said periodic table you can find such concepts when you show me where on the periodic table I can find a hurricane.

TARD

Date: 2010/09/10 11:42:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 10 2010,11:03)
 
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 10 2010,09:42)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 09 2010,16:23)

   
Quote
Haggis!!!

The bestest whole meal everest!!!*







*No, seriously, I love Haggis.


Egads! You can't be serious!

Personally I can't stomach it. (no pun and all that)

Tried it with several pints of Guinness and even that didn't help. I did eat the turnips, potatoes, and carrots though, so I suppose all in all I had a decent meal.

And you had several pints of Guiness!


Yep! As I said, it was a decent meal - good liquid bread and plenty of tasty veggies - the sheep's porridge-n-sheep's stomach notwithstanding.


Oh, and 'round these parts we spell the stout's name with two 'n's. Stop ogling at yer bride's figure and look it up.   :D

Date: 2010/09/10 15:55:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 10 2010,13:04)
See what I did there? :)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 10 2010,18:59)
Cute! I didn't realise they are so small. And what did you do to make it stay on your hand?

Who ever said it was his hand...












See what I did there? :)




Oh yeah...we see what you did there...

Date: 2010/09/13 13:45:00, Link
Author: Robin
On an unrelated subject, having noted your pics over the last year or so, Kattarina, and now followed the changes to your quote line for the last week or so, I've decided you are the luckiest 6th millionth person* on the planet. I want to go there now!**


* a rough guestimate of the number of participants in Octoberfest in Munich, which on the one hand looks somewhat terrifying in scale (from some of the pics of the tents I've come across), but makes up for this in the appropriately scaled steins of beer.

** Octoberfest


On a related note, I'd like a Hacker-Pshorr now, please...



...and a wurst too...




...Oohh...and a pretzel or two...



...and mustard! Can't have the aforementioned without good German mustard...




Edited: corrected name spelling...sorry 'bout that.

Date: 2010/09/14 08:00:36, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 13 2010,16:56)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 13 2010,13:45)
I want to go there now!

Robin, maybe is it some comfort that prices have gone up a staggering 30% - beer, food, rides, you name it.


Some comfort, but it still looks like fun.  :)

Date: 2010/09/21 08:43:35, Link
Author: Robin
Hey Lou, I hope things have gotten a little better in the month since you posted about the personal/school stuff. Very tough going I'm sure and believe me, as others have stated (in some detail) there are those of us who can relate.

Trust me when I say that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a train.  ;)

Good luck and good work!

Date: 2010/09/21 13:13:08, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Louis,Sep. 21 2010,10:58][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 21 2010,14:43)
[SNIP]

Trust me when I say that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a train.  ;)

[SNIP]

a) Depends on the tunnel.

b) Yes, sadly, it invariably is.

However, given that, it can be an interesting time to start either a) trainspotting or b) a very advanced sprinting career. In other words, when life gives you lemons say "Oi, garcon! I ordered fucking oranges! Sort it out por favor!".

It seems to work for other people. I can't imagine why. ;-)

Louis


Ahhh Louis... :D


I daresay though, if the light is from an approaching engine, one should only take up trainspotting if one is farsighted. Otherwise the train identification will be rather brief.

Date: 2010/09/24 15:53:56, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (khan @ Sep. 24 2010,13:35)
 
Quote (Seversky @ Sep. 23 2010,21:24)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2010,08:04)
Gordon Mullings proves the power of prayer:

     
Quote
I will leave most details to others, just first noting on one of your red herring tracks that there are millions who will testify to you on experience that prayer works. In fact, that I am alive, have enough breath to post, and have enough back to sit up are ALL answers to prayer, in astonishingly and obviously miraculous ways. (I could start with the appointment error that led my mom to half lift me out of a med centre, and as we came out the door, we faced a taxi with the open door, and the man saying: “Asthma, I know just the doctor you need.” That is how we found the doctor who saved my life. Literally.)

I recently lost one of my uncles to metastatic cancer.

His family and friends prayed for him.  He may even have prayed for himself.

All to no avail.

Gordon Mullings presents himself as a scientist.  As such, he should have been trained to beware the Fallacy of Selective Reporting and give little credence to anecdote.

What he should be asking, as a scientist, is how many critically ill people survive, apparently as a result of intercessory prayer, compared with those who die in spite of it.

If the God in which the IDeologues believe truly exists then he appears to decide who lives and who dies on the roll of a dice.

I find that detestable

As are his smug, self-righteous followers.

I won't go into great detail.
My brother died at age 19 of cancer.
There were many people praying for him.


Yep. Sorry for your losses Khan and Oldman. :(

I too know a number of folks who lingered long with painful cancers, Alzheimer's, and various other diseases who's prayers or those of others seem to have had little effect.

I've had four kidney transplants and lord knows how many operations and am still here.  I know that there were those who  prayed for me, but I on the other hand merely put my faith into the hands of some extremely skilled surgeons and medical practitioners. Didn't hurt that I actually went out and studied the underlying pathology and physiology of my condition to be in the best position to help diagnose my own health changes and recommend and seek appropriate medical treatment. Worked like a charm.

Date: 2010/09/27 14:08:56, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 27 2010,01:10)

Quote
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2010,18:55)
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ July 28 2010,06:19)
That image reminds me of one suspicion I've always had about VD.  Beyond the first impression of developed biceps, you start to realize due to the proportion of head and body to arm, you're looking at a very, very small man.  I've seen guys like this in the gym and they're always about 5'1''.  VD fits the Napoleon complex to a t.

http://rantingroom.blogspot.com/2007/09/vox-day-and-me-part-12.html

 
Quote
So after all of this build up, then, we're back to the original question: what is Vox Day really like?

Short.

Well, that would explain why he hates women so much.


Short guys generally hate women?

Date: 2010/09/27 14:19:23, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2010,18:50)

Quote
I thought the point was that charms aren't supposed to work, or work reliably.

Or was that irony?


Ohh...man! Didn't see that coming!

I wasn't thinking about what the turn of phrase actually means. Teach me to toss out cliches...

Date: 2010/09/28 08:33:39, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 28 2010,06:30)
Gosh, what a surprise. Atheists/agnostics know more about religion than religious people do.


Dang...ya beat me to it, Albatrossity. I was just about to post this myself.

Of course, given the depth of analysis here vs...say...the lack there of from the folks at UD and TT, this survey doesn't surprise me much.

Date: 2010/09/29 14:44:08, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 29 2010,05:35)
Is it just me or do I use too many things as an excuse to do all that? ;-)


Feh...I think it's just that most people don't come up with enough excuses...

Date: 2010/09/30 09:08:52, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 29 2010,22:46)

Quote
StephenB on the Fibonacci Life thread:
 
Quote
...
For me, the word cause simply means something or someone that brings something else about. What can we say, for example, of Adam’s first sin? Obviously, God did not bring sin into the world or, put another way, he did not bring it about. In keeping with that point, Adam brought sin into the world and was, in that sense, the first cause of sin. All the same, God is the cause of Adam’s power to exercise his will and, in that sense, Adam’s act is not a first cause.

ASSF!


Gaaaah!! This kind of numbnuttery drives just gets me riled!

Look, Steve-o, how can this 'Adam' dood have "caused sin" when Genesis 2 clearly states:

16
   The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
17
   except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

Now pray tell, how does Adam or Even or even the Serpent at this point KNOW what  "good", "bad", "doom", or "die" even means? Hmmm? Where did those concepts and the associated concept of consequence, never mind responsibility come from? Did they just know these things inherently? Heck, where did the concept of obey, nevermind disobey come from? How could any of them have any ability to even disobey God anyway, let alone know that they were doing so?

All this is just the primer logic. The real problem is with the concept of "sin". Is sin an actual thing like heat or merely a term describing a type of behavior. If the former, from whence did this Adam fellow get the power to create things? Who taught him he had such power and what the consequences would be and what they meant (see above)? Who created such power in the first place? And if you are seriously going with this concept of sin, basically you are advocating that your god is like an irresponsible parent who places a gun on the kitchen counter and says to his 8 year old, "son, you can play with anything in this house except this gun, for if you use it you are surely doomed to die!" Now whose fault is it really when the kid shoots his baby sister?

The utter disregard for the concept of authoritative responsibility that literal, evangelical numbskulls have is just mindboggling to me. These people should be banned from using machinery.

Date: 2010/09/30 11:52:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (khan @ Sep. 28 2010,10:37)

Quote
There's a new white squirrel hanging around. No pictures yet.


Got one here (Fairfax, Virginia) at my office. Really jarring when you aren't used to it.

Date: 2010/09/30 11:55:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 30 2010,09:23)
I've had a late (and therefore interesting) hummingbird in the yard the past couple of days. (snipped)


Fantastic pic, Albatrossity!

Date: 2010/10/04 10:49:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 01 2010,23:44)
I reckon this ought to go in this thread.




Booyaw! Congrats Lou!

Date: 2010/10/04 16:23:51, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=carlsonjok,Sep. 11 2010,16:38][/quote]
 
Quote
I am back from the local Oktoberfest celebration.

I had the following:

Hacker-Pschorr Oktoberfest
Coop Oktoberfest
Spaten Optimator
Ayinger Celebrator Doppelbock

I had some food, too. But who cares about that?


Hit a couple of the local Oktoberfests here in Virginia over the past couple of weeks. I've now tried the following:

Spaten Oktoberfest

Hofbrau Oktober

I really liked (loved) the Spaten; the Hofbrau left me thinking I'd gotten an American substitute. It wasn't bad, just didn't seem to have the character. Still, it was draught and went fine with the food.

I also had Dominion Octoberfest, which I thought for a small(ish) American brew was darn good.

Cheers to October!

Date: 2010/10/05 08:49:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 04 2010,21:12)
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 04 2010,16:23)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 11 2010,16:38)

     
Quote
I am back from the local Oktoberfest celebration.

I had the following:

Hacker-Pschorr Oktoberfest
Coop Oktoberfest
Spaten Optimator
Ayinger Celebrator Doppelbock

I had some food, too. But who cares about that?


Hit a couple of the local Oktoberfests here in Virginia over the past couple of weeks. I've now tried the following:

Spaten Oktoberfest

Hofbrau Oktober

I really liked (loved) the Spaten; the Hofbrau left me thinking I'd gotten an American substitute. It wasn't bad, just didn't seem to have the character. Still, it was draught and went fine with the food.

I also had Dominion Octoberfest, which I thought for a small(ish) American brew was darn good.

Cheers to October!

You need a real American Oktoberfest, such as Left Hand's or Flying Dogtoberfest.


Mmm...sounds yum! I had the Sam Adams Oktoberfest once - not bad, but a bit heavy imo. I want to try the Leinenkugel's, but alas I don't know anywhere around here in VA that has it on tap.

Quote

By the way...


Ahhh...pretzels...om nom nom nom nom...

Date: 2010/10/05 10:46:50, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 05 2010,06:16)
Anyway, me and Dr Steve Steve are already in Inverness, working our way south and hoping to find their place.


Well lass, then you are not too far from me family clan's castle:



Inverary Castle

Quaint little cottage in the woods really. Watch out for the peacocks...

Date: 2010/10/06 10:38:18, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 05 2010,13:36)

Quote
Quote (REC @ Oct. 05 2010,10:01)
He's back with his mental gymnastics.

   
Quote
The most an evolutionist can say is that euthanasia violates evolutionary theory. But in fact euthanasia—the idea and the action—exists and so must have been produced by evolution. So our evolutionist is yet once again incorrect. Euthanasia doesn’t violate evolutionary theory—it was created by evolution.


Therefore, God

Jesus Christ, that's dumb. Yes everything ever done by any organism whatsoever is part of evolutionary theory, and evolution itself actually creates and dictates every single, solitary behavior ever performed by any organism whatsoever.

Of course, the sensible person would see that euthanasia is motivated by all sorts of considerations, only some of which (namely, emotional responses like compassion) are the direct result of our evolutionary history.

ETA: Only in the most trivial sense is evolution "responsible" for stuff like this, in that our brains are products of evolution, and it's our brains that allow us to conceptualize things like euthanasia and subsequently engage in ethical debates about them.


The thing that gets me is the apparent lack of understanding (or mere equivocation) between is and ought. So what if euthanasia were a product of evolution? Are we (or any other organism for that matter) *required* by evolution to engage in it? No? Then what are you babbling about?

Date: 2010/10/06 11:08:39, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Richardthughes,Oct. 06 2010,10:17][/quote]
Quote
https://www.blogger.com/comment....4132195


Clearly Joe is in marketing and not design:

Richard: It's not efficient because it's massively redundant.

JoeG: Being redundant can be a design feature.

JoeG: If there is failure to one then the other takes over.

Earth to Joe - that might make sense if the environment were infinite - like say in some mythical heaven - but here in this universe, we have a finite environment. This universe also happens to be material, which means things take up actual space. Many of the same type of thing doesn't then create redundancy in most cases - nope it just creates clutter and lack of diversity. Thus, it is inefficient. Clearly only a complete nincompoop would design anything like this.

Richard: How many galaxies do and stars do we need for discovery?

JoeG: As many as it takes.

Well clearly in your case, Joe, you will continue to ignore reality no matter how many galaxies are presented for you to discovery.

Date: 2010/10/06 13:27:20, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 05 2010,11:27)
I found this comment insightfull in the 'Courtier's responce' aftermath thread at Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog:

https://www.blogger.com/comment....1437274


Another gem from that discussion:

Dymara (in response to lee_merrill):

 
Quote
Your argument is literally that since two grandiose projects haven't borne any fruit, the only possible conclusion  is that a magical invisible sky fairy must exist and be shaping events in order to prevent said grandiose schemes from fruition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If efforts to rebuild Babylon had resulted in workers being flung back by an unknown force while a booming voice announced "You shall not cross me, mortals," and subsequent attempts met with the same supernatural intervention, then you'd have a case. However, a grandiose plan failing when the money behind it dries up and the key parties lose interest is an entirely mundane occurrence, and does not justify any such conclusion. Saying that the effects of divine intervention are indistinguishable from mundane chance is equivalent to saying that no divine intervention has ever occurred.
-  (emphasis in original)

I love it so!

Date: 2010/10/06 15:41:31, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 06 2010,13:47)

Marry me?


Well that would certainly work!



Although...Uhh...hmmm...well, there are a few...um...well...rather small...err...details I suppose I should be a bit forthcoming on before we plan any nuptials:

1) While the pretty little place is in my family's line, I myself am like...267th in line for it (or some such) and not even direct at that. There are a rather LOT of Campbells out there.

2) I'm married.

3) I wasn't kidding about the peacocks.

Date: 2010/10/07 11:02:47, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (REC @ Oct. 06 2010,17:01)
Proposed new rule-

If, by Comment 10, JoeG is the only one left defending the original blog post, it is deem falsified.

Lols


Slightly rephrased, I present JoeTard's Law:

As JoeG's posts become more frequent in a discussion and include more emotionally-laced epithets and derogatory comments, the probability that he is wrong approaches 1.

Corollary 1: As JoeG's such discussions continue, the probability that JoeG will attempt to move the goal posts approaches 1.


----

ETA: Corrected incorrect (though similar sounding) word and added corollary.

Date: 2010/10/07 13:10:51, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Albatrossity2,Oct. 07 2010,11:42][/quote]
 
Quote
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 07 2010,10:48)
Checking my Peterson's, I think it's an immature Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), because of the large white patch high on the breast.


An even better field mark is shown in your first photo - the dark patagial stripe on the leading edge of the wing. Red-tailed Hawk is the only North American raptor with this field mark.

And I don't think its an immature, 'cause the tail doesn't seem to be barred, and the iris appears to be yellow.


I agree Albatrossity. The last photo shows a distinctly broad tail too - very much a red-tail characteristic.

BTW, really nice photos Lou!


---

Edited to note great photos.

Date: 2010/10/08 10:29:43, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 08 2010,07:06)
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 07 2010,12:02)
Slightly rephrased, I present JoeTard's Law:

As JoeG's posts become more frequent in a discussion and include more emotionally-laced epithets and derogatory comments, the probability that he is wrong approaches 1.

Hmmm.

But isn't the probability that he is wrong 1 with his first sentence?


Uhh...I figured I'd be charitable? Plus, I really really really do think that Joe has about a 30% chance of being accurate on something. It's like the clock observation - he's likely correct at least twice a day.

---

Edit: Removed duplicate

Date: 2010/10/08 10:54:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 07 2010,14:05)

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 07 2010,12:11)
Thanks, Alby, you rock.

Well, actually, I suck. I mistakenly recalled the details about iris color in RTH; yellow iris in juveniles and darker iris in adults. It's hard to tell from your pics, but the iris is definitely not dark!

But I still think it's not a juvenile based on the lack of barring on the tail, and the red color of the upper surface of the tail, which can be seen rather well in your shots.


Like Lou think you're being a bit hard on yourself Albatrossity. The second and third pic definitely show some faded yellow in the iris. And while adults do lose the yellow, a second and sometimes even a third year bird would still have some.  Plus as you noted, the tail has no distinct banding and while there is quite a bit of plumage variation in the species, the tail definitely indicates adult. Given the backlighting and all, I really think you made the right call.

Oh and Lou, if you'd like to have the opportunity to shoot some raptors at some point, you are always welcome to come up to the wildlife preserve I work at (not vocationally; just my hobby so to speak). Not only do we now have a raptor rescue group on site (which makes shooting pics of raptors sort of silly easy if you just want shots), but we do have one of the greater concentration of birds throughout Virginia. Granted you likely have something a weee bit closer to you down in NC, but just letting you know. It's called Banshee Reeks.

Date: 2010/10/12 13:04:16, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Albatrossity2,Oct. 12 2010,11:17][/quote]
Quote
But if you have ever worked in this field chemical dependency you know that that is NOT going to work. Not by a long shot. The most effective way I have found when dealing with destructive ‘desires’ is to clearly state the truth of the matter to the situation.



Just curious, BA77, but isn't there a reason that it's called chemical dependency and not chemical desire?

Also, why the air quotes around desire?


----

Edited to correct mistake in coding

Date: 2010/10/12 13:08:41, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 12 2010,12:31)

Quote
Yay!

New haircut, new avatar!


That was quite a useless post, wasn't it?


Nice. Though I confess I prefer the previous pic - made you look more EEEEVIIIILLL!

It's how all IDists see us anyway.

Date: 2010/10/13 10:11:51, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2010,09:52)

Quote
Yeah, here's a better one.



Shouldn't the guy at the computer be a bit more flabby?

Date: 2010/10/14 11:07:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 14 2010,10:14)

Quote
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 14 2010,09:50)
Those must be the names of the inflatable love dolls Joe keeps in his basement.

Joe's a popular guy!

:p

25 of them are variations of his own name.  No one told him he couldn't count himself.


Sock puppets.

Date: 2010/10/22 14:55:37, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 22 2010,13:21)
Dembski is not a YEC! According to Dembski...

   
Quote
I am of the opinion that the days of Genesis 1 refer to God’s workweek rather than to six twenty-four hour days. I also know that orthodox Christians disagree on this question. That disagreement is not, however, a disagreement over the trustworthiness of Scripture, but rather, over its best interpretation.

Krebs seems to think that by saying that the creation events are historical I must be saying that God’s creation days are each twenty four hours long and took place sometime in the last few thousand years. I assume that more careful readers of my comments will not make the same mistake.


“Coming clean” about YEC?


'Oh Lord...forgive me for what I am about to do...' (sigh)

Ok...here goes - Dembski is being straight forward accurate in his statement above.

I know, I know...and believe me, I'm NOT defending Dembski's claims about ID or any other nonsense, just the part about accepting inerrancy AND stating that Noah's flood was local and that the word day in Genesis means an indeterminate length of time.

The key is in his use of the term inerrantist. There is a big difference between that and a literalist in theological circles.

The literalist position that the bible is both inerrant (most use the word infallible) AND historically accurate Thus to a literalist, the story in Genesis *literally* means that everything in the universe, including life on this planet, was created in 6, 24 hour days. However a literalist would be quick to agree that the quote, "ye are the salt of the earth" does NOT mean that that Jesus was saying that the people were literally piles of salt.  

The inerrantist position is that the entirety of the scriptures is inerrant - that is, the teachings of scriptures are accurately presented, however to fully understand them you need to understand how to accurately translate them. This means that while the message and morale teaching of the story is infallible, the words can, at times, be poetic. The inerrantist position is summed up in Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but the fact is that among conservative Christians and fundamentalists, it's a big difference.

IMO however, this doesn't change the force of Dembski's recant, nor does it change the overt revealing of the charade that is ID.

I can't believe I'm defending Dembski's statement on this, but the fact is that he doesn't indicate anywhere that he's a literalist and there's nothing in what he's said that indicates to me he's become YEC or that he's even trying to cover that up.

Date: 2010/10/22 15:02:34, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Maya @ Oct. 22 2010,14:13)

Quote
So a simple word like "day" is subject to so much "best interpretation" that it can mean something different each time it's used in the same book?

What exactly does "inerrant" mean to a person who thinks like that?


It means that to fully understand a given term or story concept, one may have to appeal to culture or semantic understanding, or to look at contextual clues on how the Hebrews (or Greeks) used the word in other similar settings. Of course, it also gives license to those who are dishonest or who don't care to come up with reasonable (sounding) explanations for completely laughable interpretations of biblical passages to suit their hypocrisy. Nonetheless, it is technically acceptable use of the word inerrant.

Date: 2010/10/22 15:11:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (khan @ Oct. 22 2010,14:39)
If the Bible® is the "revealed inerrant word of God®", what is the need for all that study and interpretation®...?


Umm...err...just because Einstein's calculations wrt to universe appear inerrant doesn't mean everyone immediately understands them without some study in math and interpretation in cosmology.

Similarly, understanding a koan or even Mark Twain's satire requires some study and interpretation. Not everything is straightforward.

 ;)

Date: 2010/10/22 15:29:00, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 22 2010,15:13)
So does he believe that everything died in a global flood? Because that's a ridiculous as a young Earth.


No idea and I agree with you. Therein lies the example of where there is no difference between inerrancy and literalism - either position at this point leaves most insisting on situations and explanations that imo the bible can't reasonably or rationally be used to support, nevermind never having been intended to do so. As far as I'm concerned, once one starts trying to pin down that level of detail, one has lost the point of the bible, Christianity in general, and any sort of credibility in any discussion.

Date: 2010/10/22 15:41:15, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (REC @ Oct. 22 2010,15:25)
This just reinforces my belief that Dembski and ID in general are slippery bastards who will say what they need to when they need to.

Example:

"In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch."

And "I am of the opinion that the days of Genesis 1 refer to God’s workweek rather than to six twenty-four hour days."

Seem to be at odds, unless you interpret:

"Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive."

As meaning God's time is ordinary space-time, just with a different scale?


2Peter 3:8:
"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day."

Dembski seems to be saying the Genesis account reflects actual space-time in billions of years to us humans since to his god such time would have been no more than six days.

"All things are possible with the Lord" and all that...

I know, I know...it's just so easy for me to fall back into all this. I'll stop now.  :D

Date: 2010/10/22 15:48:47, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Richardthughes,Oct. 22 2010,15:37][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2010,15:29)
As far as I'm concerned, once one starts trying to pin down that level of detail, one has lost the point of the bible, Christianity in general, and any sort of credibility in any discussion.

Is it a pathetic level of detail?


Oh yes...yes it is! LOL!

Quote

No disrespect, but your views on the bible are no more or less valid than anyone else who subscribes to that stuff.


No offense taken and you're darn tootin'. Hence the 'imo' and the 'as far as I'm concerned' and all that. I'm merely trying to point out that on his theological beliefs and views, Dembski doesn't appear to be weaseling. I'm not suggesting it's right or (heaven forbid) that I actually believe the stuff I posted anymore.

Date: 2010/10/25 09:34:06, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 20 2010,15:39)
This is for Robin, although he is only 267th in line:



St Giles's Cathedral, Edinburgh

Quote
This is for Robin, although he is only 267th in line:



St Giles's Cathedral, Edinburgh


Dang! Missed this last week. Thanks Kattarina! Yes, some of me ancestors had a bit of time. Reading about Mary Queen of Scots and all those folk makes Richard III and Hamlet seem like happy tales.

Date: 2010/10/26 10:24:38, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Kattarina98,Oct. 25 2010,17:14][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 25 2010,09:34)
Dang! Missed this last week. Thanks Kattarina! Yes, some of me ancestors had a bit of time. Reading about Mary Queen of Scots and all those folk makes Richard III and Hamlet seem like happy tales.

I'm currently watching the series "A History of Scotland" by Neil Oliver. It's bloodcurdling. And I thought the Scottish were nice and peaceful, disturbed only by the nasty English. How wrong I was!


Oh we're (well...I don't know I can claim any actual citizenship at this point) a terrible lot. As bad tempered as the Irish, but we don't need religion as an excuse to kill one another. All that haggis just puts us in a frightful mood. Plus, we don't make a beer worth a damn to wash it down - we just get pissed on whiskey. Granted it's good whiskey, but then we're 5 times as drunk as any Irishman which means we can only fight dirty and sober (thus miserable) or dirty and falling down a lot.

Oh and steal...we're good at stealing stuff. Like our brothers' and fathers' wives, their homes, land, thrones, etc.

Lovely place to go these days and just a great people, but boy am I glad I wasn't there back before 1900 or so.

Edit - finished a thought.

Date: 2010/10/28 08:05:12, Link
Author: Robin
Happy Birthday Texas Teach!

Date: 2010/10/28 08:19:50, Link
Author: Robin
Many happy returns David VK!

'Cause I know you need some fun besides your computer and wife:

Date: 2010/10/29 09:27:10, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 28 2010,17:22)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 28 2010,08:11)
 
Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 28 2010,07:32)
It is a fine piece of work, undoubtedly, but could perhaps benefit from a touch more Sturm und Drang.

Any suggestions?

Well,  the caption could read "CSI:  Mal-Arky"

And I've always had a fondness for Turner:



Although yours has greater impact, I think


Nice! I prefer Winslow Homer myself:



You gotta have sharks and blood in the water. Death and all that...

Date: 2010/10/29 09:40:38, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=didymos,Oct. 28 2010,21:08][/quote]
Quote
More Dense "logic":

 
Quote
The United States put men on the moon, mapped the outer planets, and generally leads in science. And it is more religious than other countries. So, if religion makes a difference, bring it on.


OK, aside from the oddity of Canadian her getting all "America! Fuck yeah!"....RESEARCH FAIL DENYSE!  You assume religiosity is uniformly distributed. Which is both stupid and wrong. But then that is your specialty, so, um.....good job?


Uh..Denyse? Do you even know how to Google or that there is other information out there besides what you read and spew? For example, here's this little gem from a Christian site no less:

"Nigeria, Brazil, India and Morocco are among the most religious nations in the world, according to a major study on faith released Tuesday."

To be sure, the US is way up there too (oddly), but we aren't even in the top 5.

Date: 2010/10/29 14:50:48, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 29 2010,13:50)

Quote
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2010,13:05)
Here's one for Joe:

http://scienceblogs.com/startsw...._un.php

Oooh!!!  That's exciting; it's about size-yness, one of Joe's stronger areas!


Sure, but at that scale, we are all damn puny.

Awesome article btw!

Date: 2010/11/02 08:43:26, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=BillB,Nov. 02 2010,03:47][/quote]
 
Quote
   
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 02 2010,03:02)
How does science tell the difference between ‘natural selection’ and ‘artificial selection’? And wouldn’t any computer demonstration be artificial selection regardless?

I suppose technically any simulation of evolution is actually a type of simulated theistic evolution - The researcher (god) creates a world (the simulation) in which evolution can occur.

The key difference between this and 'artificial selection' is that selection is written into the rules of the simulation, not imposed on individual population members by an agent outside the simulation.

If the ID compatible branch of TE is right - that God ocasionally intervenes to change things - then God is performing artificial selection by tweaking the 'simulator'.

hmmm.


Quick tangent on this. I'm currently working on invasive species removal at this wildlife preserve and researching various hypotheses on why some species (both native and non-native, though mostly non-native) are unsuccessful invaders while others become so prolific. There are many hypotheses it turns out and an accurate understanding of the mechanics is muddled by the fact that different explanations appear to be valid for different environments and conditions. This may seem obvious, but in many cases the appropriate explanations are counter-intuitive. For example, most ecologists accepted the hypothesis that the gray squirrel successfully invaded (and is displacing the red squirrel) in England by being a better competitor. However, further analysis reveals that red squirrels have never been very productive in England anyway AND that the amount of effort exerted by various groups to introduce the gray squirrel really amounted to a very successful artificial selection program. Turns out that man's artificial selection of species while introducing them to man-disturbed environments may well be the biggest reason for a successful invasion in most environments. Sadly, once man has done so and a given species gets a sufficient hold, this itself changes the ecology of the environment, thus making it nearly impossible to reverse the process.

Makes me question the effort I've been and still am putting in...

Edited: fixed typos, etc.

Date: 2010/11/03 10:45:53, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 02 2010,15:49)

Quote
PaV chips in:  
Quote
How does one “create” an environment that ‘rewards’ certain configurations without inputting some selection functions? But this then means that human intelligence has to come up with a ‘reasonable’ selection function that will then operate under ‘reasonable’ conditions. This is information, located in an intelligent agent. How do you surmount this problem?

And the get out clause is - If, by some feat of genius someone created a windows programe that reproduces and evolves then the extra dFSCSIInformation must have been gathered from the OS - WHICH WAS DESIGNED!


So wait...let me see if I understand this correctly - according to gpuccio and PaV, if one creates a program 'designed' to model the Earth's physical conditions (things like gravity, night and day, seasons, elemental states, elemental content, etc...) does that then mean that the Earth itself was designed because it has those conditions? Are images in mirrors thus "intelligent designs" because the environment (the mirror) is 'designed' to reflect such images?

Given such thinking I'm completely flabbergasted that these folks have the neural capability that allows breathing.

Date: 2010/11/03 10:59:08, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (DaveH @ Oct. 27 2010,16:18)

Quote
btw It's whisKY (and please, never "Scotch" either, that implies that there might be some other type) ;)


See? I've clearly been away too long.

Date: 2010/11/03 15:02:20, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 03 2010,11:18)
Joe introduces a concept he thinks is fantastic and defends it by refusing to post comments that criticize it.

 
Quote
Perhaps you could provide an example of your premise:

Joe: "Nothing in there that says either dude used observations and experiences- <b>just observing a rock is not what I am talking about.</b>"

Perhaps you have specific details showing what you are talking about?


I find it odd that Joe doesn't have a career researching and publishing his "fantastic concepts", what with his brilliant reasoning, solid favorable calculations, and endless references to supporting hypotheses.


:p

Date: 2010/11/03 15:49:48, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 03 2010,15:32)
I'm really glad that I don't it isn't remotely possible for a person who is smarter than a box of hammers  to understand the "thinking" that underlies tarditude at Joe's unique level...


There, fixed that for you.

Date: 2010/11/04 08:26:35, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2010,22:18)

Quote
Is that picture intended to be Boromir, or just some unspecified victim of Orcs?


My guess would be Hurin, one of the few to be taken alive to Angband after the Battle of Unnumbered Tears (First Age).

Yeah...I know...I'm THAT much of a Middle-earth geek.

Date: 2010/11/04 08:33:26, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 03 2010,23:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2010,20:18)
Is that picture intended to be Boromir, or just some unspecified victim of Orcs?

Maedhros.   He's in the Silmarillion.


Oops...my bad! Didn't read down before I responded, Didymos!

Date: 2010/11/04 10:18:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,08:37)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 04 2010,06:26)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2010,22:18)

   
Quote
Is that picture intended to be Boromir, or just some unspecified victim of Orcs?


My guess would be Hurin, one of the few to be taken alive to Angband after the Battle of Unnumbered Tears (First Age).

Yeah...I know...I'm THAT much of a Middle-earth geek.

Goddamit, pay attention people:

 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 03 2010,15:22)
Oh, look: Batshit stole the image and didn't care to attribute it properly. He even cropped the artist's name out. Isn't that nice? It's LOTR fan art.  So, Orcs explained!  Woo-hoo!  

Also: Batshit77 - plagiarizing jerk.


I know, I know, I know...clearly I need to read backwards (newest message to oldest) so that I don't comment BEFORE seeing some else beat me to the punch.

Quote
I put, like 3 or 4 seconds of work into tracking that down, but does anyone care?  Nooooo!  Click the link! Click. The. Link.

So, anyway:  it's Maedhros, not Hurin.

ETA:  OK, great.  Robin just went and ruined this post and made me look inattentive.  :angry:


Nope...It is I who look inattentive. I didn't do proper reeeserch before I posted. Bad me!

:(

I bow to your Goodle foo!

Date: 2010/11/05 08:10:59, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:02)

Quote
How could someone lie if there is no absolute right or wrong, or true or false? Lying is to knowingly state something that is wrong or false. If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?


Is your IQ like...1?

Whether there are absolutes of morality (e.g., "Right" and "Wrong") has ZERO to do with whether there are other opposites, such as "left" or "right", "hot" or "cold", "up" or "down", and "true" or "false".

That you either don't understand this or are intentionally equivocating demonstrates that your "Christian" position is worthless.

Lying (as you so easily demonstrate) is quite independent of one's views on morality. Clearly you don't think lying is "bad", but that doesn't stop you from stating falsehoods intentionally.

So, once again the proof is presented that you don't know what you are babbling about. Thanks for once again demonstrating what your particular brand of "Christianity" is really all about  - nonsense and dishonesty. Nice...

Date: 2010/11/05 08:16:55, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)

Quote
Are there any square circles?:)


Not if one wishes to actually use language to communicate there aren't. But of course I suppose in your world, there's no difference between a man-made, culturally agreed upon definition to facilitate accurate understanding and an absolute. Such a shame...but then it explains why your posts tend to be rather incoherent.

Date: 2010/11/05 08:21:57, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Nov. 04 2010,18:45][/quote]
Quote
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?


No, it is perfectly reasonable to state there are no absolutes when one is not trying to be disingenuous by equivocating words. There is an enormous difference between an absolute - i.e., something that will never change or vary - and an agreed upon definition for convenience and convention, something that actually does in fact CHANGE OVER TIME. Indeed there are thousands of terms that we use today that do not mean the same thing they did even 100 years ago, so clearly language and words are NOT absolutes.

So once again you point is shown to be absurd.

Edit - "no" is important in first the sentence above. Changes the meaning completely...

Date: 2010/11/05 11:17:41, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 05 2010,11:13)
...(those of you who have been privy to the "special" photos know I do not lie)...


Oh...SOOO not going there...

**Closes door. Walks quietly away.**

Date: 2010/11/08 12:27:13, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 08 2010,08:53)

Quote
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 08 2010,08:32)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2010,03:26)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 07 2010,21:39)
I notice he no longer lists any academic affiliation.  Just self-appointed "director" of his own corporation:
"Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life
Science Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr. Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA"

Has he ever listed an academic affiliation?

Hmm.  You're right.  For some reason I thought he was associated with Trevors, Durston and those other cranky loons at U of Guelph.

ETA: make that loony cranks


That's the "international" part of his consortium.

It's so cute when Canadians think of themselves as another country.

Yep. Perhaps he just corresponds from time to time with Denyse.

Date: 2010/11/09 13:12:21, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:58)
It can't be more incomplete than the theory of evolution. Geez at least ID has a testable hypothesis...


Ahhh yes...the ever-repeated claim that no ID proponent seems capable of substantiating. How odd that. LOL!

Go ahead Joe...wow us again with that vapor-hypothesis!

:D

Date: 2010/11/09 13:30:16, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:58)
It can't be more incomplete than the theory of evolution. Geez at least ID has a testable hypothesis...


Ahhh yes...the ever-repeated claim that no ID proponent seems capable of substantiating. How odd that. LOL!

Go ahead Joe...wow us again with that vapor-hypothesis!

:D

Robin, Several IDists have proposed testable hypotheses for ID.

Mine version is on my blog.


BZZZZZZ! Sorry Joe, but that isn't a correct answer. You forgot to phrase it in the form of a question. Further, claiming that "oh...there are hypotheses out there; you just have to go find them..." doesn't work. If you can't post such with a publishing reference, your just blowing turd as usual. I have no interest in turd-blowers who can't provide actual citations.

But do come on back when you have something of value besides turd-blowing though, m'kay?  Thanks Joe!

Date: 2010/11/09 13:34:24, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:22)
ID doesn't need to go underground. However it is obvious that is where the ToE will be buried...


Oh I do so LOVE prognosticators, prophets, fortune-tellers and seers! I didn't know you were one, Joe! Gosh...I really must have more respect for you now!

So...uhhh...Joe? You got a time frame for this ToE burial? Just curious.

Date: 2010/11/09 13:50:30, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:43)
Well Robin all evotards are turd-blowers as they cannot provide a citation that supports their claims.


You go ahead and believe any erroneous thing you want to there Joe; whatever falsies lift your skirt and help you sleep at night!  LOL!

Oh...and btw, your claim is merely a tu quoque, which really doesn't help your credibility. It's merely another form of turd-blowing. And so far, you're the only evidence of turd-blowing is coming from you.

Date: 2010/11/10 16:03:06, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)

Quote
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
   
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
       
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
       
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
         
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
         
Quote
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.

That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.

Cod happen.

Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour?

Louis

Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!

I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.

I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.

So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?

You all have finally jumped the shark.

I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.

I'm getting a haddock over all this

Are you having a wet bream?

I am afraid this is eel-conceived.


I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up.



* fish, not the mammal

Date: 2010/11/11 09:33:41, Link
Author: Robin


Happy Birthday Louis!

Date: 2010/11/11 11:30:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,11:24)


Robin, that photo....it's surprisingly accurate. A remarkable likeness. Worrying. Very worrying.


Naw...I figured it couldn't be you - the guys drinking Stella.

:p

Date: 2010/11/11 11:40:25, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 11 2010,04:18)

Quote
Null  
Quote
But what seems most important is this: What are the key claims of Darwinism that every ID proponent in the Big Tent must reject by virtue of their being in that tent?

Oh, I'd love to know that, too. What are the requirements to be a True IDist™? What are you allowed to accept without becoming a heretic and being expelled from the Big Tent?

Inquiring minds want to know!


Boy, if that isn't a stealth scientist post...

I mean seriously...could you be any more direct in an indirect way about what ID is actually all about?

Date: 2010/11/18 10:06:30, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2010,21:30)
...with a cheap bottle of wine (with a screw top)...


Not to completely dissolve your imagery here, Cybertank, but...

Date: 2010/11/18 14:49:33, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,06:33)

Quote

Prediction confirmed.

(snipped- no repeat necessary)


I am SO getting this framed, Louis! Best read evah! Three pints on me and I'll pay for a lorry to take you home! Maybe even a taxi!

Ahh...must go wipe my eyes now... :D

Date: 2010/11/30 15:13:48, Link
Author: Robin
Well slap me silly and call me Sally...I just discovered that the Disco Tute has an office right down the road from me! No joke. Here's a pic. At least this is the street view that corresponds to the address on their contact page.

Nice to see they clean your clothes while they dirty up your mind...

Date: 2010/12/01 08:59:31, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=fnxtr,Nov. 30 2010,21:09][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 30 2010,13:13)
Well slap me silly and call me Sally...I just discovered that the Disco Tute has an office right down the road from me! No joke. Here's a pic. At least this is the street view that corresponds to the address on their contact page.

Nice to see they clean your clothes while they dirty up your mind...

3213 or 3216? That strip mall is 3216; 3213 would be across the street by the Baja Mexican Grill.

Edit map reading skills.


The addy on the contact page is 3213, suite 812. I'll see if I can swing the camera around.


--------

Edit:

Not the best shot, but here it is. It's somewhere behind the tree, which for some reason seems appropriate to me.

Date: 2010/12/01 09:58:35, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Badger3k,Nov. 23 2010,11:59][/quote]
Quote
From Dispatches from the Culture Wars, the quote by Dembski (this is all of Ed's post, but go there for the traffic and comments):

 
Quote
rom William Dembski:

Is Darwin's theory true? All the geniuses of science tell us it is true. In fact, they tell us that only the ignorant and stupid masses reject Darwinism. But genius has lost a lot of credibility in our day. The geniuses on Wall Street and in D.C. have made a mess of the economy.
Logic doesn't seem to be Dembski's strong suit. "Smart people have been wrong so stop listening to smart people" is hardly a compelling argument.


Didn't DrDrD basically imply that he isn't smart, so we should listen to him?  That's pretty much how I read it.


Yep...nice own goal their Dr. Dr. Dem...(rolls eyes)

But, it is worth noting that neither the folks on Wall Street nor in DC are necessarily geniuses. In fact, those who were instrumental in the current economy were either crafty, narcissistic, and ethically flexible sociopaths in the first case or they are politically-driven, narrowly bright, ego-maniacs and hypocrites acting within the narrow confines of a self-defeating system in the second. In neither case is there any correlation to genuine geniuses.

But please, feel free to demonstrate how Bush, Cheney, Abramoff, Madoff, or anyone in the subprime mortgage biz qualified as "genius".

---

ET: nixed extra words.

Date: 2010/12/02 13:36:00, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 02 2010,12:22)

Quote
How I misspelt Guinness I have no idea. Must be sober.


DTs?

:p

Date: 2010/12/03 08:51:41, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 02 2010,11:47][/quote]
 
Quote
I guess there are now two questions?

1) Who is going to sue first for a First Amendment violation (you'd think a 300 cubit ark was a pretty obvious endorsement of one religion)?


I don't think this is going on public land and as the announcement notes it's being privately funded. I don't see where the first amendment violation would stand. That the governor is endorsing this is an interesting fine-line issue, it seems he's been careful about noting he's promoting it because of the employment impact. I doubt this will be an issue.

Quote

2) If no one sues, then when will the first Muslim theme park open?  Complete with rental burkahs and those that don't bow when the bell rings get blown up.*


* Yes, I'm being objectionable and stereotypical of the muslim religion.  deal with it.


When some well-funded conservative Muslim group decides that such a venture will further its goals. Until then, it won't happen.

Date: 2010/12/03 09:21:36, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 03 2010,06:28)
This "overall cost" is meaningless. It is not like bacteria growing on pure phosphate compete directly with those growing on pure arsenate. If an environment lacks phosphorus altogether, the former will die and the latter will live.

This is like saying that a high cost of living in Manhattan makes it uninhabitable. Or that people able to survive there have fewer opportunities to blossom compared to those living in the heartland.

My wife, who is a biochemist, makes an excellent point missed by many lay commentators. Its' not like you can take any bacterium, stick it in pure arsenate and watch it grow. They will simply die, precisely because As, while similar chemically to P, is nonetheless different: slightly different ionic radii and bond lengths. It will be assimilated as food but then the resulting building blocks of living matter will have parts that do not quite match and the little machines will not work. There is something about GFAJ-1 that precludes this. Exactly what?

From the evolutionary prospective, the answer may be this. Bacteria living in an environment with a small concentration of arsenic may have adjusted their molecular machinery in such a way that replacing P with As does not have lethal consequences anymore. That's a hypothesis that can be verified empirically.

Using the Manhattan analogy, a Texas farmer won't last long in New York. A good harpsichord player might.


Really nicely described there, Olegt. One suggestion: to minimize quote mining and giving the impression of implied intentional action, I would make one edit:

Quote
Bacteria living in an environment with a small concentration of arsenic may have adjusted their molecular machinery in such a way that replacing P with As does not have lethal consequences anymore.


Clearly the bacteria did not actively adjust their own molecular machinery. It was likely adjusted from a more common bacterial strain with more common phosphorus-based DNA, but this  occurred through an external process.

Date: 2010/12/03 11:19:04, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 03 2010,10:20)
The challenge to define ID is interesting, but I  always thought the ID proponentsists should spell out the curriculum they would use if allowed.

Aside from pointing out gaps in our knowledge, what would they teach about design?

If you take courses in design or engineering, you practice the trade and the tools. You make stuff.

I'd like to see an ID advocate explain how to design a new protein from scratch. What Kinds of knowledge would you need in order to do this? How would the knowledge be acquired? Would the information content of this knowledge be greater or lesser than the information required to proceed incrementally, testing each step?


Canned response in 3...2...1...

Quote
   Dembski Wrote:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.”

Date: 2010/12/06 09:20:11, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 05 2010,13:49)

Quote
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2010,12:15)
The only problem with waiting for them to die off is that they are breeding way the heck faster than anyone else (and having offspring survive).  Then the indocrinate the young of the species.

Well, if we want slightly less collateral damage than the nuclear option involves, we could always put the socks to sleep, stop injecting any rational thought into UD, screw the cover on tight, and wait for the idiocy to hit critical mass.

It'll be a tardocalypse!


For the record, I'm sooooo in love with Maya. Between this and positing the nuking of tardom from orbit...ahhhhh!

Date: 2010/12/06 11:41:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 06 2010,10:58)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 06 2010,09:20)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 05 2010,13:49)

 
Quote
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2010,12:15)
The only problem with waiting for them to die off is that they are breeding way the heck faster than anyone else (and having offspring survive).  Then the indocrinate the young of the species.

Well, if we want slightly less collateral damage than the nuclear option involves, we could always put the socks to sleep, stop injecting any rational thought into UD, screw the cover on tight, and wait for the idiocy to hit critical mass.

It'll be a tardocalypse!


For the record, I'm sooooo in love with Maya. Between this and positing the nuking of tardom from orbit...ahhhhh!

Clearly violence and destruction raise your passions.  Are you one of my brothers?


Not likely - I'm not in a military family. BUT, I did grow up with explosives...lots of 'em.

Ahh...the fond memories of sodium in the dog's water dish in the morning...

Date: 2010/12/07 08:54:01, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 06 2010,22:26)

Quote
Well, the favorable/unfavorable votes have been swung back to the creationists, "56 of 77 people found the following review helpful:"


Sorry Dr. GH but you aren't going to get David Marshall's counts down. I think he spends every waking moment on Amazon putting in reviews for religions/philosophical quackery and just pumps up his own numbers.

Reading the comments to his review is really quite fun though. :)

Date: 2010/12/08 09:42:48, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 07 2010,09:48)

Quote
The attitude that someone else's sexual practises are YOUR (you as in "fundies'/other tedious moralisers'") business has always amazed me. Like the Hippocratic Oath says: first do no harm.


A person who truly understands the bible (or for that matter the Quran, the Vedas, et al) recognizes that the morals,conclusions, and instructions set forth are for the reader's guidance, reflection, learning and benefit ONLY. The moment a person thinks that the words give him or her authority over another person, that person has become nothing shy of evil as far as I'm concerned.

Date: 2010/12/08 09:56:54, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 07 2010,10:06)

Quote
As to the reason that no fundie is against lesbians, well, that's best stated by a comment on The Culture Wars blog.

"Lesbians going at it is HOT!  Guys, that's just ewwwww."


Hmmm...in my experience they verbally* treat lesbianism as just being gay/homosexual and thus condemn it.



* I can't speak to what they practice behind closed doors however.

Date: 2010/12/08 12:16:03, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 08 2010,12:11)

Quote
Joe clarifies...why he's stupid:

http://telicthoughts.com/physical-relativism/#comment-264263

Quote
THAT is what is so funny about your post olegt. Not that I expect you to get it…  

(IOW olegt the only "empirical" evidence are the people making the claims)

d'oh



I don't know about Olegt, but I don't get it. Of course, I actually understand the definition of "empirical", which I guess isn't what Joe's 'joke' is based on.

Date: 2010/12/09 08:08:00, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 08 2010,15:20)

Quote
A few birds I've shot today.

Um... yeah. Not a Mourning Dove.



Unless I'm very much mistaken, that is a Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus).


Oh yeah...definitely:



Great pics btw! Thanks Lou!

Got to get you up to my wildlife preserve and have you shoot some pics of our American Kestrels.

Date: 2010/12/09 15:23:49, Link
Author: Robin


Happy Lurking Birthday Steverino!

Date: 2010/12/10 10:14:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 09 2010,15:42)

Quote
AND... HAPPY BIRFDAYS TO ROBIN.



Phwooooaaar.


OoooOOOOooo...She can be my sidekick any day!

Thanks!

Date: 2010/12/10 10:25:18, Link
Author: Robin
Question time - my wife got me a Nikon D3100 for me bday. It came with an 18-55 and 55-200 (both AF-S VR; neither is ED). Thought this might be a good camera to see if I like shooting digital.

My question is, what would folks (particularly you, Lou since you do a lot of this) recommend for some wildlife photography, particularly birds. Couple of things to consider:

The camera won't take older standard AF lenses; only works with AF-S and AF-I

I'm not trying to shoot pro here; no eagle's beaks at 100 yards type things. Something moderate and versatile that I can reasonable lug around on a walk.

Per above, preferably a hand holdable lens. Yes, I know...it's nice shooting an owl perched up in a tree with a tripod mounted 500mm, but that's a little beyond my tax bracket right now.

Any suggestions would be most appreciated.

---

ET: Incidentally, I'm thinking of this one:

Nikon Zoom-Nikkor Telephoto zoom lens - 70 mm - 300 mm - F/4.5-5.6 - Nikon F

Date: 2010/12/10 10:29:01, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 10 2010,05:49)

Quote
Sometimes the little guys come inside...



Like at a falconry meet.


Wow! Nice shot!

Date: 2010/12/10 15:13:44, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 10 2010,13:18)

Quote
Honestly, Robin, I don't know diddly doo about Nikon equipment, and I bought my new 100-400mm lens on Albatrossity's recommendation. (And I owe him a great big tongue kiss that would make the UDidiots wet their pants for that recommendation.)

I already had a 24-105 (came with the camera), so this makes a perfect pair.

I'd definitely recommend that whatever lens you get, get the good glass and whatever Nikon calls their image stabilization technology - the extra expense (if you can swing it) is well worth the price of admission.


Muchos gracias, Lou! I'll keep up the research in other quarters, but thought I'd see what the denizens here have to say.

Date: 2010/12/11 13:44:01, Link
Author: Robin
Thanks for the info folks! Good stuff to know!

Date: 2010/12/13 09:54:07, Link
Author: Robin


Happy birthday Wolfie! Hope you had too much fun!

Date: 2010/12/17 15:07:16, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2010,13:43)

Quote
kairosfocus:

Quote
Onlookers, observe how NONE of the evolutionary materialism advocates are here in this thread defending what has been done?

What does this tell us?


That you've effectively purged dissent from this blog?
<comment in moderation>


LOL! POTW!!

Date: 2010/12/20 11:38:20, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,17:41)
The clouds finally started to break this afternoon, so I went for a walk. It was too cold to stay out long, but I did OK for only having been out an hour.


Just spectacular pics, Lou!

I've been playing around with my new camera to get used to it. Hope to upload some photos soon. Nothing great yet, though I will say a few of my subjects have been awfully cooperative and patient.

Date: 2010/12/20 11:42:28, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 20 2010,09:26)
It's a pretty day though, so MOAR BIRDS FIRST!!!

Before I go out though, I want to put up
this young lady (facing the camera - note the lack of mustache) Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) who was really trying hard to get a little kissyface from that cute boy in homeroom.



Wow! More great shots, Lou! I love flickers. Hard bird to shoot too - usually pretty shy.

Date: 2010/12/21 12:45:51, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 20 2010,17:04)

Nice!

Quote
and I think this is a Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)


Yep. It is still in its juvenile plumage, but it looks like it's starting to get the breeding dark cap and whitish feathers around the cheeks and down the neck.

Date: 2010/12/21 15:36:58, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 21 2010,08:54][/quote]
Quote
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.


Feh...waves are just God rockin' back and forth in the Pacific. For whatever reason, he rocks harder when the moon is new and full...

Date: 2010/12/22 08:27:57, Link
Author: Robin
Here you go Lou - just a bit of info. The only other bird that's really similar to the Great Blue heron, particularly a juvenile, is the Tricolored heron. You might actually see one in North Carolina where you are, so here's a quick breakdown:

<1 year old juvenile Great Blue heron:



Tricolored heron:



Three things of major note:

The Great Blue is distinctly darker in color than the Tricolored. The Tricolored is bright blue.

The Tricolored has an all blue head - no white or buff on cheek area or along the side of the lower jaw.

The juvenile Great Blue will be nearly uniform in color from neck to lower body, with dark bluish/grey legs to tan/brownish legs (beginning of second year, like your heron). Tricolored's legs are start white, white across the belly, with a line of white extending up the front of the next to right under the chin.

There can be other minor differences too, but these are harder to spot. Like the yellow on the Tricolored's beak usually extends under the eye, while the yellow (if present) on the Great Blue's beak ends at the cheek. Also, the Tricolored is more slender - almost Egret shaped - next to the Great Blue, but since you seldom see them together it's hard to keep that in mind.

Anyway, hope this helps.

Next we'll do a primer on LBBs - Little Brown Birds -  :D

Date: 2010/12/22 09:45:13, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 22 2010,08:45)

Quote
Even better clue - Tricolored Herons are half the size of Great Blue Herons, more similar to Snowy Egret in size.


I don't recall them being half the size, but you may be right on that. I seem to recall them being about the size of a great egret. Again since one seldom gets to see them side-by-side, unless one is really familiar with both I find that people don't generally recall relative size distinctions as easily as color distinctions. Course...that may just be me.  :p

Date: 2010/12/22 11:03:14, Link
Author: Robin
In case the resident bonehead, "Kris", hasn't the neurological capacity to find the BW at PT, I'm cross posting this here. Perhaps the mindless yappy dog should be given his own little poop pen, though he'll just whine about it being a place to ban him to. Idiot...

Quote

Kris said:

You talk big but when things don't go your way you pussy out and it's either ban time, delete time, or off to the BW. What are you and so many others here really afraid of? Are you afraid that comments here, rather than on the BW, are more likely to be seen by visitors to this site and that you might look stupid to those visitors if you allow and leave all challenging or questioning comments here?

I've been "given" another thread? Wow, how magnanimous of you.


Man, you're funny! Since when should the world revolve around you?  Why should anyone bother giving you a forum to spout your nonsense anyway?

As for your accusations, I got news for you - you're just plain wrong. Few, if any, posts are outright deleted [on PT], unlike the "fair-minded and science-oriented" (ha!) site UD. Further, there's nothing wrong with posting here on the BW or at AtBC. We all read these areas - so do lurkers and passer-bys, so your gripe is a strawman. Basically you're like a 3 y.o. throwing a tantrum because his parents won't let him play with the steering wheel on the Interstate. Tough! Grow up! You're posts have zero to do with the topics of the threads, so why should you being given some leeway to disrupt those threads?

Get a clue, Kris - you're an idiot.

ETA: helps to change the codes...

Date: 2010/12/22 12:04:18, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 22 2010,10:01)

Quote
So, just like it's pretty easy to tell a Snowy from a Great Egret (length 39"; wingspan 51") even if they are not standing side-by-side, the size difference between GBH and TCH should be apparent, even if only one is present. Especially if you are used to seeing a lot of GBHs; a TCH will look pretty different, size-wise.

A good behavioral clue for TCH is that these can be VERY active birds when foraging, unlike GBH which are basically stand-and-wait stalkers. TCH  do a lot of the stand-and-wait, but, unlike GBH, they sometimes go into a foraging behavior called "disturb and chase", where they run around and chase any fish or amphibians that they spook up. If you see a North American bird doing that, it is either a TCH or a Reddish Egret, another very active feeder.


Thanks Albatrossity - clearly I don't get to see enough Tricoloreds.

Date: 2010/12/22 14:42:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (prong_hunter @ Dec. 22 2010,14:37)

Quote
"Kris" is (and his other personalities are) posting for one reason only - to evoke emotional response from those who reply.  It's how he gets his jollies.

And from the looks of it he's very successful on PT.  He's laughing up his sleeve.  He doesn't care what the argument is about.  He just wants to see people get upset.


Yep. Note to self - DNFTT.

Date: 2010/12/22 14:49:33, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 22 2010,14:33)

Quote
Quote (Michael_Behe @ Dec. 22 2010,14:28)
1. natural selection can destroy
2. therefore it can build

this is a fallacy

Duh, liar.

if 1. had included the word "only" AND you'd proven it, you might have a point. Even "your" latest paper showed several examples of increasing complexity. Seems you don't even know what the people you are blindly following are saying.


Just an FYI, Old Man, but "Michael_Behe" is Legion, for he is many. That is to say that the name is one of several sock monikers that some tard was using over at PT to toss up a bunch of irrelevant/strawman/question begging questions.

Just so you know.

And for the record, he's quite right in principle - there's no logical reason to conclude that a process that can destroy can also build. Of course, since no such assumption is made in evolutionary theory, is comment is rather moot as far as it goes.

Date: 2010/12/23 14:54:34, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (prong_hunter @ Dec. 22 2010,17:02)

Quote
quote=Robin,Dec. 22 2010,14:42] Yep. Note to self - DNFTT.

Yes, we should not feed the trolls.

But can we not mock and expose them?

Yes, we can, I say. We get to have our jollies too!

More power to you Robin, mrg, Stanton, harold, phantomreader42, MadPanda, Mike Elzinga, didymos, OgreMkV, Dave Luckett, Dave Lovell, Phhhht, and a host of others doing the yeoman's work of standing up for the truth. More power to you!


Oh indeed...mock away! I'm all for it, and engage in such entertainment when I can. Not to the expert level of some here, but no matter - it's fun regardless. Much of the others' yeoman work is far better than mine.

I see a distinct difference between mocking tards and tardation and feeding trolls who's yammering derails a discussion on a thread topic though. The latter is what I got into with Kris and it really wasn't very productive.

ETA - fixed quote box.

Date: 2010/12/26 12:38:41, Link
Author: Robin
Ok...here we go...

Here is my first picture with my new camera.

Immature Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

Ok...actually it's my second or third pic, but the first two were too blurry.

I haven't figured out how to get the Gif or Jpeg itself at Shutterfly yet to post the image. Any suggestions would be most welcome!

Date: 2010/12/26 13:49:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 26 2010,13:22)

Thanks Albatrossity!

We actually had (and keep having) four different hawks in our small yard today. Never seen this level of activity. The Cooper's in the pic came by three times today so far - though the pic was taken on the 17th. Another Cooper's came by twice that had a very white crown on it's head (see the second pics of a Cooper's at the shutterfly site). A giant (think female) red tailed was here this morning when the sun came up and has come back three times today as well. Finally another hawk - couldn't see it very well, but maybe a broad winged - came by and hung with the red tail for a bit. Wild day.

Date: 2010/12/26 15:37:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dhogaza @ Dec. 26 2010,14:33)

Quote
Well...


(Sits stunned...)

Awesome.

Date: 2010/12/27 11:23:33, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,06:51)

Quote
I can't grab the image location either though...


Yeah...I don't think Shutterfly is a true sharing site; it's more of a site for folks who want to use photos to make presentations and such. It doesn't seem to store true pictures in individual formats, but rather has ways of storing groups of images for use in different arrangements. I'll have to join something like flickr to post pics I think.

Wonder if I can link to photos at Facebook...I'll give that a try.

Date: 2010/12/27 11:29:55, Link
Author: Robin
Hmmm...this might be the better way for me to post pics. This is from my Facebook account:



That's Yours Truly with my old camera on safari.

ETA: removed header info.

Date: 2010/12/27 13:27:45, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dhogaza @ Dec. 27 2010,13:04)

Quote
Pissed off ... and has the feet to do something about it!


DAAAAAAAMMM...

Show off...

Date: 2010/12/27 15:25:16, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dhogaza @ Dec. 27 2010,14:00)

Quote

Robin - I'll let you in on a secret ... the goshawk's been captured and banded and was being held just prior to release.  Goshawks do tend to get pissed off, though ...


Actually, I thought it might be, but it's still an amazing shot.

Date: 2010/12/27 16:31:35, Link
Author: Robin
Ok...let's try this again.

Here's a second Cooper's that came to visit yesterday. I don't yet have any pics of birds cranky with me, but this gal's still sportin' some 'tude:






Clearly need some work; the first shot is much more colorful. Not sure why yet.

Date: 2010/12/27 16:35:00, Link
Author: Robin
I really like this shot:



He wasn't too nervous about me stepping slowly towards him. I shot this with 200mm f5.6 and while I blew it up .5X, it really helped that he let me get so close.

Date: 2010/12/28 06:31:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dhogaza @ Dec. 27 2010,18:02)
The cardinal's very nice ... if you'd taken a half-step to the right, that little branch might've been out of the way, but it can be really difficult to see such obstructions in the viewfinder ...


The branch up the cardinal's butt? No...that's actually holding the bird in place!

:p

I kid...and you're right. Of course, the cardinal wasn't cooperative much longer.

Quote
Were both cooper's hawks shot with in-camera generation of JPEGs, or post-processed from raw?   In-camera shot-to-shot JPEG conversions of roughly the same scene ought to be of similar color saturation ... strange.


They were both shot JPEG. Slightly different angles though. The first shot - the Cooper's looking down - was about 4 feet closer (she let me get really close) and about 5 feet to the right of the second shot. Interestingly, there was a second Cooper's up in a tree about 70 feet away or so and they kept calling to one another the whole time I was out.

Quote
You're lucky to have raptors coming to your back yard like this.  I live in a fairly sterile neighborhood, though last year I did see a young peregrine falcon chasing a city pigeon in circles over a local light-industrial building a few blocks from home!   'Round and 'round and round they went, for probably five minutes, the pigeon able to turn more tightly than the peregrine, but not able to escape.  Finally the pigeon - probably tiring - broke off in a straight line with the peregrine on its heels.  Unfortunately buildings were in the way and they were low, didn't get to see the grand finale, but I'd bet on the peregrine.


Yeah, our neighborhood is near two parks and has a fair bit of cover. A lot of folks (like me) have feeders out so we get a lot of Cooper's coming in to pick off song bird meals. I put out seed specifically for mourning doves and Rock Doves and call them "Hawk Bait". We don't get many Rock Doves, but plenty of Mourning. Lots of Goldfinches and Cardinals too.

The day I took the photos above, we not only got that Cooper's and his friend, but a third Cooper's - an adult female - flew near our house from a neighbor's. There was also a Red-tail who came by our house - once within about 15 feet - three times that day. Too skittish to shoot though. And lastly, we saw what I think was a juvenile Broad-wing sitting across from our house at a neighbor's in the late morning.

That was a very unusual day though - not sure what all the raptor attention was all about.

The juvenile  Coopers show up about four times a week though. We're really lucky with that and I count my birding blessings. :)

Date: 2010/12/28 06:38:48, Link
Author: Robin
MMmm...two yummies I had recently:





Yum!

Also just picked up a bottle of this luscious stuff:



This came after a tasting between this and Talisker 12 year. The Talisker was nice, but this is just...wow!

Date: 2010/12/28 09:26:13, Link
Author: Robin
Just curious, but anyone know what's up with PT? I can't seem to get to the site today. My browser just sits there indicating it's trying to connect, but to no effect.

Date: 2010/12/30 10:46:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 30 2010,10:08)

Quote
Methinks 'tis more probable that Kris is Joey's muppet than Biggy's.

But yes, Kris is under suspicion of being someone's alternative handle.  So is Johan, for whom Kris cheerled.  Thus far, Steve P. has avoided this fate.


The MadPanda, FCD


Has Johan reappeared since the 28th? I've not see any posts from him since then. 'Course, it may be a moot point since the thread on which he was getting rather lambasted is now closed.

Date: 2010/12/30 14:46:13, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 30 2010,10:26)

Quote
Additional images from that excursion are here.


Ooo...really like the second pic (from top to bottom) of the White Crowned Sparrow (in the barbed wire). Nice.

And I'm surprised you didn't post the pic of the Anna's Hummingbird sporting the 'tude for Lou.

Date: 2011/01/04 07:29:09, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=awarfarexs,Jan. 04 2011,02:48][/quote]
Quote
Just for you, little traitors…


Ok...new this particular 'special substance' party. Uh...can someone enlighten me as to what we betrayed exactly?

---

ETA: I'm assuming 'we', but perhaps I'm not a traitor. Heck, I don't even know who or what this David/Dennis person is railing against.

Date: 2011/01/04 08:51:39, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 04 2011,07:54)

Quote
If you are American you have betrayed Canada!


Seriously? Wow! Who knew?

But Louis is an Englishman...who'd he betray?

Date: 2011/01/05 08:55:46, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 04 2011,14:18)

Quote
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2011,16:54)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 04 2011,10:51)
 
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 04 2011,14:51)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 04 2011,07:54)

   
Quote
If you are American you have betrayed Canada!


Seriously? Wow! Who knew?

But Louis is an Englishman...who'd he betray?

a) English-ish

b) English enough to have betrayed, well, 90% of the planet at some point in history.

Louis

Well... at least you aren't French.  That would take care of the other 10% too.

Hey Tankboy!!!

Ya don't fouck wiz ze french!!! Count your days, because zey are over and done, and shit!!!

escargots, cuisses de grenouilles, dom perignion, paté de tête...



(all the above are actualy delicious)


Coq au vin, boeuf bourguignon, Pichon Longueville Comtesse De LaLande, pom frites, canapes, crepes, tarte tatin...

Must stop now...drooling too much on my keyboard...

Date: 2011/01/05 09:17:49, Link
Author: Robin
Well, me ancestry is mostly Scottish with a bit of German mixed just because we didn't have enough temper to begin with. On me mother's side it's mostly Clan Campbell  and me father's side it's essentially Clan McGregor. So, we're basically beggars and 'orse thieves.

Date: 2011/01/05 11:21:20, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 05 2011,09:35)

Quote
But not attorneys, Robin!  Take comfort from that.

:D


The MadPanda, FCD


LOL!

Date: 2011/01/05 16:07:47, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 05 2011,15:07)

Quote
Got that? The Bearded Dude made animals before man so that we could classify them. He is so totally right! Imagine how difficult it would be to classify animals that have not yet been made!


So...wait...The Bearded Dude created a situation to look like a nested hierarchy so we could classify animals in said nested hierarchy, but there isn't actually a nested hierarchy at all?

...whaaa...why?

Date: 2011/01/06 09:55:51, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 05 2011,19:29][/quote]
Quote
Here is the problem with your argument, you can just as I type on this computer can become a follower of Christ. It is a choice that you have and will have until you die. Now if you state that God knew that you would be an atheist, then I would agree that He did foreknow, but you like I were born in a fallen earth, and God chooses not to intervene in our lives until we let Him, so is there still hope for you, yes there most certainly is! God created man, and did it so that man would have his own mind, his own free will.


Nope...that's not a problem with the Free Will argument. That there's (supposedly) and option to be a follower of some "Christ" doesn't change the dilemma for Free Will created by intervention of any kind.

Quote
Now let me ask you this: you state that you can't hate something that doesn't exist. Tell me, do you have complete knowledge of everything in the universe? Do you have complete knowledge that there is anything beyond the universe? If so it is irrational for you to make such a statement.


You're missing the point IBIG - whether there's a possibility that your god actually exists or not does change the perception by some that no such entity exists. But really, that's just academic. The real issue is that if someone does not think something exists, there's no way to hate that thing, regardless of whether it does actually exist or not.

I can easily accuse you of hating Invisible Pink Unicorns because you refuse to talk to them, but does that mean you actually hate Invisible Pink Unicorns?

The rest of your post is meaningless drivel.

Date: 2011/01/06 10:01:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

Quote
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.


What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.

Date: 2011/01/06 10:09:25, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 06 2011,05:08][/quote]
Quote
Oh boy here comes the Hitler claims again!!! Okay let's discuss Hitler, it is claimed that He was a Christian, but was He really? Hitler believed in an "Aryan" Christ, which as you should know Christ was born as a Jew, a race hated by Hitler. Hitler was no more a Christian then you are! Many of our politicians over the years have claimed to be Christians to get ahead in politics, but I wouldn't consider them true Christians. Many have killed in the name of God, but that doesn't make them true followers of Christ, because if they had been true followers of Christ, wouldn't they would have kept His teachings. Hitler was a sick and evil man, and clearly there was no "fruit of the Spirit" in his life, the real sign for knowing whether someone is a Christian or not. The Bible says, "by their fruit you will know them".


Nope...trying the old those folks who slaughtered in the name of Christianity couldn't have been Real Christians because Real Christians wouldn't do such a thing in my opinion is just the logical fallacy of question begging via No True Scotsman. By your argument, it can quickly be deduced that there actually are no Christians at all because we can all come up with things that No Real Christian would do. And I hate to break it to you, IBIGGY, but you don't have any authority to declare what a Real Christian is or isn't anyway. Check and mate there, IBIGGY.

Further though, this doesn't change the fact that actually no country has ever slaughtered anyone in the name of atheism, so your beliefs still look horrid by comparison.

Date: 2011/01/06 10:12:29, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,05:08)

Quote
It's sad that you obviously haven't and don't understand the teachings of Christ,


Actually, what's sad is that you don't.

Date: 2011/01/06 10:27:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 06 2011,08:38)
Since they banned most all their critics, Telic Thoughts is like watching amateur tennis. They just can't seem to get a decent rally going.

{snip for minimalism}

Without arguing against 'evolutionism', it seems Telic Thoughts has nothing to say.


Oh, I'm pretty sure they are quite content with just talking into the toilet and listening to the echo.

Date: 2011/01/06 13:30:45, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:19)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

 
Quote
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.


What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.



Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history


Well, that would be your opinion and that's not worth much.

Quote
Provide your sources the billions have been killed in the name of Christianity?


http://articles.exchristian.net/2002....-by.php

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1996/issue49/4937.html

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

That's a good start. You can add up the numbers whenever you wish.

Date: 2011/01/06 13:38:34, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 06 2011,10:56][/quote]
Quote
Did you read the link that I posted?


I read the error-filled link. The problem is, once again you aren't paying attention. Neither Mao Zadong nor Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Hitler, OTOH, actually killed in the name of Christianity.  D'Souza, once again, just demonstrates his ignorance.

Date: 2011/01/06 13:45:02, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)

Quote
But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.


Abortion is not a "secular agenda" - what ignorance. Abortion is a medical procedure provided for health and well-being. It isn't even a "promoted" procedure, unlike say...plastic surgery and LASIK, so I have no idea what you're going on about.

And Ogre's right...the fact is Christians use the procedure, along with Muslims, Jews, Hindis, Buddhists, agnostics, deists, and atheists, among others. So your argument has no validity.

But of course this even completely misses the point - abortions are NOT done in the name of atheism so your claim is moot anyway.

Date: 2011/01/07 10:11:11, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Doc Bill,Jan. 06 2011,15:27][/quote]
Quote
Now, that's a great idea!

Hey, IBIG, tell me how I can get a succubus.  Tall and blonde if you don't mind.

Thx.


Try here.

Date: 2011/01/07 10:42:33, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 07 2011,07:33][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,13:38)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:56)

   
Quote
Did you read the link that I posted?


I read the error-filled link. The problem is, once again you aren't paying attention. Neither Mao Zadong nor Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Hitler, OTOH, actually killed in the name of Christianity.  D'Souza, once again, just demonstrates his ignorance.


Let's see, so if you kill groups of people for practicing their religion, then that is not killing in the name of Atheism? If a country prohibits the practice of any religion and kills any who do so, that is not killing in the name of Atheism?


Who are you referring to? Stalin's regime killed an unprecedented number of people, many of them atheists, so clearly he wasn't killing in the name of atheism. He was just a sociopath. Ditto for Mao. Yet Hitler was motivated by his twisting of Catholicism, which is still killing in the name of Christianity.

Quote
Next thing you will be supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad statement that the Holocaust never happen!!!


Umm...no...since such is actually supported by the evidence. Your claims about killing in the name of atheism, however, are not.

Quote
You folks don't like history, and the fact that Atheist country do kill in the name of Atheism to create their not religious utopia, so you just revise it. You have to admit that people of faith in the USSR had to practice their religion in secrecy or be severely punished, it is still the same in China and many other Atheistic countries today.


I love history! I just like actual history that is...you know...supported by actual historic evidence and scholarly analysis. Claims of opinion made by people who wish to see something that isn't there, however, don't much attract my attention.

Quote
Atheists like many here seem to think like John Lennon, that the answer to a utopia is no religion, therefore if it really came down to it many probably would have no qualms with doing whatever is necessary to stop people from practicing their faith, so that utopia would be possible.


Blah blah blahblblah...yawn.

Quote
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion.

Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. It is estimated that 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government, not including torture or other Christian denominations killed.[63][unreliable source?]
Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.[44][64] The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.[65]


Christ the Savior Cathedral Moscow after reconstruction
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. A very large segment of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. The widespread persecution and internecine disputes within the church hierarchy lead to the seat of Patriarch of Moscow being vacant from 1925-1943.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians


Yep...as a political strategy. By removing the "opiate of the masses", Stalin thought he could get people's need for such institutions to focus instead on the State. It partially worked too.

Date: 2011/01/07 11:00:14, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 07 2011,08:28][/quote]
Quote
My logic? It was stated here that no country killed in the name of Atheism! I just proved that point wrong, and if you want I could continue on to more Atheist countries that have killed in the name of Atheism.


You aren't using logic, IBIGGY - you're making claims out of your ass. Once again for your learning impairment, killing of people of a given religion doesn't make the killer an atheist. Indeed, Muslims and Jews have killed people for being Christian, so your "logic" fails.

And since Stalin actually wrote down why he implemented those policies, we don't have to guess. Such was a political power strategy, not one out of a desire for atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[84]"

Date: 2011/01/10 08:01:56, Link
Author: Robin
ETA: Misfire

Date: 2011/01/10 08:04:42, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 08 2011,19:31][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

 
Quote
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.


What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.

Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?


Yet you've still not provided any example of a country that has ever killed in the name of atheism. So no...you lose.

Quote
Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?


It's pretty much a squabble over land though there are other cultural issues at play.

Date: 2011/01/10 12:19:40, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 10 2011,10:28)
Quote
It's pretty much a squabble over land though there are other cultural issues at play.

It's over land but heavily affected and rationalized by religion.  The Israelis think they have been promised the land by their god, and many think they are on a holy war, and that means no compromising with, say, international law and humanitarian considerations.  Religion is used on both sides to continue the conflict, and interviews with many on both sides constantly bring up that point.  Settlers refuse to move because "YHVH gave us this land" and people refuse to stop fighting because the enemy are "infidels".

If religion and superstition were removed, if nothing else it would take away one reason, and maybe people might be a bit more reasonable.  How much is unknown, but I think it would be fairly significant.


Nicely put. I'll defer to your assessment Badger.


---

ETA: Fixed HTML syntax

Date: 2011/01/20 10:37:22, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 20 2011,07:06)

Quote
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 19 2011,19:44)
Or maybe Joe misidentified the insects as ticks.

That's my hypothesis. Immature squash bugs could be mistaken for ticks, if you don't bother to notice that they only have 6 legs rather than 8. And Joey is well known for his powers of observation like that.


Two-spotted and red spider mites can be a real problem with watermelon crops. Is it possible they contacted the rind and started looking for leaves? They would certainly look like ticks under a magnifying glass.

Date: 2011/01/20 11:38:34, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]
Quote
Here is the problem with your answer 1, God would not command people to start eating babies, therefore your point is moot.


Oh, but his command about selling daughters as slaves and prostitutes (Exodus 21:7-11) or and his command that children who curse their parents should be put to death (Exodus 21:17) is good by you. Ooookaaaay...

LOL!

Date: 2011/01/20 11:44:36, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]
Quote
In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.


Oddly, you seem to have ignored the fact that more Christians have committed atrocities than so-called "atheist countries". Given that, apparently even Christians can decide that eating babies is perfectly "moral" according to your bible and actually do all sorts of similar things anyway. Makes me wonder why you think this "moral standard" you babble on about actually exists. Clearly there's no evidence of such to found in your bible or from your supposed "god".

Date: 2011/01/21 11:18:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,04:10)

Quote
I have limits and will not just take a lot of shit for nothing.


Ironically, that's exactly what you are doing.

Date: 2011/01/21 11:22:31, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)

Quote
Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.


"Kris", you're such a bible thumping Creationist you make Dr. Dr. Dembski look deist.

Date: 2011/01/21 11:27:54, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)

Quote
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.


...which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether ID/creationism is science.

But of course, your 'slip' is now showing - you admonished us for bashing religion and then bring this nonsensical point up. If we are such low-lifes for bashing ID/creationism because they are religious concepts, then why should we care if science can prove such is impossible? If ID/creationism are religious concepts, then they aren't scientific, can't be taught as such in public schools, and are of no concern to us whatsoever.

Thanks for making our point for us.

Date: 2011/01/21 11:54:45, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,05:17)

Quote
Try ordering a smoker not to smoke. Try ordering a drug user not to use drugs. Try ordering a hooker to stop having sex for money. Try ordering a religious person to give up religion. Try ridiculing, insulting, and attacking them and see how well it works.


You're so funny, "Kris". Here's one for you: try actually making a valid argument that parallels what we actually rant about here.

See...here's the problem - what group of smoker has ever tried to get smoking taught in public schools by claiming it was science? What drug group has ever tried to get drug use taught in schools claiming it was science? What hooker has tried to teach prostitution or actually hook in schools claiming it was science? Hmmm...any? No? Then your request above is a non-sequitur; it has zero to do with why we bash ID/creationism and the institution of Christian fundamentalism that dishonestly promotes such tripe as science.

Try again.

Date: 2011/01/24 16:08:11, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

Date: 2011/01/25 08:52:23, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,01:34)
If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?


The answers are similar for both your questions: because teaching and learning science isn't the same thing as practicing science and the institution of science itself. In other words, the reason this site exists is to combat misinformation regarding the teaching and learning of science. Similarly, the reason that more people believe religious myths than engage in science is because it's a heck of a lot easier believing in myths, superstitions, and the promise of an afterlife than actually learning and doing science.

ETA:

Science is hard, "Kris". It requires actual work. It requires collaboration, research, analysis, trial and error, and (in many ways most importantly) a humbleness and willingness to be wrong and disappointed. In contrast, believing a myth is ridiculously easy and fulfilling.

It takes real strength and integrity to try and discover how the world actually is and face that, rather than pretending that the world is something you imagine it might be.

Date: 2011/01/25 10:44:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,09:18)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,06:51)
Quote mines with links to the original in context quotes? That's....original as a method of quote mining.

That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Louis

The quotes he mined don't show the entire or accurate context.


Uhhh...of course it did...he linked to your entire comment, dingbat.

(rolls eyes)

What "context" do you feel was missing from the entirety of what you wrote? Did you image some additional "context" that you didn't actually include in the entirety of your response? If so, then by definition it wasn't part of the context.

Date: 2011/01/25 10:51:09, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,09:39)
Kris is butthurt and wants to hurt in turn.


A scene from Tombstone (slightly edited of course) comes to to mind here:

Quote
Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Kris, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?
Doc Holliday: A man like Kris has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never lash out enough, or distort enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.
Wyatt Earp: What does he need?
Doc Holliday: Revenge.
Wyatt Earp: For what?
Doc Holliday: Bein' born.

Date: 2011/01/25 10:58:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,10:53)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,15:57)
[SNIP]

It's funny that you quoted the words above. Obviously it hasn't occurred to you or a lot of other people here that everything any of you argue has been argued by you and others many, many, many times. Apparently you think that your arguments are fresh and profound but any argument you don't want to hear is redundant and boring.

[SNIP]

Ok sweetie, I'll bite. Which areguments are these then? Please give details and be as specific as possibl. Now I know you've had trouble with that in the past, but try very hard and you might just make it.

Louis


Oh please...he's just so wrong. The mockery I've been posting is quite fresh and new. I know - I made them just this morning.

Date: 2011/01/25 11:34:34, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:21)
You know, that science, scientists, and zealous science supporters are perfect and religious people suck. That pretty much covers most of what is ever said.


Oh for crying out loud! More lies? Is that all you can post, "Kris"? You are without a doubt dumber than a box of hammers.

But here...I'll give an out. Here's your chance to toss egg on my face: Find ONE POST...just one...where any PT poster who supports evolution - any one of us - has ever made the claim that science, or scientists, or zealous science supporters are perfect. Go for it.

Date: 2011/01/25 11:46:42, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,11:39)
I just noticed a mistake in one of the sentences I wrote.


Pity that you don't notice the important ones...

Date: 2011/01/25 11:57:26, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,10:49)

Quote
...you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.


"Dog pizzle...whoa!!"

Now, now! Careful there Panda...there are roolz of edikate on these here boards.





...dog pizzle...man...that's just...I can't stop laughing! That and dead porcupines (ooohh...owwww!) and such!

Ooh...gotta breath...gotta breath...lol!

Date: 2011/01/25 14:58:05, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:30)
How polite of you.


Dude, you got the Dog Pizzle title now. I'm sorry, but nothing you say at this point can be taken seriously. LOL!


Quote
Oh, and I didn't say "bodies of theory". I said claims. So much for your reading comprehension.


(sigh) If you really meant "claims" and not "bodies of theories", then you weren't talking about science there, D P. Yet another example that you aren't actually a scientist.

See...that you don't happen to find some claims made by some people who happen to be scientists in their day (or night) job isn't even worth an announcement in the Virgin Island Daily News. Why? Because claims are nie unto opinions and they don't carry any actual scientific weight. They don't. Period.

Unless you have a beef with an actual element of science, you're just pissing in the wind.

Date: 2011/01/31 11:12:02, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 30 2011,21:40)
Quote (vvrobotsvv @ Jan. 30 2011,20:43)
WRONG

The definition of insanity: doing the same action over and over again while expecting the same results. The definition of insanity: doing the same action over and over again while expecting the same results. The definition of insanity: doing the same action over and over again while expecting the same... ;)


Hmmm...and here I thought the definition involved expecting different results. Doesn't seem all that crazy to do something over and over if you expect the same thing to keep happening, but what do I know...

Date: 2011/02/03 15:36:00, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 02 2011,12:44)

[QUOTE]Dumbest argument ever for dualism? Courtesy of StephenB:
 
Quote
It is clear that two entities possessed by the individual must be involved for the placebo effect to work. If B [the changed state of an organ called the brain] is influenced, then it is also clear that B did not change itself, and therefore, A [a different kind of entity had to change it]. Further, A must be more powerful than B, which again, shows then A must be a different kind of entity than B.


Soooo...waaaait...does this mean StephenB thinks that placebos actually affect the soul which in turn tricks the brain into thinking that the placebo actually had the desired medicinal effect? Or is the mind something different from the soul?

I'm so confused...

Date: 2011/02/07 13:30:46, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (the_ignored @ Feb. 07 2011,10:16)
Now Vox is complaining about how atheists "whine" about being persecuted.

Odd, I was thinking that same thing about the christians in the west...


That's odd...he provided no example or other substantiation that atheists complain about persecution. Gee...I guess he must have forgot...


(/sarcasm off)

Date: 2011/02/07 13:47:18, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 05 2011,12:23)
StephenB:
   
Quote
If you are going to try to escape from all these materialistic implications by...saying that the mind and brain are, in effect, the SAME THING, then you need to explain how one can influence the other. How does the mind change the brain if it is the same thing as the brain?

Now there is an indication that Stephen just DOESN'T get it, if ever there was one.


Uhh...wait...what...?

Someone really needs to ask StephenB what he "thinks" the brain is and what he "thinks" it does.

Date: 2011/02/07 14:05:49, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 07 2011,10:59)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 07 2011,06:44)
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/careers-in-science-desk-from-successful-scientist-all-the-way-up-to-freelance-science-writ






er/#comment-372003]Robert Byers:[/URL]
     
Quote

As long as women don’t see a innate intellectual difference then second place will not bother them.

Born equal, but inately don't have the ambition.

Facepalm.


...and innately lacking Adam's Man's intelligence...

Date: 2011/02/07 15:21:42, Link
Author: Robin
So it's turtles all the way down to the single creationist:

Date: 2011/02/08 10:02:17, Link
Author: Robin
As a public service, I thought I'd provide a brief translation of Joe's responses to make it easier for newer folk to understand what he really means:

 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:12)
Yet ID has been defined.


Translation: I don't actually know what that definition is so I can't provide it to you, but I'm pretty sure there is one. It has something to do with begging the question.

 
Quote
Also part of the design inference is to demonstrate that chance and necessity just are not up to it. IOW you are ignorant of how the design inference works.


Translation: The term "design inference" has been defined to mean that chance and necessity are not sufficient for complex biological organisms, so that's what it means and that means that it demonstrates that evolution doesn't work. That's how the design inference works - we infer design in whatever we see it in. See how easy that is?

 
Quote
As for not answering questions, well that would be you.

You won't even try answering the three questions I posted here. You are a coward- an Addled Tard Behaving Cowardly.


Translation: This IS my response to your questions! How can you say I haven't answered your questions when my creating strawmen questions and then accusing you of not answering those questions IS my answer! So there! Neh!

 
Quote
ID does not require a deity. BTW ID is not about mere complexity. IOW your ignorance runs deep and you blame me. Strange.


Translation:No explanations or even investigations into any deity or other "intelligent" source for creation is necessary, since ID is only about trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory! Haven't you folks figured that out yet???

 
Quote
You do realize that all you have to do to refute ID is to actually step up and start providing positive evidence for your position.


Translation: See, ID isn't actually science, so we can't  propose any actual  hypotheses to test, nevermind do any actual testing or other research. So what if it doesn't actually explain anything? The only way to falsify this beautiful "theory" that explains everything is for actual scientists who do actual evolutionary research to poke holes in it! Isn't this a great this a great theory?!?!?

 
Quote
Attacking me, other IDists and ID is not going to provide positive evididence for your position. If ID didn't exist you still wouldn't have any positive evidence.


Translation: [i]But attacking YOU guys and YOUR theory of evolution IS evidence for ID! Man...I LOVE this theory!!


 
Quote
So what the fuck is your problem? What are you waiting for?


Translation: Oh...and throwing in the token insults makes me feel less wimpy, which is MAJOR bonus! Man...I need a cigarette now...

Date: 2011/02/08 10:07:15, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Joe G,Feb. 08 2011,08:13][/quote]
Quote
Still waiting for you to answer these:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


Be comprehensive...


Still waiting for you to define genetic accidents since the term is not used in any scientific discipline concerning organisms. Also waiting for you to reveal where these "premises" come from since they don't come from evolutionary theory.

Date: 2011/02/08 15:46:02, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:49)

Quote
And IDists have made our case and supported it with evidence.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA...

...(breath)...

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Man that's funny Joey!

Here's a clue ID-Joe-joe: when something comes along and bites you on the ass, that is evidence that something bit you on the ass, not evidence that biting your ass has some purpose.


Quote
OTOH your position doesn't have anything. If it did ID wouldn't even exist. Strange how that works...


(snicker) Oh Joe...I hope you do stand-up; your jokes are darn funny!

The fact is, "ID" was strong before evolutionary theory was formalized. Now - and you are a prime example of this - it is but a fringe basket into which wingnuts have placed most of their social control aspiration eggs. It has no credibility or power in science and none in technology, to say nothing of economics, finance, business, or heck...even farming. It offers nothing of value to anyone.

OTOH, evolutionary theory, along with other areas of actual science, will continue to be the accepted basis for actual explanations about the natural world and will continue to marginalize what little foot stomping you clowns make.

So, good luck with that stand-up career there Joey boi...it's about the only thing you apparently have going for you! LOL!

Date: 2011/02/09 08:13:08, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Joe G,Feb. 08 2011,11:30][/quote]
   
Quote
   
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 08 2011,10:07)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,08:13)
Still waiting for you to answer these:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


Be comprehensive...


Still waiting for you to define genetic accidents since the term is not used in any scientific discipline concerning organisms. Also waiting for you to reveal where these "premises" come from since they don't come from evolutionary theory.

LoL! According to evolutionary biologists all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.


LOL! Sure Joe-joe. Care to cite references? You know...actual evolutionary biologists who claim that "all genetic changes are accidents/errors/mistakes"? I bet you can't. In fact, I KNOW you can't.

   
Quote
And according to the theory of evolution these accidents accumulate in a variety of ways.


According to the ToE, huh?  Hmmm...that's easy to check...let's see:

   
Quote
The theory of evolution states that modern organisms are descendants of ancient organisms and that modifications accumulated over time explain the apparent changes and differences among modern forms of life. This 'descent with modification' theory was central to Charles Darwin's argument of biological evolution, an idea spearheaded by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). The idea of evolution proposes that animals and plants can change over time, and are not static forms created at once and independent of each other. Lamarck and Darwin proposed different explanation of how these changes may occur. Darwin's proposal of natural selection has proved correct and evidence from biology, earth science, and cosmology all corroborate the basic mechanism of natural selection.

- [URL=http://www.whatislife.com/principles/principles14a-evolution.htm


and:

   
Quote
The theory of evolution states that overtime, as new species began to evolve, the more dominant species were in greatest control of the Earth’s population. The more dominant a species, the more likely it would be able to reproduce and continue up the evolutionary ladder. Furthermore, characteristics from those dominant species would be the ones that would carry on to future generations. Otherwise known as natural selection or speciation, this gradual evolution accounts for the immensely diverse biological world we all live in today.

In theory, evolution is believed to have taken billions and billions of years, which has frequently conflicted with the religious beliefs of many. The idea of evolution was first recorded on paper by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book The Origin of Species. Darwin’s book offered the world of science its first rational and well-argued theory for a manner by which evolutionary global change had occurred and would continue to occur over time.

- [URL=http://www.livescience.com/evolution/


and:

   
Quote
Evolution is defined as descent with modification. Evolution is a slow process of genetic modification to better adapt organisms to their environment. Evolution is a natural process. The adaptations that are created help the species live longer by helping protect them from their predators or making them less susceptible to extreme cold or heat by giving them fur or allowing them to shed their fur. The changes made by evolution do not always deal with physical appearance. Evolution can be thought of as a branching bush where many species have a common ancestor. Charles Darwin is mainly credited with the theory of evolution but he is not the only scientist to propose it exists. The fossil records support the theory of evolution although there are major holes in it. Evolution is still going on in the present and will continue to go on.

- [URL=http://www.amphi.com/~crobson/evolution/period02/Evolution-1.htm


Hmmm...funny. Nothing about "genetic accidents" or "mistakes" in any of these. They use the term "modification" though. Is that what you mean Joe-joe?

The fact is, actual evolutionary theory doesn't use terms like "accidents" or "mistakes" or other such emotionally-loaded terms since from an actual scientific perspective, genetic characteristics and processes are neither right nor wrong. They merely are. Either the genetic mutation leads to viable offspring or it doesn't; there's no "mistake" if a mutation or duplication leads to a non-viable offspring.

But hey... I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong. Go ahead and cite a reference for your claim Can you cite one that actually demonstrates that the the term accidents as a part of the ToE? I bet not.

   
Quote
IOW Robin you are a moron.


This from the bozo who can't back up what he claims? LOL! I'll take it as a compliment then!

---

edit: spelling, coding, clarification.

Date: 2011/02/09 08:20:50, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Joe G,Feb. 08 2011,11:45][/quote]
Quote
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- <i>Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought</i>, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh boy, Joey! No wonder you don't know anything! You picked a real winner there! Here...check out the ONE reference for this piece of dreg that was posted on Amazon:

Quote
Customer Reviews
1 Review
5 star:   (0)
4 star:   (0)
3 star:   (0)
2 star:   (0)
1 star:
(1)







Average Customer Review
1.0 out of 5 stars (1 customer review)

 



Share your thoughts with other customers:
Create your own review
Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Rather an anthology of current propaganda, January 19, 2006
By
Mark B. Hanson (Niles, MI) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)  
This review is from: Biological Evolution: An Anthology Of Current Thought (Contemporary Discourse in the Field of Biology) (Library Binding)
I had hoped this book would live up to its subtitle - "An Anthology of Current Thought." Although I am an ID'er and sometime creationist, I was stunned by the abundance of blatant propaganda. Just consider the following fruity passage, concerning the rapid adaptability of HIV (p. 33):

"But students don't learn about evolution in medical school, [Palumbi] says, leaving them about as well prepared to combat HIV as a flat Earth astronomer would be to plan a moon shot."

Really? Do the authors of the original "US News and World Report" article (Hayden, Ruvinsky, Gilgoff and Sobel) expect us to believe that ANY graduating medical student doesn't understand that infectious organisms change and adapt (mutate) over time? That any of them escaped learning the basics of evolutionary theory somewhere in their pre-med studies?

Having been involved in the whole debate for thirty-some years, I haven't met even the most rabid young-earther who doesn't believe that bacteria can become disease-resistant, or that all dog breeds didn't develop from a single wolf-like species within human history.

Sorry to say I stopped reading at that point. Maybe there is more meaty data later in the book. But that absurd comment poisoned the rest of the book for me and drove me to this review (to be fair, there was a creationist book that did the same thing to me with a line like, "Isn't it wonderful that God made the animals to inhale oxygen and exhale nitrogen, and the plants to do the opposite?")



Wow!! Just WOW there Joey! You really are the best argument against ID there could possibly be!! LOL!

Date: 2011/02/09 08:51:35, Link
Author: Robin
[quote=Joe G,Feb. 08 2011,11:45][/quote]
 
Quote

IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.



Funny...seems to me that the quotes you provided from the University of Utah, Berkeley, and Nature indicate that your claim:

 
Quote
According to evolutionary biologists all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.


is wrong. Do they indicate that "errors and "mistakes" lead to all genetic change? Why no...no they don't! Do they use the terms to describe the ToE? Why no...no they don't!

You might want to actually sit down and read through those sites and learn a little bit there Joey.

---

Edited: grammatical structure.

Date: 2011/02/09 13:10:27, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 09 2011,10:58)

Quote
Damn! Robin, you must be stuck home with 5 feet of snow, or your cable TV is fucked up!

I wouldn't watse 1% of the time you just threw out the window to try and educate the morron.

My hat off to you anyway...


Nope...snow's nearly gone where I am. Just decided to channel the Panda today. Besides, I needed a break from what I am working on and Joe can be a very entertaining break.

Glad I could be of service though!

Date: 2011/02/10 08:48:32, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2011,05:07)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 09 2011,19:10)
[SNIP]

Just decided to channel the Panda today.

[SNIP]

{Snirk} {Titter} {Giggle}

Is that like flogging the dolphin?

Louis


Heh! Wouldn't you like to know.


:p

Date: 2011/02/11 07:45:03, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 10 2011,00:58)

Quote
Quote
All coded languages are observed to originate from an intelligence, no examples to the contrary can be given

This statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. All that need be done is add one word, like so:
All coded languages are observed to originate from a human intelligence, no examples to the contrary can be given
I wonder why ID-pushers always leave out that one word?


I must quibble - Are not dog barks and growls, and bird squawks and songs, deliberate coded language?  Certainly monkey hoots and screams are and I doubt anyone would argue that the sounds bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans make aren't intended coded language. And for an even more obvious example, what are the squeaks and grunts and hums of whales if not coded language?

I submit that many organisms engage in coded language, however I would argue that DNA isn't a *deliberate* coded language or even really a language per se. It is a code to be sure, but saying it is a language is  really no different than saying that electrons in a piece of copper are a language.

Date: 2011/02/11 13:22:07, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 11 2011,12:43)

Quote
we who?

i bet this sad sad cunt doesn't have any friends.  "we" indeed.


The royal "we"?

Quote
may i suggest the permanent solution.


I don't know about David/Dennis, but you got me curious.

Date: 2011/02/11 13:26:52, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (judgmabu7 @ Feb. 11 2011,12:46)

Quote
you little fuckers think you are safe LYING behind your computers... you are DEADLY WRONG


Uhh...hmmm...well, I for one like being deadly.

So...are we deadly when we are wrong or are we deadly and wrong or is it that "deadly" is an adjective that presents a double negative? Just curious since you're here lecturing and all...

Date: 2011/02/11 13:30:08, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 11 2011,13:27)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 11 2011,13:22)
I don't know about David/Dennis, but you got me curious.

I don't know if David/Denniss someone I'd like to get curious with.

If I was going to swing that way, it'd be with someone rich, really, really, really wealthy past avarice


Ooo...bada BING! Veal...Thursday...

Date: 2011/02/14 13:03:04, Link
Author: Robin
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 11 2011,13:36)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 11 2011,13:30)
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 11 2011,13:27)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 11 2011,13:22)
I don't know about David/Dennis, but you got me curious.

I don't know if David/Denniss someone I'd like to get curious with.

If I was going to swing that way, it'd be with someone rich, really, really, really wealthy past avarice


Ooo...bada BING! Veal...Thursday...

Oooo Veal?

Do tell.

I look like my avatar, save all that hair
and the color, little more gray
and the rugged good looks

but other than that, that's me

Do you look like your avatar?


"I'm here 'til Thursday! Try the veal!" is the cliche comedic sign-off. The line above is a reference to that.

And no...I can't say I look much like my avatar. I am about that height, but no feathers or big eyes.