AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Stephen Elliott

form_srcid: Stephen Elliott

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: Stephen Elliott

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 'Stephen Elliott%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2005/11/26 08:57:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Please get to the point.
I have been reading this thread for a few days.
I think you have valid reasoning...But please stop wasting time.

Date: 2005/11/28 10:57:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 28 2005,14:32)
Please get to the point.
I have been reading this thread for a few days.
I think you have valid reasoning...But please stop wasting time.

 I don't know what you're referring to; if supporting one's position is a waste of time, then I'm guilty as charged. But my main point (summarised twice with no rebuttal on the horizon....) is that we should use objective criteria when deciding who gets in. The question shouldn't be: "What can we do for you?", but rather, "What will you do for us?"
 The first nation that asks this question will watch its science, technology, and economy soar, while the rest of the first world devolves into Brasil or Colombia. But hey, if you want to live in a country where you have to fly to work behind a phalanx of bodyguards, it's your thing.

Ahhh Well,
If that is your whole point, I guess that I agree with you.

I was under the impression though that the USA already had a strong imigration criteria.

The UK on the other hand seems to be lacking in that area.

Date: 2005/12/27 02:45:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
It is possible that it was caused by a few word choices.
I think that PT employs a filter so as that young children read it without being subjected to seeing abusive language.

Date: 2006/01/11 07:28:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Over on PT I have seen David Heddle called a fundie. Something that I consider to be untrue.

Carol Clouser though is an entirely different kettle of fish. She seems to imply that we are all headed for ####, unless we buy a book written by on of her (presumably)  friends. That is pretty weird.

Date: 2006/01/11 12:09:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
On definition of a fundie.

I supose that I interpret as someone who believes the Bible (any other Holy book) is literal. Would refute any argument from reason or science with comments such as "the Bible says different, so you are wrong". Absolutely refuse to consider that they might be wrong.

Logic such as this could only be from a fundie:

1 God created the entire universe and everything in it.
2 There is only one true way to God (mine).
3 Anyone who dissagrees with me deserves to die and God wants me to kill them.
4 Anything I do in the name of God is Holy.

Defies belief that someone could believe in God, but He messed up his creation so badly that He needs people to kill in His name people He created. Yet, God is perfect.

Quite frightening really.

Date: 2006/01/11 12:15:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
What is "afirmative action"?

Would I be right in guessing that it is similar to what is known as "positive discrimination" in the UK?

If so, then I  believe it is racist.

Date: 2006/01/12 03:08:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I really dislike the idea of affirmative action or positive discrimination.

Despite any lofty intentions I consider it a bad idea.

Positively discriminating in somebodies favour because of race absolutely demands someone is going to be discriminated againt for racial reasons.

That is racist. No ifs or buts. Sounds nice and friendly but will lead to righteous indignation. It will just give real nasty racists a recruiting slogan.

In the UK the Asian community is very well represented in the medical field. How would it sound if someone claimed, "Asians are over-represented in medicine. Positively discriminate for other races over Asians"?

That sounds racist because it is. You can't have it both ways.

Date: 2006/01/12 10:23:34, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
"Affirmitive Action" could have long term results exactly the opposite of it's intention.

Should a hispanic medical student get to be qualified as a surgeon on easier terms than an Asian. Who would you demand operate on a loved one given the choice.

Over time the race that is favoured by "Affirmitive Action" would be viewed as less competant than someone without this benefit, when in comparable jobs.

This would give a racist measurable results to say such and such a race is inferior.

The long term effect could be dissastrous.

Surely it would be better to tackle the problem at it's root. Try to give every member of society an equal opportunity to compete.

School reforms would be a start. Have only public funded schools and atempt to ensure they all taught to an equal standard. This would be difficult, but surely worth more effort than a blatantly racist programme.

Date: 2006/01/12 11:46:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Well, the latter image is certainly worthy of intense scrutiny. Of any kind!

Date: 2006/01/12 23:07:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Assuming that both Flint and Sir_TJ are both accurate.
It is hardly surprising that Sir_TJ has that experience.

If mainstream African American culture is as described by Flint, then the only people from that background to be at university level, would be the most determined and talented of the ethnic group.

I believe that culture is far more important than race on how people perform. Obviously tempered by oportunity.

As a side note from personal experience. On my first extended visit to the USA. Driving from the southern outskirts into central Tucson. It was a saddening sight to regularly see a native American stood in the central gap of the road. Wearing a sign saying "will work for food".

Date: 2006/01/13 01:17:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Ho! Ho! Ho!

How on Earth could they have mistaken ID as being religiously motivated.

She should have got her minister to tell those silly people that "ID is scientific...because God says so".

Date: 2006/01/13 21:00:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Some very interesting comments.

The handicapped/crippled one is a bit confusing. I do not consider myself to be either. Perhaps you could explain more simply.

Date: 2006/01/13 22:42:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The idea of there being no God does not abhor me. If this is it and all there is, then life can still be enjoyed.

In fact I would prefer that to the God some people believe in.

However I can't just pick and choose what I believe. Something in me thinks God does exist. Although I doubt God will turn out like the fundamentalists believe.

Date: 2006/01/14 04:36:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
OK. I am imagining a blissfull summers afternoon.
But it is still piggin chilly outside.

Date: 2006/01/14 05:50:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
This is all very nice, but where's the bar?

Date: 2006/01/14 07:05:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Pimms...An absolute gem as the base for a decent punch.

Date: 2006/01/14 07:10:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Date: 2006/01/14 13:00:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Oh no he doesn't. Micro evolution is acceptable. They are still flu germs.


Date: 2006/01/14 13:56:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Eek! Not sure I would like the layout changed. It's a major bugbear for me. Seems everytime I get comfortable with an IT product it gets updated.

Date: 2006/01/14 14:10:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I would agree that a lot of harm has been done in the name of religion. That does not neccessarily mean religion was the cause. More likely religion was the excuse. The real causes were more likely to be fear, hate or greed.

Date: 2006/01/14 14:47:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2006,20:20)
religion can never promote fear, hate or greed?

Well I would agree that religion has been used to promote those.

But just about everything that people can use, can be used to do harm.

Date: 2006/01/15 04:10:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am not denying that religion has been used to promote bad things. What I believe though, is that in most religions to be used this way, you first have to corrupt it.

From the main monotheist religions, they tend to claim:

1) God is the creator of the universe.
2) God loves us.

Now to get people to commit atrocities for these religions you need to twist logic.

a) Clerics (whatever) need to convince people that God only loves the followers of one religious sect (obviously theirs).

b) God wants this sect to take vengance out on other people (also created by God but that has to be overlooked).

So my point is, yes religion has been used for immoral purposes. But normally requires people to believe stuff counter to it's original statements.

This is the reason that I am not fond of organised religion. Too many people end up letting other people tell them what to think. As for fundamentalism, well that is even worse.

Date: 2006/01/15 05:46:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ Jan. 15 2006,11:26)
I've never heard of anyone whose prayers were answered by God telling them their opinion was incorrect.

LOL. Neither have I.

You are not saying you know people who have had their prayers answered are you?

Thought not.

Date: 2006/01/15 05:59:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 15 2006,11:54)
Stephen, you can't take a 1000 page book like the bible and reduce it to 'god exists and loves us'. There's plenty in the bible one can use to justify terrible acts, not the least of which is that in the end jesus becomes a mass murderer.

That was not really what I was trying to do. I was just simplifying.

But to adress your comment.

You are of course correct that people can use the bible to justify all sorts of horrors. But I think you would need to take things out of context and/or warp them. That is why I dislike fundamentalism.

Date: 2006/01/15 08:37:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ Jan. 15 2006,13:37)
Everyone I know who prays, claims that ALL their prayers are answered. They pray for X, something happens A-Z, and this is God's Answer.

Fair point. But I know plenty of atheists/agnostics (theists are few in the UK) that are superstitious.

People who claim God is a silly idea, touching wood, greeting Mr. magpie and afraid of breaking mirrors etc,

Also there is a lot of people who wont miss reading their horroscope, but healing crystals....the list goes on. These are people that (often) claim religion to be irational.

Now that, I find ironic. :D

Date: 2006/01/15 11:41:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Caledonian @ Jan. 15 2006,17:28)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2006,10:10)
What I believe though, is that in most religions to be used this way, you first have to corrupt it.
 They're already corrupt.  No further corruption is necessary.

I don't agree with that. Are you sure you mean the religions? Rather than the church.

Date: 2006/01/15 12:56:36, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 15 2006,18:01)
Stephen Elliott seems to be saying that religions, originally ideal and/idealistic, get corrupted and misused.
From the main monotheist religions, they tend to claim:
1) God is the creator of the universe.
2) God loves us.  
(First of all, I see no reason to limit ourselves to "monotheistic" religions; why exclude Hinduism and Roman Catholicism?)

But I think originally religion and nationalism were pretty much the same thing. The "god" that ordered the Israelites to destroy the Amalekites, Moabites, etc. apparently was rather selective in his "love". As I understand it, the etymology of "religion" is uncertain, but may derive from the Latin "tie back" - as in roping in those independent individuals straying too far from the national core identity. (I.e., it was a lot like "patriotism" to right-wing Americans).

The idea of religion in a "multicultural" society is pretty new and untried; I don't know if it can be made to work. Clearly the fundamentalist flavors cannot. I'm not sure what others can.

Remember that I am not a biblical literalist. Nor do I consider the bible inerant. Especially the OT.

For a start I consider Exodus to be way out of line. I do not believe that God would have carried out the plagues on Egypt or have ordered those mass slaughters.

Probably some ancients justification story.

Anyway I agree with this guy.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Date: 2006/01/15 13:38:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 15 2006,19:21)
If you're ignoring whole books of the bible, I think perhaps you are distorting the religion.

And that's a good thing, btw.

I supose I cherry pick. But so what?
I selectively read it because some parts sound ridiculous.

It is written by people and you only have to look at humanity to see how fallible we are.

But I am pretty sure I stated, I was not a fundamentalist ages ago.

Date: 2006/01/15 13:41:01, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Any news on tickets? ie When are you expecting them?

Got any beer old chap. Getting sick of the bucks fizz.

Date: 2006/01/15 23:08:34, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
H'mmm, you may have hit on something there Norman. I think there is at least some truth in that insight. I can't honestly say I know for certain.

If I could just pick and choose, then it would be the Norse Gods for me. I quite fancy an eternity of drinking and wenching, with a great big fight at Ragnarock. :D

Anyhow, there is something in me that does believe God exists. I don't claim to know much about it and I definately don't want to join a church for instruction/indoctrination.

BTW. The Norse thing was just a joke. After dealing with people from AIG, some folks here might take it serious.

Date: 2006/01/16 06:01:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I believe directed welfare and affirmative action can be counter-productive.

You are basically saying "these people can't compete".

Equal access to education for all citizens would be a beginning. Changing cultural atitudes is also very important.

For a short while I lived on a council estate in the UK (Ince in Wigan, Lancashire). This was almost entirely white. The culture there was to leave school and spend the rest of their life on welfare.
Not everybody of course, but it was the mainstream.

As far as I can tell the only thing causing these people to underperform was the way they CHOSE to live life.

Date: 2006/01/16 06:47:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
He pointed out that for blacks, this *does not happen*, except infrequently and under duress. And he was quite right.

How did you both come to that conclusion?

Not to denigrate your friend but as a generalisation, people who say such things tend to not work hard anyway.

Sir_T.J. has experience of working with blacks at the University level. So they are obviously succeeding.

I have worked very closely with the US military in the past and they have blacks of all ranks.

I seriously doubt any biological differences between races play the most significant part in individual performance levels.

Back to the estate I mentioned in Wigan. Parents there tended to be on welfare and have low expectations for their children. They tended to take little interest in their young ones education. The children would tend to have low aspiration.

The estate had higher instances of vandalism and other anti-social behaviour than other areas around them.

Yet people on that estate had the same access to education and other services as anyone in Wigan. Discrimination on racial grounds is not an issue here.

Somehow a culture had developed that hindered them.

I am generalising, a few rose above it.

Date: 2006/01/16 08:37:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The reason I used the word "they" is because the discussion was specifically about the problems the black community as a whole seem to suffer from.

Reading back on my post it does sound hostile. It is not the way it was intended. I should have proof read it.

My life experiences are probably very different to yours. I have never been in an environment that you describe. ie. All the workers are black except the foreman.

That is, apart from Arizona border country. Where all the menial jobs seemed to get done by Mexican day-pass (?) workers. They would cross over the border in the morning, work all day, then back home to Mexico in the evening.

Anyway, in my experience of working with people. All races seem to provide a similar spectrum of ability.

I have an idea that if someones expectations are low, that is how things will generally turn out.

Date: 2006/01/16 08:43:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

That was badly written on my part. I wasn't overgeneralising.

Remove "they" and insert "those individuals" and it resembles what I intended better.

I was specifically refering to only those people you are working with as being successfull.

Date: 2006/01/16 11:29:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 16 2006,17:18)
he managed to go (WAYYY) off the deep end and get himself banned before the verdict was announced.

go figure.

I don't remember that.

What did he/she do?

Date: 2006/01/16 13:44:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Although I strongly believe in social security (hardly anyone does not in the UK). It can become a trap if it is not administered well.

Over here people can actually be worse off if they take a job. Now that is crazy.

Welfare should be a safety net, never a viable lifestyle choice.

Date: 2006/01/16 13:58:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I don't think it unavoidable.

Why not let people only lose 50p/50c in benefit for every £1/$1 earned.

Date: 2006/01/16 21:04:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (normdoering @ Jan. 17 2006,02:50)
Have you ever considered calling yourself a "Jeffersonian Christian" or "a Christian in the style of Thomas Jefferson"?

This verbal tactic would prevent people from rushing to assumptions about what your "Christianity" is about and if they reasearched it to figure out that our founding fathers were certainly not fundies.

Not a bad Idea. I do agree with a lot of his quotes in the previous links.

Careful, you don't want to piss off Thor.

Thor is fairly easy to placate though. All I will have to do is make a fist over my next beer.

H,mmm This evening I might apologise to him several times. :D

Date: 2006/01/16 22:02:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

What is JAD's blog called?

Date: 2006/01/17 01:11:34, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The Panda-monium game is good though and quite humourus.

There is a link on PT main page. Under psuedo science. You might have to press for "extra links" though.

Date: 2006/01/17 07:04:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
evopeach is back.

Was the debt paid? :p

Date: 2006/01/17 07:13:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Jan. 17 2006,12:55)
I think we are in pretty good agreement here  :D

The Constitution is one of the most important documents of the Western World, and one of the most amazing.  It was waaaaaay ahead of its time.  But it needs to be remembered that it was written by a bunch of rebellious Brits  :D  And times change.

You are aware that the constitution* was based on the magna carta (1215)?

When was the constitution* written?

*edited for accuracy. I first wrote "declaration of independence"     *blushes*   Knee jerk reaction is my only excuse. You pesky, rebelious colonists. :D

Date: 2006/01/17 09:06:01, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
in any case, why not ask him to follow the terms of his own wager?

I have mentioned it on on the Ken Miller thread over at PT.

Date: 2006/01/18 01:13:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I like JAD's posts (usually).
He can be funny when he isn't ranting.

Date: 2006/01/18 03:51:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Glad to see this.
Maybe less threads will be getting trashed.

Date: 2006/01/18 07:16:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I have seen the word "maroon" used to describe our village IDiot Larry.

Although I find it amusing in its own right, I was wondering what it means.

I looked here:
and assume maroon is being used in the last "bugs bunny" description.:D

Is that correct?

Date: 2006/01/18 07:54:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Guest @ Jan. 18 2006,13:21)
I cannot believe that my response to your Comment #73162 was removed to the Bathroom  Wall.     My response was definitely on-topic.    You removed my response not because it was off-topic,  but because you disagreed with it.

Also,   two of my responses to off-topic posts have been removed,  but the original off-topic posts,  Comment #73088 and Comment #73128,  both of which are personally directed at me,  are still here.  

I will not post again on any of your threads until I have received an assurance from you that you have cleaned up your act.

It is about time that the commenters on Panda's Thumb were treated with some respect.     Without the commenters,   Panda's Thumb would be nothing,  and you would not have gotten that big award from Scientific American magazine.

I expect this post to be removed too,   but I hope that some of the commenters here get a chance to read it.


Let me point out to you what annoys people.

You post on a thread. Your point sounds on topic. Your backup arguments however are normally incorect.

To refute you there are really only 2 choices:

1. Ignore your incorrect statement. Leaving lurkers to conclude you are right.


2. Point out your errors .Where the thread starts going off-topic.

Date: 2006/01/18 10:04:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am now of the opinion that this has very litle to do with race.

Rather it is culture that afects performance the most.

Yes there are other factors, but I consider them secondary.

Any race I have worked with tends to have the same spread of ability.

Just talking whites only. The council estate I mentioned earlier compared to an estate next to it comprising of privately owned houses.

Same race, same chances but very different average performance.

Date: 2006/01/18 20:48:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,22:57)
hmm, if the ID is related to an iguana, he should be herbivorous.

I am pretty sure Iguanas are omnivorous.
There are loads of them in Belize, they did not refuse to eat meat when given it.

Date: 2006/01/18 20:54:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I believe the only stupid questions are those that you don't ask.

There is something about the word "maroon" that just sounds funny and insulting. Without even knowing the real meaning it made it's point.

Date: 2006/01/18 20:59:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.

Date: 2006/01/18 21:03:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
It would be good if this thread became popular to post on.

I used to like the bathroom wall. You could have all sorts of off-topic conversations without trashing a sensible thread.

Date: 2006/01/18 21:34:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
These are the critters.

Date: 2006/01/19 05:24:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 19 2006,11:0)
Here's a conversation I've had too many times:
Me: Well if all morality comes from the bible, and you have to decide yourself which bits are true and which bits arent, how come there arent still people selling their daughters into slavery and stoning each other to death. Is it in fact because morality is based mainly on human history and experience.

In 2002 I was working for the UN in Afghanistan. A case in North Pakistan became a bit notorious:

A male was tried by a tribal council for rape. He was found guilty. His punishment:
Village elders selected a few males and told them to rape the rapists sister.

Yeh, real justice. I don't think. <!--emo&:angry:

Date: 2006/01/19 06:48:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 19 2006,12:23)
Thats terrible, makes me glad I live in the heathen moral-free secular West.

It sure is terrible.

I actually believe in God. Examples such as this explain why I dislike organised religion.

Giving away your mind (to some idiotic preacher) is a bad thing.

Is that lunatic preacher in the USA "Pat Robertson?" (not sure on name). Could you imagine living in a country where he had absolute power?


Date: 2006/01/19 11:34:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I can think of 1 case where social aid seemed to work.
The Marshal plan for European re-growth.

Not perfect granted, but it did seem to have a positive effect.

Date: 2006/01/21 04:59:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Dean Morrison @ Jan. 21 2006,06:32)
The general public is opposed to  more  faith schools, especially as it would entail an expansion of Islamic schools. Blair seems genuinely suprised at the furore.

I don't think many parents would object to their boys going to this faith school.


Date: 2006/01/21 06:02:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 21 2006,11:11)
Flint wrote:
Ghost has taken a coherent, and as far as I'm concerned entirely reasonable, position. He is advocating (if I understand him correctly) as level a playing field as it is possible to maintain, cultural differences being what they are. His position is that all men are created equal (sound familiar?), and SHOULD be equal in the eyes of the law. Absolutely no Official Favoritism Or Discrimination instituted in favor of or against anyone.

Which is all fine and dandy if the playing field is already level. However, it does nothing to promote the creation of a level playing field. All it does is promote the status quo. Which, I suspect, suits the GoP down to the ground.

So what would you do?

Implement laws that favour people on racial grounds?
I believe that would backfire at some point.

How about trying to change negative culture, along-side trying to level the opportunities for advancement?
By which I do not mean AA, rather try to get every citizen a reasonably equal opportunity for education while promoting self-reliance.

I do believe in a welfare state. However it should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

Date: 2006/01/21 07:40:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I would propose far more spending on schools and extra curicula activity. Try to get pupils to engage in both intelectual and physical education. "Be all you can be" springs to mind.

Try to find a way to reward parents for taking a positive role in a childs upbringing/education and punishments for overly negligent parenting.

Rather than just give welfare indiscriminately, expect and demand a certain type of behaviour to qualify for benefits.

Admitedly I am firing from the hip here. Though I do not think people should be given cash just for being unemployed. Something should be required in exchange.

Date: 2006/01/21 08:41:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Schools should be funded at the national level rather than local or state. National standards should be required.

Date: 2006/01/22 05:42:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Dave Scot booted me fro UD yesterday. On the same thread that Steve Reuland got kicked out.

I had the temerity to point out that his opening article actually asked  Steve R. questions. Therefore it was very ungentlemanly not allowing him to answer.


Date: 2006/01/22 06:57:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 22 2006,12:38)

You have brought up a whole shed-full of points there.

I agree with just about all you say.

While I think state education is a good thing in principle. It does not seem to be managed with excellence.

State education in the UK sometimes gives the impression that its main purpose is to benefit teachers. Other times to benefit NGO inspectors.

What in principal is wrong with schools setting admission standards? Why have we just about abandoned the grammer school?

Is there a good reason to have a government target of 50% of pupils going to university?

Date: 2006/01/22 07:03:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 22 2006,12:38)
I wouldn't agree with that.
It could very well backfire in a big way.

I cant quite see how.  Sure, we still have the CHurch of England as the official church in this country, but in terms of removing religion from school, I really dont see why it shoule be much of a problem if taken along the lines it can be in the USA.  

Sorry. I did intend to adress that in my last post, but forgot.

I was not reffering to state schools with a faith base. Rather the schools actually paid for by the churches. I can imagine these closing if it was ilegal to have a faith requirement.

That is something that I do not consider helpfull.

Date: 2006/01/22 13:02:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
You do raise a lot of good points. far too many to answer in a single post. But I will give a few points of view.

The teachers you mentioned you claimed where good. Fine, they would never have been the problem. I can remember a few bad teachers from my school days, 1 maths teacher in particular belonged in gaol rather than school. The unions made it impossible for the head to sack him. That is wrong.

Admission standards. If you are for them it means seperating students of ability/determination from others. If you are against, it means lumping "bad" students in with "good" ones.

Out of that choice I would opt for school standards and removing disruptive pupils. Give everyone the same oportunity, but remove those that would abuse it and drag others down.

As you have a Chemistry degree you are one of the elite, like it or not. You have a degree that is difficult to obtain and actually is usefull in real work.

A target of 50% University education is pointless though. Especially as most of those degrees will be pretty pointless. How many people with degrees in media studies do we need?

I cynically believe that the government wants the 50% target just to keep employment figures looking better.

A tiered school system is something I would like to consider. Not every pupil is suited to accademic life. Why waste their time and have them disrupt classes? Some students would be better off learning more practical things from an earlier age.

Don't get me wrong here. They should still be taught a broad education and should they decide (later on) they wish for more accademic studies, then it ought to be available.

Testing right now seems to be taking away a lot of teachers freedom to teach. But I suppose it employs a few people in NGOs.

Church schools: In Wigan a lot of the best schools are run by various churches. My sister moved house and started to atend church in order to get her daughter into one. It insists that parents play an active part in their childrens education. Apearances are that this alone improves standards. They do not require a child to pass tests, rather the parents have to do this. Not written exams, but a willingness to assist the school and play a part in the childrens education.

Historically education only relatively recently became a matter of state. All the really old schools were either paid for by parents (public/UK...private/USA) or established by churches.

Oxford University IIRC started as a theological teaching establishment.

Anyway I have rambled on for long enough. This is a very large topic with an awful lot of facets.

Date: 2006/01/22 13:32:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2006,16:04)
Yeah, that's the problem. IDers have focused too much on science, not enough on PR.

Now, that is funny!

Date: 2006/01/22 13:58:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 22 2006,19:40)
can you you tell us why people now live as tenth as long as they did back then? Why does this not qualify as yet another one of your miracles?

What do you mean by this?
Are you aware that in Northern Europe during the ice age the life expectancy of an adult was the same as now?

Life expectancy there dropped drastically once civilisation started.

BTW. I am only talking adults here. Child mortality was higher. But if someone made it to adulthood they could expect a long life.

Date: 2006/01/22 14:20:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
My daughter started school in NI. NI has a much better standard of education than England.

Do not blame religious intolerance in NI on the schools. That lies firmly at the feet of of parents and peers.

Date: 2006/01/22 14:50:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 22 2006,20:26)
Are you aware that in Northern Europe during the ice age the life expectancy of an adult was the same as now?
That's interesting. Not that I find it so very unlikely. I wouldn't have thought there were enough data to be very confident of it. What's your source?

A few fairly recent BBC documentaries of bodies found.

Do not forget that during the Ice age Northern Europeans lived in very small groups. Had rigorous exersice and a healthy diet. It was also a hostile environment for germs/virus.

So it does make sense.

Infant mortality was high though.

Compare that to early civilisation. Lots of people permanently settled in a place without drainage. Imagine living in a pile of human waste.

Date: 2006/01/22 22:53:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Dean Morrison @ Jan. 22 2006,21:59)
Hi Steve..

I understand that the standard if education in NI is very good.

However it is slso the case that the faith-based school system is at least partly responsible for perpetuating the differences between two tribes. There are only 58  schools where you can be taught with children of other beliefs - the very first one opened in 1981.

There is now a 'Nortern Ireland Council for Integrated Education'. On i't website you can access independant research that shows that Children that attend 'Integrated' schools are more likely to occupy the middle ground in politics:

First, at a time of ongoing sectarianism and frustrated politics, where many people seem programmed into the view that identity is something which we are receive at birth and is fixed for life, rather like our DNA.  This research confirms that young people who attend an integrated school are willing to challenge such stereotypes by being "more likely to reject traditional identities and allegiances than those who attended a segregated one". They are able to explore the whole meaning of identity, because integrated schools provide safe spaces within which they are supported and encouraged to challenge sectarian stereotypes and explore alternative models of citizenship.

Second, those findings of the wider study which were based upon a large sample of the adult population (Life and Times survey) suggest that "the positive effects of integrated schooling extend into later life". There is no coincidence in the fact that the title of the research links integrated schooling with political progress, as the report goes on to suggest that an integrated education nurtures the development of individuals who "have the potential to create a new common ground in N Ireland politics".

This willingness to engage with the other takes place on both sides of the so called "political divide" as evidenced by the report´s findings that "Protestants who experience a formally integrated education occupy the middle ground in N Ireland politics"  while "in general Catholics who attended either a formally or informally integrated school were more likely than their segregated counterparts to abandon their traditional territorial allegiances".

I can't speak from experience like yourself - but don't you think that children in Northern Ireland could have an equally good or even better education if they weren't seperated according to the faith of their parents at age 5?

I would not doubt that. What background do you expect those children to have though? I suspect those children are all from non-bigotted families. Anyway, I have no real desire to defend religious segregation (and especially in NI).

My original point on faith schools was that I would not like to see them banned.

My argument against banning faith schools is:
1. Some of the best schools in the UK are faith based.
2. Banning could cause school closures.
3. It will most likely creat a lot of unnecesary indignation from parents.

Date: 2006/01/23 08:46:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I did not read a single paragraph in your post that I would dissagree with.

State schools seem to be getting increasingly handicapped by government interference. It would seem very difficult for a teacher/head to deal with disruptive pupils now. Individual "rights" have been promoted in a ridiculous way. Problem students seem to have more rights than those that wish to study.

Why should it be so difficult to exclude a student who constantly disrupts a class of 30+?

Date: 2006/01/23 08:59:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 23 2006,14:20)
Re "he pronounced it "utterly false" to think that evolution is incompatible with faith in God."
Yep. That's just straightforward logic. To one who believes God can do anything, to claim that evolution is impossible directly contradicts that belief. So it baffles me that some people apparently manage to think both of these at once.


I would contend that the people you a reffering to are confused between the words "God" and "Bible".

Date: 2006/01/23 09:46:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 23 2006,15:22)
...So, what about that 144,000 number? What do you think: high, low, about right? ...

Where did you get the 144 000 from?

Date: 2006/01/23 11:09:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 23 2006,16:38)
Re: 144,000. I think that comes from "Revelations" the last book in the New Testament. Revelations reads like a log of someone's LSD experience, so it's hard to know whether to take a given passage as literal prediction, as metaphor, or merely as "inerrant". An apocalyptic catastrophe is described, of which there are 144000 survivors. I believe that some christians have taken the catastrophe as metaphorical for the ordeal of death, and that a total of 144,000 souls would survive before God rang down the curtain and closed the show.

Ugh! Revelations, too wierd to read.
But I will give it a skim.
144 000 sure is a small %

Date: 2006/01/23 11:29:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Found the 144 000 part. Rev 7:4-8.

12 000 from each of the 12 tribes of Isreal.

Date: 2006/01/23 11:43:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I have heard the term "morning star" used to describe Satan (admitedly usually from Hollywood productions). Yet in Rev. Jesus claims the title.

Any insights?

Date: 2006/01/23 12:34:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I think DS might have actually banned more Steves in the last month than PT has banned commenters in a year.

A sort of parody of the Steve list.

Date: 2006/01/23 12:39:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
LOL @ point 3.
Yeah, I have met parents like that. I consider it totally irresponsible to believe your child can do no wrong.

It would appear to be a growing trend. Parents who defend their child no matter what they have done.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:23:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 23 2006,19:18)
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
DaveScot has linked to this thread to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.

This is DaveScot's current whinging:

Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it.

Is this true? Or is this some persecution fantasy?

This beggars belief!

DS complaining about censorship. ROFL.
How many people has DS banned/Edited/deleted recently?

How often does that happen here?

Surely this is a joke, or a weird strategy to ridicule his own site.

Date: 2006/01/23 14:23:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am not wholly unsympathetic to your views. However resources are limited.

If you was teaching a class of 35 students, one student was totally disrupting the class. What would you recommend?

Date: 2006/01/24 00:32:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
LOL this one is funny.

Dave Scot is giving a free lesson for Wesley in how to do science.

Bang goes another irony meter.

Date: 2006/01/24 00:46:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
ID has been very, very good to W. Dembski.

My opinion about the ID movement is low. The reason they do not want to mention religion is that they want ID taught in a science class.

In the meantime, a few of them are making pretty good cash from books and appearances. So much so that I can only assume they are too busy to actually be doing any scientific experiments.

Date: 2006/01/24 10:56:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I do not particularly object to religious education in school. So long as it is taught as religion. It has no place in a biology class.

As far as I am concerned faith schools are ok so long as they stick to the curiculum. I would not agree with new ones being built by public funding though.

Date: 2006/01/24 13:25:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
This thread seems as though it is asking 2 different questions.
1 on ID/creationism.
1 on selection.

Dean, I believe we will disagree on a lot of things. But at least I reckon we could have a civil and reasonable (hopefully interesting to-boot) conversation about it.

Date: 2006/01/24 15:21:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I cannot give an answer yet. I will need to investigate further. Had too many drinks to read critically ATM.

IMO though. Within state education. Every child should have the same basic primary education opportunity.

At the end of the last year of primary school children should be tested.

In secondary education I believe students should be educated according to ability/talent.

I would like to see education capital used to its best effect. I dislike the disproportionate amount of money spent on disruptive pupils, that IMO could be spent on normal and exceptional kids.

Yes I agree, initially help should be given to dissadvantged children. But only so much. Not let them become a fiscal black-hole that saps a hude % of cash away from mainstream students.

It is not fair if a large portion of the budget is spent on the small fraction of problem makers.

Date: 2006/01/25 01:21:09, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Posts: 143
Joined: Dec. 2005
 Posted: Jan. 25 2006,05:53    

Hi Steve..

I don't think the debate in the UK is on the basis of selection by ability.

In fact this is specifically ruled out by the Labour Party, who have to a certain extent wrtten this into law. The new leader of the Conservative party have committed them to the same principle.

I do not know about this. Have you any links?
Who can't select by ability?
Is it all state schools or some? Does it include private and public schools? How about Universities? I will do a search later. Got to get ready for work soon and should be able to check while there.


As for disruptive kids - id you give up on them at any age when they are still at school, society ends up playing a far greater price for the rest of their lifetimes.



Remember it costs more to keep someone in jail than it does to send them to Eton.

Now that is bizzare. I agree but don't understand why. It costs about £30K/year to atend Eton, it has fantastic facilities 24Hr accomodation and the kids are fed. Do you have any idea why a prison is so much more expensive/year?


Huge amounts of government money are being spent to teach adults how to read and write at the moment (without a lot of success). Adults who can't read or use numbers are almost unemployable nowadays. Far better to address the issue when the kids are still at school.

Don't get the impression I'm a big softie - I've worked on compulsory programmes to get young adults like this to get their lives back on track - It's hard work believe me, and sometimes you just want to strangle them.

That is another thing I don't understand. If somebody is unemployable and on benefits, why can't the benefits depend on atending and reaching certain levels of training.

Why should unemployment benefit be eligible to people who desire and choose to be unemployed?


Existing programs are working - and combined with social measures like ASBO's, and the new pressure on people on invalidity benefit to get work; and for people generally to realise that they have responsiblities as well as rights; show that there is a determination to address these issues. We have an active 'Surestart' programme in Hastings (as do many deprived areas  - which aims to get parents to bring there kids up properly before they even attend school. Thats about the best use of money I can think of in an area like this.

The culture of rights gets me wound up. I agree that people have rights but they should come with accepting responsibilities.


Anyway I digress. I think we can rally around the flag of 'keeping creationism and ID out of schools'.
The battleground in the UK is the new goverment White Paper - which promotes the creation of new 'Faith Schools' which can be handed over to wealthy evangelicals who can then take charge of the school curriculum, free from the control of their local authority.

"keeping creationism and ID out of schools."
Agreed, providing we are both talking about keeping it from being taught as fact or in science classes.

It could have a place in political, historical or religious classes.

When you say these schools will be free from local council control. Do you also mean free from national standards or inspection?


One approach to this would be to mandate in much more specific terms what children should and shouldn't be taught in science classes; through the National Curriculum. Another would be to stop the process altogether. In many people opinion it is built on a faulty premise anyway.

Would it not be simpler to just concentrate on what should be taught. The shouldn't list seems complicated. Very long and leaves a loophole to people claiming "that isn't on the shouldn't list".


The media in the UK seem to prefer to relate this as a power struggle between Blair and the rest of the Labour party, without focusing on the issues involved. I don't think they are the alert to the danger to science education. Since most people in the media are humanities graduates who don't understand or care anyway -perhaps this is not suprising.

UK media sucks. Look at which are our most popular newspapers. The BBC has also dumbed down, they used to provide class news, documentary, hitorical and science programmes. Now they seem to be mainly concentrating on  viewing figures.


My local MP, Michael J Foster is a devout Christian; but he's against the proposals. Good for him I say.

What is your MP's position on this matter?  

I am not even sure who my MP is. I have only recently moved to Windsor (Berks). But looking at the way this town is run it's pretty unlikely to have elected a ludicrous MP. I will find out and write to him/her though.

Date: 2006/01/25 01:30:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Dean Morrison @ Jan. 24 2006,17:52)
Could you translate that into English please GOP.

I believe he is saying.

"Go too far against the majority wishes in any democratic country and the population will swing dramatically in the other direction."

At least I think that is what he means.

Date: 2006/01/25 06:21:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am of the opinion that you are deliberately trying to derail threads.

Prove me wrong and post your arguments here.

I will not respond to you on PT threads any longer and would encourage others to do likewise.

Date: 2006/01/25 07:20:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Hey Dean,
My M.P. is Adam Afriyie (Con.).

I intend to write to him eventually. First I want to do more research. Both into him and the ID movement.

I have doubts that many people in the UK would believe what we have concerns about. Without evidence, a warning about Christian fundamentalists plotting to get creation taught as science sounds incredible.

They would probably believe we were the sort of people who sound alarms about space alien activity.

Date: 2006/01/25 08:10:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
One question from the full article.

Can you explain how the mass and orbital distance was calculated (as simply as you can please).

It (the article) states that the effect is caused by an order of magnitude depending on the planets mass and distance. How did they calculate both? Could it not have been a different mass planet at a different orbit?

Date: 2006/01/25 08:18:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
LOL at the comments on UD about that article.

They seem to think that the guys lack of formal training is good advert and example for ID.

Completely ignoring the guy actually did research and that was what got him published in peer-reviewed journals.

Sheesh! Talk about jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Date: 2006/01/25 09:46:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Excuse me for also jumping in.

Not much to say except that I tend to respond to posters for similar reasons as GCT and J. G. Cox.

Date: 2006/01/25 10:04:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 25 2006,15:53)
This is a good article...

Agreed. It sure is.

Date: 2006/01/25 10:36:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Hey SomeGuy,
Great tip. I ended up here.

Bloody ####! The man is deranged. :0

Date: 2006/01/25 13:19:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I must admit that sometimes I get frustrated. Especially when I forget who the real audience is and actually think some of the cranks might be persuaded by evidence.

Sheesh I know #### well by now they wont. Guess I just live in hope. I should remember to remove my rose tinted glasses. ;)

Date: 2006/01/25 13:55:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am having trouble in deciding how to compose a letter to my MP.

Thoughts so far:
Inform him about the ID movement with a copy of the wedge document.
Point out where the funding is coming from.
Provide evidence of comments such as that televangelist made about Dover (was it Pat something?).
Atempt to give him doccumentation about the Dover trial and Judge Jones' decision.

Anybody else got any ideas.

My main concern is that it all sounds so unbelievable we will look like cranks.

Some advice/help from the pro-science USA crowd would be also apreciated. You lot have the most experience after-all.

Date: 2006/01/25 14:24:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Does anyone know if a genome comparison has been done between humans and dolphins?

I have tried to google it, but I am not sure wether I am getting crank sites or not.

Didn't spot anything obvious on T.O. either. Maybe I need spectacles.

I am curious how closely we are related to dolphins (or any other marine mamal) as compared to chimps or other apes.

Date: 2006/01/25 15:11:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Cheers for the replies.
What I was trying to find was the % difference in the genome.

ie. Humans ->Chimpanzies C2-5% difference depending on the way it is measured.

I was loking for the Human->Dolphin % difference.

Maybe the comparison has not been done. ???

Date: 2006/01/25 15:49:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
You are cheating. No evidence should be necesary to prove ID. All ID needs is to find 1 hole in evolution. Then evolution is automatically wrong (completely and utterly) and ID totally proved.

Surely you knew that, you scamp. :D

Date: 2006/01/26 00:17:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am a bit concerned that you could take this seriously.

Do you really think for that a government, no matter how corrupt, in a democracy, could persuade so many employees to murder its own citizens and have them keep silent?

The WTC was almost certainly occupied 24 Hrs/day. How could a demolition team get acces plant the explosive charges while nobody noticed?

A military aircraft not on high alert status can't just have a pilot jump in then take off. Lots of preperation (fuelling/armament/checks) need to be done before launch.

Why, if it was a plan to take oil would the accused perpetrators turn out to be a group in a piss-poor country?

Also if it was a set-up. How come the blame was lain on a terrorist group rather than a government?

Date: 2006/01/26 03:18:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (SimonHeffer @ Jan. 26 2006,07:43)
There's a BBC Horizon program 'War on Science' tonight on BBC One at 2100GMT.
It includes a rather worrying survey, see: for details.

I fully intend to watch that.

I didn't manage to spot how the poll was conducted though, so I am taking those figures with a pinch of salt.

I just cannot believe that 40% of the British public would have a clue about ID. Nobody else in my family or who I work with, has any idea what is going on in the USA with the ID shenanigans. When I have tried to explain their eyes glaze over.

To be fair, would you have imagined these activities going on?

Date: 2006/01/26 03:35:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Chris Hyland,
I followed your link. #### shame the discussion was closed.

Reading the first page of comments was very disheartening. As was the BBC story. Do journalists never do any work?

Once more my opinion of the BBC sinks a notch.

I am starting to think that ID should be taught. Taught for exactly what it is. Evidence such as the Wedge strategy and the various relabling of old products should be headline news.

Date: 2006/01/26 05:51:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Thanks for the advice on letter content.

I think you mistook the way I would like to see ID taught though. I would want it taught as we have seen it. A sham. A conspiracy to use political methods to undermine evolution and promote a more docile population. I would like their tactics to pointed out with specific examples of how they shift position, re-label old arguments, dispose of evidence and even lie under oath (all in the name of God).

If ID was taught the way I envision, it would atract precious few supporters.

Date: 2006/01/26 06:28:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I could easily believe Larry and thordaddy where the same person.
If ProFrom Dover is as well, I would be amazed.

Date: 2006/01/26 08:36:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
IIRC. Within minutes/hours of the the crash it was known that Osama bin Ladan was behind it.

During the first few days of the aftermath Bush looked clueless.

It then took quite awhile for Bush to convince most governments on where the blame lay.

At the time most left wing people in Britain where trying to deny that bin laden was responsible.

The Taliban went through stages of denial that would give the Disco Institute a run for their money.

They claimed:
a) Bin Laden/Al Queda was not responsible.
b) Bin Laden/Al Queda was not in Afghanistan.
c) Yes they did it and are proud.

How anyone could think that the government of the USA is responsible for carrying out the 9/11 atacks is amazing.

Date: 2006/01/26 09:57:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Come on,
Those planes had only just taken off and were fuelled for a long haul flight.

The fires burned for ages before structural integrity was lost.

How can anyone honestly believe the government organised this?

Date: 2006/01/26 10:54:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Well at that point in time USA internal flights had less security protection than transatlantic I would assume.

I also believe that the towers structure was unusual. IIRC the main strength was in a single central column.

Date: 2006/01/26 11:10:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just finished watching it.
Initial thoughts are that it wasn't too bad. It could have been a lot clearer though.

If only the BBC would quit those stupid mood shots they would have had time to cover the lying under oath, the DI dodging of the case and the TMLC mishmash.

Date: 2006/01/26 11:17:34, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Please lay out your questions and I will try to adress them.

The link is not very clear in making your point.

What do you think the actual reallity might be?

Never mind done a cut and paste.

Date: 2006/01/26 11:34:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott


Posts: 151
Joined: Oct. 2005
 Posted: Jan. 25 2006,23:46    

I've been doing a fair amount of Internet research (for what it's worth) lately about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Avoiding, as far as possible, conspiracy theories (although the official story is certainly a conspiracy theory), I seem to have come across a large number of implausible anomalies. I'll include a partial list, but I'm wondering if those of you on this discussion group with more formal groundings in physics, chemistry, and related disciplines could give me some feedback into just how problematic any of these anomalies really are.

So here's the list:

• World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 are the only steel-framed skyscrapers to ever have suffered total structural failure—ever. While WTC 1 and 2 were hit by aircraft (certainly an unusual event), WTC was not. According to the official story, relatively minor structural damage and relatively minor fires caused the total collapse of WTC 7. By contrast, the Windsor hotel in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story hotel, burned for eighteen hours on ten floors last year without a total structural failure.

The two main towers had aircraft flown into them with lots of fuel on-board. They had only just taken off. The structures burned for quite awhile before collapsing.


• All three towers collapsed vertically downward, into their own footprints. Normally it takes weeks of preparation from highly-experienced companies specializing in demolition to produce the same results.

The buildings collapsed from burning, not impact.


• The level of piloting expertise demonstrated by the hijackers was nothing short of breathtaking. Despite never having flown jetliners before, the pilot of Flight 11 managed to hit a 200-foot-wide target within 15 feet of its centerline at a speed of ~400 MPH. The pilot of Flight 174 managed to hit the south tower flying at almost 500 MPH, and while he didn't quite manage to hit the target on its centerline, he managed to hit it with the aircraft banked at almost 30 degrees, causing damage to four contiguous floors. The pilot of Flight 77 managed a spectacular 270-degree spiral dive, passed over an adjacent freeway at a low-enough altitude to clip the tops of streetlights, and impacted the Pentagon at exactly zero altitude (in the least-occupied part of the building).

The two that hit the WTC had to aim an aircraft at the centre of a large structure. They had received pilot training. Granted, not on such large planes. But surely it could be an analogy of someone with a car licence aiming a truck.


• Over 30 phone calls were made from Flights 11, 77, and 93. Some of these  calls may have been made by airphone, but at least some of them were definitely made from cellphones. One such cellphone call lasted 18 minutes, almost until the moment Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. The majority of these calls were made from jetliners flying at 30,000 feet or more over rural areas of the country. How possible was this using existing technology in 2001?

I have been on aircraft where people have used mobile phones. The cabin crew had to tell the eejits to turn them off.
While mobile phones are not guaranteed to work on an aircraft, I have personal experience of people using them.


• Despite the fact that at least 60 commercial flights were intercepted by NORAD between September 2000 and June 2001, not one of the four flights was ever claimed to be intercepted on September 11. Jets scrambled from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, which is less than ten minutes' flight time from Manhattan, nevertheless took over an hour to actually arrive over NYC airspace.

The aircraft used in the 9-11 atacks were comercial aircraft taking off as scheduled within USA airspace. They were on normal flight paths until (and even after) being hijacked.


This is just a small sample of the anomalies I've managed to identify with respect to the events of September 11, 2001. Virtually every aspect of the official story seems to have glaring problems associated with it, with the result that it is virtually impossible to believe that any of it is actually true.

Well it happened. The actual facts are barely believable. Who would have predicted 4 planes being hijacked and used in a kamikaze way (except Tom Clancy).


So...have I become a victim of crank-ology? Or is there something anomalous going on here?  

I think you may have been subject to crank posts.

Date: 2006/01/26 11:51:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Well the central them of the programme was supposed to be the Dover trial.

They made it sound like the trial was a 2 day presentation by Ken Miller.

There was so much interesting stuff that was ignored it irritated me.

Why all those time wasting stupid mood shots? Rolling dice and theme park riding etc.

They did mange to put ID in a bad light. But to me it came across like accusing Sweeney Todd of profesional negligence.

A link for colonials who have never heard of Sweeney.

BTW Atenborough and Miller did look and sound good. Dawkins was a tad hit and miss IMO.

Date: 2006/01/26 11:55:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
When the towers collapsed how much energy do you think was released?
IIRC they even managed to cause local earth tremmors. Just collapsing caused structural damage to nearby buildings through shockwaves in the ground.

Date: 2006/01/26 12:07:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just on the phones (the only one I have any experience of). Yes calls were established. The stewardess' had to stop people mid-conversation.

BTW. A mobile phone on an aircraft is supposed to be switched off.

Even on standby a mobile is transmitting regularly.

It monitors signal quality and updates the network on its location.

Date: 2006/01/26 22:40:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Good grief,
Followed the link, sheeesh.
Does anyone else think that Dave Scot might have some sort of mental ilness?

He behaves like a two year old but with a larger vocabulary.

Date: 2006/01/26 23:10:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott


Posts: 158
Joined: Oct. 2005
 Posted: Jan. 26 2006,17:37    

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 26 2006,17:17)
Please lay out your questions and I will try to adress them.

The link is not very clear in making your point.

What do you think the actual reallity might be?

Okay. Question 1: the three WTC collapses were, and remain, the largest structural failures in world history. Why was Ground Zero not treated like the crime scenes they clearly were. Even if one assumes that the 19 hijackers (at least four of which, strangely enough, seem still to be alive) are actually responsible, and the collisions did cause these catastrophic collapses, where is the investigation into the modality of the failures? A single jet crash analysis can take months, during which the debris is preserved and carefully studied. The debris from the WTC collapses was removed starting only days after the disaster. Why is this?

IIRC. The site was a rescue mission for quite some time. Would there be any point trying to do a forensic investigation after hundreds of people had crawled all over it, dug out and removed large quantities of rubble?


Question no. 2: The fires in WTC 1 and 2 were nowhere near the worst in history. Other high-rise fires were orders of magnitude more severe. WTC 7's fires were if anything even less severe, and WTC was never hit by an aircraft. What caused its collapse? (In fact, no one really has any idea.)

The fires must have been pretty bad. People several stories above the blaze were so hot they jumped from the roof. Did the fire department actually get a hose to work up there?


Question no 3: normally it takes weeks of preparation to demolish a high-rise building so that it collapses into its own footprint. There are a handful of companies in the world with the knowledge and expertise to accomplish such a feat. Yet on one day, three different high-rise buildings collapsed in the same fashion, entirely by accident (WTC 7 is a particularly stunning example--watch the videos). Does this seem likely?

I am unable to view the vid link you gave.
The demolition idea is strange though. To use explosives to cause a straight drop needs people to drill into the fabric and place explosive charges. They have to be timed to detonate in sequence.
It is hard to imagine how this might be accomplished without anyone spotting it.


Question 4: WTC 1 and 2 were 110-story office buildings. The entire contents of the buildings, exclusive of structural steel, were converted to powder. No office chairs, no computers, no telephones, no copiers, or even debris therefrom. Is this possible in a collapse entirely driven by gravity?

I am not sure about this. Do not forget that debris was being removed from the site by the truckload while the rescue operation was underway.
If the site was so wierd why were the FDNY not saying so to reporters at the time?


I have many, many, many other questions, but these should be a good start. And remember, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

I hesitate to propose an hypothesis about what really happened (especially in light of the veiled hostility even bringing up the subject seems to engender), but is it possible that buildings could have been demolished using explosives? And remember, positing a controlled demolition does not necessarily implicate the government. No one is blaming the govnment for the 1993 attack.  

Having some idea of how much work goes into a contoled demolition, I am very sceptical.
I am hungry now but will try to look at the information you provided in more detail later.

Date: 2006/01/26 23:22:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ Jan. 26 2006,21:14)
As a lifelong victim of dictionary-think, I have terrible problems mastering even elementary misspellish. So tell me: is a programme the opposite of a programyou?

LOL. Programme is the way it is (program) spelled in England.

Remind me, what is the language called?

Date: 2006/01/27 06:43:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The links I followed, pro-conspiracy seemed to me to be all about "he said, she said" stuff.

The PM site apeared to be far more rigorous with evidence.

With regard to the buildings collapse. Those films got viewed around the world. If it was a controled explosion, do you not think an awful lot of engineers and demolition experts would have noticed?

Seriously though. If you have any evidence then provide it. Personally the only thing that I considered might have credibility was that possibly the 4th plane was shot down.

Then again, if it was (and I doubt it), I would have no problem with that.

Date: 2006/01/27 06:52:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
LOL. What thread was that on?
JAD is great.

Date: 2006/01/27 21:12:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 27 2006,19:45)
You believe that they use unnecessarly bad design.  You, therefore, are a superior designer.
Most unnecessary complexity in design is the result of ignorance.

This might just be an urban legend. However I have heard that software programmers get (got?) paid for the length of their programs. So less eficient programming paid better.

Like I say it could just be a rumour, but it would explain a lot of microsoft products.

Date: 2006/01/27 21:40:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
After reading all the whining about Judge Jones saying ID is not science it got me wondering.

The Judge ruled that ID is not science, thus preventing it being taught as science.

However, if somebody actually wanted to research ID, this would not prevent them, would it?

What I am trying to ask is:
Could the ruling actually stop someone from doing genuine research (as in the way all other controversial theories were studied) on ID? IMO the ruling does not prevent this.

If I am correct, then it makes the complaining from the ID mob redundant. They are kinda saying:
"ID is as scientific as any other theory except, it should not have to do any scientific testing." ???

Date: 2006/01/28 09:53:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
JAD is great. I want him back.

How do you like those fried green tomatoes?

Date: 2006/01/29 05:35:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
EDITED: I decided a different form of communication was more apropriate.

Date: 2006/01/29 05:48:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 29 2006,10:43)
Don't blow Otto's cover, Caledonian, Stephen Elliot will be disappointed to have missed him.

Does Dr. Johnson like apples?

Date: 2006/01/29 09:04:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 29 2006,14:23)
No worries Stephen, that is public information.

PS did you get to the Adnams pub?

Fair enough. But ####, I forgot to go to the pub.
Started shift cycle over again today. Maybe I will go on my next days off. *kicks self* Must improve my memory.

Date: 2006/01/30 19:40:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 30 2006,12:35)
BTW, I heard a rumor that on the 7th day the intelligent designer not only rested, but he watched the Super Bowl.  Any truth to that theory? ...

I doubt it.

You do know that God is English?

Chances are, he was watching the F.A. cup.

Date: 2006/01/30 22:20:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Renier @ Jan. 31 2006,03:46)
So, all you have to do to get banned over there is disagree with common descent... oh wait, that's the usual ID standpoint. What a bunch of confused clowns.

LOL. Well, at least they are good for something. They've certainly provided a bit of amusement.

I imagine Dave Scot as the big angry clown, chasing after and trying to rein-in the smaller more affable ones.  All the while tripping over their own clumsy feet amidst much water and custard flinging. :D

Date: 2006/01/30 23:54:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Has anybody read this from JAD?

I have just printed it out and will read it later.
At first glance I reckon it will be too technical for me to properly understand.

Date: 2006/01/31 05:44:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 31 2006,10:57)
I have just printed it out and will read it later

It’s an interesting read, although if you’re looking to try and refute it I wouldn’t bother. I asked him a series of questions on his post on UD, and just got this in reply:
I don’t know how many times I have to say this but chance never had anything to do with either evolution or development. Got that? Write that down.

Oh, I wouldn't atempt to refute it. My knowledge of biology/evolution is not sufficient.

As for trying to argue with JAD, that is another waste of time. JAD tends to either ignore arguments or go on a rant. However, he does sometimes answer questions.

It's a shame really. JAD does have a lot of knowledge. It is a pity that he does not respond better to critical questioning.

Date: 2006/01/31 07:43:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 31 2006,13<!--emo&:0)
For example, do you think we can learn anything from this rant on UD?

LOL. Not at all.

JAD does have a good knowledge of biology though.

The reason I say this, I remember a while ago on PT. There was an article about dinosaur eggs. It asked a question. JAD gave an answer. It was imediately dissmised by the first few commenters (JAD is a crank after all). Turned out, JAD was right.

Don't forget JAD does have a PhD in biology. As cranky as he is, he does have some knowledge of the subject.

Don't missunderstand me. I am not saying JAD is always correct. Just saying that he is not an ignorant fool, no mater how hard he tries to give that impression.

Date: 2006/01/31 08:49:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2006,14:16)
Dave Springer (DaveScot) apparently doesn't know how the word random is used:

TBH. I don't think that I do either.
Do you have an easy to understand explanation?

I know the coloquial meaning of random, but I suspect that is as relevant as the coloquial meaning of theory.

Date: 2006/01/31 08:53:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 31 2006,14:31)
Come to think of it, my bedroom has been messy for decades and yet I have never seen any half man half ape life forms walk out of there.  Maybe these IDC folks are on to something?


LMFAO. That realy did make me chuckle. :D

Date: 2006/02/01 00:25:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 01 2006,02:12)
[quote=tacitus,Jan. 31 2006,23:55]Heh - Bill Dembski just stepped in and slapped DaveScot back down. Methinks Billy boy didn't like the way things were going.

And, curiously, DaveScot's thread has disappeared, and he hasn't been heard of since.
I guess we'll work out in a few days whether this is jsut because DaveScot is taking a cold shower.

He is back, and posting on the thread that is linked.
Not sure if he still has a moderators role though.

Date: 2006/02/01 05:30:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (djmullen @ Feb. 01 2006,08:52)
This just gets better and better!

Latest post on Uncommon Descent:

Protected: After The Bar Closes
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 6:48 am

You can't make up stuff like this!

That one has now gone. Incredible. I don't think I would be able to believe these antics if I hadn't seen it for myself.

Date: 2006/02/01 06:11:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I seriously doubt that GOP and JAD are the same person.

GOP answers too many questions without going into a rant.

JAD has more biology knowledge.

If it is the same person, he is a very good actor.

Date: 2006/02/01 13:03:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Dean Morrison @ Feb. 01 2006,18:28)
We've just stated a forum specifiaclly to discuss ID in the UK, and in particular on keeping it out of schools.

Not much there at the moment - but it's part of the 'Just Science' site which has lot's of background on the UK situation,


I just registered.

Date: 2006/02/02 13:03:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 02 2006,18:40)
[quote=JMax,Feb. 02 2006,16:39]Dr. Kent Hovind, who is considered one of the foremost authorities on science and the Bible

I hear he can also levitate, cure diseases with the touch of his hand, helped the US design the atomic bomb, and single-handedly wrestled John Wilkes Booth to the ground when the police had him cornered. Also, he can transcend space and time, and some claim he created Jupiter's moons.

Oh yes, and he once killed an allosaurus with his bare hands.

WOW! Sounds like he's quite a guy.

Date: 2006/02/02 15:03:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Julie Stahlhut @ Feb. 02 2006,20:59)
WOW! Sounds like he's quite a guy.

Smoke him a kipper -- he'll be back for breakfast.   :p

Could he be an "Inteligent Designer"?
Completely not supernatural, but with a skill-set similar to God? :D

Date: 2006/02/02 15:13:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

February 2, 2006
(off topic) Comment Policy
I created some new Pages with links in the right column of the blog. Under Comment Policy are Moderation which is the moderation policy statements made by Bill Dembski and continued by his appointed Blog Czar and Put a Sock In It which is a partial list of boring arguments that earn deletion and if repeated an invitation to leave Uncommon Descent. Please be aware of them.

Filed under: Off Topic, Adminstrative — DaveScot @ 7:08 pm

Any chance that could be translated as....awkward arguments?

Date: 2006/02/03 22:59:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 04 2006,01:26)
one of the uncommon dissent authors let teh atbc password out...darwinsucks


Does he? A dead guy sucking, we have a miracle.

Date: 2006/02/03 23:04:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
LOL. So a journalism graduate in his early 20's is lecturing NASA on science.

That is so funny.

Date: 2006/02/04 09:56:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The problem with Islamic countries is they are nearly all theocracies. The idiots see a newspaper cartoon as depicting government thinking. The rubes have no sense of freedom for the press.

But why should they? It must be hard to understand something you have never experienced. ???

Date: 2006/02/04 10:02:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Evolution challanges a literal interpretation of the bible
It does not pose a threat to theism.

Date: 2006/02/04 10:46:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 04 2006,16:34)
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.

It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble,...
Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:

That link is funny.

Date: 2006/02/05 02:13:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 05 2006,02:21)
For those who haven't seen it, Kent Hovind's appearance on "Da Ali G Show":

Best moment:  A lingering shot of Hovind's stunned face as Ali G accuses him of failing to flush the backstage toilet.

LOL. That was funny.
I liked the banana question.

Date: 2006/02/05 09:25:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2006,12:01)
[quote=Stephen Elliott,Feb. 04 2006,15:56]The problem with Islamic countries is they are nearly all theocracies.

Not really. Most of them are actually secular dictatorships or quasi-dictatorships (Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, pre-war Iraq). There are only a couple outright theocracies, if you define theocracy as a country where the entire government mandates religion (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran). But as has been pointed out, they're secular with massive religious overtones, more than any modern Western country experiences, where mostly the government uses religion as an outlet to keep the public from rebelling about anything important. But I agree, a lot of this might be an inability to grasp the fact that the governments of the European countries can't be behind this, that this is just private citizens doing things that offend them. Except of course, they found some American Muslims who are pissed off too, and presumably Americans would be able to see this concept. So a lot of it just seems to be herd mentality coupled with an intolerance of anyone badmouthing your religion that would have been normal in the West say, 500 years ago.[/quote]
Fair points you are correct of course.

I was too bland in my post.

Instead of using theocracy, I should have stated that nearly all of them allow religion to play a large part in the law.

I don't think even Saudi Arabia is technically a theocracy. Rather a dictatorship/monarchy that gives a lot of power to the religious movement.

Pakistan is hard to call as it seems to have at least two forms of government. A military one for the majority of the country, but in the north at least, government seems to be by tribal councils.

Afghanistan has a central secular government based in Kabul. Should you travel any distance away from there, local warlords tend to rule unchecked.

Bahrain is fairly liberal but still has seperate rules for men and women. Not as many as most Arab countries but still present.

Strangely enough Iraq under Saddam was probably one of the most lenient Islamic countries as far as womens rights are concerned. Of course it did have pretty harsh consequences for dissenters.

Dubai is pretty liberal if you are a tourist in a hotel. I think things are somewhat different for a local person though.

Well, that covers all the Islamic countries I have stayed in.

Date: 2006/02/05 09:40:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,14:14)
It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

Only the 6-day people believe in no kind of evolution at all.

Therefore, whether we believe that this entire shebang was frontloaded at the big bang, whether we believe every particle was predetermined at the start, whether we believe that there was relative freedom in how things turn out, whether the front-loader inserted one or several common ancestors, whether we think evolution is ongoing or has in fact finished -- all these are subarguments.

So if Puck is right that evolution is agnostic, or that evolution takes no position upon the genesis of first life or the universe for that matter, then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.

Evolution (in the normal biological sense) says nothing about the Universe.

It simply says, that all species on the planet have a common ancester (or words to that effect).

Dogs do not give birth to cats, chimps do not give birth to humans.

A species gives birth to it's own species, but some "children" are slightly different to their "parents".

Some of these differences are selected for. Become bigger differences over time etc.

Geographical seperation of creatures of the same species can accelerate differentiation between offspring of the divided species.

Date: 2006/02/05 09:45:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just watched some news coverage of a demonstration in London.

Some people carried placards demanding the cartoonists be beheaded. They should have been arrested IMO.

Date: 2006/02/06 00:25:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 05 2006,17:43)
Just watched some news coverage of a demonstration in London.
Some people carried placards demanding the cartoonists be beheaded. They should have been arrested IMO.

Mr. Elliot, you have a good head on your shoulders, but your naivete does you in sometimes. The speech codes are not for immigrants, silly, they're for people like you. Heck, you're more likely to get in trouble for bitching about your guests's behavior than they are for the acts themselves. And as immigration policies continue, expect to wave bye-bye to many more liberties. The newcomers are so easily offended, you see, and it's important that we entirely reshape our culture so that they'll feel more at home (so they can then seek a new host). If recent atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials have taught us anything, it's that we have no moral compass and must allow the Religion of Peace to take us where it will. In other words, shut up and hand over your gun - in Neocon land everyone is equal - some perhaps a tad more than others ......and freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

It does not apear to be recent imigrants that are saying these things. Rather the majority of the protestors seem to be 2nd or 3rd generation.

I would accept that extremists make up only a small % of Muslims in the UK. But that % seems to be getting louder. Where I work in Slough, posters appeared all over town on the anniversary of the 9-11 atacks that praised the suicide bombers. That was not a pleasant sight.

The banners and placards carried by protesters in London the other day should not be acceptable. It remains to be seen if the authorities will take any action. Whatever happens, it is worrying to think that 1000's of people were roaming the streets chanting death threats.

Date: 2006/02/06 01:58:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Renier @ Feb. 06 2006,07:13)
I am fairly anti-religion. This just once again reminds me why :-)

Curious. How do the Brits feel about all the immigrants? A friend of mine in Holland says that the people there are fedup. It's very confusing. Once bunch wants to do all they can to help them (fight poverty), the other bunch wants them out of there. Something about national resources being consumed by all the immigrants. They are also complaining that in places like Rotterdam, where there are lots of emmigrants, the crime rates are very high, so the dutch are moving out of cities like Rotterdam.

Over here is SA, we get LOADS of immigrants from Zimbabwe, Mosambique etc. Local people are complaining about it, since our own unemployment rate is high (VERY HIGH), they now have to contend with outsiders for jobs. On the other hand, Zim is down the drain, so what must the people do?

Just thinking out loud.... :(

I can only speak for myself.

I do not mind immigrants at all. But I do object if people are comming to Britain and have no respect for our laws or society.

We probably need people to come and work. But I feel the UK should have more control on who gets in.

I was on a course a while back with a guy from Africa. He had worked in the UK for about 10 years and was worried he would not get to stay. While other people seem to have no problem, even though they do not contribute anything. That is crazy.

We have had a case in the UK with a Muslim cleric preaching on the streets advocating intolerance, hatred and violence. His mosque banned him from preaching inside for being too radical. IIRC he is now in prison, being defended by lawyers paid for by tax money. Previously he was claiming state benefits. So we have been paying for this lunatic to move to the UK and preach hatred.

Date: 2006/02/06 09:54:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
LOL. They post, then think, then delete. But never seem to learn from mistakes.

You would think that people who are concerned with societies moral decay would be more honest. Or maybe they are lying about that as well.

Date: 2006/02/06 11:36:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (tiredofthesos @ Feb. 06 2006,05:25)
Hey, GoP!  Been expecting you here, since any bigot is always sure gets their cowardly kicks in, if they have a decent alias to post under. Or police protection and a hood.

 Oh, and you ARE a bigot, and a racist, no matter how you attempt to squirt out the ink to cover you trail.

If you post stuff like this, also post any evidence.

I quite like some discussions with GOP. He is no idiot and has some good points (IMO).

I may not agree with everything GOP says, but attacks without relevance are a bit off-putting.

Date: 2006/02/06 11:40:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2006,16:35)
Behe is joining the "Judge Jones is a naughty word" campaign.  Read his nonsense
Here (pdf file)

I am astonished Behe is defending his testimony.  The DI must have made him do it.  I think most everyone outside of the ID cult is fully aware that Dr Behe is a garden variety quack.

Good grief,
Silly old me thought that a scientific argument required evidence.

Date: 2006/02/07 08:26:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Sheikh Mahandi @ Feb. 07 2006,13:56)
Not related to the current outbreaks of violence, however - Abu Hamza jailed for seven years

Mr Justice Hughes -
I do not make the mistake that you represent Islamic thinking generally.
You are entitled to your views and in this country you are entitled to express them, but only up to the point where you incite murder or use language calculated to incite racial hatred. That is what you did.

Abu Hamza = Pat Robertson  - Yes that equation works.

That's the bugger.
The man should have been thrown out ages ago.
That tosser is not a UK citizen by any stretch of the imagination.
I find it incredible he emigrated here, lived off benefits and the whole time preached hatred against the UK and other countries.

I find it hard to believe he was permitted to do what he did. It is not as though there was a shortage of evidence. I wonder how much tax money his trial cost.

Date: 2006/02/07 08:34:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Somewhat related. The Milky Way could be bigger than Andromeda.

A slightly better argument than we get from the DI.

Date: 2006/02/07 09:24:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Fair points Sheikh.

But it was blatantly obvious for some time that this guy condoned terrorism. IIRC he was not born here and had nothing but contempt for this country. Why was he entitled to our tax money?

I agree that Pat Robertson is another dangerous bigotted character.

Date: 2006/02/07 10:18:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 92
Joined: Jan. 2006
 Posted: Feb. 06 2006,18:33    

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 06 2006,17:36)
Quote (tiredofthesos @ Feb. 06 2006,05:25)
Hey, GoP!  Been expecting you here, since any bigot is always sure gets their cowardly kicks in, if they have a decent alias to post under. Or police protection and a hood.

Oh, and you ARE a bigot, and a racist, no matter how you attempt to squirt out the ink to cover you trail.

If you post stuff like this, also post any evidence.


I don't know what tiredofthesos is alluding to, but there are, shall we say, disquieting indications that 'racist' might well be a fair description of GoP. The main occasion I know of where he didn't hide this real well was here:  

(see message 62581, about halfway down)


TBH. That post does look pretty damning. But from what I have read of GoP's posts, I think the racist slur is a little pre-emptive.

When you read that quote as a response to the posts against him then it doesn't look as bad.

I am giving alowance for this being a difficult media to discuss these issues. It is hard to know how a poster truely feels without access to body language and emphasis.

Date: 2006/02/07 10:52:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Does nobody find it odd, that massless and timeless particles can give rise to life on Earth; Yet a massless and timeless entity couldn't?

I am not claiming my statement as scientific BTW. But the world-views do look a bit similar.

Date: 2006/02/07 11:26:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 07 2006,17:11)
I'm guessing that you are talking about photons here.  It's really only a problem conceptually, because as a human we have problems concieving of massless and timeless things.  Our bias doesn't affect the reality of those particles though.

Yes I was.

Photons=zero mass and are not subject to time. Yet they are the reason why Earth and Evolution are not subject to SLOT.

Do you not see any similarity in the claims here?

One side says a massless timeless entity caused life. The other side says massless and timeless particles did it.

Date: 2006/02/07 11:38:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 07 2006,17:23)
Stephen Elliot wrote:
TBH. That post does look pretty damning. But from what I have read of GoP's posts, I think the racist slur is a little pre-emptive.
When you read that quote as a response to the posts against him then it doesn't look as bad.
I am giving alowance for this being a difficult media to discuss these issues. It is hard to know how a poster truely feels without access to body language and emphasis.

Keep in mind that there's a history behind my citation of that paper. Cogzoid and I were arguing in another thread about whether or not religion is correlated with crime, and if so, how. I made the point that if you want to tease out the effects of religion, it is wise to make the cross-national samples as homogeneous as possible, thereby avoiding confounding factors. Cogzoid disagreed, and asked for evidence that cultural differences across groups contribute to crime apart from socioeconomic status, discrimination, etc. I responded with The Study That Dare Not Speak Its Name. If you read the original post, you'll see that I clearly expressed skepticism about the study. As time grew and I continued to field objections, I began to realise that the work might have merit. Why people think they've refuted evidence by bitching about its source is beyond me. If anyone can explain this bizarre point of view, I'd like to hear from him/her....

TBH. I read it. I do not think that you are a racist. I might be wrong.

Personaly, I think the people who advocate preferencial treatment for racial groups are racists.

How else can you interpret that?

Whatever hapened to Martin Luther King's dream, of being judged on nothing but your character?

That, I do agree with.

Date: 2006/02/07 11:44:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 07 2006,17:29)
Actually, C.J., photons are quite timeless.  As they are traveling at the speed of light they experience infinite time dilation.  So, for them, their creation, reflections, refractions, and eventual absorption happen instantaneously.

Stephen, the difference is that photons can be measured.  And the theory of their existence makes testable predictions.  Don't equivocate just because there are a couple of similarities between God and photons.  It really is a supid argument.

Yes it does.

Not quite my point though.
I agree scientifically you are far more right.
I was just comparing what some people call magic, with how similar some natural properties appear to that.

Again. My point was not scientific. Just pointing out world-views.

Date: 2006/02/07 11:49:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ Feb. 07 2006,17:46)
One side says a massless timeless entity caused life. The other side says massless and timeless particles did it.
And one side uses evidence, while the other uses wishful thinking. Like the relationship between a pre-frontal lobotomy, and a free bottle in front of me. Uncanny, just uncanny.

LOL. Agreed

Date: 2006/02/07 21:52:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Of course I don't think the majority of Muslims are extremists. But it is obvious that some are. It was also aparent that Muslim extremists have been alowed to voice opinion that would land anyone else in prison. This does nobody (of a reasonable disposition) any favours.

What has been encouraging in the last few days, is that reasonable Muslims seem to be getting more assertive in condemning their extremists.

I consider treating people differently according to race or religion wrong-headed. It does harm in the long run.

Treating people differently according to an individuals character or ability is fine.


C.J.O'Brien Posted on Feb. 07 2006,18:47
Stephen, reading your last post, I take it you believe MLK, Jr was a racist?

He was a strong advocate of Affirmative Action, what I believe you would call Positive Discrimination.

My stance on the issue is that it is one on which reasonable people can disagree. (I favor it, but there are good arguments against it.) One of those is not, however, that it is racist.

This is what I cannot understand. How can discriminating on grounds of a persons race be anything but racist?

I can see why someone would think that there is good reason for AA/PD. My belief is that it is wrong though. The long term effects can only be damaging.

I have no idea on MLK Jr. being a racist or not (I doubt that he was). But if he was promoting AA then he was promoting a racist policy. I far prefer what MLK Jr. himself said in his "I have a dream" speach,

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, a state sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

now that, I whole-heartedly agree with.

Date: 2006/02/07 21:57:23, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 07 2006,18:38)
TBH? "That's Been Handled"? "Thor's been here"? British slang? Don't follow....

TBH is net geek speak for To Be Honest.
Therefore any post that does not have TBH in, is a lie. jk :D

Date: 2006/02/08 01:03:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just read this.

I thought some people here would be interested.,,25689-2028502,00.html,,25689-2029686,00.html

Date: 2006/02/08 06:35:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott


Posts: 15
Joined: Feb. 2006
 Posted: Feb. 08 2006,12:07    

About the massless particle - can someone explain what it means to be massless - in what way can it have properties and it what way does it exist, is it material, does massless perhaps mean it is unaffected by gravity?

Massless particles are things such as electrons and photons.
An electron has a property. It is it's electric charge.
Massless particles can have other properties such as spin.

They are affected by gravity. Otherwise blackholes would not exist. Also the theory of relativity would be wrong and have failed the test where a stars position seems to alter if it's light passes close to the Sun on a total eclipse (that is not quite right, but I am having trouble thinking of a clearer explanation).

Particles that travel at the speed of light are considered massless. They are also unafected by time.

If you was traveling through space at the speed of light, you would not be travelling through time. You would also have infinite mass and require an infinite amount of energy to get to that velocity.

BTW. A photon is a particle of light (being massless also makes it a light particle :D  ).

Date: 2006/02/08 06:40:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Yes, that bill is a good idea.
What was it again? IIRC. "Only testable ideas are allowed to be taught in science class". Hoorah!

Date: 2006/02/08 08:20:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 08 2006,13:26)
Stephen Elliot,

Electrons are not massless at all.  They weigh 9 x 10^-31 kg.

Every particle, though, has a mass.  But some do not have a "rest mass".  Let me explain.  Photons have energy (planck's constant times the frequency), and E=mc^2, and because of that all forms of energy react with gravity.  Most particles that we know of (protons, electrons, neutrons) have a mass even when they are not moving, we call this a "rest mass" for obvious reasons.  Because E and m are related by a simple formula, physicists typically stick to the energy units.  Most physicists will say that the mass of an electron is .5 MeV (a unit of energy).    

You're right that only massless particles travel at the speed of light.  In fact, they are required to.  The only ones I can think of right now are photons (light waves) and gravitons (gravity waves). But, I'm sure I'm not thinking of all of them.


WOW! That's me told.

Seriously though, are you saying Electrons do not travel at light speed?I thought they did, and that implicated zero mass.

I do not mind being wrong (which is just as well). But could you give a link or two?         Please.

Date: 2006/02/08 09:30:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Is that mass not dangerously close to a plank measurement; Therefore fairly meaningless?

I am not sure. But from electronics education, we are taught that electron speed is=light speed.

There are things such as atmosphere and medium that efectively slow them. But that is also true of photons.

I am working from memory here, so could very well be wrong. But I thought elementary particles always traveled at light speed (depening on media). Electrons are elementery particles but Neutrons and Protons both comprised 3 elementary particles (up and down quarks).

If you could post some links it would be helpful. If you can, I promise to read them tomorrow.

Date: 2006/02/09 12:18:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I think Evolution is probably mostly correct and it is incompatible with certain religious texts.

As far as I am concerned, if a religious claim is made and it is incompatible with scientific evidence, then the claim from science has priority.

Personaly, I believe in God. But I do not think religious writings have superiority over evidence.

I am concerned about ID/Creationist methods. Religion is not science. If you need to teach both then teach them as seperate subjects, in a school not paid for by tax money.

Date: 2006/02/09 23:37:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 09 2006,20:51)
glaikit numpty


ok, i gotta call this one in.

alleviate my ignorance, please.

Welcome back STJ.

Ref:Glaikit numpty.
Both glaikit and numpty are words used to describe an idiot.
Numpty is in widespread use in the UK.
Glaikit is usually only heard in Scotland.

Date: 2006/02/10 06:12:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Hi Artist,
I was in a similar position to you a while back. Also siding with ID.

Be carefull there. Some ID suporters and all the main ones, are dishonest.

Have you heard of the "wedge document"?

ID seems set on trying to destroy science. You seriously need to look into the past behaviour of these people before you ally with them.

Some folks on this side are grumpy and scathing. However they have been under atack for over 20 years by people using lies and smears, so it is entirly understandable.

One thing you will notice over here, hardly anyone gets banned. Unless that is, they go really out of their way to do so.

PS. Disagreement is also alowed over here.

Date: 2006/02/10 10:03:09, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 10 2006,15:34)
Faith is one of those support mechanisms and if you take it away...
Let's just be clear on one thing. Science (and scientists, and that generally covers what the IDists like to call "Darwinists") are not plotting to take away faith. There is no "atheist agenda" behind either the success of evolutionary theory, or the opposition of mainstream science to the anti-science of ID. The scurrilous accusations of many IDers to the contrary (DaveScot, JAD, just about every pronouncement from the Disco Inst) does not speak well of the character of the movement.

At the same time, science should not and cannot be concerned about whether objective reality conflicts with this, that or the other religious perspective. If your god is sufficiently abstract, I guess there's not a problem. But if your god is an entity that created the universe 6000 years ago, and created the first humans with no biological ancestors, etc. then I'm sorry; that just does not appear to be consistent with science. I know the more sophisticated of the IDers make more subtle claims than that, but so far as I can see, there's no substance to their claims.

Brian Greene claims something a bit different.

He says that statistically, it is far more probable that the Universe has only just "popped" into existence than it is 16 Billion years old.

Don't get me wrong, he does not go on to claim this is the case.

He does go along with an ancient Universe, otherwise science would be pointless.

Date: 2006/02/10 10:12:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Why not just seperate your religion from science?

Science should always try to find out how "the world works". The reason we are here is probably better discussed in theology or philosophy.

I assume you can do this in other areas. I doubt you mingle literature and geography, or expect one to live by the standards of the other.

Why not do the same with science and religion?

Date: 2006/02/10 10:57:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ Feb. 10 2006,16:20)
Brian Greene claims something a bit different.

He says that statistically, it is far more probable that the Universe has only just "popped" into existence than it is 16 Billion years old.
Huh? how can you apply statistics to a single event? Do you have a reference? Greene seems to be mischievously inscrutable here.  

(Also - I doubt if Greene thinks humans were created with no biological ancestors!;)

I was going from Brian Greene's popular book "the Fabric of the Cosmos".

He is explaining the Universe from the POV of SLOT. By maths, he says that the Universe is extremely unlikely in it's present form.

Mathematicaly, it is more likely to have just right now, have been created.

He does not press this claim BTW. He goes on to say that if the Universe is as old as science thinks. Then it started out at an incredibly low state of entropy; This is what gives time a direction.

It is all in his popular book, The Fabric of the Cosmos. Definately worth a read.
No, Greene does not propose, "no common ancestors".

However, he does claim "no common ancestors" is statisticaly more likely. His disclaimer though is; If the Universe realy had just popped into existence, all our perceived science would be false, so it is better to assume an old Universe and memories to be true.

Date: 2006/02/10 11:10:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,16:51)
Okay, I went back to look at the wedge document, and I misunderstood the first time. Apparently it is theirs. Nonetheless, I don't know what about it you find objectionable. I've read through about half your link.

The Wedge doccument is objectionable because they have admitted that the whole movement is based on religion.

They are not doing science, they are lying for religious/political reasons. Then trying to disguise it as science.

Do you know what science is yet Avo? If so, how would it be aplicable to God? You would be removing God's free will.

Date: 2006/02/10 11:18:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 10 2006,17:12)
I believe that is a fallacious assumption. Name me one medical advance that would be invalidated, name me one medical discovery that depended upon the arrival of species having come about through gradualism rather than some other mechanism.

First off...gradualism is not part of the current theory of Evolution

Second....I dont know if you are aware....but the mechanism behind all drugs must be rigorously demonstrated.  The FDA will not approve a drug if you cannot explain how it works.  If evolutionary theory was invalidated...then you could kiss your flu vaccine goodbye.  I will allow someone with a slightly better understanding of modern medicine explain the finer points...

some other mechanism....first you have to suggest another mechanism.  Newtonian physics had flaws...but we didnt replace it until a better system existed....

In most practical examples it still hasn't been replaced.

I do believe rocket scientists still use Newtonian physics. Not because it is more correct, but because it is good enough.

Einstein gravity being too complex for negligible extra reliability.

I guess things would change if humans could build rockets that aproached the speed of light.

Date: 2006/02/10 11:37:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,17:27)
What do you mean gradualism is not part of current theory. I just used that word - does it means something I'm not aware of? By gradualism, I mean current Darwinian theory of descent by small, slight modifications.

Yes, let someone explain why evolution theory matters in explaining how a drug works on living tissue.

Do you realize that the first vaccines were invented before evolution theory? Please tell me if all scientists agreed right now that the 6-day creation story is correct, why they could not create a flu vaccine?

What do you think would hapen to science, if the explanation was "that is the way it was designed" was acceptable?

Date: 2006/02/10 23:38:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Sanctum @ Feb. 11 2006,00:35)
Ok, so blockquotes don't work here.
Sorry all.

The brackets are different here, [ instead of <.
Or use the quote button just above where you type the message.

Date: 2006/02/11 05:41:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
This is likely to make teaching science pretty unpopular in a few years.
The antics of ID/Creationists are truly jaw-dropping. :(

Date: 2006/02/11 09:00:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
PuckSR said.
Let's make Science, History, and English Literature Classes optional.  The kids dont have to take these classes...if their parents do not want them to take these classes...but they get a different diploma....

As sad as it sounds, that might be the only sensible option for some schools if every single lesson was disrupted.
It is better to get some of the kids educated than none.

Date: 2006/02/12 13:17:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 12 2006,17:11)
now dave's putting up limited-lifetime comments:



Is there a particular reason my comments no longer appear here, but remain awaiting moderation seemingly indefinitely?

Of course there is a reason. Any comment I don’t consider constructive, if I see it, gets flushed. This is triply true for articles I write. For some reason that I’m sure I no longer recall you have a red flag by your name so that I see all your comments. I don’t keep a diary of this stuff. If there’s a long enough period of time where I don’t flush any of your comments I remove the red flag to save myself the trouble. Read this quickly because it’s off topic and won’t stick around long. -ds

Comment by Xavier — February 12, 2006 @ 11:52 am

LOL. And which is the side that whinges about free speach? The whole thing beggars belief.

I live in the UK, when I tell people about what is going on here, my main problem is getting them to believe it.

Even when some folks view, they think it is a parody. I am having problems convincing folks in  England that this is not just a Monty Python/Benny Hill style mockery.

A few people know. But for most Brits, they think it is a joke. Hopefully parents will realise soon.

Date: 2006/02/12 22:14:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 12 2006,19:40)
stephen elliot you tell me benny hill is not reality tv like judge judy? you tell me brits don't really have bad teeth and skin...i not believe...anyhow you better not mock americans as you overdue for germany to beat you you say...whinging? america to stop the mean germans from killing you...maybe they not want to bail you out know like three strikes you out


LOL. Of course I have bad teeth and skin. I am a man, I don't spend time and money trying to be pretty.

Any Americans I am mocking, is not because they are American, but because they are ignorant and want to stay that way.

I see your knowledge of WW2 is as patchy as any other area. Hey-ho, never mind. Next time try harder.

Your commenting style looks to me like a hybrid of DS and JAD. You poor soul.

Date: 2006/02/14 00:18:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 13 2006,05:55)
steppy "bad teeth" my wwii knowledge spotty? dad tailgunner in U.S. B-26 Marauder medium bomber flying out of england in 1944...he fly 25 missions over germany and get lucky he not in 33% of american bomber crew killed keeping the nazis out of your crappy little island...ever see real norton bombsight photos of bomb blowing crap out of germany?...i got stacks of hundreds pictures of american forces in wwii britain...formation flying over germany...bomb in filled with say america not save you?...i say eat turd and die ungrateful beeatch

Hehe. You are funny.

Date: 2006/02/14 00:26:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (improvius @ Feb. 13 2006,18:40)
This is why science can't get through to creationists. They are brainwashed at an early age - and for at least the duration of their childhood.

Now ask yourself how a child who has been exposed to that kind of crap throughout their whole life can be expected to accept the science of evolution. That would mean accepting that your parents, friends, religious leaders, all of those people you've loved and looked up to ever since you can remember have been lying to you. Try to imagine the psychological trauma you would have to put yourself through just to accept one simple scientific fact. Could you do it? Or, instead, when faced with "evidence", would you come up with rationalizations and conspiracy theories to protect yourself from the pain.

Face it. These kids are just screwed.  No amount of reasoning is likely to change that.

I disagree.

I think it is possible to educate almost anyone. It might take time and effort though.

Seems to me that "Artist in Training" has realised what a crock ID is. That is at least two people that these sites have educated (myself being number two).

I am sure there must be some "lurkers" who have also been shown that ID is a lie. We just don't know it for a fact, unless they post (hint to lurkers).

Date: 2006/02/14 00:34:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Sanctum @ Feb. 13 2006,15:40)
The Rock isn't deceased at all - he just makes terrible movies.

I nearly spat my wine out when I read that!

The power of soundbites is enormous.

Date: 2006/02/14 07:26:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I thought this was funny.

Is anyone from here still allowed to post?

Seems like a pretty empty invitation.

Date: 2006/02/14 07:53:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 13 2006,18:43)
So Bill—is it time to shut this thread down? Your posts are getting further and further apart, and your substantive posts are down to barely one a month.

My job (you know, the place I go to every morning after I stagger out of the nearest trash can) has been killing me lately. So I might need to shut things down for a while. Don't worry, I'm still working on it -  I just don't want to give a deadline I can't keep. I'll bump the thread up when I have new material....

LOL. Why not just admit that this is one assertion that you can't argue to completion?

Date: 2006/02/15 00:16:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (moderatordingleberry @ Feb. 15 2006,05:02)
ah so...only people with no control over self "gotta hate"...get ahold of self sir_FoulParasiticOoze...take charge of life...grab bull by horns...carpe diem!

Why are you typing as if English was not your first language? ???

Date: 2006/02/15 09:29:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The only book in that post I have read is Bill Bryson's. I liked it also.

Other science books (popular) I have enjoyed are, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos and The Elegant Universe

ATM I am reading Life in the Undergrowth by David Atenborough.

EDIT: Aaaaagh!  Just had to re-do all my italics. Originally I had used < > instead of [ ]. Bah!

Date: 2006/02/15 09:44:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

If the Biblical flood was only a local event; Why did Noah need an Arc? Could he not have just moved? Would not the animals have re-populated the area after the waters receded?

Date: 2006/02/15 10:15:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 15 2006,15:47)
Answer me truthfully, did you stop reading Hawking when he got to imaginary time? I consider myself reasonably intelligent but this is no layman's book. It was just too much work to keep reading and so I stopped.

I forgot to add
Botony of Desire Near the top of my all time favorite list.

Nope, I did not stop reading. In fact I read it several times. I still do not claim to understand it though. As far as I can see, Hawking was trying to use imaginary time to stop the Big Bang being a singularity. It works, but only if you do not re-convert imaginary time back to normal time.

EDIT: I could be completely wrong about that though.

Date: 2006/02/15 10:48:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 15 2006,16:33)

What are the implications of the Big Bang being a singularity? What really, is the definition of a singularity?

TBH. You would be better off with an answer from a Physicist.

Only a guess but I think Doc/Prof Hawking considers a Big Bang singularity an embarresment.

Date: 2006/02/15 20:56:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ Feb. 15 2006,22:05)
Bill, here's the problem: you come out with guns blazing, trashing not only evolutionary biology but basically all of physics (or at least, astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics). ...

What he said.

I was guessing GoP was just having fun, maybe setting himself a challenge.

Date: 2006/02/15 21:10:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I came from the other side.

Between 18 months and 2 years ago I read Lee Strobel's book The Case for a Creator. Initially I thought it was interesting and convincing. I ended up here by trying to "follow the evidence".

It was stunning to discover that all these "new scientific ideas", where actually pretty old and fairly well refuted.

I was shocked to find that people are willing to tell lies for God. It is still difficult for me to understand how anyone can believe in God yet continue to justify being dishonest (and in some instances, damned intolerant and hatefull).

Date: 2006/02/16 22:20:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I just love the title of this thread.

Kinda like "ignorant and proud!"

So apropriate to the idiot's actions since taking over at UD. Truly a "parade of ignorance", with the ticker tape shower thrown in.

Date: 2006/02/16 22:27:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I might give "City of God" a go in the future.

Yesterday I bought "Christ the Lord out of Egypt" by Anne Rice.
Only had a quick glance so far, but seems OK. Must finish ""A Confederacy of Dunces" first (hopefully today).

Date: 2006/02/16 23:16:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 17 2006,01:46)
I dont really care about time....the question...and a rather simple one at how long would it take for you to count to a the top of your head.

With a very simplified calculation. It wont be quite right but will give an idea. I came to an answer of 30 years non-stop counting. At 8 hours per day it would take 90 years.

In reality it would probably take far longer. I allowed one number per second. Sounds slow for low numbers, but as the majority of numbers are in excess of 1,348, 712 I am actually being generous.

So; 1000,000,000
/60=16,666,667 mins
/60=277.778 hours
/24=11,574 days
/365=31.7 years  So 31 years non-stop. @8Hrs/day = 93 years.

Sounds like fun, here goes; 1,2,3,4, ...

Date: 2006/02/17 07:15:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 17 2006,11:17)
How is Confederacy of Dunces? I have it on my shelf but haven't picked it up. Got it as a present.

It has got me a few strange glances, I was laughing on the train while reading it.

I bought it (A Confederacy of Dunces), because I noticed it in the bookshop the day after someone posted (on PT) that, Larry Fafarman was like Ignatious J. Reilly.

Date: 2006/02/19 05:36:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
JAD and DS have had another spat!


February 18, 2006
Nuclear Evolution Debate - No Takers Yet
No takers for the St. Charles side of a nuclear evolution debate. What a surprise!


Filed under: Intelligent Design — Administrator @ 3:57 pm

1 Comment »
Whoever Administrator is he high jacked DaveScot’s thread and then, without indicating why, summarily deleted a very significant post I had presented on this thread. I expect that post to be restored. If it is not by noon EST this forum will have heard the last from me here but not elsewhere.

No one hijacked any of my threads. I deleted your comment because it was lewd. You’ve been warned over and over that I won’t tolerate lewdness here yet you persist. That’s too bad. I’ve no choice at this point but to exclude you from further participation here. -ds

Comment by John Davison — February 19, 2006 @ 9:26 am

Date: 2006/02/22 05:00:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 22 2006,00:50)
SteveStory - Springer wrote that hemoglobin mishmash almost 10 years ago.  10 years is a long time to learn. People are even known to have gone from taking 10th grade biology at 16 years old to having a PhDs in evolutionary biology at 26 years old.  I know, that's not much of a leap but people do that even in real sciences like chemistry and physics.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the EDIT button.  I hadn't noticed it either.

So that's two mistakes of Springer's you found in ten years.  Good going.  Out of what is easily thousands of posts he's made you found only TWO mistakes?  God made more mistakes than that.

PicoFarad, I assume that you are Dave Scott. Wellcome to a board where you can't censor.

Date: 2006/02/22 05:41:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
How did you manage this?

I personally hounded him into admitting his error in spreading as fact an internet typo that had made a bacterial genome larger than a mammal's.

All I did, was point out how unethical he was and got banned.

Date: 2006/02/23 13:48:22, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 23 2006,16:26)
Believe it or not, on occasion Dungeons and Dragons comes up in dicsussions on PT.

for any old D&D fans out there, if you haven't seen this yet, i highly recommend checking out The Order of The Stick:


I used to love that game.

It is out as a mmorpg soon.

Date: 2006/02/23 14:34:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
....As I’ve been saying on blogs for over a year now, the only thing propping up the NeoDarwinian fairy tale today is judicial fiat and that last leg is about to be kicked out from under it. ID will be presented alongside RM+NS and the two will have to compete in the open on a level playing field for the hearts and minds of a new generation. All of us here I think are quite comfortable letting ID and RM+NS compete on a level playing field. That’s because we understand that ID is a strong idea able to compete and win. The NeoDarwinian dogmatists also understand that ID is a strong idea able to compete and win which is why they desperately oppose even mentioning its name to a student. I sometimes wonder if they realize how transparent they are.

Filed under: Education, Legal, Courts, Laws, Constitution — DaveScot @ 2:00 pm

What a tit.

Date: 2006/02/25 21:45:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 25 2006,14:52)
Dover is one small battle in one tiny corner of the country. <yawn> Wake me up when SCOTUS makes a ruling.


Conservative executive office - check
Conservative majority in house of representatives - check
Conservative majority in senate - check
Conservative majority in supreme court - replacement of one 86 year-old liberal justice and... checkaroony!

I can happily live with failures like that.  Can you?

That just about sums up exactly how scientific ID is.

You are boasting about politico/legal afiliations. If ID was science, you would be parading evidence....woops!

Date: 2006/02/26 00:34:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,06:26)
Fallan Ox

Maybe you and Richard Dawkins need to increase your language skills.

Main Entry:   formula
Part of Speech:   noun
Definition:   recipe
Synonyms:   blueprint, canon, code, credo, creed, custom, description, direction, equation, form, formulary, maxim, method, modus operandi, precept, prescription, principle, procedure, rite, ritual, rote, rubric, rule, specifications, theorem, way
Source:   Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

This is too easy.


Good grief. Do you seriously believe you are winning an argument?

Astounding!     :D

Date: 2006/02/28 07:40:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 26 2006,23:27)
This is from NewsBusters "Los Angeles Times Continues Slam of Intelligent Design"

It's pure Discovery Institute propaganda.  


That place has more cranks and wingnuts than Uncommon Dissent.


Date: 2006/02/28 10:08:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,07:34)
Fox and Stelliot

"DNA is commonly referred to in textbooks of molecular biology as the "blueprint" for an organism. I would rather call it a recipe or like a computer program.

The difference between a blueprint and a recipe is that a blueprint is reversable, and a recipe is not. If you have a house and you have lost the blueprint you can reconstruct the blueprint by taking measurements, but if you have got a well prepared dish in a great restaurant you may enjoy the dish and you may dissect it and look at it in every detail but you cannot reconstruct the recipe."

Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE me for using the terminology commonly found in microbiology texts instead of parroting Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.

This is too easy.


Do you seriously believe you are making any good points?

As for this
I’d call Elsberry a snake if it wasn’t for the fact that a snake has a spine.  

This is who we’re dealing with folks - people with no integrity who will happily conspire to destory the reputations and careers of scientists who dare do something as nefarious as let an ID sympathetic article appear in a peer reviewed journal. People who, when caught red-handed using these despicable tactics and confronted with it, call upon The Five D’s of Darwinian Dogmatists - Dodge, Duck, Dive, Dip, and Dodge.  

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 2:30 am

You disputing Wesley's integrity is mind-numbing.

Now what did Sternberg do? Oh, that's right...he published an ID friendly article in a peer-reviewed journal, without having it peer-reviewed. You keep right-on defending that.

As for your 5 Ds...who is it that edits a blog and blocks dissenting arguments? Do you know anyone who moderates a blog that regularly posts ridiculous claims only to delete them later?

Date: 2006/02/28 23:25:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
How very sad. At least nobody was killed.

This makes me angry and a little sick.


Mark appears to be your usual outspoken Darwinist - a nobody that’s done nothing notable in his field of expertise vainly trying to make a mark outside their field of expertise. Fits right in with poseurs Wesley Elsberry, Ed Darrel, Nick Matzke, Ed Brayton, Eugenie Scott, et al.

But hey, he got a special doctoral degree in the Soviet Union that’s greater than any doctoral degree you can get in the United States. With Russian physics PhD’s like Mark it’s no wonder the Soviet Union lost the cold war.

Comment by DaveScot — August 16, 2005 @ 9:06 am

But in reality.


Mark Perakh, science defender

By: BRADLEY J. FIKES - Staff Writer

ESCONDIDO ---- He taught physics at some of the world's most prestigious universities, wrote 300 scientific papers and performed research on superconductivity for IBM and Arco Solar. He survived a Soviet labor camp and emigrated to Israel when it wasn't easy. But 12 years after his retirement from teaching physics, Mark Perakh, 81, is enjoying his greatest fame.

According to his resume, Perakh studied technical engineering and physics at the Odessa Institute of Technology in Ukraine, Odessa Polytechnic University and Kazan Institute of Technology. He received a Diploma of Doctorate of Sciences, the Soviet Union's top scientific degree, in 1967.

Unhappy with Soviet totalitarianism, Perakh began questioning Marxism, especially its claims to be scientific. That questioning came at considerable cost: In 1958, he was sent to a Siberian prison camp for several years. After he got out, Perakh decided to emigrate. He and his family left for Israel in 1973.

From 1973 to 1978, Perakh taught as a professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, performing research in photodeposition of semiconductor films and electrodeposition. In 1978, he taught as a visiting professor at the Royal Society of England. In that year, Perakh switched to the private sector, taking a series of jobs at IBM, Arco Solar and Bourns Inc. of Riverside.

In 1985, Perakh began teaching at Cal State Fullerton. He also taught part time at San Diego State University, Cal Poly Pomona and UC Irvine. He retired in 1994.

That is the sort of non-achievement most people would be proud of.

Dave Scott, name a few people who support ID that have had a career aproaching Dr. Perakhs.

Date: 2006/03/01 05:59:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I can't help but think it is a strange thing to be celebrating.

It is a bit sad that in 2006, people are still trying to force religion onto science.

Date: 2006/03/01 09:37:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 01 2006,13:11)
Still, I prefer to hold discussions this side of the Looking Glass.

What? Why on Earth would you want to do that?
Do you not like having your comments blocked, edited, ranted-on or deleted?  :D

It is hard to believe the regulars at UD tolerate it.

Surely the UDers who come over here for a read can spot a huge difference in integrity. Although with comments like this

I find it disturbing that science questions are being waged through PR campaigns. I don’t understand why he needs to be so vehement in his public opposition to ID. ID is a new science and as such, it will gain its credibility with published scientific work. Why is that scary? Isn’t that how all the rest of science works?

Comment by Doug — March 1, 2006 @ 11:51 am

Maybe they don't notice.

Date: 2006/03/03 01:27:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
That is very misleading, Dave (Pico) Scot.

Both you and JAD were banned for good reasons. It had nothing to do with the strength of your arguments (and you know it).

Date: 2006/03/08 07:33:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Dean Morrison @ Mar. 08 2006,08:30)
Sorry W Kevin - up far too late - too many equations - Brian Hurts

He should have spoken up sooner and gotten cut down from the cross.

Oh well, always look on the bright side of life.

(You lucky lucky bastards).

Date: 2006/03/09 15:21:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (SirRamicCap @ Mar. 09 2006,15:46)
[quote=keiths,Mar. 07 2006,14:34]An individual photon has an energy, but not a temperature.  You can talk about the temperature of a *group* of photons, if they have a certain distribution of wavelengths, but all that means is that a black body at the specified temperature will give off photons having the same distribution.


How many photons does it take to make a group?  LOL

A color temperature is the average of a group of photons.  You got that part right.  It's pretty easy to get the average temperature from a group of one.

It sounds like as soon as you realize that one is the smallest "group" you'll either concede the point or need to do some backpedaling.


EDIT: People answered already. I made the mistake of not reading further.

Poor DS, It must be difficult for the fool to post on a board that he can't edit, to make himself look less foolish.

Date: 2006/03/10 10:59:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
What do you believe?
Can a virus evolve? Is the worry about bird flu evolving so as to make humans susceptible all non-sense? Or will the designer do it?

If germs and virus are designed by our designer, does it make medical doctors/researchers evil?

Date: 2006/03/10 11:06:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 10 2006,16:54)
This began with Davetard saying:

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

Dougmoron exhibited the same kind of behavior Davetard is exhibiting here--the inability to admit to a basic error. Everybody makes mistakes. Dave makes three in the first twe sentences of that excerpt. Energy isn't measured in kelvin, it's not degrees kelvin, and temperature is not the same thing as heat. When Davetard said this, he showed us ignorance and insult. But not admitting the error just adds stubbornness to the mix.

And all in a reply where he is accusing someone of ignorance. LOL. Too funny. :D

Date: 2006/03/10 14:06:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)

Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?  

There is something horribly wrong with your logic.

Science is a discipline that requires certain actions. It is not the only subject that is a worthwhile persuit. But any worthwhile subject that does not obey the rules of science, is not science.

That does not mean it is useless. It simply means it is not science.

You are correct in stating ID is an explanation of why we are here. But it is not scientific. Peoples degrees/qualifications do not matter. Unless ID makes falsifiable predictions and produces repeatable experiments, it will never be science.

Sorry this post has so many words, I did not have the time or inclination to write a shorter response.

Date: 2006/03/17 01:53:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,03:15)

You're like ID counterintelligence.  On the one hand you argue about the sacredness of science, measuring methods, empirical evidence and experiments while on the other hand you abuse those very concepts in your "rebuttals."  My parents were no more Christian than I am a creationist and your evidence for such conclusions is more than lacking.

You're giving science a dogmatic tint while showing scientists to be every bit as infallible in their thinking than any supposed IDer.


Check out your dictionary.  Another scientist fooled by his belief.

I doubt you meant infallible.

Check the dictionary.

Date: 2006/03/17 06:21:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 16 2006,21:26)
I don't believe you to be a serious participator in this thread.  The point is simple.  Judges are defining science.  This begs the question.

Why can't preachers define science?
Why can't teachers define science?
Why can't politicians define science?

Judges do!

Now that is untrue.

Judge Jones did not define science. He looked at a definition of science and ruled that ID did not meet it.

Just because you obscure that, does not mean that is not what he (Judge Jones) did.

He did not rule that there is no God. He did not rule that ID could not become scientific. He did not rule that people can't look at life through a Theistic POV.

All he said was atm ID has no base in science and the school board wanted to introduce kids to ID because of a religious motivation.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind, who had followed the trial could see the logic in his decision.

Date: 2006/03/17 06:37:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 17 2006,02:30)
This thread has a few worrying comments Seems some creo folks aren't too happy with Dave2lot. I wonder if Uri Bill will lower the boom on him at last. I guess we should enjoy it while it lasts as all good things come to an end.

The end is nigh for you, buddy. You're toast. -dt

From that link I loved this comment.


It seems to be centering around Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I think Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is fascinating, but I think that the ID community did a much better job when it wasn't about a specific view of origins. Multiple hypotheses were part of ID, including Davison's and also including OEC and YEC. If it now becomes about a specific view of origins, I think it is headed back to the dustbin.

So is that where it came from?

Date: 2006/03/17 11:25:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,16:50)
Stephen Elliot opines,

Now that is untrue.

Judge Jones did not define science. He looked at a definition of science and ruled that ID did not meet it.

Just because you obscure that, does not mean that is not what he (Judge Jones) did.

He did not rule that there is no God. He did not rule that ID could not become scientific. He did not rule that people can't look at life through a Theistic POV.

All he said was atm ID has no base in science and the school board wanted to introduce kids to ID because of a religious motivation.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind, who had followed the trial could see the logic in his decision.

Firstly, I did not identify Judge Jones, but judges in general.  Judges are (re)defining science because science is being dragged into the judicial bureaucracy.  This isn't the first case of its kind.  We can debate who's fault this is, but it always takes two to tango.

Secondly, the definition of science IS NOT static and never was and never will be.  The best that can be said of ID is that it is not "scientific" at this point.  To be more honest, one can really only say that ID doesn't fulfull ALL the requirements of science, but then again, as long as science can redefine itself at will then such a hurdle may always exist especially given the ingrained fear of an intelligent designer for many in the profession.

As for the logic of his decision, what is logical about  professing the primacy of an educational endeavor that by definition limits the scope of empirical evidence while it plays fast and loose with the concept of "observation?"  Aren't our kids supposed to be learning?

This is ridiculous!

How many Judges have made the point that ID is not scientific lately? So you did not say "Judge Jones", how many other candidates are there?

ID is not scientific at this point? That is exactly what I claimed.

Your 3rd obscured it so much that I can't see a point. Seriously.
As for the logic of his decision, what is logical about  professing the primacy of an educational endeavor that by definition limits the scope of empirical evidence while it plays fast and loose with the concept of "observation?"  Aren't our kids supposed to be learning?
WTF does that mean?

Date: 2006/03/17 21:58:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Why do you consider ID as being scientific as it stands now?

There is glaringly obvious evidence against ID as science. The most obvious being the "Wedge document". This clearly lays out a political/religious motivation behind the movement.

Then look at other actions. Why should they be using PR to promote their claims? Why have people been trying to have it taught in schools as science, rather than presenting evidence to scientists?

There is something rotten in the state of ID (apologies to the bard). I can see it and I am sure that you can as well.

As I understand it, science is about trying to understand how the universe (and all it contains) works. Supernatural explanations have to be ruled out or progress will halt. If "God did it" is an acceptable answer there would be no need for further investigation.

Date: 2006/03/18 02:24:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
How do rationalise science and religion as being identical?

Science uses experiments and produces evidence to back up it's claims. I can't recall religion doing that.

Of course ID faces an uphill struggle. So it should, if it claims to be scientific then oposing views would be quite the  correct atitude. The response should be to gather evidence and present it.

Can I assume you are aware of the history of "plate tectonics"? They faced the exact same atitude from the scientific community when the idea was first presented. Supporters of that idea had the correct response. It is now well established because data was gathered and presented.

BTW. From your responses I get the idea that you think I believe science can answer any question. I do not think that. I doubt science will ever be able to give answers to some questions. Subjective questions I imagine will always be outside the scope of science.

Also, I am not antireligious or an atheist, (I got the impression you think I am) but I do not consider my religious opinion to be in any way scientific.

Date: 2006/03/18 23:18:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Jay Ray @ Mar. 19 2006,04:28)
Heck yeah.  I've got a whole sock drawer with unmatched single socks.  Some of them have been unmatched for more than a year.

What are you, some kind of gnomeless heathen?

The gnome that raids my socks is more cunning.

It always seems to steal just one sock. But a few days later the missing sock usually reapears. Obviously the gnome is just trying to convince me I wasn't paying full atention when doing my washing.

Sneaky little bugger he is.

Date: 2006/03/19 04:06:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 19 2006,09:56)
In other news, over at Uncommonly Dense we find:

March 18, 2006
Neo-Darwinism is Collapsing Under the Weight of the Integration of the Sciences

Collapsing! Berlin Wall! Waterloo! WA-TER-LOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

any day now.

I have just finished reading that.


DS has dumped another who has the afrontery to argue a case.


My last three or four comments have been deleted. All of them were civil and to the point. Their only “flaw” was to demonstrate errors in DaveScot’s reasoning.

Is widdle Davey afwaid of big bad Valewie? Run to mama and turn the blog over to someone who’s smart enough (and has balls enough) to hold his own in an intellectual give-and-take.

You’re out of your league, Dave.

I think it’s time for you to find a new blithering hole, Valerie. -ds

Comment by valerie — March 19, 2006 @ 2:03 am

Let’s display valerie’s posts… they would likely be a good springboard for demonstrating the glaring holes in the narrative Gil is talking about here.  

Comment by Scott — March 19, 2006 @ 7:01 am

He can find an outlet for them elsewhere. Blogs the world over must surely clamor for such intelligent contributors as the erstwhile “Valerie”.

Date: 2006/03/19 07:13:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 19 2006,12:50)
Sorry, but you’re going to have use your real name if you want to claim those credentials. -ds
So we can assume that DaveScot isnt an engineer and didn't work for Dell. I thought that law only applied if you were being annoying.

I belive Dynamic Dave indeed worked at Dell.

It is unlikely that he is an engineer in the sense that most people understand the term.

Have a browse here.

Edit. I found this comment amusing.

From:  Romesh Prakashpalan - view profile
Date:  Mon, Aug 7 1995 12:00 am  
Email: (Romesh Prakashpalan)
Not yet ratedRating:    
show options  

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author  

:) :)
Where do I sign up for that Dell job? :)
Dave Springer seems like he has the coolest job, writing mindless
uniformed drivel all day!



That was back in 1995.
11 years on, what's changed?

I have moderator ability now you turd. Goodbye-ds

Date: 2006/03/19 22:30:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Why say fundamentaly identical? Identical is a very poor choice of word. If you meant similar or vaguely similar you should have said that.

You consider science to be holding back knowledge. When what it is actually doing is testing ideas before pronouncing them to be a usefull explanation.

Trying to converse with you is a bit like herding cats or knitting fog. It is very difficult to make any headway. What is worse, you apear to be deliberately making it so.

Unless you post your ideas, clearly I give up. Also we are on completely the wrong thread here and should move over to your own thread.

Date: 2006/03/20 07:24:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

No matter what you think about IDist, we would use every opportunity in search for truth
until people will know that Darwinism in its most conservative from and others is utter bs. Why? Because we owe it to humanity to search for the truth and we know that darwinism is far from it. The search for truth and the admittance of errors should be the ultimate goal of every human being, everything else is self-denial.

Comment by tb — March 20, 2006 @ 3:29 am


Date: 2006/03/20 09:43:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 19 2006,01:34)
I have brought something here "From JAD"

[Messages posted by proxy from banned users are not welcome here. Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying.]

This is a little bit confusing.

Does it apply to pasting and criticising the banned persons points as well?

The reason I am asking is that it is impossible to refute an IDiots point at UD. Specifically Dave Scot (he is also banned), Should we now desist in posting his (DS's) IDiocy here to argue/point out the stupididty of ID claims?

Date: 2006/03/20 10:31:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott


Posts: 47
Joined: Jan. 2006
 Posted: Mar. 20 2006,15:35    

Stephen Elliot,

I can not help it if your decide not to read or your comprehension is poor.  

First, I didn't say science was holding back the truth, but instead asked stevestory if that was what HE was saying about science in regards to plate tetonics?

Secondly, at the fundamental level (structure and function), science and religion are of the same lineage.  If you dispute this assertion then say so and lay down your argument.  Both endeavors are unique to human intelligence, both seek greater truth and both interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  The ONLY appreciable difference is the idea that science makes predictions and does experiments.  Call it descent with modification.   You do believe in evolution, no?  

Maybe my reading comprehension is poor. But it was me you was replying to about plate tectonics.



Stephen Elliot opines,


Can I assume you are aware of the history of "plate tectonics"? They faced the exact same atitude from the scientific community when the idea was first presented. Supporters of that idea had the correct response. It is now well established because data was gathered and presented.

So, it is clear that science has in times past made it difficult for truths to come forward?  Is this the lesson you wish to portend?

Science is supposed to make it difficult for ideas to be accepted. It does this by requiring measurable evidence. Experiments/predictions etc.

Portend? I am not trying to portend a message. I am trying to give it.

You may think science and religion are fundamentaly identical. I certainly think you used the wrong word with "identical". But feel free to blame my comprehension.

Had tou said. "Science and Religion have a similar goal in-that they both try to explain the world we live in". I would have agreed. But what you said was "Science and Religion are fundamentally identical" and unqualified I consider that to be nonsense.

Finally. Yes, I believe evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment for the diversity of life.

Date: 2006/03/20 10:36:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I have answerwed you on your own thread.

Date: 2006/03/20 10:39:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 20 2006,16:15)
Posting a part of some statement made elsewhere and actually discussing it is unlikely to be troublesome. But this thread started with a complete screed from a banned user, and later had another one entered, for no real reason other than that the banned user had asked others to pimp his stuff. That's out of bounds.

Oki Doki,

That is what I expected. Just thought I would make certain.

Date: 2006/03/21 20:17:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 22 2006,01:21)
...  Science is great at some things and useless in others.

Very true. Science is good for discovering how things work. It is rubbish at evaluating subjective things.

Drowning your children would get you judged by peoples morals.

I would imagine a subject that tried to adress "everything" would be a tad unwieldy.

EDIT: By the way, does anyone know what is happening with "Suden Emergence Theory"? It was rumoured to be the next mask for creationism, should it lose it's ID one.

Date: 2006/03/21 21:07:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Drew Headley @ Mar. 21 2006,22:32)
Quote (Tiax @ Mar. 21 2006,20:53)
"1. It’s a play. This was a musical adaptation of it. Check your facts FIRST next time."

It seems that DaveScot is correct, it was originally a play under the name The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus written by Christopher Marlowe around the late 1500 early 1600s. It was based on Germanic folklore.

The opera cited was written by Charles Gounod in 1859.

That is hardly the point. The teacher has shown the kids an excerpt from the opera and not the play.

What is more worrying is that most UD commenters seem to think it is ok to sack people for not being a Christian, or even not being the right sort of Christian.

I would hate to live in a world controled by the likes of Dave Scot.

Date: 2006/03/21 21:15:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 21 2006,21:58)
What can science say about a mother that drowns her five children one by one... nothing!  What can science say about my motivation for posting to this forum... nothing!  ...

H'mmmm. You say that then. and then contradictoraly say.



Stephen Elliot,

Then what of psychology?  Is science not delving into the subjective?  Does this mean that science is acquiring a value system in which some subjective enterprises are embraced while others are rejected?  

Psychology may be able to explain why someone may behave in a certain way, it does not say wether it is "right" or "wrong" to do so. That is the matter of morals.

Date: 2006/03/23 04:33:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

You remind me of a "psychic". You tend to say something that is a bit "airy-fairy" then wait for a reply, then start defining/redefining what you said.

That is a fairly good debating trick. However, it doesn't realy belong on a forum such as this one.

Just about everyone here can already see that your posts are normaly vacuus.

Date: 2006/03/25 04:41:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I have been having problems for the last few days. I get to here through PT and that has had a lot of down-time recently (afaik).

Date: 2006/03/25 05:59:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Cheers Wesley.

Thanks for the tip-off.

Date: 2006/03/26 04:36:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 26 2006,07:18)

Is it your contention that no debate beyond that involving ID and evolution are to be found between science and the public school system?  And you really wonder why some religious people think science is highly politicized?  Are they not witnessing a group of hypocrites?

What does that mean? I have read it several times and cannot make sense of it.

Go ahead and blame it on my reading comprehension if you wish but I can't see a clear point in your post.

Date: 2006/03/26 04:44:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

“Wondering cant this be made into a pro ID commercial?”

It’ll probably be blasted by the various scientific associations out there for being too political and trying to indoctrinate a nonscientific theory to uninformed people. (They’re the only ones that get to do that.) An ID commercial would be nice though, or even better, a primetime debate. Millions can see whatever Darwinist shows up get trashed. But I bet they’ll all chicken out.  

Comment by jasonng — March 26, 2006 @ 5:03 am

This made me laugh.

Is there a fairer debate forum than a trial?

Date: 2006/03/26 06:44:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (cogzoid @ Mar. 26 2006,02:25)
How many people here help out with Evo Wiki?  It seems nice to have a place where any brilliant arguments or points or scientific evidence can go down in a repository.  I encourage everyone to help out.

I do not post there.

Not expert enough.

Date: 2006/03/26 20:10:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
What's with the "!!!!!!!!1111" thing in the title?

Date: 2006/03/26 20:48:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 26 2006,07:18)

Is it your contention that no debate beyond that involving ID and evolution are to be found between science and the public school system?  And you really wonder why some religious people think science is highly politicized?  Are they not witnessing a group of hypocrites?

I think I finally understand.

It looks like Thordaddy is saying:

"There are several topics in the public school system that scientists are interfeering in. They are doing so for political reasons and not scientific. Therefore the whole scientific community is dishonest."  

At least I think that is what he saying.

Thordaddys use of language has me pulling my hair out. His refusal to just state things clearly is irritating.

Date: 2006/03/26 20:54:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Quick question to Sanctum.
Did you used to post as Ghost of Paley?

Date: 2006/03/27 09:21:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
TY Cogzoid.

Date: 2006/03/27 13:49:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 23 2006,17:56)

You don't seem to understand that ID will never be proven wrong, but can only be proven right.  You also don't seem to understand that the path to providing evidence for an IDer is within the EVER expanding scope of science.  The very same science you naively believe to be strict and static.  Once you bend the rules, you have no say in others bending the rules.  Get it?

Nope. You are the one missing the point. The FSM can also never be proven wrong, but it could be proven right.

This is what makes these claims unscientific.

The whole point of science theories is that they could be proven wrong.

The rest of your post meanders into confusion once again. Why are you unable to post simple ideas in a simple way?

Science is anything but static. The best theory/hypothesis changes regularly. Atoms where once considered indivisible, nuclear physics changed that. Newtonian gravity was considered correct and Einstein changed that.

These examples prove that the claim of science as dogma are lies. The most celebrated and rewarded scientists are the ones that overturn universally accepted ideas.

The only thing science demands is evidence. Provide that and scientists will happily abandon cherished ideas.

Date: 2006/03/27 14:03:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Fross @ Mar. 27 2006,17:19)
Are any of you guys parents?  My son is about to turn four, and he's as skeptical as you can get on the subject of God, angels, Santa, Easter Bunny ect.   Basically if he can't see them, he's very skeptical about it.   On the other hand, he is always afraid of "spooks" as he calls them.  (ghost and monsters in his closet)   We have to pound it in his head that he's just using his imagination.  Like he'll run out of a darkened hallway screaming with fear "i'm using my imagination again!" with slight tears in his eyes.
When we get to the subject of Santa, Angels, E. Bunny, etc. he tells us that that's just our imagination.  
As a parent, I get mixed emotions on when to trick him into believing something that's not real.  We're trying to get him to believe Santa, and the E. Bunny and that type of stuff, but in order to do it, we have to deflect all the skeptical questions he throws at us, and eventually his trust in us will cause him to accept these things.  

It's weird how strong social pressures are.  I feel the social pressure to get my kid to believe in Santa is 500 times greature than the social pressure to get him to believe in God.  Strange eh?

Is this true or a wind-up?

My kids (all 3 of them) myself and my sister, had no problem at all believing all kinds of stuff when very young.

I don't think social pressures are weird. After all we are social animals. Pretty sure the "go along to get along" inclination would have been a selected trait for most of human development.

Date: 2006/03/27 14:07:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Xavier du Barry @ Mar. 23 2006,18:27)

You miss the point.

“Sexual identity is part of the stasis of reality,” says Behe. The subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes language as a whole. In a sense, Lacan’s model of subdialectic discourse suggests that the law is intrinsically used in the service of outmoded perceptions of society...

Please stop doing that. I keep forgeting and trying to read the posts.

They are almost as bad as Thordaddy's.

Date: 2006/03/27 14:16:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,19:40)

Although I agree that life begins at conception (self-evidently so)...

Life does not begin at conception. There you are wrong. Human consciousness begins sometime after conception. But sperm and egg cells are alive before conception.

You do know that grass, trees, flowers and other things apart from mammals are alive right?

You are aware that single cells are alive? Such as the amoeba and (da naaaa!;) flagelum.

Date: 2006/03/27 14:45:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 27 2006,20:34)
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,19:59)

The point is simple.  
[... :0  :(  ???  :angry:  :p  ;)  :(  :0  :0  :D ...]

Stephen, I think Xavier and Trolldaddy use the same generator.

The difference is that Thordaddy believes he is thinking.

I supose he is in a way. Thordaddy certainly seems to spend a lot of time trying to make his posts difficult to read while posting a simple idea.

Xavier just generates nonsense. The fact that it difficult to distinguish a difference speaks volumes about Thordaddy.

Date: 2006/03/27 22:48:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,21:35)
Stephen Elliot opines,

Life does not begin at conception. There you are wrong. Human consciousness begins sometime after conception. But sperm and egg cells are alive before conception.

You do know that grass, trees, flowers and other things apart from mammals are alive right?

You are aware that single cells are alive? Such as the amoeba and (da naaaa! flagelum

So when did your life begin?  Are you billions of years old like ericmurphy?    

You say, "[h]uman consciousness begins sometime after conception."  Whoa, that's scientific!  But if that's a sign of life then are egg and sperm alive?  Are single cells, trees and flowers conscious?  They are alive, no?  So human life can't be predicated on consciousness alone, can it?

When did you come alive IF NOT AT CONCEPTION?

Now that is quite some question. The honest answer is, I don't know.

However, you do seem to be getting confused between life and conscious.

Why did you use the word predicated? It is confusing.

"So human life can't be predicated (=stated as true) on consciousness alone, can it?"

Well I would have thought consciousness was a requirement to be considered human. Wow, what a can of worms.

In some ways I am billions of years old. Every single atom that constitutes me pre-dates the solar system. In another way I am 44 years old. That being the age I have reached. In another way I am just a few days/weeks old, in that the majority of atoms that make me have been captured in that time.

Anyway. How would you define a human life? I doubt you consider a sperm as human (or being a wanker would make you a mass kiler). But a sperm is alive.

Sorry for rambling, but it is difficult to answer vague statements without doing so. Although I am pretty sure Thordaddy will dismiss this as a non-answer.

Date: 2006/03/27 22:52:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,21:13)
Faid and Stephen

What exactly are your complaints?  What are the flaws in thinking?  Please educate me?

Do you think IDT will become a "fact" of science or that the debate will continue to rage?  I don't see either of these possibilities as ludicrous.  In fact, they seem the ONLY two possibilities.  Please add more if you wish.

My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points.

You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.

Date: 2006/03/27 23:01:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Renier @ Mar. 28 2006,03:49)
I went at posted at that new Barry guy's threads. First comment I asked was what empirical evidence he was talking about.


Then, based on his reply, I asked if he rejected common descent, and sort of asked in a nice way for the empirical evidence again, since he never provided any. Needless to say, second comment never made it.

My conclusion: UD is a useless blog to post at. They don't like questions and they don't like answers. They only LOVE to hear themselves sing to one another, whilst scratching each other's backs and then make funny crooning sounds. The quality of memes over there is bordering in viral infection.

UD is awfull. Your comments get edited, trashed, written over or whatever they feel like doing.

I read it because sometimes it is incredibly funny. But posting is a nightmare.

I lasted less than a week before getting banned. Dave Scot banned somebody, then posted insulting remarks about them as a question. When I pointed out he was being dishonest I was banned as well.

Date: 2006/03/28 05:15:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Further evidence for the case of Dave Scot being self-deluded.


I made a comment similar to Dawkin’s on Panda’s Thumb (before I was banned for making too good a case against the Darwinian narrative)
and in emails to John Davison. Davison, as you may know, argues that phylogenesis may very well be finished - a completely executed program with a terminal point just like ontogenesis. I’ve rejoined that while biological evolution may indeed be finished, it’s probably moot in any case. Moot because technological evolution has taken over. Biological evolution happens so slowly compared to genetic engineering that there is indeed a paradigm shift. One might argue about intelligent design in the past but there’s no arguing about it in the present - it’s here and it’s a mechanism that works at light speed compared to evolution in the past. One interesting related observation is indeed made by Michael Finley, one I’ve made many times as well. Intelligent designers are a possibility proven by the existence of genetic engineers today. No argument can be made that these engineers are the first or only ones to ever exist.

Comment by DaveScot — May 8, 2005 @ 9:17 am

(My emphasis)  

Considering he was banned for making threats against the site this should be staggering. The fact that it is par for the course with DS speaks loud and clear on his lack of ability to perceive reality.

Date: 2006/03/28 05:22:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2006,11:02)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,10:37)
My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points.

You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.
How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic?

For the first couple weeks he was here, I thought TD's incoherent writing style was some kind of deliberate debating strategy to avoid being pinned down with any statements that could later be refuted. I now think it well and truly is the best he can do.

I think that he sits with a thesaurus and picks either the longest, most obscure or scientific-sounding word to replace a simple one.

The "not get pinned down" is also an element I believe.

His "science and religion are fundamentaly identical" comment was typical.

Date: 2006/03/28 13:05:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Thordaddy. I am not a biologist or a scientist.

No I do not know when my life began. Do you know when yours did? If so, please state when that was.

BTW. I did not state that consciousnes alone describes human life. I am pretty sure a dog, cat or crocodile is conscious.

However, I do think that being self-aware is a part of being human. When that happens, I have no idea. But I am pretty certain that a fertilised egg is not conscious. Just as I am reasonably sure an individual sperm is not conscious.

Date: 2006/03/28 14:17:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

I also once found the extreme anti-religious comments here and at PT offensive.

Got used to it now and ignore those comments.

But UD and in particular DS made similar statements. DS just deletes his.

The people on this side want good science to be taught. It includes all-sorts (of people). Some of us believe in a God and some don't. Some ppl here are actually evangelical atheists.

Some claim to be anti-theists. That surprises me. I assume there is a flaw in the logic. Not sure what an "anti-theist" means. Either they are against something they don't believe exists or they are against people for having a belief system different to their own.

Date: 2006/03/28 14:28:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

You seem to be mixing consciousnes with memmmory now.

To make things easier, why do you not state your point clearly?

Do you seriously believe that a fertilised egg is conscious? At the moment of conception?

Date: 2006/03/28 22:48:23, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott



...  As of now, the claim is that NO empirical evidence exists for an IDer...   Afterall, it readily dismisses the empirical evidence (originating in experience or observation) of billions of believers that has spanned human history.  It chalks this up to NO empirical evidence.

Subjective experience is not empirical evidence.

Date: 2006/03/28 23:09:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Do you believe something without a brain or central nervous system can be conscious?

Date: 2006/03/28 23:40:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,05:00)
Stephen Elliot opines,

Subjective experience is not empirical evidence.

Oh really?

Yes really.

I suppose you are going to go down the "everything is subjective" path.

Well I will concede that point.

In order to minimise this, science demands that experiments/measurements are repeatable. That anyone can do them. It does not accept individual revelationary experiences as evidence.

Date: 2006/03/28 23:50:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,05:28)
Stephen Elliot,

I don't think the evidence shows consciousness in entities without a brain and a central nervous system, but neither of these things are required to be alive.

Is there a point to the question?

The point was that a human zygote is not a fully fledged human being.

You apeared to be making an anti-abortion argument based on a point that you considered a fertilised human egg to be a human being. Therefore implying abortion was murder.

You have said things like "life begins at conception". When clearly both the egg and sperm are alive before conception.

Date: 2006/03/29 11:50:22, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 29 2006,17:42)

Purty easy to see why Dave deletes himself so much, eh?

But he doesn't.

Dave Scot said so.

Date: 2006/03/29 12:09:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 29 2006,17:54)
when he said he didn't delete himself, that was hyperbole. You church burner.

####. You caught me. OK, fair cop. Guilty as charged. But I had a difficult childhood, my mother dropped me on my head. I blame society!

BTW. Is that photo edited?

Date: 2006/03/29 12:34:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,18:27)

Purty easy to see why Dave deletes himself so much, eh?

But he doesn't.

Dave Scot said so.

Dave says he doesn't. I say he does. That means both statements are true.

Oh shlt. NOW what?


You have put my brain into a positive feedback loop. B'stard church burner!

And on that "light" you are "extinguished".-DT

Date: 2006/03/29 23:54:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Do not get too upset with the ID crowd. The vast majority have already decided what they believe. Evidence will not persuade them of anything at all (if it goes against what they want to believe).

The only reason I can think of to respond to a creationist claim is to inform an undecided lurker.

Date: 2006/03/30 02:20:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Renier @ Mar. 30 2006,06:25)
Noted Stephen. You are right. Evidence will not help them. I just get angry with their dishonest tactics and lies.

How's things going with the "Science, just Science" project? What was the url again?

The UK project is a tad slow. We seem to be a bit short on a target.

But that is a god thing. Creationism (as science) does not seem to be "taking-off" in the UK.

I hope it stays that way. I do not fancy the problems that USA education has.

We have a few "Vardy" schools where there maybe a problem. But on the-whole the UK seems more logical than the ID crowd.

The site is here.

EDIT: I may be wrong. Perhaps we will end-up with the same stupid dishonest arguments.

Date: 2006/03/30 06:09:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The whole subject of when a fetus becomes a human is at present unanswerable by science.

Right now we are relying on a legal/ethical decision.

Thordaddy loves this. He can opinionate away, dance around definitions and generally lay-down a smokescreen.

He is a complete waste of peoples time. His ignorance has been amply displayed and you will give yourselves a headache trying to reason with him.

Lots of you have made some very good points. Clear and easy to understand. Thordaddy has ignored every single one.

Date: 2006/03/30 06:31:22, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Some very good points.

But this one has me scratching my head.


How can consciousness be more important than life itself?


Just out of curiosity, Thordaddy: are you a vegetarian? Or a vegan? Because if not, you clearly value consciousness more than life. Do I need to explain why, or can you figure it out yourself?

Should that not read you don't value consciousness more than life?

Date: 2006/03/30 07:37:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
It was not a slip of the keyboard. Maybe it was a bad choice of word.

My point is that neither a sperm or egg is a human. Nor do they become one at the point of conception.

I will admit that I uncomfortable at the thought of abortion from 6 months on (aproximately), unless for medical neccesity.

I believe that a "baby" becomes conscious before birth. But definately not at conception. Personally, I reckon abortion should be the pregnant womans choice till about 6 months.

In the end, I am Damned if I know. Not exactly a black/white decision.

Date: 2006/03/30 07:41:36, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 30 2006,13:26)
"ID is completely science and has nothing to do with religion.  So, now that we got that out of the way, let's talk about Jesus."

Look you church burning atheist scumbag. ID is not religious. Got that, you spawn of Satan!?-ds

Date: 2006/03/30 08:00:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
So not being a vegeterian means you value consciousnes more than life?

Surely a vegetarian/vegan values consciousness more than life. They only eat foods that never where conscious. But all foods are/where alive.

Omnivors (like myself) eat almost anything.

Maybe this is a missunderstanding due to too many negatives in the original post?

Date: 2006/03/30 11:57:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 30 2006,16:17)
As my brother used to say, "I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."
A very effective weight-loss program, anyway.

That really did make me laugh out loud. Lucky I had swallowed my drink or I would still be cleaning it off my monitor.

Date: 2006/03/30 12:06:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,17:11)
That's the great part. When davetard read what Newman wrote he called it garbage. When he found out what a big name Newman is in the ID movement, he had to eat his words or face the spectre of Philip Johnson etc calling garbage brilliant.

He was right the first time. Newman's stuff is garbage, and Philip Johnson etc are calling garbage brilliant.

Are you claiming Dave Scots opinions are biased? Shame on you! He is a computer genius and far more qualified in biology than a biologist.

I know this to be true, Dave Scot said so.

Date: 2006/03/30 21:52:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Thordaddy said:

In fact, no DIRECT evidence exists for a conscious newborn.  No newborn has ever asserted his/her consciouness.  Again, we ONLY assume a conscious newborn lest we treat is like a disposable zygote.  The evidence is inconclusive at best and non-existent at worst.

Are you serious? You claim to be a father, have you held a newborn? How much evidence for consciousness do you need?

Date: 2006/03/31 02:00:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Well surprisingly enough we will have to first establish what we mean by "consciousness". It apears to have no exact definition.

There are quite few papers here. Not all the links work, but there are several woks that do.

I am happy to go-along with Thordaddy's definition of "self-aware", indeed that was the definition I was using.

From my observation, newborns certainly apear to be conscious. The simple fact that they can cry and show signs of discomfort infers consciouness to me. Include the obvious observable distinction of them sleeping and being awake and (to me) consciousness seems conclusive.

From memory I certainly know that I was conscious within a few days of being born. Admitedly I thought in a much different way to now. Presently I tend to think in English. Back then I thought in pictures.

Renier, if a conscious entity has to state it is conscious to be so, then you would probably have to consider animals such as dogs, cats, dolphins etc. as not possesing consciousnes (many people do just that). I would be uncomfortable with such a claim. Lots of creatures show signs of memory and I would think that consciousnes is required before memory can function  in a biological entity.

However, those are just my opinions. Science doesn't seem to have a definitive description of consciousness at the moment.

Date: 2006/03/31 03:23:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,05:47)
be comprised of 100,000 billion unconscious cells?

I don't know.

Maybe it is an emergence quality.

What do you think?

Date: 2006/03/31 11:38:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Can we agree that some-time between conception and birth, a fetus develops a brain and a central nervous system?

Notice, I am not claiming that either the brain or cns does not continue to grow after birth. I am just claiming that sometime between fertilisation and birth a cns and brain is developed.

Date: 2006/03/31 21:37:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Barry, I know you like constitutional issues. Has it occurred to you that a minority of voters may, in theory, be able to amend the constitution? Amendments require ratification of 75% of the states. But in each state legislature, or constitutional convention, only a simple majority is required. For the sake of argument let’s presume the conventions are referendums so each voter gets a direct vote.

If we add up the populations of the smallest 75% of the states it is far less than 51% of the total population of U.S. It’s barely a third.

I didn’t add it up by red state and blue state but given states with smaller populations tend to be red states… the next constitutional amendment might be quite interesting. I can hear the howls from the blue states already.  

Comment by DaveScot — April 1, 2006 @ 1:05 am

I thought I would paste this here. It shows just how truly commited to democracy DS realy is.

One minute he trying to be all-moral and talking about representing the majority. Here is talking about twisting a minority vote onto the majority. He is only ever consistent in being inconsistent (oh, and stupidity).

Date: 2006/03/31 22:00:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
It would appear from here that the original findings were published in The Lancet.

From the link.


However, patients receiving music, imagery and touch (MIT) therapy did have a slightly lower mortality rate at six months.

The findings appear in the July 16 edition of The Lancet.

I have tried here but could not find it. Possibly because I don't subscribe and so get reduced access.

Date: 2006/03/31 22:08:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Drew Headley @ Mar. 31 2006,19:00)
If your definition is self-awareness then do you think that this costitutes a consciousness? If not, why and how would you further refine your definition?

Hey Drew,

Interesting link. Damned if I have an answer though.

Date: 2006/04/01 01:35:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 01 2006,07:03)
Each of you do yourself no favors if you insist on assuming that all those that think abortion is the killng of human life do so out of religious motivation.  

I would agree with you on that point. It is unlikely that everyone who objects to abortion are doing so for religious reasons.

I doubt it is due to scientific reasons though.

The only valid reasons to object are on ethical/moral grounds. Personaly I would say give the pregnant woman the choice.

Date: 2006/04/01 02:02:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The problem I have here is defining a human life. Basically I can't do it.

You want to "draw a line" saying this side is a human and the other side isn't. I cannot do that.

At a guess I think humanity emerges slowly during pregnancy. I would consider a fetus is conscious before birth but not at conception. I believe a brain needs to develop before consciousness can be acheived.

Now why don't you answer the very simple question that you have so far dodged?

Given the choice of saving a single 2 month old baby or several hundred human zygotes. Which would be your choice?

It is simple for me. I would save the baby.

Date: 2006/04/01 02:18:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

It would seem there is a whole load of coverage.

Some of this apears to be nonsense. Some rational.

Every news story I have ever read is always slanted to the general audience or biased by the writers leanings. Usualy both.

I can't say I would expect that praying for someone who is unaware (of the prayers) to help any. I am surprised that the MIT had little or no effect.

Date: 2006/04/01 02:36:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott


I can't say I would expect that praying for someone who is unaware (of the prayers) to help any.

Neither would I, nor would i think it mattered even if the patient was aware (not a double blind test), but you might have a different rationale for reaching the same conclusion.  

so, if you don't mind my asking...

why not?

Because I would not expect devine intervention.

Date: 2006/04/01 02:42:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I know you are correct. Somehow I can't help myself. I must be an addict. Or maybe my rose tinted glasses need to be removed. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I still expect people to respond to rationality.

Date: 2006/04/01 02:50:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 01 2006,08:40)

does this study empirically confirm your suspicions?

or not?

Do you mean. "Does this experiment prove to me that prayer (unknowingly done by others) does not help people to heal"?

Then Yes. I believe that.

If you mean "prayer can never be usefull". Then I would be doubtfull. Not that I think it has anything to with miracles. I am under the impression that mental atitude can affect recovery.

BTW. I would have responded sooner, but the #### 25 second rule kept catching me out. I should use my watch more.

Date: 2006/04/01 03:18:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Let me know when you are back.

EDIT: #### what a silly statement. The last post name will change. D'Oh!

Date: 2006/04/01 09:09:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Faid @ April 01 2006,15:04)
Quote (thordaddy @ April 01 2006,06:53)
Is the 2-month old OBL's son?

You know however, inanity aside, it would be interesting to speculate as to why exactly this was important to Trolldaddy...

I doubt that it is. Just another excuse to dodge a question. Very anoying. Let us hope that TD never joins the fire department. Everyone would be dead before he could decide which hose to turn on.

Date: 2006/04/02 06:23:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 01 2006,18:43)
Stephen Elliot opines,


Given the choice of saving a single 2 month old baby or several hundred human zygotes. Which would be your choice?

It is simple for me. I would save the baby.

It's simple for you because you choose ignorance over insight.  You unilaterally define the 100 embryos out of existence.  But what if those 100 embryos represented the LAST of the Elliot lineage?  What would you do then?  Choose extinction?


I did not define 100 embryos out of existence.

The choice was simple. You have the ability to choose to save either one 2 month old baby or several hundred human zygotes.

You know that the situation and personal relationships are unimportant to the question.

You know for a fact a 2 month old baby can feel pain. You do not know that of zygotes. FGS You claimed that you could not detect consciousness in your own newborn.

Date: 2006/04/02 06:33:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 01 2006,09:09)
Do you mean. "Does this experiment prove to me that prayer (unknowingly done by others) does not help people to heal"?


what if it also showed that it doesn't help even if the person DOES know they are being prayed for?

It does not surprise me too much. But I would have thought the knowledge might help some people.

Not because of miracles btw. I was under the impression that mental atitude could assist in healing.

Date: 2006/04/02 19:33:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 02 2006,15:21)
It does not surprise me too much. But I would have thought the knowledge might help some people.

it doesn't?

your second paragraph implies that you thought foreknowledge of prayer intercession would have a positive influence on attitude.

so I'm surprised this doesn't surprise you.

Moreover, the results show significant (tho slight) increases in complications after surgery in this group, as opposed to the double blind group.

THAT is very surprising, at least to me.

No. It did surprise me. Just not very much. If prayer had any statistically significant effect, it would almost certainly have been documented before now.

If the 7ish% difference is really down to negative effects of prayer it would need to be repeated with the same results to sway me. I think that would be a waste of cash. I am sure anyone could come up with a better way to spend 2Mill.

The thing that surprised me the most was that the experiment seems to have been rigorous. Results that the funder obviously did not like have been published. Considering the antics of the ID mob, the very fairness of this experiment comes as a bit of a shock.

Date: 2006/04/03 06:55:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ April 03 2006,10:27)

Thanks, very interesting link. This was important:
When establishing the level of risk to health, doctors can take into consideration a woman's ‘actual or reasonably foreseeable environment', which includes her personal and social situation.

With rational interpretation, this strikes me as a Good Thing. Generally, unwanted pregnancies are unwanted for a good reason; good enough so that a child will be unwelcome, unsupportable, etc. In practice, this amounts to choice.

The 6-month limit on choice also strikes me as reasonable. If you do NOT want a child, it shouldn't take more than 6 months to figure this out.

As far as I can tell. In-practice it is not too difficult to get an abortion on the national health.

I think the woman merely needs to persuade the Doctors that she has genuinely thought it through and definately wants one.

If a woman ends up asking for a string of abortions then she is likely to encounter hostility from Doctors. It is not suposed to be an alternative to contraception.

The law is definately workable in practice. On the whole Doctors tend to be sensible respected people.

As for wealthy people. Well enough money makes almost any situation/decision easier.

Date: 2006/04/03 07:35:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Thordaddy. Can I assume that you a reffering to the book "the Bell curve" when talking about IQ differences between races?

I would agree that from IQ measurements that there is a small mean difference between races.

IIRC. Blacks scored worst, then whites with Asians scoring best. But the rub is. The mean scores showed a slight difference however the IQ "spread" of each race was enormous.

The reason for the "mean" difference could be many things other than race. Wealth, education social advantages/disadvantages or culture come to mind.

The spread of each group was so large and overlapping that you could not judge anyones IQ to any reasonable degree of accuracy by race.

Do you seriously want to teach kids that they can infer IQ by race? The evidence is against that.

The problem with these studies is that it is easy for people to justify racial discrimination by miss-interpreting the data.

Do you know many people of various races? If so, it is easy to determine that each race provides such a wide spectrum of ability that judging on racial grounds is absurd.

Date: 2006/04/03 07:48:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 03 2006,05:33)
Now THAT'S where a legitimate bias could have come in.  the design is rigorous enough, but one could easily leave out potentially controversial (even if obvious) implications in the discussion section without getting too dinged for it.

Good point!

I hadn't even thought about that.

A while ago I read an article that claimed humour can help a patients recovery from illness. Tried to google it but got an embaressment of riches. Some contradictory.

Google search

In summary, it would apear that we are not all identical (shock horror).

Date: 2006/04/03 07:55:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Dave Scots briliant idea of countering the effects of polution by poluting the desert and blasting it into the atmosphere is brilliant!

Why does nobody recognise this genius? /sarcasm

DS sounds more unhinged by the post.

Date: 2006/04/03 08:40:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Faid @ April 03 2006,13:18)
Argumentum ad Copycatum:


Date: 2006/04/03 20:50:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
If you wish to define life as begining at conception, what next?

You obviously wish to make abortion ilegal, but what about the other consequences of this step?

Should every miscariage now be investigated as a possible murder? Should a pregnant woman be punished for smoking or having a drink? What about a pregnant woman who is not eating a balanced diet, should she be charged with denying someone (the fetus) nutrition?

Moral activists seem to view the world in a very simplistic way, as though every choice can be divided into right/wrong or on/off.

Choices are not always simple. There often isn't a right or wrong easy to define code.

Date: 2006/04/03 21:14:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 03 2006,23:19)
Stephen Elliot,

When we don't like the science (such as IQ differences) we look for other science to usurp it.  When we can't find the science (as in the gay "gene") we still make the appropriate assumptions (gayness is inborn).  The problem with science being intertwined with the bureaucracy of the US public school system or the judicial system is that science always loses out if it doesn't fit the right ideological protocol.  This is why we see no debates between science and the US public school system.

Certainly there is much controversial science to be had and yet we hear only crickets in the hallways.  Why is that?

What doe you want schools to teach about homosexuality or IQ tests?

Please try to give a clear answer (anyone willing to give odds on that happening?).

Date: 2006/04/03 21:21:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 04 2006,02:14)
How is this any different than defining abortion as "pro-choice?"  What a silly and ambigious euphemism for a very serious subject.  We have had 30+ years to evaluate the "societal good" that supposedly would transpire under FEDERAL legal abortion.  What are the benefits exactly, I ponder?  Less unwanted children?  More compassionate society?  Less national conflict?  What exactly has abortion done other than abolish responsibility and convinced a generation of women that aborting their children is hardly different than picking a new shade of lipstick?

I do not like the term "pro-choice" but it is far less misleading than "pro-life".

To claim "What exactly has abortion done other than abolish responsibility and convinced a generation of women that aborting their children is hardly different than picking a new shade of lipstick?" Is a pretty repugnant statement.

Many people have atempted to answer your questions. Why do you not reciprocate?

Date: 2006/04/03 22:23:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 04 2006,03:11)
Stephen Elliot,

But it was not a statement, but a question.  A very serious question, indeed.

The way you wrote that. The question was what has abortion done other than the rest is a statement.

ie This part you are writing as a statement of fact.
abolish responsibility and convinced a generation of women that aborting their children is hardly different than picking a new shade of lipstick

Date: 2006/04/04 06:11:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2006,10:16)
Maybe he's chafing at how limited his options are. He doesn't know anything about science, this 'theory' he's signed onto is just double-talk, his fellow travellers are all obvious religious loons. There's only so many ways he can fill the air, you know?

DS hates to be on the losing side. He is willing to do anything to win. Lie, cheat, order people out of "his Country", Nuke deserts etc. And he has morality on his side.


Date: 2006/04/04 06:30:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

I can't believe people are trying to argue with this loon.

But to get into the spirit of things.

Silver sheep go drifting past
Who knows if, loves dreams will last
And just to contribule the fact
I hear the sound, of a small big splat!  

Date: 2006/04/04 07:40:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2006,12:25)
And we used to Sternberg our enemies, but now we're thinking about Dembskiing them. That's when you report them to the government as a terrorist, without having any real evidence.

Oi! Somebody said so. Since when was that not real evidence.

I even bolded it. It must be true.

Date: 2006/04/04 09:39:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 04 2006,13:34)
Seven Popes:

"Thank god I was able to disable the "Auto-Mock" feature of my browser before my laptop burst into flames"


The following is one of 342 stories about "chance" events in my life on my
web site:

         I went to work one morning and turned to the mechanic next to me and said, "If God wanted to, he could turn the oceans into gas and look for someone with a match."  A couple of hours later I was listening to the radio when the news came on.  The announcer said that a Cuban refugee had boarded an airliner, thrown gasoline on a stewardess and threatened to strike a match.

Speaking of ears:

After Peter had cut off Malchus' ear, everyone
looked on the ground for it, knowing Jesus
could replace it. When an ear was found, they
showed it to Malchus who then said, "Keep looking,
mine had a pencil behind it."

Did you see where Mike Tyson died?
He ran into Vincent van Gogh up in heaven and said,
" You look like a prize fighter. You sure we didn't fight?"


Well you know just mocking is ok
But bt jaysus look the DJ

However refute
The damned to ickay

The leprous perform
Therefore umnikay

Date: 2006/04/05 03:36:22, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 04 2006,21:44)
What needs to be cleared up is this;

If YOUR human life did not start at YOUR conception then when did it start?

If science cannot tell you then how can it tell you anything else?

It could still explain how nuclear fusion and fission work.
How fast to expect a falling object to accelerate etc.

Why do you think human life starts at a precise moment?

I suspect you are demanding this in order to justify imposing your world-view onto others.

Date: 2006/04/05 05:20:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ April 05 2006,10:14)
Anyway, as for belief, I believe there is a large pink spider sitting above your computer, on the ceiling.

LOL! Every time I read that I get an urge to check.

I have resisted so far. But I am slightly surprised such a ridiculous comment gives me the impulse. Then again, I supose it is just a natural reaction.

Date: 2006/04/05 05:28:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (MidnightVoice @ April 05 2006,09:18)
To actually insert just a little science into the debate ( :D )


Not read the article yet. Probably will later. Quick question before I do.

Is the fact that most people are heterosexual and therefore the more babies that a mother has, the probability of having a homosexual child increases considered?

Date: 2006/04/05 05:37:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

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

Date: 2006/04/05 05:43:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ April 05 2006,10:35)
See!  You believe me!
Now, in order to stop the spider eating your socks, you must send me a cheque for £100.  That will pay for me to contact a handy spider-whisperer, who will help keep it happy and contented.


Everyone knows the sock gnome is responsible for all missing socks.

EDIT: BTW. If you want to con people out of money, then write and plug The Pink Spider book.

If you want ideas, write to any major ID proponent.

Date: 2006/04/05 05:51:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (qetzal @ April 05 2006,10:49)
thordaddy reminds me a lot of someone with brain damage.

It's like a case where someone has normal vision, but due to some brain injury, they can't process any input from one side of their field of vision. They can see it, but the visual information is blocked from their conscious awareness.

thordaddy is like that, but his block is related to conceptual areas. No matter how you phrase it, or how many times, if you're trying to convey something in one of those areas, it will never, ever enter his conscious understanding.

Possibly. On the other hand, he might just be a troll or a bigot.

Date: 2006/04/05 06:41:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ April 05 2006,11:30)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 05 2006,10:37)
Larry used to amuse me. He is now an irritant (IMO).

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

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

It is likely, but not yet confirmed. There was a post there (can't remember the name soz) complaining that when posting on PT he kept being told to "shut up".

Not many people regularly get told "shut up" on PT. So there is an inference but no concrete evidence.

Date: 2006/04/05 21:01:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,19:03)
Stephen and Flint,

Don't you need to know my world-view before you can claim that I am asserting it here?

The only claim made was that both YOUR LIFE and MY LIFE began at conception.

Thordaddy, I do know your World-view on this issue.

You believe abortion is wrong. That is your World-view on abortion.

You want science to suport you and are twisting logic, evidence and answers to that end.

You wish to have abortion made a crime and lock up anybody practicing it.

Date: 2006/04/05 21:31:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,23:10)
Stephen Elliot,

I never got your answer to the fire question?

If you were caught in a fire and you had to choose between saving a 2 year old and 100 embryos representing the last of the Elliot lineage, who would you save?

What would it say about evolution?

I am stunned. The irony is mind-blowing.

TD. I would save the child but think it says nothing whatsoever about evolution.

Is that answer clear enough for you?

Now let's see if you reciprocate.

Given the choice of saving a 2 year old. or 100 embryos (neither choice being related to you in any way) which would you choose? (BTW neither choice would endanger you).

Date: 2006/04/06 05:51:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quite fascinating stories.

Womens equality with men is a rare thing in the World. I worked for the UN for a short time. Every African male I knew considered that a man has a right to hit his wife.

These was not nasty people by the way. They just have a completely different view on things.

In Afghanistan women get even less rights. North Pakistan also.

I also saw that the UN (the ultimate big-money NGO) does some counter-productive things. One example is the UN agencies paying a huge amount (for the area) of money to rent property. So much, that the owners left Afghanistan (Germany being the preffered destination) and that money went with them.

So money that was officialy being spent on Afghanistan was actually emigrating to the west.

Date: 2006/04/06 05:55:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2006,10:25)
beat like a rented mule

That expression always makes me smile. Dont know why, but it does.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:04:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ April 06 2006,09:28)
There is new talk of a "gay gene" being profferred by "scientists."

I repeat: Is there? Where?

I suggest this whole thread is just Thorthingy making stuff up again and chortling while a bunch of potentially productive people waste time on it.

I think that there has been.

Thordaddy's take is that science is trying to find a natural explanation for a gay gene for political purposes. Funnily enough he is on-side with the gays with this.

They also seem to worry that a gay gene is political.

Thordaddy is scared that a gay gene would make gays be considered normal. While gays are worried that a gay gene could be used as an excuse for people to hunt for (and then practice) "cures".

Myself: Who cares what consenting adults do (provided it harms nobody else)?

All sorts of stuff here.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:08:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (beervolcano @ April 06 2006,11:05)
Do Dave isn't impressed with a scientific discovery unless it has a practical use?

What practical use comes from inferring an Intelligent Designer?

What practical use would come of detecting the work of a nameless Creator in nature?

Jack Squat. That'w what.

I think you know the practical use.

They can then declare God exists as science fact, then go-on to make all-sorts of arbitrary laws.


Date: 2006/04/06 06:12:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Good grief.

How many anti-abortion threads does Thordaddy want?

Date: 2006/04/06 09:18:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ April 06 2006,13:06)
(Stephen Elliott: ) I think that there has been (new talk of a "gay gene" being proffered by "scientists".

You provided a bunch of google hits, but what's the "new" talk? Anything from this millennium?

I understand, of course, that there are and have been ongoing discussions about "nature vs. nurture" on this, as on so many issues of human behavior. But my question, specifically, is what is the "new talk"? Have any new data been found? Any new research reported?

Or is it just Thorthingy perseverating on one of his compulsions?

Maybe I did not make myself clear. I am not claiming there is scientific evidence that there is a gay gene. I am not claiming there isn't either.

I  was trying to show the stupidity of the argument.

TD. Seems to think scientists are trying to prove a gay gene for political purposes to suport homosexuality.

Homosexuals are worried scientists are trying to prove a gay gene for political purposes in order to "cure" homosexuality.

The google list was not suposed to suport either view. Just show that people are trying to use science to fulfil a world-view. I am not talking about scientists in general here BTW.

Personaly, I do not care what makes somebody homosexual. If pushed I would guess it is biological and reinforced by culture. But I do not know.

I am fairly sure that my being atracted by the oposite sex has little to do with culture, but is just the way I am. Again, I am not certain. But I am fairly sure. Look at peadophiles. Nothing in society encourages that.

Therefore I consider a peadophile not to be criminal but a mental defect.

I reckon we do not choose who/what we atracted by. It is a mental thing that people have none or little control over.

Date: 2006/04/06 09:36:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 06 2006,14:25)
Id avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it.

Speeding up relative time should be easy.

Just identify where space is not moving and glue/bolt your experiment to it.


You might need a microscope/telescope though. Oh, and a way to accelerate light.

Maybe not as simple as I originaly thought.

Date: 2006/04/06 09:42:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,23:10)
Stephen Elliot,

I never got your answer to the fire question?

If you were caught in a fire and you had to choose between saving a 2 year old and 100 embryos representing the last of the Elliot lineage, who would you save?

What would it say about evolution?

I have answered. Why don't you?



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006
 Posted: April 06 2006,03:51    

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 06 2006,02:31)
Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,23:10)
Stephen Elliot,

I never got your answer to the fire question?

If you were caught in a fire and you had to choose between saving a 2 year old and 100 embryos representing the last of the Elliot lineage, who would you save?

What would it say about evolution?

I am stunned. The irony is mind-blowing.

TD. I would save the child but think it says nothing whatsoever about evolution.

Is that answer clear enough for you?

Now let's see if you reciprocate.

Given the choice of saving a 2 year old. or 100 embryos (neither choice being related to you in any way) which would you choose? (BTW neither choice would endanger you).

Good luck waiting for that answer, Stephen.

However, it seems to me the troll has accidentally stumbled onto something: Evolution does have something to say on why we'd all be inclined to make the same (obvious) choice.
I'd choose the baby ,like everyone else (including thordaddy, of course, though he'll never admit it) and I think that, among all the obvious reasons for it (moral, social) there's also an evolutionary one: As a rule, we humans try to protect our young.
They don't have to be our children: We're more like wolves than like lions on this issue. The shape and sound of our babies instinctively triggers our affection.
A petri dish does not do that.

Fair point. You thought more about it than I did. I think that you are probably correct.

See that TD? Being wrong and admiting it doesn't hurt that much.

Date: 2006/04/06 18:24:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,18:33)
Stephen Elliot,

If I had to choose between a baby and 100 embryos that weren't related to me, I would most likely choose the baby.  If the embryos were the last of my lineage then I would probably try to save some embryos and then attempt to save the baby.  I'm not sure how you can't admit that you would be letting your OWN children die along with your entire lineage.

You are obviously existentially agnostic.  I care a little more.  Or, you can call me selfish.

But I would not let my children die TD.

I do not consider an embryo a child. Is my last sentence so dificult to understand?

In the same instance I would probably choose to save a dog over a petri dish of embryos.

For me the choice is saving a conscious entity that can feel pain and experience fear over a bunch of cells.

BTW. TY for finally answering the question. There now, wasn't too hard was it?

Date: 2006/04/06 18:45:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,22:01)
If you were not YOU at YOUR conception then when did YOU become YOU?  Never...?  Before conception or after conception?

I don't see any other choices and both the science and lack thereof has me assume that YOU became YOU at YOUR conception...

I most certainly did not become me at conception.

I can grant that my life as an individual started at conception. By which I mean that certain biological traits was selected at that point.

However I could still have turned out very different to who I am now.

If we could go back in time to the point of my conception. Keep that fetus identical but change some other things, such as my nutrition, social conditions and/or education and it would not grow to become me.

Chances are it would grow to look and think different to what I do now. Therefore being a different person.

Date: 2006/04/06 18:54:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,22:53)
PuckSR opines,

Au contraire....

I already told is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....

You gave to different answers for when it became a "new boat."  I've highlighted above.

No. Two different answers were not given. Once again you refuse to read what was written.

Try again!

It is the old boat before any parts are replaced.
It is a new boat when all parts are replaced.
It becomes the new boat somewhere in the process, but there is no exact point when that happens.

Date: 2006/04/07 04:57:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quick question. I have seen this quote several times now.
I've always said we're at war with Eurasia

Tried to search it but got 155,000 hits. Read a few but got no explanation.

To what does the above quote refer?

Refined search a bit more. I gather it is from Orwell's "1984". I have read this book (a long time ago) and can't remember the quote, never mind the context.

Date: 2006/04/07 05:23:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
BTW. I reckon "Church Burning Ebola Boys" sounds like a pretty cool "gang" name.

Cut to West Side Story.

It is the "Church Burning Ebola Boys" Vs. "The IDiots".

EDIT: Cheers for the tip-off Arden.
Edit:EDIT: Yep the parallels are quite clear. Now I know the context.

Date: 2006/04/07 06:48:23, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ April 07 2006,11:05)
Never gets tired of the same lies, does he.

To be fair, Thordaddy might not be actualy lying. It is possible that he is too stupid to realise his errors.

Date: 2006/04/07 08:57:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2006,13:47)
Thanks, Drew. Do you go around pulling earthworms off hooks for a living?


That was a bit cruel, but funny. (I think). Hard to Judge as my irony meter is in pieces.

Date: 2006/04/07 09:10:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I have only been in this argument about 2 years. Already my perception is under atack. It is almost impossible to distinguish irony/sarcasm/lies.

I wasn't even always on "this" side. Originaly I was an ID suporter. That is very embarasing.

I take my hat-off to people who have been doing this for 20+ years. It is already wearying me.

Date: 2006/04/07 09:15:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 07 2006,14:04)
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 07 2006,14:02)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,April 07 2006,13:47]Thanks, Drew. Do you go around pulling earthworms off hooks for a living?

Uh... how do I respond to that?[/quote]
Actually, I didn't get the joke at all. Is it some kind of Aussie thing?

If I understand it correctly. Wesley baited a trap. He quoted a "debunked" suporter of ID suporting ID, but Drew pointed out the guy was a fool, and a recorded fool to-boot.

But I could be wrong. It has happened before.

Date: 2006/04/07 09:21:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Ghost of Paley.

I assume that you do not believe evolution is true.

Why do you not state what you believe has happened? In just a few short statements if possible.

How about quick answers to:

How old is the Earth?
When did life first apear?
When did Humans apear?

Date: 2006/04/07 09:29:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 07 2006,14:26)
Wesley baited a trap. He quoted a "debunked" suporter of ID suporting ID, but Drew pointed out the guy was a fool, and a recorded fool to-boot.

But I could be wrong. It has happened before.

OOOOOHHHHHH, I get it now. I totally messed up Wesley's sting operation.

Maybe. Like I said, I might be wrong.

Date: 2006/04/07 09:34:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ April 07 2006,14:28)
[quote=stevestory,April 07 2006,07:55]

hmm, burning churches is different.  I'd guess low heat, high volume type of thing; probably propane, but I'm new to this church burning thing.  what would you recommend?
liquid oxygen! Let's get this show on the road!

Steve, your my kind of conspirator!

I could make some thermite without too much trouble.  Then theres the industrial recipe for gunpowder I have.  The funny thing is I could probably get arrested for being a terrorist these days, just by having it sitting on my shelf.
To make a real big impression we need Physicists not Chemists. Everyone knows Physics has the "Biggest Bang!"

Date: 2006/04/07 17:31:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,21:20)
Just like we can't assume a newborn to be conscious because not one has ever proclaimed, "I am newborn, I am conscious," ...

This is hogwash. A newborn reacts to stimuli, you can detect sleep/awake behaviour paterns. The fact that it has no language skill is irelevant.

By your definition nothing but humans are conscious and only humans that can speak. Even chimps that have been taught to communicate by humans would fall outside your requirements for being conscious.

BTW. Why would it be wrong to kill something that is not conscious?

Your arguments are inconsistent. In one post you will claim that a human zygote=a human adult. In another you state that newborns are not developed enough to be conscious. Ridiculous!

Sir, you are a liar!

Date: 2006/04/07 17:36:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:31)

But this question assumes you answered "yes" to the question, "are you alive?"


My stance is very simple,  There is no evidence that would have me conclude that MY LIFE started anywhere other than AT MY CONCEPTION.  Is this really that controversial?  If so, why?

Can you remember your conception? Do you know anyone who can?

Is a bird's egg a bird?

Date: 2006/04/07 17:44:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:26)

When you document high incidences of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early mortality amongst homosexual penguins then we'll talk.  LOL!

What exactly have you provided in documentary evidence so-far?

BTW. I would grant that AIDS/STDs and therefore earlier average life expectancy, is more prevalent amongst gay males. But it is significantly reduced in gay females.

Now how about providing links to articles that back up your position?

Date: 2006/04/07 17:55:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:38)
Stephen Elliot,

Can you state UNEQUIVOCALLY that a newborm is conscious?

Stephen says,

This is hogwash. A newborn reacts to stimuli, you can detect sleep/awake behaviour paterns. The fact that it has no language skill is irelevant

How does this differ from a zygote?  Or Terri Schiavo?  If that is your definition of consciousness then a flower is conscious and you are right.

Yes I can state that a newborn is conscious. UNEQUIVICALLY is impossible while you exist.

Now lets hang you by your own petard.

Tell me why you think a newborn is no more conscious than someone brain-dead.

Then go-on to explain why abortion is wrong.

BTW. I doubt I will get a reasonable response from you. So I throw the question out to anyone.

Date: 2006/04/07 18:02:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 07 2006,22:46)

now that's a church worth torching!


Sir, your thought processes are medieval. Let's "Nuke-Em Till they glow"!

Date: 2006/04/07 18:43:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 07 2006,23:38)

now that's a church worth torching!

Sir, your thought processes are medieval. Let's "Nuke-Em Till they glow"!

Please, get with it. Ebola bombs are the wave of the future.

Infections do not act like "waves". Therefore they are non Physical.

Date: 2006/04/07 18:50:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Garrr! Me Hearties! You be being quiet on this. Or it is walking the plank, you be!

Date: 2006/04/07 18:58:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 07 2006,23:52)
*smacks head*


yeah that's right, it's uh, a spider, yeah that's the ticket, just a spider.

nothing to see here, move along...

Shhhh! Do not give away the conspiracies secrets.

BTW. Where is that map of church locations? I have lost mine (probably due to lack of interest).

CBEBs For teh win!

Date: 2006/04/08 02:00:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Spike @ April 07 2006,17:27)

Perhaps I should change my choice of words. If you read the "cutting them loose" portion as having greater weight than the "freedom of choice, freedom to educate their own kids as they see fit" portion, then I've misdirected your attention.

Let's compare two political systems.

In the system I propose, no one pays taxes for schools. You and others who agree with you put as much money as you can into the schools that are educating kids the way you want.

Carry that train-of-thought onwards.

Why should somebody who dislikes a speed limit pay for policing one? Why should a pacifist pay for the military. Why should a worker pay for welfare? etc. etc.

Date: 2006/04/08 09:33:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 08 2006,11:33)

This is Basic Logic 101, but it seems to have eluded Thordaddy.

Many things elude Thordaddy.

I would guess that Thordaddy believes himself a moral person. Yet his behaviour here so-far indicates otherwise.

Date: 2006/04/08 22:54:22, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,17:23)
Stephen and Faid,

If the mother of my first daughter decided sometime between September of 98 to June of 99 to have an abortion, she would have killed our Cierra.  This is an unquestionable fact born out by her life.

So Faid, if that embryo was Cierra and I let her die, how would I have not let my child die in deference to a stranger?

At last. Now this argument sounds much more honest. I think you are mistaken, but at least you do not seem as evasive.

The bit that I disagree with is that an abortion would not have killed your daughter. Your daughter did not exist at that time.

A zygote without limbs, nervous sytem or a brain was not Cierra. It became Cierra.

Date: 2006/04/08 23:02:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,18:12)

You can't really believe that I NEED to provide you with " references, citations, [and] links," when you could easily provide those same things and refute my claims.

Bloody ####. You actually did not know why people wanted references. D'oh!

If you are going to cite suport for a claim you make, it is your responsibility to provide references. That way everyone can be sure they are using the same source.

Date: 2006/04/08 23:59:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,17:30)
Stephen Elliot opines,

Can you remember your conception? Do you know anyone who can?

Is a bird's egg a bird?

I can't remember my birth and as far as I know no one else can either.

The question still stands and your answers can follow in a 1...2...3 fashion following my quoted question.

What evidence LEADS YOU AWAY from presupposing that YOUR LIFE BEGAN anywhere other than AT YOUR CONCEPTION?

I can't make it any clearer and until we get a definitive response to this specific question we can't proceed.

We already assume your are alive and human.

Gentlemen, your answers, please?

I am about done with answering you Thordaddy. There is no point trying to explain a position just to have it ignored.

Thordaddy it is bleeding obvious (and has been for quite a while), you wish to define human life as starting at conception. You then want to use that to argue against abortion.

You wish to define women who choose to abort and the medical staff who help them as criminal.

Date: 2006/04/09 01:59:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,06:08)
Stephen Elliot,

This is like saying Stephen Elliot at age 9 is not the Stephen Elliot NOW.   Stephen at 9 just became the Stephen Elliot of NOW.  And if Stephen Elliot would have died at age 9 then Stephen Elliot in the present would still exist.  Clearly this is PURE NONSENSE.

Secondly, if Cierra didn't exist at conception then she certainly didn't exist before conception.  So you are claiming that she came into existence after conception?  This implies that somehow she could have come into existence even if she was killed at conception.  Is this your stance?  But then I ask?  Doesn't development of all things necessary begin at conception including CNS and consciousness?  Your arguments are full of gaping holes because you are existentially agnostic.

thordaddy you either misrepresent or miread my argument.

One more time.

I am saying your daughter, as you know her did not exist at her conception. Had your wife had an abortion or miscariage your daughter, as you know her would not have come into existence. Similarly had something else happened such as your wife developing a disease or suffering malnutrition during early pregnancy, your daughter, as you know her would not exist.

You might still have a healthy daughter. But at least a little different to the one you have now.

You are arguing that people just "pop" into existence at conception.

As for this:
This is like saying Stephen Elliot at age 9 is not the Stephen Elliot NOW.   Stephen at 9 just became the Stephen Elliot of NOW.  And if Stephen Elliot would have died at age 9 then Stephen Elliot in the present would still exist.

Me at 9 was definately not me now. My 9 year old self became me. It could have turned out very different. But no, I am not arguing I would still exist if I had died at 9. Where did you get that idea?

Conception is an important event. I am not arguing against that. But a zygotte is not=to a developed human.

Date: 2006/04/09 02:06:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,06:16)

I apologize.  I thought you were asking for statistics concerning homosexuals and their overrepresentation in various diseases and pathologies.  There seems to be a lot of denial concerning this point.  But to answer your request...


Considering that link is to an organisation that profits (or apears to at first glance) from trying to "cure" homosexuals. Do you consider there might be a bit of bias?

Date: 2006/04/09 09:58:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,14:43)
Russell and Stephen,

Is it your stance that homosexual advocates ARE NOT active within the public school systems in America both at the primary and secondary level?

What in those many examples of educating about homosexuality (gay lifestyle) did you disagree with?


As I live in England I cannot answer your 1st question. As for you 2nd question, I am not certain what you are asking.

That link you gave contains many links. Some to actual scientific studies (eventually). The home site however is preaching that homosexuality is an illnes that can be cured. I would not be happy having that taught as a fact.

I do not think schools should encourage homosexuality BTW. But teaching that it is evil, sinfull or a sickness is also wrong.

So lets be more specific. What would you want schools to teach?

I would want something along the lines of. "A significant % of the human population are sexually atracted to the same sex. The majority of people are atracted to the oposite sex. Nobody should have to face ridicule or discrimination because of who they are atracted to."

Would you have a problem with that Thordaddy?

Date: 2006/04/09 12:06:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (dhogaza @ April 09 2006,17:01)
Sadly, Davetard is learning from Panda's Thumb

The title of the thread on Panda's Thumb is "Libel Laws and Scoundrel Refuges".  Has Dave just admitted to being a scoundrel?

Really doesn't matter. He has demonstrated it well and often enough.

Date: 2006/04/09 21:50:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 09 2006,23:17)
again i ask, what do you folks get out of arguing with the mentally retarded?

just whittling knives?


Fair point. It is frustrating arguing with somebody who is dishonest, willfuly ignorant and bigoted.

Nevertheless, I find it dificult to see his drivel without chalenging it.  T-d aparently wants to impose, what he considers morals onto your society. In the process, he is twisting evidence to try to make it suport his views. I doubt t-d will ever learn that is probably best to form views around evidence (as much and the best available).

On a brighter note, it is unusual to learn nothing at-all when arguing with these people.

I was very surprised about that NARTH organisation. Didn't suspect there would be many people who would still try to "cure" homosexuality. Sad fact but all knowledge is better to have than be ignorant of.

Date: 2006/04/09 22:31:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Just been reading the link you gave. This comment made me laugh.

Four words for evolutionists: Ignorance is the best policy

I mean, its got them pretty well thus-far climbing the social ladder so why stop there ?

Comment by Charliecrs — December 17, 2005 @ 9:24 pm

     My Bolding

Good job my was not full when I read that, I would be cleaning my monitor screen.

Date: 2006/04/10 19:23:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 10 2006,18:02)

The more you pontificate the more you expose your motivations.

You want me to dance blissfully to YOUR self-imposed ignorance.

BANG! Another irony meter for the scrap.

Good grief!

Date: 2006/04/11 19:18:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PuckSR @ April 11 2006,19:31)

most males have single track minds ;)

Life is simpler that way. :D  Probably more fun as well.

Date: 2006/04/12 05:12:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Another vague question Thordaddy. What about eugenics?

In the UK it is customary now to check as early as possible in a pregnancy for serious debilitating ilness'. Should these be found to be positive, the woman is asked if she wishes for an abortion or try to go full term.

That I agree with.

If you are refering to "designer babies" then I would probably be against that, in most situations.

Once again though, no easy binary rule, different situations call for different responses.

Date: 2006/04/12 05:23:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Ghost of Paley,

Well the study you provided is definately better conducted than Thordaddy's NARTH ones.

There is no condoning a HIV+ person having unprotected sex with someone they know (or it is possible) to be negative.

But that is the bahaviour of individuals. I believe this has also happened in heterosexual sexual encounters.

Date: 2006/04/12 05:33:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ April 12 2006,10:26)
Anyone want to help great_ape?

He (?) seems to be defending "Darwinism", but is getting chewed out by DS.  I wonder how long he will last?  Whats just as funny is that some poster repeats the same old canard about Dembski not having been refuted.  Which as far as I can see is bunk.

Looks as though Great-Ape is already on the banned list.

Another gracious DS insert.
If by all that you mean to say that RM+NS is so well proven that the law of the land should require that it be taught in a vacuum devoid of criticism or contrary ideas then I say you’re out of line. In order to gain that kind of cocksureness you’re going to have to do more than just speculate that unpredictable mutations, through serendipity and natural selection over the course of deep time, accumulate to turn bacteria into baboons, create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. The theory of gravity has the kind of predictability (inside practical bounds) that warrants uncritical acceptance. NeoDarwinian bacteria to baboon evolution doesn’t even come close. I don’t see anything constructive to further discussion as you aren’t fooling anyone here and I’m sure no one here is going to change your thinking. An hasta la byebye is in order. Don’t let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.-ds


As for Dembski having never been rebutted. Well WD thinks he hasn't, so there.

Date: 2006/04/12 06:34:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ April 11 2006,18:50)
Okay, I've had enough. The mind-numbing repetition has worn out even my patience. Can you go argue this on an anti-abortion site rather than an evolution site, Thordaddy? You're the most unbelievable waste of bandwidth I've ever seen on an evolution website.

Don't forget Larry. I would say joint equal.

Date: 2006/04/12 09:26:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
At a guess, I would consider the likelyhood of condoms being normal practice for gay sex. The absolute impossibility of conception would have made condom use unlikely before AIDS (and its causes) was well known.

Date: 2006/04/12 09:53:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I would hope that all kids are taught about the use of contraception at an apropriate age. Particularly the use of condoms and safe sex to combat STDs.

It would be wrong to teach people that it is incorect/sinful to be atracted to certain people. The various risks and countermeasures would be an apropriate lesson.

Gay guys should use condoms to reduce odds of STDs.
Heterosexuals should use condoms for the same reason and consider other aditional contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Gay chicks are probably relatively risk-free.

Of course this would be inapropriate to teach young children. Rather, for older kids/young adults.

Date: 2006/04/12 09:58:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 12 2006,14:55)

Since eugenics is a branch of science, I was expecting more "scientists" to say that there are no good arguments against eugenics since we clearly already practice it to an extent.

It seems to me that science once again is playing politics.

I think it has become obvious by now that eugenics covers many things.

What exactly are you asking td?

Date: 2006/04/13 05:10:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,19:08)

Because I believe in equality, tolerance and non-discrimination ...

Yeah right, of course you do!

The only thing I am unsure about here is wether I am witnessing irony or hypocrisy.

EDIT: Oops. I forgot sarcasm.

Date: 2006/04/13 06:37:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Your claims sound far more plausible when linked to culture than to ethnicity.

Date: 2006/04/13 06:48:36, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
A zygote may produce:

Nothing, if it fails to atach to the uterus.
1 Child if it does atach and a normal birth is the result.
1/2 a child if a chimera effect happens.
2 children, if it splits.
Nothing, if it ataches and fails.
>2 in some instances.

Now, how does 1 zygote=1 unique human? (hindsight is not apropriate here).

Date: 2006/04/13 10:49:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 13 2006,14:59)
Something just came up, so I don't have much time to respond. I'll keep this brief:

1) I'm also deeply skeptical of efforts to change sexual orientation.

2) I don't want to criminalize gay behavior, or even to necessarily restrict gay marriage - but I would like a healthy debate over this issue before we take the plunge. In other words, I don't view the right to marriage as fundamental.

3) No problems with telling the truth during class, but the lessons should stress that there's always a risk for pregnancy/STDs from sex.

1) Agreed.

2) Not sure about USA. But in the UK married/unmarried couples have different taxes levied upon them (particularly on a partners death), therefore I believe gays should be entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

3) Agreed.

Date: 2006/04/13 12:44:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

I agree. If I could have had sex with a willing woman every night (in my twenties) I would have done so.

I have a suspiscion that the "permissiveness" of gay men is no more than "oportunity".

Date: 2006/04/14 06:34:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 14 2006,07:02)

Why discriminate against the pedophile "priests" in the Catholic Church?  Their pedophilia is within the "normal observed range of human behavior" and "homosexuality" is perfectly normal...

If you would like to engage like an adult, I would love to field your questions.

You Sir, talk crap!

Why are you comparing homosexuals to peadophiles?

I certainly was (and assume others also) talking about consenting adults when refering to gays and straights.

Peadophiles may fall in the "observed range of human behaviour" but so do murderers and rapists. We (I) am/are not defending them. It is consentual sex between adults that is the topic of discusion.

You Thordaddy are ofensive and juvenile.

Date: 2006/04/14 06:41:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ April 14 2006,09:27)
does it?


If that was the case, Quantum effects did not hapen until about the mid-20th Century.

Gravity did not work before Newton.

And the speed of light only became absolute after Einstein was born.

Date: 2006/04/14 09:12:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 14 2006,12:27)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 14 2006,11:41)
[quote=stevestory,April 14 2006,09:27]does it?


If that was the case, Quantum effects did not hapen until about the mid-20th Century.

Gravity did not work before Newton.

And the speed of light only became absolute after Einstein was born.[/quote]
But those aren't examples of no scientific evidence! The evidence was all over, humans just weren't in a position to see it yet.

Lack of comprehension isn't the same as lack of evidence.

I have to disagree there (apart from gravity).

What evidence was there for relativity or QM?

Date: 2006/04/14 10:37:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ April 14 2006,14:25)
Re: relativity, there had long been recognition that the orbit of Mercury was anomalous under Newtonian mechanics.

Unless another unobserved body had yet to be found.

Anyway, that was hardly evidence for light having a fixed speed and traveling at that speed through space stoped you traveling through time.

Date: 2006/04/18 11:07:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ April 14 2006,22:50)
Similar long periods of time are required before even the most primitive cognitive abilities start to appear - to associate vision with objects, words with meaning, etc.


I have to disagree with that. My earliest memory is within a few days of being born. I was definately thinking (all-be it in a different way {I was thinking in pictures rather than words} I also had some idea about recognising my parents and maternal grandparents).

Date: 2006/04/18 11:35:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Well we have had gay marriage (actually a "civil ceremony") legalised in the UK for some short time now. Society has yet to collapse.

BTW Ghost, I thought trying to lump gay marriage and A.A. as the same was very disingenuous.

Date: 2006/04/18 11:50:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ April 18 2006,16:20)
Stephen Elliott

If you are correct, you are WAY unique. You might enjoy reading this article, which much more closely reflects my understanding...

I doubt I am that unusual.

Early memory.

My parents had a hard time believing me, until I recounted the event.

TBH. Recounting acurately is impossible. I had no language and thought in pictures. I can remember where I was positioned and who was anoying me. I wanted her to go away. What I thought was a picture/image of her walking out the room. I was able to know the difference between what was happening and what I desired.

I recognised my parents and maternal grandparents. But not as such a relationship. Rather it was people I was comfortable with.

Emotions played a part, but not as sophisticated as later in life. Mainly it was security/insecurity.

I have lots of pre-school memories. However they are not linear. Rather it is a disjointed bunch with gaps.

Date: 2006/04/18 12:02:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,11:51)

Who said anything about me being neutral?  I'm an active Creationist and very involved politically.  I am also an Electrical Engineer, former AF jet pilot, very successful business man, and a large contributor to various causes ... maybe yours if you're nice to me and convince me why I should.  But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.


I believe evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see on Earth.

The main reason that I think this way is that evolution exposes itself to the scientific method and is falsifiable.

If you are talking "origin of life", then evolution has little/nothing to say about that, atm.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer period.

BTW afdave. I came to this argument from the ID POV. So far I have found the "pro-evolutionists" far more honest, open minded and humorous than the ID mob.

In fact, what most anoyed me about ID was the sheer dishonesty of its main suporters.

Have you read the "wedge document"? How unscientific is that?

EDIT: BTW. All fossils are transitional.

Date: 2006/04/18 12:37:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Definately within a few days. I was in the "front room". I had a bedroom when a few months old.

I was fresh out from hospital. I have pre-language memories from my own bedroom. Scared as #### about wallpaper.

I can remember my mother teaching me to read before school. Loads of memories from Liverpool and we left when I was 3 years old.

At age 2 I can remember waiting for my sister to be born. 9 months seemed so long it felt like an age.

I remember playing on my rocking horse and drinking from a bottle. Skinning my knee on the doorstep and punching the kid who lived over the street. Watching TV "watch with mother". All this was pre-3 year old.

Date: 2006/04/18 12:43:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
TBH Ghost, A cousin of mine is gay. I want him to enjoy the same rights as I do.

He should be alowed to "marry" his boyfriend so they are not punitively taxed upon death.

A.A. on the other hand is discrimination.

Date: 2006/04/18 21:35:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 18 2006,23:24)
Remember, you have no dog in this fight, but you discriminate in favor of "homosexuals" nonetheless.  The question is how that makes you any more moral than those trying to preserve traditional marriage because we recognize its fundamental uniqueness to our civilization.

The burden of proof is on those trying to usurp traditional marriage by judicial fiat using weak and pathethic "civil rights" arguments that don't apply to groups of people or homosexual couples.

Why would alowing gays the same marriage rights as straights usurp traditional marriage?

I just can't see this. Try as I may, I can't spot the logical connection.

So please explain in simple words. How does granting = civil rights to gays remove those rights from straights?

Date: 2006/04/19 00:17:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
T-D, I do not believe we can choose who we are atracted to.

In a run-of-the-mill marriage between a man and a woman certain benefits are gained.

Why deny those (benefits) to homosexuals? How would homosexuals gaining them remove them (benefits) from a normal marriage? It wouldn't!

Bringing peadophiles into the argument is plain wrong. Abusing children is a long way from consentual adult relationships.

Date: 2006/04/19 02:58:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ April 18 2006,21:34)
A few PT regulars mentioned by Larry in the last comment.

I quite liked some of those "quotes". Made me laugh.

Date: 2006/04/19 09:21:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
How does marriage promote promiscuity?

What is wrong with promiscuity if done in a responsible manner?

You baffle me ghost. You are obviously inteligent, yet you argue weird stuff, and asking for the aliance of Thordaddy is very strange.

From your last posts, I think you are atempting to sidetrack though.

Date: 2006/04/19 09:49:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Making a long term comitment socialy and financialy rewarding might temper the promiscuity thing.

Maybe gays are more sexualy promiscuous because there is little/no incentive to be stable in relationships.

Date: 2006/04/20 07:05:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 20 2006,04:53)
Do these pro-gay advocates really believe they are putting together coherent arguments?


I am hardly a pro-gay advocate. How does believing in fair treatment and equality for all citizens make me pro any single group?

My argument is simple. Hardly incoherent.

1. Marriage conveys certain financial/legal/social advantages to a couple.

2. Traditionaly, only heterosexual couples have been able to honestly take advantage of the marital institution.

Now that to me is just plain unfair. Do gays pay less tax due to enjoying less rights/oportunities?

In actuality I have no "interest" in the argument. Gays now enjoy full marital rights in the UK. Although it isn't called "marriage" the same rights are bestowed.

Anyway. Ghost I await getting clobbered. Be carefull, I might have the Hulk in reserve. Brick face is no match for the green one, nuff said. MMM.

Date: 2006/04/20 07:09:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 20 2006,11:48)
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 20 2006,00:18)
Kevin (or can I call you W.?) - in the interests of irony, you should post under a different name each time.


Ooh, yeah, and post under the name of a different Confederate general everytime, like Larry did. Or maybe even better: post under the name of a UNION general every time. That should bug Larry, since he's a big Confederate apologist!



I hope you folks aren't seriously encouraging someone to behave in a way you find reprehensible in somebody you disagree with.

Date: 2006/04/20 19:22:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 21 2006,00<!--emo&:0)

Is this some kind of Pavlonian experiment?  As you repeat the same tired "progressive" cliche time after time, you then accuse me of repeating myself.

You opine,

And for the fifteenth time It will be pointed out to this dumba$$ that gays are denied the right to form a legally binding state recognized partnership of marriage with all its associated privileges, a right that is freely available to all other non-gay citizens through marriage.

And for the 15th time we can unequivocally state that this isn't about marriage, but instead accruing benefits by changing the law through judicial fiat to assuage a very small, but powerful radical minority.

Next you say,

Another lie from the dumba$$.  Actually it’s the same lie he has repeated over and over and over, as if he tells it enough times it will become true.

Gays do not seek to redefine the rights and privileges granted to a couple that is engaged in a traditional marriage.  They only wish to not be denied those same rights.

Gay advocates aren't seeking to redefine traditional marriage?  Then let the "homosexual" marry according to the same law that applies to ALL of US who intend to get married.
How does the law apply differently to those who seek to get married, straight or gay?

1. Yes. Those unholy gays want the same rights as everyone else. Shocking!

2. Straights can gain financial/legal/social advantages from marrying somebody they love and find sexualy atractive. You would deny that to gays.

Date: 2006/04/21 02:45:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
What is meant by "freedom of association"?

Is this it?

Date: 2006/04/21 04:46:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I also cannot see how allowing gays to marry will make more people gay.

Possibly it would encourage more gays to be open about thier sexuality.

Could that help spread disease? Possibly, but not conclusive.

Surely it is a worse tragedy for both partners if a gay person marries a member of the opposite sex to pretend at "normality".

Also it could be that having a possibility of state recognised "marriage" could persuade some gays into a long term relationship and away from promiscuous casual sexual encounters.

Most of that is just conjecture though. My main argument is that all citizens should be entitled to the same freedoms under the law.

EDIT: I am confused as to why "freedom of asociation" should enter into the argument. Sounds like another misnomer. How is one persons right to refuse service to another "freedom of asociation"? What about the freedom of the person refused service?

To me it is a grey area. The choice of words is missleading.

Date: 2006/04/21 07:44:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I admit that I am totally against A.A. Assuming that it means the same a Positive Discrimination in the UK.

In the long-run, I doubt it will help anyone.

Date: 2006/04/21 11:25:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The only reason I can see for claiming a special case for 1 man + 1 woman marriage is child rearing.

I can see an inherant value for a state to encourage a couple to stay in a stable relationship and share responsibility for raising children.

However, in this day and age plenty of couples remain childless. Why are they more deserving of tax/social/legal privileges because the couple is not same-sex?

TBH I am sick of trying to answer t-daddy.

Ghost: Tiger Woods was the only name I recognised.

Eric: The reasons I am oposed to A.A is that I dislike racial discrimination while you seem to be saying it is ok so long as only whites suffer it.

Also if people are allowed to do jobs they are not qualified to do. You are patronising them. Basically you will be saying "you are only a poor ignorant non-white, nobody could expect you to atain our ability".

Now imagine in ten years time after this policy has been ongoing, your child is ill. Something life threatening. You have a choice of 2 doctors. 1 black 1 white. You would go for the white 1 every single time if that is all you know about them. After all, you know the white guy has to be far more qualified to achieve the same position.

The whole notion of overcoming discrimination by practicing discrimination is apalling to me. Far better to give everyone an equal oportunity to better themselves and judge only on merit.

Date: 2006/04/21 11:41:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (improvius @ April 21 2006,16:29)
I can see an inherant value for a state to encourage a couple to stay in a stable relationship and share responsibility for raising children.

But obviously this is not exclusive of 1 man + 1 woman couples.

No it isn't now. Traditionaly though, this has been the case. After all, it takes a man woman union to naturally produce kids.

I imagine that the original idea behind providing incentives (a bribe) to stay as a couple was to do with taking joint responsibility for raising the product of sexual activity.

It is surely ideal for a child to be raised by a loving couple. That they (the couple) take responsibility for producing educated well-adjusted adults.

Date: 2006/04/21 12:20:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
No Eric my remark was not racist. Under the A.A. scheme the white guy would have to be more qualified to atain the same position. Now it might be the case where the black Dr. was more qualified, but that would be unusual.

For example, the minimum qualifications for the white Dr. to reach a consultants position would be higher than for a black Dr.

Therefore the white Dr. requires higher stats than the black Dr. True the black Dr. may be more qualified, but then that would be over and above what he needed for an = position to the white 1.

A.A. would also incur a huge cost in cash and bueraucracy to enforce. Personally I believe that money would be much better spent on providing educational/training oportunities.

Keep standards = for everybody. Improve oportunities.

A.A. seems to me to be patronising.

Date: 2006/04/22 00:48:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Followed your link. Fascinating stuff. Pity DS deleted all his posts.

Date: 2006/04/22 06:05:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

I totally agree with EricMurphy on this point. Nobody arguing against you so far want to ban marriage (tinker with the hub). We just believe gays should have a hub of their own.

"Free love" was anti marriage pro short term casual sexual relationships. The comparison is not aplicable.

Allowing gays to marry will encourage at least a % of them to build long term monogamous relationships. Thus helping to prevent some of the spread of infections propagated by casual sex.

Date: 2006/04/22 06:08:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ April 21 2006,19:25)
I am enjoying posting on his blog at any rate.

Both JAD and DS have made an apearance now. The temperature is sure to rise.

Date: 2006/04/22 09:33:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 22 2006,12:09)
Quote (tacitus @ April 22 2006,11:46)
Arden, you've missed out one important aspect of David Heddle's strategy for reconciling the Bible with science.  As you said, he believes the Bible to be inerrant, but that's not to say he believe's Noah's flood was a global event or that Earth is only thousands of years old.

He believes that if you study the original Hebrew text long and hard enough with a mountain of Hebrew linguist text books at your side, you can see how "day" in Genesis could mean "age" and "global" could mean "regional" and so on.  In other words, the Old Testament doesn't always mean what the plain reading appears to mean, (i.e. you can make the Bible say just about anything if only you would work hard enough).

The irony of this brand of inerrancy is that supporters earn scorn from both flanks--from those who reject Biblical inerrancy are still unimpressed, and from those who, quite reasonably, think the Bible should mean what it plainly says, i.e. the young-earthers.

Actually, I don't recall Heddle getting into that kind of linguistic hair splitting when I used to bicker with him on PT. That silliness about "but what is the true definition of the Hebrew word for 'day'?" was Carol Clouser's specialty. Carol has turned this into quite a parlor trick, whereby ANYTHING in the Old Testament can be made to mean anything you need it to mean.

Maybe Heddle went in for that kind of thing at some point, but last winter when I actually participated in the David Heddle Show, he didn't bother with it. By then, he had arrived at that point of "but this is a miracle, and therefore it doesn't contradict science. So there."

The funny thing about when Heddle and Clouser would sort of team up against the Secularists was that it required that they temporarily forget that neither of them had much use for the other's scriptures -- Heddle viewed the Old Testament as definitely secondary to the New Testament, while Clouser doesn't care AT ALL about the New Testament.

To be fair. The same could be said about the different versions of string theory.

Date: 2006/04/22 15:00:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Fair play to Larry,

So far he is permitting open discussion. DS will hate that. :D

As much as I disagree with Larry, his blog is at least entertaining. I am looking forward to inevitable tiff between DS and JAD.

Date: 2006/04/22 15:17:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2006,18:42)
Question for Eric Murphy, Steven Elliot, and Occam's Aftershave. When Thor and GoP say these ridiculous things about STD rates and Scale Free Networks and what have you, does it cause you to think they're being dishonest? Do any of you three believe that Thor and GoP are motivated by a careful study of health statistics or graph theory?

I personaly do not find Ghost ridiculous. I consider him/her an inteligent dissenter. Ghost makes good points most of the time.

Thordaddy on the other hand, is a clown. The only reason I respond is due to being unable to leave his ridiculous statements unchalenged.

I doubt either of them is truly dishonest. They  may be wrong, but I think they believe what they are typing.

Possible error: There is a chance that "Ghost" is just playing. Ghost is unusual, obviously inteligent and educated, decent sense of humour, usually polite. Way-off-track of your normal "fundy".

Date: 2006/04/22 15:43:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2006,20:27)
This guy wrote a magnificent Greasemonkey script for Pharyngula
which I have been wanting at PT. It puts the little word 'kill' alongside a commenter's comment, and if you click it, the commenter is added to your personal killfile. From then on, their posts are stripped from the website you see. It's just fantastic. It gives individuals the power to go to interesting sites and not have their eyeballs assaulted by retards. And it's done in a democratic choice-based way. I'm urging him to modify it to work for Panda's Thumb. If this sounds like a great thing to do, if you never want to see a post by Carol Clouser or whoever again, urge him to do so too. His email address is in the pharyngula greasemonkey script.

Obviously I won't be blocking the amusing idiots like Salvador, but seriously,  wouldn't that have solved the Larry problem in two shakes of a Lamb's tail?


He had a legion of names.

Date: 2006/04/22 15:59:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2006,20:48)
He had lots of names because he was banned. With the killfile, banning would not be necessary.

He was not banned when he started his on-line army of names. Just thought he was. You would have  to "ban/kill" every name to avoid his posts.

Date: 2006/04/24 07:45:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ April 24 2006,12:06)
Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2006,07:07)
While a few bad words might give some people the vapors, the seriously off-the-rails stuff involves indirect death threats.

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

Personally, I find it very amusing. DS threatening to travel to Vermont and kick JAD's ass. JAD saying "bring it on".

Date: 2006/04/24 10:12:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 24 2006,14:13)
Well, check it out now, apparently the Davison 'apology' is fake. It never really sounded like Davison to me. But his 'shotgun' post appears to be authentic.

Gotta admit, when Larry said he wasn't gonna censor, he was as good as his word...

Somebody is deliberately disrupting Larry's blog. Posting under other peoples names and going way OTT.

The only way you can be reasonably certain people are who they claim to be is if they are registered. Then a name is underlined and or apears in blue depending how you get to the comment section.

Date: 2006/04/24 11:32:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Ghost, I agree with what you are saying in your last post.

However, I fail to see how it backs up a claim that gay marriage should not be allowed.

Date: 2006/04/24 11:48:22, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (jeannot @ April 24 2006,15:53)
That's what happens in blogs that allow comments from unregistered users.  ???
Can Larry cancel the ability to post without being registered?

I don't know. It would be a good idea to do so if possible.

I am quite impressed that Larry is refusing to censor. Looks like somebody wants to change that.

Date: 2006/04/24 15:00:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ April 24 2006,17:18)
Ghost, I agree with what you are saying in your last post.
Agree with what? What is Ghost saying in his last post? I'd be very wary of accepting at face value any news items right-wing wing-nuts present as evidence of eroding their rights. I fail to see how decisions the New York Times makes about hiring erodes wing-nuts' freedoms. And the fact that a kid Arkansas is raped and murdered does not make national news, unfortunately, is not particularly shocking because, unfortunately, it's not all that uncommon. Now, if the kid was raped and murdered because of his sexual orientation, that would be news - as was the sickening Mathew Shepard story.

I might be troubled by some of the apparent infringements on freedom of speech suggested by the English, Irish, and Canadian cases, but (a) there's a limit to how much righteous indignation I can muster about how other countries manage their affairs and (b) I would need to read about it - in context - from some more reliable source than the Ghost Man and his obviously slanted sources.

I agree with Ghost that double standards are operating in the media.

This is certainly true in the UK and suspect the same thing is happening in the USA.

However, I fail to see how that has anything to do with gay marriage.

Date: 2006/04/24 15:04:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am very dissapointed in Ghost. What happened to "Clobbering time"?

I doubt Ben Grim would dodge in this way.

Date: 2006/04/24 22:21:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ April 24 2006,23:29)
I posted directions on my blog for how to force only registered users. Does anyone think it's anyone other than Dumbsh!t Dave that's putting up the nutso stuff?

It is actually funny to read because it's so wacky. Poor Dave, I wonder how this has affected his bloggg.

What's cool is that you can tease the IDiot and he can't stop you but his readership gets to comment too. Busts him down to corporal, y'know?

DS is my No1 suspect. So many of his stock-in-trade insults slip into the posts.

Date: 2006/04/25 04:19:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Russell @ April 25 2006,07:43)
I agree with Ghost that double standards are operating in the media.
Given the fact that media is plural, it would be pretty distressing if multiple standards were not operating. But  specifically, what did our vaporous friend raise that you think is hypocritical, which I guess is really more the point?

Assuming it it true, this:-

Matthew Shepard, a homosexual in Wyoming, is brutally attacked by two thugs and left to die, tied to a fence in sub-freezing temperature. The story is, quite properly, a nationwide media sensation. Not long after, a 13-year-old Arkansas boy named Jesse Dirkhising is sadistically raped for hours, then left to die, by two next-door homosexuals. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC ignore the story entirely.  

But like I said earlier. I fail to see what media bias has to do with gay marriage.

Date: 2006/04/25 04:42:09, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Maybe it is because I live in the UK then. Adults killing/raping children are big news here. Probably because it is rare.

Date: 2006/04/25 04:52:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2006,09:36)
If Larry's blog reduces the number of visitors to UD, DT has a ready-made solution: just slightly decrease the number of people he bans/deletes. Voila! No change in visitorship!

Hah! As if. He would suffer withdrawal symptoms.

I wonder how they would manifest thenselves. I doubt he could get any more vitriolic.

Date: 2006/04/25 06:36:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
There is nothing secret about lesbians being a turn-on for me. In fact it is the only reason I would consider a sex change.

Date: 2006/04/25 10:38:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 25 2006,14:29)
Why? The point of the national press coverage of the Mathew Shepard story was that he was murdered because of his homosexuality. Unfortunately, horrors like the Jesse Dirkhising story are all too common and are, correspondingly and appropriately, covered in the more local press. Ghosty seems to be suggesting that news of homosexual on heterosexual atrocities is suppressed in the media.

OK, so let's look at some crimes with a racial bias:


EDITED for brevity.

What on Earth has that got to do with legalising gay marriage?

Date: 2006/04/25 11:09:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 25 2006,15:54)
Stephen Elliot asks,

What on Earth has that got to do with legalising gay marriage?

Because gay "marriage" is a means and not the end.


You have fallen for their argument because you self-admittingly practice tolerance and non-discrimination towards this self-proclaimed victim group.


Yes Thordaddy I do. I am not ashamed of it either. Why do you consider tolerance and equality under law a bad thing?

Your assertions make no sense to me whatsoever. How can extending marital/legal/social rights to law abiding members of society be a bad thing?

Date: 2006/04/25 23:58:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

IIRC you have failed to back-up a single claim that you have Bolded.

Date: 2006/04/26 08:40:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
FFS Ghost, I wil concede this. Imigration should be controlled.

Now, what the #### has any of this got to do with gay marriage?

EDIT: BTW. I believe in integration rather than multi-culturism. Now please get back to the gay marriage argument or start another thread.

Date: 2006/04/27 12:24:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
"Inconcievable" (from The Princess Bride). This argument has not moved a single inch in two days.

I know "Ghost" is intelligent. Pretty sure Thordaddy is a nincompoop. Can't see a coherent argument from either.

Date: 2006/04/28 20:44:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 28 2006,18:58)

"Rights" belongs to individuals and who are you to deny the rights and privileges of marriage to a man and his sheep?  Seriously?

Good grief. Still banging on about sheep! How can a sheep give consent?

Are you in a race to win the "crackpot of the decade" award?

Date: 2006/04/29 01:11:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ April 29 2006,05:17)
 What is marriage Stephen Elliot?

My definition would be that marriage is a government recognised union of 2 adults. Entered into with free will. It gives a couple certain priviliges.

Date: 2006/04/30 01:04:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

I believe that you think you are making a good argument, but I just don't get-it.

I can think of only 1 reason for keeping marriage restricted to heterosexual relationships and that is to do with raising children.

As soon as a heterosexual couple are married they gain certain privileges. Why deny that to homosexual couples?

Date: 2006/04/30 07:04:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ April 30 2006,10:49)

By the way, Thordaddy, pointing out that heterosexual marriage has existed "for hundreds of years" does nothing to advance your argument. Slavery has existed for thousands of years; that doesn't make it the foundation of civilization.      

Actually. I think that would be an easier point to argue.

Date: 2006/05/01 06:26:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 01 2006,02:50)
Once again we see the "liberals" failing to address the critical point.

ericmurphy thinks he has a solid argument because "conservatives" can't predict the future before it happens.  He wants to know the effects before the cause.

The question is how the argument for gay "marriage," which renders gender meaningless, DOES NOT render all criteria for marriage meaningless?

Let's say that the right to gay "marriage" becomes law.

What will the gay advocates SAY when 3 gay brothers petition the State for marriage recognition?

Will they say NO, we have discriminatory and bigoted criteria for who can get married?

By rendering gender meaningless, marriage is meaningless because any other criteria for marriage MUST be arbitrary and discriminatory.

This is the argument that ericmurphy, Occam and crew wish to avoid at all costs.

They seek to persuade us with their naivete as though 10-15 years ago "they" weren't telling us how those warning about the push for gay "marriage" were just engaging in "slippery-slope" arguments.

Could you possibly be any more vague?

Marriage atm is a union of 2 people (man and woman). How on Earth does removing the man/woman criteria allow for bestiality and incestuous marriage?

Just curious here, but why would 3, 4, or more brothers desire to be married? Assuming they are all having incestuous homosexual group sex, how would marriage help them? They already have such rights as hospital visitation/consultancy, heriditary rights etc. I guess the only advantage they would be missing would be tax related ones.

Date: 2006/05/01 09:19:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2006,13:08)
Anybody here read the book? Is it worth the $8 I'm considering spending on it this afternoon?

I think his books are worth a read. So long as you want to read a fast paced novel.

They are not science. If you want a factual book then avoid them.

If you want a fantasy type, quick read, they are good.

Date: 2006/05/01 23:36:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Has it not occured to you that some of the people arguing for gay marriage actually might just place value on traditional marriage?

What is the value of traditional marriage? I would argue that people in a stable relationship tend to be happier. That encouraging a couple to stay faithfull to each -other reduces the spread of sexualy transmitted disease.

Being allowed to have a state sanctioned union where people in a long term relationship are granted rights is a good thing.

I would argue that I value these benefits so much that I think all ctizens should be entitled to them.

Now the bestiality argument you like so much. How can an animal in any way be considered to be an adult. Once sheep start arguing for their right to marriage they should be given it.

Date: 2006/05/02 00:56:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 02 2006,05:01)

If a man wants to marry his sheep and seek state sanction, what will you say in opposition?

The birds are chirping, endlessly.

I would say "fine go ahead and get married". Just as long as the sheep says it agrees and signs the form.

Date: 2006/05/02 13:02:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PuckSR @ May 02 2006,16:41)

Now, I actually oppose gay marriage....
not for any particular reason except that the "gay community" pisses me off....
They arbitrarily chose to make the word "faggot" offensive...
They suddenly decided to ask for gay marriage....mostly to allow them adoption rights...and completely ignoring the fact that even if gay marriage is allowed...adoption agencies might discriminate against "gay married" couples...
I dont dislike homosexuals....I just dislike the motivations and actions of organizations like GLAAD. finish my rant...if one more gay rights group compares the struggles of homosexuals to the civil rights struggles of african americans....Im going to get pissed...

Adoption rights may well be their next aim. It would not surprise me. But that is a slightly different issue.

The main reason that I support gays being able to "marry" is that I believe they should be allowed the same right to choose to have a stable relationship considered worthwhile. One that gives them "next of kin" rights.

Back to them being able to adopt children. I would support that also; Provided there was no evidence that doing so would cause a child more harm than being raised by the state.

Date: 2006/05/02 13:24:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ May 02 2006,16:10)
I, personally, was saying there were no WMDs (or at least no evidence of their existence) and no ties to al Qaeda long before it was showing up in the media, "liberal" or otherwise...

Can't say I agree with that particular point.

Iraq had used WMDs several times in the past. Chemical weapons were used by Iraq in the war with Iran and against Iraqi uprisings both in the north and south of Iraq.

UNSCOM was met with repeated non-cooperation in doing it's job.

I do agree that links between Iraq and the 911 atacks was very dodgy.

Date: 2006/05/03 00:22:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

What is it with this "liberal" thing? What do you mean by it? This?



Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[2]. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has it roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism.

From Wikipedia

Or do you mean something different?

Date: 2006/05/03 05:02:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Did Pat Robertson really imply that the Nazis were liberals there?



thordaddy's use:-Liberal = don't care anarchist.

Wikipedia:- Liberal = believer in liberty and justice for all citizens.

Pat Robertson:- Liberal = believer in dictatorial law and opresion/slaughter of disliked groups.

That looks a bit like they might not all be using the word liberal to mean the same thing. H'mmmm, any ideas which might be the most reliable source?

I did not have a clue who to believe so tried this dictionary here. Looks like wiki has the edge so far.

Date: 2006/05/03 13:42:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Faid @ May 03 2006,18:15)
Now, if those studies show that children raised by homosexuals have a great danger of becoming disfunctional -greater than those of divorced parents, of single-parent families, even those raised by the state- than I have no problem with homosexual couples pushed to the end of the adoption line.

Worse than the state, then never allow them to adopt. Any couple should be able to do a better job than the state though. Unless of course they are negligent or malignant.

This is how well the state raises children in the UK.

Local authorities were spending £100,000 a child in residential homes each year and the annual cost of foster care was between £20,000 and £50,000. “Despite this investment the outcomes are distressingly inadequate,” he said.

Only 6 per cent of pupils in care passed five good GCSEs, compared with 56 per cent of children nationally. Conviction rates for “looked-after children” were three times the rate for other juveniles.

Date: 2006/05/04 13:01:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 04 2006,17:36)
What is YOUR argument for gay "marriage?"

What would be the point in answering you? :angry:

Date: 2006/05/05 05:57:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Are you looking for a scientific definition or a legal one? You are (once again) mixing the two.

As far as I see. Legally a human life begins at birth. Scientifically, nobody knows when an individual life starts.

Prediction: This thread will be another waste of time.

Date: 2006/05/05 06:02:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I have memories from before I had language (or at least I am pretty sure this is the case). Was thinking in pictures.

Don't blame you if you don't believe me. My parents didn't either (at first).

Date: 2006/05/05 10:53:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,15:44)

Don't you think the "legal" definition for age is in large part antiquated and unresponsive to current scientific findings?

Shouldn't the law mirror reality as closely as possible?

What should the law say about "idiocy"? When does that start?

What point does Red become Orange?

At which point do twins become 2 people?

At which point does a chimera stop being 2 people and just becomes 1?

Date: 2006/05/05 10:57:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,15:44)

Don't you think the "legal" definition for age is in large part antiquated and unresponsive to current scientific findings?

Shouldn't the law mirror reality as closely as possible?

Age? Who has experienced exceleration?

Moving through space? Or moving because space is expanding?

Date: 2006/05/05 11:01:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,15:40)

Why do I need to come up with something "new" when you keep providing the SAME OLD tired argument for gay "marriage?"

What is your argument other than...

Gays want it and so they should get it!

What the fuck is this shit?
I cannot believe.
T-D he just sprouts off.
Intends to decieve.

Date: 2006/05/05 11:04:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,16:01)

Why do you bother responding with such drivel?  Are you trying to convey the notion that science is irrelevant in the determination of laws concerning age?

Could I borrow an Irony meter?

Date: 2006/05/05 11:08:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,16:01)

Why do you bother responding with such drivel?  Are you trying to convey the notion that science is irrelevant in the determination of laws concerning age?

Which laws dtermine age? Age of what? Do you have a point? Is your point a singularity?

Date: 2006/05/05 11:13:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,16:08)

I hate to upset your sensibilities with my inexplicable power to coerce you to respond, but...

Does science play any relevant role in determining laws concerning age?

I would say science plays a very important role in determining laws. What would you say?

Date: 2006/05/05 11:20:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (MidnightVoice @ May 05 2006,16:16)
Please tell me that Thursday isn't going to say that aging starts at conception, thus a bag of cells is a human being, thus abortion is wrong, thus the Pope is right, thus masturbation is OK for women because they don't spill any seed, thus women are all wankers, thus they should not be allowed out of the house, thus we should vote for right wing Christian nutbar fundamentalists.

Of course aging starts at conception. You was 0 years old till trick-daddy was concieved. Everyrhing else is a scam.

Date: 2006/05/05 11:25:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 04 2006,22:02)
I've been contemplating

You Liar!

Date: 2006/05/05 20:31:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PuckSR @ May 06 2006,00:33)
Do you honestly think it is fair to take away the religious and traditional rights of polygamy from mormons and muslims?

Agreed...not all factions of either faith fully promote polygamy...but it is a fact of both religions that several factions do support....

Are you honestly saying that we should allow gay marriage but not polygamy?

Polygamy is a problem in a way that gay marriage isn't. That is, who would have "next-of-kin" rights? Straight-away, that would have to have a seperate document, thus canceling the "specialness" of a monogamous marriage.

Date: 2006/05/06 05:12:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Faid @ May 06 2006,07:40)
Great... After asking his opponents to explain their arguments to him again and again and again, thordeaf now asks them to also explain each other's arguments.

If we try to exhaust the possibilities of that, I'm sure this thread will break the page barrier in no time...

lol. How true.

thordaddy, Why do you label me as a liberal?

Date: 2006/05/06 13:10:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 06 2006,17:50)

I guess you aren't a "liberal" other than the fact that you support gay "marriage."

Still waiting for those demolishing arguments against traditional marriage and those positive arguments for gay "marriage?"

I have no argument against "traditional" marriage. Can't you read?

My argument Pro-gay marriage I have already made, several times. Can't you read?

Date: 2006/05/06 13:17:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PuckSR @ May 06 2006,15:27)
Polygamy is a problem in a way that gay marriage isn't. That is, who would have "next-of-kin" rights? Straight-away, that would have to have a seperate document, thus canceling the "specialness" of a monogamous marriage.

That doesnt seem like a very good argument against polygamy.
Next-of-kin rights could easily be distributed.
i.e.  If a mother dies....who has next of kin rights?
one of her sons....or all of her children?

Gay marriage would also inherit difficulties with children...a gay married couple that had children would definately have no more than a single biological parent.  The biological parentage of the child would become important in custody disputes.  If one of the parents adopted the child, while the other is the biological and legal parent...custody would almost definately reside with the biological parent.  This is very different than a majority of heterosexual marriages where both parents are biological parents...and therefore given equal consideration at a custody dispute.

I don't actually have a good argument against polygammy. I just see a problem with it and that is a legal one.

If marriage is confined to 2 people then marriage rights are easy to bestow. That would be a problem if the marriage is a whole bunch of people.

Date: 2006/05/06 23:33:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (PuckSR @ May 06 2006,21:15)
If marriage is confined to 2 people then marriage rights are easy to bestow. That would be a problem if the marriage is a whole bunch of people.

But as i stated previously...the arguments for the difficulty of implementation can also be made for gay marriage....
The complication of something shouldnt be considered when disputing the merit of it from a civil liberties perspective.

Im sure ending slavery caused some complication too....
But that really shouldnt be a reason to keep slavery

But gay marriage is not complicated. All you have to do is remove gender prohibition. Multi-partner marriage is far more problematic.

Maybe I am not expressing myself well. Try again.

Marriage betwen a man and woman automatically gives certain rights. Gay marriage (asuming still just 2 people) is not a huge difference.

Multi-marriage is very different. Example thordaddy marries his 5 brothers, who is next-of-kin to who? Yes it could be aranged in a seperate legal document (or a bunch of them) but that removes what is special about marriage. ie 2 people commiting to each-other in a legally recognised way.

I am trying to be precise but my language skills fail me.

Date: 2006/05/07 01:49:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 07 2006,05:27)

You guys are either disingenuous or clueless?

pmsl! That had me in stitches. #### near sprayed my monitor in drink.

Date: 2006/05/08 08:37:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Colin @ May 08 2006,13:17)
I just had a quick peek to see what Larry was up to, and just had to read all of the thread with Colin the Lawyer (and JAD, of course).

That would be me (Colin, that is, not JAD).  I'm always surprised to look up and realize that I've just written four or five pages.  I suppose I just get lost in my own amusement.  Since I'm a rank layperson on the scientific front, I enjoy getting to discuss creationism as it touches my chosen field.  As well, there are just so many things to say about how poorly Larry understands the subject!

Larry's grip on reality is rather tenuous. He seems to think he is winning arguments when he is made to look foolish.

(as you have no doubt noticed).

I do like his blog though.

EDIT: The JAD V DS posts are of particular value. Worth paying for.

Date: 2006/05/11 14:53:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am a tad confused here. As far as I can tell, sexual atraction is "hardwired".

Children raised by a straight couple may be gay or hetero or something in the middle.

Peadophiles may be raised by a "normal" couple.

Possibly a bisexual person could be more inclined to go for same sex relationships if raised by a same sex couple.

Date: 2006/05/11 15:31:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ May 11 2006,20:27)
Stephen Elliot opines,

I am a tad confused here. As far as I can tell, sexual atraction is "hardwired".

Wouldn't it be a little more realistic for you to say that a heterosexual attraction/homosexual aversion is "hardwired," ie., evolution?  

What is your evidence for the hardwiring of a homosexual attraction/heterosexual aversion or a homosexual/heterosexual attraction or a homosexual/heterosexual aversion?

My entire argument here breaks down to this:

Do you think you could be conditioned as to who you are sexually atracted to?

Personaly, I doubt it. I might be wrong.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:06:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just for arguments sake, I would define a homosexual as somebody who is exclusively atracted to the same sex.

Date: 2006/05/12 21:56:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 13 2006,01:18)
And for Steve_h, here's the section that handles the hyperlink stuff:

Code Sample

       $Txt =~ s!\[email\](\S+?)\[/email\]!<a href="mailto:$1">$1</a>!ig;
       $Txt =~ s!\[url\](\S+?)\[/url\]!"<a href=\"".$obj->fix_real_url($1)."\" target='_blank'>".$obj->chomp_url($1)."</a>"!eig;
       $Txt =~ s!\[url\s*=\s*\&quot\;\s*(\S+?)\s*\&quot\;\s*\](.*?)\[\/url\]!"<a href=\"".$obj->fix_real_url($1)."\" target=\"_blank\">".$obj->chomp_url($2)."</a>"!eisg;
       $Txt =~ s!\[url\s*=\s*(\S+?)\s*\](.*?)\[\/url\]!"<a href=\"".$obj->fix_real_url($1)."\" target=\"_blank\">".$obj->chomp_url($2)."</a>"!eisg;
       $Txt =~ s!\[email\s*=\s*\&quot\;([\.\w\-]+\@[\.\w\-]+\.[\.\w\-]+)\s*\&quot\;\s*\](.*?)\[\/email\]!<a href=\"mailto:$1\">$2</a>!isg;
       $Txt =~ s!\[email\s*=\s*([\.\w\-]+\@[\.\w\-]+\.[\w\-]+)\s*\](.*?)\[\/email\]!<a href=\"mailto:$1\">$2</a>!isg;

Good grief. Trying to read code makes my eyes bleed.

Date: 2006/05/13 13:05:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 13 2006,17:53)
The important thing, however, is that they have to be prepared to accept the fact that they might be wrong
Agreed. For someone to be a professional evolution debater you need knowledge in a lot of fields. Im a biologist, and I have absolutely no clue about the geology of my area. But if I am having a discussion about geology, Im not going to just paste sections form talk origins, I will actually ask one of my friends who is a geologist to explain the concepts to me, same with physics etc. That being said the way AFDave's going with this he will need a pretty good background in biology chemistry geology and physics.

I assume that you are a scientist and circulate in a scientific community.

Most of us do not have those resources. Personaly I have to rely on popular science books to learn anything "scientific" (oh, and the patience of some posters here).

If I try and read technical articles the language is (or may as well be) foreign.

Date: 2006/05/13 14:19:23, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 13 2006,18:50)
The friends I am talking about are old schoolfriends, but I get your point, not everyone can ask a scientist. My point was that if somebody told me something about a subject I would not just read the first article that comes up on google, and then decide Im an expert, which is what a lot of creationists seem to do. Reading popular science books is I think the way to go, unless of course you are talking about The Genesis Flood, and Darwins Black Box.  :D

LOL No. For me it is astro physics that really interests me. For that I have to rely on the explanations of Stephen Hawkins and Brian Green.

Biology is a mystery to me. For that I bought the book Biology by Campbell/Reece. Finding time to read it (let alone understand it) is prohibitive. Unfortunately I have to go to work and have other time demands.

Mostly it is easier to just ask a question here and hope somebody explains in simple English, or just accept an experts POV.

I mostly favour the latter. Possibly from being lazy, but I just don't have the time to learn the subject to the same degree.

Date: 2006/05/22 11:56:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
This thread is bloody marvelous. >100 pages of side-splitting mirth. At times my stomach has ached from laughing so hard.


Quote (keiths @ May 22 2006,14:10)
If Sergeant Doof Tard didn't exist, we'd have to invent him, just to make ID look ridiculous...

I don't think you could invent such a character. Nobody would believe it.

Date: 2006/05/22 14:11:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ May 22 2006,18:06)
can you out-thordaddy thordaddy?

And what if a mother wants to marry her three year old twins? Will you evolutionists accept the logical conclusions of your philosophy?!?!?!?

Both her 3 year old twins, or all 4 of em?
Maybe 1 1/2 of the twins and T-Diddly as well?
Is a goat involved?
Why do you want to remove my rights by leaving them as they are now, but extending them to others?

Date: 2006/05/23 14:18:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
You know something GOP? I actually agree, I think that a child raised by 2 loving parents has a better chance at doing well in this world (all other things being equal).

Date: 2006/05/23 20:13:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
EDIT. Never mind. Pointless arguing.

Date: 2006/05/23 22:42:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
In the UK we have had gay "marriage" legalised for about 6 months now. I am unable to notice any major change to society because of this. It's total impact on my life is a big fat zero without the ring.

EDIT> Strangely enough, straight people are still getting married. Weird! Surely T-Diddly could not be wrong in his prediction?

Date: 2006/05/26 05:01:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I doubt megadembskis could exist in the natural world. Certainly not gigadembskis. There is not enough energy in the observable universe to produce the irony required to manufacture a megadembski.

Let us be realistic. Irony could be measured on the micr/pico scale for regular stuff. UD may be able to muster a whole multiple of a dembski, with the multiplier being <10. Anything more would be powerfull enough to split the Earth in 2.

Date: 2006/06/05 12:06:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Wonderpants @ June 05 2006,13:51)
Quote (Faid @ June 05 2006,09:47)
I love the peanut gallery at ATBC. They’re better than The Three Stooges, The Keystone Cops, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and The Benny Hill Show rolled into one! None of them are actually banned. Some just don’t get all their comments posted. Some hardly ever get a comment posted. A few aren’t even on the moderation list because they’re not stupid or trollish. -ds

Aww shucks, Davesy! Thanks! We remember well your warm welcome and our hospitable stay in your forum, and we're honoured that a genious of your magnitude still finds time from single-handedly disproving evolution in his basement, to bother with us!
And I'm personally honoured to be compared to Monty Python by you. *fights a tear*

That reminds me of the single most infuriating thread/post I ever read on UncommonlyDense. Some of the UD posters started a Life of Brian quote game.

Dunno about anyone else, but the sight of the finest comedy film ever, which is entirely based around the concept of ridiculing the blind faith, dogmatism, and sheeplike behaviour of fundamentalist religion being quoted on a board which defines the above behavour made me want to put my fist through the screen.

I think "Life of Brian" was more anti-terrorist than anti-religion. Was bloody funny though.

Date: 2006/06/05 22:42:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ June 05 2006,16:38)
Another thing I have noticed in dealing with many YEC's is the staggering reliance on rules.  Or, rather, RULES.

There are many people that want a rule book for life.
 If you're in this situation, look up rule book, do what it says.  What a nice fit for engineering.  Plug and chug. I would assume this appeals to military types too (AFDave).

Then there are the concept-based people.  Actions are driven by the underlying concepts and the tension between conflicting concepts.  Messy.

Probably most people want a "rule book for life". Maybe it is a trait from being social animals.

Date: 2006/06/05 23:28:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I find it hard to believe that GOP is serious about geocentrism.

Date: 2006/06/06 01:23:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I voted for sal. Not read any AFDave or Skeptic comments and think GOP is quite clever (but playing some game).

Date: 2006/06/06 04:33:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Had to google it. Can't decide between T-Daddy and Ghost atm.

Date: 2006/06/06 04:39:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,08:31)
Crude clay models? Of the moon landings? They really simulated that moon dust well, the way when it's kicked up it arcs in a parabola, slowly, back to the surface. It doesn't swirl around in a cloud.


I saw Rudolph pull Santa's sleigh in a nearly parabolic path on a Rankin & Bass Christmas special. Do you think that is evidence that it is real? If not, why do you think the claymation "moon dust" has any more basis in reality?

Because not even the mighty Rudolph could lift that sleigh and all those presents unassisted. Without Dancer, Prancer, Donne and Blitzen et-al Rudolph would be Earthbound. Hence: Obviously faked.

Date: 2006/06/06 10:54:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I voted troll. GOP seems too inteligent to believe the nonsense he posts. Also, he does not spend that long posting here, check the posting dates/times. Seems to specialise in "drive-bys".

Date: 2006/06/06 11:17:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am in your 75% prediction.

Date: 2006/06/06 20:39:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,18:14)

I think your larger point is that when science mixes with liberal politics, science always can gets corrupted?

Edited for precision.

Date: 2006/06/07 00:30:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Cognac (Remy Martin VSOP)
Just about any Single Malt.

Date: 2006/06/07 00:35:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,03:33)

Even though you made an honest, but nonetheless highly tenuous argument for gay "marriage," at least you seemed serious about having an intellectual debate....
You see the conundrum you are in, no?

This is a poll, not a debate. Resurect your gay gene thread to debate. But constantly repeating nonsense is not really debating.

Date: 2006/06/07 00:45:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Renier @ June 07 2006,05:38)
Nobody drinks beer anymore ???

I do. I am a real ale fan. Would be strange to compare beer to spirits though. Same thing for wine (quite the Rioja fan atm).

Date: 2006/06/07 00:47:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 06 2006,23:00)
Sigh. Looks like DT didn't kick AFD's ass after all. He just posted a monster  rant to 'his' thread. Looks like he probably spent the whole last 24 hours writing it.

Makes me tired just looking at it.

Got a link?

Date: 2006/06/07 05:48:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ladlergo @ June 07 2006,09:29)
((Why do I always spell alcohol as "alchohol"?  It's a habit I can't seem to break.))

Me too. We are not alone.

Date: 2006/06/07 13:15:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,17:46)

You are correct.  Once the criteria of gender becomes irrelevant to marriage then ALL criteria for marriage become irrelevant.  This is why traditional marriage must remain between one man and one woman or we will cease to have an institution at all.

My apologies to everybody else for responding to T-D again. But...

T-Daddy, for my part I desire for 2 consenting adults to be able to choose each other to enter into marriage.

I consider the consent thing important here. I consider them being adults important. I would limit it for 2 simply because of the legal quagmire of permitting marriage to groups of 3+.

There is good reason for preventing fertile sibling marriages. These do not aply to homosexuals. Wether homosexual sibblings are allowed or prevented from marrying, I care not.

Yes, yes T-Daddy, I realise this makes me much more bigotted than you.

EDIT: Sorry T-D I forgot to adress your most excelent point on how all criteria becomes irelevant.

In the UK gays have been alowed to "marry" for a little while now (it is actualy called a civil union). Straight couples are still marrying. Weird hey? Maybe slippery slopes are less steep or have more friction here than USA slippery slopes.

Date: 2006/06/07 13:30:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Ghost. I don't buy it. I cannot believe, you really believe this.

Date: 2006/06/07 13:45:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2006,18:34)
You're not alone. 2/3rds of people think GoP is just a troll, rather than a complete idiot who believes what he says.

It is difficult to imagine GOP as a fool. He seems pretty inteligent. Also I find him reasonably affable with a sense of humour. Not quite your average wingnut.

Must admit though, if it is an act, he has kept it going a worryingly long time.

Date: 2006/06/07 13:53:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (keiths @ June 07 2006,18:48)
Quote (William Dembski June 7 @ 2006)
And now here is the full text with the two passages marked in bold. Note that the PT post simply kludges those passages together (you’ll have to scroll down quite a ways to see the connection). By the way, I’ve saved the page at PT just so that they don’t insert ellipses and say there never was a problem...

Hilarious.  Dembski accuses Pim of 'kludging' the two passages together, but it turns out that Dembski did it himself.

I guess ID is capable of detecting kludges, but says nothing about the identity of the kludger.

I doubt a real apology will be forthcoming though. Dembski and his "clan" give me the creeps. To compound it, they seem to think they have the moral high-ground. Weird.

Date: 2006/06/07 14:48:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,19:35)
Quote (Faid @ June 07 2006,19:28)
Hmm. From what I read so far, I was under the impression that Ghost dreamt up of an expanding Universe, With Earth at its center, and every single galaxy moving away from it... But now I'm not so sure- and Ghost's half-hints and smoke screens don't help.

Um, Ghost, a description of your Universe first? That's how models begin, you know...

"I am intrigued by your theory of a donut shaped universe, Homer. I might have to steal it."

Not even Homer Simpson is that hungry. It took him ages to eat a big sandwich.

Date: 2006/06/07 14:55:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Mr. Paley. You are amusing. Unfortunately you fail to deliver the knockout punches. Whatever happened to the "Clobering time"? Remember? Ben Grim is being abused by you. Nuff said? Do I get a no prize?

Date: 2006/06/07 15:05:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 07 2006,19:23)
Well Stevie, there were also shots of the sleigh pulled by all nine reindeer in a nearly parabolic path. Does this convince you that it is real?

Fair enough. Joking aside, why would the lunar landings be faked? What about the technology suposedly found from space research? Plastic advances and silicon chip minituarisation etc? How about the mirrors placed on the moon for distance measurements?

Would it not be easier to invest the money in doing it than faking it?

Date: 2006/06/08 13:16:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:01)

You ask for real people looking to get state-sanctioned "marriages" and offer up myself as an example and you slyly avoid the Pandora's Box.

Then you ask the following question.

The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____.

The intrinsic societal value is the recognition of the man/woman complementary and its value to the upbringing of future progeny.  The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value.


Check the poll. See how convincing you are? Has it occured to you to try a different tactic?

Date: 2006/06/08 13:29:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:20)
Stephen Elliot,

The poll just shows how corrupted science is by liberal ideology and why few actually buy evolutionary theory.  

How an evolutionary theorist could equate homosexual relations with heterosexual relations is in part why very few buy the theories of the evolutionist.

Do you not see this?

What does this comment mean?

Date: 2006/06/08 13:49:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Thor-daddy, why did you not answer my question?

Date: 2006/06/08 14:06:01, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:58)
Stephen Elliot,

My comment means that the poll taken is not representative of the American or European populace at large.  If it were then 96 out of 100 Britons would have voted for gay "marriage."  You know this not to be the case by a long shot.

This means the poll represents a very narrow political and/or scientific view.  One that DOES NOT comport with the larger society.

My question is why?  Icky is trying to convince me that this poll doesn't indicate either the scientific or political mindset of its voters.  What does it represent as it CLEARLY doesn't represent the view of our larger societies?

Thor-daddy, I would contend that it is you that is mixing things up. In a few posts you have made statements that you consider me a left wing scientist. I am neither.

I like having the Royal family provide the head-of-state for the UK.

I prefered the house of laws as it was, than how it has become.

I would suport the use of the death penalty in very rare cases.

I am totally against afirmative action.

Yet, because I believe that any 2 adults should be able to enjoy the sanctity of marriage together, you believe I am a left-wing extremist. Mybe it is your vision that is defective.

Here is the result of a poll I googled

Should gay marriage be legalized?


THANK YOU, for voting! , Here are the results so far .....

OF 33327 VOTES....

A   Yes  
B   No  
C   Not sure  

But I somehow doubt it is a true indication. Otherwise this event would have probably not have gone so well.

Date: 2006/06/09 12:54:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
It is just as Lenny says. They have no idea why they have lost, even when it is explained to them they just don't get it.

Here they go again. Is IE now the oficial replacement for Sudden Emergence; Or it's precursor?

They have learned marketing and think it is science. They should ask for the tuition fees back.

Date: 2006/06/10 06:37:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 09 2006,22:28)
Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,21:57)
Deadman is comparing zircons to tennis balls now ... mmm ... yes, quite similar in their ability to hold their Helium no doubt ... :-)

I note with considerable amusement that Dave is no longer even able to pretend to be able to adress the various arguments now pending.

What a lovely joke you are Dave; what an exquisite laughing stock you have become.

Washed out of the af.

Failed in business.

Too stupid to even attempt to engage in scientific discussion.

You like Lewis, don't you Dave?

Gentlemen, I give you 2nd Lt. "Child abuser" Dave:



My Bolding

Sorry, but for me that goes beyond the pale. If you are going to accuse somebody of that, then be #### specific about what you are claiming.

Child abuse is not a matter to joke about, nor is it something to just toss about without direct and specific information.

EDIT: I am not taking AFDaves side on anything here, but accusations of child abuse should either be made to the legal authorities as facts or shut up. No way should that be a debating technique. As bad/obnoxious a tactic as anything Dave Springer ever did.

Date: 2006/06/10 12:00:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ved @ June 10 2006,12:11)
Stephen Elliott, it was easy to miss in the 100 pages of dave threads, but I believe Rilke is referring to the brief discussion of the possibility of considering what he teaches children to be a form of abuse.

While I could agree that it is a form of abuse, I don't think it's in the same realm as what is usually implied when calling someone a child abuser.

Therefore, I wish she'd quit doing it (too). There's plenty of other fodder for comebacks to dave.

OK. Imagine Dave Springer used those words. What would you have to say then?

Child Abuse is an acusation that requires proof. TBH it makes my blood boil. I am anoyed that it has gone on so long without somebody calling it.

Date: 2006/06/13 08:50:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ June 13 2006,12:11)
Chris Hyland...      
So no one thought the earth was old before the theory of evolution did they?
Oh no.  I'm sure many people throughout history have thought the earth was old.  But my focus is on modern times.  Prior to Darwin, the majority of scientists were YECs and Catastrophists.  

Have you considered that they may just have changed their minds due to evidence? That maybe organised religion contains much more dogma than science?

Date: 2006/06/13 08:55:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ June 13 2006,13:48)
"It is quite likely to me that gorillas and chimps did have a common ancestor." So what, exactly, is your basis for that statement?
Just look at them, Ved.  They are hairy all over, have hand-like feet, are good at climbing, have funky lips and beetle-brows, make animal sounds, both live in zoos, etc. etc.  Think about how silly it sounds to ask a question like you just asked.

Is this a joke? Only asking because it is possible you are serious.

Date: 2006/06/13 08:58:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,13:02)
Hey guys, could you please confine your heliocentric nagging to this thread? I'd like the other threads to remain on topic. And yes, I'm working on my model.....

Would it not have been a good idea to have a model before starting this thread?

Date: 2006/06/15 05:40:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I think Prof Hawking was just stating the inevitable. Eventually we either colonise other star systems or become extinct sooner rather than later.

Date: 2006/06/15 05:44:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I would like to know the secret to eternal Life/Good health.

If more than 1 is allowed I would also like to know the result of every sporting event about 3 hours before it starts.

Date: 2006/06/15 07:00:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 15 2006,11:46)
I think Dave's jealous that we're paying attention to someone else.  Yawn.

I am starting to think that AFDave might be joking. Maybe just spinning people along.

The "non-biological differences" are sounding alarm bells.

AFDave. What are the non-biological differences between biological species? How many non-biological species do you know of? Shouldn't heavy fish like big whales sink?

Date: 2006/06/15 09:16:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ June 15 2006,14:08)
So what do I think WHAT test will show, Davey?  You don't have a test.
I do.  It's called the SAT Test.  You go find the gorilla and the chimp.  I'll provide the human, the SAT test and the testing room. We'll give them each the same amount of time.

Guess what the result will be!!

(Hint: the gorilla and chimp results will be similar and will differ greatly from the human!;)

(I really am having fun with this topic ... can we keep it going a long time?  Eric?)

If the SAT test was writen in a language the Gorilla could understand (and only the Gorila) do you think that might alter the result?

Date: 2006/06/15 09:40:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ June 15 2006,12:04)
Shouldn't heavy fish like big whales sink?  What in the world are you talking about?

I was being ridiculous Dave. Just like you are being, so far.

Date: 2006/06/16 03:48:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Not sure if it has allready been asked but if the Sun orbits the Earth, why do we get seasons?

What causes that orbital variation?

Date: 2006/06/16 05:38:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
A very big congrats RGD. Well done.

Date: 2006/06/16 05:44:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Weird. According to the main board afdave is the last poster here. But I read george as the last post when I enter the thread.

EDIT: Sorry about that. Working fine now.

2nd EDIT: argy and improv, thanks guys (didn't wanna make a 2nd OT post).

Date: 2006/06/16 06:07:34, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,10:39)
Not sure if it has allready been asked but if the Sun orbits the Earth, why do we get seasons?
Why wouldn't we?

If the Sun was orbiting the Earth in a regular orbit we would not experience seasons. Seasons are the result of the Earth being at a tilt to the sun and so presenting a slightly different angle Each day of it's yearly travel.

If the sun was orbiting Earth on a flat plane we would not get seasons. Unless either the sun moved north and south (from a earthlings POV) over the year, or the Earth wobbled over a year.

TBH not too sure on the above (2nd paragraph) yet. I am still trying to work out how we would get a Solstice- Equinox etc situation if the Sun orbited Earth. Easy as anything to see why it happens with the normal (scientifically accepted) explanation.

Date: 2006/06/16 06:19:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Caledonian @ June 16 2006,08:20)
Quote (jujuquisp @ June 15 2006,21:39)
Actually, for a 50+ year old, it is impossible to have an IQ above 150.

Um... that statement is completely wrong.  Utterly and completely incorrect in every respect.

Could you please explain why it is wrong? I have no idea how IQ is calculated. All I do know is that a "child" will score higher than an "adult" if they both give the exact same answers.

Date: 2006/06/16 06:24:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,11:16)
If the sun orbited the earth on a plane, but the earth was tilted w/r/t that plane, you'd get seasons again.

I can't see why. Could you explain it?

Date: 2006/06/16 06:51:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,11:38)
Wait, I see the problem. The sun can orbit the earth once a day, or the sun can orbit the earth once a year and the days are caused by the earth rotating. In the first scenario, you wouldn't get seasons, in the second you would, if the orbital axis and the rotational axis weren't parallel.

In a geocentric system the Sun must orbit the Earth daily...yes? Don't forget the Earth should be static in this model. That is why seasons are a problem.

EDIT: The only sensible way I can see seasons emerge is if the Suns orbit is not static. ie It move N-S-N over a yearly period. Pretty sure that would still introduce problems, such as Sun Earth relationship at night. A wobbling Earth would not be static.

So imo seaesons are a problem for geocentric models (unless you know different).

EDIT (again): Don't forget that if Earth is satic, the Sun must orbit us daily.

Date: 2006/06/16 07:02:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Please. Are you teasing me? You do know that seasons are caused by the angle of the Earth during it's orbit right? Nothing whatsoever to do with distance. Otherwise N and S hemispheres would experience the same seasons (ie Summer/Winter would be at same time for both hemispheres).

EDIT: Replaced rotation with orbit for clarity.

Date: 2006/06/16 07:58:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stephenWells @ June 16 2006,12:55)
...repeated claims that he'll be posting a model real soon now.

As if that is likely to happen. GoP has bitten off too much, he knows it.

Date: 2006/06/16 08:54:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 16 2006,13:21)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 16 2006,12:02)
Please. Are you teasing me? You do know that seasons are caused by the angle of the Earth during it's orbit right? Nothing whatsoever to do with distance. Otherwise N and S hemispheres would experience the same seasons (ie Summer/Winter would be at same time for both hemispheres).

EDIT: Replaced rotation with orbit for clarity.

Of course. Not. The earth doesn't orbit, right? Nor, evidently, does it rotate. So what causes seasons? As I said, distance won't work, because it wouldn't account for seasons differing in different hemispheres. Some sort of precession effect seems the only other alternative, but I'm pretty sure Bill will run into conservation of angular momentum problems. As it turns out, only the sun would have to precess (well, on a yearly basis; precession still turns out to be a problem over a 22,000-year time frame), but I'm trying to think where the energy comes from to tilt the sun's orbit up and down with a one-year period.

As far as I can see, the Sun would have to move up and down in it's orbit on a yearly cycle. I can't see any other way to make seasons work.

If we had a static Earth with a genuine N-S angle that rules out a tilted Sun orbit. Otherwise seasons would vary from E-W on Earth. Earth on an angle to N with an orbiting Sun (with Sun on a plane orbit) would mean no seasons.

This is only 2 objects so far. It must get much worse when other planets are considered (let-alone stars [other than the Sun] and galaxies [other than ours] etc.).

EDIT: Sorry for the elusive comments....but it is very difficult to envision (let alone explain) a geocentric universe that makes sense.

2nd EDIT: Sorry for all the editing, but it is so weird it is difficult to put in words.

Date: 2006/06/16 09:31:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Atempting to explain myself again.

If Earth is static and the Sun orbits us. That means the Sun orbits the Earth daily.

Now in summer, the Sun is high in the sky at mid-day. In winter the sun is low in the sky at mid-day.

The years would have to be accounted for by a N-S-N movement of the Sun (in respect to the Earth) over a yearly cycle.

That sort of orbit is very weird to imagine.

Date: 2006/06/16 09:37:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 16 2006,14:28)
Quote (apollo230 @ June 15 2006,22:27)
This is the time of year for new PhD's to sprout!  Congratulations, and I do hope that your work gives you both pleasure and satisfaction!

Best regards,

Y'know, what's funny is that I thought I'd be much more... excited or happy or something.  But I didn't party late last night, and had a strong urge to crawl back into bed and pull the covers over my head this morning.

'tis very peculiar.

Anybody else feel "let down" when the pile got dumped?

I do have an inkling. Nothing to do with something as spectacular as a doctorate though.

But, you have a high aim, eventually achieve it, then suddenly realise the journey was better than the destination?

Date: 2006/06/16 09:42:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 16 2006,14:36)
Sorry for the delay - real life has intruded as of late. Boy, you guys are way off. I contributed to the confusion by saying my model would reflect Ptolemy, but I've changed my mind after further thought and now embrace a quantum mechanical model writ large. I'll try to supply more detail Monday. To prepare for my theory, you'd be better off reading a chemistry than an astronomy textbook.

C'mon ghost, you know you are b/s'n.

Explain something as simple as this. In a geocentric solar system, why does the Earth experience seasons?

Date: 2006/06/16 09:56:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 16 2006,14:45)
At this point, I think I need to give up, and go back to a heliocentric solar system. Bill will have to pick it up from here.

LOL Yes.

Gets crazy doesn't it? To think that is only 2 bodies. Surely GoP has realised by now how #### difficult a geocentric model would be.

I personally consider GoP to be inteligent. I think he now (and for some time tbh) realises this is an impossible task. Just wish he had the "ka-hoonas" to admit it.

Date: 2006/06/16 10:00:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ June 16 2006,14:58)
I can't find any problem with seasons on a geocentric earth that can't be easily explained either by magic or by wishful thinking. You guys are all barking up the wrong tree. The chemistry Ghost is referring to is brain chemistry.

LOL. That was funny!

Date: 2006/06/16 18:28:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
If the Earth is not spinning on it's axis, what makes the clockwise/anticlockwise spin of water/storms etc dependent on N or S hemisphere?

Date: 2006/06/16 18:54:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2006,23:34)
Those are the Coriolis terms, which no geostationary model can account for. The extant geostationary dolts just say, "Well, that's an anomalous force we haven't figured out yet."

Are you saying that these people actually exist?

Date: 2006/06/16 21:23:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2006,02:01)
the universe could be geocentric, and the earth could still rotate on its axis, yes?

I am asuming that in a geocentric model, a day is 1 orbit of the sun around the Earth.

Why would the Earth spin in a geocentric model? If it can spin, why can it not be in orbit as well?

As for the"flat Earthers".  I thought that organisation was just a joke.

(Stephen Elliott @ June 16 2006,23:54)
Are you saying that these people actually exist?

Well, at least one of them does.  [/QUOTE]

Who? I doubt GofP believes in geocentrism. Otherwise he would have described a model at the outset.

Date: 2006/06/16 21:56:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2006,02:43)
heck, back in reality, the moon orbits the earth, yes?  and yet the earth spins.

Well yes. But that is reality. We are talking geocentrism now. Isn't the whole point of geocentrism being "it is bleedin obvious". Look at the sky, you can observe the Sun orbiting us. It is obvious that the Earth is not spinning, we would feel it if we were spining at aprox 1,000mph wouldn't we?

Getting a headache trying to think of what we would observe if the Earth was spinning in a geocentric universe.

Oh! What direction would we be spinning in and at what speed? That would have profound implications on the speed of the Suns orbit through space.

Date: 2006/06/16 22:40:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2006,03:26)
again, back in reality... the sun spins.  the earth orbits the sun.  does the sun's spin have a major impact on the orbital speed of the earth?
I don't see much problem with that, really...

in fact, if the earth's rotational speed matched the orbital speed of the sun, then the sun would not appear to go around the earth any more to an observer on the surface, would it?

think... why does the moon have a "darkside"

True, but in geocentric fantasy land a spinning Earth would make huge differences.

As you say if the Earth span at the right speed and direction the sun would apear stationary.

Geocentric stationary Earth=Sun orbits us 1/day.

If the Earth spins in same direction sun is moving (1 turn/day) then sun orbits us twice per day.

If Earth spins counter to Suns orbit at same rate then the sun orbits us every 2 days wouldn't be orbitng us at all.

I think.

Date: 2006/06/16 23:12:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2006,03:59)
let's say it actually DOES take the sun 24 hours to complete an orbit around the earth.

if the earth is not spinning, then the apparent time it takes the sun to go around the earth is the same as the actual time.

if the earth is spinning in the same direction as the sun's orbit, the apparent time it takes the sun to go around the earth would be longer.

I am agreeing with you. It is just that I was keeping the observed rotation the same and changing the orbital velocity to stay with the observed day. Whereas you are explaining how observations would change from an Earth rotation change.

I think.


(of course, you should drink heavily before doing this)

Splendid idea! Of course I would have to be Earth. It would be impossible to maintain the Sun's orbital velocity after drinking heavily.

Date: 2006/06/17 00:44:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ved @ June 17 2006,05:19)
Right, it seems like there are any number of equally rediculous arrangements that could be called geocentric. We have no idea what Paley's is.

That is true. There are an incredible number of daft models and Paley still hasn't got round to even giving much of a hint to what his is.

But I do find it a little bit of fun trying to imagine a geocentric model. Just a geocentric solar system is rife with problems.

I don't think GofP has a chance with this. Perhaps he knows this and that is the reason he is reluctant to even start describing his model.

Date: 2006/06/17 05:18:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ved @ June 17 2006,10:11)
The level of hatred in this "holy war" is amazing and everyone should really sit back and take a breath.  A perfect example is the labeling of Dave as a child molester, what a stupid analogy.

See, I just knew that someone was going to read it that way.

Well TBH, that is the way I read it as well. The term "child abuser" is certain to get an emotional response.

On the other hand though, afdave has been a pest. He has basically lied since his 1st post. That never goes down well.

Date: 2006/06/17 08:39:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (awhite @ June 17 2006,12:36)
Every new person who has ever come to here or PT who actually ASKS for help in getting information they are lacking is politely and copiously referred to excellent resources.

I've never seen otherwise, that I can recall.

Randy, Skeptic, Dave, and most other trolls that come here don't ASK.  they TELL (preach) us what is "all wrong with the ToE".  They might get to actually asking questions later, but they kinda set the tone when they come in thinking they know all the answers

I don't dispute this.  Still, I feel that not taking the bait until it becomes absolutely clear that there is no reaching someone might be constructive....  

I went to PT as an ID "believer". I had read a book The Case for a Creator and believed it.

I actually thought that biologists had it all wrong and where lying. About 50% of the replies to me where "anti and agressive" yet some ppl took time to explain things.

After following a few links and listening to politer responses, I realised it was the "ID" ppl that where shysters.

It is wrong to criticise folks who work in the evolutionary/biology field for being testy when they experience atacks on their honesty/profesionalism daily.

A calmer response might influence a small percentage of anti-evolution posters better. But look for yourself. How many are actually willing to listen?

Date: 2006/06/17 19:25:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 17 2006,21:30)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2006,14:41)
anti copernicus AND anti darwinian.

why doesn't that surprise me?

And anti-Newton. And presumably anti-Kepler, anti-Galileo, and essentially anti-every-astronomer-from-the-last-500-years as well.

Quite a task then.

Date: 2006/06/18 06:07:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Wasn't Larry Fafarman suffering some sort of mental problem? AFDave sounds as if he has the same one. The arguments are different, the blindness to being repeatedly defeated  is similar.

Date: 2006/06/18 19:35:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 18 2006,22:55)
Bill's and Dave's excellent force?

Hehe that was good. Made me smile.

Ghost. Why have you not given so much as a simple description yet? If you really believed this nonsense you would not be "firing from the hip", you would have already thought about the problems and have an answer ready.

Date: 2006/06/19 06:29:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ June 19 2006,11:00)
I've been trying to spin this into comedy for a few days now but I just can't seem to do it. Maybe the issue is too close to me to see it objectively.

People who think that environmental concerns are not important or that they are being spun by scientists with a political agenda- all the religion hoppers claiming that we are an evil conspiracy to destroy religion for example- are ignorant of facts...

Agreed. We are heading for trouble and seem to be accelerating the problem.

Date: 2006/06/19 07:45:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 19 2006,12:10)
S. Elliot
Ghost. Why have you not given so much as a simple description yet? If you really believed this nonsense you would not be "firing from the hip", you would have already thought about the problems and have an answer ready.

Think of the universe as a large atom, with the earth as the nucleus. More details to come tonight....

I now doubt your sincerity. There is not a chance that you will post a description anytime soon.

Ghost! You do not believe this yourself. Otherwise a description would have been forthcoming months ago.

Date: 2006/06/19 20:55:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 20 2006,01:39)
Hey, so since Hawking said essentially the same thing as Pianka (and the same thing as Paul Ehrlich, and thousands of others), why do you supposed the IDiots over on UD aren't proclaiming Hawking the latest in the line of "Doctor Dooms"?

Why pick on Pianka, but not Hawking?

I want to explore this double standard a bit, if you don't mind.

Maybe they actually learned a lesson with their Pianka shambles. Considering their colosal failure with that tactic, not even they would be stupid enough to atack Hawking in the same manner. But then again......

Date: 2006/06/19 21:39:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Things would certainly get interesting if they went after Hawking. The shitstorm would be enormous.

Date: 2006/06/19 22:03:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 20 2006,02:46)
nudge nudge, wink wink.

Is she a goer?


They have almost certainly already seen his comments.

Maybe the kajones are lacking.

Date: 2006/06/20 05:48:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (k.e @ June 20 2006,09:44)
halfa Dave....

Every time I read that, Tennyson's poem springs into my head.

          Half a Dave, half a Dave,
             Half a Dave onward,...

Date: 2006/06/20 07:26:01, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (k.e @ June 20 2006,11:01)
A Play on sounds SE
AFDave = aaa eeef dave
haa eef dave

half a dave

1/2 a dave...

I liked the Tennyson idea. Sorta brings up the whole mistaken instructions and futility of the enterprise that Dave is on. Yet he charges on regardless.

His not to reason why!

Date: 2006/06/20 07:41:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Why are people calling Ghost a racist? So far I have not seen any evidence for that label to be aplicable.

Date: 2006/06/20 11:30:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 20 2006,13:11)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 20 2006,12:41)
Why are people calling Ghost a racist? So far I have not seen any evidence for that label to be aplicable.

Past stuff he's said in old threads.

Also, he once cited some stats on black-on-white crime that came from some white supremacist site or other, which, uh, put a few people off. His defense was that as long as the study was 'valid', it doesn't matter who posted it or sponsored it.

Are you certain about this? I do not want to sound like a GoP fan here as I disagree with so much he says. However you normally supply evidence when you make claims (example would be the excelent way you destroy afdave) just calling gop a racist and then hand waving is not the way you normally argue.

Date: 2006/06/20 20:07:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

Date: 2006/06/25 09:25:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Ghost, one quick question.

In your "model" does Earth spin on it's axis, or is Earth static?

EDIT: I realise you MAY have already stated this, but I can't remember for certain.

Date: 2006/06/25 10:02:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 25 2006,14:36)
S. Elliot:
Ghost, one quick question.

In your "model" does Earth spin on it's axis, or is Earth static?

EDIT: I realise you MAY have already stated this, but I can't remember for certain.

I think Fishy and Eric were mudwrasslin over this earlier, so let me make this plain. The Earth does not rotate, nor does it revolve; the Earth is completely stationary. It is also the center of the universe. It isn't flat, however; it is spherical. I hope this helps. By the way, does anyone here understand what Louis and I are arguing about? I get the sense that we might as well be talking Faid's language.

Oh, and Cogzie/Vicklund.....does QM or anything else forbid one MO curling up relative to another MO? Yes? No? Maybe?

[Edit: thanks for the answer, Louis. By the way, Cogzie/Vicklund, do you agree? Just want to see if everybody's on the same page]

Thank you for a straightforward answer.

I have very little idea about what you and Louis are arguing about.

But, if you are arguing planetary orbits (and larger) = electron orbits. Do you think they are all caused by the same force?

Date: 2006/06/26 05:51:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Some more easy questions from me Ghost.

You are claiming the Earth is roughly spherical, it does not move in any way at all. Every non-terestrial object we can observe, orbits the Earth?

Electron orbits are caused by the same force that enables cosmic orbits?

Do you believe that stars are similar to our Sun?

Are there Galaxies? If so, roughly how many?

Has mankind launched anything into space? If so, name a few.

Do you "believe" in the GPS system? If so, how does it work?

Date: 2006/06/26 22:23:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I noted that a certain Bruce N was suporting Larry, wasn't Bruce another manifestation of Larry?

Good article though.

Date: 2006/06/27 05:15:36, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 25 2006,15:05)
But, if you are arguing planetary orbits (and larger) = electron orbits. Do you think they are all caused by the same force?

Yes, I plan to show how the forces come together Tuesday.....gotta run.

It is Tuesday!

Can't wait to find out why the Sun is in a crazy corkscrew-like orbit around Earth.

Date: 2006/06/27 05:32:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 27 2006,03:40)
I thought Bruce was larry's brother?

Larry's brother may well have been called Bruce (I think he was). Still think a Bruce was also one of Larry's many nom-de-plumes though. I might be wrong. I was once. :D

TBH. He had so many it was hard to keep track.

Date: 2006/06/27 10:43:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 27 2006,15:27)
Remember my wave function?

          If we plug this wavefunction (which is normalised as the wavevector k approaches the centerpoint of the distribution, as my second installment shows) into the positive definite polynomial (with wavelength being the "x-value" of this polynomial), pull the constant term out (which may or may not be Planck's constant) and assume that the discriminant of the above polynomial is negative or zero (as we must if the expression is positive definite), then r^4<or= a negative constant, which shows that my wavefunction's length dimensions exist in imaginary space. Which blows the uncertainty relation out the window. Which means that quantum principles apply across the information, rather than spatial, dimension, thereby allowing the Planck scale to be applied across an arbitrary length. Probability distributions are described in this imaginary space. As the Klein bottle cycles wave motion from information space into realspace, the available kinetic energy turns into gravity. Now think of a Hydrogen atom, with its antibonding orbital existing at a higher energy. This antibonding orbital does not get tranferred to real space due to its node, so only the bonding orbital makes it across the divide.

Still no simple model then? I think I will stick with a Heliocentric solar system then. Much easier to understand dontcha'know.

It occurs to me that just maybe, our solar system (let alone the Earth) might not be at the universal centre.

Unless of course you can provide a simpler easier to understand picture (that also accounts for astronomical observations).

Don't forget that it is now Tuesday!

Date: 2006/06/27 12:06:01, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 27 2006,16:15)
S. Elliot:
Unless of course you can provide a simpler easier to understand picture (that also accounts for astronomical observations).

Don't forget that it is now Tuesday!

True, but I wasted a lot of time fiddling with ImageShack, and for some reason nothing seemed to work. My actual model isn't too hard; think of the universe as a large atom divided into concentric "spheres" (energy levels) surrounding a central Earth. Within the first sphere we have the solar system. All the planets save the Earth rotate around the Sun, with the Sun going around the Earth. Gravity and the other forces are different aspects of the fundamental force, which is information. The New and Old Testament support this interpretation. Notice the central role that spoken information plays in Creation.

So the Earth is not the central orbiting object for everything in your geocentric model?

I will have to think about this. Pretty sure it will be difficult to peg with astronomical sightings.

(just in the solar system)

Date: 2006/06/27 12:10:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just thought of a problem. In your model the outer planets should orbit us daily. I am drunk atm so not certain if this is the case. Pretty sure though.

Date: 2006/06/27 12:13:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I think that this deserves a bump.

Date: 2006/06/28 01:10:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 27 2006,10:15)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 25 2006,15:05)
But, if you are arguing planetary orbits (and larger) = electron orbits. Do you think they are all caused by the same force?

Yes, I plan to show how the forces come together Tuesday.....gotta run.

It is Tuesday!

Can't wait to find out why the Sun is in a crazy corkscrew-like orbit around Earth.

Hey, now it is Tuesday +1.

I can't seem to find the post that describes how the orbits of planets and electrons are caused by the same force.

Date: 2006/06/28 01:41:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 28 2006,05:49)
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ June 28 2006,00:19)
Hi Lenny.

I am simultaneously glad to see you on the boards and embarrassed that you are so intent on acting like you're being censored.

You stated your intent. Shouldn't a blogger, especially at hi-pro PT, have the right to have discussion (however misguided according to you) without intentional disruption otherwise devoid of content?

Alas, though, PZ has decided to remove ALL my comments from ALL his threads.

When I made a post regarding the Cambrian explosion, which has nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with his "atheists are repressed boo hoo hoo" whining, that disappeared too.  And when I tried to post to the "spider" thread, that disappeared too.

This isn't about PZ protecting the fight that he picked. PZ is just doing what EVERY extremist ideologue does when he gets a little authority.  (shrug)

I have just read your spider comment on the bathroom wall. I can only assume that PZ has declared a "sort of" war on you.

EDIT: BTW, you do know you can start threads on here?

Date: 2006/06/28 02:36:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 28 2006,07:10)
Spiders fascinate me, always have.

Spiders scare me. Well sometimes they do. Funny thing is, I don't mind them when camping.

Date: 2006/06/28 04:54:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
But wasn't that thread intended to start an argument? I must admit that Lenny tends to post in a very (forthright, shall we say?) manner, but I never noticed a warning given to him (not in plain language anyway).

Tried reading the thread again to see what exactly happened, but it is a bit difficult to follow now.

The thread was @ 400 posts+ when I first read it, so I did skim it.

Date: 2006/06/28 05:30:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
post to read.

Agh. Forgot it could be bumped by votes.

Date: 2006/06/28 12:06:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 28 2006,13:40)
Isn't it approaching infinite wavelength and zero energy? Approaching zero wavelength would actually be a high frequency signal.

I'm thinking of calculating the "God channel" based on amount of information to be "inputted" into the universe post-Big Bang and amount of time to do it in, based on standard cosmological timetables and the COBE findings concerning microwave background radiation anisotropy.

Zero wavelength would require two different potentials at the same time in the same place. ie If it was an electrical wave it would have to be at two different voltages at the same time. Pretty much impossible.

As for infinite wavelength wich Dembski was claiming God used to impart information. Well the universe is not old enough to have imparted a single bit of information yet, it never will be old enougth. As far as I am aware you would need infinite time to impart information on an infinite wavelength. After all, infinite wavelength = DC in electricity.

Date: 2006/06/28 12:47:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Thomas Sowell?

Date: 2006/06/28 13:56:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 28 2006,17:41)
Zero wavelength would require two different potentials at the same time in the same place. ie If it was an electrical wave it would have to be at two different voltages at the same time. Pretty much impossible.

Don't forget Dembski's comment about approaching the limit rather than the value at the limit.

OK. But was he also not advocating zero energy requirement? The whole thing is awash with stupidity imo.

Are you toying with me? I seriously doubt that you take Dembski seriously.

I can (sort of) remember the zero energy/ infinite wavelength comment, do you want me to search and quote?

Just tried it, could not find a clear quote.

Date: 2006/06/28 23:08:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ June 28 2006,17:47)

Right. It's 11:30pm, my reaction's finished, the next step is on, I've been at work for 16 straight hours and I have a 2 hour commute home. Oh and I have to be back at 7 am to get the damned thing off. So if I am lucky I'll get 3 hours kip...

As for you GoP...

As for the patience of "evos". Have you read "Peter and the Wolf"? You've cried "wolf" ...

Good evening all.


Hey Louis.

Did you not mean the boy who cried wolf, rather than Peter and the wolf?

Sorry about that. I have just about given up on Ghost, and having a little tease.  

Try and get some sleep dude.

Date: 2006/06/28 23:51:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
It is also reported here  and  here.

Date: 2006/06/29 06:00:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (GCT @ June 29 2006,10:32)

And speaking of ATBC and ignorant juvenile flame monkeys… they normally pounce on every word I utter but they’re mysteriously silent about these last few articles lampooning the hijinks of PZ Myers and company on Panda’s Thumb.

What’s the matter [church burnin’ ebola] boys, cat got your tongues?  

Comment by DaveScot — June 28, 2006 @ 9:16 am

Sorry DaveTard, but when you've got an overabundance of material, it's hard to keep up sometimes.

I just have to laugh at DS. How can anyone be so stupid with just one brain?

Date: 2006/06/29 12:32:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (sickoffalltheidiots @ June 29 2006,15:39)
I think I hit a nerve...

I think you did.

However I actually imagine Dave can function just fine in real life (please do not take that as suport for daves weird views); Assuming he actually was a pilot

BTW, did you put the second "f" in your name deliberately? It makes it sound yucky.

Date: 2006/07/03 08:10:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 03 2006,11:24)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 03 2006,07:12)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 03 2006,02:38)
Seriously, Lenny, are you excluded permanently at PT? I thought it was just from PZ's threads.

Yeah, just from PZ's threads.  More of PZ's dick-waving.  (shrug)

I did notice, though, that after he kicked me out and started handing out detentions to people who complained about it, PZ's preaching thread died a rather sudden death.  (giggle)

And I think it will be a long time before he picks another such fight again.

In George Bush's words, "Mission Accomplished".  ;)

I suspect his heavy-handed tactics alienated more than a few people there.

1st time I have had comments shifted to the bathroom wall.

It seemed a tad extreme, especially compared to the comments some people posted.

Date: 2006/07/03 08:13:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:53)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 03 2006,12:13)
Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2006,11:50)
Quote (GCT @ July 03 2006,12:36)
From Sal's latest post we find out that Casey Luskin is a scientist?

Discovery Institute attorney and scientist Casey Luskin

The ISCID 'journal' features 'papers' written by Casey Luskin. So for an intelligent design scientist, he's overqualified. An ID 'scientist' with an actual science degree, is like their version of a Nobel Laureate.

And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

I can't recall actually hearing this 'most used' strawman.

IDers are in permanent denial about the lack of consensus within their ranks. Sort of a 'don't ask, don't tell' thing.

Well, that'll happen when you try to make a tent big enough to contain the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front.


Whatever happened to the popular front?

Date: 2006/07/04 08:31:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 04 2006,06:24)
Quote (Aardvark @ July 03 2006,19:18)
I found a video of Larry on YouTube:

That really was Larry Farfarman on the video?

Bloody he11 is he scary.

It was some loon called David Thompson from the city of Charlotte, N. Carolina.

Date: 2006/07/05 14:51:42, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2006,19:14)
Yeah, while Wes might disagree, I think this tells us interesting things about the PT/AtBC readership. Certainly surprised me.

What did you find surprising? It went pretty much as I expected, except for the zero Jewish vote.

Date: 2006/07/05 15:03:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2006,19:58)
I would have guessed roughly

literal christian - 5%
sane christian - 40%
jew - 5%
agnostic - 25%
atheist - 25%
buddhist/new age/wicca/etc ~1%
muslim 0%

Wow! You surprise me. I thought it was very plain that the majority on this board are non-religious. I would be surprised if the anti-religious did not outnumber the religious (by which I mean theist).

Date: 2006/07/05 15:11:09, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 05 2006,19:52)
Hey all you football/soccer fans, I need your opinion: do your think the refs will fix the World Cup final, or will it be on the level? I don't know much about the sport, but something hasn't seemed quite right about this tournament.....the way the brackets have been set, the penalties, etc. I know that some people suspect that the NBA finals are fishy, and there's a little evidence to back em up, but what about Soccer/Football? I don't have any strong opinions (honest), so here's yer chance to show off what you know.....all speculation welcome.

I doubt the World Cup is fixed. Seen zero evidence so far. Referees are under a lot of pressure and mistakes get made. It is hard to judge exactly what happened in many incidents and refs don't have the luxury of slow motion replays from various angles.

I am glad Potugal are out. Their cheating/exploiting style of play in this competition was anoying to watch.

So France v Italy for the final. Hoping for a good match.

EDIT: Wow, what a change of subject. However I could not resist replying. (It is the worlds biggest sporting event is the only defence I can offer)

Date: 2006/07/05 15:38:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (MidnightVoice @ July 05 2006,20:20)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2006,20:03)
Wow! You surprise me. I thought it was very plain that the majority on this board are non-religious. I would be surprised if the anti-religious did not outnumber the religious (by which I mean theist).

Anti-religous?  Hmmmm, I don't consider myself anti-religous, merely anti-extremist.  :D

LOL. Touche!

Date: 2006/07/05 15:46:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I bought this book a couple of days ago. Atm I am about 1/2 (chapter 8) way through it. For the first time I can see how an atheist need not be depressed.

I am interested in other peoples take on this book. Mine are not fully formed yet (obviously, since I have not finished it).

Date: 2006/07/05 15:54:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (dhogaza @ July 05 2006,20:43)
Listen, I know I was one of the first people to spout off about more science here, but um, would it be too much if we could do it in english?

I know you guys are all miles ahead of me, but my science teachers were never as interesting as my english teachers. (esp. Ms. O’Bannon who also had really great hair!;) In fact, let’s be nice and just say my science teachers were reeeeaaaalllllyyyy boring. Copying notes from the board written by a million year old bald guy just didn’t do it for me. I got A’s, but I don’t really know how.

Am I the only person who wonders if JanieBelle is really what she claims to be?  I'm starting to think someone's just having fun...

Not at all. Posts on PT are indicating that good school level science results no longer indicate a clear understanding in the subject.

Date: 2006/07/06 11:44:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I hope people haven't got the impression that I consider atheism morally wrong or something (sometimes typing is a difficult way to communicate).

It is just that before reading this book I would have thought that atheism would be a tad depressing.

Dawkins makes basically the same arguments you guys are making ie "you get one life, you are born  against monumental odds, enjoy it while it lasts". I agree.

Date: 2006/07/06 14:38:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Henry J @ July 05 2006,09:03)
Was it just me or were AE and PT down most of yesterday afternoon?


Same for me. Also this site is very slow atm for me. Anyone else having problems? Reminiscent of dial-up.

EDIT: Things seem to be improving now.

Date: 2006/07/06 14:46:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ July 06 2006,03:12)
P.S. As for the footy, well I am glad the Portugese are out of it, after all they were doing so much diving in the last three matches I imagine they are currently in a decompression chamber preparing for life on the surface. That Renaldo needs someone to have a quiet word with him. As for match fixing, highly unlikely.

Normally I want the team that knocks England out to go-on and win the cup. Not this time. Portugal's style of cheating/ref influencing really anoyed me.

Date: 2006/07/06 15:00:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 06 2006,18:58)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2006,03:32)
No, not big boned. 6', 235, I'm a little on the fat side (a case of beer a day will do that to you) but not big boned. My natural weight is probably around 185. Since I quit chain smoking 9 mos ago, I gained about 20 lbs.

Geez, I'm 5'6 and 135 lbs, dripping wet.  Didn't smoke (well, at least not tobacco), but sure put away an awful lot of beer in my lifetime (I still brew my own).

Of course, being scrawny and having a big mouth can be a dangerous combination.  ;)  But as a kid I never lost a fight --- I was always faster than everyone else, and was always able to dart around behind them, jump on their back, and choke them till they passed out.

Since then, I've studied quite a bit of medieval weaponry, and am pretty efficient with a longsword, and absolutely lethal with a  rapier.   ;)

OT: I am pretty certain that a rapier is not a medieval weapon.

Date: 2006/07/06 15:26:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Yep, definitions can make all the difference.

But generally IIRC rapiers became popular after full plate armour became obsolete. Which is pretty much after the medieval period. Although once again, it is not a definite rule.

Personally I would class rapiers as renaissance.

Date: 2006/07/06 17:44:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I must admit that I was thinking of the military use.

Yes pointed weapons where used against full plate armour. But hardly rapier like weapons they tended to be much "heavier".

I guess we would need to agreee about what we mean by the term "rapier". For me i think of it as a long slender weapon. Best used in point atacks against an unarmoured foe.

Medieval weapons being much heavier/robust.

EDIT: Of course I could be completely wrong, my roleplay is strictly the 1600s and I just carry a huge stick/pike and try to knock-over any oposition.

Date: 2006/07/08 05:21:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Speaking for UK only.

I do not understand why we have a government target of 50% of pupils going to University.

IMO. Primary education should be mostly rote learning facts with a little more generalised education, including PE.

Secondary education should be more diverse. English, Maths and Science to a decent basic lvl, also allowing choices at about age 13+. More skills classes for the less academic.

Let children "fail" sometimes, it is a part of life everyone has to face.

I also agree with "streaming", letting children learn at their own pace.

I do believe that a lot of schools are now just teaching to pass the exam, therefore improving the schools "score".

Unlike Louis, I do think teachers bare some of the blame. Certainly not all of it (the government is No1 culprit) but some.

I find it worrying to work among so many degreed people who seem ignorant.

Date: 2006/07/10 06:20:36, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2006,10:53)
I suspect this crush is just another one of Paley's sillyass PR moves to distract us from his inability to construct a coherent argument or indeed to say anything that makes sense. If you assume GOP's posts here are all a big joke, they suddenly fall into place.

I am pretty much convinced Paley is just posting for fun. But not absolutely certain.

Date: 2006/07/12 22:42:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ July 13 2006,00:58)
I always kind of thought the geocentrism thing for you was sort of an intellectual exercise; you know, a challenge you'd set for yourself just to see if you could do it.

That is what I was expecting. Shame we were wrong, it might have been fun. I was hoping that ghost had at least a rough explanation for some observations though.

Date: 2006/07/13 13:01:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
From the thread sub-title.

This Evolution inspired film is pretty good.

Date: 2006/07/16 00:05:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 15 2006,19:57)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 15 2006,15:16)
I must wait until Tuesday to give a serious rebuttal

Why is it that the goddamn fundies ALWAYS have time to POST their idiotic claims, but NEVER seem to have time to DEFEND any of them . . . . . . ?

I think you know why.

The first is much easier than the second.

Date: 2006/07/16 03:51:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 16 2006,06:45)
The first is much easier than the second.

Which is why I do not live in hope of seeing Ghost's neo-Lamarckist "guts to gametes" hypothesis.

I was looking forward to the Geocentric model. That now seems about as likely as a (publicly admited) brothel in the vatican.

Date: 2006/07/17 07:47:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Finished it at last. Took ages because I have had time off work and was doing more hedonistic stuff.

Chapter 11 (the one about vision), blew me away. I had a very good idea about "why" we see things before hand, but no litle idea "how".

####, vision is very similar to modern digital compression in TV.

Date: 2006/07/18 00:46:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ July 18 2006,05:01)
You have a different imagery from me.

I see teddies be chucked from prams, and the Tardster holding his breath until Daddy Dembski gives him back his rattle to play with.


P.S. DT amuses the heck out of me. When did being female become insulting (girly...)? When did being effeminate/homosexual become insulting (girly man)? I know loads of girls, I like 'em. Is the Tardi di tutti Tardi a rampant closet case? GoP should take note!

LOL! That imagery cracked me up. I can just picture DT going red in the face and stamping his foot with stuffed toys flying in random directions.

The "girly man" insult also amuses, takes me right back to primary school when "girl" was the pinacle of insults. Sorta loses it's sting when you aproach the teen years.

Date: 2006/07/18 01:05:34, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Seems like Hovind is not alone.

Date: 2006/07/18 04:37:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,09:00)
Can you plead Stupid?

lol. Short and funny. Nice one.

Date: 2006/07/18 04:45:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 18 2006,09:33)
 Or were you just 'embellishing' your abilities like you did when you claimed to be a sh*t hot fighter pilot?

Off topic, but where did that come from?

Date: 2006/07/18 05:04:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I would consider the lovely Miss Denyse O'Leary to be a reporter rather than a journalist. She certainly appears to lack the fact checking and investigative skills a journalist should have.

I think she also has a strong side-line in bullshit.

Date: 2006/07/18 05:14:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 18 2006,10:01)
Off topic, but where did that come from

AFDave has been caught 'padding his resume' before, so to speak.  He wanted us to believe he was a sh*t hot fighter jock when all he ever flew were unarmed trainers.  Turned out he *hung around* with real fighter pilots, so in his mind that made *him* one too.  Kinda like the towel boy for the Steelers claiming to be a professional football player.

If that is true then it would destroy any credibility. I can believe a person could be honestly misstaken about science, but the same is hard to believe about personal history.

Date: 2006/07/18 05:18:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 18 2006,10:15)
I'm sad. Can someone do a Davetard obituary, with some slow-mo footage of his highlights? The ‘everyone accepts common descent’, the marines ACLU thread, threatening to hit PZ Meyers…. I hope he starts is own blog. Dave – if you’re reading this, honey – START YOUR OWN BLOG. We’ll all put some money in paypal to prop you up.?

Maybe he could hook up with Larry Fafarman on "I'm from Missouri".

That would be funny to watch.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:17:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 18 2006,12:12)
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,12:05)
But has she read Scientific American?

Yeah, and what were her SAT scores?

Did she take them when she was in her 20's?

Date: 2006/07/19 10:32:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2006,09:18)
So here are the predictions:

Even more bible qoutes
Even less science
More opinion polls
More 'moral impact of darwinism'
An eventual falling out because Denyse keeps pluging her book.
My bolding
Is that possible?

Date: 2006/07/20 09:07:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 19 2006,20:55)
Quote (clamboy @ July 19 2006,20:36)
Oh, and I almost forgot: while GoP is talking about Nazis, perhaps he should explain just exactly what he meant in his talk of "diseased cultures" threatening "Western culture" that he brought up in his "modest proposal" thread. And maybe he should explain why his plan of forced relocation is good, and the Nazi plan of forced relocation was bad.

Simple. The Nazis were liberals, so their forced relocation plan would therefore be bad. Paley, being a conservative, would have only good forced relocation plans.

Haven't you been paying attention?

I can't recal Paley wanting FORCED relocation. IIRC he was advocating offering a bribe.

Date: 2006/07/20 09:40:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 20 2006,14:28)
Thanks, Stephen. I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I'd wager that neither of them will ever own up to their lies. Actually, it's a little scary: Arden is a linguist, and he's probably written tons of scholarly papers that have been cited by other researchers. I'd like to think his standards are a little higher in his own specialty, but this incident makes me a bit nervous. Nevertheless, I'm a forgiving chap, and willing to ignore this episode if they apologise.

I am not "on your side" Paley. I just think people are missrepresenting some of your statements.

I do not like that.

However, your "geocentrism" is very lacking. I doubt you actually believe it yourself. Otherwise you would have a much better/presented model.

Date: 2006/07/22 14:43:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ July 22 2006,19:40)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 22 2006,14:59)
the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative.

OMG - an all time classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...but he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke... the same cigarettes as me.

I really like that song. The first version I heard was by the rolling stones.

Date: 2006/07/22 23:01:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ July 23 2006,03:39)
Like it. What do people think of the lyrics?

I'm no music major, but I reckon they might be being slightly satirical about our IDCist chums.


I thought it was quite funny. Definately an atack on ID. The woman carrying an ID placard gave that away.

Date: 2006/07/22 23:08:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 22 2006,14:26)
Let's look at your testimony, for example:

Care on the Northern Line did once provide me with an amusing incident. A crowded commuter train stopped at the platform I was on, my friend and I noticed that there was a space in one of the carriages as it passed and so raced for it. We elbowed our way into the centre of the carriage to get into the space and get a seat. As we burst through the crowd into that valuable and rare free space, we noticed a semi clad, clearly homeless and mentally disturbed "gentleman of the road" sat in the middle of the carriage masturbating furiously and noisily. As is standard practice in London, nobody was making eye contact with anyone else and everyone was very deliberately reading their Evening Standard. Which of course being British, is precisely what my friend and I immediately did. The gentleman of the road finished his round of hand to gland combat and got up, walked to the end of the carriage and got off at the next stop. Needless to say, no one sat down anywhere near his now empty seat.

So a whole trainload of "men" just averted their eyes while a guy masturbated right in front of them, their women, and their children. Wimps.

[edit: Well, on a commuter train there probably weren't too many families. I stand behind my opinion. Wimps.]

So what course of action would you recommend GoP?
I reckon I would also have avoided "noticing".

Date: 2006/07/23 12:20:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 23 2006,15:23)
Stephen Elliot:
So what course of action would you recommend GoP?
I reckon I would also have avoided "noticing".

Well, let's see, how about something like this: "While I respect your right to sexually gratify yourself, we don't allow public displays of self-affection in this civilisation. So I'll give you three choices: Pull your pants up and stay on the train, leave the train voluntarily, or leave the train head-first. You have five seconds to make up your mind." If he starts arguing, execute option 3. Chances are he won't, though. People like that count on you being scared; when you show you aren't and you mean business, they'll take their bad selves elsewhere. Even if they're "insane".

So, you advocate atempting logical discourse and possibly physical violence against a person with a mental disability? That hardly sounds "manly".

Where it to an anti-social oik I would aplaud you, but not against a rather tragic person.

Date: 2006/07/24 12:41:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The fact that the USA's administration is denying that we could be affecting the climate is pretty worrying.

The fact that they are willing to fuge science to fit political policies is frightening.

The Bush government apear to be behaving in a similar way to the tobacco and "leaded" petroleum industries.

Date: 2006/07/24 13:22:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2006,18:14)
How old is the earth, Paley? How long have humans been around?

Aparently, humans haven't been around. We are static, the Universe goes around us.

Date: 2006/07/25 04:17:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 25 2006,08:45)
IMMEDIATE BANNING -  what else is a whiny little puss like Billie D to do?

I have just atempted to post there again. I doubt my comments will be shown.

Date: 2006/07/25 09:13:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 25 2006,10:53)
He's also a good fighter. The sport has some of the best athletes around, but since the "whitebreads" do a little too well, the MSM won't cover it even though the ratings are through the roof.

Not being based in the USA, I have no idea what sports are given most coverage.

Is swimming reported? Whitey tends to do quite well at that. Swimmers are also fairly athletic I believe.

Date: 2006/07/25 09:33:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Have you given up on a geocentric universe?

If not, I have a few questions.

Date: 2006/09/05 07:08:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Been away for some time.


I think that there is some truth in stating that muslims are less well integrated than other faiths (at least in the UK).

It apears to me that Asians of hindi and sikh religious persuasion are doing far better economically than Asian muslims.

I do not believe that the majority of muslims are maladjusted extremists but some actions by muslims do concern me. While only a small minority of muslims may be extremist just about every recent terrorist to operate in the UK is a muslim. Something is going wrong, I am not sure what it is let alone have a solution.

Date: 2006/09/08 09:55:01, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:51)
Help!  Help!  Dave is demolishing our arguments against the Snelling papers ...

Quick!  Bring up dendro and ice cores and belly buttons!

Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?

Date: 2006/09/09 00:06:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 08 2006,23:48)
Quote (IAMB @ Sep. 08 2006,17:18)
I've got a beer that says Dave's reaction, should there be one at all, is that he knew the whole time and was playing along for the entertainment value. Any takers?

Hey! You were right!

Just in case you ever wondered why GilDodgen at Uncommon Descent stopped sweet talking you - I emailed him early on and told him at best you were probably a middle aged fag pretending to be a woman and at worst trolling to trap me in a compromising situation with a 17 year old girl. Didn't work, did it? I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. LOL

WOW! Never let it be said that DeTard is predictable.

Date: 2006/09/09 00:12:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 08 2006,23:39)
Friend of yours, Paley?

Didn't think you had any.

I think I am one of a very small minority here that actually likes GoP's posting (at least I normally find them amusing).

Date: 2006/09/09 10:19:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
[quote=k.e,Sep. 09 2006,13:53]...
Sung to The Major General's Song from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Pirates of Penzance


I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General
I've calculated vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the probability of every possibility
from fallacy to outcome, I am quite delusional
I 'm very well acquainted too with matters scientifical,
I understand creations, both the simple and complexical,
About Mt Rushmore I'm teeming with a lot o' news
­With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views.

With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views;
With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views;
With many cheerful facts about the  usefulness of
creosote spews...

Fantastic! Gave me a real big laugh.

Date: 2006/09/09 10:27:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,09:41)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 09 2006,00:37)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2006,22:02)
Fortunately, terrorism's a nuisance rather than an existential threat, so it's not like this stupidity is ultimately going to cost us the game.

I'm not sure I can agree with that.  For those personally affected I'm sure you wouldn't characterize it as a nuisance.  But for the vast majority of us the true danger is the effect it has on how we live our lives, how we govern and what sacrifices we are willing to accept to avoid further "nuisances".  If I remember correctly, John Kerry equated terrorism to a nuisance during the 04 elections and he paid dearly for it.

Obviously getting murdered is not a nuisance for the victim. It's a nuisance at the nation level. The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes. I don't remember what Kerry said about it, but I don't dispute what you say. People are really bad at understanding risk and statistics.

That may be true, but monthly car caused deaths do not bring a city to a halt.

Terrorism is no more than a pest on the national level. However it does look spectacular and makes people focus on issues.

9/11 aniversary very soon. Pretty sure both USA and England will have some sort of scare.

Date: 2006/09/09 19:46:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,23:14)
I was going to delete this "You suck" "No you suck" crap of the last few comments, but then I thought, this is a GoP thread. Deleting a few intemperate comments would be like waxing the floors at Three Mile Island. So I'll leave them unless anybody thinks they're really disruptive.

Wax on....Wax off?

Do you have another name MR. Myagi?

Date: 2006/09/09 19:51:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 09 2006,21:14)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 09 2006,15:27)
The number of people killed on 9/11 are killed every month in car crashes.

Not to mention that more Americans have now died in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the terrorist attacks they were presumably fighting because of.

(Of course, nobody in America really cares how many Iraqis or Afghans have been killed.)

The basic problem has been, right from the beginning, treating 9-11 as a MILITARY matter rather than what it really was -- a LAW ENFORCEMENT matter.

Would you like to have a discusion about this?

I am interested.

My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did, rather it was the half assed country building post-war.

Date: 2006/09/10 03:22:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,07:48)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,00:51)
My contention is that war wasn't the worst thing we did

Which one?  The one on Afghanistan,...  Or the one on Iraq, which had been planned the year before 9-11, and has nothing to do with 9-11 or fighting terrorists?...

Both really.

Afghanistan was pretty much inevitable due to the actions of the Taliban govt.

First they denied that AlQeada/Osama BinLaden was in Afghanistan.

Then when it was shown that was not the case the denial was to Osams guilt.

Then it was a case of not only admiting it but boasting about the atack while refusing to hand the ofenders over.

The USA had klittle choice but to invade from that point on.

Iraq is a whole different can of worms. Bush may well have had his own agenda and I am well aware of Iraq having nothing to do with the 9/11 atack.

Sadam did himself no favours either. If he had no weapons prohibited by the first gulf war peace treaty, why the #### did he insist on obstructing the weapons inspectors and playing silly games of brinkmanship? Damned if I know.

Date: 2006/09/10 04:35:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,09:03)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,08:22)
Then when it was shown that was not the case the denial was to Osams guilt.

I was under the impression that, in the US, nobody is guilty of anything until they have been convicted in a court of law...

I am not sure how this would have been possible. The atacks on 9/11 were pretty much an act of war imo. I just don't see how the rule of law would work with respect to Bin Laden. Who would arest him? Who could?

Flying planes into buildings and deliberately targeting civilians was bound to sow the seeds of retribution.

BTW. Do you seriously doubt that BinLaden was behind those atacks?

Date: 2006/09/10 06:42:22, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
WOW! Lenny you are a prolific writer and I doubt I will be able to keep up with you.

However I will atempt to adress some of your points.

Are you not a resident of Florida? Isn't it true that you are entitled to shoot someone who breaks into your house there? They don't get a trial.

In Britain the people who set those bombs off on the underground. Well the people directly responsible for letting them loose were arrested. That is true. It was a different situation for America with the 9/11 incidents though as most of those responsible were resident in Afghanistan.

Anyway I conceed that you make some very good arguments. I will try to cover more of them a bit later. The weather is absolutely marvelous over here at the minute and I want to sit by the river with a beer or two, maybe three.

Date: 2006/09/10 08:01:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,10:26)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,09:35)
The atacks on 9/11 were pretty much an act of war imo.

And therein lies the problem.  When we insist on treating a law enforcement problem as a MILITARY problem, then it leads . . . well . . . right where it HAS led...

IIRC the USA did try to get hold of Bin Laden through diplomatic means but was thwarted.

As far as I am aware the "evidence" of Bin Ladens involvement was almost entirely if not 100% inteligence based. That is not the sort of info you would present to a potential enemy. They could then alter their operational procedures to deny future information.

Had Bin Laden been handed over or surrendered himself, I am fairly sure he would have had a fair trial (I bet hundreds of good lawyers would have wanted to represent him), also the occupation in Afghanistan would never have happened.

On a side note. I think whoever ordered the destruction of the poppy crops made a serious blunder.

Why the beejesus we didn't buy it then destroy it or use it for medication manufacture I can't understand. Pay somewhat more than the going rate then promise the farmers a better deal for food the next year would have been far more sensible.

Date: 2006/09/10 08:30:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Lenny you seem to think that I have some sort of thirst for war. I can assure you that I do not. Maybe I have just missread you on that matter.

Anyway, had Osama gone to trial and was aquited I would be somewhat pigged off. However I would abide by a court decision.

On the OJ matter (yes I know it is a sideline but cannot resist). I am not at all certain he was guilty. I suspect he was but the evidence for police fixing was quite large.
If I was a juror at his trial I would have gone for not-guilty.

Oh! BTW, I get the impression that you consider me to be an American. I am English.

Date: 2006/09/10 08:40:36, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,13:20)

But let's reverse the situation and see how you feel about it:  suppose that the IRA blows up Parliament.  Suppose the bombing was planned and financed in a heavily IRA-friendly area, like Boston or New York.  Suppose the Brits, when asked to provide evidence of the bomber's guilt for an extradition hearing, instead refused to do so and simply demanded that we hand him over, no questions asked (remember, the Taliban asked the US to simply produce some evidence -- and the US refused).  

Under those circumstances, do you think Britain would be justified in (1) bombing Boston or New York as retaliation for its "support for terrorists", or (2) invading the US and overthrowing the US government in an attempt to capture the bomber, and to retaliate for the government's refusal to hand him over?...

Funilly enough Lenny that was kinda the situation over here for a good few years.

OK Parliament wasn't blown up. But they did try. Well Downing street at least.

The IRA was heavilly financed by people in the USA. Mostly eejits who had no idea of the political situation in Northern Ireland. I think the majority of cash contributers thought the IRA represented most of  the people of Northern Ireland.

Anyway, I never felt a shred of resentment towards the average USA citizen. Never felt like bombong US cities myself. In fact I actually like the majority of your countrymen. Well the majority of those I actually know at any rate.


1) No we would not have been justified in bombing Boston.


2) We would not be justified in overthrowing the USA's democratically elected government.

Date: 2006/09/10 09:16:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:10)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,13:30)
Oh! BTW, I get the impression that you consider me to be an American. I am English.

Well, in the days of Tony Blair, there doesn't seem to be much difference.  ;)  ...

lol. Tony Blairs days are now almost over. While I think that he should step down soon; I do not like the manner in which it seems to be happening.

Must admit that I feel somewhat disenfranchised from British politics.

Date: 2006/09/10 09:20:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:10)
A plea to every one of you;  The neocon US cannot (or will not) stop itself. PLEASE stop us, before it is too late.  Don't let us drag the rest of the world into tyranny along with ourselves.

There is not much anyone else could do about it. You are the most powerfull nation on Earth right now.

Date: 2006/09/10 09:48:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 10 2006,14:27)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,15:20)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:10)
A plea to every one of you;  The neocon US cannot (or will not) stop itself. PLEASE stop us, before it is too late.  Don't let us drag the rest of the world into tyranny along with ourselves.

There is not much anyone else could do about it. You are the most powerfull nation on Earth right now.

Don't let Lenny scare you, he's hyperventilating a bit. The neocons have sown the seeds of their own demise.

Lenny does not scare me as such. Rather I find his point of view interesting. He does argue very well TBH. While I may not agree with him, he is hard to refute.

Date: 2006/09/10 09:52:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:30)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,14:20)
There is not much anyone else could do about it. You are the most powerfull nation on Earth right now.

We cannot take on the entire world at once.  Politically, economically, or militarily.

Stand against us, united.  Or, you will knuckle under to us, separately. One way or another.

Europe united? Please! We even had an argument about the shape of imported bananas a while back.

Date: 2006/09/10 10:24:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 14 2006,06:17)
I don't frequent T.O. as much as I used to (which wasn't much by comparison!;) but I remember Jason Spaceman from there. He is, like Lenny says, a guy who provides a news service. As far as I remember he is an anti-IDCist and anti-creationist. These posts aren't intended to be drivebys, simply snippets of interesting news, perhaps with the intent of generating discussion.

As for you Ghosty. Oh dear. You've plunged of the thin edge of sanity again haven't you? Since when is correcting someone's wrong impression of someone else engaging in thought policing? If you think that correcting someone's "errors" is telling them how to think then why do YOU post your geocentrist claptrap here? Surely by the logic of your own argument you are trying to correct what you dimly percieve in that mashed potato you call a brain as our "errors", thus you must be trying to engage in controlling our thoughts and making think "the right way". Fucking #### Ghosty, I knew you were a nutjob but I never thought that you were a facist mind control freak! Don't you oppress me you Orwellian thought policeman!


P.S. Ahhhhh humour. For the hard of thinking (Ghosty, I'm looking at you) the above is a logical extension of Ghosty's comment designed purely for humour purposes. I don't think that Ghosty is controlling or can control anyone's thoughts, not even his own. This was a joke. After all, how ridiculous is it for someone over here in the UK to have their thoughts controlled by a pigshit thick American loony fundamentalist on the other side of the Atlantic.......

......wait a minute! Tony Blair! Oh shit.....

Hehe. That made me laugh. Nice 1.

Date: 2006/09/10 11:27:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,16:22)
That's because I'm right...

You may well be. I am not convinced yet though.

I still think that the reasons for overthrowing the Taliban were justified.

Date: 2006/09/10 11:43:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,16:30)

Give it some time, and maybe even Osama will become one of the good guys.  Again.

Geez, ya need a #### scorecard to keep up.

Too drunk to argue right now. I will try again tomorrow.

Date: 2006/09/10 22:12:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 10 2006,14:19)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 10 2006,13:40)
OK Parliament wasn't blown up.

I've always wondered, when the British celebrate Guy Fawkes day, are they celebrating the fact that he FAILED to blow up Parliament, or are they celebrating the fact that he TRIED to.


I do believe we are supposed to be celebrating his capture and failure. However most people I know couldn't care less. Who needs much encouragement to stand around big fires and watch fireworks?

It is all a lot tamer (less dangerous=slightly more boring) now. When I was a kid we usually had private parties. The responsible adults would drink alcohol and then set off fireworks. Was bloody good fun though.

Recently the trend is for public well organised events. More spectacular fireworks and far less danger.

EDIT: There was an interesting TV programme about the "gunpowder plot" shown here about a year ago. They did a scale model of parliament and placed a scaled down amount of gunpowder filled barels in it. The result was spectacular.

Turns out that the barels themselves make the explosion more dramatic. Seems nobody in the modern world knew this until they did that experiment.

Date: 2006/09/11 09:25:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I do not see why this thread is getting so "technical". By which I am reffering to all the links.

As far as I can see, muslims are not integrating to British society in any way at all.

By which I mean muslims as reported by the BBC etc.

I work in a group of about 8 people. 3 of which are muslim. They seem fine. Well all but 1 anyway.

However in a recent survey of muslims in Britian 40% wanted sharia law here. That stinks. Sod that, does anyone really believe we should stone to death adultering women?

Before anyone calls the racist card. These muslims are mainly asian. Why is it Indian asians are performing far beter economicaly that muslims of the same race?

Date: 2006/09/11 10:39:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Well Mr. Paley. I am a tad worried about apearing on your side.

However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

Oh well. Lets see where this leads.

I find it strange that people who are anti-fundamentalist make exceptions for muslim fundies.

Date: 2006/09/11 18:28:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 11 2006,21:06)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 11 2006,15:39)
However I do think that the muslim agenda is pretty much anti-western values.

You mean Western values like, say, oh, free elections, free press, freedom of assembly, free speech . .. ?

Ya know, the things that their unelected governments won't give them?

The, uh, unelected governments that the US helps keep in power against their own people's wishes?

You mean THOSE kind of Western values . . . ?

Good point. But I was reffering to an element of muslim culture in Britain.

The idea that 40% of British muslims want sharia law in Britain is troubling.

Date: 2006/09/12 06:42:27, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 11 2006,16:05)

I'm curious as to what the general reaction has been to Blair's announcement of his stepping down?

It is difficult to say really. I think it is a non-event for most people. At least politically. Brown and Blair have never dissagreed on an important policy (at least as far as I am aware).

Blair was always going to stand down anyway. Brown is almost certain to be his successor. The whole handover to Brown was known before the last General Election.

The only part that even slightly interests me is the conspiracy angle.

It would seem that a rather large group (entirely male) of Labours parliamentary members wanted to push Blair out sooner than he intended to go.

So now Labour will probably have a far uglier episode of "regime change" than it otherwise would. All to get Blair out of office about 3 months sooner.

I expect that all major government members will be concentrating almost exclusively on this issue now.

Meanwhile we have troops deployed all over the globe. Lots of them in 2 rather fierce conflicts, the threat of a strike in the National health service and God knows how many other major issues. Not really good timing for a loss of focus.

I suspect that the motives of the conspirators is self advancement and currying favour with the next PM. Meanwhile the country could go to #### for all they seem to care.

So on the whole I am feeling as dissenfranchised as ever from the political system we have here.

All views expressed are solely those of the author.

Date: 2006/09/12 08:11:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,12:42)

So on the whole I am feeling as dissenfranchised as ever from the political system we have here.

Lot of that going around the English-speaking world...

LOL! Short and straight to the point.

Hats off to Arden

Date: 2006/09/13 08:17:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 13 2006,05:02)
With regards to Blair, about the only good things he has done from many peoples view point is the minimum wage legislation and the EU human rights act.  
He's getting it from all political sides.  Over the past decade he has centralised even more, severely damaged the NHS, encouraged changes in the way things are done, such that billions of pounds of our money have been wasted on privatisation, got us involved in one stupid and pointless war, moved us further towards presidential gvt, encouraged lower and lower turn outs to vote, and so on.  Lets not forget the widening gap between rich and poor as well.

Brown will be no better.  If Brown carries on in the style of tony, in terms of governance, things will be bad.  Brown, as the financial wizard, has presided over the PFI/PPP, as well as other scams.  
Oh, and ID cards are a boondoggle as well.

Brown should be exactly the same. Do you know of any policy dissention between Brown and Blair?

I think we dissagree on which policies where bad though.

I take it you do not like the idea of ID cards? Personally I do not mind so long as it is done well. Biometrics would probably play a big part.

What anoys me the most is things such as banning hand guns, foxhunting etc. I canot see the point of these laws. AFAICS it was just a waste of parliaments time when other things could have been dealt with.

You seem to like the EU directive on human rights. I dislike it. IMO it concentrates too much on perpetrators rights and doesn't give a stuff about victims.

While I suported us joining the EU back in the 70's I intensely dislike it now.

Date: 2006/09/13 08:59:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2006,13:47)
(has everyone lost their friggin minds?  aren't we supposed to discussing science and combating just this kind of nuttiness that tells us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and the center of the universe?  HELLO!  Are there any sane people left out there?)

Skeptic, your ignorance and your dislike of talking about anything that reflects poorly on Republicans is your problem, not ours. If you don't like this thread, you're entirely free to leave.

There are other threads that stick closer to straight science. Perhaps you'd be happier there.

If you wish to engage this topic like a mature adult, which you haven't indicated yet, you can stay.

I dislike this reply.

Why can't skeptic say whatever he/she likes? We should not be afraid of what anyone says.

I am pretty sure that Lenny can defend himself. So can anyone else here. We do not require DT type protection.

*pulls out lightsabre*

"Trust the force young Jedi".

Date: 2006/09/14 06:03:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 14 2006,03:40)
don't want to see the MANY times the current administration has quashed or manually altered the results of science done by GO's that conflicts with their own positions.

I was reading an article along those lines a month or so ago. Some scientist at NASA was complaining about scientific reports being altered by political overseers. It was more than a tad worrying.

Does anyone think the US government actually believes political spin will alter physical facts? Could it be a group psychological problem?

Well whatever the reason it is still disturbing to think that people are atempting to "wish-away" facts.

Date: 2006/09/14 08:24:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2006,13:05)
 Is it not obvious that I think Revelation is a book inspired by God himself?

Yes Dave that is obvious. You think that the bible is the word of God.

A question or 2.

Why wouldn't God talk to us directly?

Do you not consider it a tiny bit suspicious that people claim authority from God in a revelationary manner?

If God wanted a tribe/prople/group/whatever to do something, wouldn't it be more convincing if God apeared and spoke to them all rather than have a private chat with a "prophet"?

Have you never considered the possibility that organised religion is a scam?

I am curious. Also, why haven't you answered the question about which body is orbiting which? Or did I miss that reply?

Date: 2006/09/14 09:10:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2006,13:48)
Yes Dave that is obvious. You think that the bible is the word of God.

A question or 2.

Why wouldn't God talk to us directly?

Do you not consider it a tiny bit suspicious that people claim authority from God in a revelationary manner?

If God wanted a tribe/prople/group/whatever to do something, wouldn't it be more convincing if God apeared and spoke to them all rather than have a private chat with a "prophet"?

Have you never considered the possibility that organised religion is a scam?

I am curious. Also, why haven't you answered the question about which body is orbiting which? Or did I miss that reply?
You seem polite enough ... OK, I'll bite ...

1) Why God does the things He does the way He does is beyond me.  I certainly would have done things differently if I was God (but I'm not and that's a good thing).  But not understanding why God does things in certain ways does not any more negate his existence that not understanding how DNA compacts information negates the fact that it does.
2) Yes. It's very suspicious.  God has made it clear that in these latter times, He has spoken to us through His Son, Jesus, and through his authorized agents, the apostles.  Note that there is no such thing as a modern "apostle."  It was a very high priority in  Old Testament times to verify the credentials of a true prophet, and during the times of the early church this "credential verification process" was equally important for verifying a true apostle.
3) I do not know which would be more convincing.  I can tell you that I have personally observed the wonders of nature and find them very convincing that there is, in fact, a Creator GOd.
4) Not only have I considered the possibility, I believe it to be true and detest it.  This is why I say often that, in a very real sense, i am not religious.

1) I am not trying to negate the existence of God. It might be true. Actually I think that Gods existence is more likely than not. However, I do not know. I just consider it the most likely explanation.

2)In what way has God made it clear?

3) I kinda agree. However I am open to doubt.

4) Yet you sound like a religious organiser. You are preaching here as though you know God's will as a fact. I find that disturbing.

Date: 2006/09/14 09:29:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 14 2006,14:10)
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. This is a very astute

I had thought that you would have argued this case better.

From my perspective in the UK it seems that muslims are definately not integrating. BTW when I use the term muslim I am reffering to the more fundy members. Not 1 single muslim that I actually know has a problem here as far as I can tell.

I do see numerous problems though.

From polls:

A large % of muslims living in Britain consider our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as showing Britain to be anti-muslim.

On the 2nd aniversary of the 9/11 atack, posters apeared all over my town (Slough) expressing celebrations of the atacks.

There is the obvious thing of last Septembers London bombings.

The protests in London of those Danish cartoons. Including more (bombing) threats.

The forced marriage issue that our government "cowardly" refused to opose.

Date: 2006/09/14 09:34:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 14 2006,14:04)
I might as well beat Occam's Toothbrush to the punch.....

I am a lazy, lazy, man.

I would have more respect for you if you admitted you was wrong rather than lazy.

It is very hard for me to think that you believe this nonsense!

If you are serious, you must be an idiot.

Date: 2006/09/14 09:45:34, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Sep. 14 2006,14:22)
Speaking of Harry Potter, I just saw this in a thread where a Christian was trying to explain why he won't let the book in his house.

I really think you should read the first story before you start the grand conspiracy theory.

How does that make sense at all?  I should read a book that I know up front I don't agree with.  Come on, that makes no sense what so ever.

LOL! That is sad but funny.

Date: 2006/09/14 09:55:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 14 2006,14:46)
it's far more pervasive than just NASA.  reports from NOAA, DOI, and several others have been attacked and modified as well.

It caused a large group of nobel laureates to claim the current administration has done more tampering with scientific evidence than any previous US administration.

check out the Union of Concerned Scientists site sometime.  Even though they are biased, the reports can be tracked down there, along with the position statements from the group of scientists i mentioned above.

I do not doubt you. Did you think that I did? I was just giving 1 example of a report I had read and "kinda" remembered.

Date: 2006/09/15 06:58:23, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Actualy GoP, I don't agree that being a muslim is necessarily a complete barrier towards doing well in the "West".

I am not sure why muslims in Britain tend to be worse off than most other groups. Probably there are many factors.

Racism might be one facet but I doubt that very much. If this was the case the success of the Indian community would be hard to explain.

I suspect that religious views are the major cause, both for their lack of economic success and disafection with life in Britain.

The 40% who want sharia law here will never like Britain unless we alter our laws to their P.O.V. I would hate to see that happen.

Having a large % of clerics trained or born and trained in Pakistan almost certainly does not help. We also tend to hear the views of the most extreme muslims far more clear and loud than those of moderates. This can't help.

Multiculturism is likely to play a part too. Encouraging people to cling to their traditions probably discourages them to integrate. Particularly if those traditions are very different to the host nations. People being raised to hold strong views about women being second to men and needing to cover themselves to prevent lustfull thoughts (in men), are not very likely to do well here.

Add to that the mixing of politics, law and religion in many muslim countries makes that outlook very hard to reconcile with modern British views.

I consider likely to be untrue that being a muslim prevents economic success, but it probably makes it much more difficult (for the radicals at least).

Other ideas are also making life difficult in the long term. Having the street signs in Southall (a London borough) written in a non-English language. This merely discourages the learning of English and that is bound to impact on business/employment oportunities.

Another thing that I consider a hindrance to muslims in Britain is the notion of "the Islamic brotherhood". his seems to make it difficult for the more reasonable muslims to crticise extremists of their religion.

While I have no problem believing that the vast majority of muslims are not active supporters of terrorism*. It would apear that an unsettlingly large % "have sympathy" (whatever that means) for the muslims that bombed London last year.

*I use the word terrorism to mean the deliberate and intentional targetting of civilians.

Date: 2006/09/15 07:04:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 15 2006,07:31)
If the rest of the world is to save itself from the new Roman empire, it will have save ITSELF, and work together to stop us.  No one in the US is capable of doing it.  Few people in the US even WANT to do it. We're all in FAVOR of the new Roman Empire -- provided, of course, that we get to be the Romans.

Pardon me for sidelining, I would be interested to know why you selected the Roman empire for your analogy.

Wasn't the Spanish empire much more destructive? IIRC most societies benefited under Roman rule. Are you subliminaly encouraging us to "knuckle under"?

Date: 2006/09/15 07:10:01, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 14 2006,14:46)
Does anyone think the US government actually believes political spin will alter physical facts? Could it be a group psychological problem?

Yes, they do.  Yes, it's a "group" issue, and they know well from previous experience that media spin can entirely affect the large majority of american's beliefs on any given issue.

so not only do they believe spin works to alter "physical reality", they can provide direct evidence as to its efficacy in doing so.

it's far more pervasive than just NASA.  reports from NOAA, DOI, and several others have been attacked and modified as well.

1)It caused a large group of nobel laureates to claim the current administration has done more tampering with scientific evidence than any previous US administration.

2)check out the Union of Concerned Scientists site sometime.  Even though they are biased, the reports can be tracked down there, along with the position statements from the group of scientists i mentioned above.

Thanks for that reply.

1) Wasn't that published here or on PT recently? I think I recal reading that.

2) Checked that site out today while in work. I was a tad surprised at the amount of fiddling with science reports going on in the USA. I had heard a bit about it but it is amazing how pervasive it sounds. Guess we should all be worrying.

Date: 2006/09/15 07:23:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,10:22)
Hundreds? No foolin, Dave. Wanna list them?

And remember, modern people like David Limbaugh don't count.

And if America was founded to be a 'Christian nation', why are Christianity or Jesus never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? Seems an awfully careless way to establish a Christian theocracy.
Yes. Hundreds.  Go read a book by David Barton to get you started.

And if America was founded to be a 'Christian nation', why are Christianity or Jesus never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? Seems an awfully careless way to establish a Christian theocracy.
I did not say Christian theocracy.  Have you ever read the Declaration?  It mentions the "laws of nature and of nature's God," affirms that "men are created equal," that they are endowed by their "Creator" with unalienable rights and rely on "Divine Providence."  

My bolding


Could anyone explain simply how this was held wrt slavery in the USA?

Date: 2006/09/15 07:43:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Diogenes @ Sep. 15 2006,12:38)
That one is easy.

Ephesians 6:5-9

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

No dude.

I don't nean give a biblical justification. I am specifically reffering to justifying it against the declaration of independence. That (the declaration) never used the bible as an authority. It specifically claimed, "it is self evident all men are created equal". Or words to that effect.

Date: 2006/09/16 07:16:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 15 2006,17:53)
Because it was the Romans who conquered the entire known world and thought it their civic duty to do so, all the while telling themselves that they were both acting "defensively" and at the same time were "civilizing the barbarians".  The Roman rulers, and the Roman people, both sincerely believed that theirs was a benevolent empire, and that they were helping the poor barbarians by invading and ruling over them.  The barbarians, of course, thought otherwise.  

A wee bit like the British empire then? Except for the "whole known World" part, just a huge %.

Date: 2006/09/16 07:23:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 16 2006,10:35)
You assume your flood carved the Grand Canyon, despite the fact that you have no evidence your flood ever even happened, and even if you did, you have no way of knowing if the Grand Canyon happened before the flood, during, or after the flood, because you have no independent method of dating it. Was every canyon everywhere carved during the "flood"?

Sorry if this sounds obtuse but how could a Global flood create a canyon? Any canyon. If the whole World was under water, how would it move in a way to carve rock like that?

Open to anyone.

Date: 2006/09/16 07:49:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I visited the Grand Canyon aprox 10 years ago. Started just north of Flagstaff and drove along towards Kingsman then crossed the Hoover dam.

My first thought was that it looked as though it was initialy carved by a glacier then by a river.

Never gave it much thought again till about 15 mins ago. Just done a google search and it seems as though it was entirely cut by liquid water. This is surprising to me as I tend to asociate vertical walls with ice. Not that I am in any way an expert.

It is damned impressive to actually see though. Pictures cannot do the awe inspiring grandeur justice.

EDIT: Thanks for the replys folks.

Date: 2006/09/16 21:32:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 16 2006,18:45)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 16 2006,12:16)
A wee bit like the British empire then?


Ironic, isn't it.


Yes, I guess it is.

Date: 2006/09/17 02:12:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 17 2006,06:05)
Stephen Elliot...  
Sorry if this sounds obtuse but how could a Global flood create a canyon? Any canyon. If the whole World was under water, how would it move in a way to carve rock like that?

Open to anyone.

The Missoula Flood story is one worth reading and gives a very good explanation of how the Grand Canyon and many others were formed ... you should read the whole story here ...

Better yet ... spend some time at the AIG web site and buy some of their books.  But don't let these guys know if you do ... they will laugh you off the planet!

The flood overtopped a ridge north of the Snake River, rapidly cutting a narrow canyon 500 feet deep.  The modern Palouse River that used to flow west into the Columbia River before the flood now takes a 90 degree left-hand turn south and flows through the canyon carved by the flood.  This is called a water gap in which a river or stream flows through a barrier instead of flowing around it.  If a geologist did not know about the Lake Missoula Flood, he would have suggested one of three main speculations on the formation of water gaps.  But it was formed in the Lake Missoula flood.  The Lake Missoula flood provides an analog for the thousand or more rivers over the earth that now flow through mountain barriers, sometimes through gaps much deeper than Grand Canyon.  The river should have gone around the barrier, if the slow processes over millions of years model were true, but these water gaps through transverse barriers can be cut rapidly during the Genesis Flood.6

During the flood there would be no rivers or dry land though. Wasn't everything covered by water? Surely water action would tend to smooth rock formations during a global flood, not cut canyons.

So what is next? The canyon was cut after the flood receded by trapped flood water?

If you are going to use that argument then where did all the other water go when it left the land? Was the remnant water just forgotten about by God? Did he leave it there on purpose to cut canyons?

Or maybe the flood story in the Bible is not 100% correct. Could it not be an analogy, a legend or a means to just scare peope to do what the priesthood tells them?

Date: 2006/09/18 03:34:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 17 2006,16:00)
Jared's at it again:

   [quote]Major Findings

Income and Wealth

Per capita income of Hispanics is one half that of non-Hispanic whites, and household net worth is less than one tenth...

Are you going to point out the relevance any time soon? ???

Date: 2006/09/18 05:16:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,09:59) should we necessarily expect better results from non-Western immigrants?

I think it would depend on wether they are integrated or not.

I have a suspicion that people born into a familly of imigrants that are maintaining a culture noticeably different to the host culture are more likely to feel alienated than the direct imigrants.

The people who originally emigrate would be expected to have a desire to move to the new country. Therefore being much happier on the whole as it was their choice. The children on the other hand could become confused/dissafected due to two different lifestyles/expectations.

But I don't know this for a fact.

I get the impression that we are the only 2 people here interested in discussing it though.

Date: 2006/09/18 05:20:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Sep. 18 2006,09:34)
ps: I wonder if he is/was planning to use the sticky bun in the likeness of mother teresa as a part of the evidece for ID?


That was good.

Date: 2006/09/18 07:32:16, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,12:15)
I think many immigrants want the best of both worlds: they wish to take advantage of the new country's benefits while holding on to their old culture. This isn't so bad if their original culture is compatible with their new society, but if it isn't, trouble ensues. I also have the sneaking suspicion that many Muslims consider themselves colonists rather than immigrants. If you can't beat 'em from the outside, weaken them from the inside. Remember what the Koran teaches.

I get the impression that we are the only 2 people here interested in discussing it though.

Everyone else has disappeared, haven't they?

IMO it isn't just imigrants. In Britain more and more people tend to be demanding rights while rejecting personal responsibility.

Over here we seem to be growing a compensation culture. Years ago we used to laughat some of the stupid compensation claims tha Americans made. Now it is becoming a huge industry here.

There is also a growing number of people that seem to choose to live on benefits. Something that I consider unsustainable.

The largest imigration trend here is the Polish. There are thousands of them recently arived where I live. They are very good hard working people as a whole. Trouble is though that they are forcing people out of work on the lower end of the employment spectrum.

Many of them work below the minimum wage. I do not blame the Polish here; It is the iresponsibility of the people that employ them.

Going off-topic drastically sorry.

To get back on-topic. I do not believe that muslim lack of success is the fault of individual muslims. I consider it a mix of our perception of them combined with (sometimes) their militancy.

EDIT: It is a shame more people are not interested in discussing this. This site usually has a surplus of well educated incitefull comenters. They could add a lot to the subject.

Date: 2006/09/18 07:42:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 18 2006,12:34)

During the flood there would be no rivers or dry land though. Wasn't everything covered by water? Surely water action would tend to smooth rock formations during a global flood, not cut canyons.

So what is next? The canyon was cut after the flood receded by trapped flood water?

Here's a likely scenario for how the Grand Canyon was cut ...

... and here's a likely timeline of the Flood Events ...

I do not think you answered my question.

If God caused the flood and then caused the waters to recede...

Was the water left that caused the canyon a mistake, an oversite or deliberate?

Date: 2006/09/18 09:28:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am starting to think that nobody should enjoy the rights of citizenship untill they have contributed something to society.

Not sure how to work that idea yet. But being granted rights for zero input is begining to sound ridiculous.

I really could not give a stuff about someones ethnicity. But before taking out from a central resource, people should have to put something in.

Date: 2006/09/19 07:38:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Sep. 18 2006,18:08)
Over here we seem to be growing a compensation culture. Years ago we used to laughat some of the stupid compensation claims tha Americans made. Now it is becoming a huge industry here.
1).A couple of years ago someone came up to us on the street and ended up trying to persuade my friend to sue her brother for pushing her of the swing and breaking her leg when she was 5.

There is also a growing number of people that seem to choose to live on benefits. Something that I consider unsustainable.
2).This does seem to be a worrying trend although its hard to tell sometimes how much the news blows it out of proportion.

To get back on-topic. I do not believe that muslim lack of success is the fault of individual muslims. I consider it a mix of our perception of them combined with (sometimes) their militancy.
3).What tends to happen in Britain is a situation of tolerant segregation (the government calls it multiculturalism), Im not really sure what the solution is though.

1).That does not really surprise me. Litigation has taken off in a large way in Britain. It has now lead to far fewer experiences for children in the way of school activities, trips and sport.

2). You are probably correct in assuming media exageration, the problem is real though. From my experience it is localised.

My ex wife was brought up on a council estate in Wigan. Unemployment was enormous and mostly a chosen lifestyle. I suspect it is down to expectations and role models.

The other problem is people who lose their jobs and get trapped on benefits. The whole idea that a person could be financially worse off by choosing to work is ridiculous to me, but for certain people it is a fact of life.

3) While I would agree that it usually leads to tolerant segregation this is not always the case. Especially at the time that it is originally happening.

Multiculturalism is a nice idea but I do not think that it is working. Certainly not for Brit/Asian muslims. Other groups seem to be fairing much better though. Brit/Asian Hindus and Sikhs seem to be doing very well. Particularly those that were forced to leave Uganda by Idi Amin. In fact I think as an ethnic group they are the financialy most successfull people in Britian (on average).

Date: 2006/09/19 08:23:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 19 2006,11:34)
Davetard goes quantum-stupid:


Technically there’s nothing hypocritical. Any meat I eat is already dead, butchered, and offered for sale to the general public. I took no position about it being bad or good to EAT meat. The G12 and many vegetarians stake out the claim that meat poisons the body which I don’t believe at all. The position I took was entirely about killing. One can make a point that by purchasing the product I’ve contributed in some measurable way to the profit of an industry that kills. In this case it’s a diminishingly small way and my abstinence wouldn’t change it. I have no objection in principle to eating animals that died of natural causes which is something still prohibited by the G12 and most vegetarians I know. If you keep chickens for the eggs or goats for the milk - everything dies eventually and why should the body be wasted when the inevitable happens?

So you're in no way complicit Dave? You don't think they'll kill another animal to replace the meat you just baught? What if everyone stopped buying meat? what would happen? For a guy who bangs on about capitalism, he has no causal undersatnding. Or does he think that farmers walk the fields waiting for things to die of natural causes?

If everyone stopped buying meat I would expect farmers would slaughter nearly all their animals and use the land to grow crops.

It could be an ecological disaster. Might not though, uncertain.

I suspect humans have evolved from carnivorous apes. Not eating any meat is probably unhealthy (without vitamin/mineral suplements).

Most of us may eat too much meat (in the Westenised World anyway) though.

Date: 2006/09/19 08:48:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 19 2006,13:28)
If everyone stopped buying meat I would expect farmers would slaughter nearly all their animals and use the land to grow crops.

It could be an ecological disaster. Might not though, uncertain.

But what do you suppose the animals are eating now?  In the US, at least, it's not like the cows are out grazing in pristine ecologically sound fields.

What I meant was that farmers would be likely to slaughter a large % of livestock if they became financially unviable.

Therefore everyobody refraining to eat meat might cause a larger killing (in the short term) of animals than by being omnivorous.

I am assuming this would cause certain breeds/species to be wiped out entirely.

I did say I am uncertain. If you know better then please enlighten me.

Date: 2006/09/19 08:58:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 19 2006,13:52)
I know it's off topic but right now there is a documentary on the French-German TV about YECs and other IDers. No ambiguity here: they are considered as wingnuts.  :D

TBH I think they are wingnuts.

However I personally do not wish to deny them their views unless they want to enforce their ideas on others.

Date: 2006/09/19 10:24:00, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,15:05)

That is pretty funny.

A Reaction


While I do not believe the majority of British muslims preach violence. There seems to be a wierd World reaction to a speach by the pope.

A large percentage of muslims seem to be saying...."If you say Islam is intolerant we will resort to violence".

Date: 2006/09/20 08:23:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 20 2006,13:05)
[quote=Stephen Elliott,Sep. 19 2006,15:24]
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2006,15:05)

While I do not believe the majority of British muslims preach violence. There seems to be a wierd World reaction to a speach by the pope.

A large percentage of muslims seem to be saying...."If you say Islam is intolerant we will resort to violence".

Muslims believe that you sumit to Islam or the follower of Islam by violence where possible or by lying when needed.

I have had no expeience of that. Out of the group of 8 people I am in at work there are 2 Hindis 1 Sikh 3 muslims and 2 non denomination. No submitting to violence happening.

I have worked in 4 muslim countries and had no major problems. IMO it is a minority of eejits that are stirring up trouble (in Britain). That minority is very vocal however and if you lived in an area where you only saw muslim people on the news you could be forgiven for thinking that muslim=intolerance.

It apears to me that at least 3 things are responsible for the way muslims apear to other people.
1-The behaviour of the more extreme members.
2-The way the media report news.
3-The almost silence and unwillingness to criticise fellow muslims by moderates.

Date: 2006/09/20 08:28:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2006,13:20)
My distinct impression is that the heavy duty Christians at UD aren't fond of Dave at all (among other things, he's proclaimed himself both an agnostic and an atheist), but that they put up with him because he's 'on their side'.

Do you remember the shitstorm Dave caused when he first started moderating over there.

It was just after Wm. D. stopped moderating due to his increased workload.

Date: 2006/09/23 21:53:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2006,22:03)
Quote (mcc @ Sep. 23 2006,22:49)
Obviously America needs Christianity. If we didn't have Christianity, then what would we do with all the churches?

Growing up in a small town in North Florida--not terribly far from where Robert O'Brien is attempting grad school, if memory serves--a friend and I were puzzled at why there should be so many churches, and so few bookstores. When the B.Dalton in the mall went out of business, we conducted a census of the two businesses. The results:

Churches: ~160
Bookstores: 0

Is this a USA specific thing? In the UK, Christianity and a book shop inverse relationship has not been noticed by myself.

Date: 2006/09/23 22:03:58, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
David Heddle is a pretty #### inteligent guy.

I am surprised it took him so long to realise just how dishonest these people (ID leadership) are.

Date: 2006/09/24 01:19:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 24 2006,03:41)
no, if anything it's locale specific.

in any metropolitan area in california, the exact reverse is the case.

it's all starbucks and Barnes and Noble as far as the eye can see...

Which City.

I have been to L.A. and San Diego.

Love San Diego, especially the Gasslamp/Gasslight? area.

Date: 2006/09/24 06:18:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (pzmyers @ Sep. 24 2006,09:45)
18 churches.

What a waste.

In the UK, churches are a good source for local history.

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


Date: 2006/09/24 08:29:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 24 2006,12:41)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 24 2006,11:18)
In the UK, churches are a good source for local history.

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


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

I am not sure we are on the same wavelength here.

In the UK, churches are a great source of local history. They have records of births, deaths and marriages etc. going back hundreds of years (or more).That is what I was refering to.

The record of Christianity is sketchy and churches are not the best source for that history.

Saying that, I am not anti-religion either. I just don't know on that issue.

Date: 2006/09/25 08:36:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 25 2006,10:16)
What is good about "The west"

A bit out of context yes.

But have you ever lived in the East?

It is not very nice.

Date: 2006/09/26 08:48:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 25 2006,16:19)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 25 2006,13:36)
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 25 2006,10:16)
What is good about "The west"

A bit out of context yes.

But have you ever lived in the East?

It is not very nice.

Just now, many parts of it are not nice.  But 600 years ago large parts of China and India were more advanced than much of Western Europe, and nicer places to live.  

Also, some of what makes "The east" a bad place to live right now are imports from "The west", whether its our strains of political dictatorship, or rampant industrialisation that is poisoning part of society.  

Besides, I really dont think you can involve the Greeks in this, insofar as they were not Christians, and IIRC correctly it was a Christian bishop who had the library of ALexandria burnt, which library contained many copies of important texts from the Greeks and ROmans.

I was thinking about Pakistan and Afghanistan present day.

As to China you are probably correct if you where male. Wasn't China binding womens feet at the time you quote? I don't think that I would like that to happen to me.

Right now I do not think that the Burkha is a western idea. Do you aprove of that?

Date: 2006/09/26 20:52:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 26 2006,16:30)
I was thinking about the past 2,000 years.  A difference in scale makes a major difference.
Also, there is little in Christianity that even makes it clear one way or another about oppression of women or not.  
And foot binding was not exactly universal practise across China at any time.

I was thinking about present day. There are not many places that I would rather live right now that do not belong in the democracy "western values" camp.

In the time scale you refer to then I would readily concede that women have been opressed in my society. But those are not the times that I live in.

In my lifetime I have lived/stayed in the UK, USA, Canada, Germany, Mexico, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia and Cyprus (to name a fair few). I generally prefer the ones that have the most freedom.

Oh, BTW, I do not think that Christianity has much to do with "the superiority of the West". Although with the exception of Bahrain I have not lived in a muslim country where I liked the laws and even Bahrain appears to supress it's own women. To my eyes anyway. You certainly don't see them out and about enjoying themselves.

Maybe it is liberalism that I enjoy.

I definately believe that every citizen should enjoy equal rights under the law. That is not something that happens universally in this world.

Date: 2006/09/26 20:57:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I can see SteveStory's point of view. However, I would prefer no censorship.

Date: 2006/09/27 10:12:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,13:29)

That video is pretty worrying. I have never really experienced Christian fundamentalism anything like that vid shows.

Date: 2006/09/27 10:18:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 27 2006,15:15)
Heddle slams Jonathan Wells at UD:

I am so anachronistic. I remember those days when we settled scientific debates by actually going into the lab (you know, those places where people where the long white coats and use equipment) and doing science. I know, it does seem rather ridiculous by the methods championed here. Clearly the modern way is to write op-ed pieces or popularized books that declare victory anytime a new record that may be problematic, or at least can be cast as problematic, is added to the experimental database. In days of yore what we used to do (you’ll get a kick out of this) is to see if the current theory can explain the new data and if it could not we would either modify it or, if it was beyond saving, we would jettison it. Is that a gas or what? But I understand that since this takes time and work it is much more efficient just to accumulate short-term political mileage while we can.

Comment by David Heddle — September 27, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

WOW! I am amazed that post got on the board.

Date: 2006/09/27 11:27:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 27 2006,15:45)
Maybe it is liberalism that I enjoy.


I can't explain why but that made me laugh.

Date: 2006/09/27 13:31:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 27 2006,18:17)
Dern, that thread just keeps getting better.  From the constantly silly Mike1962:
I’ve never seen him invoke the Rev Moon in any of his arguments. Have you? I don’t give a rat’s rear what his motivations are. All that matters is the products of the research. Either it stands up to rational scrutiny or it doesn’t.

So we've gone from "we don't need no stinkin research" to "the research is all that matters.  Soon to be followed by complaining that no one understands what ID is.

Does anyone understand?

Seems to me that ID is just about anything anyone who claims to be an ID supporter claims.

From different ID suporters I get the impression that ID is,
1) Religious apologetics.
2) A political movement.
3) An atempt to get religion snuck into science lessons.
4) A money making scam.
5) A reason to post on blogs using long and/or obscure words to claim that Darwinism/Evolution is a theory in crisis, another religion and that evolution requires more blind faith than religion.

There is probably more but I can't think what right now.

Date: 2006/09/30 06:06:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Hi Louis,

I am interested in discussing this (with regards the UK). Got to admit that I do not get the impression that the muslim community is adapting to the British way of life.

If you have any arguments against my view, I would be happy to hear them.

Date: 2006/09/30 08:22:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 30 2006,13:11)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,16:56)
Dang, maybe we should invite him HERE? He's certainly brighter than GoP or ROB.

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

You are #### right he doesn't. David Heddle is a Christian.

However he is honest about his religious beliefs and feels let-down by the idiotic claims of Dembski's crew.

EDIT:- Never mind.

Date: 2006/10/01 07:01:33, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 01 2006,11:55)
As ID has all but given up on research

All but given up? The implication is there was something to give up, and a little bit not yet given up. What was that, pray?

OT Senator McCain was interviewed on UK TV today. Compared to Bush, he seems an intellectual giant. Not my place to say, but I reckon he would be an improvement as a potential president.

I believe that IDists do actual research.

They research book sales, apearance fees, site hits, opinion polls etc. etc. etc.=Lots of research.

Date: 2006/10/04 09:33:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,14:08)
Hi, everyone.

This thread is for the Diamond debate. Notice that this thread has already been contaminated by my various thoughtcrimes, so it's not as if I'm corrupting the morals of delicate Panda's Thumbers by bumping it. Louis and Duff Man, here's where you want to respond to the charges in the above post, or discuss racial issues. Fire away.

I just do not understand the point of this. From experience, Black/White makes no difference in mental ability.
Do you know different?

Date: 2006/10/07 09:56:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I believe that GoP has a point here. Only talking about Britain but Muslims are not integrating.

Let me be clear, I am talking about a % of them, but it is a large % I think.

There has been many problems recently and it appears to be a clash of cultures. Two stories have emerged in Windsor this week:

1) Is a feud in an estate about a dairy expansion and building a mosque.

2) Is a house being vandalised and graffitid to prevent soldiers moving in.

Also we have had Jack Straws comments being considered an outrage.

Then there was the fuss about the popes comments.

IMO Islam in the UK contains extremists. I personally believe that the majority of muslims are OK. Yet they do not seem to want to criticise the extreme elements in their community.

Date: 2006/10/08 07:19:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Hey Louis,

I am not disputing most of what you wrote.

What I am talking about is that right now in the UK a fairly large % of Muslims are feeling alienated and dislike the UK. I believe they are probably a minority but it is a breeding ground for conflict.

Example: Walking to work through Slough on the morning of Sep 11 2003, posters where all over the place celebrating the atacks on the USA and casting the perpetrators as heroes.

There was way too many of these stickers to have been done by a small group. That indicated to me that where I lived a large number of people thought it was cool to have all those people killed. I wont deny that caused me concern.

Then the bombings on London transport. Somebody found British born muslims who hated the country they where born in so much they killed themselves to cause it harm. Killing fellow muslims while doing so.

Next the protests in London about a cartoon in a Danish newspaper. Masses of people screaming for death and destruction because of cartoons.

Now this nonesense about Jack Straw insulting Islam because he prefers to see the face of somebody he is talking to.

It all beggars belief. I don't doubt that the majority of Muslims are OK. Every muslim I know personaly I can get-on with.

But something is very wrong that so many feel so outraged about UK life.

Don't get me wrong. I do not hate muslims or people of any race/religion. But I do hate this extremism we are facing. Now, I believe we have a problem in the Uk and would like to discuss it, preferably without calls of racism/islamophobia.

If you have no interest in the subject, just say so and I will STFU about it.

I really would only like to talk about it with somebody I can respect and GoP (as much as he amuses me) "don't cut the mustard".

Date: 2006/10/08 09:03:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

For the life of me I cannot see why Ireland issues enter the picture.

That IIRC was an enmity issue that went back to he middle ages and a topic of national identity.

We (the British) was stuck with a Northern Ireland population that wanted to stay British with a vote of 2 or 3 to 1.

The republicans wanted a united Ireland regardless of a vote.

But what relevance does this have to do with some British muslims hating Britain?

Damned if I know.

The other point is, why should I feel guilty about what Britain did before I was born? I had no say in the matter (obviously). So why is it my/our fault?

Date: 2006/10/09 06:34:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Funny you should post that Ghost. Windsor is where I am living atm.

IMO the problems between muslims and wider British society appear to be orchestrated to some degree.

The 2 incidents you mention do not seem like spur-of-the-moment occurences for a couple of reasons.

1) After the atack on the woman caused a backlash, muslims from Slough arrived on the scene before the police did.

Now if I was in fear of my life, the police would be the people I called 1st not some friends in another town.

2) The atack on the house happened in 1 swoop rather than a build up from smaller incidents.

I readilly admit that the situation in the UK between Islamic radicals and the rest of society worries me. Not because I think Islam will overthrow our way-of-life, but the governments pathetic hand-wringing is likely to see the problems rise and feed Nazi-type sympathy. I do not want the BNP to gain more support but I would predict it happening if things don't change.

Date: 2006/10/09 21:16:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 09 2006,20:06)
Funny you should post that Ghost. Windsor is where I am living atm.

IMO the problems between muslims and wider British society appear to be orchestrated to some degree.

The 2 incidents you mention do not seem like spur-of-the-moment occurences for a couple of reasons.

The response may have been planned. Does this worry you more, or less?


More. Was that not clear in my post?

EDIT: BTW the "riot" reported in Windsor probably involved less than 100 people. Not exactly "riot" numbers. More like a large(ish) gang fight.

EDIT-2: I still believe the majority of UK muslims are just fine and dandy. There does seem to be a problem with alienation for a large percentage though. That alienation seems to be being exploited by extremists. Probably on both sides. 1 thing seems clear to me, current government policy is failing.

I am surprised that more people do not want to discuss this issue. Also dissapointed as this site has more intelligent/educated people posting than any other site I know of.

Date: 2006/10/11 09:32:44, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ Oct. 11 2006,10:17)
On the off-chance that anyone will ever wander over here and read it:

The moment one...opens the door to supernatural interventions...explanatory chaos breaks loose, since there are no known constraints upon processes that transcend natural laws.  A supernatural force could be called upon to “explain” any event in any circumstance; ...  However, the concept of a transcendent designer or other miraculous force that can explain any event under any set of conditions is no explanation at all. - Robert Pennock

In other words, ruling out the supernatural isn't a matter of philosphy, it's a matter of practical necessity. The only known alternative is called 'Making Stuff Up', which has extremely limited explanatory or predictive power.

So HG is correct: the scientific method, and indeed sanity itself, fails if we extend our presumptions to include the imaginary. And if it lacks all evidence, it's imaginary.

Invoking the supernatural may indeed have useless predictive aplication.

But the ability to explain stuff is enormous. Everything can be explained by the supernatural. In fact a lot of things used to be.

eg. Lightning was caused by Zeus/Thor etc. People got certain illnesses because they had sinned before God.

Date: 2006/10/11 11:14:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Flint @ Oct. 11 2006,15:20)

Pennock's point was that the ability of magic to explain stuff is TOO enormous. It allows exactly the same "explanation" to be applied to anything and everything. Which is why Pennock said this is "no explanation at all".

There's a close relationship between explanation and test. If it can't be tested, it's not an explanation at all (however it might be phrased), it's wishful thinking. If it can be tested but has not been, it's also not an explanation, it's a conjecture or hypothesis.

If it can be tested, has been tested, and failed the test, then it is ALSO not an explanation. It's a lie.


Date: 2006/10/11 13:20:12, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:32)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 11 2006,18:26)
Aawwww man...That's cold!

Well hopefully our man about science will find someplace other than larry farafarafarafarafara's blog to land and spread his message.

I am going to miss him over at UD.

Honestly, I don't remember when and why JAD was banned. But the fact is, this isn't Uncommon Descent, where they ban you if they don't like the cut of your jib. So few people get banned here, it's really only the people who are extremely disruptive and problematic, and even then, it's only after months of tired patience. So once banned, forever banned. I'm sure JAD and DaveScot will manage to find places to have their flame wars.

IIRC it was to do with his offensive tone and inability to stop repeating himself.

He posted for quite a while on PT but was only allowed on the bathroom wall (the old 1 that was on PT); At least since I started reading it, that was where he was "caged".

His spats often made me laugh. However the regulars who had been there for some time had had enough of him. But boy could that guy rant.

In a way I supose it was pretty sad. People would taunt him and he would go into instant rage mode.

Date: 2006/10/11 22:13:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 11 2006,18:59)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 11 2006,18:20)
In a way I supose it was pretty sad. People would taunt him and he would go into instant rage mode.

It WAS fun to rattle then monkey's bars and watch him fling poo in all directions.

Well, it did get boring after a while, though.

When I first started reading PT, JAD's favourite end-comment was "how do you like them apples" (equivalent to his "Got that? Right it down!"). Then someone asked him if he lacked the knowledge to name more than one fruit (aprox).

JAD then ended each comment with "How do you like them (insert obscure fruit, each one different)". That whent on for quite a while.

I also quite liked JAD's reaction to the banning of Dave Scott. That lasted quite a while. Back then he was describing D-T along the lines of a "genius in the field of computing".

Then the was the people calling JAD a a caged monkey throughing his feces about; That went down well. Guess that was you then Lenny.

I do remember the day JAD was correct though. Something to do with a dinosaur nest and the way the eggs lay. JAD commented on how this was evidence for a certain pelvic arangement in the species (something along those lines, it was few years ago). He was instantly ridiculed by many posters, but turned out JAD was right.

Date: 2006/10/11 22:57:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 12 2006,02:13)
This request from WAD to update the look and feel of UD is very odd - quite apart from the "I want to look as good as Richard Dawkins" hubristic schtik.

After all, they just finished overhauling the whole site.  And by "they," I mean DaveScot.  Doesn't this seem to be a deliberate insult to their resident computer genius?  Perhaps the revelation here that DaveScot is the real star of UD begins to needle a little...

He (WmAD) would like his site upgraded. Requires somebody else to do a lot of work. WmAD will sign his name 3 times.

A typical Dembski division of labour by the sound of it. He really has took "get others to do the work" to heart.

Date: 2006/10/12 05:28:09, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 12 2006,07:16)
JAD was an actual scientist at one time, before he lost his marbles and went stark raving mad.

Got that? Write that down.  <- (Better Jeannot?)

I know.

Hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like those apples?

Date: 2006/10/12 05:38:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (thurdl01 @ Oct. 12 2006,10:03)
Well...brick and mortar churches are at least often aesthetically pleasing.

On a more practical note. In the UK, churches are also normally a very good source of local history. Usually containing records of births, deaths and marriage. Sometimes going back to C1,000 years.

Date: 2006/10/12 05:44:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2006,10:38)
You guys are forgetting 'darwimp'.

Oh, no. I assure you I hadn't forgotten that one. He used it so often on PT that a regular eventually lost his rag and offered JAD a fistfight. (Hopefully) Forgetting JAD was an 80+ y.o. man.

Oh, those funny memories just keep on truckin.

Deja Vu - all over again.

Date: 2006/10/12 20:21:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (mcc @ Oct. 13 2006,00:53)
The problems come if you try to actually read it.

Good grief, that ending cracked me up. Very funny.

Date: 2006/10/14 10:33:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I don't see why people are so hostile. It was obvious that GoP was a fake. He was called on it very early in his posting history here.

The consistent thing that he did was ask people to refute his arguments and not ponder upon motivation. After awhile people stop seing the obvious as long as it stays consistent.

Even I knew he was a fake and I am not the brightest bulb in this firmament.

Date: 2006/10/14 22:30:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 15 2006,02:40)
Stephen Elliot:

I think I articulated why I am annoyed in the "muslims" thread. It's dishonesty I don't like. I was hostile to GoP BEFORE his latest revelation because of his dishonesty. I am still hostile AFTER his latest revelation because of his dishonesty. Nothing has changed.

I don't buy it. I didn't buy it when I thought GoP was an obvious Loki months ago. I will continue not to buy it, and my purchase is not dependant on GoP's "allegiances". This is the latest round of the game that GoP is playing. It's not a good game, it's not being well played, and it ultimately finds out nothing that anyone was not already well aware of.



Yes, you are very clear. While I am annoyed also, I doubt I feel as strongly as you do.

I am most irritated by the idea that more than 1 person is posting from the same account. It bugs me.

The 2nd thing that I find irksome is that GoP was called on being a  spoof but denied it.

The only good thing about this is that he/she/they did make me think sometimes. Mostly about why I believe certain things. The geocentrism thread illustrates it best. I had forgotton a lot of the science behind why geocentrism was thrown in the bin ages ago.

Anyway I don't particularly want the GoP account banned, but it would be civil if the "team" started using different accounts.

I can see why you would be much angrier than myself though. It isn't my profession that is being accused of outright disshonesty by an organised bunch of semi-lunatics. That has got to be a pest.

Date: 2006/10/15 06:45:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2006,10:38)
Given how absurdly intolerant of criticism Dembski is, I'm always amazed when anyone bothers to post anything critical in the comments. Seems like a big waste of time.

Considering what you said, it is amazing that he managed to gain a PhD. Maybe he was so good he never received criticism. How likely is that?

Date: 2006/10/15 09:27:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Oct. 14 2006,16:00)
Muslims in Britain:

I no longer live in the UK, but I was born and rasied there, and am nearly as old as dirt.  In my youth it was the Caribean immigrants that were not integrating and hated Britain as an ex-Imperial power. And I remember riots over several decades (and I used to live near the "front line" at one time - anyone remember the Brixton Riots and the bus burning?). Nowadays, whilst they have many justifiable complaints, I don't think they all hate Britain, and I think they are on the way to integration to a degree.

I also used to live in Wandsworth, and just down the road was a Hugenot cemetry.  Those darned people took forever to integrate  :D

I am not getting that. Just been reading the stories from those imigrants (It was an aniversary of them being delliberately recruited for low paying jobs in the UK).

They had some absolute greivances. Example would be boarding houses displaying signs saying "no blacks" etc. They was initially only given low pay jobs regardless of qualifications. The UK at the time was only importing people to do those jobs.

That is not true now.

Right now the problem is very different.

The UK is getting imigrants from places that live very differently from us. Their culture is almost in the stone age.

It just doesn't mix very well.

Date: 2006/10/16 07:10:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Great post Louis,

Quite a lot to take in, but those stats are quite encouraging.

Date: 2006/10/17 08:40:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 16 2006,11:31)
Stephen Elliot:

I believe that GoP has a point here. Only talking about Britain but Muslims are not integrating.

Let me be clear, I am talking about a % of them, but it is a large % I think.

Doesn't GoP(s) also talk about blacks not integrating in the US? I think it takes a while for dis-similar cultures to assimilate. Assimilation changes both cultures. No? Radicalism/ ization at the fringes doesn't surprise me much. If you've got a good thing going, you wouldn't want to change. I wonder if there is any example of two cultures assimilating without one having large grievances of the other. It's only been in the last 50 years that anybody cared what the underdog thought at all. We used to just jail them or kill them. The world around.

So the doctrine in question is maybe "Might makes Right"??

Is that what you are lamenting GoP(s)? Do you long for the good old days of decency and sophistication where we could just lock up or lynch the rabble rousers of the poorer culture?

I have only just read this. Missed it first time around.

No, I don't believe that might makes right. Far from it. On the whole,  the only people who I would want jailed are 1)folks who offer violence to others when not defending either themselves or a victim of violence and 2)habitual criminals.

I have no desire to kill anyone, unless not doing so would likely result in the death of an innocent.

Maybe you have the impression I am some rabid anti-Islamic fanatic. I don't think I am.

What I am concerned about is that in the UK recently there seems to be mounting tension between Muslims and the rest of society. Both sides seem to feel under threat by the other, (admitedly generalising here).

It did concern me on Sept 11th 2003 when walking to work, posters had appeared all-over town celebrating the atacks on the USA 9/11 2001. I am talking about lots of posters here, almost every lamp-post railing sign-post etc had 1 or more. That must have taken a bit of organisation and manpower to do. It was worrying to think that I was living among people who could find something to celebrate in all those deaths.

Again I will stress that I believe it is only a minority of Muslims who feel that way. But that evidence indicated to me that it was still a large group.

Obviously the London suicide bombings is something that troubles me. All British born, and all hating Britain so much they where willing to die.

Then the protests in London. The fact that so many people where marching through London calling for indiscriminate death upon people over cartoons.

Surely something is wrong over here. I am not sure what. The idea that 40% of Muslims in Britain want sharia law worries me too.

The stats Louis provided OTOH are encouraging to a degree.

Date: 2006/10/17 09:50:21, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 17 2006,14:35)
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will webcast Dembski's chapel presentation at 10:50 a.m. CDT Thursday. Look here.

This I found gob-smacking amazing.

The man.

Intelligent Design Network’s Wedge of Truth Award, 2004 for promoting intelligent design (past recipients include Michael Behe).


Good Old GOOGLE!
The winning paper.

Date: 2006/10/17 19:25:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I just finished reading this. I doubt it is the one you are after but it covers the same subject.

The core of the book is about how astronomers proceeded to measure the age of the Universe.

However it starts with a brief overview of why biology and geology went to demand an ancient Earth.

Then covers the physics version of aging the sun and solar system.

Then the main subject of trying to date the Universe and the slightly embarrassing period where the most up to date science of the time had the oldest stars being dated as older than the age of the Universe they inhabit.

Probably not the one you wanted, but the subject does cover your requiremnt.

Date: 2006/10/18 05:59:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I don't know why the aparent fine tuning of the Universe is dissmissed so casually by posters here. As far as I am aware this is an aspect of the Universe that bothers plenty of Astronomers/Cosmologists and Physicists.

The puddle shape analogy/comparison does not seem apropriate. A small change in the shape of the hole would lead to a different shaped puddle. A small change in any one of the forces in physics would lead to no real universe. At least that is what Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene seem to be saying.

AFAI am aware the problem is so disturbing that this is what has encouraged String/M and brane theories. IIRC, they are not based on any observation or evidence other than the Universe appears fine tuned.

I could be completely wrong here as I have only read their popular books and couldn't for the life of me atempt the hard science they reffer to.

Guess my point is that the aparent fine tuning seems to bother very prominent scientists in the relevant fields; Yet here, a lot of commenters just blow it off. ???

Date: 2006/10/18 06:29:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,11:11)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2006,10:59)
I don't know why the aparent fine tuning of the Universe is dissmissed so casually by posters here. As far as I am aware this is an aspect of the Universe that bothers plenty of Astronomers/Cosmologists and Physicists...

I am inclined to attribute it to a knee jerk reaction which is understandable when you think about how long science has been in the cross hairs of creationists/IDers.

Most of my friends are believers and the foundation of their faith does not concern me in the least.  It is the wingnuts who want to inject their religion in our public schools that give me the willies.  Too often I think people confuse believers with crackpots out to ram their religion down the throats of everyone else.

You are probably correct.

I can easily see why a kneejerk reaction might occur after years of dealing with the likes of Dembski and his ilk.

Personally, I find the aparent fine tuning fascinating and am at a loss by people who will not even acknowledge it.

This is something that is acknowledged by very respected scientists. It seems to have inspired lots of work to atempt to explain it (by real scientists), yet here, virtually nobody seems to want to engage. ???

Example:- Gravity, slightly stronger=Universal collapse before a single star could form. Gravity slightly weaker=No atoms in the Universe, totally empty.

That is the one I remember best. But it seemingly applies to the other forces also.

Date: 2006/10/18 06:45:06, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 18 2006,11:33)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2006,10:59)
I don't know why the aparent fine tuning of the Universe is dissmissed so casually by posters here. As far as I am aware this is an aspect of the Universe that bothers plenty of Astronomers/Cosmologists and Physicists.

In the same way, and pretty much to the same extent, that any unanswered question "bothers" curious people. Heddle's argument is a classic attempt at shoving God into a gap and making impotent appeals to authority: It's all very puzzling, an highly unlikely, and prominent scientists think so too, so God must have done it.

Could we ignore the God side?

This is not like the "flagelum" argument. This is causing scientists to rethink the entire theory about how the Universe works.

For all I know you might be doing research about this. So I will ask, do you know why the Universe appears to be fine tuned?

I will readilly admit that I don't understand. I am just accepting authority from people who should.

BTW. The people I am talking about do not inject God into the answer. They wish to avoid that. So are considering explanations that are not based on evidence or observation.

Date: 2006/10/18 06:53:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 18 2006,11:30)
What is the role of a research professor in a seminary?  

First, Dembski searches for God in all the wrong places.  That's "search".

Then he searches for God in all the same wrong places all over again.  That's "research".


Fantastic. Actually did make me, laugh out loud. :D

Date: 2006/10/18 06:56:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 17 2006,15:15)
Hey, Stephen I hope you're feeling well.  One of the headlines from this week's The Stranger:
Stephen Elliott gets beat up by girlfriend

I don't think that was me. Unless she hit me so hard, I completely forgot about it.

Date: 2006/10/18 08:52:23, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ogee @ Oct. 18 2006,12:21)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2006,10:59)
I don't know why the aparent fine tuning of the Universe is dissmissed so casually by posters here. As far as I am aware this is an aspect of the Universe that bothers plenty of Astronomers/Cosmologists and Physicists.

There is no questioning the 'fine-tuning problem' (except to the extent that the term implies a tuner).  The issue is with the logic; the ID assertion that this is evidence of divine intervention in the creation of the universe(s) is a non-sequitur.

That is why I used the qualifier "aparent".

It does look tuned. Admitting/allowing a designer is unscientific. So lets look for naturalistic explanations.

Science should look only for naturalistic explanations. Otherwise it stops being science.

What I consider a problem is the denial shown here about the aparent fine tuning not looking like a problem in the first place.

Date: 2006/10/21 17:52:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just woke up so maybe I am not comprehnding this corectly.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 21 2006,16:57)
They will be "the majority", Paley.  YOU will be the "minority".  Get used to it, and pray they will be more merciful towards you than your ilk have been towards them.  Me, I think turnabout is fair play.  And you might even learn a lesson or two from it.

Are you saying that it is ok to discriminate on race, providing it is done against whites?

Date: 2006/10/22 01:15:24, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 22 2006,04:12)
We can talk about the complex lab stuff that proves deep time and evolution and yada yada but that stuff is pretty inaccessable to a guy like Dave. I don't know what the strange fascination with him is. He just keeps roping you back in...

My bolding.

Me neither. This is now the longest thread ever on ATBC (I think). Dave has been getting a beating right the way through it and continues to claim he is winning.

It is kinda fascinating, irritating and uncomfortable all at the same time.

1 good thing though is the people answering him. This thread is a mine of knowledge.

Date: 2006/10/22 09:13:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2006,05:57)
By the way does anyone buy GoP's recent goalpost shift and dishonesty in this thread?


I think that you won your point Louis.

On the bigger scale, muslim fundamentalism does still worry me. Jayzus, all religious fundamentalism scares me.

The Christian shiz in the USA is very worrying, as is the Islamic fundamentalism we seem to be getting in the UK.

I guess I enjoy freedom.

Maybe we should discuss it with beer? I am up for it  if you can fit it into your schedule.

Date: 2006/10/23 10:54:48, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 23 2006,10:20)
Now, I'm more than willing to show why these proffered explanations miss the mark. But would I be wasting my time? You've already demonstrated that you're more interested in playing lawyer and screeching vulgar abuse than engaging in a formal discussion. Perhaps a more reasonable person would care to pick up the reins? Flint? Eric? Stephen?

I am not sure that I want to continue this. Personally I think that there is a problem in the UK regarding the integration of muslims. But you are giving me the impression that you believe muslim=bad. That is not my position.

My POV is that muslim imigrants to the UK contains a larger % of fundamentalists than most other groups. That may very well change if USA evangelists get what they want. Some of the Christian sites from the USA are pretty #### disturbing with absolute wingnuts running churches.

I pretty much dislike fundamentalism and evangelism. It breeds ignorance, arogance and intolerance. Personally I don't care what people believe but I don't want them to have the right to demand that everybody else has to believe/respect it.

Louis has raised some good points, so to just dismiss them indicates that you don't want to talk about a problem but would rather demonise muslims outright. Admitedly I could be wrong on that, but it is the feeling I am getting ATM.

As for "taking up the reins", I wouldn't know where to start.

Date: 2006/10/25 20:41:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 25 2006,20:17)
Poor little Louis: he can't even rise to ... And Louis? Even if I were the easily intimidated type, you pretty much showed your true colors when you admitted to being terrified of a masturbating hobo.

This is the first obviously dishonest (flat out lying) statement I have seen you write on this thread. There may be more but this is one that definately needs calling.

GoP, Louis claimed to be embarassed by that guy, not intimidated. They are not the same thing.

Whereas it was you that wanted to present a simple choice backed by physical agresion to somebody with a mental illness. What that guy was doing was abnormal and embarrasing, not threatening. He was not actually doing anybody bodily harm.

Being willing to beat-up the mentally ill is not something you should boast about.

Date: 2006/10/26 03:32:45, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2006,04:10)

Thanks for the support. It's not necessary...


I know you do not require my support. It was however necessary for me to point out the dishonesty of GoP here though.

I can remember the outline of the conversation as it is a subject that I have an interest in.

At the time, Ghost eventually said what he would do. It was myself (probably among others) who pointed out to him (GoP) that hitting somebody harmless and ill was not something to be proud of. Ghosty then claimed something along the lines of "missreading the mental ill part". I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Something I am usually happy to do. Missunderstanding is a regular thing in this medium.

For him to then make the statement I responded to here indicates beyond reasonable doubt, Gop is being far from honest.

That is all from memory. I haven't looked up the original posts. So if I am incorect GoP should be easily able to refute me.


Date: 2006/10/26 03:51:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 26 2006,06:41)
It took me a few minutes ...

Why do you bother to post?

I assume that you have no desire to communicate.

Date: 2006/10/27 21:31:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2006,02:18)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 22 2006,16:02)
What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.

You're not answering any of my questions.

I was asking you, what do you consider "fine-tuned"? Apparently, it means suitable to carbon-based life. Why carbon-based? Must it include human life, life on Earth? Justify your position.

And as the others pointed out, what do you consider a "narrow room for error" for constants?

I was under the impresion that the fine tuning argument was not that there are narrow parameters for life; But the parameters for the Universe existing are narrow.

This applies to all the 4 forces.

The easiest to remember (for me) is gravity. Slightly stronger=Universe collapsing before the first star forms. Slightly weaker=no atoms forming.

The observation of "fine-tuning" is not just a creatioist view. Both Stephen Hawking (a signatory on project Steve) and Brian Greene mention it in detail in their popular science books.

Date: 2006/10/28 06:56:22, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Is there a problem in the teaching of evolution?

The only problems I have seen are in the way of news articles here and at PT, I have never personally been afected. In real life I have encountered very few people who think evolution is a hoax. Sure there seems to be plenty on the internet, but how many peiople have you met that have wingnut views on the subject.

It is only a few months since I was at the natural history museum (London). The entire building is a representation of evolution. I didn't see a single person protesting that it was teaching a fraud.

Date: 2006/10/28 08:35:20, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 28 2006,12:20)
I had one safety officer at a company I formerly worked at say to me "Do you have to use chemicals in your research?". This was a fine chemicals company.

Sorry for going of topic but that reminded me of something.

I was once told to do a H&S evaluation of my units activities. This unit tested/trialed parachutes and general airborne delivery methods.

The only possible outcome of filling in the form honestly was "cease all activity until a safer system is in place". I was told to change my answers. My C.O. refused to see the futility of the form.

Eventually somebody else had to do the evaluation.

I think the form was called "risk assesment". Bleeding ridiculous.

Date: 2006/10/31 19:30:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 28 2006,03:26)
I've read Hawking's book and I don't remember any mention of "fine-tuning". It wasn't in English though.

IIRC he doesn't use the expression "fine tuning", but does discuss the argument.

I think it is in the chapter where he is discussing the start of the universe, initial conditions, the weak and strong anthropic arguments, cosmic background radiation and uniformity on the large scale.

I will try to find the exact chapter later today (when I get home from work).

Date: 2006/10/31 19:43:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I take it this has something to do with this article?

Pretty interesting stuff. But not really that surprising to me. I recal a BBC nature programme from some years back. They had followed a small herd for over a year. Their (the elephants) actions on the death of a herd member was moving.

Date: 2006/11/01 06:16:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 01 2006,01:30)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 28 2006,03:26)
I've read Hawking's book and I don't remember any mention of "fine-tuning". It wasn't in English though.

IIRC he doesn't use the expression "fine tuning", but does discuss the argument.


I will try to find the exact chapter later today (when I get home from work).

OK. Home now. It is chapter 8 The Origin and Fate of the Universe.

Date: 2006/11/01 09:23:09, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Anyone in the UK reading this, there is a very good programme on BBC2 right now about elephants.

Can't stay as I want to watch the rest of it, it is very good so far though.

Date: 2006/11/01 10:00:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Well this programme turned out to be amazing.

Fifteen years to make it, viewing like this makes me happy to pay the licence fee. Some of the scenes were gobsmacking.

Date: 2006/11/02 19:22:14, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Why wouldn't other animals have altruism and empathy?

Surely this is an advantage for any creature that lives in a stable ordered group?

Skeptic: Why do you consider language a better guide to behaviour than actions? Or am I missing something?

Date: 2006/11/02 20:13:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Nov. 03 2006,01:46)
BTW, was the initial link broken for anybody?

if so, try it again.

It was broken for me but working now. Didn't make much difference as it is essentialy saying the same as the article I linked to. Same story. Pretty much same quotes.

Date: 2006/11/03 09:16:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Sometimes we react to situations. Fast. Then later try to justify our actions. I believe that when we try to intelectualise (our reactions) we may be decieving ourselves. We sometimes atribute more thought into actions that were just instinct.

OTOH. I do think that some reactions are maybe deeper than that.

Damned if I know.

Date: 2006/11/03 09:26:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 03 2006,13:22)
If I remember correctly, Hawking used in his book the anthropic principle to explore the potential conditions for the early universe. The only plausible scenarios are the ones compatible with carbon-based life. If he had speculated about the action of God in the creation of our universe, I would have noticed it.

Read it again. The terms are different but the arguments are the same.

According to both Hawing and Greene we are in a weird situation. They both want the laws to be "plausible" and both see a difficulty.

This is not just a creationist view. Aparently most cosmologists/astrophysicists see a problem.

The vast majority are looking for naturalistic causes. This is the only reason that string theory is taken seriously BTW.

Date: 2006/11/04 09:38:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 03 2006,19:57)
Hawking is not being scientific if he uses this argument (God), I'm sorry.

You do know that when Hawking says "God" he is not reffering to the Judeo/Christian God? He is talking about 1st cause IIRC. That could be either purely random or designed.

Hawking does not believe in a personal God. Hence his signature on the "Steve" list.

AFAIK. "Fine tuning" comes from physicists/cosmologists desire for the Universe to comply with a basic relationship between the different forces. Something that should be "elegant/obvious".

Example: The way gravity works is dependant upon the amount of physical spacial dimensions there are. That is elegant.

However, the ralationship between forces and how a difference would affect the universe is niether obvious or elegant.

Date: 2006/11/04 09:45:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2006,10:48)
Say what you will about Heddle's personal beliefs, but he's on the money when it comes to the Dembski cult.

I completely agree. In a way, by being an ID suporter, Hedle's arguments will probably have more effect.

I am glad that he has realised what a charlatan bunch UD has.

Date: 2006/11/07 13:15:47, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 07 2006,02:10)
...People want to seperate humans out of the animal kingdom. ...

I don't think that is particularly a bad thing. Animal testing would be problematic if we didn't do this. So would eating a healthy diet.

I am not claiming that humans are not animals in a biological sense. But we have to be different in a legal way.

Date: 2006/11/16 00:37:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just read this. Things are looking quite promising for the next generation or so with regards to medical technology. The amount of diseases that could become treatable through this research is likely to be truly impressive.

Date: 2006/11/18 01:17:41, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 18 2006,00:04)
I'm sorry to drag this up again but as I was preparing to shut down for the night DaveScot just sent me a "cease and desist" e-mail mentioning lawyers and I am really, really scared!

The irony is, he considers the statement that I made at my blog about liking to "frighten women" libelous!

That e-mail was not meant to frighten me?

This is crazy. I have to go to sleep so that I can endure class in the morning. I did not sleep last night because of all this. How can I sleep tonight?

I don't know how this is going to end but I just wanted to thank all of you for your support during this. You assured me that he wouldn't try to harm me. What a pity he doesn't live up to your expectations.

John is upstairs asleep and I am literally hyperventilating. Oh he copied John on the e-mail, too. This after telling me that John doesn't exist.

Being taken to court by Dave Scot for making libelous claims on the internet would be hilarious.

You would make a fortune if you could claim sole rights to the story.

I really can't see why you would give a ####. In court a half decent lawyer would make DS look an even bigger clown than he is considered to be here.

Get it on pay per view and have a share of the revenue.

Date: 2006/11/18 01:30:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just thought.

Dave Scot is on record;
Using several identities to disrupt forums.
Posting real-life threats.
Accusing people of crimes without a shred of evidence.
Threatening to "hack" sites.

I doubt it is possible to commit libel against Dave Scot. The fact that his name is actually Springer may also have some bearing.

Date: 2006/11/18 11:48:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 18 2006,00:04)
I'm sorry to drag this up again but as I was preparing to shut down for the night DaveScot just sent me a "cease and desist" e-mail mentioning lawyers and I am really, really scared!

The irony is, he considers the statement that I made at my blog about liking to "frighten women" libelous!

That e-mail was not meant to frighten me?

This is crazy. I have to go to sleep so that I can endure class in the morning. I did not sleep last night because of all this. How can I sleep tonight?

I don't know how this is going to end but I just wanted to thank all of you for your support during this. You assured me that he wouldn't try to harm me. What a pity he doesn't live up to your expectations.

John is upstairs asleep and I am literally hyperventilating. Oh he copied John on the e-mail, too. This after telling me that John doesn't exist.

Sorry to say this, but this just doesn't ring true.

If DaveTard threatened me with the law (on libel) I would be laughing too hard to respond (at least for a while).

The guy is pure scum and it is well documented by people on the www all over the world. In a court of law his case would probably last as long as a snowball in a blast furnace.

I eagerly await a summons by the tards lawyers for calling him a liar, scoundrel, scumbag, tosser and waste of space.

Date: 2006/11/23 03:14:49, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 23 2006,01:02)
Interesting link.  I'm not sure what to make of my results, though. . . .

Well, that was boring.  Anyway, my scores:
Your Aspie score: 37 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 148 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical

And that picture in the beginning is totally a girl.

Gave it a go.


  Thank you for filling out this questionnaire.

Your Aspie score: 70 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 115 of 200
You are very likely neurotypicalComments

That character at the begining I thought was probably a girl. Hard to be sure though.

Date: 2006/11/24 02:25:19, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 23 2006,16:57)

In case of mimetic females morphs of Mocker Swallowtail neodarwinists mantras can satisfy only worshippers of chance and selection. Sound mind would doubt such explanations in this case.

Better do not touch the problem and ridicule those who draw attention to it.


Better get pen and paper ready. I am sure everyone will be instructed to take notes soon.

Date: 2006/11/26 07:16:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 26 2006,06:27)
my favourite DS moment yet, an oldie but no disussion of "the Man, DaveTard" is complete without it:

I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows #### well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.

I grew up in a small town and when a few people pull crap like that that hurts everyone there will be payback. I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.

I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them.

and the cherry on the cake is at the wikipedia talk page

wikipedia talk

where DS makes legal threats over his own words. Oddly, the actual post over at Larrys blog has been removed. I wonder why. It's lucky there are so many caring people that kept a copy

Good grief,
Hard to believe (unless you have read many of DS's comments).

He is almost 2 dimensional. Kinda like a Disney villian. So funny: threats to sue someone with libel for quoting him.

I really did enjoy the Wiki link.

Date: 2006/11/26 12:39:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I thought I was a Christian, but had my POV slammed and I guess I am not.

Then I thought I was a theist, saw the arguments and now I guess I aint that either.

Right now, I am probably an agnostic that hopes there is a God.

When I use the word "believe" it seemed missunderstood. Maybe "hope" is a better word. Whatever.

I am disturbed at the completely anti-religious posts, here (ATBC, not this thread) and on PT.

I have no problem with Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists etc. I do have a problem when people try to force their views upon others.

Since the death of ID some Atheists have gone on the offensive. I dislike that.

WTF is wrong with tolerance? Let people believe whatever they wish, so long as they don't want to make it law or enforce it upon others.

Religion is the root of all evil? Bollocks! Just about everything mankind has come up with has been used for both bad and good.

Date: 2006/11/26 12:46:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Bebbo @ Nov. 26 2006,10:41)
If Dave really cared about how much money the trial cost the Dover school board then he should be taking it up with the people who decided to defend the case...

The only thing Dave Scot cares about is to win (that is on record somewhere from UD).

He doesn't give a toss about wether he is correct or not. That man is scum.

Date: 2006/11/26 14:54:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 26 2006,14:31)
WTF is wrong with tolerance? Let people believe whatever they wish, so long as they don't want to make it law or enforce it upon others.

But we're interested in how things really are, Stephen. Isn't that the whole point?

At some point, someone who believes is going to enforce it upon others.

How are things really? Do you know?

Just about the only thing that I am sure of is that I do not know.

What is the difference between entirely certain religious people and entirely certain Atheists?

Damned if I know. But the end result tends to be the same. Persecution.

Is there a major difference between the thought police of religions and the thought police of Atheists?

Date: 2006/11/26 15:45:43, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
At a guess, I have been to a church aproximately 3 times in the last 5 years. 2 funerals and 1 christening.

I am not arguing the case of God. I am arguing that people should be judged on their actions and not beliefs.

WRT God. TBH, I don't know. But right now I have seen people claim, theist = anti science. That is arant nonsense.

Date: 2006/11/26 15:50:17, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Hi again Louis,

I will gladly concede that horrible crimes have been done in the name of religion.

But horrible crimes have been done in the name of Atheism also.

It isn't the belief that is the problem. It is the actions carried out in it's name.

Date: 2006/11/26 15:57:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 26 2006,15:52)

I think if you knew the first thing about Dawkins...

Have I missed a post? Not seen a post by skeptic

Date: 2006/11/26 16:05:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The idea of meeting loved ones again is a pretty emotional tie for me (it would be nice).
However, oblivion holds no terrors.

As I said before, I do not know.

The main thing that makes me hope God exists is the chance that I will see loved ones again. I know that is week. But what can you do?

Date: 2006/11/26 16:09:51, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 26 2006,16:04)

Your sort of saying what I am. Two things though:

But horrible crimes have been done in the name of Atheism also.

Name one.

I wil name 3

Comunist Russia, China and polpot's Cambodia

Date: 2006/11/26 16:21:29, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Could we pretend for a minute that religion did not exist?

Does anyone seriously believe that evil would dissapear? Nationalism could not be used?

Date: 2006/11/26 16:35:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I am losing the plot here.

I am not really a fundy. Neither am I an Atheist. Just confused would be the best description of me.

Date: 2006/11/26 16:40:11, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
1 thing I do hate though. Is when an atheist claims science to be on their side and anyone else is irational.

Date: 2006/11/27 02:05:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 27 2006,01:44)
Fuck it. You all can think me as nasty as you like, but the sheer level of dumb being exhibited by Skeptic and others borders of the amazing.

Find me ONE example of where I have claimed all religious people are stupid.

Find me ONE example of where I have said religious people are not entitled to believe as they will.

Find me ONE example of where I have said that no god at all exists, absolutely, certainly in every sense of the word.

Find me ONE example of where I have said we should cast out the evil religionists from our midst and have nothing to do with them in the fight against fundies.

I could go on. In each case you will not find a single example. People, STOP now. STOP claiming the arguments I am making are somehow the same as the strawmen in your heads. They are not.


For Skeptic (or more properly Spastic, you've moved from the mildly annoying camp into the GoP camp of shrill dishonesty and total lack of comprehension). Why should anyone expect the parting of the Red Sea to be a real event. On what basis does one claim this to even possibly be a real event? Is there any evidence for it at all of any kind? If THIS event is claimed to be real (or possibly real) then why is the story surrounding the Trojan horse any less or more real, or Odysseus meeting Cassandra? The point here is simple. Claims like the parting of the Red Sea ONLY recieve any credence at all because they are claims made by current religions.

A deist god who set the universe up and takes no part in it after that point is, at this time at least, totally undetectable by science or any rational means. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, it in no way offends me (very little does except wanton stupidity). In fact I have a very good friend who believes just this and as far as I am concerned he is just as correct in his belief in such a deity as I am in my lack of belief. The one question I (and indeed he) ask is this: why is this idea, the idea of a creator, non-interventionist god given any credence greater than that of say the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Oh and Spastic, my example was Cyril the Elephant, not Cyril the monkey. If it is different from a god concept please explain how (it really isn't by the way), rather than just shrilly asserting it and calling me names. Rather ironically you haven't understood one single point I've made and yet you claim they're stupid. Try harder dumbass!

In the very loosest sense, yes all theists are creationists, but is that what the anti-creationist group here at ATBC are combatting? No. Is that what I am combatting? No. The creationists of which we speak are the OECs, the YECs, the IDCists. These are a minority amongst religious people, just as fundamentalists and extremists are a minority amongst theists. These creationists are making a fundamentally scientific series of claims. A 6000 year old earth is fucking different from a 4.6 billion year old earth.One (or neither) of these claims is true, they cannot both be true, they are mutually exclusive.

It doesn't matter if we use the young earth claim, or we use one of a million other dumb claims (flagella didn't evolve, the clotting sequence can't evolve, the flood happened, yadda yadda yadda). Don't focus on the window dressing, focus on the phenomenon behind the claims. Creationists are making claims about the nature of reality. End of story. Those claims are open to falsification on the basis of the available evidence. End of story. To date, every single one of them has been falsified on the basis of the evidence. End of story. They COULD have been supported by the evidence, no on knew until they went and researched it, but they weren't. End of story. Next claim please.

The relevant point of people like PZ and myself to this issue is that it isn't only the extreme  fringe of religion that makes testable claims. The deist god concept might not be testable (and therefore on a scientific basis is indistinguishable from fantasy. We simply can't use science to probe it's accuracy) but there are a whole swathe of god concepts that ARE scientifically testable. All we are saying is that to lie to people about the fact that science has and will falsify some or all of these testable god concepts does us all a disservice. It's patronising and dishonest to the theists and it doesn't serve the ends of the anticreationist movement because it fails to deal with the actual problem.

Lenny says it best: why should anyone take my religious ideas more seriously than yours, his, the bloke down the street's ideas, or your hot food delivery merchant of choice? I absolutely do not claim to have the answer to the existance of god or gods. What I do claim is that it is possble to formulate god concepts that are open to rational disproof and millions people have done this millions of times. This is a clear indication that one person's religious claims that are not open to rational enquiry should be taken no more seriously than another person's untestable claims. Lenny's religious views are just as valid on a rational basis as mine are. I am more than happy to admit that, as is he.

The problem with creationism is that it usually rears its ugly head as part of an unquestioning, unselfcritical dogma. Look at how creationists tie their religious interpretation of certain texts to their religious identity. I've had many creationists say that if their literal reading of Genesis is wrong then their whole faith in god is wrong. Firstly this simply isn't true, secondly this is a consequence of a culture and an ideology which fears rational enquiry and actively seeks to prevent it. It's not only religious ideologies that do this, look at Stalinism or Lysenkoism for examples (as I think I've said about 20 times now. It's nice to have your actual arguments ignored isn't it?). The problem is NOT religion but unquestioning adherence to dogma and ideology. The unfortunate thing is that this appears to occur in religions far more than in other areas of human endeavour. There are obvious reasons for this, religions on average tend to be ideological systems based on the faith in certain prospects, there are typically tenets that are beyond question, and there are typically aspects of that ideology that have no supporting evidence. There are exceptions, and there are non-religious ideologies that share these traits. The point is not that we atheists get our hackles up whenever someone mentions the word god, we don't (although I'm sure some do, but I don't) but that we see no reason to grant an automatic free pass to certain ideas, that are as flawed as other ideas, simply because they are religious.

To close: please I beg you all, humbly and earnestly, and with no small degree of passion and frustration deal with my arguments as they are, not as you think they are.


I don't think you are nasty.

Find ONE example where I have said any of the things that you claim to be accused of.

I have never seen you claim:
"all religious people are stupid"
"religious people are not entitled to their beliefs"

Now when a religion makes a claim about the world we live in and science proves that claim wrong, I go along with the science.

In the real world (as oposed to cyberspace) I have knowingly spoken with 1 (only 1) YEC fundy. He was a nice guy. I didn't believe in his world-view one little bit but saw no reason to ridicule him (and I am not saying you ridicule people [willy nilly] here BTW).

Anyway. I like this subject and so far the conversation here has been far more interesting than it's equivalent on PT.

EDIT: BTW. I agree that there isn't any scientific evidence that God exists. Not a bit.

Date: 2006/11/27 04:06:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2006,02:48)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2006,12:39)
Religion is the root of all evil? Bollocks! Just about everything mankind has come up with has been used for both bad and good.

1)While religion may not be the Root of all evil, it is certainly the kludge of a great many evil doers.  A disproportionately large amount of them, I dare say.  That being said, let me reiterate my contention that I don't give a flying fig about anyone's religious opinions, so long as they are not being pushed on anyone else.

Again, the heart of this particular fight is that they are being pushed on everyone else.

While I have no problem with saying "Science has nothing to say about your supernatural god fellow," I do see a problem with "Science can accommodate your supernatural god fellow".  That shoe is on the wrong foot.

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2006,15:45)
I am arguing that people should be judged on their actions and not beliefs.

2)Quite.  It is the actions that matter.  In this case, it is specifically the actions of people who would see their superstitions taught in my children's science class.  I'm also vehemently opposed to being forced to live my life according to those superstitions.  Different fight, same enemy.
Herein lies the crux of the matter.

They do.  At least a certain very vocal subset of them do...

1) Who is pushing their religious POV on others here? I certainly don't see many religious regular posters on this site trying to "evangelise". Yes, some people do use religion for "wrong-doing", no denying that. But everything can be used both ways and is.

2) To me it seems far more atheists want to "fight" here than religious people. Again, how many people here think that religion=science? I certainly do not want religion in science classes. It is extremists (on both sides) that want that.

Date: 2006/11/27 12:49:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,12:24)
It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn...

So what?

Nobody living is responsible for what happened a thousand years ago. Nobody living suffered it.

Who blames atheists for 9/11? Nobody I know, let alone the general public. Nor am I aware of atheists being blamed for Hitler.

Stalin may have been an atheist but I don't think many people equate all atheists as being Stalin-like.

How many regular posters here criticise people for being atheist? I can't think of any.

Date: 2006/11/27 17:42:23, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,14:49)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 27 2006,12:49)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,12:24)
It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn...

So what?

Nobody living is responsible for what happened a thousand years ago. Nobody living suffered it.

Who blames atheists for 9/11? Nobody I know, let alone the general public. Nor am I aware of atheists being blamed for Hitler.

Stalin may have been an atheist but I don't think many people equate all atheists as being Stalin-like.

How many regular posters here criticise people for being atheist? I can't think of any.

It was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who blamed 9/11 on secular humanists (they also credited lesbos and pagans as well).  And not a day goes by where the tards at UD don't blame hitler's deeds on his atheism.  Religionists also trelessly point to Stalin as an example of what secular humanism/atheism gets you at the godless store.

Intelligent design is a full frontal assault on secular humanism.  You've heard of Intelligent Design I assume.  It's like creationism but they use bigger words.

And you are aware that Bush I said atheists should not consider themselves citizens or patriots?  And his mentally retarded son said no one but christians get to go to heaven.  

This is pretty common stuff, religionists blaming atheism for pretty much everything as well as portraying them as wicked and dangerous (or just doomed to leading meaningless, unhappy lives).  I'm surprised you weren't aware of any of this.  You should get out more.  Read the paper even.

There are several tards here to either blame secular humanism/atheism for the worlds ills, or they simply try and save us.  

But my point was if the religionists dish it out they should plan to have some flung their way too.  And those who get their feelings hurt because Dawkins thinks their beliefs are stupid might consider growing up or adopting ideas that are more bullet proof.


So a couple of whacko bible thumping pig-ignorant people make a claim and that is = to every none-atheist saying it? I don't think so. That is hardly the general public blaming atheists is it?

Inteligent Design was an atack on science (particularly evolution) rather than atheists.

I was not aware about the Bush comment against atheists. I am English so forgive my ignorance on that topic please.

Dawkins does not hurt my feelings. But it seems to me that you want to group everyone that isn't an atheist in the same camp. That is silly. Judge Jones isn't an atheist but he sure stomped on ID.

Date: 2006/11/27 17:51:13, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 27 2006,14:49)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 27 2006,13:49)
Who blames atheists for 9/11?

Pat and Jerry discuss 9/11:

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.


JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

You quote mined that. Nobody I know blames atheists for 9/11.

The atrocities of 9/11 where commited by fundy religious extremists. Please don't try and make it look as though I believe otherwise.

Date: 2006/11/28 12:43:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Nov. 28 2006,07:23)
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 27 2006,22:49)
I'm not a religious fundamentalist by any objective definition.

Five simple questions for you, Skeptic :

1.  Is the Bible wrong about anything?
2.  Was Jesus born of a virgin?
3.  Is faith in Jesus necessary for salvation?
4.  Did Jesus rise from the dead?
5.  Is Jesus going to return sometime in the future?

Answer as clearly and specifically as possible.

I will have a go at those questions.

1) Probably, or God is a monster.
2) Dunno. Should be if Christianity is correct.
3) No.
4) Should have if Christianity is correct. Again I do not know.
5) Doubt it.

I have to admit that while I am not an atheist I don't have much faith either. Thought I was a Christian but guess I am realy an agnostic that has hope.

I will admit that I hope to get to see loved ones again that have died. I guess there is only 1 way to find out and I am not looking forward to it.

Saying that...Oblivion seems ok.

Date: 2006/11/30 17:03:07, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 30 2006,03:54)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 30 2006,00:39)
You know that secret listserv you've been talking about on ATBC that Heddle got kicked off of? I'm on that list and write to it a couple times every day. You'd be amazed by all the scientists and engineers all over the world who are are on it. Of course if I told you any of those names, many you'd recognize, I'd have to kill you. I was added to it shortly after Heddle was removed.

You really have to wonder about the quality of that list, if they can kick Heddle off (for having the temerity to discuss the age of the Earth, no less) while actually admitting the likes of DaveScot.

It really sucks that well respected working scientists have to go underground to talk about ID lest they be Sternberged for their heresies against evolutionary dogma.

And I guess this 'going underground' also explains why none of them, like, do any research. Poor poor guys.

got a link for that?

It is here.

For some reason I couldn't make a link.

EDIT: Well blow me down, it apeared as a link anyway.
EDIT2:The full comment you refer to.

DaveScot said...
Dick Hughes,

You know that secret listserv you've been talking about on ATBC that Heddle got kicked off of? I'm on that list and write to it a couple times every day. You'd be amazed by all the scientists and engineers all over the world who are are on it. Of course if I told you any of those names, many you'd recognize, I'd have to kill you. I was added to it shortly after Heddle was removed. It really sucks that well respected working scientists have to go underground to talk about ID lest they be Sternberged for their heresies against evolutionary dogma.

Who's your grandaddy! HAHAHAHA

Best regards,

12:56 PM, November 29, 2006  

Date: 2006/12/02 12:19:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 02 2006,08:35)
Governments come and go, but interests remain the same.  

It is in the interests of the American economic/political elite to completely dominate the world, on its own terms...  
Alas, though, that awesome military instrument is utterly completely dependent upon one thing -- oil.  Every jet that flies, every tank that rolls, every naval task force that sails, is completely dependent upon oil. Therefore, for military reasons which have nothing to do with "economics", the US absolutely **must** control the flow of oil...  

I think it goes further.

Because of the way the Industrial nations developed from the 20th Century to now Oil is a major economic neccessity.

It isn't just the military that need it. Almost all production and distribution in developed nations depends upon oil; As does power generation in a lot of countries.

How could your farmers grow and harvest food in the quantities they produce now without oil to make fuel for the tractors, combine harvesters, bailing machines etc?
How would it be transported to the cities without fuel for haulage vehicles?

Without fuel you would have no emergency services with a rapid response capability. Hospitals would not have back-up generators.

To cut it short. The developed world has made itself so dependent upon oil and it's products that it is not a luxury to ensure a supply it is a moral responsibility (in the short term at the very least).

Something needs to be done about the situation. What? Damned if I know.

Date: 2006/12/02 13:35:56, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 02 2006,13:27)
Good news for Richard Hughes! :p


BTW. Love your new siggy.

Date: 2006/12/02 14:07:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 02 2006,13:43)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 02 2006,12:19)
It isn't just the military that need it. Almost all production and distribution in developed nations depends upon oil; As does power generation in a lot of countries.

That is true, but that is not the US motive -- after all, the US gets only about one-sixth of its oil from the Middle East.  The US military, meanwhile, is, far and away, the largest single user of oil in the country -- it utilizes, all by itself, about 2% of the ***entire annual consumption of oil in the US***.  The US Air Force, by itself, spends over $4.7 billion per year just on jet fuel.  

Industry and private consumers can, at least theoretically, utilize other sources of energy -- solar, wind power, etc.  The military can't.  It's stuff runs on oil, and nothing BUT oil.  There are no solar-powered aircraft carriers, and no hydrogen-powered battle tanks.  If it comes down to the choice between oil for the military and oil for the economy, the military will get it.  That is the purpose behind the US Strategic Oil Reserve, which is stored in Louisiana.  It's, uh, not there so people can heat their houses in the winter.

I am not sure of the reliability of that site, but it claims...
USA oil
The USA imports about 55% of its oil needs.
Sources of U.S. Oil Imports (millions of barrels per day, 2001): Canada: 1.79 - Saudi Arabia: 1.66 - Venezuela: 1.54 - Mexico: 1.42 - Nigeria: .86 - Iraq: .78 - Norway: .33 - Angola: .32 - United Kingdom: .31 - Total: 11.62. (Source: Energy Information Administration).

Sources of U.S. Oil Imports (%, 2002): Saudi Arabia: 16.9% - Mexico: 15.1% - Canada: 15.0% - Venezuela: 14.4% - Iraq: 11.4% - Nigeria: 5.9.%.

only about 30% of the USA's oil imports came from Arab countries in 2002. Since USA oil imports are about 55% of USA oil consumption, only about 15% of USA's oil consumption is provided by Arab countries.

About 40% of oil in the USA is used to produce gasoline.

Where did your figures come from? I just did a quick google search.

Date: 2006/12/03 02:19:32, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 02 2006,22:57)
In the simplest terms the World relies on US money and international law has no meaning to the US, or it shouldn't but our Supreme Court failed to get that memo.

Are you serious, or just taking the piss?

Date: 2006/12/03 04:32:35, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Just read this.

I had no idea it existed. Fascinating.

Date: 2006/12/03 09:47:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I have signed it. Will have to wait until I get home to confirm it.

Date: 2006/12/03 11:23:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 03 2006,10:41)
Beat you, Stephen! :p

The He11 you did! My name is higher, na na, na, na na!

Date: 2006/12/03 11:55:52, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2006,11:48)
I thought this was quite stylish:


Now where is the biggest cowardly blowhard in cyberspace, the creep that bans people at the drop of the hat? I want a piece of Dembski's nasty, degenerate, foul-mouthed two-faced lying Chihuahua. You know, the one who signed off at me at "brainstorms," the most civilized forum in the internet, with "GFY" - that one.

I'd make this my sig, but I'm still really fond of the one I already have...  :p

Close but the siggy you have now is best. It was Springers last salvo before getting banned and resorting to anonymous posting. It's historical ;)

Date: 2006/12/03 22:48:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Lenny, I think you are a tad hard on the USA. The foreign policy may suck but that is true of just about every country in the World. Everybody seems to put short term national interest first.

Still the USA is one of the few countries I would consider living in should I choose to emigrate (but I doubt that will ever happen).

Coming under atack by the sort of people that carried out the Sep 11 atrocity should be a badge of honour rather than a cause for concern. Look at the policies those people endorse when they have power. Truly frightening.

EDIT: Having said that, I do think that it is irresponsible for any democratic government to sponsor dictatorships. Yet they all do so to some extent. Shamefull really.

I think I would like to see a world where democracies formed a new organisation and only dealt with each other. Probably too idealistic but it might just work and force more countries to treat their citizens better.

Date: 2006/12/04 05:10:26, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 03 2006,20:44)
What do people make of that "TalkOrigins Delisted by Google" post?

Wes explains.

These comments display their ugly side. I expect comments will be getting wiped to cover embaraesment soon.

Date: 2006/12/04 11:51:01, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott

You did not answer my question.

Date: 2006/12/04 12:14:03, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 04 2006,11:57)

These comments display their ugly side.

At least B Fast manages to keep on the moral high ground.


Not every ID suporter is a complete liar and charlatan. Some are just misslead. I was 1.

Date: 2006/12/05 00:44:46, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Dec. 04 2006,20:34)
...At what point do you believe giving up personal liberties or taking others personal liberties by force is a good thing?...

That would depend on what exactly you are talking about. I for one do not mind subjecting myself to searches if it reduces the chances of somebody blowing me and others up.

Seems to me that is the main problem with terrorism. To effectively counter their ability to strike, certain liberties have to be sacrificed; Which of course automatically gives them some sort of victory.

Quite a dilemma really. What should we give up for greater safety and what is too precious to surrender even if keeping it increases the death toll?

Date: 2006/12/05 01:28:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 05 2006,01:09)
To effectively counter their ability to strike, certain liberties have to be sacrificed;

sure thing.

just... prove it.

it's one thing to voluntarily give up rights when presented with a good reason to do so (like giving someone else the keys when you've had too much to drink), it's quite another to involuntarily have your rights taken from you when a good case hasn't even been made for doing so.


please re-read the Goerring quote above.

and again.

and again, if necessary.

You quoted me somewhat out of context there, making what I said look far more draconian than in the short paragraph it was in.

In my lifetime, freedom in the UK has gradually been whittled away at. Mainly with terrorism and crime as the excuses. Don't get me wrong here, I still live in a fairly free society.

As a child it was possible to walk right up to the prime ministers house and have your photograph taken stood in front of his door next to the lone (unarmed) policeman guarding it. Now all of Downing street is fenced off and garded by quite a few police carrying submachine guns. This was done (sensibly) because of the very real terrorist threat. Yet it is a loss of liberty (to a degree).

It was only in the 1970's IIRC that X-ray screening was brought into airports. Every city centre in the UK now has an awfull lot of cctv cameras watching them. In fact quite a few car parks are the same. Cameras are everywhere in the UK. Almost Orwellian in fact.

Do you wish to discuss this subject or just lecture me?

Date: 2006/12/05 01:37:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 05 2006,01:22)
But Icthyic, don't you understand? Five years ago some nutballs managed to kill, in unreproducible fashion, as many people as accidently died on the roads last month. This demands immediate suspension of the constitution and unlimited power given to the executive branch. Isn't that reasonable?

That is hardly what I am saying.

I would agree that terrorists actually manage to kill very few people. That isn't the point. They wish to terrorise and usually manage to do that (in some measure).

Would I be wrong in assuming that you would wish to prevent a terror atack? The question surely is, what are we prepared to accept to aid in combatting it?

I would be willing to try the tactic of doing nothing but ridicule the perpetrators. Somehow I doubt that the media would play ball. Horror stories sell.

Date: 2006/12/05 02:16:37, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 05 2006,02:01)
Would I be wrong in assuming that you would wish to prevent a terror atack? The question surely is, what are we prepared to accept to aid in combatting it?

no, what I'm saying is that we are not even at the point of being able to ask the question you pose.

there isn't enough relevant information to make a decision, for example, on whether trading my privacy away for unlimited wiretaps would be of any real benefit.

there's an awfull lot of handwaving, but very little substance to it.

hence, the quote from Goerring isn't related to balancing freedom and security at all.  I'm not sure you're quite grasping what uncle Herman is telling us.

Do you object to your invasion of privacy at an airport before you are allowed to fly?

Your bags get x-rayed, often opened and physically searched. You walk through a metal detector and maybe have that wand scanned over you. Pockets are turned out etc.

This is all relatively new. It only started within my lifetime. This is a freedom that has been taken from me without permission. Yet I do not object.

The excuse was that it is to try to reduce terrorism. There is a freedom gone to prevent a few deaths. Should I re-read Goerring and object?

Maybe I am not grasping what Herman is saying. I thought that his point was that it is easy to manipulate a population when you are the government and an outside threat is the best excuse.

That however does not mean an outside threat never exists or should be responded to. I am trying to think for myself and not swallow hook line and sinker any sides propaganda.

I do find it hard to know when my thoughts are my own and not just an instinctive reaction to outside stimulus.

Date: 2006/12/05 02:19:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Double post. Sorry. Didn't show up 1st time.

Date: 2006/12/05 02:27:40, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 05 2006,02:01)
exactly.  Orwellian.  How much evidence is there that all this camera work makes you personally safer from the big bad terrorists, eh?

Well there is some. After the atacks on London's transport system camera captures where used to identify the atackers, which made it a tad easier to track down the ringleaders.

Saying that, another excuse for the cameras is that it aids in criminal punishment (not prevention). This seems to be the case, as a fair few crimes have been recorded on cameras and used in the prosecution's case.

They are also used on "crimewatch" a UK TV programme where the public is asked to identify criminals.

Date: 2006/12/05 02:47:31, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 05 2006,02:40)
This is all relatively new. It only started within my lifetime.

I thought the quote from Goerring just might give you the hint that you might be wrong about that.

It's nothing new, believe me, it's just the details that have changed.

I was being specific. The X-rays and metal detectors are relatively new.

I guess you are talking in general (ID cards, passports etc), in which case you are correct.

I am not sure what it is that you want though. Do you think such intrusive devices I mentioned should be removed from airports in the name of freedom?

I am definately sure that I don't know (for certain) what I want.

Bloody ####, every paragraph started with "I" (except this one). "I" am pretty sure that is bad writing.

Date: 2006/12/05 03:03:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 05 2006,02:49)
I always thought the interesting question to ask is, 'will there be any unexpected benefits from the surveillance society'? It seems to me the surveillance society is inevitable, since you can always convince people to give up an increment of privacy by scaring them with notions like bloodthirsty terrorists or rewarding them with slightly lower insurance payments or the like. Might as well wonder if, along with the abuses such power enable, some actual benefits might accrue in this inevitable future.

Perhaps instead of trying to fight the technology itself, effort should be given in controlling the way in which it can be used.

I don't really have an answer. Changes are happening too fast.

It is possible to track your movements already, should you be carrying an operating mobile phone.

So far nobody has vociferously objected to the police getting information from mobile phone companies, when trying to track the movements of a missing person or crime victim. Nobody should. That is a good use, but it is open to abuse.

Date: 2006/12/05 03:11:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 05 2006,02:59)

Myself I am more troubled by our fisheries reports. I don't think our  population models are accurate. The point where a fishery collapses is actually still open for debate and this crop of poiticos likes to paint a rosy picture. What is happening on our continental shelves is a potential problem where significance is hard to overstate. And that problem will reach right into the UK too.

That problem reached the UK decades ago. Strict quotas where put on our fishing fleet effectively devastating it. Yet thanks to the EU, foreign vessels continue to deplete the fisheries.

A few years ago I was on the Ascension islands and went on a fshing trip (rod and line). The guy who took us out told about the Japanese fishing boats. They fish by dredging nets and wipe out #### near all sea life in their path.

Date: 2006/12/05 15:03:38, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Ichy, STJ,

You are reading more into what I wrote than I mean (I think). Wether you believe it or not, I like freedom. But I am willing to subject myself to some measures that seem to impinge on that if it means less crime or more chance of criminals being successfully prosecuted.

I do not particularly mind being filmed when out in a public place if muggers, rapists, murderers etc are more likely to be caught and taken out of the general community.

On the other hand, I do not want excessive intrusion into my private life by anyone.

Date: 2006/12/05 19:34:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2006,17:34)
The problem is that "terrorism" is, essentially, a political problem....  

Yes it is. That is the whole point. Relatively small casualties and yet a huge political/economic impact (in comparison). That is why I personaly would be willing to try the ridicule method.

It would probably fail though as the "press" love horror stories. They sell well.

Date: 2006/12/06 04:23:04, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
That is #### funny.

Date: 2006/12/13 12:26:57, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 12 2006,15:25)
... it still doesn't change the fact that Dembski made a bet about the outcome of the Dover trial and now has to turn water into that flask of scotch. He’s the one who issued the challenge. Sacrifice, man. It’s good for the soul.

And depending on who he wants to share that scotch with [wink!] it’s a whole lot more fun than O’Leary’s dreary wailing and turning water into brine.

Take that cup away from me! Know what I mean?

Scotch? You bloody heathen! IIRC it was a bottle of single malt.
Pffft @ scotch.

Date: 2006/12/13 12:33:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Wasn't homosexuality present throughout recorded history (way before bottle feeding etc)? Why are people (seeming to be) taking this serious?
Or am I just too drunk to spot the irony?

Date: 2006/12/13 12:38:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 13 2006,08:52)
I can't help but notice that every day the number of questions 'VMartin' ignores goes up. It seems to be running about 95% now.

I think VMartin is JAD. Either that or somebody doing a parody of JAD. I think the 1st is most likely.

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?

Date: 2006/12/13 14:31:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 13 2006,14:23)

Mr. Davison. Why do you never answer a straight question?

I am not John Davison. If you know something more about internet topology you would know that nobody in USA would access internet through slovak-telecom and pay for it.

I dont know what question I am supposed to answer:

1) How would I recognize information if I "see" one?

2) Whats the difference between Batesian/Mullerian mimicry?

Such stupid questions are not worth to answer. Anyway you can "see" that I answered pwe who knows something about evolution and what information is.

Thank you for fairly lucid answer.
I bow to your greater knowledge and admit that I am not worthy of a response.
I congratulate you on your greater use of the English language though. You are a very quick learner.

Date: 2006/12/14 03:49:39, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Reads a little bit like the opening chapter to a Clancy novel.

Date: 2006/12/14 07:35:09, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
How much would carbon emissions go down if privately owned motor transport was removed? I am kinda for this. A decent public transport system and no cars on UK roads might lead to an improvement in life, especially for the most vulnerable in society.

As for the drugs thing. Legalise them. Produce them in laboritory standard conditions and sell them in special licensed venues, to be used on the premises. Tax them as well. Not to the extent that they cost as much as the illegal ones already on the market though.

Prostiution? Legalise it. Have state registerd brothels on industrial estates. Have the workers taxed and given regular medical checks.

Too simplistic? Possibly.      /rant

Date: 2006/12/14 09:48:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Government registered Louis, not government run. The government gets tax from Rock and Roll so may as well collect on the sex and drugs.

I don't see why private cars are necessary for a mobile society though. Surely we could be more mobile with a decent public transport system. At least in South East England and all major towns and cities at any rate. Plus it would have the added of value of much faster response times for the emergency services, and I pretty certain that we could get around much quicker on buses without any cars on the road. I would also imagine that it would be far simpler to convert buses to alternate fuels than cars.

Date: 2006/12/15 08:39:59, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2006,11:54)

So let  John Davison full access to this "high demanding scientifically-technical forum" and he can answer your "questions" himself.

Except he wont. JAD never answers tricky questions does he/you?

Every thread JAD posts on follows the same old routine. He declares his hypothesis is great. Constantly quotes himself. Claims he is victimised. Hurls insults willy nilly untill either he manages to get himself banned or storms off in a hissy fit while claiming victory.

He is only any use as comedy value. He is a master at comedy, fruit lists and loving things so. I got that and wrote it down.

Date: 2006/12/15 10:20:55, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The more I think about it the more I am convinced.
Get rid of private cars and we have much more room in towns, cities and roads. Car parks could be altered. Those at rail stations could become bicycle parking. The roads could have excelent cycle lanes whilst retaining great facilities for emergency vehicles (ambulances etc).

Out and out lvl parking could become parkland and just maybe multistory car parks could be converted to affordable housing.

Who knows?

I would be willing to try

Date: 2006/12/15 18:03:53, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 15 2006,17:47)
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Dec. 15 2006,12:04)
The only way I can see this happening is if we tax private use gas until it reaches a tipping point.

No need.  In just a few decades, oil production will be so far past its peak that crude will be $100 a barrel, and gas will be $5/gallon, all by itself.

Me, I bike everywhere I go and haven't had a car for almost six years now.

So I'll laugh at everyone else as I peddle past the gas station.

I have been cycling/walking/using public transport for just over a year now. Took a while to get used to it but it is just as convenient as driving (usually). Often it is better. From where I live it can sometimes take an hour to drive into Windsor town centre, yet it is only a 10-15 min walk. 20 mins if I take a slow stroll alongside the river.

Driving around here is crazy. Yet people still do it. I once drove to my girlfriends house and arived at the time of the school run. It took about 40 mins to drive the last 200 yards. When you consider that most of the people doing the school run in a car live within 1/2 mile of the school and some of them within 400 yards it is madness.

Date: 2006/12/16 02:15:54, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I agree that the World we live in now can make private transport more than just a luxury. But it need not be this way. Public transport and especially busses have declined in both regularity and affordability during my lifetime and almost certainly because most people do not use it/them.

As a child growing up in Wigan we lived about 4-5 miles from the town centre. There was a bus every 5-10 mins. Took about 10-15 mins to get into the town centre by bus. Due to lack of use (people buying cars) this eventually fell to 1 bus/hour. It now takes over 40 mins to get into town by car when it is busy. Hardly an improvement.

Then when you consider all the mining/drilling/sheer raw materials it requires for almost everyone to own a car or two compared to what would be needed if almost everybody used public transport...

Also, what exactly gives a person the right to take up about 40 sq feet of space in crowded town centres?

Eeek. I think I am a Luddite.

EDIT: Lenny. Petrol is way more than $5 dollars/gallon already over here. It is probably in the region aproaching £10 dollars/gallon. People still drive.

Date: 2006/12/16 12:11:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
The thing with railway closures etc is that it is now run by private companies. They are out to make a profit (obviously). This has meant that an awfull lot of rural branch lines have been closed. I consider this sad. The most vulnerable in society are being cut off.

Owning a car seems like a fine thing but I don't see it that way. Mass car ownership has meant that people who are physically unable to drive get a much poorer service than if private vehicles were removed.

The same is true for shops. Almost everybody now does their main shopping in huge supermarkets (myself included #### hypocrite that I am). Often located out of town. Not only does this harm small bussiness in town centres but makes it difficult for the infirm to get access.

As for prostitutes. I totally agree. I would not wish to live next door to a brothel but legalising and placing them on trading estates would get my vote.

Pretty much the same with drugs. I don't really care what people wish to do to themselves I just don't want them stealling my stuff or mugging my family to fund it.

During my lifetime technology and the way we live has changed so fast that the World I live in is totally different to the one I was born into. Some changes are for the better (eg medical advances), some for the worse(ie bloody cars/weapons) and most a double edged sword. Mobile phones for example. A godsend if you are stuck and need help in the middle-of-nowhere, a damned pest when in a restaurant etc.

When it comes to laws I think no victim=no crime.

Date: 2006/12/17 13:41:18, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 17 2006,13:01)
The folks over here have plenty of sense of humor. Once Dave wipes that, uh, brown stuff off his nose, he needs to review the difference between laughing with someone and laughing at them.

To be fair. We do plenty of laughing at people. This entire thread is dedicated to doing just that.

Date: 2006/12/18 04:27:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Ichthyic @ Dec. 17 2006,22:00)
but at least John can no longer claim censorship prevents him from promoting his PEH.

that's ridiculous.

he had years to discuss it on PT before he was finally banned from there ...

this thread, for example, would not exist without you, and nobody here would have been subjected to the JAD sockpuppet of Vmartin.

If you think that's a good thing, then i genuinely worry for you.

Why such a harsh tone?

Date: 2006/12/18 06:11:30, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
I find the whole "JJ school of law" thing incredibly funny. I get the impression that Dembski is desperate to be taken seriously as a scientist. With 2 PhDs he is probably amongst the most qualified people on the planet and he spends his time on stuff like this.

I just love him giving a supporter a telling-off here.


15. William Dembski // Dec 17th 2006 at 4:36 pm

Let me suggest you all read your Old Testament — Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal (and then, oh my, killling them); Micaiah the prophet telling Ahab the king to look forward to his coming death; and Jehu’s respectful treatment of Queen Jezebel (throwing her out a window and letting the dogs lap up her blood). And then in the New Testament we find Paul wishing that certain Judaizers didn’t just circumcise themselves but would go the whole way and castrate themselves. I see the JJSchLaw as an instrument of grace to bring Dawkins and others to their senses (if such a thing were possible). What have you done lately, dopderbeck, to jar Dawkins out of his dogmatic rampage?

Comment by William Dembski — December 17, 2006 @ 4:36 pm

FGS it sounds as though he (WAD) believes he has made a serious atack.

This incident is every bit as funny as the "vise strategy". Although I am laughing for unintended reasons.

Date: 2006/12/18 08:26:28, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Is there any chance at all that Dr. JAD is a parody? I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to exhibit signs of being as divorced from reallity as him and still be able to find the button to turn a PC on. Then again, he has been incredibly consistent for years.


Date: 2006/12/18 08:54:05, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Something Louis said,

Unfortunately getting into academic jobs as an organic chemist is frighteningly difficult compared to many if not most fields of study. I really don't know why this should be the case, or if it is the consequence of the market.

After reading this comment earlier it got me do a little check. It is difficult for me to comprehend why people with such obvious talent would have a problem finding decent work.
Could this have something to do with it?

Date: 2006/12/18 12:32:08, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 18 2006,09:55)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 18 2006,08:26)
Is there any chance at all that Dr. JAD is a parody? I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to exhibit signs of being as divorced from reallity as him and still be able to find the button to turn a PC on. Then again, he has been incredibly consistent for years.


I still think there's a third possibility, that 'VMartin' is neither a surly young dimbulb from Bratislava nor Dohn Javison, but someone like DaveTard, Paley, or O'Brien with WAY too much time on his hands, doing some piece of low-rent performance art.

I am fairly sure that JAD=VMartin. Not certain but fair sure.

What I was asking was wether there was any chance that the (what we consider to be) real JAD was just a parody/joke/wind-up.

Date: 2006/12/18 12:53:25, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Yes, but wouldn't an awfull lot of PhDs prefer a research job over industry?
Seems like a problem to me.
I am assuming that most people who can and do obtain a science PhD would like to go on and spend their lives doing research.
A decent salary in industry is not a bad thing. But it isn't as mentally/soul satisfying as doing experimental cutting edge stuff like tenured research (I would think).

I doubt that I am making my point well. Just figured that a person with a PhD in a science subject would be likely to want to be in the business of discovering real new knowledge.

Date: 2006/12/18 13:44:15, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 18 2006,13:33)
Quote (Wonderpants @ Dec. 18 2006,14:20)
I actually wonder, especially in light of the 'lol farts' Flash animation that passes for science at UD, whether this is playing right into Dembski's hands. He's an obnoxious and humourless attention whore who's apparently on track to become the next John Davison. Should he getting so much attention here, when it seems that it's responsible for half his publicity?

If someone referred to me as 'the next John A Davison', I'd probably get drunk and lay down on a train track.

Would you be wearing a druids robe for authenticity though?

Date: 2006/12/20 12:42:50, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 20 2006,12:26)
Well, I think the “blasphemy challenge” by Dawkins is silly, and obviously designed :) to provoke outrage. Dawkins is a rabble-rowser, no doubt about that.

I don't think that Sir Richard is behind this.
As far as I can see there is just a link on his site.

Date: 2006/12/20 13:01:10, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 20 2006,12:44)
Ah! Thank you for the correction.  ;)

You are most welcome. I don't think Dawkins even posted the link himself. I am uncertain on that as I am relying on memory only and I had partaken of a few glasses of wine when I read it. Just tried looking but could not find who posted the link.

I dislike the whole idea myself. What does it mean if somebody says something after being promised a reward for doing so? IMO it means as much as a big fat zero without the ring.

Date: 2006/12/21 06:02:02, Link
Author: Stephen Elliott
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 20 2006,21:51)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 20 2006,19:24)
Yep, it's official - VMartin and JAD are one and the same!   :D :D :D

I, for one, am shocked.  Utterly shocked.  Shocked, I say.

Well, not really.  There can't POSSIBLY be  **two**  people as nutty as JAD.

I also believe JAD and VMartin to be the same person but I don't see conclusive proof yet.

The thing that niggles me is that according to people who have access to the information, JAD and VMartin are using different ip adresses. I know this can be "fudged" but doubt if JAD has the computing expertise to achieve it.

So although I think that JAD=VMartin, it is entirely possible that this is incorrect. If it is JAD sockpupetry, JAD probably has a little helper. That leads to the question "who is so dimwitted/underemployed that they would have some competence in IT skills and the time+inclination to be JADs lacky"?

Date: 2006/12/22 06:06:49,