AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: SpaghettiSawUs

form_srcid: SpaghettiSawUs

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: SpaghettiSawUs

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'SpaghettiSawUs%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/06/13 07:57:05, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Louis @ June 08 2007,19:14)
P.S. I've FINALLY managed to get booted at the RDF, dunno how long for. I think an argument which included the example of an accusation calling the RDF mods "Donkey raping shit eaters who molest children in naughtily sexual ways, the fiends" might have done it. That and about 1000 "fucks", at least 3 "cunts" and a slew of abuse. Good. Now I can begin my plan to draw attention to their shitey moderation. Probably won't work but it is funny. They ignored all attempts at rational discourse, the abuse was fun though.

you have my sympathy and I have recently joined the illustrious club of those who have pointed out AFDave's ignorance and having taken offence at his lying arrogant ways one time too many got myself a week's ban (I hope).
I haven't seen the mod post on the banning (you'd think they's email it - at least giving some option for discussion/appeal but no, just the sledghammer exercise of power).
Well, it finally got me to sign up over here so all's not too bad.

Hello to everyone, ex-YEC SpaghettiSawUs joining the club... (thanks for sending AFDave over to us at RD, I've never looked back!!!)

Date: 2007/06/13 08:59:46, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Hi Lou,
cheers for the welcome.
Yeah I've popped in over here to reference one or two of Dave's choicest "moments" and the portuguese was a particularly entertaining tardfest.
We've had a few of them over at RD, his Pyramid one is the funniest to date, though his penultimate post on the Flud Debate has a stonking contradiction that still beggars beleif (he hadsn't answered a single question on that post, quite obviously because he's so embarrassed about it). His point: the old Creo-con canard that the amount of meteor dust in earth's crust proves the earth is young (because of the huge differemce in chemical composition), followed by....
wait for it...
meteors are origianlly part of the earth's crust blasted into space when teh fountins of da deep done bust open.
Quality tard of the highest order.

Of late though he has become particularly obnoxious and downright dishonest. Sadly RD mods have decided that calling someone a liar, whether true or not, is not allowed.

Ho hummmmmm, so much for the march of rationlism.


Date: 2007/06/13 09:11:21, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs

your final posts were a storm, and I see your banning predating mine by a few days son you didn't witness my oen descent into anti-Daviform rants. I'm not proud ;).
It should only be one week so I'll see which particular nugget prompted my banning when I get back on.

I see our Dave still posts on this thread occasionally, and receives the short shrift he deserves from allcomers, including mods (that stevestory sure is a top bloke <return tongue to mouth as steve complains of wetness around the sphincter once again>).

Anyways, there some good science on here, and from what I've read already (that not featuring AsshatFundiformDrivelmeister) some well endowed people (scientifically speaking of course - sure they may have rather long shlongs... thats not my point, as I'm sure you know)...

So I think it'll be fun. I'll try not to waste too much time however.


Date: 2007/06/13 09:21:54, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Of course the annoying thing is that Dave will have been the one who reported my words to the mods, who could have opened a discussion as to the perceived offence. But as all that is needed for one to be judged "offensive" is for someone to "take offence" I can't see that it would have got very far.
The sheer irrational thinking of the mods that ends up getting one's goat even more.
Donkey Raping shit eaters the lot of em.

Date: 2007/06/13 10:01:01, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Hey Shirley,
hugs in return (aww shucks, my first Shirley hug, things really are looking up).
Totally agree with your comments. Its saddening really. I asked some time back about the criteria for selecting moderators and was told that they reviewed your posting history. I noted however that those who merely had a history of being polite (one definition of "rational" I don't dispute - but not the only one, and certainly not the meaning when used in such terms as "rationalist empiricist" which, I assume not without good foundation, is how RD describes himself.
I'm actually considering a letter to the man himself, perhaps an open letter co-signed by anyone who give's enough of a toss about this and would agree with the wording.
Its a shame to agree that the forum is basically a false advert for rationalism, but I do.
Cheers (and hugsies galore)

Date: 2007/06/13 10:12:42, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Louis @ June 13 2007,15:53)
I'd agree to a large extent, except I hope it doesn't vanish. As ever I hope the mods change their attitude. They don't seem particularly open to reason, and I am afraid (wrongly) view Dave and anyone who responds to him as two sides of the same coin.

The fault cannot lie with their flawed moderation, so therefore it must lie with everyone else. When you realise that this sums up their mentality, then you realise why the moderation is such a massive joke.


No, you're right Louis, it shouldn't vanish. It should be fixed.
But at present it is not a forum with a rationalist basis, as this is. Sure, the trolls come along but there is no hiding behind victorian word-gamed "etiquette" in pointing out that X is a troll.
When it has been established between all rational people that X is a troll then X deserves to be treated as such. Therefore pictures of troll X doing silly things (like having the righteous "bucket of ignorance" on their heads) are deemed to be appropriate and humourous representations of observed phenomena. Hypothesis-lite you might say.

The circular reasoning prevalent in the current crop of mod-threats on RD is shocking. And it is truly a massive joke.

The thing that annoys me most though is the lack of opportunity for discussion about it. I've retracted comments in the face of reasoned posts requesting me to do so, and I've been happy to do so (even if I felt they were justified). A rationist moderation approach could not have such "summary execution" powers being displayed. Especially not for a first offence (I've had no warnings etc, just straight to ban).

It really is a joke, just not a funny one.


Date: 2007/06/13 11:02:39, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Ahh, the infamous Wes "Ban the Creationists!" Elsberry.
Hi, Wes,
I first encountered your name on AFDave's blog, a little while back now, just after he had made his intro onto RD.
"Wes Elsberry Bans Creationists", I thought you must be a judge.
I saw the truth a little while later, when I started perusing and lurking here. I do admire the patience of you guys in the face of such tard. Dave's lying is enough to make me want to pray for the ability to puch someone via TCP/IP.

Date: 2007/06/13 13:02:41, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
I realised that Dave hadn't actually been banned as soon as I saw him make the claim (at some point during his CGH1), by which time I'd already happened across Wes's name at this here forum many a time, and was able to read for myself the truth of otherwise of Dave's claims.

The second part of your post makes the argument so powerfully you should consider PMing it to all the mods (if they ever reinstate your privs). You put it beautifully.

Fancy a formal debate on it some time? I'll take the position "Louis's lizard theory is a satanic plot to corrupt our jobs and steal our kids", and I'll only be using the Bible (not ne of doze hooman reezonins) as my evidence base.

Go for it champ.


Date: 2007/06/13 13:12:37, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
So you mean teh fludski could have corresponded with the peak of the current wobble (we're still just about in one aren't we if my math is right... gullllp)....

Maybe the milky way is really god's toy yoyo...

Date: 2007/06/13 13:48:37, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,19:49)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:36)

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.

To be fair ftk,
My conversion was not on this blog but "Pandas Thumb". But it wasn't really a conversion. I just "followed the evidence".

The thing is that there are no simplistic answers here. You just get a shed load of convergent evidence. All of which are backed up by arguments with evidence/explanations. It is much cooler than arguments from authority.

Guess what. If you can actually provide contrarian evidence, people would actually listen.

You would need actual evidence though.

BTW. You have definately been decieved. Somebody has lied to you.

Hi Steven,
just thought I'd pick up on your point and say ditto (though for me it was simply talk origins and a few good posts on a discussion forum that did it).

Again, it was just following the evidence. There was no assumption on my part: like all of a sudden I was going to just assume that we evolved instead (wow look, it too fits!!!). My assumption already was that we were specially created yadayada...

But the evidence, well that was pretty strong. Overwhelming in-fact. Damn those chromosomes!

Rather than a conversion, it would probably be right to call it a "lifting of weight". It was a wow moment for sure.

Afterwards I think it took me about three days to have a meaningful conversation about anything (I probably spent the meantime racing the world's best F1 cars playing GP2).

Glad you had a mind for the opening. Thus begins an enlightenment.


Date: 2007/06/14 06:49:15, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Hi again,
Ignore AFDave?

I actually think there is some merit to it, and it would be an interesting experiment. Seconding Louis' point above however there is another fact about Dave which bears consideration.

Dave likes to bask in reflected competence. Note, whenever anyone new steps forward to offer AFD a formal debate his first question is: "what is your area of expertise?". Of course he has no intention of actually learning anything, so why is this question relevant given that Dave has no "expertise" in any of the areas he talks about? Well its pretty obvious isn't it? A cursory reading of his blog and his crowing mentality shows exactly that his modus operandi is to claim he "won" a debate with "expert darwinist X". He uses these discussions (like the one with MikePSS on Brown's 14C model) to claim to be "all sciencey" and "reasonable" - and points to these discussions as evidence of that.

My big issue with the RD mods comes down to a terrible mixing of definitions on their part: rational versus politeness. I've noticed that the mods on site all had a polite posting-history prior to being appointed as mods. Their rulings on discussions with Dave really just come down to the question of politeness/rudeness (or what they seem to term "inoffensive"/"offensive").

Now, to my mind (and that of many others AFAIK) Dave is extremely offensive in many ways; to be accurate: he's downright rude. While his rudeness is not really very subtle at all, he does hide behind a veneer of politeness. To me this is hypocritical and compounds the rudeness. Its like Dave is calling everyone a "C**T" under his breath (so only they can hear it) and when they take the bait and shout it back at him he whines to the mods. Of course the mods will spend no time examining Dave's history, or even the exchange leading to the outburst, they will pick up on the offensive words in one post and pronounce judgment accordingly.

The excuse they offer for not examining the whole issue is "not enough time", and herein is the false logic particularly apparent. If the mods actually took the time to enforce the "rationist discussion forum ideal" and came down heavy on thread-multiplying, question-avoiding, trolls like Dave, they'd have less work to do.

A while back I had the idea that discussing with Dave could be done on a tag-match basis.

The idea being that only one person engages with Dave at a time, and the rest of the posters communicate with that person via PM, passing through questions and counterpoints. This might prevent Dave from using the volume of material posted as an opportunity to obfuscate and hide from pointed questions. If we could enforce the discipline I think there is a lot of mileage in this approach. Of course the occasional lurker might come forward and jump in with size nines, but they could soon be brought into the "arrangement".

This would acheive the dual aim of starving Dave of the oxygen of publicity, while still facing him head on with the full arsenal of evidence and arguments, ensuring his every word is addressed and refuted openly and directly.

As for starting a thread on RD regarding moderation, I intend to do this next week when my ban is lifted.


Date: 2007/06/14 08:48:44, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs

I iz mynin da quotez!!!!

Date: 2007/06/14 09:01:11, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Hi OA...
problem is can't lurk when banned - it requests sign in even to view the forums.
The buggers.
Should I do the naughty thing?

Date: 2007/06/14 09:39:51, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Welcum 2 teh lessonz!!

Date: 2007/06/14 10:04:27, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Teh lessonz, day 2:

Date: 2007/06/14 11:07:39, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Yoikz!! I iz @ teh wr0ng c0nfernse...

... wiv teh scooby fanz!!!

Date: 2007/06/14 11:14:21, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
teh AFDavian "Kwontum Buck1t Thery":

"...teh buck1t can n0t b observd on teh head an off teh head s1mltaniusly..."

Date: 2007/06/14 11:26:17, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs

this is getting addictive.... I gotta stop ;)

Date: 2007/06/14 11:52:13, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
ok then, just one more....

...couldn't resist ;)

Date: 2007/06/14 12:30:13, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
No comment...

Can I stand this greasy man,
this porking porker Kenneth Ham?
No I cannot easily stand,
this lying bearded weasly man.
I do not like him, Sam I am,
I do not like green eggs and Ham.

Date: 2007/06/14 12:47:03, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs

Date: 2007/06/14 12:59:42, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
I take both of your points re: the moderation thread.
However, I still think its worth a go, so long as the topic is not the mods per se...

Perhaps taking it along the lines of "An Oasis of Reason?" and generally discussing the purpose of the forum, preaching, and the behaviour of trolls etc. Naturally the question of moderation would be a part of the discussion, but the focus would be on the "experience" of the site, and an opportunity for people to air their criticisms without fear of reproof.

I suppose I'll have to wait to see how the ongoing discussion OA talked about turns out.

Cheers for the night.

Date: 2007/06/15 04:19:49, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
^^The tard is strong with this one!

Date: 2007/06/15 04:51:34, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Adam: the first construction worker...?

(I so love a woman with high Complexity Specification)

Date: 2007/06/15 05:50:17, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (BWE @ June 15 2007,09:50)
I posted that all they needed to do was apologize.

fun and frolicks yes.

Tee hee, BWE made teh funny,

and teh mods wuz not larfing ;)

Date: 2007/06/15 06:00:36, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Eh up DM,
nice to see you over here, thanks for the reports, very entertaining.
I'm still wondering what I was actually banned for, at least some communication would have been nice.

Why can't they remove posting privs without a full ban, at least allowing a PM discussion to ensue? What's bugged everyonme is the sheer "kangaroo-courtedness" of it. I've stepped out of line before, way back I told Gab (another fundiform troll) that she should "go away and stop spreading verbal diarrhoea" (in more colourful language) got called on it and reworded it less forcefully. No problem.

So at this point I actually have no idea what I was actually banned for. Maybe I'll read it some other time and think "yeah sure, I was out of line", in which case I'll still re-edit even now. To have the opportunity to retract and avoid censure is surely a standard right in any civil discussion/forum.

I'm gonna have to set up another account so I can lurk, you can't even get in as guest anymore (can you? I keep looking but don't see anything).

Well, good to see BWE giving Dave teh smacks on teh bottom in teh dendro debatish.


Date: 2007/06/15 07:36:35, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
BWE, man its a good job I'm on a detox day today: only water on the keyboard (less damaging).

I was impressed with Kevin's reponse though: "That does not count as a retraction! Far from it - it's actually a confirmation!"

Wow. To be fair I've always found Kevin to be a pretty straight up guy, and his logic in this case was impeccable .

The arrogance of Dave is as stunning as ever.

AFD: "I retract that aspersion your honour, ahem, because I can't be bothered to dig up the evidence"
Judge: "Then you still claim to actually have evidence to back it up? Then you're not retracting it are you?"
AFD: "Oh yes your honour I retract it. Eric is thick and I can prove it."
Judge: "Then prove it!"
AFD: "Can't be bothered your honour, there's too much paperwork involved. But Eric is definitely stupid."
Judge: "Right. And you're just too lazy to show the evidence."
AFD: "Better than being stupid your honour."
Judge: "Actually, it's the first step to becoming stupid, everything else just flows from that. But then, you'd know that if you weren't too lazy to get it."
AFD: "There's lots of people saying stuff about me being dumb that's true - I mean - backed up by evidence, but sometimes it isn't and you'd be very busy if I reported all them to you."
Judge: "Oh noes, U bees inundatin me wiv teh moanies!! Look Dave, put up or STFU! Ok?"
AFD: [silence]


Date: 2007/06/15 13:17:24, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs

Well, I dun da norty fing ;)

Turns out Kevin has been onto Dave, but as I trawled through the same question occurred to me as did you. Well, to be accurate it wasn't in question form, but more like "WTF????!!!111!!!"

But after reading on and between the lines I thought "Ha!".

I do think they're getting it, and Kevin is probably the best one for doing the actual sorting out. So perhaps there is some long term good coming out of it, pity it will cost the forum a few powerful voices though.

Meanwhile I read my bannable posts (there were four, three in one thread and one in another) and the language was very anglo-saxon. There have been a few laughs and suggestions of adding one or two choice bits to sigs. They were expressions of disgust after some particularly horrid weaseling and quotemining. Suprisingly Dave hasn't crowed about it yet, but he is busy getting spanked and trying to duck between threads (hijacking one or two in the process as usual - meh can't be bothered to follow him everywhere). I expect he'll try to bait me with it when I get back, but I shan't be posting on any thread where he takes part and will not address him directly at all. He is beneath contempt. So I'll not be editing my posts (which have been left up suprisingly) as they are reactionary statements (with warrant) against Dave's disgustingly dishonest behaviour. However, as a guest in someone else's place I suppose its only fair if they ask me to leave after a bit of an outburst, so I can't really moan. I doubt that "sorry for the outburst but not for the words I used" would really cut it as an apology or retraction.

Interesting that for your total ban the final and absolute justification is "Louis asked to be banned", without any realisation that the reason you "wanted to be banned" was that it would be complete confirmatory evidence that your position was correct.

They also cite the plethora of posts on the issue from you in a very short period and argue something about "due to volume of calls we are receiving..." (at least that's what it sounds like to me).

It seems they've jumped on teh naughty words only now - especially those directly addressed - while trying a new tack on AFD-like trollism (actually encouraging more reporting of trollish behaviours).

Well, we'll see. There seems to be a shortage of mods prepared to follow the AFD stuff to the degree they do others. What they don't seem to realise is that the threads generating the most verbiage require the greatest oversight. Most of the mods seemed to be happy to avoid the troll threads which bored them (juistifiably of course) and get into the meatier stuff that interested them.

Of course that leaves it to those users who are prepared to face up to these fools and even (against all odds I know) try to teach them something. And as anyone knows, slippery weasly mealy mouthed whingers like Dave do get up your nose, you just don't even think to hit that "report to mod" button when it comes up: we stopped calling for mommy the day we gave the school bully a right hook which left him bleeding on the playground gravel...

Ahh well, the IIDB debate looks like another iopportunity for some delicious tard moments. Eric's predictions on the nail again vis AFD's opening post. I dunno how he does it ;-)

Date: 2007/06/15 13:50:34, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs

I just stood on the beach barefoot. Smiling, listening to Fat Freddy's Drop playing loud on the stage above the swaying crowd ahead of me. To my left the Firth of Thames lapped gently, across that the Coromandel Peninsula. Above me a full moon was casting silver streaks across the gentle ripples of the water. All around me was the warm embrace of His Noodly Appendage.

I've lurked here a while, since AFD appeared at and hijacked my attention. Ex-YECkie I'm afraid, couldn't leave the tard alone **fills nostrils with imagined scent of finest AiG matured quotemines**.

Decided that the people from over here who followed Dave over there were some of the toppest peeps on the inter-planet. After reading quite alot of the original AFD at their request (it was Louis's avatar what did it: wasn't it one of them Penn n Teller guys pointing and shouting at you? I had to come see what all the fuss was about) and their input over there I've checked in here every now and then but never really felt I had much to throw in so I lurked.

I've had more coffee down nose moments than I care to remember, and even now I chuckle at some classic OA/Argy/Ved line.

Anyways, nice to be a-board here finally, enjoying teh funnies.

Pastafarian in the warm embrace of teh FlyingPeshgettiMonster

Date: 2007/06/15 14:06:40, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 15 2007,19:54)
Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 14 2007,12:47)

Jaysus, that guy used to make me laugh. Shame he aint around anymore.

I remeber watching him die on stage when I was a kid.
Live from Her Majesty's presented IIRC by Jimmy Tarbuck at the time. He said "Ohh, I don't feel very well" in his usual voice and everyone creased up. As he lay down on the stage and put his coat over himself we were in hysterics. Then the curtain closed and it cut to the ads. My brother said "I think he's really dead", I think we all did. It puts the hairs on my neck up thinking of the quality of the performer.

Interestingly there was a guy on a UK show the other day (some talent show called "Britain's Got Talent") who so reminded me of the great man. Not of course that he was anything like him except in so far as you start out thinking "What's teh funny" but before you know it you just can't breathe, it's the funniest thing you've seen in ages.

Yeah, it is a shame Tommy aint around but think of it this way: if he were still here, then one of the greatest moments of comedy history would never have happened.


Date: 2007/06/15 14:17:38, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
it appears that Dave has still yet to retract his "Eric's an idiot" assertion so Kevin has just posted this:

Well everyone, I just hate to interrupt this veritable love-in, but I still have a bone to pick with afdave - wherever he's got to.  

So afdave, it's like this: My request for you to explain yourself (including your non-retraction retraction) still stands. Do you actually have an explanation for us? Do you have evidence for questioning - nay, trashing - Eric's intelligence? You can admit that you were talking nonsense and get the proverbial fool's pardon, or you can come up with something.
(Italics his).

Go figure...

Date: 2007/06/15 14:30:51, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2007,05:30)
ah, I think I've got it:

it's a twist on the "cat that swallowed the canary" thing.

maybe she is looking at the the canary being smug, cause it thinks it's safe in a cage and all.  Maybe she thinks of academics in ivory towers like canaries in cages??


Date: 2007/06/16 10:21:03, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Yeah Louis, it was one of those truly historic moments wherever you stick the word "epoch".

Live from Her Maj's was a tradition in our house on a Sunday night. We'd all be bathed and in our jammies, five of us on a 3 seater settee, cups of tea and cold meat salad sarnies.

I was reading about him on the web the other day when I came across that pic and just heard "Goddidit" in his breathy voice in my mind.

Ahhahaha, I'd just watched the Jar Spoon routine on YouTube. There's quite alot of his sketches on there.

Great job with the fingers Paul, took me a few soconds to spot it.


Date: 2007/06/16 10:29:05, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs

If you really have just appeared here simply to address comments to me I must say I am somewhat disappointed.

As I don't want to hijack this thread I shan't be responding here but will wait to I have posting privs back on RD. Meanwhile, that post could have been made via PM, while my post privs were suspended, as I would have then at least been able to see what was going on without simply receiving a "You've been banned" message.

My apologies to this board for the diversion. Please, back to the show.


Date: 2007/06/16 12:29:57, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
That Chris Rock routine has become legendary because of his controversial (at the time) use of the "N-word". The last time use of that word had been deemed acceptable in entertainment was in 1970's comedy. Drink driving and smoking in public have followed similar paths of declining cultural acceptance. In short, the public mindset on these matters has changed (something to do with some mythical moral zeitgeist claimed by the darwinist-atheist conspiracy rather than God not liking the word anymore).

By adopting it in the way he did Chris turned the concept on its head, he gave it an entirely new definition by applying it in a new perspective. It's a very coherent answer to racism, subtle but clever. You note today that black people have adopted the word wholesale as a derogatory term. As far as white people using the word, that remains taboo. The new usage creates a new level of insult not possible before, divorcing it from it's origins in latin for black, and applying it specifically to an ignorant aggressive person for whom being black is not the problem: a n****r mentality is.

I hope you've seen the recent South Park episode? It's very cleverly done IMO, but I wont discuss it for fear of making teh spoiler. Very bloody funny though. It's called "With Apologies to Jessie Jackson" epsiode 154, season 11.


Date: 2007/06/16 13:36:21, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Hi Arden,
South Park is abrasive and it makes you wince and cringe alot, but I think that's the point. It took me a long time to get into it, and I'm hardly a big follower now, but it is some of the cleverest observational comedy around.

The Chris Rock routine dates to 1997 I think, though it was probably recorded in '96.

It was a real precendent, it was the first time the n-word had been used on stage for ages without the audience cringing (at best). Alot of the cultural usage today can be traced back to that skit, and most of my black friends cite it occasionally in conversation. One friend does a brilliant impression and has most of the routine off-pat so he succeeds in getting me to expel beer down my nose quite often.

I'm not really sure if Eddie Murphy used the word much (or at all) in Delirious or Raw (its been a long time since I watched either) but I think it was the way Chris set up a "us and them" scenario which made it work the way it did: to a man it seems his audience agreed with him.

A quick google returns some interesting forum hits if you're interested in reading some comentary.

You're right about the older generation, their own first hand experience of the word is far from edifying so its no suprise they find it difficult to redefine it. They usually have their own choice selection of put-downs and insults to hand however, which are no less powerful.


Date: 2007/06/16 14:35:44, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 16 2007,19:51)
I don't think it's possible to hijack the bathroom wall. Whatever happens, happens.

philosophically, yes, but surely you can see the risk in letting it go out of control.

ATBC would become the place where everyone decides to crosspost from other fora.

kinda sets a dangerous precedent.

I wouldn't slap, but i would at least wave a finger.

I agree.

Having had a discussion specifically with Louis and one or two others, relevant to points that were already being discussed on the thread, I have no wish to turn this into an "air your grievances" hijack.

I can't say whether H.E.'s ever lurked here prior to making his first post for my specific benefit, but it does smack of a certain paranoia. I'll leave it there.

My time here has been as a result of my encounter with AFDave at a time when I was enjoying another forum. It was Dave's history, along with the T.O. link which first brought me here.

Sure my suspension from RD was the trigger to actually signing up, but as I said earlier, it is the people here which makes it appealing. Slapping my favourite fundy is a distraction which I admit to welcoming a little too easily and I also welcomed the discussion with Louis over his recent experience with irrationality.

Sorry if this amounts to cross-posting, I'm happy to drop the subject, not least because there really isn't anything else to say on it.


Date: 2007/06/16 17:21:24, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
I once had the dubious honour of living in Dave-world so I've derived alot of value from him coming along.
I dropped YECism quite quickly, when I came across Max's original Gulo article, years back. I couldn't get away from it, it was obvious. The "refutation" of the ToE was a major part of my initial conversion to fundyism originally.

Dave's initial claims were so grand sounding, so promising. He had a hypothesis to present and I just had to see. I intended to leave the thread within a few pages but Dave "engaged" me in conversation and the rest, as they say, is history. It soon became apparent that Dave was the basket case for cognitive dissonance mind filters, broken cognitive function and other things cult mindset related. For me this has been the most interesting, not only have I witnessed the utter refutation of everything YEC, but I've also seen from the outside those very mental processes which I once displayed first hand in my own fundy days.

It was study of the psychology of conditioning, mind control etc on which cults flourish which led me away from religion, rather than the abuse of science and reason which follows from it. Dave has given me a handle on both things now, and through him I've come to see how ultimately mind control is all there is .

A person under the influence of mind control can lie to themselves about anything, and think nothing of lying to others simply because they don't really see it as lying.

Dave's dishonesty and irritating ways are well documented, I'm not the first to lose it with him and surely not the last. Sadly, it does give him the illusion of victory which will only inflate his ego further, and I am a little diappointed in myself for that. He had just quotemined me into saying the opposite of what I intended by deliberately misapplying my words, misunderstanding the idea, on a point of which, if he actually took the time to think about it, is something he actually agrees with*.

It did annoy the hell out of me and I let go rather than post my reasons for feeling aggrieved and report his post to the mods as I should have done. But then, you don't go crying to mommy in my family, she just takes you back to the school and waits for you to go a slug the bully, or else you get a slug or two from her. That's how I was brought up to deal with ignorant slimeballs like Dave.


*note to BWE, Dave actually agrees that older wood would 14C date older, he has no problem with this, just that in his world the further back you go the greater the difference between "real" dates and those built on flawed "scientific assumptions of the deep time darwinists". The point: that to use 14C to comparatively age various wood samples makes no assumption as to the actual ages of the samples, but that that relative ages would be still be valid. This is something even Dave agrees with, which is what made his quotemine and misapplication of my words all the more egregious.

Date: 2007/06/16 17:38:12, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Hi again Stephen, thanks for the welcome.

Yeah, the joy of realising how badly i'd been duped. For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it in a way which allowed me to bypass the full science battle: up to then it had been a "could be evo/ could be creo" kind of thing in my mind with me coming down on the creo side. I think I still held to theism for a few years after.

If I think about it the true vaccuity of YEC only really became apparent to me with AFDave's advent at RD. Until then I'd just gone with the "well we evolved, no big deal" thought.

Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2007,20:16)
Having a wrong idea and admitting you were wrong is a mild embarrassment, and it passes. Far worse is clinging to a wrong idea long after everyone else knows it's wrong.
Couldn't agree less. If you're right you're right, even if everyone else thinks you're wrong, that just proves you're right. For example, when 146 out of 148 people say they're not convinced by your argument one iota, then the likeliest scenario and most parsimonious explanation has to be that they're wrong. Right? or am i missing something. I mean, all those competent creationist scientists can't all be wrong can they? After all, as christians they're commited to Teh Truthiness.


Date: 2007/06/16 18:08:22, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
This tread puts me in mind of Lt. Hauk in Good Morning Vietnam: "Sir, in my heart, I know I'm funny."

It does appear to be true that a certain mindset, particularly the Right Wing Authoritarian one, is incapable of very advanced or clever humour. I think in identifying the basis a good place to look is in the mind's capacity for abstraction. All good humour works because it relates to something familiar, and a good joke is a bizarre abstraction of a potentially real scenario.

There's no question that the mental gymnastics and games played with logic and rationality take their toll on capacity for abstract thinking. That this would thus affect one's sense of humour is probably a given.


Date: 2007/06/17 10:06:12, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,02:01)
hey spags-

quick question (ok, maybe not so quick):

long running argument over appeasment vs. confrontation  everywhere (ok, maybe just the science blogs) these days.

what were your reactions to the various presentations?

Hi Ichthy,
for me it has to be a combination: confront the "movement" of ID/YEC, but each individal on the most appropriate basis. Confronting the YEC individual is only really worth it with the arrogant, thick skulled variety for whom facts/evidence have no relevance. People like AFDave (In my serious opinion) are only really de-convertable by full deprogramming: they have been brainwashed and are under the influence of mind control. For people like him maybe finding the hooks on this subject would be more appropriate, he aint budgin on evo until his eyes are opened to the methods of mind control. The difficulty is getting the person to recognise that they are a victim of this, but it can be done.

did you find the fact-oriented in your face approach to be convincing?
For me, definitely. There was no way, after reading the Max article that I could get away from it. I came across another article on the flood was well, amazing. It dealt with the maths and physics and I could see that it was impossible for the flood to have happened. Between the two it was evident that a) we iz apes, and b) da bibble is not rite.

or the more, well we won't cut out the religion, but here is something to make you think, kinda, angle?
Actally that's pretty close to how it happened. I was on an EX-JWs BB and my own "ministry" was in combatting cult mind-control (to me any sect which practiced heavy works based religion was a cult, though as an ex-JW it was my particular avenue). Someone posted links to both articles with very little comment at all. Max's intro hooked me because I had been involved in a plagiarism case at work and knew how we'd caught the perpetrator and proved it (deliberate errors). The argument was poignant to me for that reason.  

know what I'm talking about?
Yup. I think for me it was the absence of any real commentary which made it easy to click the links. The poster was an Ex-JW with whom i'd had some good discussions and a great laugh, therfore I think I trusted him so didn't really question whether or not to click.

kind of the Brayton vs. PZ approach.  or maybe the Matzke vs. PZ approach, depending on where you stand.
I need to have a read up on this stuff.

I'm going to guess that since you appreciate the likes of Deadman and BWE, you're probably in the "in your face style" camp?
In the right circumstances, or when dealing with a particlar breed of fundie it is the only option on fora. Like I say, Dave could be deprogrammed IMHO, it just aint happening while he's in his comfort zone. I think the direct approach is useful at putting people like Dave off balance, which as we see can lead to some choice tard moments. The usefulness here is only to the wider argument, and of course to the cause of humour.

oh, and check the post by Nick on the front page of PT that he made for one of the resident creationists.

do you think Nick was right that this kind of presentation of the 'appearance of age' argument means the person is a few months away from "deconversion"?
It does carry some weight, since the reaonable deduction is that the person is considering the opposite viewpoint and recognising some validity to it. However, I've heard Dave acknowledge the appearance of age before, yet he's still to make the link.

not to offend, but you're a valuable data point in an ongoing argument over the best strategic approach to this issue, and a relatively rare data point at that.
No offence taken, I just hope I'm a useful resource.

would you mind if i picked your brains a bit on this issue in the future?
Go ahead, wire me up and stick a colander on my head.


You're welcome ;)


Date: 2007/06/17 10:12:20, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2007,02:44)
Yes, - Welcome Spags, and do tell.  I'll put some more coffee on.  Or fix you a drink, whatever.

Cheers J-Dog, fire away.
Got any 12 yr old Laphroaig? I'll have two fingers with a little jug of distilled water.

Date: 2007/06/17 10:30:06, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ June 15 2007,21:35)
I've got one.
Just finished Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon."

In all the furor over the recent entries of Dawkins Harris and Hitchens (the new infernal trinity), there has not been much talk about Dennett's book. Anybody else read it?

Sorry if I'm OT, Stephen. I've not heard of "The ragged trousered philanthropists." It's a book, yes? By whom?

I read it a while back, and I though it was excellent. I love Dennett's writing style, and the book is currently doing the rounds with my friends.

Meanwhile I've just finished Sir Arthur Eddington's Space Time an Gravitation, now that was a hard read. When you find you need to read a chapter for the fifth time you know it's a challenging read. Fantastic though.

Angela's Ashes followed by Love on the Dole the two most recent story books.

Meanwhile I've read everything published by Iain Banks / Iain M Banks and loved The Algebraist (although I guessed the "truth" quite early on.

Political polemics also occupy alot of shelf space John Pilger and Greg Palast the last two authors I've read, though I get very angry with such tomes and have to inersprese them with New Scientist/Viz and some light philosophy ;).


Date: 2007/06/17 10:55:35, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Please forgive the crosspost from here - it is very much on topic I promise.

AFDave's attempt at humour:
OK ... I'm in a good mood so here's a joke for you to sleep on. The old timers already know this one,so this is for the new timers (?)

Why did the evolutionist go to the dentist?

Because he had a truth-ache.
[Dave inserts three *lol* emoticons here. No, really.]
(Sorry ... I'll go to bed now)

I rest my case :)

Date: 2007/06/17 12:21:02, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Yeah, I noticed he got the same reply again, as well as a reminder that it was such an old joke.
Did anyone remind him that it's not actually very funny??
Oh yeah...

Date: 2007/06/18 13:15:24, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,19:30)
I need to have a read up on this stuff.

thanks, spags.

I was going to say some, but really it is ALL the longest, most contentious threads on both PT and Pharyngula have essentially revolved around this issue in one form or another.

I'll try to dig up links to a few of them for you to pour through and see what various participants have been saying about the issue for the last few years.  I'll post them here (in this post) for you as I dig them up.
If it seems worth it we could always consider a new thread I suppose... see how it flows for now.      

fair warning, some of them get quite nasty (as nasty as an AFDave thread)


oh, and of course yours truly has mixed it up a few times in some of those threads, occasionally even barking loudly.
I know the feeling. There are certain problems inherent in the whole forum approach when dealing wth such contentious issues. Generally the believers which come forward onto the fora are of the entrenched variety: those who are most deeply involved in the intricacies of YEC pseudo-science. They have learned the language and applied the mental filters most successfully. They have a calling. Most likely they display a strong RWA  personality (this book is a must read!)  

some of the issue gets touched on in the thread I mentioned that Nick set up for Marc Hausam:
I've started reading it and I've noted the point that a willingness to recognize the "appearance of age" brings the double-think to the fore, and I would agree that there is a greater likelyhood of this person's cognitive dissonance becoming unbearable. If the issue was solely the evidence then the progression would be logical, but there are many other variables at work for the believer; their faith is reinforced and practiced, shepherded and governed through church and family.The deprogramming as to the interpretation of evidence requires alot more IMO, though the acceptance of some validity to the old-earth view is a strong point.    

but even more of it really gets addressed in the threads about Allan McNeill that appeared on PT a while back.
I'm very interested in McNeill's "ID Course" experiment as his approach was novel AFAIK. What outcomes were there? I'd love to be able to hear from some of those who took part, and what McNeill himself thought of it. I would assume McNeill holds alot of respect for Sanford, so his approach is much more sympathetic/polite from what I've read.

I certainly haven't spent enought time at PT.

As it goes, I'm still learning to think! So thinking about this stuff wasn't really on the radar until AFDave came along. But heck, I've learned some excellent stuff since Dave dragged a few of you lot over there (to RD), so if there's anything I can bring to the table, maybe I oughta.


Date: 2007/06/18 14:26:52, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
What I notice about the humour of these people that remains so childish, which is of course to be expected since they clearly possess undeveloped cognitive skills.

A good joke takes reality and bends it, that's what makes it funny: it's almost familiar. The alternative reality of the creos leads only to insular humour - they're only funny if you subscribe to the worldview.

A pun is usually useful, but better puns require a better grasp of word definitions, something which Creo-bots have a hard time with.

Cognition and abstraction go hand in hand, when these are limited then good humour is impossible. The only fun derived is of the "poking" (at the evilutionist atheist conspirator) variety. That's an in joke to the in group, a bonding joke.

The preponderance of fart humour belies not only poor humour, but poor wit. Wit speaks to a clear point, an observation or assertion of an evident truism, laced with humour. The wit must first have an answer from which to draw a witty response. Thus, either the purveyor of the fart joke lacks wit, or else he has no answer.

The little flash animation I saw post Dover, with heads yakking (not sure where I watched it but if anyone knows the one please linky) was pretty sad, and the absence of anything actually witty was telling.

It's hard to be funny when the law just told you "you suck".


PS.. this may, or may not, be funny:

How many AFDave's does it take to change a lightbulb?


i have shown how lightbulb changing was a tenet of the Queen of Sciences (theology) before Darwin, who claimed that lightbulbs changed gradually over millions of years. But when I googled "lightbulb changing" I found countless papers showing that lightbulbs were DESIGNED to be changed safely and RAPIDLY, allowing plenty of time for lightbulbs to have developed into millions of different varieties in the 4700 years since the flood!

As OA, Faid and others have rightly pointed out, someone here is making fallacies of definition and argumentum ad googlum, and that person is Eric. Sorry Eric you need to get on topic, we're not addressing lightbulb factories at this time as I already covered that in my Alberts quotation, which you have not addressed. If you can get on topic I may consider reading your posts again.

Todays topic...
Now someone, I think it was VoxRat but I don't read his posts either, was asking...[ad-infinitum, ad nauseum..]

Date: 2007/06/18 14:34:07, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (blipey @ June 18 2007,20:16)
To get some of what went n at Cornell last summer, you should peruse:

The blog the class (mostly Hannah Maxson, IDEA club officer) kept during the semester.  Some of the class's papers are up as well.

Many thanks.

Date: 2007/06/18 17:09:38, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 18 2007,20:40)
be careful, though, many of the more "vehement" posts were removed.

again, you should also see the discussion on PT we had with Allen after the course was finished.

I'm still of the opinion that there is NO evidence whatsoever that his approach was anything other than a course in reinforcement for both sides, and served as free advertising for the likes of ID supporters like Hannah.
From what I've seen Hannah is a particularly strong example. She calls "insult" far too often in the face of reasonable questions. I was reading the CSI thread which really had me grinning. At least there's a formula offered (which is later qualified as only part of the overall - still not put forward - algebra)  

example of how the course was played on by ID supporters:

Indeed, looking this course is a good representation of the very issue I was asking you about.
Bagged to hard drive, will digest.  

take your time, though, there is a LOT there to chew on.
Will do, alot of other reading going on atm.  

I'm still trying to locate the thread Pim Van Meurs put up aboout the course a few months back that garnered such a long thread.  if somebody else finds it before I do, feel free to post the link.

here's one of the threads:
Cheers. I think that's the same link as above?

an I believe this is the one I was thinking of originally:
Ok, I'll read that one first.  

pay close attention to the claims those supporting the course were making as opposed to the actual evidence presented as to the course's efficacy.

oh, and IIRC, this is also a separate thread here on this topic here at ATBC as well (was a few months back).
I'll dredge it up to continue the discussion, if you wish.

Cheers again Ichthy...

alot to digest, I'm trying to follow alot of it but it gets hard to follow one thread of thought because of the huge number of fallacies and diversions which appear from point one in any creo-argument.

I see alot of "symmetry" claims: e.g. the evidence appears to support either view depending on your old-earth versus young-earth presumption. This is where the difficulty comes in: they simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as an "old-earth presumption", although there was once a "young-earth presumption" (which they themselves claim) until such time as the evidence invalidated it. I really think these guys should all be forced to take a basic philosophy course. Learning not to weasel around definitions, how to build a logical progression from a sound premise, in short, identifying logical fallacies, etc. It's done me the world of good.

Another point they really need help with is that in developing a timeline we must work backwards from today, following the evidence in progression back in time. It is not done from assuming some historic event (e.g. creation week) and working from that, which they (through supposed symmetry again) accuse "darwinists" of doing likewise (in order to retro-fit evil-ution).

I agree with your thoughts as to how the McNeill exercise has been used by IDists as just a further validation. This was predicted widely of course, based on the observed desperation of the ID/YEC community for "recognition" of any kind. You could call it a very emotionally insecure "theory".

There's alot to read. I've also downloaded the final papers from the Cornell blog, and will give them some time. I was pleased to see the article on "intentionality" as I think this is a key area in understanding consciousness, but also in understanding evolution of abstraction, pattern recognition and other traits, leading to language and mathematics for example. I would love to see how this can be dovetailed with genetics, and I think some success has already been acheived in relation to primates.

Anyways, thanks for all of that.

I think a preliminary comment would be that getting through to anyone with a cultic viewpoint is always difficult, particularly when they're in prozelytising mode. I recall my own behavours: not listening to an argument other than to home in on some point from which I can hang my next discussion. In short, not listening with a view to comprehension. This is because I already knew the truth.

In order to get out of the mind-control of JWs a large shove came in learning to question the authority of the leaders. Anything which obviously spoke to their character was hard to sidestep, and it tended to stay in the mind, naggingly.

That leads to another point: the more aggressive and mouthy the creo-bot becomes in conversation, the greater the dissonance they are experiencing. It pays to tie them down on one point, keep their feet to the fire, force them to face the dissonance. It's hard to do this in open fora. The formal debate can be a great opportunity to put the weaknesses of open forum out of the way and limit the input to two people. Another way, if only it could be made to work, is to limit the number of participants in a thread.

Either way, deprogramming is the key. It's much more than just having the science wrong. The creo doesn't even know how to think, the science is irrelevant. Trust in the authority of the "ministers" of ID/YEC is a foundation which needs to be worn down too.

In the end it has to come down to brainwashing: deconversion requires deprogramming, not science lessons.


Date: 2007/06/18 17:18:24, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Steverino @ June 18 2007,22:30)
Hey, completely off-topic...

Anyone ever come across this site:

Sadly, I found it when looking for contact information for the actor Dean Jones....who is Christian Activist now.

I'm guessing I'll never get his autograph for my bug..... ???

Oh shit,
another YEC Christian apologist with an engineering background!!!

Is there a factory making these somewhere?
Could we get Bush to bomb it?
Tell him it's an Al-Qaeda bombmaking factory...

Hey, we could do that with Ham's Creoseum.
Gotta be some more plays on words for that place...

Date: 2007/06/18 18:34:46, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Cheers Wes,
I think you hit the nail on the head.

The day I was mentally out of the JWs (though it took a while longer to become physically out) was the day my best friend and I looked at each other and said "they lied to us, the bastards!".

With the Watchtower Society we had reams of their published literature to go from. What we found (or rather, what had been pointed out to us) was how they quotemined their own out-of-print books to hide the true nature of their older teachings (which totally contradicted current belief). It was a "he who controls the present controls the past" example laid bare. Thankfully we had access to the out-of-print library and cross referenced for ourselves.

The creo-bot's trust in the authorities is definitely the key there too. And just like the WTS of JWs, the leaders of the ID cult have also printed themselves into a corner.

Altermeyer's The Authoritarians makes the point that the best way to communicate with the RWA is to find common ground. To them lying is often a bad thing, and it is something we can get a hook onto. Many members of most cults are simply misguided people looking for meaning. Most of these people hold the morality teachings of their religion in very high regard, so any unrefutable evidence of lying and duplicity on the part of their leaders will have a massive impact. Until they lose faith in their teachers they will continue to run back to them whenever the dissonance of worldview-contradicting evidence gets too great.

Note how the likes of AFDave appear to do a reboot occasionally, running off for a battery charge, preceded each and every time by greater and greater irrationality. By attacking the foundation (the ID scamsters) we remove the hiding place. Some (such as Dave) will run to the defence of these authorites, but those that don't get a double whammy; they also see the weasley mealey mouthed party apparatchiks - the Brownshirt zealots - in action.

I remember well the feelings I experienced during a similar time for me. Sitting amongst a JW convention of some 8,000 people in a soccer stadium and seeing a collection of faceless robots, an oppressed throng of bored, miserable people busy convincing themselves how happy they were to be there. The lone, sober, preaching voice on the platform, prescribing and pontificating unquestioned doctrines on life and death. What had, in previous years seemed a joyous, fulfilling weekend of "truth" now looked hollow, and felt painful.

I got up and left the stadium, drove to my friends, and watched the Grand Prix on TV with a beer.

A few days later the "Brownshirts" came to visit. Within one week I was an Ex-JW.


Date: 2007/06/18 18:39:20, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Sorry Ichthy, we crossed posts...
Ummm what's best from here, ask Steve to do the honours or just pick it up over there.
We've already gone two ways here anyway, the Cornell experience and general cultic IDism.

BTW, you've assumed I'm sane, and as you know, assumption makes an "ass" out of "umption" (and I think umption is an important concept not to be assed with).

Date: 2007/06/18 18:43:28, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Cheers, gotcha.

Will pickup on the 'morrow, saved it off and read in bed (no internet at home atm so nicking bro's wireless - family for ya ;))


Date: 2007/06/18 19:37:04, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs

Date: 2007/06/19 09:12:07, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (keiths @ June 19 2007,14:09)
This post is the one thing I've seen at UD that actually was sort of funny, in a preachy way.  Dembski didn't come up with it, of course, but at least he did recognize that it was funny...

I suspect that the way I find that funny is somewhat different to Dumbski.

Date: 2007/06/19 11:42:19, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
right then,
I've had a good digest of the thread.

To start with McNeill's comment:  
Furthermore, all of the participants (including the ID supporters) rejected Phillip Johnson’s The Wedge of Truth as pure political polemic, not worthy of our time and attention; indeed, one of the most ardent ID supporters stated “That isn’t ID.” If not, then at least for the participants on the notorious Cornell evolution and design seminar, ID is an entirely theoretical hypothesis restricted to the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, and the origin of a few selected biochemical pathways (and the bacterial flagellum), currently lacking empirical verification and without clearly defined methodologies for verification or falsification.
Just to take it piecemeal.
...all of the participants (including the ID supporters) rejected Phillip Johnson’s The Wedge of Truth as pure political polemic, not worthy of our time and attention; indeed, one of the most ardent ID supporters stated “That isn’t ID.”
Note the distinction that McNeill fails to make clear: everyone dismisses it as political polemic (fine) but only the ardent ID supporter says "that isn't ID". Which leaves it open (at least in the minds of the non-IDers) that The Wedge is both ID and a political polemic.

Now as Allen tells us there were only two IDers taking part, both of whom were invited, we know who it could be. As any fule kno: The Wedge IS ID except to on-message ID advocates: the brownshirts, the ID thugs, the blustering lying right-wing authoritarian fudamentalists. Who is the best candidtate for that label? I'd bet my money on Hannah. Oh jeez you can just see her "getting the vote out for Bush" (and I wonder whether "bush" is also McNeill's motivation... obliquely... but that's just unwarranted speculation and aspersions as to the quality of Hannah's ass).

It is sad to see that McNeill appears to have fallen for this schtick, but he does leave himself some wriggle room to be fair:
If not,...
Allowing some space for the conclusion that this was the participants' agreed definition and not (necessarily his own):
...then at least for the participants on the notorious Cornell evolution and design seminar, ID is an entirely theoretical hypothesis...
Yet this is a clear non-sequitur. This clause "at least for the participants" makes the illogical step from the predicate: "The Wedge is not ID" (which is only clearly rejected by one IDer in the discussion. This is a fallacy of over-extrapolation, and pretty basic. Doesn't garner much respect.

He goes on to what this definition supposedly is:
...restricted to the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, and the origin of a few selected biochemical pathways (and the bacterial flagellum), currently lacking empirical verification and without clearly defined methodologies for verification or falsification.
Ok, we all know this to be a false representation of ID, but let's be charitable, after all they are looking for a "scientifically acceptable" definition of some sort. Yet the definition arived at is of a non-scientific nature any because of the use of the clause "without clearly defined methodologies for verification or falsification".

What really hit me here though (it just jumped off the page) was the way bacterial flagellum (that most ancient of creo-con canards) makes it into this "generic definition". This smacks of the ID messenger (Hannah?) somehow setting the parameters by the back door. Why is it necessary (to the definition being prescribed) to include flagella, in parentheses? It doesn't take an Einstein to see something is wrong here, inclusion of the flagella argument in a generic description is to me an obvious clue as to the content of any "discussion" which led to this definition being adopted.

So I find it very disappointing to see this. While I admire McNeill's intent to remain polite, he seemingly allows himself to be led up the garden path by being too polite to say "hang on a minute".

I think it is clear that he doesn't buy this definition himself, so in allowing Hannah to set the parameters in this way perhaps he had something up his sleeve. Maybe he wanted to see the flagella argument get a thorough covering, hoping to thoroughly refute it during  the course perhaps.

What he seems to have missed most however, and the PT guys were all vocal on this one, is that you cannot trust these lying scumbags, and evidence doesn't faze them. Note that Allen even lets the macro-evo/micro-evo definition game slip through (obviously not realising when called on it by PG) the huge difference in intent when creo-bots use the terms as opposed to evolutionary biologists. Someone slipped a blindfold on him for that one and he was just "too polite" (I guess) to see it.

I'll have a few more thoughts pretty soon, just wanted to make some prelims on McNeill's MO.


Date: 2007/06/19 12:07:14, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Ok Ichthy,
This comment by you deserves alot more attention:
There is even a case to be made that some of these “God Camps” very much resemble brainwashing cults, and could be considered a form of child abuse. Regardless, there is LOTS of room to argue for marginalization.

I've seen the way that these camps work, and I've seen the drongos they turn out. My neice was recruited into the Xtian Fellowsip at uni a few years back and in the summer happily went off to "summer camp". She returned as a complete stranger, a completely brainwashed Jesus-cult member.
With the free hand that these people have to apply their own self-justified "teaching methods" (i.e. psychological conditioning and hypnosis techniques), it is no wonder that so many of the ost zealous believers have attended one of these camps. I'd bet good money that Hannah went to at least one, as did AFDave, as did many others.
Given the time for reinforcement, you can pretty much guarantee that by the end of the week practically everyone wil have given their lives to Jebus.

There is a girl at DI, name escapes me, who went to bible camp at age 14, gave her life to the holy-handed one (pun intended) and is now a dedicated IDist.

I'd suggest some form of expose on these retreats. It would need a couple of (strong minded) plants and some hidden camera technology. I wonder how practical that would be to set up?

The point is that again, ID acceptance is a mere symptom of the brainwashing (they're primed to accept anything), but with a government such as that in the US at present I can't see how these camps can be curtailed without a massive public outcry over them. I wonder if that could be acheived in any way. Enough to get the issue out into the public arena.

Its definitely an idea that could be pursued, especially if the outcome turned out to be shocking.

Jeez, what a frickin hill to climb, while people like McNeill are happy to allow statements like "The Wedge is not ID" to slip by and lend these idiots the respectability of an institution such as Cornell.


Date: 2007/06/19 12:50:41, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
I had to put this one here, as it gets to the point of AFDave's "difficulty" with 14C Calibration Curves;


Date: 2007/06/19 14:13:58, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Yeah, he's getting smacked upside the head with Cal Curves at the moment, and that graph (in its original form of course) keeps being reposted.
It reminded me of the "Tard Graph" and I was going to do a Dave on it and just set up a load of random(ly made up) data points.

Then I realised that for Dave, they would all have to come in the first 8000 yrs or so,

et voilla!!

So kind of a double hit that one (two points??)
Ok then, 2 pints (make mine a Banks's ;))

Date: 2007/06/19 15:20:33, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 19 2007,20:30)
Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 19 2007,14:13)
Ok then, 2 pints (make mine a Banks's ;))

Good choice. I like "Directors".

On a completely different topic. You seem to have had a few bad experiences with religion. Most of mine where good. However the story is different from my fathers perspective. He was told by Nuns that they had brought him the nails from Jesus' cross to see, touch and examine. My father claims that he told them that the nails where the wrong shape (cross-section) to be actual Roman nails (round instead of square IIRC). The religious authorities claimed that that information had come from Satan and my father was a sinner. Cool as fuck eh?....NO!

Courage (brewery not bravery) was always looked down on in my neck of the woods, but I've always enjoyed a Directors. Pity it takes their premium beer to actually make a decent beer. But maybe I'm just a snob.

Lets see what I can chuck at yer regarding a quick religous history of Spags:

Baptised CofE at age 5/6 (not done at birth).
Father was RC and "returned to the church" around age 8, became a fucking pious loon. Mass was now de-rigeur.

Age 10 move house, new school: RC.
Re-Baptised RC, 1st Confession, Communion and Confirmation in one year. Altar boy.

Age 11/16: RC Secondary school, altar boy still, on TV "Morning Worship" once -sad claim-2-fame :(

After leaving school got into occult for a while, tarot, ouija, magick (incl. Esoteric Spelling Style™).

"Conversion Experience" into JWs aged 21 (answered prayer - no honest, seriously... look its up to you if you don't believe it, I believed it so it was true for *me* OK!!), baptised by full immersion six months later.

Two years later, married in Kindgdom Hall. Alcohol free reception  - not a doctrinal requirement, "conscience issue" - i.e. looked down on if you had alcohol, especially with "worldly" family attending).

Two years later cognitive dissonance leads to depression, leads to university find something to do with "underused potential") it works - leads to optional module on psychology, leads to mind-control undone, leads to ex-communication. Still believe in God, very fucking confused! Shunned by all JWs (incl. in-laws).

Studied bibble, researched JWs discovered how cults work. Deconverted my wife. Result!!! Converted to evangelical Christian, baptised-a-fucking-gain!!! New ministry in life: ex-JWs.
Helped alot out (those that were "ready") did leaflet drop or publication drops on people, photocopies of old watchtowers containing barmy, racist, stupid or even (wooooooo) spritistic.

Counseled, worked on a few conferences, visited churches as guest speaker. Started on BB on Delphi Forums (now defunkt). I remained a YEC (the JW variety manages to be a little more specific and a little more dodgy at the same time, allowing 7000 years for each of the genesis "Days" == 49,000 years: 6 creative days to Eve... then one 7000 years to: Armageddon!!! Erm... counting from the creation of Eve that is which was... erm some time after Adam... and is unspecified, but reckoning on 1975 for 7000 years to Adam (using JW's own patented Genealogicus Biblicus Maximus™ Version 23.2_beta1), so... from 1975 to 2007 = 32 years therefore Eve was at least 32 (and counting) when she got chucked out of Eden and God could get on with his nap).

One day some guy I'd become friends with on a forum passed a couple of links. One was this, the other was this.

I was no longer YEC.
I started to really learn to think.

Erm... I'm still working on that last bit :)


Date: 2007/06/19 16:28:30, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Cheers guys,
I hope FtK does read it.

Meh... how may baptisms can a man endure?

Well, I've left religion far behind now, sorry I never made that clear. Via agnosticism to outright atheism.

Some believers are able to retain a more metaphorical view of scripture, especially where it concerns science, for me it was eventually baby with the bathwater.

I know how frustrating the convicted believer can be, I used to be one, I could get anyone irate. Being clever is one thing, but being cleverly deceptive (with yourself) yet managing to be blatantly decptive to outsiders, can enrage even one's closest kin.

Although people like FTK will eventually have to confront the evidence, their problem starts much further back...

erm hang on, this is a lol thread....

So I'll leave it there for now, and try to pick it up elsewhere where I'm also waffling about this stuff.

Meanwhile: have a funny LOLCat ©ish spags:

on  with the show :)

Date: 2007/06/19 17:12:23, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (stevestory @ June 19 2007,21:10)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,15:10)
Something tells me that for every credulous Christianist who looks at Bill's site and says to himself "Golly! I want to support this man, because he's a good Christian!" there are about twenty others who take a good long look and say "ID can't do better than THIS? Shit, these guys are a bunch of losers!"

I wonder what the percentage of this is. People familiar with science from the inside can see that ID is BS in about 2 seconds. I wonder how it looks from the outside. How many people are fooled.

From the outside, with a mind primed to believe the bible, it looks as follows:

1) The Theory of Evolution is not that well supported, even eminent scientists say so: here's some quotes about that and there's some references to show you how we are honest and not making this up (if you're primed, you won't check many if any references).

2) Design explains it better: here's some "facts", see how it fits. Does blind random chance fit those facts? No it doesn't.

3)What you want some really good sciencey stuff? Ok, buy these books.

4)Wow. It all sure does fit. And I can't believe how much I've learned.

5)I'm so right.

6)You evil satan inspired scientists are destroying the world with your "theory": turning it against GOD ALMIGHTY! Down with evilutionist atheistic science!

6a)Erm... except the good stuff (like medicine and flying and really cool things like them thar internets).

7)Everyone is lying when they say evolution is true. When they point out a quotemine, they're lying and twisting the truth: the section says the exact words that were quoted. Did he say it though? There it is in black and white! When they point to evidence, its a lie. Dressed up in scientific garbage is a set of darwinian assumptions of old earths, just their preconceptions. If only they knew The Truth. I do.

How many fall for it?
I would guess that the percentages are higher for those brought up to believe in the Jesus God, especially those in the US Bible Belt (all of whom would by now be at least well aware of ID, if not adherents to some degree of persuasion).

I think that for those predisposed for belief (however one could define that) the percentages adopting it are high. Going with the stats on YEC belief in the US we get a vague 50%ish. But say that only 10% of that is firm, or what about 20%? Where did they come from? Where are they likely to be?

My point is that ID preys well on the existing christian meme (in its many variations), but is pretty useless as a first-line conversion tool, which I think is simply because ID advocates are so f**king frightening to anyone not used to filtering out creepiness in creepy people!! (e.g. most evangelical church goers)


Date: 2007/06/19 17:25:36, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
^^^I saw him up there...
...but he told me to ignore him.

So I did.

please let me know when I can stop ignoring him, as I wont be able to hear him.
Thank you

Date: 2007/06/19 18:52:19, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 20 2007,00:02)
Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 19 2007,12:07)
Jeez, what a frickin hill to climb, while people like McNeill are happy to allow statements like "The Wedge is not ID" to slip by and lend these idiots the respectability of an institution such as Cornell.

Ah well, ID is dead now.  Dead, dead, dead.  Even the Republicrat Party won't give them the time of day anymore, and without the political support of the Republicrat Party, the IDers are nothing but a sewing circle.

The IDers are fit now only to be laughed at.

I hope you are not misunderestimating the nature of the beast ;)

You should never misunderestimate,
just ask good old Dubya.

It could be that Dumbski's latest tome is the last gasp of this lot for a while. But while YEC "museum" is getting $20 per two walking feet of Tard addict, I'm not gambling that they've gone away.

I'd love to see the creo-museum become the creo-mauseleum (sp?), so we'll see if the "Disney" hit is worth it, or it goes broke once everyone's seen it. From what I've see it's all pretty, well, dire really.

But then, alot of these people think GOD TV is cool, so who's accounting for taste?

As for ID? They'll be back. When you see the same old tard in a different slop bucket, you'll know it.  



Date: 2007/06/19 20:25:36, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
The questions were poorly formed so i had 5:5, only broke half of them.

So when it asked if I'd broken God's commandments I answered "no", since I didn't break all of them, and every forum fundy uses exactly the same reasoning when dodging the evidence so it must be ok.

I digress. Now I'm offended that it tells me the answer "no" is INCORRECT, in true AFDavian boldcaps.

Well slap my thigh, the feeky chuckers.

I answered all the questions correctly and guess what: I'm still dooooooomed!!!!

I just love this:

It has already been established that you would be guilty of breaking His commandments. ...Please don't be discouraged. ... Our straightforwardness is motivated by a genuine concern for your soul.

Knowing that you are guilty of breaking God's commandments, do you think you would go to Heaven or Hell?

Oh go on then.. gotta be heaven, God's alright after all.
Nope wrong about that one too...

Apparently, if you don't love him the mostest you can't go to his garden party.

The tight git!
Ahhh never mind :)

Date: 2007/06/20 12:19:25, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Not A Monkey @ May 29 2007,13:56)
Great link.  Good reading.  God bless.

Leviticus 5:11
" 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering."

I know this one is dead but I had to ask:
Why does God have to have his menu just so?

"No oil or insense today darling, you can serve it undressed, for it is a sin offering".

NB, this is not an invitation to respond with the deep theological meanings of impurities in the flour (to represent sin). It is merely an unavoidable opportunity to have a poke at the mighty Yahwah.

Date: 2007/06/20 12:39:38, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
did i ever mention the endless sci-fi marathon I set up in hell?
Nope, but it would have to include every L. Ron. Hubbard novel (made movie) in order to be truly he11ish.

I think I'd be forced to take part in multiple concurrent marathons.

But it's all irrelevant anyway, as I'm going to heaven and they're wrong.

I might be an evil atheist scum now, but I was once a BA Xtian, saved by da blud of da lam.

And as any good fundy will tell you (if you really get into it with them): once saved always saved.


Date: 2007/06/20 15:07:40, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
I'm still trying to get my head around something with "intentionality" that came up in the thread.
It seems to me that a non-sequitur is getting through that AM also misses.

Of course the concept of intentionality and pattern matching is very useful, but "intent" is a first order abstraction. To make the leap to "is it designed?" is not, the question arises only with an inserted objective definition outside of the realms of intentionality: "design".

Since it is intentionality which gives rise to abstraction and eventually language and tool-using (for example) it is only from the fruits of intentionality that one can ask secondary questions such as "is it designed?".

To pre-empt an objection it may be that the "design inference" can arise after intentionality and pattern recognition has evolved to a level sufficient to allow intentional objects to become "designers", but it remains a superimposition of a later concept over the earlier. It's subtle but this seems to be a successful muddying of the waters.

Any idea that "intentionality" may by its very nature eventually lead to intentional beings making the "design" inference is a subtle non-sequitur. The "design inference" is a teleological superimposition, and only truly comes about after some "design concept"  (which surely must go much further than mere "intentionality") has been established.

"Intentionality" has no more reason or cause to "ask is this designed?" than "is this red?".

Just try to make the point more clearely: an intentional object (a mind) is aware of other intentional and non-intentional objects. Intentionality is determined by various pattern recogition hypothesising mechanisms within the mind. Higher orders of intentional awareness lead to greater social patterns, as we recognise the potential inter-web of minds with which we contend.

The "argument from design" post-dates the evolution of human level intentional awareness and the advent of religion by a long time. The early theisms did not originate in the question of "design" but rather through the supernatural misapplications of intent ("false positives") with regard to natural phenomana. Therefore the idea of "God as designer" did not arise as a natural result of the evolution of intentionality, yet the "god as intentional object responsible for rain" may have. "Design" is a later superimposition based on a sequence of reasoning conducted a priori, extrapolated from behaviours known to human intentional objects.

"Intentionality leads to the design inference" is therefore meaningless IMO, as it seems to rest on a logically incoherent proposition. What's more, it cannot explain the "god inference" since theism predates the "design inference", which is a later bolt-on to theism based on theology and teleology, and not directly derived from intentionality.

Am I alone in thinking this? Others seemed to be making a similar point IIRC, though probably using tighter terminology.

I hope it makes sense.


Date: 2007/06/22 13:09:26, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
How many pages and no cute little lambs??!! Shame on the evil-absol-utionist atheist conspiracy.

Date: 2007/06/23 06:18:26, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 21 2007,14:22)
Heh, funny.  I just popped in to bump this thread.  I had been thinking I'd be interested in hearing Spags' thoughts as a fellow ex-fundy type.

You beat me to the punch.  Better Nate than lever, I s'pose.

*bump anyway*

Eh up ;)

One point which I think bears pointing out is that alot of cults define themseves by being "different" to the world around them. This is basically a circular justification which goes something like:
1) Only God's true believers do X.
2) We do X.
3) We are god's true believers.

Where X is defined in whatever way the cult chooses.

For example, JWs define themselves through their door to door work. Firstly, though other "christians" may be involved in preaching in some sense, JWs are specific about the apostolic practice of going "house to house" or "to the houses" (acts 20:20 greek: "kata oikon"? IIRC).

This therefore limits "true" christianity to only those religions which are truly following the apostolic example. So we're down to Mormons and JWs. It's easy to show that Mormonism is not true ("prophets were unto John", "add nothing to the book" etc). Therefore JWs are the only ones practicing true Xtianity.

Ok, this way of defining the faith carries throughout: the blood issue, avoiding "worldly" pursuits, no Christmas or Birthdays etc. Thus for the JW child the experience of growing up is one of constantly reinforced separateness from their peers.

The upshot is that for those that manage to escape when they get older, they tend to fly completely off the rails. This makes a self-fulfilling prophecy as they bcome "devoid of morals", from the perspective of the religion.

Then there is the practice of shunning: any child growing up in a cult must face the prospect of being shunned by family and friends should they leave.

Add implated phobias into the mix (the devil, armageddon, sexually transmitted diseases) and you have a recipe for some very unstable individuals who've literally had their mind and identity stolen.

Is it child abuse? Is it anything else!


Date: 2007/07/01 14:28:41, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Hello Penny (I like that name - and no doubt you're worth more of them than there are atoms in the universe :))
I think you may be over-reacting to Wes who is a pretty straight up guy. The forums can seem to be policed a tad tightly but if you stick around you'll see why it becomes necessary to force threads to remain on topic.
Please don't take it personally. On other fora your post may well have been simply deleted, Wes's intention was merely to preserve the thread's subject matter while allowing your question to placed in front of people who could give you some good answers.

If you do ever meet Wes, pick his brains as much as possible: the guy's got em in droves.

All the best, good luck in your education.


Date: 2007/07/01 14:42:36, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Well, I've never been minionized before.
But I'm not keen on being turned into a lettuce.
Doesn't Satan have minions? Or is that Santa? Can I be your elf? See Louis, they're kinda midgity... we can all be Santa's Elves!!

I'm up for that. So long as I get to test Scalextric sets. (And I aint polishing any of Rudolph's shiny red bits).


Date: 2007/07/01 14:59:09, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
JAD called me a sexual prejorative at my blog

At least you weren't called a minion!
(Oh wait, you were too).

Anyhoo, it shows that you're getting to these people when they get desperate like that.

Find 'em, sue 'em, publicly shame 'em. They'll be so busy repenting at prayer breakfasts they wont have time to do it again.

When AFDave started quotemining me on his blog I offered him the chance to either get rid of the quotemines or else he could look forward to the presence of a sharply dressed man holding a large brown envelope and asking aloud for a Mr Dave Hawkins as he walked out of church next week. It worked.

I think Wiki can hold it together, there are so many editors and as Wes said, the entry was reverted in minutes. If it gets to critical mass then of course Wiki will have to tighten up, but so far there's enough reasonable decent people out there to make that unnecessary thus far.


PS. Kristine: I'm a gent and would never call a beaut like you a sexual prejorative (except in moments of extreme mutually fulfilling sexual encounter in response to that age old request beloved of many men: "Talk dirty to me"). IOW, only at invitation... then anything goes ;).

Date: 2007/07/11 07:25:29, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
I think you're all wonderful.
Just some are more wonderful than others.
For mentioning me Kristine is the most wonderful of all (plus the added gift of the *shimmy* which easily puts her head and shoulders (and hips) above the rest of you)*.
for the laughs its usually OA or VoxRat,
Louis is just simply awesome: I wish I had such a gift of eloquent and decimating refutation.

Then there's Shirley, such fine hugs.
Wes and Steve because they rock.
And God (because you have to mention him at times like these apparently... oh no scrub that, I'm not preparing for my Grammy speech this year... maybe next).


*and she's hot, damn hot!
(IMO, decision of the editor is final. No correspondence will be entered into).  :D

Date: 2007/07/12 13:41:32, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (BWE @ July 12 2007,01:46)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 11 2007,18:49)
It's not *what* the creationists believe that bothers me, it's the willfully dishonest *how* they go about trying to push their ideas onto others that pisses me off

Take AFDave.  He's one of the most dishonest people I've ever met anywhere, with his constant quote-mining, ignoring all contradictory evidence, creating his own fraudulent data, misrepresenting what others have argued, and outright lying.

I'd think he was a class-A asshole even if he was the world's biggest atheist and evolution supporter.

And Louis too, the thing is I already emasculated him. I didn't even need to use research or logic to any real extent. I was pissed. Seriously. But he's not handing out the address to our debate to his church buddies I guarantee it. He can only post a picture of a two inch erection and tell everyone it's his to look any dumber.

What now? I don't want to kick him when he's down. But either I want him to stay down or get back up so I can kick him again.

No, do finish him off BWE.
Seriously, finish the Job. You took it on, you knew it wasn't going to be pleasant but, like them cows: if you let their big dumb eyes and sorrowful lowing get to you, Umm, there'll be no sunday dinner (or something).

Oh, and I thought your "astonished" post was one of the funniest I've ever read. To get it into a formal debate and get away with the choice name calling speaks volumes for how much of a shit is given by the RD mods.

Sorry dude, he's been buzzed with the prod, he's on the crush and his chins lifted, s'up to you to do the deed. Enjoy a nice dram for your troubles: some men are born for the dirty work, others have it thrust upon them.

I for one will think nothing less of you for doing the necessary.


Date: 2007/09/18 20:29:33, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,16:01)
Ian and Bill ... I have very good answers for your questions, but I don't think Wesley and Steve want me posting extensively here, so please post your questions to my blog or at or at IIDB where I post a lot.  Thx

Errrrr. Actually Dave, you've run from thread after thread after thread on both RD and IIDB. There's a ton of questions outstanding for you there, as well as a formal devate post outstanding at RD. Why don't you jump to it.

And as for your impressive little bit of research as to ultra-conserved DNA, I would have thought that having your ass handed to you on that on just one forum would be enough. My you are a sucker when it comes to a good spanking.

So Dave, since you've hidden from it everywhere else perhaps you'd like to answer it here: how does ultra-conserved DNA which apparently serves no function fit into your YEC paradigm where all DNA was created to fulfil a function, and ultra-conserved DNA has by definition not "devolved" as you would have it.

See Dave, you seem so adept at citing research which contradicts yourself, I thought I'd make sure you were still consistent on that score.

Perhaps your little logical gymnastics from RD net would be approriate here:
Quote (afdave @ Sep 15)
OK. I think I see where you are coming from.

Several things here ...
1) The ToE prediction is "Ultra-conserved --> VITAL function
2) Research says "No function" --> failed prediction
3) Creationist prediction is "All DNA has some function, some more important than others"
4) Research says "No function" (probably wrong based on recent studies ... probably has some as yet undetected function) --> Creationist prediction still intact, though it could be wrong when more is known

Does this clear things up?

from This peach of a Hawkins Dump.

There'sa bit of a logical inconsistency between 2 and 4, although you are obviously incapable of grasping it aren't you Dave?  ???

Date: 2007/09/20 10:29:30, Link
Author: SpaghettiSawUs
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 14 2007,06:02)
I seem to remember that we had some physicists here and I was trying to digest what I was reading today so here goes.  If all matter reduces down to the quantum foam and is essentially probabilities, what are the implications for physical reality?  Just got me thinking.  Thanks for any replies.

Stick the observer in there and it all becomes clear.
Its all probabilities: to the observer at a given time.
It all reduces to a quantum foam: i.e from the observers standpoint the underlying reality is "formless", and can be analogised to a foam (and the observer gets one bubble or another, but can never see the whole foam).
Does that help?