AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Shirley Knott

form_srcid: Shirley Knott

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.138.180

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Shirley Knott

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 'Shirley Knott%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/02/28 02:25:04, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
So, puffie, what *IS* the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?
All we have from the DI and its associates is the ID Hoax.
If there's a scientific theory of Intelligent Design, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
But do bear in mind that a scientific theory is a positive thing, it is not a series of charges of inadequacy in some other competing theory.  It must propose explanations, links from what we know to what we are trying to explain.
Let's hear it.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/02/28 04:04:06, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
But Russell, dear, that isn't a scientific theory.
Its not a theory at all.
But I'd love to hear someone try to defend the notion that somehow it is both a theory and scientific...

This is too easy.
Next?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/02/28 10:53:32, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Surely you don't buy that load of codswallop, now, do you Russell?
They can say it all they want, but it does not stand up as science.
And that's based on their very own "definition".

But you knew that, didn't you?
Or do you seriously want to argue that their ludicrous little rant counts as either theory or science?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/02/28 12:45:24, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Ah, Russell, dear 'Y', properly Wyoming, Knott is well aware of the nonsense here.
She, however, has a much lower tolerance threshold.
I believe her remark about Dembski was that if she wanted his opinion she'd read his entrails.
I suggest that would be the most intelligent thing anyone's ever gotten out of him...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/13 08:03:41, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Shi, we have at least one major problem.
This discussion has dithered back and forth trying to discern what your particular issue is.
So far, you have not adequately laid out whether your assertion is with respect to genes or with respect to proteins.
Until that is cleared up, the discussion is doomed to go nowhere.
Personally, I believe there has been more than enough here to undercut your 'arguments' regardless of which branch you choose to take -- but you MUST take a branch, clearly and unequivocally, so that others know which argument you are presenting, and can keep their replies relevent to your actual claims.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/13 08:23:44, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Shi, if you don't see an issue here, you're not even reading the responses.
Note that the relationship between genes and proteins is not so simply one-to-one as you would like to imply.
This has been explained in this thread.
Note that you have failed to establish a minimum or maximum divergence of either genes or proteins, under any scenario you have listed.
This has been explained in this thread.
Note that you have frequently, and always fatally, omitted context from your scenarios, such that you invariably omit the environmental factors which can be assumed to apply.
This has been explained in this thread.
Your frequent recourse to "but if you're right and I'm not, why didn't my experts say so?" is pretty weak.
What experts?  What *specifically* did you ask?
Is it possible that the lack of response was due more to the incoherency of your question than any "gee, I'm stumped" feeling on the part of the questioned.
Gee, ya think?
This has been explained in this thread.
Your scenario as you continue to lay it out is incoherent and, given your radically incomplete exposition, unsupported in key essentials.
This has been explained in this thread.
And thus you can, and should, be ignored until you fill in the missing pieces.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/13 09:32:37, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Shi, we begin to believe you HAVE no point.

Do please consider
"anything above 15% identity is suggestive of a homologous relationship."
Error number one.  You are not arguing that relationships are homologous, but rather that two proteins are homologus.  And you equivocate frequently on the homology you are addressing -- is this structural, functional, or what?
Is it YOUR claim that 15% identity [of what, determined how?  please specify] is suggestive of homology?
Or is it an expert opinion, in which, a cite please.

"  The question is why human cyto C should show 35% identity with bacteria and 60% identity with yeast. "

From whence do those numbers come?  Please cite the relevent studies.
Also, please justify the assertion that cyto C "should" [according to whom?  according to what principle? ]
show 35% percent identity [identity of what precisely?]
with bacteria and 60% with yeast?
Who asserts this?
What theory predicts this?
If you think the modern synthesis ("neo-darwinian evolutionary theory") predicts this, why do you think so?
Show your work, that is to say, do not assert it, show the premises, the intermediate steps, and the conclusion.

" The present theory says that with time the identity with yeast will decrease."
Wanna bet?
Where is that stated in the modern synthesis?
Or is this self-referential to the "theory" [sic] you are attempting to lay out?

" But I predict that the identity has been at 60% all along and will will stay the same in the future.  "
This is utter nonsense.
If the homology is measured at 35%, it is not at 60%
Or is your math as bad as your biology?

"For Shirley to imply that there should exist a minimal diversity criterio for proteins just shows her lack of knowledge. "
Hardly.
And your response trumpets your ignorance to the heavens.
The minimal diversity criterion for any two proteins is 0 -- two identical proteins are identical.
Two proteins that structurally diverge by some amount > 0 may or may not have identical function.  And other two proteins that structurally diverge by the same amount as the first two referenced in the previous sentence might or might not have identical function to each other.  Note well that the divergence in the first case is, by itself, insufficeint ground for asserting that identical amount of divergence elsewhere will have the same impact on function.

"Some proteins can share 7% identity and be still homologous in sequence and function.  Some may need to be 35% identitical in order to stay homologous in sequence and function.  It is all protein dependent.  "
And again, this is incoherent.  Were it not, I'd suspect you have a clue as to what my previous paragraph is about.
If 2 proteins are some percent identical in some specific respect, they are some percent homologous *in that respect*.  Which, as noted above, DOES NOT SPEAK to whether the will be similarly homologous in some other respect.

Reduce the level of incoherency, equivocation, imprecision, and misdirection and you might get closer to conveying something both meaningful and useful.

But I doubt it.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/13 09:45:16, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
IOW, you give up.

Thank you for acknowleging defeat, Shi deary.
Go crawl back under the rock you oozed from beneath.

pfeh.  I spit in your general direction.
It is clear you do not understand theory in general, let alone the modern synthesis.
If you did, you'd be able to speak more coherently on the subject, not make elementary errors of ascription (homologous relationships?  please...), and more clearly lay out what you see to be a problem, and why you believe it is a problem of the theory.
Clearly, you cannot.
I spit again in your general direction, and recommend your children consider retroactive abortions to erase the stain of their descent from you.


hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/13 10:39:42, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Uncalled for?

Your ignorant arrogant rants are sufficient warrant for whatever verbal abuse anyone chooses to fling in your general direction.

It is abundantly clear that you know neither logic nor genetics, neither evolution nor philosophy.  We may doubt your awareness of physics and chemistry as well.
Why, then, should anyone bother with you and the nonsense which springs from your confusion?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/14 01:55:30, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
When thinking about Dembski it is wise to keep in mind that there are limits to sanity, but insanity knows no bounds.
And Dembski's madness is boundless.
Running neck and neck with his creepiness, and slighly behind is stupidity.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/21 02:09:50, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
The contemptible Shi is in the precise position of someone arguing that the results of mixing alcohol and water disprove mathematics.
After all, math asserts that 2 + 2 = 4, but mixing 2 liters of alcohol with 2 liters of water results in rather less than 4 liters of solution.
So, of course, math must be wrong and 2 + 2 does not universally equal 4.  And if that is false, all of math is false.
Pfeh.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/21 07:44:35, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I'm stunned almost speechless.
2+2=4 is "only partially true"?????

Sorry, Shi -- 2+2 = 4 is entirely true, irrevocably and irremediably true.
And if you knew anything at all about math, science, or logic, you'd know it to be so, why it must be so, and why the 2liters plus 2liters example is a red herring rather than any kind of 'counter-example' to the absolute truth that 2+2=4.

How on earth can anyone take you seriously?

hugs,
Shirley Knott
BTW, what do you think 'happened in the past but is no longer happening today' that is even remotely relevent to evolutionary theory?

Date: 2006/03/23 13:18:13, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Better yet, he should get his mother to have an abortion.
The world would be better off without him.

I heard a rumor that the dance of the virgins in thordaddy's home town was cancelled.  His daughter wasn't eligible and his wife refused to dance alone...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/03/28 11:07:45, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
What, his support of ID and the DI didn't suffice?
How much data is needed after all?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/04/27 07:17:07, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Utter rubbish.
You go wrong pretty much right from the start.
Any being who "speaks", any being which "causes to come into existence" or acts to "cause to go out of existence" cannot be 'outside of time', since speaking, causing, and acting are inherently and essentially temporal acts.
Thus, your proposed entity fails on consistency grounds.
You might as well define 'god' as a plane euclidean closed geometrical shape with 3 equal length sides which contains no angles.

Next...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/05/16 08:04:48, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Yes.
How is a 'supernatural agent' explanatory?
it appears to be words strung together and declared an explanation rather than being an explanation.
You do know what an explanation is, don't you?

Second question:
given the examples you've provided, we must assume that God is physical and is, in fact, embodied as a matter of essential nature.
Otherwise, you undercut your recourse to "it's like human intelligence but more so" -- the only examples of intelligence we have or can legitmately conceive are embodied.
Intelligence is always action in the world.

Finally, please deal with the apparent fact that the world is causally closed.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/05/19 09:06:03, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Just a suggestion, RGD -- better make dafve specify what he means by 'mixture'.
On the typical meaning of the word, his claim is false on the face of it -- Portugese is not a 'mixture' of French and English, any more than English is a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, French and Celtic.
And that was, after all, his specific claim.
Almost as ludicrous as his claims that an entity "outside" of space and time can nonetheless be a causal agent, or that a singular intelligence is possible, or that an intelligence without corporeality is possible.
Or that YEC makes sense and is plausible.
Or that the Bible has anything to do with morality in any positive sense.
The list is longer than he is...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/05/21 04:34:39, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
What logic?  A string of ruminations does not constitute logic, nor a logical argument.
Evil is not generally defined as "opposition to the will of the Creator".
Amongst other problems, and they are legion, you are assuming your conclusion.  Were this logic that would disqualify your 'argument' right there.
You have yet to show that the notion of 'Creator' as you use it is meaningful and possible.
You have yet to reconcile omniscience and omnipotence.
Similarly you have yet to reconcile omnipotence and omnibenevolence in the face of evil [in the normal sense of the term] which has nothing to do with human action or will.
You misreprsent the standard objection to your claims -- it is not the case that the argument from evil is "why doens't an all powerful and all knowing beingf stop this?", it is "how can a being described as all-knowing and all-powerful permit this in the first place".
I doubt you can see the distinction, although it is more obvious than the differences between French, Spanish, and Portuguese...

But by all means, please proceed with discussino of Eric's age of the earth and flood questions.  Just don't pretend that by 'moving on' anyone believes that you have settled anything you have moved past.
We really would like  to see you provide positive evidence for something, anything, at least once in this thread.
Should you do so, we might almost conclude that miracles can occur.
Since they cannot, we know a prior that you will not.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/05/26 06:15:33, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I think we all know that we are not brains in vats but that GOP is.  And that vat is empty...

hugs,
Shirle Knott

Date: 2006/06/06 08:51:58, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Let's just focus on one odd bit of phrasing by GoP --
"...before alternative explanations can hit the ground..."
What GoP clearly fails to realize is that for anything to be an alternative explanation, it must first be an...
EXPLANATION.

WHAT are you trying to explain, Paley?  For pages now people have been asking you to present this, and you've been wasting your time going off in other threads, abusing the [admittedly abuse-worthy] Foucoult, and other time-wasting nonsense.

Kindly lay out what your "alternative explanation" is going to explain, then lay out the purported explanation, show how it is explanatory, and let us have at it.

But you won't do that, will you?
Either you can't, or it's not part of the game you're playing.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/08 02:41:31, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I for one am so glad to see that even though he is too busy to complete on his many promises to  us, GoP at least looks after his health sufficiently to take movie breaks.
Of course, that does rather make his commitments rather questionable -- quite in line with everything else he's up to.
Apparently, a typical Christian -- consistently boorish, ignorant, immoral, and thoroughly contemptible.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/08 06:41:50, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, it surpasses his level of honesty.
But then most things do...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/14 09:08:35, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Worse, Steve -- he's so immoral he doesn't care.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/15 06:42:09, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
But davey, even if crabby is being dishonest (and I don't believe he is -- which, were we to use the same sort of pseudo-logic you indulge in, should be sufficient to absolve him...) --
this pales to insignificance given how your dishonesty dishonors both your service background and your religious faith.
You, sir, are a contemptible specimen.  Each of your posts re-confirms it.
Liar
Loser
Lunatic

I'd say RGD has it precisely correct.


hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/16 12:14:52, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Paley, so far your ideas not only are not important, they are not even ideas.
They hardly rise to the level of notion.

Pfeh.

Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/19 08:27:47, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Arden, I can't believe you are surprise by this.
It has been clear from the start that Davetard's acquisition of notions follows the path from "I want it to be true" to "is there anything that can make it sound plausible" to "It is true!".  That's  all he needs, it's all he's got, and, yes, he truly does not understand that this has the same relationship to finding knowlege that a million monkeys happening to produce the works of Shakespeare has to literature.
It is all about justifying pre-chosen beliefs, not about finding truth.  I mean, why search for truth when you've already got it?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/20 02:08:37, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Old half-a-dave a successful businessman?
I can certainly imagine him *believing* that inflatable dartboards would be all the rage, and even *believing* that he's a wild success, but reality has a way of intruding.

Belief rarely translates to success -- it far more often leads either to knowlege or failure.  And we know which road Davey's approaching the end of...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/23 03:25:23, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Somehow I always pictured airFarceDave as being taller and not quite so hairy.  But the slightly [sic] crazed look in the eyes, and the insane obsessiveness...  Got to wonder if maybe Darby isn't one of the target drone's neighbors...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/23 06:21:38, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
And what does it say about curing Leprosy?
Always a favorite....

And btw, davey, you keep claiming that archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible.
You could not be more wrong, as has been repeatedly and thoroughly pointed out to you.
But you keep lying about it -- is this a requirement for Christians, or optional behavior?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/26 07:38:58, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I'm sure there is a punchline, and I'm sure we know what it is.

Just was with his politics, the ultimate punchline will be "The Aristocrats".

As I've said before, and as he continues to support with evidence, Ghast of Paley has no ideas, barely even any poorly-conceived notions.
And he wouldn't recognize a model if it came in a box manufactured by Revell labelled 'MODEL'.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/28 05:32:40, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I'll bite with a challenge:
There is no valid knowlege which flows from Scripture.
None.
Nada.
Zilch.
Everything Scripture asserts is wrong.

hugs,
Shirley Knott
PS -- Ghastly old boy, don't you have a model you should be building?  Isnt' that significantly more important than the plethora of distractions you keep indulging in?

Date: 2006/06/28 07:23:59, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Hey Ghastly,
Stop trying to help others with their housework when you are so far behind in yours.
Put up or shut up.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/29 08:16:30, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Folks, this is why it is futile to attempt to reason with afDave -- he seriously believes that when writing and physical facts conflict, writing is always to be deemed correct.
And he has his chosen writing; no facts can possibly disabuse him, because facts do not matter in the face of the written word.  That's how he weasels out of the continuous occupation of Tyre, the reality of the flood in the face of the mountain of contravening evidence, and the manifold evidence that he is a liar and a lunatic.
One really must wonder what species that lowlife scumbag is, as he certainly does not meet the definitional criteria for being human -- he denies he is an animal, and demonstrates that he is not rational.  On his own grounds we would be justified in treating him as a rabid dog.  Fortunately, not being Christian, we have some morals to prevent us.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/29 09:28:28, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
No, Dave, the Bible is NOT a historical record, any more than Gone with the Wind is.  Rather less, in that GWTW has substantially more correspondance with reality as independantly confirmed than the Bible does.

And yes, Dave, as Eric pointed out, and as everyone else seems to know, if the writing and the physical evidence conflict, you discard the writing.  Or you discard the putative connection between the writing and the physical specimen.  Sort of like "We have a written record that these bones belong to Scarlett O'Hara" plus "We have carbon dated these bones to 2500BCE, we have dendrochronology which indicates the coffin was made from wood from a tree which died circa 4510  years ago" leads to "So we conclude that despite the written records, these are not the bones of Scarlett O'Hara".
It's really simple Dave, and everyone does it.
Do you look up someone's address in a phone book and then abuse the current residents because the phone says your friend lives there, so clearly the present occupants must be intruders?  Of course you don't.  Except when it comes to the writings you idolize.
Bibliolatry is an ugly thing  Dave.
Almost as ugly as your lack of sense, knowlege, and goodness.

no hugs for you, but plenty for the rational animals here,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/29 13:39:59, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Hey Dave, here's another question for you to try to avoid:
Given two written works from antiquity, how does one determine whether either, neither or both are works of fact as opposed to works of fiction?


no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/30 06:13:41, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I'll answer your question AFTER you provide a satisfactory answer to mine.
See previous page of posts if you missed it.

But I do note with considerable amusement that the very first point of your 4 point rejection of the Graf-Welhausen hypothesis is based on the irrationality of taking written records over physical facts.
Why is that OK here and nowhere else?

Goodness, Dave, did you think I meant you when I said 'no hugs for thugs'?  Do you think I was correct in my assessment?  You seem to, else why do you believe it applies to you?
I'll accept your self-assessment, but I do have to wonder when you began worshiping Kali...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/30 06:31:09, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Ah, Dave, you contradict yourself so quickly.
After asserting repeatedly that the written word is to be preferred over physical evidence, you now reverse course and insist that writing must be confirmed by physical evidence.
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
Whatever story you need to tell to advance your current position is what you will tell.  No consistency, no honesty, just pure unadulterated Bullshit.
I suggest you pick up the book by that title and study it.

A final two points -- archaeology does not support the bible, as we have shown you with Tyre and with Jericho and with the murder of the innocents.  The list goes on far past this, but you bullshit your way past all that with your absurd belief that the bible is a historically accurate text.  It is not, and honest historians and archaeologists know it.

Second, no, there is no creator god.  The act of creation is always a matter of a relationship between 2 or more physically existent entities.  We have no grounds for the notion of creation ex nihilo.  Justify that and we can perhaps proceed to the absurdities associated  with the term 'god'.
But given your current track record of justifying notions, I would suggest you  not bother.  You don't need to rack up more embarassing failures.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/30 07:19:55, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Sorry, Dave, the examples given are not equivocal.  Not in any way shape or form.  And nobody here finds them equivocal, and no scholar finds them equivocal.  (Josh McDowell is an embarassment to mankind and literacy, not a scholar.  He is also demonstratbly an idiot and horrifyingly dishonest.  No surpise you rely on him, you like being lied to, don't you dave?)
But the list of inaccuracies and falsehoods in the bible is far longer than it need be -- ONE single example of the bible being errant suffices to call the entirety into question.
The answer to that question is that the bible is a book of myths and tales and stories, the accuracy of none of which can be accepted or assumed absent independant confirmation.

And regarding your other silly little jab, it doesn't matter what I believe or if I believe nothing whatever about existence, matter, and time.  It doesn't even matter if we don't know -- we know enough to rule out a creator god and that suffices.
What matters is that you are incorrect in virtually everything you post (I give you benefit of the doubt and assume you are correct about your own name.  I doubt, however, your assertions about af participation and the qualifications you claim.  But I'm not very interested and don't really care.  Where it's important you are wrong, and that's what matters. )  And the notion of 'creator god' is fundamentally incoherent and irrational.

Care to give me 3 good examples where the bible has been shown to be correct?  It won't be the flood, it won't be the "missing day" when some prophet made the sun stand still.  It won't be the life of Jesus called Christ.  What shall they be?
If it boils down to independant confirmation that *some* people and places named in the bible really did exist, so what?  We get that from Gone with the Wind, too.

hugs for rational animals and their pets,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/30 07:42:27, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Of course we're not going to get to the flood.
Even one as clueless as Dave must be beginning to see that he has nothing he can bring forth which will not be smashed into a billion tiny pieces here.
The evidence against a worldwide flood is so overwhelming it is amazing anyone can seriously propose that there was one.
It violates the facts we have, logic, and reason.  It is, in short, impossible.  
This, of course, would be why dave so desparately wants there to be a 'creator god' who, despite not being part of the causal nexus of the real world, can influence it at will, and with nothing other than sheer will.
Since dave does not understand cause or will, he's hopelessly lost.

hugs to the rational animals and their pets,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/30 08:53:58, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Dave, Dave, Dave.  Despite your fascination with authority figures, I refuse to become one, even in your sick little fantasies.
The impossibility of the flood has literally nothing to do with whether I say so or not.
It has to do with those things of which you are entirely ignorant -- facts, logic, and reason.

It was an insult to 3 year olds for one of the posters here to compare you with one.

We could give you a brain transplant but that would raise you merely to the level of half-wit.   That's how big your deficit is.

But go ahead, show us facts, show us logic, show us reason.  After almost 100 pages of posts, we've seen nothing of the sort from you.  Only lies, hypocrisy, and evil.  Oh, and a towering dose of bibliolatry.  Which commandment are you violating with that, again?

Hugs to the rational animals and their pets,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/06/30 11:59:37, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Another post from St. Dave the Clueless, proving once again that if he can read, he certainly cannot comprehend.
You'll notice I did indeed explain why creation ex nihilo is impossible.  If it is ex nihilo, it is not creation.  I would suggest 'poof', as in 'poofery ex nihilo', but that would be redundant.
Similar remarks can be made about every other point you list in your screed.
You, sir, are an idiot.  Sublimely arrogant in your cluelessness, you are nonetheless an idiot.

Hope everyone else has a happy holiday, I'm off until late Tuesday.

hugs for the rational animals and their pets,
Shirley Knott

PS.  Davey, do I need to explain that you do not qualify as the pet of a rational animal any more than you qualify as rational?  And you've already denied your an animal, right?
I believe the brits have a much earthier, but much more applicable term for such as you...

Date: 2006/06/30 12:15:47, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, Dave, thanks for explaining why you are here.
Scepticism about the real world is typically considered nihilism; imagine my surprise to find you a nihilist.
Ha.
But it is beyond amusing to see you pontificate about why 'people' come here.  How would you know?
Particularly given that you are unequipped to be a knower.

hugs to the rational animals and their pets,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/07/06 04:20:54, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
But Faid, hand-waving and blabbering is *how* Dave answers questions.
The tragedy is that he "thinks" that such suffices -- indeed, he "thinks" that blabbering and handwaving are answers.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/07/06 10:44:05, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Paley, don't you have a model to build and present?
Drop the bullshit pseudo-sociology and get back to your pseudo-cosmology, please.  You violate your own promises by drifting down these other paths.  (Big surprise to those of us who know you as a Christian, and  thus know you to be inherently dishonest, but still... Maintain the pretense!)

Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/07/11 04:24:04, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
But it doesn't get in the way of going to the movies, now does it?
It's getting harder and harder to take your pretenses even remotely seriously.
I call bullshit on the entire enterprise.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/07/12 06:40:51, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
It's easy -- religion is the opiate, so Dave is blissful and painfree.  Sadly, this opiate not only numbs his pain, it numbs his mind.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/07/12 09:54:09, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, Arden, I think you've published the fully polished and fully formed version of Paley's gecontric theory.  I know it was tough work to extract that from his ravings, and I imagine the uninitiated might be puzzled at the lack of things like planets and stars, but... the cognoscenti get it, as Paley intended they should.

Thanks!

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/09/18 10:51:46, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Dave, Let's cut to the chase -- how do you know Genesis is true?  How do you preserve that 'truth' in the face of the conflicts and contradictions within the work, to say nothing of those between work and world?
What steps did you take to determine that the contents were truth rather than fiction?
If you can't answer that, you have no basis for any of the assertions you've been making.

Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/09/21 04:37:28, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, Dave's rich (he tells us so quite often), why bother with Google at all?  Let him go hire an expensive copyright lawyer and get solid legal advice.
It would remove the EAC and EAA from play, would reduce his fortunes by a bit, and provide hours of howling amusement to the law firm...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/09/25 04:52:01, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Given that you've run away from your vaunted "proof" of geocentrism, why should anyone suppose you'll be more honest or forthcoming here?
But just in case...
Define your terms.
What do you mean by 'judeo-christian culture'?  Why do I suspect you mean "any European culture or society post 100A.D."?
And if that's what you mean, you are assuming your conclusion.
I will cheerfully argue that judeo-christian culture strictly defined has NOT contributed more to human knowlege than any other culture, but is surely in the running for having destroyed and impeded more knowlege than any other culture.

Now, about that geocentric model...

Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/09/29 07:49:50, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
And the down side to that would be what, precisely?

Sheesh, with the ghast of Paley around, who needs dogs pooping on the lawn?   At least some owners clean up after their dogs...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/02 07:31:21, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
THIS is your idea of "cloberin' time"???
Sheesh, Paley you are pathetic.

I can't *WAIT* to see what kind of nonsense you eventually pull out of an orifice as the next stage in your Geocentric Universe thread -- surely you have not forgotten all your many commitments there?

And we're supposed to believe that you are the result of centuries of Christian superiority in culture and science, and  yet here you you are , a moon-landing-denialist, evolution-denialist, physics-denialist, and semi-literate fool.  Did the movement of your lips while looking at the pictures in comic books *completely* dull both of your brain cells to the meanings of the few words therein?  Apparently so...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/04 10:30:38, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
OK, Arden, I recognize (from left to right)
O'Leary, DaveScott, and Demski, but who's the clown on the right end?  (Scary to think of someone to the right of Demski et al, but there you go...)

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Wow, beaten to the punch by Richardthughes -- too funny we both id'd the bustards the same ;-)

Date: 2006/10/04 11:37:24, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
True, but he couldn't keep it up.

hugs,
Shirley Knott
:p

Date: 2006/10/05 08:59:24, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
The ethics are very simple -- highly unethical, but simple:
If it is for the glory of God or the sake of an immortal soul, it is acceptable no matter what other standards of behavior might need to be violated.

Few things in life are more contemptible than Christian attempts at morality -- and how could it be otherwise for a religion explicitly founded on the acceptance of child abuse?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/05 10:31:01, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Is killing a child an instance of child abuse?
Is it not the central dogma of Christianity that "God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son so that others might live"?
Is it not a central dogma of Christianity that if Christ had not been killed we would not have been saved?

I believe this is QED...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/05 11:01:16, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
My apologies for inadvertently violating one of the rules.
Thanks for pointing it out.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/13 11:18:46, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Demski is obviously a ukelele player.
Evidence suggests that after years of futile attempts to master air guitar, DaveTard gave up music as a liberal conspiracy.
Alternatively, he may have been the bass player referred to in the old joke "how many bass players does it take to screw in a light bulb?  Answer:  none, the keyboard player does it with his left hand."

hugs,
Shirley Knott
synthesist

Date: 2006/10/16 06:17:54, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Louis, and others, I share your frustration with Paley's Ghast, and have been wrestling with appropriate responses.
When someone so egregiously abuses the hospitality and good well of so many for so long, it seems that exclusion of the abuser is the only remedy with any hope of preserving the sociality of the gathering.  Banning would give him far more attention than the miserable little twunt deservers.
Therefore, I can only suggest that the only legitimate response is emphatic shunning.
GoP should be ignored, no responses to his lies and drivel should be posted -- aside from at most a note to 'see previous behavior patterns for a full explanation of why this wanker is being ignored'.  He is not a member of the community, he is not a welcome participant, he is not even so respectable as that complete loser afDave.  So, ignore him utterly and completely.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/17 01:58:09, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Why no, Lenny, not in context.  They are, after all, the only posts the ghast makes that have any actual, you know, content.
They are certainly the only things he post that might remotely be considered worthy of a response.
But all in all, yes,  Paley's Ghast is without a doubt the worst specimen of alleged humanity that has ever infested this board -- and that's going up against some pretty spectacular tards.  Perhaps what distinguishes the miserable little git is his total lack of 'spectacle', thus his attraction the manifold intellectual rigors of WWE.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/18 03:25:54, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Dave, you have been decisively refuted on every point you have raised.
You have quote mined and lied about quote mining and now you try to bluster your way through with more lies.
You have nothing left but your fundamental (and fundamentalist) dishonesty.
Any interested party can read either, or both, of the monstrous (in size and sheer volume of single-sourced idiocy) threads devoted to your meaningless assertions.
Any interested party who does so will come way shaking their head in disbelief at your brazen chutzpah in now starting another thread that side-steps the issues, seeks to drown the main points in verbiage, and casts aspersions on the integrity of your moral superiors [hint: any moral being is morally superior to you, based on an evaluation of your 2 main threads previously reference].
Attempting to reason with you is to engage with a party totally unequipped to begin.  But attermpting to discuss with you is like attempting to hold a discussion with a fart -- mistargetted and odious.
You are a profoundly evil and deeply disturbed human being.  Seek professional help.
Portuguese is not a mixture of French and Latin.
Transitional fossils exist.
The simple facts of genetics refute your quote-mined nonsense.
The simple facts of physics and chemistry refute your nonsense.
The simple facts of reality refute virtually everything you present.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/18 03:29:48, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Oh, and you have run like a whipped dog from every fact you can't quote-mine a response to.
You have run like a whipped puppy from every counter-argument raised against you.
The most mature and substantial response you have ever mounted has been "nyah nyah nyah I don't believe you "

Pfeh.
A pox on you and all your kind.

Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/24 06:33:24, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Keep in mind as well that numbers surely do lie -- as soon as they are attached to 'real existents'.
Conclusive proof:
2 + 2 = 4
2liters (water) + 2liters (alcohol) ~= 4liters of solution.
QED

But of course neither Sal nor zero understand squat about logic, argument, evidence, or numbers, so this is for the benefit of those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/26 02:08:28, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Given the almost complete absence of meaning from your posts, I am unable to answer your question.
What do you mean by 'real'?  'Existent'?  Then of course zero is real.
'Material'?  Then of course zero is not real.  'Spatio-temporally locatable and individuated'?  Then of course not.
Etc.

And btw, your idiotic point has been refuted and you continue to dance around in word salad.  You're an idiot.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/26 04:57:34, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Poor zero -- conversation is a two-way street, but he's out in the middle of the unpaved prairie without a driver's license.  And, apparently, an inability to recognize automobiles or roads.

Is nothing sacred?  Apparently so, and zero worships it fervently, and spreads vast quantities of it wherever he goes.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/26 07:38:02, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
And as we have all seen ad infinitum, afDave's posts are anti-information.

Dave's done a good job of fooling us all -- the 'af' doesn't stand for air force, it stands for anti-factual.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott  

ps.  Take heart, davey-poo -- you're not yet as contemptible as the ghast of Paley.  But look -- even he's correcting you...

Date: 2006/10/26 11:48:16, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Anti-Fact Dave is pictured in the dictionary next to 'delusions of adequacy'.
The only people he has shown to be in error, or dishonest, are AIG, Gish, Morris, and their ilk, and his only insignificant little self.

Keep hammering it home guys -- nothing Dave says about the ToE has any bearing on demonstrating the truth of his soi disant 'hypothesis'.

BTW, Davie-poo, many of us pointed out that your hypothesis, so called, is jam-packed full of undefined terms, which fact alone renders it worthless.
Just like you.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/10/27 02:29:36, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
So when are you going to start?  Truth has been missing from your posts from the beginning...
You contemptible little man.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
BTW, with friends like you, who needs enemas?

Date: 2006/10/27 12:46:17, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, if Dave and his ilk are going to be in heaven, I want no part of the place.  Can you imagine an eternity of him and Ken Ham and the rest of the nutters?  It would make an angel rebel...
oh, wait...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/03 01:48:48, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Oh,  come on, Crabby -- have you EVER, in *ANY* of his threads, seen antiFactDave demonstrate the slightest ability to read for comprehension?
The man moves his lips when he looks at pictures, for gosh sakes -- and can't even grasp the subject matter of representational art.  When it comes to words, he was doing fine until we moved to words with one syllable.  He handled arithmetic OK until addition and subtraction were introduced.  But who needs to know when you can just believe?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/14 07:02:21, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I third it, with an emphatic request that it be titled "Too Hot for Dembski to Handle".
That would be entirely accurate and totally infuriating to the odious little creep and his lick-spittles.
Plus it would provide hours and hours of amusement...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/14 08:13:00, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Anti-Fact-Dave's lies are becoming so obvious one would have to be a deluded fundy  (but I repeat myself) to not have them be blindingly obvious.
But here's another challenge for you to run away from afd -- you assert that:
"You lie about science.  You lie about what I say.  Then you lie about your lies.  "
Provide evidence to support this.  Deadman has not lied about the content of your posts.  Deadman has not lied about the unalterable fact that you have lied about him.  Provide evidence otherwise.
You can provide no evidence whatsoever to support a charge of lying against Deadman.

"THIS is what I said ... Quote  
PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ... LYING TO YOU !! "
Prove it.  Give a permalink to a single post in this or your previous thread where Deadman asserts that C14 dating provided proof of a pre-flood Egypt.
You cannot because he did not.

As Dawkins says, belief in god is a contemptible reason to be moral.  And the real tragedy is that in your case even belief in god isn't enough to lead you to moral behavior.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/14 10:19:03, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
The only nightmare here is your dishonesty Dave.
I note with some amusement, zero surprise, and a modicum of disappointment that you have failed entirely to address my previous post.
You did not show where Deadman claimed that C-14 proved a pre-Flood Egyptian civilization.  Further, you quite dishonestly cherry-picked a late entry into the ongoing discussion with you, leading to Deadman providing a recap of a summary of a recap of a summary of a summary of the mountain of data you've been shown (but have refused to look at).
Even more shamefully, you completely ignored the remainder of the challenge.
You are a proven liar Dave.
You are a shameful coward and utterly dishonest, unfit for human civilization or society.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/15 07:14:09, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, it would seem obvious that the most probable caller would be reality, informing him that his check bounced.
Sadly, the call was refused and its existence denied.
So, probably something from the opposite end of the spectrum -- Dembski, or one of his lick-spittles?
As if we cared about the tawdry details of his wasted little life.
Davey, all 5 of your "it is obvious" points are the furthest thing from obvious.  In fact, there is zero evidence for any of them.  Zero.
Got that?  Write it down.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/16 12:58:13, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I'm here quite a bit more often than 'from time to time', but rarely interject unless something crosses one or another line.

I'm amused to note how many of you think Davey the ultraTard even has a wick in his candle to polish.  I suspect it burned out years ago (from lack of real use?) and no amount chemical enhancement could help.
Huh, you know the hyper-creepy look on that guy in the Enzyte commercials, the one with the long-suffering, and apparently constipated, wife?  Take Dembski's expression and you know how a man looks who needs Enzyte and can't get a rise out it.  Rather the specified inverse of mr enzyte.

Seriously, the thought of afDave and Dembski both being married and both having procreated is enough to make me rethink the attractions of lesbianism.
And to reconsider launching my 'make abortion mandatory' campaign.

And speaking of women, whatever happend to the ever-delightful Rilke's Granddaughter?  I worry about her sometimes...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/21 11:01:52, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
And we're all still waiting for the udpates clarifying the current status of Tyre.  Despite the prophecy, continuously inhabited from before Ezekiel even unto today.  And tomorrow and beyond.  Rather a bigger error than the Piltdown fraud...
Science fixes errors.
Religion commits to errors and refuses to budge.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/21 12:20:41, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
He should respond with fulsome apologies for not addressing her with  the approved term of respct as coined by the tard himself -- morphodyke.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/21 14:12:23, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Speaking of 'hey, there seems to be a pattern here', check out the latest on the slime-masters of AIG.
Not just dishonest, but thieves.
I know, big surprise, but I thought some of you might find this latest revelation about the character of the company anti-factDave keeps at least moderately amusing.
How about it Dave, why do you associate with these criminals?
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-from-behind-scenes-of.html

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/22 17:20:09, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
But dearest vmartin -- the grounds for treating you and JAD with 'such contempt' is that...
you are both contemptible.
Got it?  Write it down!

What more grounds are needed?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/24 09:10:47, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Where are the nine?  I thought everybody knew that -- in the latter days they became the dark lord's greatest servants, his Nazgul.  Allegedly brought low, but great evil never dies [thanks to accolytes such as yourself?]
etc.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/29 08:22:44, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Dave, you continue to reinforce my determination to never fall back into christianity.  I don't want to be in #### with you, and if I were a Christian or believed Christianity to be either credible or true, I would have to consider myself at great risk of that fate.
Fortunately, there is no more truth in Christianity than in your posted fantasy drivel.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/29 13:38:24, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
AntiFact Dave is also refusing to see the huge contradiction in his nonsense about mutations.
It is known that mutation occurs.  Dave has acknowleged this.
It is known that a mutation which occurs can suffer a subsequent mutation *which reverses the original mutation*.  Dave cannot avoid this fact; it is irrefutable in theory and practice.
Dave nonetheless wants to insist that that the gene after the second mutation, when it is identical to the gene prior to the first mutation, *has less information and has degenerated from the gene with which it is identical*.  He seems to want to take the additional step of insisting that the gene after the second mutation is *more different* from the original (with which it is idnetical) than the gene after the first mutation (which is in fact different from the gene before the first mutation and again the gene after the second mutation).

afDave -- more tard than Springer, just less power.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/29 14:27:06, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Of course I do, antiFactDave -- the real world is the only world there is.  That's what 'real' means, you know -- or, apparently, do not know.

And of course I have real-world examples.
Why on earth, though, would I want to do your research for you.  

You have acknowleged that mutations occur, yes?
enter answer here:

You have not refuted the notion, nor presented any evidence whatsoever in support of the notion, that a subsequent mutation cannot reverse a prior mutation, yes?
enter answer here [note that any answer other than 'yes' requires a permalink to what you said and when, your all-but-patented "I've already addressed that point and we've moved on" shall count as an admission of defeat, because I assure you you have not.]:

So, what now for your absurd and illogical notion that a mutation is always inherently deleterious and always represents a loss of information?
enter answer here:


I defy you to come up with any meaning of 'information' which allows you to hold to the implications of your plain and oft-repeated assertion that mutations are always a loss of information.
enter attempt at such a defintion here:


I prophesy that there shall be no answers entered and no support directly given to these questions.
And we all know that prophesy somehow cannot ever be challenged or in error, right?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/29 18:01:52, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Oh, so very cute antiFactDave.
As others have pointed out, most people grow out of this long before leaving grade school.
I am not playing, but you certainly appear to be.  Whatever it is you're doing, it isn't working.  Not in any sense of the term.
So, no answers to my questions?
No response to the total logical demoliton of your claims?
I didn't think so.
So facts have no impact on you, logic has no impact on you, the Bible has no impact on you (or you wouldn't be a johnny-come-lately bibliolator), there's nothing left.
Thaks for again proving that you are dishonest scum.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/11/30 08:42:15, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
No, antiFactDave, the group think is all you and yours.
The latest classic example is your claim to the wonders of Barton's scholarship -- as delivered by no less an authority than Barton himself.
And as elegantly fisked above, Barton's claims to a "higher standard" are as ludicrously false as would be Jim Jones' claims to higher quality of nutrition from his special kool-aid.

You continue your absurdly childish diversion of topics and actively ignore the many cogent responses to and criticisms of your increasingly desparate drivel.  But you are clearly running out of corners to paint yourself into.

BTW, is it at all relevent to you that others have provided exactly what you were so smug about my refusal to provide, including your condescending assertion that as per your expectations I was just making up stories and so *couldn't* provide?  I rather suspect not give your past history.  But here you are, pwned again.

As always, the facts are against you. ALL the facts.  You have nothing.  And insofar as you 'know' anything, you ought to know that by now.
But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Contemptible.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/12/01 12:42:26, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
It's important to him because he thinks that's a different issue than whether or not every change to a gene is deleterious.  Watch for his next move -- yes, some RARE cases of mutation might add information, but it is always information that [somehow entirely undefinedly] "detracts" from the functionality or "specification" of the gene.
He cannot face the logical contradiciton inherent in his position -- if a gene mutates and a subsequent mutation restores the original form, he MUST be able to maintain that the identical versions differ, and differ in that the latest is "less than" the first.
The man is an idiot at best.  Fortunate indeed is he that the autonomic nervous system requires no thought, or he'd be long gone.  And sad that we have yet to wait for that fate to befall him.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Yes, antiFactDave, I am saying the world will be a better place after your demise -- the real world, the only one there is.  Upon your demise the average intelligence of the planet will increase.  Oddly, so will the aggregate intelligence.

Date: 2006/12/07 14:17:06, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
To assert that no creature is fooled by mimicry, especially on the tawdry grounds you advance, is absurd.
Not least, it betrays a total ignorance of inter-genera mimicry in service of reproduction, as is well-known and well-documented in the world of orchidaceae.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/12/08 13:13:12, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, antiFactDave, the Bible is your book, and inerrant according to you.
So why don't you tell us just which "kinds" were represented on the Ark?
And for bonus credit,  how many of each?
I've even included below the relevant reference points -- surely you can tell us which of these verses is correct, and from that, which "kinds" and how many were present on the Ark.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/12/14 09:31:24, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
No, you idiot, the difference is that in the case of the watch, we know the designer, we know the manufactury, we can with no difficulty determine that watches are made things and are made by us.
No such identification or determination is possible for butterflies, and in principle it is not possible that there should be.  If everything is designed, design is a meaningless and unsubstantiable term.
One might as well declare that 'everything is garglefoop' because X is garglefoop by definition and Y is declared (on no basis whatsoever) to be garglefoop, therefore by [entirely irrational and unsupportable] assertion everything is garglefoop.
Get it thru your thick skull antiFactDave -- "God" is an undefined term and as such illegitmate for use in any theory or hypothesizing.
And once you eliminate the term, you have nowhere to go.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/12/14 16:15:46, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
The only thing Paley's Stale Flatulence has ever written which has any chance of being true and correct would be his admission of multiple-personality trolling.
I don't believe I've ever seen him "best" anyone on anything, at any time, on any subject.
He brings whole new levels of meaning to the phrase "delusions of adequacy".

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/12/19 11:12:11, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I cannot imagine anything capturing antiFactDave's approach more perfectly than his latest post to Eric.
He is willing to adopt, or to feign adoption, of a position he does not like, does not understand, does not approve of, and certainly neither accepts nor believes, just to make a persistent challenge to his deeply held beliefs go away.

There is his honesty, his integrity, his 'character' if you will, in a nutshell.  (No pun intended, nothing nearly so large is required to encapsulate little Davey.)

And in all of this, Dave still does not understand why the artifact from Ur is not a problem to Eric, nor why this represents the fatal flaw in his silly little 'approach' to "reasoning".

Dave, give it up.  You've already determined what you want to be true and are simply struggling to find ways to make your prejudices plausible.  You are no more capable of an honest inquiry than an emu is of piloting an F-18.  The difference, of course, is the emu might be funny to watch.  You are merely pitiful.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/12/20 15:43:17, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
No, it just promises certain damnation for saying something [some specific thing, well documented].
Indeed, Mr. Heddle, that is such a huge difference I don't know how anyone could possibly confuse the two.

And mind you, it is a puzzler that Christianity provides several guaranteed marks/tests of the 'true Christian', which no Christian has yet survived.  Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Blaspheming against the so--called Holy Spirit on a daily basis.  It's a victimless crime.

Date: 2006/12/20 16:34:17, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
So how else are we to interpret the injunction against blaspheming the so-called Holy Spirit if not as a claim that there exists a class (with at least one member) of speech acts such that participating as the proximate cause of such a speech act is a guarantee of eternal damnation, no ifs ands or buts, no get out of #### free card, no exceptions.
Where do you come by your exception?  Salad bar Christianity (the only major denomination, apparently, still in existence)?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2006/12/21 19:04:38, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Currently Madison, WI.
Looking back, greater Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis, Kansas City (both), Portland OR, Raleigh NC, greater East Lansing MI area (MSU and extended environs), raised at the confluence of Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska.
Whew!

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/01/05 14:28:16, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Somewhat off-topic, but since the orchid has been mentioned...
Angraecum sesquipedale is not terribly difficult to grow, and, for me at least, has flowered reliably for all but one of the years I've owned mine.   The blossom is impressive, the fragrance is delightful, although a bit subtle most of the time.  Watching the nectary unfurl as the blossom slowly opens is an education in its own right.  It does not reach the length of 12+ inches until the blossom is well into opening; when the bud first breaks from the bract, it is substantially larger (longer) than the tiny little 'prong' coming from the rear of the bud.
And, unlike so many other orchids, the plant is attractive even when not in bloom, which will be roughly 9-10 months out of the year (assuming you consider the plant to be 'in bloom' from the time the flower stalk first begins to appear from between the leaves).
If you appreciate Darwin and raise plants, I would strongly encourage you to pick up a specimen or two of Angraecum sesquipedale.  

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/01/22 13:10:45, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Because there *is* no debate over the SLoT and evolution.
There is, for some tiny minority at least, still some debate over whether GoP is indeed a racist, or "merely" plays one on the web, or has been tragically and inappropriately [yeah, right] misunderstood.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/01/27 08:25:30, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
deadman_932,
Lovely!  Thank you, delightful bit of writing there, with some lovely, direct, useful examples of the problem with stopping at the surface details.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/02/16 07:36:08, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Out of morbid curiousity, is there anything at all about which the tard-meister has been non-trivially correct?
It appears that his only skills are bluster and an inability to get anything at all genuinely correct.

Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/02/25 11:08:56, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Ah, at last, a tard metric.  Someone else will have to suggest what 'E' stands for, but it is now a defined unit of measurement for such as afDave, DaveTard, et al.
It is calcuated as ((Mistakes) * (Confidencefactor)) raised to the 'tard' value.
Delightful!

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/02/26 14:45:03, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
More Errortainment for you all to enjoy.
Has anyone (else) ever tried applying the Explanatory Filter and other "concepts" of ID to the world of the DI and ID?
I have, and found that they have a designed movement which is self-identifying.
Consider the 'Big ID tent'.
Those of us blessed with the opportunity to work in software customer support are aware of 2 main problem  sources:
- the first is PEBKAC, 'problem exists between keyboard and chair'
- the second is the 'id 10 t' code.  Write it out without whitespace and you clearly see that id 10 t is idiot.
So what about the big id tent?
Well, there it is in all its tardy splendor -- join the IDIOT, enter the big id tent today!
This not the product of chance or regularity, it must be Dembski's Design...
Indeed, Bill and his sycophants [hi Sal!] are the IDIOT.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/02/28 11:41:51, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, it's pretty difficult to top the tard of the content on that site.

The STOOPID, IT BERNS!!!*

I thought we had an icon or warning for this kind of 'insert euphemism for bovine excrement'.  

hugs,
Shirley Knott
*But have we perhaps discovered Dembski's mentor and Springer-tard's father?

Date: 2007/05/04 16:41:52, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
That entire site is a tragic joke.  And it's becoming less and less funny with each passing outburst from the petulant bunch of whiny losers that infest the place under the guise of moderator.
They neither moderate nor behave moderately.
I'm giving it until Monday AM, at the very latest, before I request that my account be disabled and I cease visiting.
I refuse to allow them, or set them up so that they would feel compelled, to ban me.
Assuming that things continue to deteriorate in the absymal fashion they've taken, I will also refuse to allow them to maintain an account for me, nor will I support them in any form, on any forum or topic.
Bunch of felchwits, the lot of them.  It is an outrage.
BWE, OA, and others have been appallingly treated.
Dave, on the other hand, has been coddled, and not the way one coddles eggs.
Pfeh.
Dawkins should be ashamed.  If he isn't sufficiently in touch with what's going on, he should be mortified.
If he is, and believes this reflects well on him, his positions, atheism, atheists, science, or scientists, well, even a highly accurate clock drifts into error...

hugs to you guys who've been fighting the good fight, and doing so ably and well, while saddled with that bunch of felchwits,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/05/12 11:12:59, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
And for those who think Lenny serves no useful purpose, we see here that he can be effective as moron repellent.  
Of course, this relies on the apparently counter-factual assertion that ftk is being honest when it asserts it will leave if Lenny remains.
But hope springs eternal...

hugs to Lenny,
no hugs to thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/06/13 09:32:43, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Sadly, it is *not* sufficient merely to take offense at someone's post for it to count as offsensive.
Were that the case, afDave would have been suspended within hours of each post, and ultimately banned.
I, and I'm sure many others, have reported, and publicly posted, issues with the offensive comments that are Dave's stock in trade.
The behavior of the mods at rd net is shameful and reflects poorly [understatement of the month] on Dawkins himself.

I've also noticed that the mods will silently "disappear" posts, with no comment or explanation or mention, the "offending" posts just.... vanish.

It is not a site for reason, or for honesty, or for civility.
It is an almost complete mess, and cannot vanish from the web quickly enough.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/06/15 13:35:26, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Are you KIDDING??

Jesus does NOT think its bad to rip people apart and hurt them.  After all, he sends all the ones who don't kiss his ass to hell for an eternity of punishment.
What could possibly warrant that kind of treatment?
What kind of monster would do this?
How could any sane person *worship* this monster??

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/06/16 09:36:03, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, I'll be dipped!
I do believe, yes indeed I do, that one of the mods at rd net just called Dave Hawkins a weasel.
And the long-anticipated conference call between Mike PSS, Dr. Brown, and afDave finally happened.  It doesn't like it went too well for Dave, and worse for the RATE group, at least wrt Brown's notions.
Methinks it will becme an interesting weekend.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/06/21 11:38:43, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Given that it's held on a weekend, and with enough notice, and failure of all the gods [read: managers at work; atheist or not, I have to believe in those guys] to conspire against me, I could likely make it as well.
Would very much enjoy another trip to the Field, and the Darwin exhibit is a great motivator.
Not that an ATBC gathering wouldn't have its own compelling aspects ;-)

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/06/29 13:22:42, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
If you seriously miss afDave, do check out his current thrashings on IIDB.
He made the serious  mistake of making concrete proposals wrt the flood.  I am currently eviscerating them.  (Hi Dave, I know you are reading this, and disagree.  But the only disagreement that counts is -- show me the 1 mile thick sediment layer (singular) present in the Yucatan, Egypt, and China, as per your revised claim.)

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/06/30 07:41:50, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Hi Mung Bean,
Well, of course he will.  All I really intend is to make sure it is so obvious that any fool can see that he lies and evades.  (As if it weren't already clear beyond the most transparent thing known to science...)
I'm making sure the question doesn't die.  His concrete prediction is going to haunt him for quite some time.
He claimed it, very specifically, and he's going to be called on to support the claim or abandon the flood notion as being supported by evidence until one or the other happens.  Or until he gets his sorry ass off the net.

hugs,
Shirley Knott
PS  Egypt isn't enough, btw, he's going to have to show me *the same layer* in the Yucatan peninsula and in China for his original claim to stand.  World wide he said, and world wide he'd better be able to support  :p  Just a hint for you dave, we know you haunt this board...

Date: 2007/07/01 07:26:21, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, I for one am QUITE sure there was wood involved.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/07/10 11:17:43, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I'll give major props to the Reverend Doctor Lenny Flank.  His persistence, clarity, and single-mindedness of purpose have never been without value.
Lenny, I salute you.  You have a lifetime supply of hugs from this member of the extended Knott clan.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/07/19 16:35:57, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
It would be useful/helpful if you could explain what you mean by 'random'.  What do you think is being claimed when it is claimed that mutations are random?
Clearly (?) no one is asserting that mutations are randome with respect to the laws of chemistry or physics.
Equally clearly, no one is successfully maintaining that mutations are 'pre-planned' or 'guided by intelligence'.
What do you think randomness means with respect to mutation?
Why do you find this problematic, or, if you don't find it problematic, what about 'random mutation' do you think needs clarification/explanation?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/07/20 10:06:32, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
You've never taken a class from Mr. Nelson, it appears.
Or Dembski, Behe, or Cordova.
Or Luskin, Wells, or, well, the list goes on and on...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/07/31 09:50:53, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, at least they succeed in enforcing that rather peculiar reading of the law within the confines of their own skulls...

Anyone ever pondered why Sal hasn't shown up to help out afDave over at IIDB or dawkins net forum?
Or vice versa?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/08/08 10:47:32, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,02:46)

Quote
... When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries.
...


Sorry, K.E., stick to surrealistic poetry.
The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire.
Roger is a common British name, and was a verb, a rather 'earthy' verb, for no small period of time.
While one may freely consider the language use of "yanks" to be abominable, one cannot truthfully assert that the two language crimes you assert never occurred in the Empire.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/08/14 14:23:19, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote
Meaning in life is rationally subjective and can not be pinned down to a time, place or culture.

Quite demonstrably false.
As you go on to show later in your own post...

 
Quote
Morality is also subjective and it depends upon time, place and culture unless rooted upon something uninfluenced by these factors.


Trying to have it both ways, eh?

 
Quote
You're appling humanistic reasoning but it is severely limited and if it wasn't then these concepts would be defined by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.


I have to assume you intended to say 'human reasoning' rather than humanistic.  Otherwise, kindly define and demonstrate just what the heck 'humanistic reasoning' is other than plain old everyday human reason.
And insofar as you mean 'human reasoning', you are using the same thing [to be charitable.  The content of your posts suggests that you might not be...]
It is the only kind of reasoning we have available to us.
And it is the starting point for anything you do; if it is flawed, the flaws apply equally to you and the products of your mentation.
Secondly, "then these concepts would be defined by now".
Says who?  Why must this be the case?
Concepts appear at a point in time, and our understanding of that to which the concept, or proto-concept refers, grows and evolves over time.
Contra to your first point, but somewhat in synch with your second, and devastating to your third-and-a-half.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/08/14 16:52:41, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I'm *quite* familiar with the general and specific meanings of 'humanism'.
I am at a loss as to how any of them help clarify your effluent.
Your screed was all but meaningless in the technical sense of the term.  What little meaning was actually there was confused, largely self-refuting, and embarrassing to anyone with more than 2 functioning brain cells.
And you have ignored the challenge embedded in your own post, while trivializing a response that both points that out and asks a meaningful and specific question about just what it is you are going on about.
It is on that basis that I conclude:
You, sir, are an idiot.
Not a sceptic, an idiot.
A singularly clueless, smug, supercilious idiot.
Kindly intercourse elsewhere and expire.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/10/25 07:17:36, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 25 2007,06:54)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,18:09)
[runs like the wind as she feels the breath of the hounds of hell fast at her heels]

That's not the breath of the hounds of hell, it's the rest of us collectively yawning in boredom.

Indeed, with FiK's sterling example, we have the standard by which to distinguish 'brats' from 'bitches'.  FtK is not a brat.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/10/25 18:01:53, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Trust me, I'm lots more fun than antiFactDavie.
I'm better looking, more honest, considerably less insane, kinder to animals, indeed, with respect to davie-doodles, I remain fitter, happier, more productive.
But then so is your average corpse...
;-)

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/10/29 07:30:24, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 28 2007,22:38)
Test post.

Hey!  I'm posting using voice recognition software.  Hurrah, it works!

Now if we could get a requirement in place that dave only post using mind recognition software.  That would be the last we'd hear from that hemmorhoid with a mouth.
hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/11/14 07:14:21, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 14 2007,04:07)
Ok, quick question:

Some of you people are OLD, Wesley is at least 90 and I've heard that Reciprocating Bill is over 100, so you may all know about this: What's up with ear hair?

Louis

I'll admit to 410, but only amongst friends.  And note the lack of units, please, a lady never truly tells!

As to ear hair, there is an elegant evolutionary explanation:
As we age, blood tends to thin
Thinner blood does not work so well at keeping the extremities warm
The head is the most important extremity
The brain is the most importat organ in this most important extremity
The ears, which in youth serve as radiative coolers for the excess energy of youthful mentation, now radiate energy badly needed to keep the brain at operating temperature
Our friend evolution notices this and steps in with a carefully random plan to cause hair to grow in the ears so as to improve their insulative capabilities and reduce their radiative cooling effect
Voila!  

Hair club for women, not just a member, a victim!

noh hugs for the humor impaired,
SHirley Knott :p

Date: 2007/12/07 14:14:23, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Actually, dave's been out to get WorldTraveller ever since Lane forced him to recant, retract, and apologize for some scurrilous and typically dishonest remarks that dave made about me and another poster (who I believe is also here).  His vicious libel of Dr. Leakey figures in this as well.
dave's apology is a masterpiece of christ-like behavior -- think fig trees. Actually, it makes dembski's notpology look polite and sane.
dave is not only unable to accept being wrong, he goes ballistic if he is forced to face consequences from his bad behavior.  Thus, his focus on Lane and his insistence that the problem is Lane, not dave's behavior.
Tragically, bad behavior is all he has.
dave, in his own tiny little head, filled with its absurd, incoherent, self-contradictory, unreal fantasies, is never to blame for anything, anywhere, any time, for any reason.
Yes, dave, you are a thug.  You are a thug's thug.
You are something that I would not scrape off the bottom of my shoe -- I'd have the shoes sterilized, burned, then have the ashes sited at ground-zero of a large thermonuclear explosion.  Just to remove the contamination of contact with you.
You are an utterly despicable 'person'.  Words fail to express how I feel about you as would actions.

no hugs for thugs,
hugs to the rest of you,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2007/12/09 08:50:49, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2007,22:11)
Occam ...      
Quote
BTW, that loud moaning noise you hear is the wind whistling past the new orifice that Glenn Morton has torn little Davie on the 'Burrows' thread.
Mmmm ... you might want to listen a little closer to try to tell what that noise is!  Don't forget about the noise of legs breaking ... the cause of death in flash floods according to Dr. Gary Hurd!  ...        
Quote
[12/7/07 1:41pm]Fluvial transport is much more severe than sandblasting, [really now?] there is the mix of grain size for example. Imagine being sandblased [sic] while being pounded by hammers. This is why people die trying to cross knee high water in a flash flood, their legs are broken, and once down they never get up.
Even more surprising, Glenn is actually defending Gary on this point!  Hmmm ... let's see ... how about you, Occam, would you defend Gary on this point?

So you completely missed the bit where 'broken legs' is not the cause of death the key enabling factor leading to submersion/drowning?
And how that fact, which it is clear you accept (the fact that legs will be badly broken in even relatively shallow fast-moving water) totally destroys your silly fantasy about burrowing shrimp/clams/whathaveyou?  You've put the burrowers into an even finer pink mist than you delivered to weird wally's hydropants nonsense.

dave, just how many stupid pills do you take every morning?
It is possible to overdose you know -- or you would if you hadn't already.

Those of you who haven't tired of dave really should check out the masterful drubbing Dr. Morton is handing him on TW.  It is a thing of beauty and a joy to behold.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/02/01 16:53:19, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
If you cannot even spell "laurel" nor understand why it would be that term rather than any other, you have no business referring to 400AD nor anything else at all.
The notion that you have 'humbled' anyone in your series of posts here is, to be polite, a sign of seriously delusional thinking.
You give every evidence of being a pompous overbearing bluffoon of the first water.
Note:  'bluffoon' is a portmanteau word signifying that you are a buffon who bluffs, it is not a typo or confusion or misunderstanding as your repeated abuse of terminology and lexicography are.

Kindly intercourse elsewhere and expire.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/02/05 07:32:58, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,01:00)
He's THOR
Tard of war!

Thor?
Of course he's thor, you'd be thor too if you'd spent your entire life shrieking at the bigger guys while beating your chest with the fistfuls of feces you were too stupid to fling.
Thor?  It's amazing he isn't late. [and tragic, although I'm sure he still has many abortions left to father.  Women want to abort his fetuses, you know.]

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/02/05 09:26:12, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
But lous darling, you have overlooked the explanation [did your filter break] of WHY all us women are looking to be impregnated by his thor-ness, the princeling of Tard:
without impregnation by him, it is not possible to abort his fetus.
And it is inconceivable that any woman would want his seed for any reason other than to dispose of its result in such a fashion as to damage what's left of either of his brain cells.

no hugs for thugs, no live babies for monsters,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/02/06 09:35:01, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
No authorship attributed on the copy I nicked, but I've always liked this:

Meaning must originate in a mind.  Since the Universe is mindless and the Cosmos does not care, you must care, if you wish to have purpose.  Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality.  Find meaning human compassion, social progress, the beauty of humanity (art, music, literature), personal happiness, plesaure, joy, love, or the advancement of knowledge and your life will have true purpose.


Sadly, it conflates "meaning" and "purpose", which is pernicious.
It makes some over-broad, and ultimately indefensible, statements (and others that are defensible, but are not herein defended).
But it still speaks to me.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/02/21 10:17:52, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2008,09:03)
Snake god spit out moon after I sacrifice virgin.  Snake god will eat me if wife find out.

I'm confused, I thought you said you'd sacrificed her?

<ducks and runs>

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/03/06 08:15:23, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
The ultimate design detection lies within the very concept of 'The Big ID Tent'.

One need only be aware of customer tech support issue encoding:  This is well-known as problem id 10 T.
Entirely contained within the BigID10T.  And hidden within the options for pronunciation of a string of characters...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/03/07 14:37:11, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 06 2008,18:04)
Quote (Mister DNA @ Mar. 06 2008,17:23)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 06 2008,11:12)
What is up with this "A" icon I see everywhere online?  Does it have some meaning other than being the first letter in the alphabet?


According to Slimy Sal, the "A" stands for "Anus".

Wow! Sals an atheist?

No, Sal is an anus.

Well, not really, an anus expells waste and provides thereby a useful function.
Sal expells waste but never runs out and has never provided a useful function in any form to any entity, concept, form, or being.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/04/01 09:51:39, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 01 2008,07:16)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 30 2008,13:59)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 30 2008,16:22)
PS The phrase          
Quote
Dave, I can’t help but love you a bit sometimes.
has never flowed from my fingers whilst violating 2lot.

For a guy living in France, you aren't much of a romantic, are you?

I just never had a lover called Dave.

Trust me, they're overrated.
Most of them even overrate themselves...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/04/07 13:41:42, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 07 2008,13:28)
JohnW said, "If you're claiming that Darwinian science and philosophy was the primary, or even a major, influence on his ideas, I'd like to see some evidence."

I'd highly recommend you read Richard Weikart's book, "From Darwin to Hitler." In it, Weikart presents loads of evidence that Darwinian science had a significant influence on Hitler.

"And on a related note, what are the "logical ethical conclusions" of Darwinian science?"

Essentially, that humans are not qualitatively different from any other animal, that ethics and morals only exist in the human mind, that they are merely evolutionary adaptations as opposed to universal truths, etc. Weikart goes into full detail on this in his book as well.

What about the pernicious effect of Lutheranism on Hitler?
Considerably stronger than Darwinism, and much much easier to document.

As to your ridiculous point about the "ethical implications" of Darwinism being that "ethics and morality are all in the mind", I, for one, would love to see a logical argument that starts from Darwin's work and finds any way at all to bring ethics into mind.
And then explain why this is true, in your world, for ethics, but not for the absolute truth of, oh, say, 2+2=4, or pi aproximates 3.14159.
Do please try, it is your argument, pitiful tho it may be, and it should be elaborated on and defended, or dropped as the poxy whore-son babble that it truly is.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
any one of whose professors would have eviscerated her for such an absurd claim as KW's

Date: 2008/04/09 13:27:21, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Oh, my.
Most of the rest of my family are *serious* motorcycle fans.  You cannot imagine how deep their contempt for Harley's runs -- surpassed only by their contempt for proud Harley riders.  Deeper even than their contempt for Hondas back in the pre-quality days.
Says rather a lot about Berlinski et al, as I for damn sure trust my family (on this!) far more than Berlinski or any denizen of that pit of fools UD.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/04/15 16:26:55, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
and to think that 'ken' used to be a verb meaning 'know'.

sigh.

Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/04/16 09:35:01, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ April 16 2008,09:10)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 16 2008,08:25)
Hello all,

I'm back from Brazil, and catching up with stuff.  Thanks to Alb for his hard work on the textbooks and Haeckel business -- much appreciated.  I'm doing my own additional survey using the textbook collection at the Univ. of Chicago science library.  Gary, please let me know when your copy of EE arrives (it's being sent from Seattle), and I apologize for any delays in the shipping.

I have some media appearances to do here in Chicago for Expelled, but after the film opens on Friday, life should quiet down a bit and I can rejoin the EE festival here.

Welcome back Paul.

One does rather wonder why you wrote a textbook on the subject that inspired Hitler to kill millions of Jews. ;)

One rather suspects it is because there are some left.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/07/21 15:24:50, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 21 2008,15:18)
I can make a five string banjer bray like a donkey.

I can make a fiddle mewl like two monkeys trying to fuck a cat.

I can make a gi-tar sound like Scott Joplin buckdancing on an old washing machine.

I can make my little mandolin bug sound like a god-dam katydid at 87 F.


But do you ever play any music?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/07/21 16:19:39, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 21 2008,15:36)
no just barnyard re-enactments, from the sounds of it.

To each their own -- as a synth goddess, I trend more towards industrial accidents and core meltdowns, but barnyard animals doubtlessly have their charms ;-)

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/08/04 09:12:27, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 03 2008,20:54)
Quote (Steverino @ Aug. 03 2008,08:41)
I bet this pic is a huge hit with all his Dungeons and Dragons buddies

Now, I would have thought Tunnels and Trolls myself :)

Oh, come on -- clearly he's a Bunnies and Burrows playa...

And only when he's at the absolute top of his game.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/08/18 10:25:26, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Just popping by to mention that our favorite microcephalic, the execrabel afDave, is *STILL* running with his 'portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French' argument, and still claiming victory, after all these months.
Over at Talk Rational.
You might be amused...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/08/18 14:21:44, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 18 2008,12:55)
Quote
I've always wondered why there are no balloon animals in the air. Filling a sac with gas is really easy, much easier than flying.
Hot air may work. Hopefully, we will see Dave take off one day.

Ah, so the cheesie-poofs are not eaten because he likes them, but because they serve as ballast.
Unlike most things in tard-world, it almost makes sense!

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/09/05 07:44:00, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
My perpetual, and perpetually unanswered question [on the amusing assumption that mud stuffin hasn't already fled the building] is:
just what the heck is this 'god' thingie that you are so convinced science has provided incontrovertible proof of the existence thereof?
In my not inconsiderable experience, 'god' is at best a meta-syntactic placeholder, or an affirmation of group membership on the 'us' side of the 'us vs them' preconceptual mentation indulged in by the likes of vox dei and others of that ilk.
But I do eagerly await a definition, description, or at least operational instructions as to how I could tell that what I had discovered was a god rather than some other thingy.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/10/08 13:47:59, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Oct. 08 2008,13:10)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 08 2008,12:55)
heddle perhaps we should halt all federal spending on non-essential projects and never find out?  

what, spend 3 million dollars on decay rates?  that'ar bible dont say NUTHIN about no neutrinoes.  kill it.  damn libruls

actually the Leviathan could have been a neutrino. YU CANT PRUV IT WASNT

Nonsense.
Leviathan was a WIMP.
Evidentially so.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/11/04 07:32:07, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Well, you must admit it is rather more polite than the strictly accurate 'excreted' a staff member...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2008/11/12 15:58:08, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2008,19:47)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 11 2008,19:41)
                             ...
Bill,

If you're happy with a theory that fails to supply any details - more power to ya!  I'm a skeptic.


Yet there is a distinct paucity of details in what you post as your message progresses.
Let us see.
 
Quote

...
I'll summarize my (current) views for you:

1) God organized the first cell(s) from the raw materials available here on earth.  These cells were self-replicating, cellular organisms with DNA, RNA, amino acid and protein synthesis systems already in place.


Nope, not details, just blatant assertion and reliance on undefined terms.  "God" means what, specifically?  Operationally, how could one determine that what one has encountered counts as a 'god'?
And the 'what happened' isn't nearly as interesting as the 'HOW it happened'.  You know, the details, i.e., where the devil lives.
And btw, how do you overcome or address the evidence that [strongly suggest] that 'cellular organisms', 'dna', and 'rna' were not primordial?  Notably, 'cellular organisms' aren't primordial and it's incredibly unlikely that they could be, for we have non-cellular life, and life that does not feature 'organs'.

 
Quote

2) God fitted these cells with 'universal' genomes which contained information for their differentiation (evolution) into the basic biological forms and beyond.


Nope, still nothing but assertions and question-begging.
Further, you fail to address the significant data points that suggest that the sort of front-loading implied by your verbiage is not merely unlikely, it appears to be strictly contrary to the evidence. [erv's anyone?]

 
Quote

3) This differentiation proceeded in a similar vein to the cellular differentiation that occurs in ontogeny; non-randomly, via preexisting mechanisms designed to respond to both internal and external stimulus.



sigh.  evidence free, assertion, and question begging.
But no details.  Nary a one.

 
Quote

4) This differentiation, when it happened, was saltational and widespread - happening to many individuals simultaneously.

5) This differentiation was designed to maintain a system of checks and balances among organisms and also with the environment.


OK, no details, no evidence, failure to address the evidence and theories in hand.
I think the term is FAIL.
(the phrase is 'science.  you're doing it wrong')

 
Quote

This scenario, as far as I can tell, fits well with the evidence.  The fossil record confirms an evolutionary history of mostly stasis interrupted by bursts of adaptive radiation.  Genomic studies confirm that current systems are too complex to have evolved step by step but rather require great leaps and preexisting systems (i.e. whole genome and local gene duplications).  They also confirm much gene loss between ancient genomes and present genomes - as one would expect given universal genome(s). Dr. John Davison's Semi-meiotic hypothesis provides one testable mechanism for saltational evolution.  That the planet has always maintained a biological balance is evidenced by the fact that no one species has ever taken over.  Also a directed evolutionary mechanism is confirmed through the many cases of convergent and parallel evolution among isolated species.  It is also not fraught with the problems inherent in an accidental mechanism.

Happy now?


Nope, not happy at all.
You are not in accord with the evidence.  You assert evidence and confirmations that do not exist.
Period.
And Davison is a whack-a-loon nutcase of no merit whatsoever.  Got that?  Write it down.  I love it so!
Sheesh.  Recourse to Davison!  
And still no details, even with recourse to that logorheac old relic whose remaining two brain cells barely manage to communicate with each other via signal flags.

Details my ass, all you are interested in is hearing yourself preach.

No hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2009/01/29 09:36:32, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
I always follow my mother's advice:
Rule 1>never drink before noon
Rule 2>never specify the time zone

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2009/04/07 13:28:25, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Don't worry, you don't.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Date: 2009/04/13 14:04:49, Link
Author: Shirley Knott
Play-doh
So simple even gods can use it...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

 

 

 

=====