AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: The whole truth

form_srcid: The whole truth

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.231.221

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: The whole truth

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'The whole truth%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2012/01/23 00:15:51, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hello everyone :D

Date: 2012/01/23 01:28:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2012,23:00)
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 23 2012,00:15)
Hello everyone :D

Welcome, handsome.

Handsome? Moi? You're too kind.

Date: 2012/01/23 04:48:44, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 23 2012,02:34)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2012,03:10)
   
Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 22 2012,17:06)
You can't fool me.  You're really StephenB, aren't you?


I take extremely seriously all attempts to 'out' me. Threats have been made to Mrs Dobney and my family ... :angry:

Don't worry, Joe will chicken out just before he shows up in that car park.

Now it's a contest: Who will survive longer over at UD, Rumpelstilzchen Soapy Sam or The Whole Truth?

Welcome, TWH!


Thanks for the welcome Kattarina.

UD won't let me post there. I guess they can't handle the truth.  ;)

Date: 2012/01/23 08:15:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 23 2012,03:25)
Well, Cornelius provides good fun, too.


Yeah, Cornelius and his little flock of indoctrinated sheep are fun to prod and play with.

Date: 2012/01/23 19:23:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 23 2012,06:45)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 23 2012,08:15)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 23 2012,03:25)
Well, Cornelius provides good fun, too.


Yeah, Cornelius and his little flock of indoctrinated sheep are fun to prod and play with.

Yeah, it's an addiction.  I just don't feel right unless I get a cuss out from Joe in my inbox every morning.

Too bad he's too scared to say how he really feels on the UD board.

Also too bad that they refuse to actually discuss ID there.

You know what we ought to do.  We ought to start an ID board that actually talks about ID, presents coherent arguments, etc.  We could drive visitors from UD to our site.

We'd become the biggest pro-ID site in the world.  

Then, we tell everyone that, after all this time, we haven't actually found any evidence for ID and therefore must abandon it as a hypothesis.


The ultimate in sock puppetry... a whole puppet website.



Your idea of a puppet site is interesting. The hard part would be coming up with coherent arguments for ID.

I've noticed that joe has been dishing out a lot of insulting remarks on UD lately but as you say he's afraid to say what he really feels. It's entertaining to watch him cowardly dodge direct challenges from you and others to actually back up his claims. He always resorts to calling his opponents a coward even though he and the other IDiots are the ones who always run away from substantiating their claims.

The recent challenge from eigenstate to kairosfocus (gordon elliott mullings) that gordo is running away from as fast as he can is especially demonstrative of just how empty ID 'theory' is. gordo's dictatorial tantrums, and threats of disciplinary steps and beatings with "Mr. Leathers", not only show how crazy gordo is but also how bald his assertions are. gordo, joe, and the rest of the IDiots obviously think that just because they say it, everyone else better believe it, and that settles it, or else! Their dictatorial attitude is just like that of their imaginary god. In their feeble minds, they ARE god.

Date: 2012/01/23 21:46:59, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (eigenstate @ Jan. 23 2012,18:22)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 23 2012,17:45)
I present to you......

dFSCI!

gpuccio:
       
Quote
I have uploaded my scatterplot of Durston’s data about sequence length and functional complexity at imageshack. Here is the link:


It's a start! :p

Geez, I feel like an idiot -- maybe here's the place to receive my "twenty lashes" for getting suckered by gpuccio in taking this dFSCI nonsense seriously enough to critique it on info theory terms:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-11-borels-infinite-monkeys-analysis-and-the-significance-of-the-log-reduced




-chi-metric-chi_500-is-500/comment-page-1/#comment-416763]eigenstate is a chump[/URL]

Many years ago I had an acquaintance give me the whole schpiel on homeopathy. I was not familiar with the term, and for a good bit, was keenly interested, as this acquaintance wasn't talking about the formulation of homeopathic medicines, but discussed the "proven results", and how certain medicines had been found to be effective against particular ailments, with the novel insight that "like cures like".

Well, "like cures like" didn't match anything I knew about medicine (which, admittedly, isn't very much), but I kept listening, intently. At length, I got around to asking who made the medicine.

"We do", she said. "Although you don't have to make it yourself, you can buy it premade." Whereupon I learned that the cure for "mercury poisoning" per homeopathy was a 100,000:1 water dilution of mercury.

"You mean, all this is based on... you just..."

*face palm*

I have the exact same feeling now. dFSCI makes homeopathy look grounded by comparison. So gpuccio is the "homeopathic practitioner" of the ID world. That's too bad for him, but really, it's just an embarrassing joke on me to get led down the yellow brick road that far.

I am chump, I'm sorry to report.


I don't think you should feel like a chump at all. If anything you should feel good about the way you have dissected and exposed the absolute bullshit in the IDiot-babble that is spewed by gpuccio, kairosfocus, etc., and I must say that watching kairosfocus having his childish (and very revealing) meltdowns 'in the teeth' of your demolition of his bald assertions has been thoroughly enjoyable.

I appreciate you putting in the time and effort to take on the IDiots and showing how non-evidential and ridiculous their claims are, and I'm sure that many other people do too.

Date: 2012/01/25 03:36:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 24 2012,05:52)
Somebody's picking up bad habits from the IDC crowd.

On that site there's a link to "Fossils.me", and here's something I  found there:

creationist tard

Hmm, I wonder if boiled trilobite was served at the last supper?

Date: 2012/01/25 03:43:02, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 24 2012,14:53)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 22 2012,05:53)
Greetings, earthlings.

Let it be known that what is and isn't observable, by definitional fiat, must on that grounds alone (and with clear regard to the hidden agendas of those who would hoodwink us to think otherwise) be dismissed as beyond the remit of a priori materialistic investigation. This is verified as true by the massively empirically confirmed and warranted operation of design in the observable here-and-now. 500+ bits of dFCSI cannot be produced by stochastic means, though you can get a shave and a haircut for 2.

And BTW ID is not anti-evohlution. Just me. Liar. No, you're a liar.

Sorry, just coming up for air!

well come

i'll be fucked they are still making new ones

Rich has pointed out something very interesting.  The longer that Gordon E Mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat (also known as kairofocus and GEM of TKI among a litany of less flattering noms de plume) has steadied the helm of this tardship, the more his behavior has converged upon those previous stalwart captains, Davetard and Harry Barrington.  

Is this behavioral selection or psychological frontloading?  People with a lot more time than things to do are dying to know!


More like pant loading.

Date: 2012/01/25 04:44:36, Link
Author: The whole truth
Speaking of joe:

100
Joseph
March 30, 2011 at 10:29 am

MathGrrl:

   How exactly would one formulate a falsifiable hypothesis for a metric that cannot be measured even in theory?

(joe):   Information can be measured.

   Specification can be observed and perhaps measured.

   Complexity can be measured.


From here:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-csi-scanner-or-reasonable-and-unreasonable-demands-relating-

to-complex-specified-information/comment-page-4/#comments]joe's bald assertion[/URL]

Hey joe, I know you read this thread, so let's see you 'measure' the information, specification, and complexity in a banana, a frog, a pound of schist, a watermelon, a tick, a volcanic eruption, a cat whisker, a Uintathere skull, an iceberg, a one day old chicken embryo, and a human fingernail, and show your work.

Date: 2012/01/25 22:04:10, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 25 2012,12:30)
champignon [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-11-borels-infinite-monkeys-analysis-and-the-significance-of-the-log-reduced



-chi-metric-chi_500-is-500/comment-page-2/#comment-416928]summarizes the core failings of CSI[/URL] succinctly:
 
Quote
As promised, my reasons for rejecting CSI (and dFSCI and Chi_500, which are really the same) as a reliable indicator of design:

1. CSI is based on the probability of finding a target by blind search. Evolution does not work that way.

2. CSI assumes there is a specific target with a specific function. Evolution doesn’t aim at specific targets. Any variation that improves fitness will be favored by natural selection, regardless of what its function is. Whatever works, works as far as evolution is concerned.

3. CSI assumes that design is the default. In other words, if “chance and necessity” can’t be demonstrated, in detail, for a particular phenomenon, then Dembski claims that we are entitled to assume design by default.

4. Dembski glosses over the fact that if he wants CSI to definitively indicate design, what he calls “the chance hypothesis” has to encompass far more than mere blind search. It has to include all non-design ways in which the phenomenon in question could have arisen. He is not entitled to assume, for example, that evolution could not have produced the phenomenon. That, after all, is the very question that CSI is supposed to help us answer!

It’s quite pitiful, when you think about it. Ever since Darwin, people have tried to argue that “X is really, really complicated; I’ll bet it couldn’t have evolved.” CSI was supposed to give us a reliable way of identifying design. Instead, Dembski has simply defined CSI to stand in for “really, really complicated” in that ‘argument’, where “really complicated” means “couldn’t have been found by blind search.” Well, duh. The real question, both before Dembski and after, is “could it have evolved”?

CSI (and dFSCI and Chi_500) have changed nothing.

I know a number of people, particularly here and on the Panda's Thumb, have spent a great deal of time refuting Dembski's nonsense in detail, and those refutations are important.  However, this is one of the few times I've seen it written in words small enough for the typical UD denizen to comprehend.  Not that they will comprehend it, but they could.

Speaking of probability, I'm sure you're all well aware that the IDiots rely on the words: probability, possibility, plausibility, improbable, impossible, implausible, odds, and other similar words in their arguments for ID and against evolution.

There are MANY examples, but here are just a few:

35.1.1
Eugene S
January 25, 2012 at 5:48 am

“your argument depends on knowing”

Nothing of the sort. We argue from empirical observations in probabilistic terms. The only sound refutation of probabilistic arguments is to demonstate the 100% impossibility of something, which I am sure you understand is extremely hard (if not impossible). If one can’t do that, one should retain all hypotheses according to Bayes’s logic. I am not sure about Dembski, but ID in general does not preclude anything from happening a priori. This is exactly opposite with evolutionists’ vague reasoning. ID only shows from empirical observations that “natural” emergence (i.e. chance and necessity without choice contingency) of the thing in question is implausible (not improbable but implausible). What’s wrong with that?

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-11-borels-infinite-monkeys-analysis-and-the-significance-of-the-log-reduced


-chi-metric-chi_500-is-500/comment-page-2/#comment-417012]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-417012[/URL]


And here are some from kairosfocus (gordon elliott mullings):

"On the face of it, utterly implausible."

"The OOL question must not be begged; it decides the balance of plausibilities."

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-csi-scanner-or-reasonable-and-unreasonable-demands-relating-


to-complex-specified-information/comment-page-5/#comments]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments[/URL]

"Now, 128^25 = 4.79*10^52, i.e. we see that a feasible search can approach something that is isolated to 1 in 10^50 or so of a config space. But, when we move the space to 1 in 10^301 or more [1,000 bits worth of configs], the entire resources of the observable cosmos, working at the fastest physically plausible rates, for its thermodynamic lifespan cannot credibly sample over 1 in 10^150 of the space. A practical zero."

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-csi-scanner-or-reasonable-and-unreasonable-demands-relating-


to-complex-specified-information/comment-page-7/#comments]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments[/URL]

"If you look at a hardware NAND, it is practically impossible to arrive at an island of function by chance on the gamut of the solar system’s resources."

"In short, we have inappropriate extrapolation of a model beyond its generously plausible limits [micro-evo] to something it is profoundly and patently dis-analogous to, the claimed spontaneous origin of body plans by chance variation and differential reproductive success [body plan level macro evo]."

"High contingency, the source of variation, traces to chance or choice. Chance, here is confronted by vast spaces of possibilities, overwhelmingly non-functional; so choice — the known, directly observed source of codes, algorithms, data structures etc, is the best alternative,. At least, absent a priori materialist question-begging."    

I didn't keep track of where I found the three directly above but they are exact quotes.


Now, let's look at what gordo says about using an "implausibility" argument when someone challenges HIS assertions:

"So, given the stringency of the requirements for a logical contradiction to exist, and the clear want of demonstration in the chief example adduced, Evangelicals plainly have a right to insist that those who glibly allege "contradiction" on matters of import bear the burden of demonstrative proof beyond all reasonable doubt. And, if such debaters switch to "implausibility," we have a further right to challenge the underlying question-begging assumptions and to expose the associated self-refuting philosophical ideas."

http://www.angelfire.com/pro........#broadr


Well then, it looks like "we" have a further right to challenge the underlying question-begging assumptions and to expose the associated self-refuting philosophical ideas of gordo and the rest of the IDiots.
:D

Date: 2012/01/25 22:08:36, Link
Author: The whole truth
I see that my links didn't turn out well. What's interesting is that when I previewed my post the first time the links displayed correctly, but when I clicked preview a second time (after fixing a typo) the links displayed as they do above.

Date: 2012/01/25 22:27:39, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 25 2012,20:20)
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 25 2012,22:08)
I see that my links didn't turn out well. What's interesting is that when I previewed my post the first time the links displayed correctly, but when I clicked preview a second time (after fixing a typo) the links displayed as they do above.

Try tinyurl to shorten any link address. In addition, you may try the "quote" button above before and after you paste any text you wat to cite.

Hi sparc, thanks for the advice.

Date: 2012/01/25 22:56:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
gpuccio:

"I am absolutely against censorship, especially religious one. So, we can agree on that, at least."

bullshit

Yeah, he's so against censorship that he spews his gibberish from within the UD sanctuary, where censorship of opposing comment (and banning) is common. Of course he's "especially" against "religious" censorship. Duh.

When he said "especially" he really meant 'specifically'. And I don't think that EL ever said that she is "especially" against religious censorship, so his "we can agree on that" is a distortion.

Date: 2012/01/26 00:05:10, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 25 2012,06:20)
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 25 2012,04:44)
Speaking of joe:

100
Joseph
March 30, 2011 at 10:29 am

MathGrrl:

   How exactly would one formulate a falsifiable hypothesis for a metric that cannot be measured even in theory?

(joe):   Information can be measured.

   Specification can be observed and perhaps measured.

   Complexity can be measured.


From here:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-csi-scanner-or-reasonable-and-unreasonable-demands-relating-




to-complex-specified-information/comment-page-4/#comments]joe's bald assertion[/URL]

Hey joe, I know you read this thread, so let's see you 'measure' the information, specification, and complexity in a banana, a frog, a pound of schist, a watermelon, a tick, a volcanic eruption, a cat whisker, a Uintathere skull, an iceberg, a one day old chicken embryo, and a human fingernail, and show your work.

You are new here aren't you?  ;)

Joe will respond with his classic, "I'll do that when you provide evidence to support your position."*



* Of course, "your" position is the one that Joe wishes you had because then he could argue about it.  "your" position has actually nothing to do with what you actually think... or have evidence to support.

Hi Ogre, I'm sure that joe will avoid my challenge and resort to what you said. He always does. I just want to remind him that no one with a clue is buying into his bald assertions, like these:

"The criteria for complexity, specification and information are more rigorouly laid down than the anti-ID position."

And:

"ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems."

on this page

Since neither joe nor any other IDiot can 'measure' or 'calculate' the "CSI" in anything in nature, the "three premises" of ID are baseless.


Hey joe, since you're undoubtedly reading this, you really should pay attention to some of your own words.

"Bald claims are meaningless to science."

From here

"Science requires POSITIVE evidence...."

From here

"That means you have to produce POSITIVE evidence for what you claim can/ did happen."

From here

"Do you know what evidence is?"

From here

"The burden is on anyone making a claim."

From here

And one more thing for now, joe. You said this to Zachriel:

"I think that it is hilarious that you think you are someone who can demand an answer from me."

Here

Zachriel didn't "demand" anything from you, and what's really hilarious is that you think that you are someone who can demand not only answers from scientists, but that science must cater to your asinine religious beliefs and change its entire direction of research and explanations just to please you IDiot creationists. It ain't gonna happen, joe.

Date: 2012/01/26 00:29:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
I forgot to add that joe was going by the username "ID guy" on Telic Thoughts when he made his remark to Zachriel.

Date: 2012/01/26 02:04:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
My local PBS TV station has been broadcasting some very interesting shows on Wednesday evenings lately. I hope you're all watching and enjoying them. They include:

Nature
Nova
Inside Nature's Giants  (with Richard Dawkins)
History Of Science (How Did We Get Here?)

Date: 2012/01/27 03:13:16, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 26 2012,04:28)
Truth,

Joe is not just another IDiot. He is one of a kind.


In that case he's monobaraminic, or more accurately, moronbaraminic.  :)

Date: 2012/01/27 03:59:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 26 2012,16:46)
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 26 2012,06:20)
Another JoeG classic:

 
Quote
Lenski might as well be a creationist studying baraminology.

But Joe supporrts baraminology, so isn't that a positive for Lenski, according to his own beliefs?

(I know, expecting Joe to make sense or not contradict himself is pretty Idiotic, but still...ya' gotta have standards, even if he doesn't)

It may be that joe is saying that Lenski might as well be a creationist studying baraminology because joe would claim that Lenski has only managed to make E. coli bacteria micro-evolve into slightly different E. coli bacteria of the same 'kind', and that the difference is simply activation (via Lenski's influences/experiments) of whatever was front loaded into the E. coli bacteria by the designer/creator.  

And speaking of joe's contradictions, baraminology is based on biblical six-day creation, yet joe says that he's not a YEC:

"A baramin is a lineage of earthly life which is believed by Young Earth Creationists to be created by God during the creation week..."

"The term baramin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind)."

"Creation science and Creationism

Creationism • Intelligent Design • Creation Science • Christianity and Science • Baraminology • Flood Geology • Irreducible Complexity • Young Earth Creationism • Old Earth Creationism • Duane Gish • Creation •"

Insanity

And more:

god-did-it

tard

Date: 2012/01/27 05:16:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
I  just read this page...

What a nut

...and it got me to thinking about something. You're all probably aware that the IDiots just love to call anyone who doesn't agree with them "Darwinists", in a derogatory way, and they either look for or dishonestly conjure up anything they can to associate bad things and bad people with Darwin and "Darwinists", even though those things or people have nothing to do with Darwin, "Darwinists", or evolutionary theory in any way.

So, maybe those of us who are not IDiots should refer to them as Marshists. After all, they obviously believe that every 'kind' of organism was created by their chosen god, and are not related by common descent/ancestry. In other words, they are baramin believers, whether they admit it or not, and since Frank Marsh came up with the baramin stuff, they could be called Marshists.

Notice this on that page:

"Marsh claimed that Satan is a "master geneticist" and speculated that almagamation and hybridization are his ways of destroying the original harmony and perfection among living things. Marsh viewed the black skin of Negroes as one the "abnormalities" engineered in this diabolical way."

Maybe the IDiots should be called Marsh-racists.

Date: 2012/01/28 01:15:29, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 27 2012,20:31)
I had recalled that there was a thread devoted to Paul Nelson, but I could not find it with the search function.

A few here might be interested that Paul is the first, and apparently only, faculty member for the "Master of Arts in Science and Religion" (MASR) program at Biola.
A sample of courses;
 
Quote
CSSR 530 – Darwin, Evolution, & Design

A survey of the issues and ideas involved in relating classical Darwinian and contemporary evolutionary models with a biblical worldview. Special emphasis is given to controversies that are used by skeptics to call Christian theism into question.

CSSR 631 – Modern Physics, Cosmology, & Design

A survey of the issues and ideas involved in relating modern physics and astronomy to a biblical worldview. Special emphasis is given to controversies that are used by skeptics to call Christian theism into question.

CSSR 652 – Human Origins Seminar

An in-depth focus on the current archaeological, anthropological, and biochemical evidence related to the debate on human origins.

CSSR 653 – Origins of Life Seminar

A detailed review of the current evidence, models and mechanisms relating to chemical evolution and the origin of life.



In all honesty, I am far more qualified than Paul.   :D
(Except for that young earth creationist problem he has).

In other academic news, a press release from Arizona State boasted about their new hire, PT Meister Reed Cartwright.

Bravo!

That puts nelson, craig, dembski, and hunter all under the same roof. And speaking of hunter, check out his first name on this page:

tard university

Date: 2012/01/28 03:34:18, Link
Author: The whole truth
Can anyone here tell me why I can't post anything on Panda's Thumb? I've tried every way I can think of and nothing works. I've tried Open ID, Google sign in, Wordpress sign in, Blogger sign in, etc. I've conversed with Reed Cartright via email, with no remedy.

When I try to post there I get the comment page, I type my comment, I click preview and the preview shows up, I click submit and then this shows up:

"Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Invalid request", in red letters.

Date: 2012/01/28 04:49:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 28 2012,02:36)
KF:
 
Quote
BA: Sadly revealing as to what is going on behind the cleverly toxic talking points and accusations that are so often pushed by the very same New Atheist circles and spokesmen. Let me add to your list, (a) the 101 survey here on the underlying historically grounded credibility of the gospel, and (b) the similarly introductory survey here on warrant for a specifically orthodox Christian theistic view in a selectively hyperskeptical (and too often indoctrination and closed-mindedness-driven) age, with (c ) the response on issues of the real and imagined sins of Christendom here also (which includes exposing the twisted attempt to lay the one generally acknowledged case of unmitigated evil in our civilisation at the feet of the Christian Faith). I trust these will help inquiring onlookers, and I trust that the expose of the nurturing of that sort of asp in one’s bosom as seen in the original post will draw attention to what is really going on in the New Atheist anger-driven fever swamps. Cf here as well for the online version of an expose of the new atheists (also available from Amazon). KF


GCUGreyArea:
 
Quote
KF is sadly revealing and perpetrating what is going on behind the cleverly toxic talking points and accusations that are so often pushed by the very same ID Creationist circles and spokesmen. Let me list, (a ) the open calls by Christians to kill atheists, and (b ) the atheist hate themed video game encouraging genocide against christ deniers (and crafted for the purpose of indoctrination to drive closed-mindedness and hatred), and (c ) the response on issues of the real and imagined sins of Atheists by KF also (which includes the twisted attempt to lay the one generally acknowledged case of unmitigated evil in our civilization at the feet of the Atheists and Darwin). I trust these will help inquiring onlookers, and I trust that the expose of the nurturing of that sort of asp in one’s bosom will draw attention to what is really going on in the Christian Fundamentalist anger-driven fever swamps.

Cf here as well for another example of hate driven persecution of atheists by theists.

ttfn.

Could anyone possibly be more two-faced, dishonest, and crazier than kairosfocus (gordon elliott mullings)?

I'm glad that GCUGreyArea spoke up, but I have a feeling that a banning is about to take place.

Date: 2012/01/28 05:47:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
A look into the mind of a lunatic (kairosfocus, posting with the username "Dictionary"):

From this thread:  

Delusional arrogant IDiot creationist


Dictionary | December 28, 2009 at 8:05 PM |

PS: And, remember just what you are mucking around with when you start to play footsie with pagan gods.

[And on this subject the real authority is Jesus of Nazareth; the risen Christ. he took demons very seriously and he has the resurrection from the dead with 500+ witnesses to prove that he know what he was talking about. Acts 19:8-20]

PPS: My recommendation is that you go find yourself a solid pastor who knows what he is dealing with, if you have been playing footsie with pagan gods. No joke!


Dictionary | December 29, 2009 at 1:49 AM |

Prof GP:

I see BU college is again in session, lead professor in charge.

Now that the Egyptian paganism front is in abeyance for the moment, a few notes on 2 Pet 3, bearing in mind the earlier survey of eschatology in the Deception thread, Dec 16 here:

1 –> Titus 2:11 – 14 gives a parallel pattern to 1 Jn 3:1 – 3, Heb 10, Eph 4:17 – 24 ff, etc, for how we should walk in this age, and indeed gives an outline of Christian Discipleship in a nutshell (one that would to God the church in our region would heed):

   Titus 22:1 But as for you, communicate the behavior that goes with1 sound teaching . . . .

   2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people.16 2:12 It trains us17 to reject godless ways18 and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing19 of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.20 2:14 He21 gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his,22 who are eager to do good.23 2:15 So communicate these things with the sort of exhortation or rebuke24 that carries full authority.25 Don’t let anyone look down26 on you.

2 –> So, the course of discipleship is one of participating in the community of liberating and transforming truth through the gospel working by love in the Spirit’s power and the purity of God, based on his Word. (Note the vital four-point balance: love, truth, power, purity. IT IS UNATTAINABLE OUTSIDE OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD.)

3 –> And, the mark of that mind and way of life is one that confidently looks to the Eternal Kingdom that is already in the world but not yet at culmination. That certain culmination is ever imminent and yet we know that “a day is with the Lord as 1,000 years for us”; i.e. God is eternal.

4 –> From Ac 17 and Heb 6:1 – 2, we know too that a foundational “ABC” teaching of the gospel the resurrection of Jesus is a deposit-payment on that resurrection at his Appearing, and will lead on to Eternal Judgement. That “by the man revealed” through resurrection from the dead. So, we are stewards of God in our generation at any given time, with the imminence of the appearing before God — whether global or personal. (For, once we face death, we face resurrection and judgement; all guaranteed by the resurrection of Christ, with 500+ witnesses.)

5 –> Thus, it is no surprise that mockers would come, to distract us from that hope, and to lead us into the ways of the world; in the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye and the pride of life. [1 Jn 2:15 - 17.]

6 –> And, one anchor to their materialism, their this-worldliness, is that they try to twist the blessings of science into a story that ignores the warning of Job 38: we were not there when the foundations of the world were laid, so we do not and cannot know the deep past by our own speculations on what we see. But, soon, instead of listening to and heeding the counsel of Him who was there [for he is our Creator-Sustainer] such men would darken God’s counsels by words without knowledge; falsely presented as SCIENTIA — literally, “knowledge.”

7 –> Little do these men reckon with the fact that [Jn 1:1 - 14] in the beginning the LOGOS –Reason Himself, Communication Himself, Wisdom Himself — was, and was with God and Was God, and that he made all things and without him was not anything made that was made. So, it is no surprise that we find intricate, life facilitating finetuning and organised complexity in the physics of the cosmos, and that we find the same in life, complete with language and algorithmic processing in the heart of the cell and in its biochemistry! Not to mention in the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematical and logical reasoning in revealing he splendours of the design of the world from microscopic to cosmic levels. Thus also, the unreasonable effectiveness of our minds and the voice of our consciences testify tot he Lord who made us and calls us to the ways of the truth and the right in love.

8 –> And, in the face of the chaos caused by our sins and permitted by God to stir us and remind us to reach out to him, however blindly [Ac 17], such men make up a different eschatology: progress to paradise on earth, by science, by technology, by clever political and bureaucratic messiahs; now in a unified global Babylon-ish world system.

9 –> Just as in the days of Nimrod, so soon as men were willing to forget the Flood!

10 –> The same flood that Peter reminds us [cf 1 Peter 3:18 - 22, and of course vv 5 - 7 in 2 Pet 3!], cataclysmed the world of those days, a world that spent 120 years mocking the preacher of righteousness as he built that which defied the way of the world since “time immemorial.” A FLOOD, on dry land like this — what nonsense! Rain? Rubbish, never happened, won’t happen. let’s get on with “real life: eating, drinking, making merry, revellings, marrying and being given in marriage etc etc. (And, BTW, science fiction is in large part the eschatology of this materialistic and/or neo-pagan view, including the social science version that spawned the horrendous messianic millennial myths of the last century, marxism and Fascism. today’s techno-fictions are often much the same, projecting a wonderful future in the stars without God; whose teachings and lessons and warnings are conveniently forgotten. Out of sight, out of mind. Not to mention the projection of cooked computer scenarios to trigger panics and to bring us to welcome the waiting global enviro- economo- socio- political messiahs. [Cf my Dec 17 remarks on Cecil Rhodes and his heirs, here, in the Deception thread!)

11 --> Only a small remnant was saved then [only 8 out of millions! so stubborn were men's hearts and so closed were their minds], and relatively speaking the same may yet happen. That is, we must beware!

12 –> So also, we can see that THE APOSTLE PETER, ON THE EVE OF HIS MARTYRDOM, PROPHESIED THE PRECISE CLUSTER OF ISSUES THAT HAS BEEN AT THE FOCUS OF DEBATE HERE AT BU IN RECENT WEEKS.

Merest coincidence?

I doubt it!

So, let us think very carefully on these things. (And Prof GP’s exposition of 2 Peter 3 is a good place to begin.)

D


#
Dictionary | December 29, 2009 at 1:57 AM |

PS: Remember the awful significance of shutting one’s eyes to the truth one knows or should know — as the prophesied mockers of 2 Pet 3 do — as discussed also in the Deception thread, Dec 15, here. Resemblance to some of what has been going on at BU for months is NOT coincidental. So, mockers, take heed; and, repent before it is too late! Eternally, too late . .

-----------
And:

"Onlookers, let me simply again cite on the historicity of Jesus from external corroborative record, through Paul Barnett’s summary:

   On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions:

   1. Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 – 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 – 36). [Tacitus]
   2. The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus]
   3. Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer]
   4. His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny]
   5. He was called “the Christ.” [Josephus]
   6. His followers were called “Christians.” [Tacitus, Pliny]
   7. They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny]
   8. It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer]
   9. His brother was James. [Josephus]

   [Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31.] "

And:

"On the strength of that historical record and resulting supernatural power that is present and active all around us on the terms of the promises of the Scriptures, we know or should know that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord of life, Lord of Death, Light of the World, reason Himself, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

13 –> So, as the magisterial late John Wenham [author of the famous Gk textbook, Codrington College monitors . . .] put it in his Christ and the Bible, we have every right to hold the same attitude to the Scriptures (especially the Tanakh, i.e. Old Testament — including the Septuagint translation that the apostles so freely used!) and the testimony of Jesus’ apostles.

14 –> To wit:

   Jn 10:35b: “the scripture cannot be broken”

   Mt 22:22:29 Jesus32 answered them, “You are deceived,33 because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God . . . 22:31 Now as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God,35 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?36 He is not the God of the dead but of the living!”37 [i.e. he subtly but powerfully exegetes a text in the OT, in Exodus 3:6 . . . authenticating the record of Moshe!] 22:33 When the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching.

   Lk 12:12:11 . . . when they bring you [esp. the apostles, but more broadly those who are his] before the synagogues,26 the27 rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense28 or what you should say, 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment29 what you must say.”30

   Jn 14: 14:16 Then36 I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate37 to be with you forever – 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept,38 because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides39 with you and will be40 in you . . . . 14:25 “I have spoken these things while staying58 with you. 14:26 But the Advocate,59 the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you60 everything,61 and will cause you to remember everything62 I said to you."

---------------------

And:

"17 –> For, God is gracious and has given us many points of evidence whereby we may see just how credible and authentic — thus trustworthy and authoritative (even as as a top class dictionary is trustworthy and authoritative) — is the witness of the Scriptures, NT and OT."

---------------------------------------

There's a lot more of gordo's science hating, evangelical/fundamentalist religious insanity on the Barbados Underground site.

Date: 2012/01/28 10:16:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 28 2012,05:18)
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 28 2012,03:34)
Can anyone here tell me why I can't post anything on Panda's Thumb? I've tried every way I can think of and nothing works. I've tried Open ID, Google sign in, Wordpress sign in, Blogger sign in, etc. I've conversed with Reed Cartright via email, with no remedy.

When I try to post there I get the comment page, I type my comment, I click preview and the preview shows up, I click submit and then this shows up:

"Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Invalid request", in red letters.

Have you tried a different browser? What is the browser, OS, etc. that you are using?

I'm using Vista and the latest version of Firefox. I also tried with an older version of Firefox.

I'm going to be off line pretty soon, until later tonight.

Date: 2012/01/28 22:35:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 28 2012,09:44)
That is an All-Star Lineup Of The Stupid!!!

BTW - This pic came up when i googled "Cornelius Hunter:



LOL!

Date: 2012/01/28 23:20:57, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2012,11:56)
         
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 27 2012,22:31)
I had recalled that there was a thread devoted to Paul Nelson, but I could not find it with the search function.

A few here might be interested that Paul is the first, and apparently only, faculty member for the "Master of Arts in Science and Religion" (MASR) program at Biola.
A sample of courses;
           
Quote
CSSR 530 – Darwin, Evolution, & Design

A survey of the issues and ideas involved in relating classical Darwinian and contemporary evolutionary models with a biblical worldview. Special emphasis is given to controversies that are used by skeptics to call Christian theism into question.

CSSR 631 – Modern Physics, Cosmology, & Design

A survey of the issues and ideas involved in relating modern physics and astronomy to a biblical worldview. Special emphasis is given to controversies that are used by skeptics to call Christian theism into question.

CSSR 652 – Human Origins Seminar

An in-depth focus on the current archaeological, anthropological, and biochemical evidence related to the debate on human origins.

CSSR 653 – Origins of Life Seminar

A detailed review of the current evidence, models and mechanisms relating to chemical evolution and the origin of life.



In all honesty, I am far more qualified than Paul.   :D
(Except for that young earth creationist problem he has).

In other academic news, a press release from Arizona State boasted about their new hire, PT Meister Reed Cartwright.

Bravo!

Nelson doesn't teach the human origins seminar Instead it is taught by an old earth creationist who "...does not believe that the scientific record supports biological descent from a common ape-like ancestor."

The required reading/viewing is:

           
Quote
Textbooks:

   Fazale, Rana, and Hugh Ross. 2005. Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.
   Klein, Richard G., and Blake Edgar. 2002. The Dawn of Human Culture: A Bold New Theory on What Sparked the "Big Bang" of Human Consciousness. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
   Lubenow, Marvin L. 2004. Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. Revised and expanded ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
   Miller, Keith B. 2003. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

DVDs:

   “DNA vs. The Book of Mormon.” 2003. (50 min. online Video Stream) Brigham City, UT: Living Hope Ministries. (see this web page: http://www.mscbc.org/video......ed.htm)
   “Journey of Man, The Story of the Human Species.” 2003. (DVD) directed by Clive Maltby and Spencer Wells. Bethesda, MD: PBS

On that page at the Biola site it says:

"Course Objectives / Learning Outcomes

After successfully completing this course students will have:

   Summarized recent scientific advances in human-origins research
   Explained the major ideas in human evolution
   Critically evaluated the human evolutionary paradigm
   Differentiated between various approaches used by Christians to integrate the biblical and scientific accounts of humanity's origin
   Critically evaluated Christian human origins models from scientific and biblical perspective"  (my emphasis)

In other words, the students will learn how to spew ridiculous, dishonest bullshit to integrate the biblical and scientific accounts of humanity's origin fool themselves and other gullible sheep into thinking that their fairy tale religious beliefs can be legitimately mixed with, or completely supported by, scientific reality.

These are pretty funny:

"Prerequisites

None

Relation to Curriculum

M.A. Science and Religion elective.

Final Examination

No"

I'm sure that they prefer students who have little to no previous science education. It's much easier to brainwash them that way.

Date: 2012/01/29 03:22:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Lookey what I found:

kairosfocus

kairosfocus 2

He's in both of those threads, and may be in others on that site.

Date: 2012/01/29 06:48:08, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 29 2012,01:56)
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 29 2012,04:22)
Lookey what I found:

kairosfocus

kairosfocus 2

He's in both of those threads, and may be in others on that site.

Best moment was when I realized these particular specimens of Gordon's wounded bleating are five years old.

You'd think that he might have learned something in those five years but he's still bleating the same old shit. I've been reading some of his stuff from as far back as 2004 and he hasn't really changed since then, except maybe to more carefully choreograph his dictatorial sermons, depending on where he's preaching them. For instance, I've noticed that pretty much everything he says is a convoluted mess of religious crap mixed with sciency sounding gobbledegook, but at UD he tries harder to sound sciency. At some other sites he hasn't held back on the religious preaching.

I get the impression that he must think that if ID can make headway at being accepted as a scientific inference/hypothesis/theory, that it will open the door to the eventual replacement of science (or at least the evolution pertinent aspects of it) with his entire religious beliefs and Dominionist agenda. From what I've seen, all of the IDiots think that way. Like a pushy door to door salesman, they won't take no for an answer, and they are arrogantly putting their foot in the door to try to 'wedge' it open so that they can manipulate or force themselves and their sales pitch all the way in.

I think that they see science, and especially the ToE, as a threat to their beliefs and agenda, and as a very 'tough customer' that simply must be persuaded (or forced) to buy the bullshit they're trying to sell.

Date: 2012/01/30 10:08:06, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 30 2012,04:59)
champignon gives kairosfocus some much needed correction here:
 
Quote
I’m ashamed to say that when I read Gil’s post and your subsequent comments, I actually believed that the songwriter was expressing approval of the burning of synagogues. I figured that you and Gil couldn’t possibly be brazen enough to quote mine the song lyrics, particularly when anyone could look them up online. Well, you and Gil have stooped that low, and you can bet I won’t be assuming your honesty in the future.

and here:
 
Quote
Onlookers,

Imagine the outcry from kairosfocus if an atheist had quotemined a Christian song in order to smear Christianity. We’d get 500+ indignant lines talking about how “evo mat” amorality was leading to the destruction of civilization.

What hypocrisy.

Could this be the combination of posts that finally increase the pressure in kairosfocus head beyond the structural limits of his skull?


Uh oh!

Date: 2012/01/30 10:25:19, Link
Author: The whole truth
Just in case you haven't seen this mess:

Massive tard

Date: 2012/01/30 11:00:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 30 2012,08:31)
 
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 30 2012,04:59)
champignon gives kairosfocus some much needed correction here:
     
Quote
I’m ashamed to say that when I read Gil’s post and your subsequent comments, I actually believed that the songwriter was expressing approval of the burning of synagogues. I figured that you and Gil couldn’t possibly be brazen enough to quote mine the song lyrics, particularly when anyone could look them up online. Well, you and Gil have stooped that low, and you can bet I won’t be assuming your honesty in the future.

and here:
     
Quote
Onlookers,

Imagine the outcry from kairosfocus if an atheist had quotemined a Christian song in order to smear Christianity. We’d get 500+ indignant lines talking about how “evo mat” amorality was leading to the destruction of civilization.

What hypocrisy.

Could this be the combination of posts that finally increase the pressure in kairosfocus head beyond the structural limits of his skull?

Nah.  This is the combination of posts that makes Gordshite stick his fingers and sing "la la la I can't hear you".  Again.
   
Quote
5.1 kairosfocus January 29, 2012 at 2:56 am
Gil: a serious and sobering point, given the above. I note that we see no serious response on your expose of promotion of synagogue and church burning. KF

To gordo, a "serious response" is defined as complete, obedient agreement with all of his lies, distortions, dictatorial commands, and sermons, and his attacks on evolutionary materialists, methodological naturalists, scientists, atheists, and anyone else he demonizes.

Date: 2012/01/31 22:47:28, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 31 2012,08:59)
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 31 2012,14:40)
     
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 31 2012,08:58)
     
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 31 2012,12:46)
One wonders how such arrogance survives contact with reality which continuously emphasizes how unfounded it is.

I think you're missing the point.

The arrogance is the means by which the intrusive demands of reality are kept at bay.

What is being protected is a fairly narrowly drawn (and that with both eyes closed while holding a damp crayon) tribalistic identity. 'Us' versus 'The Unspeakable Others', as it were.

Fair point, but kairosfocus appears to take it to the next level.  He's certainly fearful of the Other (although one might wish he found it more unspeakable).  What comes across more strongly to me is his profound resistance to admitting error.  His capacity for self-reflection and learning seems limited to the point of non-existence.

In the post referenced, for example, he continues on to attack the band that wrote the lyrics he quote mined.  This strikes me as a characteristically childish response, ignoring or taking offense at criticism without even considering that it might be valid.

While kairosfocus' intelligence, education, and integrity are more than questionable, his ability to survive cognitive dissonance that would overwhelm other minds is pretty impressive.

That suggests to me - PhD, Psych (Arm-Chr) - that there is a corresponding lack of confidence in his tribal identity!

Perhaps he has nightmares....

One of gordo's nightmares:

"I keep having a nightmare in which the demon locusts of Rev get made in some biowar lab and escape: human genes to give intelligence, scorpion ones to give the sting in the tail, locust ones to give the multiplication and the wings, etc."

"Rev" stands for the book of revelation in the bible.

Date: 2012/02/02 08:29:09, Link
Author: The whole truth
"Dembski is a world-renowned philosopher, mathematician, and theologian, whose path-breaking book, The Design Inference (Cambridge UP, 1998), is one of the foundational texts in the intelligent-design critique of the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution."

From here

World renowned? LMAO! I think it's safe to say that 99.999999999999999999999% of the world's population has never hear of that dumbass.

Path breaking? Yeah, a path to a cesspool of tard.

Date: 2012/02/02 08:33:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
Yep, hear is supposed to be heard. Someone give me an edit button!   :)

Date: 2012/02/02 09:14:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Feb. 01 2012,15:53)
And now an insane interlude: Joe has started to obsess about UFOs all over the place and has finally found a kindred soul.    
Quote
Strange that in a thread about space aliens no one wants to talk about the evidence for UFOs.

Bruce David agrees:
   
Quote
Or the substantial evidence that the vast majority of the more than 10,000 crop circles reported since the ’80s could not have been produced by any known human technology.

Those two IDiots are really showing the type of loons that are attracted to the ID agenda.

Maybe a sock could ask joe and bruce if they have been captured and 'probed' by aliens, and what they think about Bigfoot, Abominable Snowmen, the Loch Ness Monster, dinosaurs allegedly still living in jungles, fire breathing dragons, monsters under their beds, vampires, alien body snatchers, von Däniken, demons, angels, the 'face' and 'canals' on Mars, whether Elvis is still alive and performing on another planet, whether there are amazon women on other planets, whether aliens built all the big pyramids or anything else on Earth, and other important scientific questions?  ;)

Pressing joe for more of his beliefs about the Coral Castle should be good for more laughs too.

Date: 2012/02/02 23:05:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 02 2012,06:59)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 02 2012,08:29)
From here

World renowned? LMAO! I think it's safe to say that 99.999999999999999999999% of the world's population has never heard of that dumbass.

Path breaking? Yeah, a path to a cesspool of tard.

Went there but after a few clicks, spotting morphodyke I got out faster than lightning.

Beg pardon for slight edit of qoute;-)

By "morphodyke", do you mean the lovely and sweet dense o'leary?

:p

Date: 2012/02/04 10:07:43, Link
Author: The whole truth
An expose on gordon e mullings (kairosfocus):

Lies and hypocrisy

Date: 2012/02/04 11:07:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 04 2012,08:12)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2012,20:24)

Diffaxial posted about eight months or so during which he had some blistering exchanges, particularly with StephenB. To be honest, after all that I was surprised when he was banned. He was reincarnated a few more months as Voice Coil. A few other characters sounded suspiciously like him, and made only brief appearances.

Some time later Clive Hayden, who moderated UD during that period (but seems to be missing in action for the last six months or so), entered a discussion on moderation at UD that arose at Biologos. You can read his post-hoc rationalizations here. The discussion starts on comment page 19 and continues to the end of the thread.

Cool, thanks. The exchanges with StephenB I remember well. Hadn't seen the back forth with Hayden at Biologos, so that'll be something interested to go read.

I'm particularly interested in which UD partisans venture out of the safe confines of UD and how they fare when they do. I know DaveScot didn't do too well when he didn't have the Banninator in hand. It would be entertaining to see Arrington or KF or Upright Biped have to operate on more neutral ground.

Very few of the IDiots on UD venture outside of their echo-chamber sanctuary. kairosfocus and ba77 occasionally show up on corny hunter's blog but only to make their usual dictatorial sermons and then they run back to UD or their own blogs.

I came across this:

matteo

Scroll down to the Hear, Hear post.

Date: 2012/02/05 10:40:31, Link
Author: The whole truth
I could have sworn that gordon e mullings (kairosfocus) says that ID isn't a religious/political agenda:

The dictatorial insanity of a fundamentalist wacko

gordo has also said that foreigners shouldn't try to interfere with the politics of another country. gordo is not a resident or citizen of Sweden or any of the other 'foreign' countries whose politics he regularly tries to barge into.

Date: 2012/02/05 10:51:43, Link
Author: The whole truth
See this too:

gordo says atheists are evil

Date: 2012/02/05 12:57:59, Link
Author: The whole truth
5.1
Joe
February 5, 2012 at 8:50 am

Elizabeth,

If evos really want to make an impact on science they need to test actual stochastic hypotheses and aim for proper high-impact factor journals with rigorous peer-review. If the work is validly done, it will be published. But it needs to be good science.

But fisrt they need to actually produce testable hypotheses…



blustering dumbshit

--------------------------------

Jealous much, joe?

You're trying awfully hard to ignore the fact that many thousands of "good science" papers have been and will continue to be published by "evos" in "proper high-impact factor journals with rigorous peer-review". Closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears while muttering la la la la la la doesn't change that FACT.

The only place where your IDiotic bald assertions could be appropriately published is in the Sunday funnies.

By the way joe, here's a reminder of a word that crushes your assertions (and behe's, torley's, dembski's, etc.) about designed IC in a system: ecosystem. You ran away from the IC thread at Sandwalk. Why is that? Aren't you confident in your "position"?

Date: 2012/02/05 13:23:51, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 02 2012,09:27)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 02 2012,08:05)
   
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 01 2012,20:19)
*Gloat*


My new digs. I got snookered into completing a book review on short notice this week, plus putting together an application for a scholarship to a Air 'n' Space Museum conference due today, plus working both jobs, plus packing. Ahhhh! But here we are, with delivered pizza and drinks in our new place, plus two freaked out cats. It's so quiet you can hear the deer exhale! :)

Sweet!

What's the scholarship to the Air n Space Museum conference all about? Just curious since they (well...the Udvar Hazy Center at Dulles and the Main center in DC) are in my backyard.

It's through the local archives round table - it is offering a scholarship for any local archivist to visit a conference, and I chose the Mutual Concerns of Air and Space Museums on the recommendation of a former co-worker at NASM. (I'm not working as an archivist yet, but volunteering at a small aviation museum on top of everything else.)

Even if I get the $$$ I can only pop into DC on Friday, because I must introduce one speaker for my DNA Day celebration on Thursday night, then come back and introduce another on Saturday night! *Gack*

The people I worked with as an intern (NASM Archives Division) have made their move to Udvar-Hazy. I have yet to visit that facility. Have you been? Are you going to watch the Discovery arrival? :)

Oh yeah, fnxtr and everyone, come visit! It's a big place - we needed more space for the orgies. ;)

Did you say orgies?

Date: 2012/02/06 01:21:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 05 2012,22:32)
From that master of turgid prose, KF:
 
Quote
What is conspicuously absent from those who are latching on to such statistics on nominal Christianity coupled to a want of serious discipleship or even serious attempts at discipleship that struggle to overcome a widespread cultural influence sanctioned by leading voices and institutions that shape views and perceptions in profound ways, is the just as valid and longstanding pattern of life and community transformation by living relationship with God in the communion of the saints, across 2,000 years with millions of cases, down to today.

And:
 
Quote
So also, above [and pardon if this post misses its proper place, I find the threading scheme a problem to work with . . . ], we have a case where evidence of just how corrosive evolutionary materialism and its wider influences through radical relativisation of thought and of morality are, has been transmuted into the false notion that serious living encounter with God through the risen Christ, the life transforming gospel, the indwelling and empowering of the poured our Spirit in the communion of the saints do not work.

All science so far!

Date: 2012/02/06 04:00:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 05 2012,13:32)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 05 2012,12:57)
5.1

blustering dumbshit



Joe:
       
Quote
Well the Bible says the universe had a beginning- IOW the “God scenario” made a prediction that science verified.

The god "scenario"?? Hmm, does "scenario" qualify as a scientific or theological term?  LOL


joe would say that taking a dump verifies his god's designer's existence.  

Holy shit!  :O

Date: 2012/02/06 04:10:26, Link
Author: The whole truth
I just thought of something. Why do joe and the other IDiots trust science when it comes to the Big Bang (the posited beginning of the universe) but not when it comes to evolution? There's actually a lot more evidence for evolution than for the Big Bang.

Oh wait, in their delusional pea brains the Big Bang somehow supports their religious 'I ain't no ape!' insanity but evolution doesn't. Silly me.

Date: 2012/02/06 22:45:07, Link
Author: The whole truth
2.1
Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012 at 8:33 am

  Since the talking point is that to point to the inherent amorality and moral absurdity of evolutionary materialism is to target atheists as always immoral and to blame such for all the worlds ills

No, this is your talking point. Nobody is making this connection except you.

What some of us are trying to point out is that your accusation that people you call “evolutionary materialists” promote an amoral and “morally absurd” worldview is false.

But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that.

It’s what you are saying that we are disputing.

We do not think our “worldview” is either amoral or morally absurd. In fact, some of us think that many Christian “worldviews” are, viz the moral absurdity of William Lane Craig claiming that an act that would normally be a wrong, e.g. genocide, is not wrong if it is commanded by God.

Moral absurdities don’t come much more morally absurd than that.


From here

--------------------------------------------------------


Okay, that does it. For quite awhile I've wondered what motivates you (Elizabeth Liddle) to even bother trying to discuss/debate anything with gordon mullings (kairosfocus), and I've also wondered if you have paid any attention to what he has been saying at UD, his blog, and elsewhere on the internet, for years, and whether you have standards that you're actually willing to firmly stand up for.

How you could possibly say this is beyond me:

"But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that."

What?? "We" know no such thing. gordon e mullings absolutely, positively, without ANY doubt whatsoever DOES say that all atheists are immoral, amoral, evil, dangerous, destructive, sinful, abusive, dishonest, power hungry, dictatorial, murderous, tyrannical, genocidal, and a long list of other horrible things, and has been saying that for ages! His ENTIRE agenda is against atheists, or what HE perceives as atheists.  And he DOES say that atheism IS a worldview and is responsible for all the world's ills.

If anyone doesn't worship exactly the same dogma he does, in exactly the same way he does, and worship gordo as though HE is a god, and kiss his sanctimonious, LYING, dictatorial ass, then they are an evil, amoral, immoral atheist or the equivalent thereof. ANYTHING less than total, obedient, unquestioning, eager worship of him and his imaginary god is atheism, and is evil, to gordo. All of his word games with terms like evolutionary materialists, methodological naturalists, evolutionists, "Darwinists", etc., are just his LYING, deceptive way of bashing atheists. He uses the word 'atheists' or 'atheism' less on UD than he has elsewhere because he's deceptively trying to mask his real agenda. He also deceptively alters his other words on UD to make it look as though his agenda, and ID, are based on science.

The ONLY thing that drives gordo is his massively narcissistic god complex and his obsessive hatred of anyone who doesn't worship him, and he sees all such people as atheists who should be disposed of.

When it comes right down to it, gordo's imaginary god is just an excuse for him to believe that HE is THE one and only god and to act accordingly. 'Accordingly' meaning that he believes he has the absolute right to dictate and demand whatever HE wants. By claiming that he gets the rules and authority from some imaginary god, gordo is just trying to divert attention from the fact that the rules and authority are actually what HE wants to force on everyone on Earth, except himself of course. Like the imaginary god he touts, gordo obviously believes that HE is exempt from any rules, and from anyone else's authority.  

As someone who studies the brain, and mental illnesses, I'm surprised that you deal with gordo in the way you do. At times you stand up to him (sort of) but at other times you either tolerate his shit or downright cave in to him and his maniacal bullshit. You don't seem to understand much about men, and especially men who believe that they are a god, or are authorized agents of a god. To self-appointed gods (like gordo) you are just a weak, evil play toy, and an easy target for their chauvinistic, malignant narcissism. I see your weaknesses so I'm sure that they do. They are predators and, like lions, they are just waiting for their prey to show the slightest limp. When they see that limp they pounce, but unlike lions they do it because of their massive arrogance and desire to control everyone and everything.

Recently you said this to gordo:

"kf, first of all please don’t feel you have to apologise for anything :)"

When I saw that I was stunned, and I wrote up a comment about it and was going to post it either here and/or on my site, but I decided to let it sit for awhile. After seeing what you said in your comment above, I just had to say something. Ya see, I stand up against tyrannical monsters like gordon mullings and I make no apologies for it. I'm not afraid to take a firm stance on important matters, and it's an important matter to keep lunatics like gordo and the rest of the IDiots from destroying science and imposing their Dominionist agenda on the world. Trying to deal with narcissistic Dominionists (like gordon elliott mullings) with anything other than complete resistance, mockery, and exposure of their lies and insanity, is simply caving in to their arrogantly predatory and dictatorial behavior and agenda.

I strongly suggest that you read a lot more of what mullings has said on the internet over the years. Some of it is on my site. I also suggest that you make up your mind about what you stand for, and against, if anything.  

And speaking of things that gordo has said, here's an example:

"We must therefore pause to say that we have a Dominical warning to those who would put up such misleading that can deceive the innocent and naive: ’twere better that a millstone be put around their necks and that they would then fall into the deepest sea."

Want to guess at which people he would like to do that to?

Date: 2012/02/07 09:18:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 07 2012,04:49)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
2.1
Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012 at 8:33 am

[...]

From here

[...]


Twt:

I think the problem, such as it may be, is that Elizabeth is fundamentally good-natured. As such, I think she stands head and shoulders above the sanctimonious knobshiners that characterise much of the 'opposition' - the KFs and the BA77's and the UBs and - the latest contender vying for a place in the Top 5 contentious UD ass stakes - the Axels. The people who claim submission to a higher standard and then proceed to debase that standard by their attitude to fellow human beings. There are honourable exceptions.

She sticks up for herself, by her own lights. I too was amazed when she offered an apology to KF after the inexcusable 'derail'/Mr Leathers rant, but ... it's different for girls. I hope that isn't patronising. I would eat my own gonads rather than apologise to any of the many dipshits who have chosen to denigrate my intellect or motivation rather than address my arguments. My wife would just laugh.

Liz enjoys the argument. She's aware that banning is ever-present, and - whatever her reasons for posting, in what is really a matter for individual choice - calling KF would lead to it in fairly short order.

Everyone could perhaps just leave UD to shrivel in a succession of 1-or-2-comment bits of 'News'. It's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread - and that very interest makes the denizens think their movement is a significant force - they don't realise it is simply individuals arguing against bad philosophy and bad science, mostly for fun.

I can't even be arsed reading threads that KF is participating in. Life is too short to penetrate that god-awful prose. But if Elizabeth is prepared to dissect his arguments ... she will naver make him see what he is, but it serves to bring it to the attention of others.

I do wonder how the 'moderates' feel about the way their case is pursued.

Hi Sam, I'm not quite sure how to put this into written words that will accurately convey my thoughts but I'll try. I have considered what you said about EL, and I have put a lot of thought into trying to understand her motives and the way she deals with the IDiots at UD. While it does appear (at UD) that she is fundamentally good-natured, I get a different impression after looking at some of the things she has said on other sites, at least to the point where I have a hard time believing that her approach at UD is just because of good natured-ness, or naivety, or because she's a she. And when it comes to the ever present specter of banning at UD, well, I don't see that as any excuse for anyone to tolerate or cave into their malicious false accusations, massive hypocrisy, lies, distortions, dictatorial demands, or any of their other bullshit.

Being a woman is no excuse either. For decades women have been shoving it in men's faces that they are equal, don't need a man, can take care of themselves, and so on, plus EL is a well educated, accomplished person, and is a specialist in mental disorders, and is married to a psychiatrist, and is very experienced at internet debating, and seems to be able to be quite blunt on other sites.

I'm pretty sure that I've thought of all the reasons that could motivate her to post at UD at all, and also the possible reasons for the way in which she responds to mullings and the other IDiots, and frankly, I can't think of any good reason for her to tolerate or cave into mullings or any of the other IDiots.  Unless she wants to be an enabler, or a masochist, there's no good reason to take the shit that mullings and the other IDiots dish out. She has been insulted, ridiculed, accused of being a liar and other derogatory thing many times, and many of those things were thrown at her by mullings, yet she said that he has nothing to apologize for?? That isn't being good-natured, it's being submissive and enabling.

For awhile I thought like many others have. I thought that she was doing pretty well at showing that the IDiots don't have a clue and that they are the ones who don't live up to their alleged morals and other claims of being the 'good guys', but lately I've realized that she isn't accomplishing anything worthwhile there anymore and is just making herself an easy target and a doormat for those predatory assholes. Of course she can do whatever she likes and I can't stop her but I wish that she would rethink the way that she deals with the IDiots at UD, or just stop posting there at all. She could be more effective by posting elsewhere, like her own blog, where the dipshits at UD have no control.  

I have jumped on mullings and the other IDiots for the way they have treated her, many times, mostly on my site, but I'm having a hard time feeling that way anymore. The knight in shining armor in me wants to defend her but I'm also feeling that she is willingly putting herself in their clutches, and especially when she caves into them. I will continue to jump on the IDiots for their intolerable behavior but I will resist defending her personally, and will not defend her just because she's a woman. I want to add that I also wouldn't pick on anyone just because they're a woman.

I have a hard time standing up for someone who isn't willing to stand up for themselves, unless they're unable to for some reason, but I really don't think that EL is unable to. I would think that she should realize that showing any weakness to those arrogant god-wannabes is not going to do any good. Like you said, she will never make mullings (or any other IDiot) see what he is, and especially when she caters to his dictatorial insanity in any way. I also think that gordo and the other IDiots will do just fine at showing how fucked up they are without her dissecting their arguments at UD. If they were left to themselves at UD, the site would go back to being as dead as it used to be, and if no one were responding to them at UD the IDiots would have to step out of their echo-chamber sanctuary if they want to argue their bullshit with anyone other than the handful of other IDiots there. Like you also said, it's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread.

I realize that not everyone will agree with me (maybe no one will) but I have to speak up when something really bugs me.

Date: 2012/02/07 11:16:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 07 2012,06:44)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
Okay, that does it. For quite awhile I've wondered what motivates you (Elizabeth Liddle) to even bother trying to discuss/debate anything with gordon mullings (kairosfocus), and I've also wondered if you have paid any attention to what he has been saying at UD, his blog, and elsewhere on the internet, for years, and whether you have standards that you're actually willing to firmly stand up for.

How you could possibly say this is beyond me:

"But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that."

I should not have used "we" and I apologise.  But it seemed to me that he had, repeatedly, made the point that he thinks we all have consciences, and are therefore capable of behaving morally, and that the is not therefore accusing atheists of being immoral, or amoral.

I'm prepared to accept that.

But he keeps on avoiding the real charge by erecting the straw man that I am accusing him of accusing atheists of being amoral.

I'm not.  I'm accusing him of accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, which he is.

As for telling him he doesn't need to apologise: he doesn't.  he keeps starting his posts with things like "pardon" or "this will be painful but..."

It's totally unnecessary.  Indeed, it's quite insulting.  He is not hurting me by saying these things, because he has no authority over me, and, in any case, he is simply wrong.

So I'd far rather he dropped the apology.

If he wants to apologise for repeatedly accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, that's fine.  I should have been more specific.

I simply meant it in regard to what he had actually apologised for, which I  assumed the context made clear, but in retrospect, does not.

Dr. Liddle, please go to my site and read the two 'Hey gordo, FOR RECORD' posts on the front page. Then come back and try to convince me that mullings doesn't accuse atheists of being immoral or amoral, and that he isn't as phony as a three dollar bill. And if those two posts aren't enough, read all the other posts about mullings. And if those aren't enough, I'll point you to some sites where you can read a lot more of his accusatory, dishonest, two-faced, dictatorial insanity.

Playing games with words, like "atheists of being amoral" vs "atheists of promoting an amoral worldview" or any of the other ways of saying the SAME thing is ridiculous. It's one thing when gordo does it, since he's a dishonest, deranged, word twisting lunatic with delusions of god-hood, but for you to play along with that game or let him get away with it is just plain wrong.

I don't care how many ways mullings twists his words into whatever dishonest bullshit he thinks he can get away with. ALL that matters is that he OBVIOUSLY believes that atheists are exactly the same as evolutionary materialists and methodological naturalists and evolutionists and "Darwinists" and nihilists and Marxists and nazis and communists and  evidentialists and democrats and many others (including many other religious people), and that all of them are equally evil evil evil and should be disposed of. He uses lots of labels but his underlying agenda is to rid the world of ANYONE who doesn't worship him as the all-knowing god that he thinks he is. What REALLY bothers gordo is that he is not all-powerful, but he sure does want to be and sure is trying to be.

Regardless of all the labels he applies to people, it all boils down to: atheism, or at least what he perceives as atheism, and the amorality/immorality that he applies to it. The same thing goes for the rest of the IDiots.

I am astounded that you would think that his "pardon" and "this will be painful but..." are actual apologies. They are part of his GAME. They are FALSE. They are condescending, dishonest, insincere, mopey, deceptive, pompous, self-serving CRAP. I don't believe for a nanosecond that mullings has even the slightest bit of a conscience. He doesn't care one iota whether he hurts anyone who doesn't agree with every stinking word he spews, and I really don't believe that he cares about anyone other than himself AT ALL, even if they do agree with him. Anything he says that might indicate that he cares about anyone other than himself is a facade. The negative, accusatory, malicious things he says FAR outweigh everything else. I have read hundreds of thousands of his words and it's practically impossible to find anything positive and especially anything positive that he actually means.

He would say anything, and play any game, no matter how phony it is, especially at UD, to make it look as though he is a moral, upstanding person who just wants to cure all the world's problems, but he's NOT a moral, upstanding person. I doubt that I've ever encountered anyone who is more amoral/immoral, fake, and downright despicable than gordon e mullings, and I've encountered some really rotten people during my 60 year life.

Date: 2012/02/08 08:34:03, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 07 2012,07:46)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 07 2012,09:18)
I have a hard time standing up for someone who isn't willing to stand up for themselves, unless they're unable to for some reason, but I really don't think that EL is unable to. I would think that she should realize that showing any weakness to those arrogant god-wannabes is not going to do any good. Like you said, she will never make mullings (or any other IDiot) see what he is, and especially when she caters to his dictatorial insanity in any way. I also think that gordo and the other IDiots will do just fine at showing how fucked up they are without her dissecting their arguments at UD. .

I believe you have made two fatal errors here. First, you are assuming she is being submissive. Second, you are assuming she is arguing with them in order to convince them that they are wrong.

On the first count, I see EL's debating style as a form of jujitsu.  They (and apparently you) expect a frontal assault. But, rather than giving them what they want (an excuse to ban her), she kills them with kindness.  She is able to effectively eviscerate them without even their knowing it.  Their continued outrage and insults only make them look the worse, while her calm tone adds more weight behind what she is saying.

To the second point, I am pretty sure she knows that she will never convince them of anything.  However, her comments will stand as a testament to reason for future onlookers (!) to see as long as UD stands.  All they have is sciency sounding arguments that, when left by themselves, are convincing to the incredulous.  Her comments, and the vile responses they receive, lay bear the ignorance and mean-spiritedness at the core of UD. So, it is far better to have her there, pulling apart their "arguments" than it is to leave them alone for future websurfers to find convincing in the absence of any counterpoint.

In short: Elizabeth is a fucking ninja.


I'm not assuming that she is submissive, I'm observing it.

I agree that their insults make them look worse and that the responses EL receives "lay bear the ignorance and mean-spiritedness at the core of UD", but I can't agree that being submissive to mullings or any other IDiot is a necessary or productive way to deal with them.

There's a huge difference between "calm tone" and caving in.  All that being submissive accomplishes is to encourage the IDiots to think that they are dominant and superior, and lets them think that they have 'conquered' their opponent, and conquering, domination, and superiority is what  they want. In other words, it 'enables' them and strengthens them.

Remember what I said about lions, limping prey, that I can see EL's weaknesses, and so the predatory IDiots can too?

Why do you think that EL gets so many accusations of being a liar thrown at her, and so many insults, and so much attention from the most belligerent, domineering IDiots? Sure, some other people get the same things thrown at them but some people who are more 'in-their-face' with the IDiots are not accused or insulted as much as EL is. Do you know why?

There are basically three things to consider:

1. The IDiots, and especially certain ones, are arrogant, narcissistic, chauvinistic, male, controlling, authoritarian, jealous, power-hungry, ruthless, predatory, unscrupulous god-wannabes.

2. EL is a woman, and they know it.

3. EL shows many weaknesses, and even submissiveness at times.  

Once or twice on UD I've seen an IDiot say they they respect a strong opponent. Now, whether respect is really what that particular IDiot felt or not, it is something to think about. Of course most of the IDiots would never say that they respect a strong opponent and wouldn't 'respect' any opponent under any circumstances, but that doesn't mean that opponents shouldn't stand up firmly for whatever respect they 'deserve', and especially whatever respect they deserve from self-proclaimed 'moral', bible-thumping, ten-commandment promoting christians.

Think about this:

If you were in a face to face discussion/debate with a self-proclaimed 'moral' evangelical fundamentalist christian (e.g. gordo) and they repeatedly called you a liar and insulted you over and over again just because you disagree with them and point out why, with rational, evidence based arguments, in a calm tone, would you just stand there and take it and/or continue to try to discuss/debate anything with them, and would you think it's a good idea to show weaknesses or be submissive in any way?

The fatal error is to let a predator see you limp.

Date: 2012/02/08 08:35:57, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 08 2012,05:04)
Anyone in need of a signature can try on this one, courtesy of StephenB:
 
Quote
Granted, the dictionary definition of “genocide” does not make provisions for good motives, but I think it should be a factor in our analysis of God’s actions.

It's about those pesky Canaanites.

And their pesky pets, plants, and livestock.

Date: 2012/02/08 09:06:01, Link
Author: The whole truth
Patrick, you're cracking me up. :)

On another note, here's a bit of what gordon mullings thinks about the Canaanites and genocide:

"So, we must immediately recognise that God acting in just government against evil doers holds special duties and just powers. It is in that context that cultures that become a sufficiently destructive contagion and plague of evil in the world are destroyed by him: first by the self-destructive implications of such a way of life and society; second by their stubborn disobedience to the Tao and to those who stand up to warn them, thus proving that they must be held in check by force; and, thirdly by destructive force — the just power of the sword."

He also says elsewhere:

"And, isn't our God wonderful beyond all praise! AMEN"

Date: 2012/02/08 09:18:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 08 2012,07:01)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 08 2012,09:34)
I'm not assuming that she is submissive, I'm observing it.

. . .

Remember what I said about lions, limping prey, that I can see EL's weaknesses, and so the predatory IDiots can too?

. . .

The fatal error is to let a predator see you limp.

I understand and empathize with your anger towards many of the UD regulars.  The majority of them are beyond the reach of reason.  Their behavior is appalling ungentlemanly and would warrant physical confrontation in a face-to-face discussion.

That being said, I believe you are interpreting Lizzie's mien completely incorrectly.  I am truly amazed at her ability to remain centered and grounded in the midst of the belligerence to which she is subjected at UD.  As with any situation, we can't control how others act, but we are responsible for our own reactions.  Lizzie is speaking her truth, and doing so eloquently.  The grace she exhibits exemplifies what in my meditative practice is called the divine feminine.  Her responses are not only an intellectual pleasure to read but a source of inspiration, reflecting some aspects of my own personality that I would like to strengthen.

Elizabeth Liddle is by far the most dominant person currently posting at UD.

Patrick, to clarify, when I said you're cracking me up I meant with your post and picture about joe.

Regarding EL, with due respect, I have to stand by what I've said.

And frankly, from what I've seen lately, I'd say that eigenstate and champignon (sp?) are doing a lot better at UD than EL.

Date: 2012/02/08 12:13:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
Just a few things to consider for now:

If UD, and what is said there by the IDiots, are unimportant, why does this site exist, why does this thread exist, and why are threads about UD the most popular ones on this site? And, why are there many other sites that focus a lot of attention on UD and what the IDiots say there?

By the way, have you all seen this:

8.1.1.3.4
Joe
February 8, 2012 at 10:23 am

You are so dense that you are a walking black hole.

That is something one shouldn’t be proud of yet you are quite happy with it.

Strange…

From here

-----------------

Yep, it's directed at EL. That it isn't directed at eigenstate or champignon, who are also in that thread, is revealing (but not surprising to me). What's also revealing (but not surprising) is that none of the IDiots are chastising joe for saying it.

Date: 2012/02/09 02:17:17, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 08 2012,10:52)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 08 2012,12:13)
Just a few things to consider for now:

If UD, and what is said there by the IDiots, are unimportant, why does this site exist, why does this thread exist, and why are threads about UD the most popular ones on this site? And, why are there many other sites that focus a lot of attention on UD and what the IDiots say there?

Silly Truth. UD exists because without it logic would have no meaning.
:p

But seriously, I don't think UD's existence is indicative of anything more than some folks want a place to rant about their pet peeve and some of us who have discovered it love to mock their ranting.

ETA: Correction: This is how UD sees "Atheistic Darwinists".

Seymour is how the folks at UD see themselves.

Hi Robin, those comic strips are funny, and fitting.

The reason I brought up importance is partly due to some comments by you and others and partly due to this question from Erasmus:

"who gives a fuck what they think?"

I think it's fair to say that most or all people here (at ATBC) care about what's said at UD (and elsewhere) by the IDiots (and by their opponents). Otherwise they likely wouldn't be here, or at least wouldn't stick around for long. The level of importance from one person to another undoubtedly varies, but I don't think that anyone here can honestly say that what the IDiots do or say (or "think") is completely unimportant.

I realize that we all have our own way of dealing with things, and I'm not trying to 'make' any ID opponents change their methods. I'm just speaking up about something that bugs me and hoping to influence EL to consider some things. I do feel strongly about it but I know that she can, and will, ultimately do whatever she wants.

To prevent any misunderstanding, by "this site" I meant ATBC.

Date: 2012/02/09 11:14:36, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 09 2012,06:03)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 09 2012,02:17)
The reason I brought up importance is partly due to some comments by you and others and partly due to this question from Erasmus:

"who gives a fuck what they think?"

I think it's fair to say that most or all people here (at ATBC) care about what's said at UD (and elsewhere) by the IDiots (and by their opponents). Otherwise they likely wouldn't be here, or at least wouldn't stick around for long. The level of importance from one person to another undoubtedly varies, but I don't think that anyone here can honestly say that what the IDiots do or say (or "think") is completely unimportant.

I realize that we all have our own way of dealing with things, and I'm not trying to 'make' any ID opponents change their methods. I'm just speaking up about something that bugs me and hoping to influence EL to consider some things. I do feel strongly about it but I know that she can, and will, ultimately do whatever she wants.

To prevent any misunderstanding, by "this site" I meant ATBC.

I agree for the most part, though I could quibble with you about your choice of the word "important". I certainly don't find what goes on at UD important in a strict sense of the term:

 
Quote
Adjective:

   1. Of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being: "important habitats for wildlife".
  2.  (of a person) Having high rank or status.


For me, UD is more compelling than important. The discussions and behavior there are indicative of a mindset that I find a little shocking, a little frightening at times, and unbelievable, but also fascinating. I'll engage in discussions there every so often just to see how they defend what I see as an obviously ignorant and erroneous claim.

Still, I agree with you in principle - a lot of us would not come to AtBC if not for UD, so clearly most of us care about UD...at least in the sense that we care enough about what they say and how they behave to gather and comment on it.

I am still curious though - what do you think one of the UD folks "pouncing" on a weak Lizzie would look like? What do you think would happen that would be significant in some way?

Robin, I just want to let you know that I'll respond late tonight. I was in the middle of a response when my power went out, and I should think more about it anyway.

Date: 2012/02/10 06:14:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 10 2012,00:27)
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 09 2012,13:11)
keiths ... well played.  I very much enjoyed and appreciated your darned woolly posts at the asylum.  Champion Champignon indeed!

 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 09 2012,12:52)
For shame! Many good posts under the mushroom banner. Anyone would think they didn't welcome critical examination of their scientific position...

I did wonder if you were sailing a tad close to the wind calling KF a liar and hypocrite!

Thanks, guys.  Yeah, I knew I was taking a risk, but my two main sock rules are 1) don't say anything you can't back up, and 2) don't censor yourself just to avoid bannination.  Rule 2 has cost me plenty of socks, but Rule 1 means I earn my banninations honestly.

Kudos to you and your standards.

Date: 2012/02/10 06:47:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 09 2012,06:03)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 09 2012,02:17)
The reason I brought up importance is partly due to some comments by you and others and partly due to this question from Erasmus:

"who gives a fuck what they think?"

I think it's fair to say that most or all people here (at ATBC) care about what's said at UD (and elsewhere) by the IDiots (and by their opponents). Otherwise they likely wouldn't be here, or at least wouldn't stick around for long. The level of importance from one person to another undoubtedly varies, but I don't think that anyone here can honestly say that what the IDiots do or say (or "think") is completely unimportant.

I realize that we all have our own way of dealing with things, and I'm not trying to 'make' any ID opponents change their methods. I'm just speaking up about something that bugs me and hoping to influence EL to consider some things. I do feel strongly about it but I know that she can, and will, ultimately do whatever she wants.

To prevent any misunderstanding, by "this site" I meant ATBC.

I agree for the most part, though I could quibble with you about your choice of the word "important". I certainly don't find what goes on at UD important in a strict sense of the term:

 
Quote
Adjective:

   1. Of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being: "important habitats for wildlife".
  2.  (of a person) Having high rank or status.


For me, UD is more compelling than important. The discussions and behavior there are indicative of a mindset that I find a little shocking, a little frightening at times, and unbelievable, but also fascinating. I'll engage in discussions there every so often just to see how they defend what I see as an obviously ignorant and erroneous claim.

Still, I agree with you in principle - a lot of us would not come to AtBC if not for UD, so clearly most of us care about UD...at least in the sense that we care enough about what they say and how they behave to gather and comment on it.

I am still curious though - what do you think one of the UD folks "pouncing" on a weak Lizzie would look like? What do you think would happen that would be significant in some way?

Pouncing on a weak EL would look like the way she's treated at UD, especially by the most arrogant assholes there. You may have noticed that some ID opponents are treated differently than others at UD. Bullies, which is what most or all of the IDiots are, are much more likely to pounce on what they perceive as an easy victim, and that's especially true when the bullies are part of a 'gang', like the IDiots at UD are.

If someone (e.g EL) shows weaknesses, even though they show strengths too, the predators at UD, and especially the most arrogant ones, are going to pounce on those weaknesses. The weaknesses enable and embolden the IDiots, and it should be obvious that most or all of the IDiots need see only a tiny bit of weakness to trigger their pounce reaction. They are looking for weaknesses. The vast majority of their thinking and their arguments are based on their desire to attack, dominate, and destroy any opponents. That desire is the driving force behind their mindset and agenda.

Whether something is compelling, important, or significant is up to each individual. I used the word important because it's what came to mind at the time, and I still think that it's an appropriate word for my points. Debating the specifically applicable term seems rather useless to me. I realize that you or others do not or may not agree with the words I use and that I may not always choose the right words, but I stand by what I've said. I think that the overall points I've made are valid.

Date: 2012/02/10 06:56:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (REC @ Feb. 09 2012,21:31)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 09 2012,23:27)
Regarding the discussion about UD I would argue that sites like UD are the best Idiots like Dembski could have done fot their oponents. The comments by their followers display what ID means. Without them Dembski and the othe Idiots would just run fake journal pages like "Bio-Complexity" and fake labs like "Biologic Institute" and pretend to being serious scholars who are just ignored by mainstream science. Thus, the best thing for our side is if UD is kept alive and even better if it is run by people like Barry Arrington.

Though....now that Barry has freed up about a half-hour per week...maybe I should fire off an article to Bio-complexity. Anyone want in?

Suggestions on topic?

How about an article on the the ignorance, dishonesty, and redundancy of the assertions of IDiots, and the underlying causes?  :)

Date: 2012/02/10 07:09:04, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 10 2012,02:56)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,03:54)
   
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 10 2012,03:39)
                     
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 09 2012,21:20)
                           
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 09 2012,15:50)
which one of you guys is Zoe again

LMAO

shit is too coherent to be batshit

too complicated to be joe

Not enough hate for KF

not sure about KF. Back in 2009 I speculated if KairosFocus aka Gordon Elliot Mullings aka dictionary is identical with Zoe based on quite some evidence.

You may be right, sparc. This sentence of Zoe's has the stench of KF all over it:
               
Quote
The only religious Worlview, across comparative difficulties, premised on warranted, credible facts and evidence, that meet and sustain to, all three of test, is the Historic Judeo/christian Worldview.

And check this out:
               
Quote
And, Zoe is speaking in outline of worldview foundations... He has put forth a serious and provocative thesis... Zoe has also said something very important... And, as Zoe points out...

There is other evidence that "Zoe" is Gordon. Zoe has repeatedly posted this chestnut, or fragments thereof, at the blog "Barbados Underground," supplying a Caribbean connection. Links to examples follow, although click with care, as these are slow loading, Flash laden pages that cause my browser to beachball for quite some time:

Examples here and here.

Somebody posting as Carlos Jordon has posted a version here.

And indeed in response to one of Zoe's repetitions on Barbados Underground another commenter states:
       
Quote
You see. this is a struggle for me and I dont want to be drawn into this argument (been there, done that with GP, Carlos, Gem of TKI etc.)

On Gordon's own blag he links to and extensively quotes comments from a page on Barbados Underground. Although not quoted, those comments include yet another copy of Zoe's sermon on truth. (Another commenter named technician IS* quoted responding, "@ Zoe…..please dont start with your crap !!!")

Further, on UD we find KF welcoming Zoe to UD, several favorable comments upon his contributions, and the repeated use of Zoe's comments to advance his own long-winded points.

Gordon is lonely. He created Zoe for company.

(And if he uses his left hand it feels like someone is really there.)

[Edit: corrections vis Gordon's blag]

I have a different theory (not to be confused with a well constructed scientific hypothesis, of course).  

The prose and worldview are similar, however I find it impossible to believe (unless he is as capable of maintaining such a facade as Aaron in Primal Fear) that he can keep the pretence going over several years without reverting more closely to the writing style of gordon e. mullings of montserrat.  Then there is the brown nosing that goes on between them.

I suspect Zoe is a hopelessly indoctrinated disciple (probably the star pupil) from his school of Renewal and Reformation, the "Kairos Initiative" ... that Gordon knows full well who Zoe really is and probably even persuaded he/she to start posting there.  This would be an almost as interesting ethical dilemma as KF posting as two different users on the same board.  If anyone cared about such things w.r.t. the  IDealogues over there, that is.

Now, how to test the theory?

(I can does science too although i am not one, not even a lawyer or a forensik man).

I'm inclined to go along with the "hopelessly indoctrinated disciple (probably the star pupil)" idea, although anything's possible.

Date: 2012/02/10 11:14:58, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,06:09)
Googling fragments of Zoetext from Oldman's sample it becomes obvious that a large percentage of his output is cut and pasted from other sources.

So there is a third alternative: Zoe has has large chunks of genuine KF in his stool, including the passages quoted upthread. Passages with the unmistakeable texture of KF are in fact Gordon - yet Zoe is not.

"Zoe has has large chunks of genuine KF in his stool.."

I've got to tell you guys and gals that you crack me up on a regular basis. There are certainly some funny, clever, and imaginative people here.

About Zoe, Carlos Jordan, kairosflaccid (Dictionary), etc.:

They definitely show a LOT of similarities in the bile they spew, and some of it is identical or very close to it, but there are some differences too. I wouldn't put it past gordo to use multiple user names and modify his bullshit to try to fool people into thinking that those user names are not the same person, but they may be different people. If they're not all gordon mullings, they were likely directly tutored (brainwashed) by him. If any of you come up with more info or ideas about that, or anything else about mullings, I'm interested.

A picture of joe, if possible, would be appreciated too. I won't divulge the source, and will treat it with all 'due' respect. ;)

Date: 2012/02/10 13:20:44, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 10 2012,07:56)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,09:35)
Peter Griffin (who, he?) collects together some of Joe's recent insults and pastes them into a single comment.

KF says:
       
Quote
Joe: Pardon, but if you have been speaking in that way [and it looks like the clips are accurate, from your responses . . . ], I suggest you will find it best to dial back your tone a few notches. We in the main need to focus on issues not personalities. Controversial matters are best addressed in that way, otherwise the sidetracks will tend to derail serious discussion. KF

Barry says:
       
Quote
I agree with KF Joe. You are warned.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-419857

Funny how Joe get's a warning after dozens of "offences" and others are insta-banned after one...

What's the theory du jour on that? Do UD's ban-buttonmen really agree with Joe's stupidity and hypocritically accept his "incivility" because he's on their side, or do they have some evidence that banning him would decrease the number of onlookers at UD?


I believe that they would welcome any nutcase at UD, whether a belligerent asshole or otherwise, as long as that person is not on the 'other side'. The other side being atheism, which to the IDiots is synonymous with evolutionary materialism/methodological naturalism/nihilism/Marxism/scientism/agnosticism/evolutionism/"Darwinism"/pantheism and any other label they come up with that they can put an 'ism' or 'istic' on that isn't inline with their belief in the allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, abrahamic, supernatural, extra-cosmic, miracle performing, designer/creator sky daddy god.

It's ALL about their religious beliefs, which are based on supernatural mumbo jumbo, and when doubt of the supernatural is expressed or the supernatural is questioned or ridiculed, the IDiots go ape shit. A person MUST believe in the supernatural to fit into the UD gang. 'Materialists' (aka atheists/naturalists) are the evil, hated enemy.

joe is a good example of just how obnoxious, belligerent, dishonest, and stupid a person can be, and be welcome at UD, as long as they promote the supernatural and attack materialists or anything like materialists. I can virtually guarantee that if someone goes to UD and promotes the most outrageous supernatural crap, they will be welcome there as long as they also promote the christian god, which of course is also outrageous supernatural crap.

The IDiots are absolutely enamored with demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, gods, miracles, and other 'mysterious' fairy tales. Reality is abhorrent to them.

You might notice that they even have a problem with theistic evolutionists. They don't want material/natural processes to get ANY of the credit for evolution or anything else. Their supernatural god and/or whatever other supernatural garbage they conjure up must get the credit. That's also the main reason they never nail down definitions/descriptions of their talking points, and make such a big deal about the 'gaps' (whether real or perceived) in any aspect of science. They simply must leave room for something mysterious and supernatural. Even the 'bad' stuff (when they're not ignoring it) is blamed on something supernatural, like demons, a devil, and the all encompassing and ever present 'evil' and 'wickedness' that permeates the entire universe like some sort of bad-boy ghostly spirit that's out to get you and you better watch out!

That reminds me, I need to pick up some garlic and a crucifix at the store to ward off the vampires that are going to come out tonight. Hmm, now where did I leave those wooden stakes and my hammer? :)

Date: 2012/02/10 13:42:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 10 2012,09:22)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2012,11:14)
 <snip>

A picture of joe, if possible, would be appreciated too. I won't divulge the source, and will treat it with all 'due' respect. ;)

We could have hours of endless fun with that request ...

Joe

LOL!

But shouldn't he be working on a toaster? :)

Date: 2012/02/10 14:07:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
This would be a good time to let UD die, by not engaging them and letting them have their "fun" on their unfairly moderated turf. As doveton said in regard to the "major house cleaning":

"It will be interesting to see what the post count goes down to with no one here to give a compelling reason to comment. Well…except for an occasion “Oh yeah!” and “Couldn’t agree more!” Explain to me where the fun for the pro-IDer is in that exactly?"

Date: 2012/02/10 14:22:31, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,11:13)
Now, that is very odd.  Axel is accusing me of being a "company man" because I concluded that the exit polls did not in fact indicate that Kerry had beaten Bush in 2004.

He seems to have been an obnoxious DU poster called KCabotDullesMarxIII.

According to doveton, you were "asked to leave".

Think of the words he chose (instead of the word 'banned') and what kind of a delusional fog someone has to be in to be that blind to reality.

Date: 2012/02/10 14:26:41, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 10 2012,11:58)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2012,11:42)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 10 2012,09:22)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2012,11:14)
 <snip>

A picture of joe, if possible, would be appreciated too. I won't divulge the source, and will treat it with all 'due' respect. ;)

We could have hours of endless fun with that request ...

Joe

LOL!

But shouldn't he be working on a toaster? :)

Or feeding his ticks.

(Not a euphemism.  But it ought to be).

Is it watermelon season?  :)

Date: 2012/02/10 15:41:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
Speaking of an oddly shaped head:

Date: 2012/02/10 16:36:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Now why didn't I think of this?

New and improved! Now with CSI! (or something like that)

Date: 2012/02/10 21:33:33, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,16:21)
Null:
   
Quote
Talking up the importance of civility and tolerance in conversation in one place, and then tolerating or encouraging photoshop mockery and vile, personal insults in another place (public even), is entirely relevant. It illustrates that there’s hypocrisy in play, a lack of mutual respect, and frankly it reflects poorly on someone’s character.

Don't get your panties in a bunch dear.

Photoshop mockery! For shame!

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/id...._...._of_law

Hey wait a second, didn't he say that we are colluding? Now he says it's "public even".

colluding:

col·lude (k -l d ). intr.v. col·lud·ed, col·lud·ing, col·ludes. To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose; conspire.

Hey nullsallus null-and-void, unlike you cowardly hypocrites in the UD sanctuary for IDiots, no one here is pretending to be one thing but actually being another. No one here is being deceitful or fraudulent (or illegal). It's you two-faced, lying, self-righteous, arrogant tin gods who are deceitful and fraudulent.

What really bothers you and your fellow cowards is that people here are knowledgeable, up front, and unhindered by draconian, one-sided moderation, and you chickenshits NEED the protection of draconian, one-sided moderation because you are pushing a deceitful, fraudulent, religious and political agenda that is even illegal at times (remember Dover, etc.?) and because your non-evidential, fairy tale based arguments won't stand up against open and honest challenges.

Another thing that really bothers you is that you now have few, if any, non-IDiot victims to pick on within your sanctuary and you're afraid that you'll have to step out of that sanctuary and fight a fair fight if you want to debate your bald assertions. Poor baby, you've just lost most or all of your opportunity to be a UD bully.

By the way, how does barry-the-dick-head-shyster like my depictions of him? I think that they're a rather good likeness of him, along with the ones on my site.

Date: 2012/02/10 21:47:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 10 2012,18:43)
Eric Anderson gently tells Barry that he's being an idiot:
 
Quote
Barry:

I have great respect for your thoughtful views and appreciate the many hours you spend raising issues and working here at UD.

I think most people can see the failure of DrRECs and Elizabeths attempts to whitewash the regular and repeated tactics employed by some in the scientific community and turn them into something more benign than the naked appeal to authority that they are.

Further, I think most people realize that the world has a long history of outsiders (philosophers, lawyers, analysts, commentators, journalists, etc.) pointing out serious problems in certain fields/industries/occupations. Therefore, the idea that a non-scientist is not qualified to opine on how science operates is just absurd (and is itself perhaps a sub-category of the appeal to authority fallacy). As a result, DrRECs recent statements seem to be not only naive, but completely against the spirit of truth seeking, whether in the scientific arena or any other.

I think most readers realize that DrREC and Elizabeth are either ignoring or sweeping under the rug the appeal to authority issues you appropriately raised.

However, I would certainly hope that DrREC or Elizabeth or anyone else who shares similar views would not be banned. Despite what we might see as absurd arguments, silly side roads or blatant failure to consider the evidence  and the resulting frustrations  I think DrREC and Elizabeth have contributed significantly to the discussions and have caused all of us to be on our toes and raise our debating ability.

Just a humble appeal on my part to not let a temporary frustration (or even a temporary site policy violation, if that is what is perceived) be the basis for a ban.


He just wants some punching bags back. If he actually had any respect for the people who were banned, he wouldn't have devoted most of his comments to berating them.

Frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go back there, even if they could. The only way to get them to really open up the site is to boycott them until they do. They know that their site will die without direct involvement by non-IDiots.

Date: 2012/02/11 07:20:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
I just read some of the comments being posted on UD and since I am NOT ALLOWED to post there, I'll respond here.

I'm sure that the first thing that the IDiots who read this will think is "Well of course you aren't allowed to post at UD. Just look at what you say about us!'. The thing is, I did sign up at UD well before I ever said ANYTHING negative about any of the IDiots and well before I put up my site. I was banned within a few days even though I was civil. I just asked a few questions, got a few snotty responses and suddenly my sign in wouldn't work. Many other people have been shut out in exactly the same way.

I have also tried to comment at other ID sites and either no comments are allowed or the same sort of UD draconian moderation policies are in place. After running into that way too many times and seeing that many other people had run into the same thing, and especially after reading TONS of hypocritical spewage by cowardly IDiots that no one has the guts to face them and that everyone other than them is uneducated, amoral, immoral, wicked, evil, dishonest, hateful, disingenuous, destined for Hell, biased, ignorant, blind, hypocritical, arrogant, dictatorial, genocidal, murderous, deceitful, abusive, tyrannical, a censor, a nazi, a communist, a Marxist, and a LONG list of other negative things, I decided to put up my site and point out, challenge, and mock the IDiots and their dishonest, dangerous, religious and political agenda.

nullsallus is over at UD showing himself to be just another dishonest, two-faced, lying IDiot who has no self awareness whatsoever. Here are some of his words:

"That’s the short of it: mutual respect. If that’s not there – if there’s a complete and utter lack of respect on one end, even if it’s shown only on another public site – then to hell with it. There’s no shortage of people willing to argue about just about anything on the internet, so if debate is important, you may as well hold out for someone who doesn’t collapse into a ranting fit of expletives, mockery and insults when your name comes up elsewhere.

And by the way, that’s a two-way street. The problem is, it’s a pretty one-sided affair at this point. Again I say, check out the thread, note the behavior, note the utter lack of anyone criticizing it – and note that this was taking place long, long before any bans came into play."

Since you're reading this thread, null-and-void, dig this:

Yeah, respect is two way street, and you assholes should actually practice what you preach. Respect is also EARNED and you won't earn it by shutting people out for no good reason or by spending your life trying to replace science with your insane religious dogma, or by trying to control the government with your religious political agenda, or by constantly and maliciously condemning people who don't worship you and your imaginary sky daddy, or by lying about your Dominionist agenda, or by lying about the people you constantly condemn, or by lying about the way science is done, or by lying about the motives of scientists, or by lying about scientific evidence, or by trying to selfishly and wrongly redefine what actually is scientific evidence, or by engaging in any of the other dishonest, dictatorial, arrogant, bigoted, two-faced, disrespectful, deranged, rotten games you religious IDiots play.

You expect someone to criticize this site, and this thread, and you expect someone here to criticize me for what I've said here and for the pictures I posted. Well guess what, null, you live in a glass house and shouldn't throw stones. I and the others here are RESPONDING to the shit that you IDiots have been cranking out for DECADES, and in a sense we're responding to the shit that you religious wackos have been trying to shove down people's throats for thousands of years. YOU are the oppressors, YOU are the tyrants, YOU are the censors, and YOU are the ones who won't settle for anything less than controlling the thoughts and actions of everyone on Earth, and it's obvious that you'll resort to any insidious deception to gain that control.

You also hypocritically barfed (about EL):

"She’s there, mark. And she happily tolerates it all without a word, just as I said. Just as she tolerated it at Myers’ venue, just as she tolerates it whenever it comes up.

I don’t have much respect for someone who acts superficially nice, but who turns a blind eye to that sort of obsessive abuse. The day an admin at UD starts doling out that kind of crap is the day I object, if I see it, and if this place every became halfway what AtBC is, I’ll just walk. I doubt it will happen.

There’s a name for a person who is giggly and nice when they discuss things with people, but who stands by and lets nasty crap be said against the same people without a word. The name isn’t “nice”. It’s “two-faced”."

Yeah, you expect EL (and others) to speak up against what is said here, but it's perfectly fine for you religious zombies to turn a blind eye to all of the malicious, vicious attacks you perpetrate on anyone who doesn't see things exactly how you think they should. The MASSIVE hypocrisy of you assholes is simply beyond measure. Every minute of every day the UD site and many other ID/religious sites are FILLED with condemnation, ridicule, insults, mockery, lies, and even threats aimed at anyone who doesn't get down on their knees and worship your pompous asses. Are you or any of your fellow IDiots speaking up about all of that? NO. Are you "happily" tolerating it and contributing to it? YES.

I see that you're still going on and on with the accusation of collusion on our part. Everything is out in the open here, and on my site too, and no one is shutting you out for no good reason. You're the ones hiding behind your protective wall of moderation. You're the ones being deceitful and fraudulent, and you're the ones pushing an illegal agenda to infiltrate schools and government and everything else with your Dominionist insanity.

You and your comrades in hypocrisy and lies are the most despicable, cowardly, dishonest, amoral, immoral slime balls I have ever come across. Fuck you and the imaginary god you rode in on.

Date: 2012/02/11 11:05:51, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 11 2012,06:22)
eigenstate
   
Quote
I have a homosexual son, so I don’t take homosexual jokes lightly. But for all the absence of gay jokes here, After the Bar Closes is a place my college age son would be welcomed, treated well, and supported like a human being. This place is the cesspool for people who are homosexuals, and if you’d like, I could get him to post here to confirm. Worshipping the God you worship is a much deeper and profound offense, a kind of wickedness no “HOMO” jokes can touch. So, if you want to talk about decency toward homosexuals, you are in the gutter hanging with the culture you do, right here.


beautiful.  whats even better,  the "HOMO" jokes are a parody of DaveScot's actual behavior at UD years ago.  that context is lost on this fool


eigenstate
   
Quote
Well, suit yourself. But people aren’t stupid, over there or here. I know the ‘OMG look at the fisting jokes’ appeal is going to work on some demagogic level, but it doesn’t fool people who are really following along. It’s just another cop out, another lazy, and frankly cowardly way to avoid the real areas of conflict.


is anyone making fisting jokes at UD? Oh yeah I didn't think so.  so, for another reason it's a huge who gives a fuck.  but as eigenstate is saying (more gently) tone trolling and pearl clutching lets them avoid the real problem.  

dull
   
Quote
You have no idea what my views on homosexual behavior are, and frankly, your clumsy attempt to paint me with the brush you’re using not only fails – it establishes you as quite a punk and a hypocrite besides. Go tolerate the “queer” jokes at your cesspool and write it all off as “well I bet they vote the right way, and that makes it okay”, but don’t try to project your guilty conscience onto me.


"queer" jokes?  "punk"?  ROFLMAO.  get the crucifix out of your ass dullasalus

eigenstate to stephenB mewling about "civility not wasting others time"
   
Quote
I agree this. This is also the basis for the “meta-criticism” of UD, the incivility that makes locker-room haranguing a minor faux pas by comparison. UD is expert at wasting critics time. Ask any of the critics, they will tell you that it is an impossible task to get UDers to sustain a serious, substantial exchange over the “methodology of ID” as science. Your posts are a very good example, predictably poisoning that well with “worldview” style critiques, and all the cultural phenomenon stuff you say you want to keep separate. If I’m wrong, maybe you can link me to your last substantial exchange with a critic on this methodology. I think I can link you to a LOT of the “cultural phenomenon” you put out.


fucking A!  been there done that sweatheart, that's why this thread exists.  muah

then gordon mullings jacks off for 27 points but i aint reading all that shit man

Regarding gordon e mullings and homophobia:

Look here

Date: 2012/02/11 12:15:12, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2012,09:31)
ROFL: Gordo:
   
Quote
Null, I fully agree with you here. Barry obviously went livid with what must have been the last straw when Dr REC dropped an obscenity, but what is going on elsewhere behind that sort of contempt to your HOST in a context where you are a GUEST is atrocious and inexcusable. And, it is directly connected, almost in real time, to what is happening here. Look, I saw people nastily speculating on whether Zoe [who is most definitely not me] is me, basically live; and in a context where it is obvious that . Look, my expose of web porn — it is apparently so bad that a good fraction of net traffic in recent years was this stuff, and porn is implicated in something like half of US divorces from the divorce lawyers (don’t tell me it is harmless fun) was twisted into gleeful nonsense that tried to make me out to be a pornographer or whatever you call one of those — I guess they did not realise I asked the FBI unit to look into the case I checked out, in hopes that a skunk’s hide could be nailed up to the wall. I hope they get him and I hope he rots in gaol for what he is doing, my gorge rises just to remember that this sort of exploitation is going on. I saw the man who runs a hate site that targets members of the UD community and which has threatened members of my family, operating as one of the circle in evidently good standing. I have seen far more than I want to speak of here, and none of it good. Barry is the host, and I think he was entirely within his rights to say, enough is enough on this case. And no, I see no need to wallow in filth and abuse from those who show every sign that they are sick, rage-sick, just to discuss a scientific issue. Their behaviour has forfeited any and all rights to civil discussion. Right now, what is troubling me is I am seeing abusive patterns I remember all too well from my days when I had to expose and correct destructive, manipulative groups. KF

Meodramatic much Gordo?
Duh.



I have seen far more than I want to speak of here, and none of it good.

gordon e mullings is the poster boy for melodrama.

Maybe someone could push gordo for proof that I threatened him and his family ("Mafioso style")? He has been accusing me of that for a long time, and he is willfully, blatantly LYING.

I think it's pretty funny, but not surprising, that he bitches about "these have been obsessively running all over the net to see what dirt they could try to find, or what they could twist to caricature and demonise" when his entire, miserable life is based on obsessively running all over the net (and elsewhere) to see what dirt he can try to find (including porn), and what he can dishonestly and arrogantly twist to caricature and demonize. That's ALL he does.

Ya know, if gordo hasn't left any "dirt" on the internet, what's he worried about? Only the guilty are concerned about someone looking at what they have put out in public on the internet.

And what the fuck does porn on the internet have to do with what happened at UD?


Date: 2012/02/11 12:39:29, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,09:12)


:D

Hehe...

Yeah, that, after falsely accusing EL and everyone else who doesn't kiss his sanctimonious ass of being amoral, immoral, depraved, ignorant, unresponsive, non-serious, uncivil, lying, and lots of other negative things.

gordon mullings is the ultimate, narcissistic, chauvinistic hypocrite.

Date: 2012/02/11 13:09:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,10:33)
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 10 2012,18:25)
My gaydar nearly explodes for most of those DI senior researchers.


I'm gonna assume gaydar is your pet name for your penis, in which case, I can't say I'm really surprised. Any competent psychologist would tell you that the level of obsession you fruitcakes show for I.D. and its proponents is clearly rooted in sex.

Long story short: You're in love with William Dembski.

Date: 2012/02/11 13:39:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,10:53)
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,12:12)


:D

Hehe...


All this shows me is that U.D. mods are fair-minded and polite when they're dealing with fair-minded, polite commentators.

How many people here can be described as fair-minded and polite when it comes to I.D.? The answer to that question is the answer to why you've all been banned, some of you repeatedly, at U.D.

Liz had potential, as kairosfocus made clear. Unfortunately, her nutty, unscientific worshiping of the conveniently undetectable Blind Watchmaker, combined with her association with you scum bums, finally bit her in the ass.

Actually, all it shows is that gordon mullings is a massive liar and hypocrite.

Recommended reading for you and the rest of UD tard gang:

Date: 2012/02/11 14:05:01, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey jammy, is this a threat?:

"within severe beating distance"

That's pretty funny coming from an IDiotic internet tough guy who's preaching about morals.

Oh, and since you're hung up on the guilt by association thing, you ought to apply it to yourself and the rest of the IDiots.

Date: 2012/02/11 15:11:45, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2012,12:22)
Speaking of Witches, Joe said, in response to an observation that the evidence for ghosts is very poor:
 
Quote
I disagree and would love to have any scientist stay a night at any of a short list of places.

Ahem. I believe we have some 'scientist' here. Any takers?

A Nobel awaits! And you probably (don't) get to meet Joe!

Somebody ask him for the list!

I'll do it if joe pays for everything and wants to make a sizable bet on the side, and agrees to pay off the bet in person.

I asked joe (on his blog) what and where the allegedly haunted places are and some other questions about his beliefs in supernatural stuff, aliens, etc., and got the usual irrelevant, evasive response:

"BTW I will elaborate on things I say the very day any evo can elaborate on the evidence that demonstrates a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote and all the rest of their theories grand claims."

aliens and ghosts

Date: 2012/02/12 08:12:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
nullasalus puked:

"And besides, what’re the odds you’ll ever man up?"

That, from a two-faced sniveling cry-baby coward who hides in the UD sanctuary for IDiotic losers, and even there, when he can't have his way, he runs away.




Something interesting: TinyPic requires a code word or words to upload a picture and when I uploaded this one the code was "level playing field".

Date: 2012/02/12 08:49:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Barry Arrington
November 2nd, 2011 | 2:18 pm

This reminds me of the “butterfly” bill that came before my committee when I was in the legislature of my state. A teacher had the bright idea that her 6th grade class should have as a class project getting a law passed. After some deliberation they proposed a bill to make some butterfly or another the “state butterfly” of Colorado, and they convinced a legislator to actually carry the bill. When it got to my committee I lead a charge against it for much the same reason Joe explains. Except this was worse. A resolution is just a statement of collective opinion. It carries not force of law. Had it passed, this bill would have become law. Frankly, I was offended by this frivolous and insouciant approach to law, and I got the bill killed. My reward: Icy stares from the adults and rivers of tears from the students. I still think I did the right thing.

asshole

Date: 2012/02/12 09:27:40, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 12 2012,07:20)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 12 2012,08:49)
Barry Arrington
November 2nd, 2011 | 2:18 pm

This reminds me of the “butterfly” bill that came before my committee when I was in the legislature of my state. A teacher had the bright idea that her 6th grade class should have as a class project getting a law passed. After some deliberation they proposed a bill to make some butterfly or another the “state butterfly” of Colorado, and they convinced a legislator to actually carry the bill. When it got to my committee I lead a charge against it for much the same reason Joe explains. Except this was worse. A resolution is just a statement of collective opinion. It carries not force of law. Had it passed, this bill would have become law. Frankly, I was offended by this frivolous and insouciant approach to law, and I got the bill killed. My reward: Icy stares from the adults and rivers of tears from the students. I still think I did the right thing.

asshole

Totally. Fortunately, the Colorado Hairstreak Butterfly was made the official state insect on April 17, 1996.


www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/history/symbemb.htm


It's a beauty.

Date: 2012/02/12 11:16:16, Link
Author: The whole truth
What's wrong with this picture? arrington is bitching about an alleged lack of freedom of speech (for christians), yet look at his draconian moderation at UD. He obviously doesn't like gay people either, and of course wants to legislate away any freedoms for them and anyone else he doesn't approve of.  

arrington farted:

"I am currently reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, in which he makes a strong case that liberalism (modern liberalism, not classical liberalism) should be placed on the same pole of the political spectrum as fascism, not the opposite pole as is commonly done, because there is a strong authoritarian/totalitarian streak running through modern liberalism/progressivism.

Ironically, those liberals and progressives who agitate most strongly for “personal autonomy”
when they are pushing for special civil rights protections for persons engaging in deviant sexual behavior,
really only believe in personal autonomy for their friends. If you try to express views counter to theirs, they will use every means at their disposal to silence you.

Witness the so-called civil rights commissions in your country, which have effectively made it a crime to teach certain parts of the Christian scriptures."

insane prudish tard

And speaking of "authoritarian/totalitarian", look at a mirror, and at your fellow religious zombies, barry.

Date: 2012/02/12 12:28:13, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (REC @ Feb. 11 2012,19:54)
Watching from a distance might be more fun:

From KF-
Quote
ES; If you have done any significant experimental work, you will know that we routinely trichotomise observed effects, on investigator intervention, random scatter and laws of necessity, just for one instance.


1) KF has done significant experimental work?
2) WTF is "trichotomise?" Is that like lobotimize X3? Or one more than a dichotomy?
3) How does one 'intervene' with a 'law of necessity?" The only use I know of for law of necessity is legal/ethical in terms of self-preservation

Random paragraph generator?

In response to number 1: NO.

I've done some serious digging to see if gordo has ever done anything besides spewing dictatorial sermons and condemning atheists/evolutionary materialists/methodological naturalists, etc., and I've found just one thing that he was involved in in any way. It's just a very basic outline for the next several years that the government of Montserrat drew up a couple of years ago and it has a list of contributors at the end and gordo is listed as a "consultant". Frankly, I think that they were just being nice by adding his name and that "consultant" sounded better than 'irritating, obnoxious, meddling asshole'.

If he were anywhere near as important as he thinks and says he is there would be papers, projects, plans, etc., that would have his name in them. I've looked at Montserrat and Jamaica government records, government employees, science projects in those countries, projects that have to do with the volcano and the environment in Montserrat, engineering and construction projects in Montserrat and Jamaica, and all kinds of other stuff including, but not limited to, the names of business owners, other business directories, phone books, and all of the news outlets, websites, and forums that pertain to Montserrat and other Caribbean Islands. He's virtually a ghost, except on some blogs where he has puked up tons of convoluted vomit.

I don't believe that he even has a job as a janitor, let alone a job of any kind in science. He also likes to call himself a physicist, yet he has no track record in that either. From what I've seen, I think that he must get his money from fleecing gullible sheeple, and/or from welfare. Chances are, he gets disability payments because he's way too aggravating and mentally deranged to be hired by anyone.

gordo is a phony baloney liar and bullshitter, and is nowhere near being a scientist or physicist. All he does is sit in his basement and spew his bile on the internet. And it's likely his mom's basement.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, Montserrat has a population of about 4500 people. That's for the whole island. If gordo were prominent there, his name would be prominent there.

Date: 2012/02/12 12:32:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 12 2012,09:21)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 12 2012,09:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 12 2012,07:29)
                     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 12 2012,04:40)
It should be about arguments, not personalities or behaviour.

oh, that window closed long long long ago, judge jones

Aye ... but one can aspire to Higher Ground. Henceforth I won't let personalities get in the way, and will make sure I home in on the character flaws of anyone who does. And I'll only debate people who - after a succession of lengthy exchanges - I determine to be not worth my time debating.  

Anyway you AtBC-ers are all very very immature and I condemn you absolutely. Consider yourselves condemned. I will not stand idly by yadda yadda yadda. The veracity of evolutionary theory is at stake. If you keep misbehavin' it might make it wrong. Can't ya see?

Let us join our voices together on that thought, so that The Argument Regarding Design can be engaged absent the red herrings led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited through snidely or crudely incendiary rhetoric to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere.

But what fun would that be?  ;)

Date: 2012/02/13 03:36:33, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 12 2012,11:36)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 12 2012,12:28)
 
Quote (REC @ Feb. 11 2012,19:54)
Watching from a distance might be more fun:

From KF-
   
Quote
ES; If you have done any significant experimental work, you will know that we routinely trichotomise observed effects, on investigator intervention, random scatter and laws of necessity, just for one instance.


1) KF has done significant experimental work?
2) WTF is "trichotomise?" Is that like lobotimize X3? Or one more than a dichotomy?
3) How does one 'intervene' with a 'law of necessity?" The only use I know of for law of necessity is legal/ethical in terms of self-preservation

Random paragraph generator?

In response to number 1: NO.

I've done some serious digging to see if gordo has ever done anything besides spewing dictatorial sermons and condemning atheists/evolutionary materialists/methodological naturalists, etc., and I've found just one thing that he was involved in in any way. It's just a very basic outline for the next several years that the government of Montserrat drew up a couple of years ago and it has a list of contributors at the end and gordo is listed as a "consultant". Frankly, I think that they were just being nice by adding his name and that "consultant" sounded better than 'irritating, obnoxious, meddling asshole'.

If he were anywhere near as important as he thinks and says he is there would be papers, projects, plans, etc., that would have his name in them. I've looked at Montserrat and Jamaica government records, government employees, science projects in those countries, projects that have to do with the volcano and the environment in Montserrat, engineering and construction projects in Montserrat and Jamaica, and all kinds of other stuff including, but not limited to, the names of business owners, other business directories, phone books, and all of the news outlets, websites, and forums that pertain to Montserrat and other Caribbean Islands. He's virtually a ghost, except on some blogs where he has puked up tons of convoluted vomit.

I don't believe that he even has a job as a janitor, let alone a job of any kind in science. He also likes to call himself a physicist, yet he has no track record in that either. From what I've seen, I think that he must get his money from fleecing gullible sheeple, and/or from welfare. Chances are, he gets disability payments because he's way too aggravating and mentally deranged to be hired by anyone.

gordo is a phony baloney liar and bullshitter, and is nowhere near being a scientist or physicist. All he does is sit in his basement and spew his bile on the internet. And it's likely his mom's basement.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, Montserrat has a population of about 4500 people. That's for the whole island. If gordo were prominent there, his name would be prominent there.

I believe Gordon really does have an MSc in physics from some Jamaican university. I once Googled him and found a link to his thesis - something about a multi-channel device of some kind if memory serves. He is obviously crazy but he is not entirely unintelligent. A bit like Hitler if you like.

It appears that he does have an MSc, but from what I've found he hasn't done anything since then but spew his insanity on the internet.

Date: 2012/02/13 06:27:23, Link
Author: The whole truth
With the new paper on Peppered Moths in mind, check this out:

arrington the arrogant IDiot

And notice that the ban hammer comes out in comment number 13.

Date: 2012/02/13 06:53:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 13 2012,02:34)
the whole truth  
Quote
It appears that he does have an MSc, but from what I've found he hasn't done anything since then but spew his insanity on the internet.

According to Wikipedia, Montserrat got clobbered by hurricane Hugo in 1989.  140 MPH winds damaged 90% of the structures on the island and killed the tourist trade.

In 1995, the Soufriere Hills volcano, which had been dormant for centuries, erupted.  It covered the capitol, Plymouth, in more than 12 metres (39 ft) of mud, destroyed its airport and docking facilities, and rendered the southern half of the island uninhabitable.  Half the population left the island.

Today, the population is 5,879 (down from 13,000) and there are virtually no jobs.  The island is supported by the British government to the tune of 25 million pounds per year or about 4,200 pounds per inhabitant, about $6500 USD.

I imagine Gordon manages to snag some part of that.

I agree that mullings manages to snag some part of that, especially since his wife and her family are from Montserrat and that likely makes her eligible for some money, which he can take advantage of.

I've seen a variety of population numbers, from before and after the eruption, and somewhere between 4500 and 6000 for the current population is close enough I suppose. It's certainly not a place where a world renowned scientist/physicist like gordo (LOL) could keep his vast contributions to science and society (LOL LOL) hidden from the outside world.

Date: 2012/02/13 07:12:00, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 13 2012,04:30)
The "no longer with us" search: http://www.google.co.uk/search?....h+us%22

And yet that lying scumbag barry arrington claims to be an advocate for 'free speech' and 'transparency'.

Date: 2012/02/13 12:09:11, Link
Author: The whole truth
Let's enjoy some statements by barry 'dickhead' arrington:

Here he demonstrates his vast knowledge of nature and Herpetology:

"Snakes and newts are kinda the same sort of critter. No comma needed."

moron

Here he forgets that his imagined designer/god is "over the horizon", WAY over the horizon:

Dr. Barr, you say that the other parts of universe are “over the horizon.” If I understand your metaphor, one of the implications of your assertion is that we cannot, even in principle, test empirically the hypothesis that there are other universes (or parts of our universe if you prefer) that are “over the horizon.” How then could this hypothesis be falsified? And if it cannot, in principle, be falsified, is the statement “there are other universes over the horizon” not more properly classified as a metaphysical statement?

tard

Here he reveals his real thoughts:

"“God keep us from . . .” Except for me and you of course, because we really are right all the time. Well, I am anyway."

jackass

Here he lies his ass off:

"JDN, if you have the floor you can whatever you want about religion. I do not have a right to be shielded from viewpoints with which I disagree or even offend me deeply. Neither do you.

bullshit

And here he finally says something true (only he left out the word 'dick'):

Arcane irrelevantia (my neologism for the day) are leaking out of my head into the blogosphere.

dickhead leakage

Date: 2012/02/13 12:57:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
gordon elliott mullings, god-like practitioner of impeccable morals, integrity, courtesy, compassion, humility, honesty, and all around nice guy says:

"PS: Since we are plainly dealing with those who will gleefully snip words out of context and maliciously twist them to try to deride, denigrate and dismiss –as we saw so plainly across the week and weekend past, let me explain. Do, be patient; we are dealing with willful, hostility driven twisters at sites like AtBC and Anti Evo, not fair minded and civil participants in dialogue."

two faced liar

Date: 2012/02/13 14:07:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 13 2012,10:59)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 13 2012,10:09)
Let's enjoy some statements by barry 'dickhead' arrington:

Here he demonstrates his vast knowledge of nature and Herpetology:

"Snakes and newts are kinda the same sort of critter. No comma needed."

moron

TWT,

That was just Barry poking a stick at Newt Gingrich.  Barry says plenty of ridiculous things for us to criticize; no need to misrepresent one of his more sensible statements.

It wasn't deliberate misrepresentation.

Note to self:

Don't try to read a dozen pages at the same time, especially when in need of sleep.

Date: 2012/02/14 08:50:00, Link
Author: The whole truth
Just think, this unscrupulous, deluded shyster could someday be a judge:

arrington's idea of overwhelming evidence and FACT

Date: 2012/02/15 15:10:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 15 2012,12:42)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 15 2012,14:03)
 
Quote
I just see them as pathetic and I don't take them seriously.


But the larger movement still gets legislation introduced in state governments, and individual teachers still undermine evolution in the classroom. Either ignoring it or teaching it badly.

I see UD as an important, defining outpost of the ID movement, one that consistently identifies ID with creationism and dominionism. And that's a good thing.

No question and I do take that seriously. And it's no question that the UD denizens reflect that movement's mentality, it's just that I don't see the actions on UD itself contributing to that movement at all.

UD is a lovely record of the overall message that ID is creationism and dominionism however, so I'm all for them keeping it up.  :D

"it's just that I don't see the actions on UD itself contributing to that movement at all"

In that, I think you're mistaken.

Date: 2012/02/15 15:38:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,09:31)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2012,11:09)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,10:56)
Yes it is obvious that I know more about the subjects than you do. So do you have a point? Is there anything that is incorrect in my post?

Then, oh wise one, why don't you use this amazing knowledge to publish something?

You know, do some original work and have others look at it and learn from it?

What's the hold up Joe? What are you waiting for?

Umm just because I know more about nested hierarchies and cladistics than the evotards who post here does not mean I am ready to publish.

But thanks for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant fuck.

When are you going to be ready to publish, joe? Will the subject of your paper be:

'Tick infestation of a basement dwelling muslim creationist and the severe brain damage caused by blood loss; a personal perspective, by Joseph Gallien IDC.'

Which journal will you submit your paper to?

Date: 2012/02/16 02:40:51, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 15 2012,21:55)
It's all about safe words zones:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-420555

That spewage from mullings is just a bunch of self serving bullshit and LIES.

Date: 2012/02/17 20:51:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
joe barfed the stuff that's in quotes:

"We have shown that agency is required."

You haven't shown any such thing. And who's "We"?

"OTOH your position has nothing."

You keep saying that as if it's true. It's not.

"And no- no IDists says that everything is directly designed- you are an asshole."

Actually, many religious people believe and say that everything was and/or is directly designed and created by their chosen god, and that includes some or all of you IDiots. Tell me joe, what IS and ISN'T directly designed, and how do you know? Show your work.

"And again to refute any given design inference all YOU have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it."

It isn't the job of science to refute any or every asinine belief that morons like you have.

"IOW you need to step up and present positive evidence for your position."

You're funny joe. Stupid, blind, deaf, uneducated, delusional, obnoxious, insane, and funny.

"Why don't YOU do all the things you ask of me but for your position?"

You're one of the IDiots who claim that you have a scientific, evidential inference/hypothesis/theory, so it's up to you IDiots to support it in a scientific, evidential, positive way. The ToE is well supported.

"Yoiu need to focus on youir position and that will take care of ID as the way to the design inference is through your position."

You're good at spewing nonsense joe. What you're actually saying is that science should re-label its interpretations so that your chosen god gets credit for the origin (creation), design, and diversity of life, and everything else. Putting your preferred label on things wouldn't produce anything helpful or positive. It would just stifle research.  

Hey joe, why is your "position" through a different "position"? Can't you ID scientists (LOL) do your own work? What's stopping you?

Date: 2012/02/18 13:57:00, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 18 2012,02:04)
I was idly thinking that maybe I could set up a small Foundation to run an essay competition in certain islands; for teenagers, say, to write about how they think their lot might improve without religion

All straight up, of course - properly judged and a small cash prize offered and paid as promised.

With luck, kf might explode on learning of it.

What a great idea.

Date: 2012/02/18 22:36:43, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 18 2012,19:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's "doubts" of his doubts of evolutionary theory:
 
Quote
The history of evolutionary theory has included quite a number of skeptics (the Wistar dudes were no dummies, and even Gould had reservations, until he was forced to recant), including Charles Darwin himself, who observed that the fossil record did not comport with his assumption that nature makes no jumps, but speculated that future investigation would reveal that the fossil record really was infested with the transitional intermediates his theory required.

Finally, I propose what I call the trajectory of the evidence. When a scientific theory is correct, the more we learn, the more the theory should have explanatory power, but the opposite has occurred concerning orthodox evolutionary theory. The more we learn about the incredible engineering sophistication found in even the simplest living cell, the more I’m inclined to be skeptical that the probabilistic resources could have been available to accomplish such a task through the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.

I thus defend the rationality of my skepticism.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

The "probabilistic resources" thing drives me nuts. For one thing, by whose estimation (guess) are the "probabilistic resources" determined? Yeah, I've seen the crap by gordon mullings and others about the number of atoms or whatever in the "observable universe", but what does the number of atoms in the "observable universe" have to do with the 'probability' of evolution?

Date: 2012/02/19 01:24:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 18 2012,21:41)
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,03:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's doubts of evolutionary theory.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

This was my response to Gildo's opening "let's talk about me" post at Lizzie's place....
     
Quote
     
Quote
Someone is wrong and someone is right. I just want to know the truth.


No you don't.

You already know the truth; you had an "extraordinary encounter with Jesus Christ" if you remember?

All you've ever wanted ,Gil, in your posts at UD and elsewhere is to talk about yourself. And this post is no exception. Your entire shtick is to assert that Darwinism is transparently in its logical, evidential and cultural death-throes. You happen to know this because you used to be a militant atheist, you work with computer simulations and are in fact a "proper scientist" not like that Dawkins swine!!

Yet invariably whenever you're challenged to actually back up your assertions with, you know, an argument, you disappear in the blink of an eye.....only to re-appear a few weeks later with yet another post declaring the imminent collapse....blah....pianos....my dad, great physicist.....blah.....LS-DYNA....blah.....transparent nonsense.....blah....blah....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Lizzie cast my post into the Guano pit....well, she's every right to but I think it's fair comment.

Gil's only goal in posting anything is to remind people of his fantasy life as a 'militant Dawkins style atheist'; to witness his dissent from Darwin; to highlight his piano playing skills; to mention en passant his mastery of the French language; and to bask in the reflected glory of his nuclear physicist father.

I'd say that your comment is not only fair, but lenient. gildo is a self-serving, self-righteous blowhard, just like the rest of the IDiots.

I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

Date: 2012/02/19 13:15:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,01:09)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,01:24)
I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

Only in the sense that "shit" (especially penguin shit) is useful stuff, but is a bit stinky to have hanging around the bar.

Note that I do not delete comments; I do not hide comments; I do not ban people; and I make it absolutely clear that moving a post to "guano" is not a moral indictment of either comment or commenter but merely an indication that it violates the rules of the "game" played at TSZ which is that people post on the assumption (whether justified or not) that people are posting in good faith.

What I am protective of is communication.  I am not submissive to anyone or anything.

hth.

The "rules" are determined by you, and I think it's fair to say that your 'morals' are the factor in that determination. Of course you can do whatever you want on your site but I think that you're being disingenuous when you say that it's not a moral indictment of the comment or commenter when you move a comment to "Guano". And useful or otherwise, shit is still shit.

I don't see anything "stinky" about Woodbine's comment. It's the truth, and it's not just based on opinion. gildo's history is what Woodbine said it is. If anything or anyone is stinky shit, it's gildo and the rest of the IDiots and their drumbeat repetitive rhetorical talking points, red herrings, and strawmen, laced with oil of incendiary ad hominems that are lit on fire to cloud and poison the atmosphere and all that jazz, AND their lies and false accusations. Where's the "good faith" in any or all of that? Where's the good faith in the blocking of comments/commenters and in the bannings at UD, and in the support those blockings and bannings get from the IDiot gang at UD? Where's the good faith in the constant malicious attacks on atheists/evolutionary materialists/methodological naturalists/scientists/science supporters/evolutionists/"Darwinists"/theistic evolutionists, and many others, a lot of whom are regularly mentioned by name?

I am fed up with the lies, false accusations, and other 'bad faith' shit the IDiots constantly spew. I'm fed up with their sanctimonious bloviating about how moral they are and how "inherently" amoral/immoral and evil anyone else is who doesn't kiss their lying, pompous asses. Their motives are thoroughly selfish and their agenda (the so-called ID movement) is a pack of creationist/Dominionist lies. There's no "good faith" in the people involved in a religious/political agenda that seeks to destroy and replace science, and indoctrinate or force children and adults into a totalitarian Dominionist cult through legislation and other means.

And just because the IDiots believe that they are authorized by their imaginary god does not mean that they are acting in good faith. As adults and self-proclaimed 'moral' christians they have the responsibility to be honest, and to show at least ordinary respect to and for the hard working scientists who are trying to figure out how nature works, and to show at least ordinary respect to and for the people who aren't willing to submit to their insane, controlling, dictatorial demands. Anything less than complete condemnation and mockery of their rotten, destructive motives, actions, and agenda enables them, and undermines all the time and effort many people have put into showing just how phony and despicable their behavior is.

Date: 2012/02/19 20:57:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,14:15)
Quote (socle @ Feb. 19 2012,16:01)

Just to make it clear, I don't think Gil was offended.

It's just that it doesn't take much for people to take offense, even on other people's behalf.

And it does make for awfully boring discussion.

ETA when it ends up being all about tone and not about substance.

The thing is, there isn't any substance in the IDiots' arguments, and that's what people with a clue have been telling them for a long time. What the IDiots spew all boils down to "tone"; the authoritarian tone of self-serving, self-promoting, self-righteous, oppressive, corrupt, science-hating, lying, dictatorial preachers who want to rule the world.

The IDiots claim that ID is strictly a scientific inference/hypothesis/theory. They should be held to supporting it in a strictly scientific way, and they should be held to discussing the alleged science of it. Any tolerance of the dishonest, irrelevant, diversionary, accusatory, sanctimonious sermons they vomit just makes them think that they can get away with that shit.

Date: 2012/02/19 21:27:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
I want you all to know that I seriously consider what you say, including when you disagree with me.

Date: 2012/02/20 17:08:28, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2012,13:30)
Quote
Aleta, I visited the other website, but you did not answer the question. You simply rationalized your evasion.

The LINK between LOGIC and REALITY is INHERENT in Law of non-Contradiction, which includes the logical, the psychological, and the ONTOLOGICAL.

You want to keep the logical aspect and abandon the ontological aspect, which is just another way of trying to have it both ways, claiming to accept the law it while abandoning it at the same time.

Here is Aristotle’s formulation:

1. ontological: “It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.” (1005b19-20)

2. psychological: “No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be.” (1005b23-24)

3. logical: “The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously.” (1011b13-14)

To reject the ontological aspect of the Law of non-contradiction, or to limit it to the realm of the logical, is to deny the law of non-contradiction. You have, therefore, abandoned rationality. I do not discuss science or any other important matter with irrational people. I simply make reference to the fact and move on.

Take a guess.

I guessed stephenb and then looked at the linked page. I'm not sure that it's good that I was right. It may just mean that I've been reading way too much tard from stephenb. :)

Date: 2012/02/20 17:28:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
I've been reading some older UD threads and I came across this little gem by batshit77:

"Theism postulates that the DNA of man is complete and ANY mutations to it will be detrimental in some nature, This is exactly what the evidence of exhaustive experimentation is pointing too. Evolution is left wanting for a mechanism of novelty and all presumptions to arise from the evolutionary scenario are meaningless until evolutionists can clearly demonstrate a gain in genetic information that would violate the entropy of information!
This is not some minor point I point out, this one point is the very crux of the battle between ID and evolution!"

It's part of comment 15 in this thread:

IDiot

Hmm, and I wonder why joe g (Joseph) didn't assert to batshit (in that thread) that ID isn't anti-evolution?  :p

Also see comment number 32, which is a response to comment 14.

Date: 2012/02/20 22:37:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
A tiny url extension (plugin) can be added to Firefox. I've been using it for a few days and it works just fine. It's much faster and easier than going to the tiny url site, and it's free (a small donation is requested).

Look here

Date: 2012/02/21 11:56:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 21 2012,07:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

NONE of joe's posts are in "Guano", even though joe is regularly rude and insulting to other people. Several posts by other people in "Guano" aren't the least bit rude or insulting.

And joe is rude and insulting just for the sake of being rude and insulting, but blunt responses to joe aren't. They're 'right'.

You're not protecting 'communication', you're protecting the IDiots and their bad faith.

Date: 2012/02/23 21:45:44, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Tom A @ Feb. 23 2012,10:45)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 23 2012,10:39)
 
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,10:04)
Some good theotard from tgpeeler:
               
Quote
I think the problem ultimately boils down to rebellion. If God is Reason, and He is (I AM WHO I AM – an expression of the Law of Identity and the basis for all thought, rational or otherwise, because it is the basis for all language) then to reject Reason is to reject God. We are not dealing with intellectual problems here, we are dealing with willfully disobedient (to the First Principles of rational thought) fools (Psalm 14:1). It’s a hard thing to say but there it is. I hope lurkers are being reached because I’ve never had one acknowledgement of undeniable truth “out here” in years of posting with the ELs and their ilk. At bottom, this is moral degeneracy because it is willful and obstinate rebellion against undeniable Truths. Isaiah warned against this when he said “woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” This is a violation of the law of identity. And woe to those who do it.
$0.02

               
Quote
9
Axel, February 22, 2012, 6:50 pm
Spot on, tg. Insightful and lucid.

10
BrentFebruary 23, 2012 at 8:28 am
tgpeeler,

If that’s two cents’ worth I don’t think we need to worry about inflation just now. Very nice!

11
William J MurrayFebruary 23, 2012 at 9:03 am
tgpeeler and StephenB,

Beautiful, truthful messages.

Yurgh! Are they deliberately trying to piss me off? "If God is Reason, [and I've obviously got the inside track on what is Reasonable] then to reject [my version of] Reason is to reject God"

"willful and obstinate rebellion against undeniable Truths"? Yep, that's it. It's completely undeniable and I'm just being awkward.

Still, they will have the last laugh from atop their fluffy clouds as I descend woefully into the Pit. They love us really.

It's nice to know that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion....

...On the other hand these people are very, very scary!!

Yesiree, them thar ijuts sure ain't reelijus.

tgpeeler on uncommon descent is:

Thomas G. Peeler

Check out his articles on this page:

god zombie

Also click on "ABOUT US" and then on "What We Believe".

Date: 2012/02/23 21:51:49, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 23 2012,08:38)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,10:04)
Some good theotard from tgpeeler:
           
Quote
I think the problem ultimately boils down to rebellion. If God is Reason, and He is (I AM WHO I AM – an expression of the Law of Identity and the basis for all thought, rational or otherwise, because it is the basis for all language) then to reject Reason is to reject God. We are not dealing with intellectual problems here, we are dealing with willfully disobedient (to the First Principles of rational thought) fools (Psalm 14:1). It’s a hard thing to say but there it is. I hope lurkers are being reached because I’ve never had one acknowledgement of undeniable truth “out here” in years of posting with the ELs and their ilk. At bottom, this is moral degeneracy because it is willful and obstinate rebellion against undeniable Truths. Isaiah warned against this when he said “woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” This is a violation of the law of identity. And woe to those who do it.
$0.02

           
Quote
9
Axel, February 22, 2012, 6:50 pm
Spot on, tg. Insightful and lucid.

10
BrentFebruary 23, 2012 at 8:28 am
tgpeeler,

If that’s two cents’ worth I don’t think we need to worry about inflation just now. Very nice!

11
William J MurrayFebruary 23, 2012 at 9:03 am
tgpeeler and StephenB,

Beautiful, truthful messages.

Some great, almost poetical stuff from KF further up that thread too:
     
Quote
What I am thinking is that what is really going on here is that we are in an era where ultra-modernism, aka post- modernism, is the conventional wisdom of the day in circles influenced by the sort of elites Santorum was fingering as dupes of the prince of darkness grim.

You know how hard I have come down on the point that if we can be got to swallow an absurdity, a necessarily false notion, it then corrupts our ability to discern truth and falsity, as it leads us to reject the truth that will obviously not conform to such error.

So, what happens when his lowness and the lowerarchy –C S Lewis got that part dead right — get our civilisation to drink deep and long at the well-springs of absurdity?

Oh yes, I know I know, it is seen as utterly dummy fundy or the like to suggest that — horrors — there actually might be such a thing as the prince of darkness grim.

Well, let me cite the Catholic — yes, they were Roman Catholics, and were standing in the name of the principles they had been taught through the Catholic church [and I say that as an Evangelical Protestant] — martyrs of the White Rose movement on the subject, in exposing and explaining one of the chief, willing disciples of that dark prince in recent years, herr Schicklegruber the foam- at- the- mouth carpet-chewer:


My emphasis - for no other reason than as a brit I enjoy the odd double-entendre and I have no qualms in pulling out sentences that can be used to quote-mine KF at all.   I must admit, "foam-at-the-mouth carpet chewer" in reference to Herr Schicklegruber (why does KF never just call him Hitler - regardless, it appears spelled incorrectly anyway) did make me laugh, but only as that's how I imagine many of the regular IDiots act in the 'real' world.  It's also a refreshing change from ad hominen, soaked in oiled herrings etc.

His OP is another magnum opus as well: weighing in at 4,738 words, or 4,500 words if you take out the scripture.

Good stuff guys, keep it coming!

[edit] I can't image how I spelled imagine wrong

santorum was fingering elites? As KF would say, FOR SHAME!!!!!

Date: 2012/02/24 04:32:58, Link
Author: The whole truth
I just made the mistake of looking at some of the comments at TSZ in the Good arguments and straw men thread. As usual the bible thumping IDiots are calling people names (like "troll") and making insulting remarks about reading comprehension and other things to or about non-IDiots.

I stopped reading when I saw EL's response to this mess by WJM (my responses are in bold type):

William J. Murray on February 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:

This is probably essentially off-topic, but anyway:

But that won't stop you from proselytizing and being a pompous jerk, right?

For myself, and probably most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates, we lack the scientific or mathematical education/background/training to make any formal scientific arguments about ID or NDE. The best we might be able to do is recognize logical challenges/solutions/problems involved in more specifically educated arguments about ID vs NDE.

Speak for yourself and your IDiotic comrades, not "most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates".

This is why I try to keep my contributions about the logic and philosophy involved, and not interpretations of technical data. I'm not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits. I suspect most those contributing here are equally unqualified.

Suspect yourself and your IDiotic comrades. Just because you and your fellow IDiots are "not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits" doesn't mean that non-IDiots are "equally unqualified". That's one of the biggest problems with you morons.  Because you're delusional, stupid, and uneducated, you think that anyone who questions or opposes you must be just as delusional, stupid, and uneducated, or more so. From your position of delusion, ignorance, and lack of education, you can't see that many people are way smarter and more educated than you, and are not delusional to boot.

Which brings me to my point: those whom I suspect are equally unqualified to parse the merits of the data often make assertions about the explanatory power of NDE theory that is well beyond their capacity to know. It's often (logically speaking) beyond the capacity of even experts in specific fields to know. Comments such as (from this thread):

There you go again suspecting something unfounded and wrong about people who are actually your intellectual superiors by miles. And, now that you made a bunch of asinine, insulting remarks in a lame attempt to discredit and diminish the intellect and knowledge of non-IDiots, you're going to get to your "point"?

   I note that organisms are not optimal in their function/form ~ it is easy to make a wish list of improvements. This is to be expected in 'evolution world', but not in 'ID world'

One only knows what "optimal form" is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design.

Actually, one only knows what ANY function/form is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design. In other words, without knowing (and showing) the intent, parameters, and specifications to be met by the alleged design, you IDiots don't know squat and are just dishonestly proselytizing for your non-scientific, non-evidential, wacky religious beliefs.

  For everyone else, there is a single, consistent, fully explanatory theory supported by all known observations without exception.

I doubt even the most long-tenured, multi-discipline, research-practicing evolutionary biologist could meaningfully claim this. This is obviously a statement of faith, not first-hand investigatory knowledge about "all known observations without exception".

What you doubt is irrelevant and meaningless to science and rational debate, and your absolutely moronic and desperate assertion about "first-hand investigatory knowledge" is so arrogant and stupid as to be good for nothing but laughs and mockery. No evolutionary biologist claims to have first-hand investigatory knowledge of all known observations without exception and Flint didn't claim that. Tell me, do you have "first-hand investigatory knowledge" of the alleged creation of the universe by your chosen god, or the alleged garden of eden, or the alleged talking snake, or the alleged 'flood', or the alleged ark, or the alleged conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection of a guy now called jesus, or anything else in your fairy tale religious dogma?  

  There is no reason to suppose any teleological or supernatural forces are involved.

This in the face of hundreds of years of biology that has worked against the commonly held supposition of teleological forces involved, and is easily disputed by referring to Lewontin or many others who have written about the apparent design in nature. This is just rhetoric in the face of the history of evolutionary theory and thought.

Blah blah blah. Nothing but arrogant, twisted bullshit.

If one reads through much of the ID/NDE commentary on this site (or even on UD), from both sides there is much presentation of characterizations of ID, or of ID researchers, or of NDE, or NDE researchers, or of the state of research, or of what is known, or what has been proven or not proven, or what there is evidence of or not of, by those who really don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about when it comes to actually evaluating data on the merits oneself and not just taking someone else's word for what it means.

Look at a mirror if you want to see someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. And whose word are YOU taking for all the bullshit religious stories you believe?

Basically, the debate is 90% negative or positive characterizations & rhetoric, and maybe 10% qualified interpretation and criticism of data & the merits of an argument. So, I'd say that really, about 90% of us are, in terms of the scientific and mathematical evidence and argument, doing nothing more in that specific area of argument than cheerleading those who actually understand the science and/or the math.

There you go yet again making a lame attempt to denigrate and diminish scientists and science supporters who are vastly superior to you and the other IDiots in understanding scientific and mathematical evidence and arguments. Yeah, you don't understand squat, and you're an arrogant religious retard, and your ridiculous and insulting assertions about non-IDiots are nothing more than your lame attempt to fool yourself and others into believing that your opponents are as stupid as you are.

So the question I finally draw to is: Why have we chosen ID, or NDE, when we lack the necessary qualifications to do anything more, really, than appeal to authority when it comes to the actual science involved?

Who's "we"? Speak only for yourself and your brain-dead fellow religious zombie IDiots.

Since I obviously do not understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, I must rest my choice on other considerations, which I think is what is behind how most people make the choice between ID and NDE (or between NDE and creationism); other considerations.

Yeah, since you don't understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, you must rest your choice on the easy and delusional fairy tales of your chosen religion. Congratulations, you're an ignorant nutcase.

So, I think the best populist argument for ID, for the 90%, has nothing really to do with math or science (or even logic) that is over our head anyway, but rather the hope, meaning, purpose and value that is conferred upon life & existence under the ID paradigm that is not available under the NDE paradigm.

In other words you're a scientifically and mathematically illiterate godbot who prefers fairy tales to reality, you support and promote a dishonest Dominionist agenda, and you think that makes it okay for you to rank down science, scientists, and science supporters.

I think that it is also true that for 90% of NDE believers, that it is some populist or psychological reason that they have adopted NDE (as was historically said, Darwinism allowed one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist), and attempt to characterize their belief as scientific or logical when it really is not.

How do you know that "it really is not" when you admittedly don't understand science and math? You're speaking from 100% delusion, ignorance, and arrogance.

At the end of the day, most of what either side tries to do (outside of the players educated in the particular fields) is characterize their ID or NDE belief as being based on science or logic; but when it comes down to it, that belief is really - IMO - nothing more than a reflection of what they want or need to believe anyway.

Again, speak for yourself. And what makes you think that "players educated in the particular fields" aren't involved in debates with you uneducated IDiots?

Personally, I choose to believe in god. I prefer believing in god (and yes, I've tried atheism). And unless there is some kind of logical contradiction or fact of my existence that contradicts ID, I will believe that our universe and life was designed by an intelligence. I prefer living under that paradigm.

Oh, so you've "tried atheism"? If only you knew how asinine that sounds. Live under any delusion you like but keep your insanity out of science, schools, politics, and the lives of people who don't want and don't need your religious crutch.

That doesn't mean I cannot make logical arguments for ID, or for god; nor does it mean I can't read papers and make sense out of some of the science and math; it just means that I admit my fundamental reason for belief is something other than that which I'm really not qualified to evaluate.

Actually, you god zombies are incapable of making a logical argument for ID and anything else. And yes, you're unqualified to evaluate science, math, logic, and reality, so stop telling people who are qualified to evaluate those things that they are wrong.  

And I think that this is probably true for most people involved in the debate.

What you think is gibberish.

 (Reply)
Elizabeth on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm said:

That's interesting, William, thanks.

Actually, it's crap.

Date: 2012/02/27 15:05:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Jkrebs @ Feb. 27 2012,04:55)
Barry parenthetically added, on the rape thread, "or, like Jack, try to change the subject", but there is no Jack that has posted in the thread.  Any idea what this is about?  Did someone post and then get unposted???

This is a copy of the post that was deleted:

24
Jack Dumond
February 26, 2012 at 9:02 pm

Barry Arrington: "johnnyb, actually, I think I will stick with my chimp example. Over and over again we hear from Darwinists that chimps and humans share 98% of their genes. I think there are good reasons to doubt that factoid, but I am willing to assume it arguendo for purposes of this post. In fact, it actually serves my purpose. If a Darwinist agrees that the chimp is not morally culpable to force sex on an unwilling female but the human is, I want them to tell me what, exactly, in that 2% accounts for the different result.

To the Darwinists: This post has been up several hours. Are you unwilling — or just unable — to engage with us? Nick, I know you’ve been here while the post has been up. Why are you refusing to engage?"

Mr. Arrington, I’m not a Darwinist but I think it is strange that you would wonder why Darwinists are “refusing to engage” you when you recently banned most of the people whom you would describe as Darwinists and materialists.

Regarding your rape topic: The word rape is something that humans apply to humans who have non-consensual sex with another human, and statutory rape deals with sex with people who have not reached the age of consent. None of that applies to animals.

It’s not the genetic difference between chimps and humans that matters, regarding rape. It’s the culture of humans, which includes laws, that matters. Chimps are unaware of laws and their culture is not as sophisticated as that of humans. Some people ignore the unacceptability and illegality of rape within their culture and some cultures either condone rape or don’t find it very abhorrent. I really don’t see what point you’re trying to make except to demonize the people you refer to as Darwinists and materialists.

How do you feel about the following?

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

2 Samuel 12:11-14

Exodus 21:7-11

And what do you think of the rampant child rape within the Catholic Church, and of rape and other atrocities within other churches and religious groups?

I’m also curious as to what this topic has to do with science and ID?

From what I’ve read on this website it seems likely that I will be accused of being an amoral materialist, so I’ll inform you now that I am a Christian Pastor. I am intrigued by the concept of ID as a scientific concept and came here to learn more about it, but I am very disappointed by what I see here. I seriously doubt that you ID proponents will make any headway in advancing ID as a plausible scientific theory by preaching hypocritical fire and brimstone against people you see as enemies of your religion. It hurts me to see people who call themselves Christians behaving in such a non-Christian way and being so anxious to accuse others of amoral and illegal acts whether they are guilty of those acts or not. I will pray for you and ask The Lord to show you more forgiveness and mercy than you’re willing to give. I strongly suggest that all of you seek a Pastor who can help guide you toward a more positive, honest, and truly Christian life.

Date: 2012/02/27 17:04:28, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey joe, have you seen any ghosts lately? How about aliens mixed in with the human population? Tell me joe, how can an alien in a crowd be spotted? Do they look different, smell different, act different? Do they have super powers? Are they from more than one other planet? Which planet(s)? How long have they been here? What is the purpose of them being here? Are they trying to take over the Earth? Are you in communication with them? Can you tell me about their technology, languages, culture, etc.?

Date: 2012/02/27 17:20:23, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 27 2012,14:51)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 27 2012,16:48)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 27 2012,16:40)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 27 2012,16:33)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 27 2012,16:31)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 27 2012,16:30)
Hey Joe, over here. This is where you "Unfortunately Shannon information doesn't have anything to do with information, ie meaning.' shoite belongs.

OK-dumbass:

       
Quote
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon's collaborators

JOEFAIL:

     
Quote
...information, ie meaning
DURPDURPDURP

9.3 Tardgasm today, boys!

Geez more vague bullshit and absolutely no demonstration that Richtard even has a clue.

Nice piece of shit non-response you ignorant fuck...

Parse this:

X <> X, ie Y. Barry would spank you with his LNC stick.

And then you start trying to counting bits, per Shannon (but forget about compressability,because you don't understand it) in other posts, claiming to have calculated CSI.


JOEFAIL.

Nice new false accusation. Unfortunately for you I discussed compressibility and I have measured CSI.

Where are your CSI measurements posted?

Are you ever going to measure the CSI in a banana and show your calculations, or is that too difficult (impossible) for a world renowned basement dwelling ID researcher tard like you, joe?

If you don't have a banana handy, a watermelon or a tick will do.

Date: 2012/02/27 18:26:28, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey joe, I see you're running away from yet another challenge to your lies. If you were really doing the IDAD thing you'd be anxious to prove it. By the way, I tried to find verification of it on the internet but came up empty so far. Would you please tell me whether the I in IDAD stands for insane, incompetent, incapable, IDiot, impotent, ignoramus, ignorant, icky, incarcerated, or in-basement? It would help to narrow down my search.

Date: 2012/02/27 18:45:33, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 27 2012,16:35)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 27 2012,18:26)
Hey joe, I see you're running away from yet another challenge to your lies. If you were really doing the IDAD thing you'd be anxious to prove it. By the way, I tried to find verification of it on the internet but came up empty so far. Would you please tell me whether the I in IDAD stands for insane, incompetent, incapable, IDiot, impotent, ignoramus, ignorant, icky, incarcerated, or in-basement? It would help to narrow down my search.

Yeah, great- some anonymous TWiT thinks it knows what I would be doing.

Ya see TWiT this is between my community and me- that was the arrangement-> no outside interference.

But if it ever gets to school then outsiders will know...

But didn't you say that you do it at a school?

And if I remember correctly you've said that you hope that someone will legally challenge your alleged IDAD thing so that you can take them on in court. How can someone challenge it if it isn't known where and when it allegedly takes place?

joe, it's all in your twisted imagination, and you're lying and bluffing as usual.

Date: 2012/02/27 19:33:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
Regarding a burden of proof, joe says:

"The burden is on anyone making a claim."

So, joe, when are you going to prove your claims about the alleged IDAD thing?

When are you going to prove all of your ID/CSI/IC/EF claims?

When are you going to prove all of your tough guy claims?

When are you going to take on someone in court in an ID related case?



Date: 2012/02/27 19:43:08, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 27 2012,17:35)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 27 2012,19:33)
Regarding a burden of proof, joe says:

"The burden is on anyone making a claim."

So, joe, when are you going to prove your claims about the alleged IDAD thing?

When are you going to prove all of your ID/CSI/IC/EF claims?

When are you going to prove all of your tough guy claims?

When are you going to take on someone in court in an ID related case?




TWiT,

Your head is still up your ass...

So then, you're admitting that you can't back up any of your claims. I'm glad that's settled.

Date: 2012/02/28 15:56:37, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 28 2012,13:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 28 2012,14:52)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 28 2012,11:49)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 28 2012,11:01)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 27 2012,16:26)
Hey joe, I see you're running away from yet another challenge to your lies. If you were really doing the IDAD thing you'd be anxious to prove it. By the way, I tried to find verification of it on the internet but came up empty so far. Would you please tell me whether the I in IDAD stands for insane, incompetent, incapable, IDiot, impotent, ignoramus, ignorant, icky, incarcerated, or in-basement? It would help to narrow down my search.

I've managed to track down a partial transcript of the Q&A session from last year's Theistic Awareness of Research Day:
       
Quote
Steve, high school senior: Professor Joe, you keep saying ID is not anti-evolution.  So why do you spend all this time criticising evolutionary biology?

Joe: Fuck you, needle-dick asshole.


Jane, ninth grade: Professor Joe, does my little sister's homework have the same amount of CSI as my homework?

Joe: You are too fucking stupid to understand anything.


Carl, high school junior: Professor Joe, do you have any positive evidence for ID?

Joe: Go fuck your mother.  If I hit you, you would die.


Sally, high school sophomore: Professor Joe, could you show us an example of how to calculate CSI in biology?

Joe:  You eat shit-filled diapers.

You win two internets for that!

PotW

seconded.

erasermass is right:  this is a great thread.

Thirded.  :)

Date: 2012/02/29 01:55:46, Link
Author: The whole truth
Just showing arrington the respect he deserves:

Date: 2012/02/29 03:21:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey joe, when are you going to publish your extensive collection of CSI calculations in a peer reviewed journal? Have you told the Nobel Committee that you've refuted the ToE with hard evidence of CSI and other proofs of ID? I'm sure that they're anxious to hear from such a highly qualified, world renowned ID scientist and literary genius as you. Just think, when you win the prize(s), which is a cinch of course, you can use the money to but lots of ticks and watermelons for further studies, and maybe even some balls, and if there's still some money left you could buy some extra candles for your basement dwelling!

Date: 2012/02/29 03:26:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
Oh, by the way joe, which kind of cake has the most CSI, chocolate or lemon? I'm wondering because I'm trying to cut down on my CSI intake.

Date: 2012/02/29 17:58:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 29 2012,15:50)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 29 2012,17:49)
While you're here, Joe, could you calculate the CSI of something?  Anything will do.

I have asshole and I even showed you how to do it.

and I even linked to a paper tat tells you how to do it.

So shut the fuck up and get busy

Then you should have no problem calculating/measuring the CSI in a banana, joe, and showing your work. Get busy.

Date: 2012/02/29 18:35:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey joe, since I'm trying to cut down on my intake of CSI, in addition to a banana, a lemon cake, and a chocolate cake can you please tell me the amount of CSI in the following things so that I can adjust my diet accordingly?

a carrot

an apple

a two pound pork roast

a pork chop

4 strips of bacon

a maple bar

a head of lettuce

8 ounces of potato chips

a potato

a cup of 2% milk

6 beef ribs

a dozen prawns

a pound of salmon

three large chicken eggs

a ham sandwich on rye bread with mustard and lettuce

a 12 ounce Pepsi

a pomegranate

and 8 ounces of oatmeal

Date: 2012/02/29 18:52:30, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 29 2012,16:43)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 29 2012,18:35)
Hey joe, since I'm trying to cut down on my intake of CSI, in addition to a banana, a lemon cake, and a chocolate cake can you please tell me the amount of CSI in the following things so that I can adjust my diet accordingly?

a carrot

an apple

a two pound pork roast

a pork chop

4 strips of bacon

a maple bar

a head of lettuce

8 ounces of potato chips

a potato

a cup of 2% milk

6 beef ribs

a dozen prawns

a pound of salmon

three large chicken eggs

a ham sandwich on rye bread with mustard and lettuce

a 12 ounce Pepsi

a pomegranate

and 8 ounces of oatmeal

Seeing that your head is up your ass just stick your tongue out as all that shit passes by and take a measurement.

But I thought you were an expert at calculating/measuring CSI, and I was really looking forward to seeing your masterful technique in determining the measure of CSI in those things. I'm so disappointed to see that you can't do it. I haz a sad. :(

Date: 2012/02/29 19:39:12, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 29 2012,16:56)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 29 2012,18:52)
You thougt  
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 29 2012,16:43)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 29 2012,18:35)
Hey joe, since I'm trying to cut down on my intake of CSI, in addition to a banana, a lemon cake, and a chocolate cake can you please tell me the amount of CSI in the following things so that I can adjust my diet accordingly?

a carrot

an apple

a two pound pork roast

a pork chop

4 strips of bacon

a maple bar

a head of lettuce

8 ounces of potato chips

a potato

a cup of 2% milk

6 beef ribs

a dozen prawns

a pound of salmon

three large chicken eggs

a ham sandwich on rye bread with mustard and lettuce

a 12 ounce Pepsi

a pomegranate

and 8 ounces of oatmeal

Seeing that your head is up your ass just stick your tongue out as all that shit passes by and take a measurement.

But I thought you were an expert at calculating/measuring CSI, and I was really looking forward to seeing your masterful technique in determining the measure of CSI in those things. I'm so disappointed to see that you can't do it. I haz a sad. :(

YOU, thought?

Now THAT is funny...

Not nearly as funny as the reputation you've made for yourself by being a lying, deranged, cowardly nutcase on the internet for years on end.

Date: 2012/03/01 00:29:44, Link
Author: The whole truth
Speaking of "Expelled", have you all seen this?

catholic cult hypocrite

Yeah, like the catholic pedophiles have any room to preach morals to anyone.

Date: 2012/03/01 02:04:12, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 29 2012,22:44)
... so...

What, exactly, is the "information" in a 100aa protein?  What is its "meaning"?

I concur with OgreMkV: what the fuck use is it?

Even if you think it means "this wuz deezynd!", so what?

Then what do you do with it?

Good questions.

And I have another one for joe. Hey joe, I was playing cards in the woods with a Bigfoot buddy of mine the other night and asked him for his favorite cake recipe. Here's what Og (that's his name) told me:

a big handful of old fir bark, pulverized with a big rock
6 medium sized oak leaves, slightly chewed by polyphemus moth caterpillars
two ruddy duck eggs, including the shells
a small clay pot of cow parsnip root, finely chopped with a stone knife
30 fermented snowberrries
four regurgitated cherry seeds, cracked open
a big mouthful of creek water
a pinch of muskrat musk
a pinch of dried deer snot
a pinch of cougar scat
a pinch of sand, for more texture
one fresh owl pellet

mix all ingredients well, with a small maple branch, in a granite mixing bowl, and then cook over a medium hot fire in a basalt cooking bowl for the length of time that it takes to have wild Bigfoot sex with the ol' lady, but don't spend too much time on the foreplay. Remove cooking bowl from the fire and let cool while having another romp with the ol' lady. Then, eat cake from bowl with fingers.

So, joe, how much CSI is there in that cake?

Date: 2012/03/01 19:13:29, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2012,06:16)
Inside Higher Ed has an article on the Springer book flap.

A comment there compared this to censorship in communist countries. I replied in a comment (under moderation):

 
Quote

Hmmm? In the USSR, espousing the "bourgeois biology of the west" could get you house arrest, imprisonment in Siberia, or simply a date in front of the firing squad.

This isn't a free speech issue. If Intervarsity were the publisher of the proposed volume, nobody would give a rip.

This is a scamming issue. The pretense that old, tired religious antievolution arguments are actually science is a common fiction ever since 1968's "Epperson v. Arkansas" SCOTUS decision. The legal term of art used for this in 1987's "Edwards v. Aguillard" decision is "sham". It's about people using whatever means of deception they can pull to influence the political sphere to inject their view of biology into science.


Drat! I thought I had copied the whole thing, but I'm missing about three paragraphs and some edits of what I've got here. Here's hoping they post the whole thing.

Wesley, are you aware of this:

Lazarus

Your comment was posted at Inside Higher Ed, but Lazarus might come in handy if you're ever in another situation where you want to recover something you've written.

Date: 2012/03/03 04:29:56, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 03 2012,00:15)
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 02 2012,18:09)
that is one of the default avatars

I know. But out of maybe dozens available, he went ahead and picked this one, didn't he?

Hi Kattarina, from what I can tell the avatars are assigned automatically, rather than chosen. At least when I post there my avatar just shows up and I didn't choose it. If anything, that makes joe's avatar even funnier. Of all the available avatars, he got that one. Maybe there's a 'designer' after all. ;)

Date: 2012/03/03 04:36:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2012,13:09)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2012,14:41)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 02 2012,14:30)
LMAO!!  I wondered what that little color streak in his avatar was, given it's strategic location but I didn't have the courage to magnify it.  Too funny!

Probably want to get that red spot checked out...

That's a callous from the sandpaper... or so Joe has led me to believe.  You know he never actually says anything.

Are you sure that the red spot isn't a blood swollen tick?

Maybe it's a blood swollen tick on a callous from the sandpaper. :)

Date: 2012/03/04 18:28:43, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 04 2012,16:12)
Laugh out load moment (for me, anyway). Joe has another thread, this time on how Tiktaalik is somehow not a transitional. Bearing in mind a previous comment Joe is on his bestest behaviour, even prompting this:
   
Quote
So far three evos have responded and not one has demonstrated a reading of the OP.

Still staring at me Elizabeth?

However 9 comments later the dam bursts:
   
Quote
   
Quote
   Rich:
   Joe, I'm trying to talk specifics with you. please humour me. I wouldn't want readers to think you're being evasive, by asserting and not supporting.


Please read and respond to the OP- or go away

Elizabeth- Rich is being a fucking faggot- can you please do something about him.

...and you all know where it goes from there.

And of course joe will claim that he's just responding to attacks on him.

Date: 2012/03/05 04:58:09, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (paragwinn @ Mar. 05 2012,01:32)
From "Tiktaalik", Why it is a failed Prediction, a snippet of 'Joevolutionary Theory':  
Quote
There isn't anything in [standard evolutionary] theory that says a transitional form will be around millions of years after the transition was made- you don't have any idea how evolution works


"Those who think they know Joevolutionary Theory don't know Joevolutionary Theory, they only know evotardism." - Feynard Richman, home healthcare worker

Yep, that's some major league tard that joe is spewing there. That guy is one tardtastic IDiot.

Date: 2012/03/07 01:10:16, Link
Author: The whole truth

Date: 2012/03/07 03:22:08, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,01:12)
Quick - I've written a blog post that's going to go up on a Major UK (and international) newspaper's web pages about this and it needs a picture. Can anyone suggest something, e.g. from the AtBC archives, that would be suitable, free to use, and not too offensive? I don't want to get sued.

A picture of what?

Date: 2012/03/07 03:41:44, Link
Author: The whole truth
Bob, I'm just asking for an idea of what you're looking for. Maybe I can help.

Date: 2012/03/07 05:18:23, Link
Author: The whole truth
Bob, don't feel obligated to use any of these, but you can if you want.





If you like the picture but want different words, tell me what you want and I'll make it. Better hurry though because I'll be going to sleep soon.

You can also make your own here

Date: 2012/03/07 05:55:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,03:49)
I like the first one. I almost said "no LOLDembskis", but now I'm glad I didn't.

Here's a smaller version of it, that looks a little better:

Date: 2012/03/07 06:15:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 07 2012,04:00)
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 07 2012,01:10)

Are you on your way? Or did you chickenshit out?

You'll just have to wonder when. And look who's talking about chickening out. That's all you ever do.

Date: 2012/03/07 06:36:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,04:20)
If we can get it passed the lawyers, it looks like we'll go for this. Who should get the credit? "The Whole Truth", or do you want your real name used?

You're not David S. Springer are you?

You don't have to give me any credit, but if you want to just use The whole truth. Nope, I'm not David Springer.

Date: 2012/03/07 06:40:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
I just want to add that I'll accept full responsibility when it comes to any legal matters for any pictures or text that I post here or anywhere else.

Date: 2012/03/08 23:31:30, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2012,10:40)
Should have known someone would get there first - I was sent to the cellar to get the incubator.

I had lots of links here and to PT, but they were removed by The Guardian.

Bob, thank you for writing that article and helping to get the word out about the shenanigans of the IDiots. The more people learn of their sneaky games, the better.

Date: 2012/03/09 05:00:17, Link
Author: The whole truth
Some funny from joe:

As for evidence for UFOs and ancient astronauts, there is plenty. Great Britain opened up its files and there is more than enough in those alone.

Then there are massive stone structures allegedly cut and moved by people who couldn’t even write- we might not be able to duplicate some of the things they built.

And yes paranormal events have been investigated and I would love to see any skeptic go into some of these places- I get to choose.

But anyway take a trip to Peru and Bolivia- check out Puma Punku, Tiahuanaco, Nasca- hey there is a mountain missing its entire top- as if it was just scraped off for a landing area.

And:

The evidence for abstract designers is that there is evidence for paranormal activity, eg ghosts.

And:

We have evidence that intelligent entities exist or existed other places than earth.

Also ID INFERs they did. And ID would be OK if we were descendendts.

And:

Newly released UFO files from the UK government     http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos...........fos

More UK UFO files              
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos.......les.htm

And:

As I said the evidence for ghosts means there is evidence for non-human agency.

And:

And living organisms do violate the second law.

Date: 2012/03/11 03:29:14, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (REC @ Mar. 10 2012,20:53)
CH is on a roll this week-more rants on the science is religious, therefore bad, long live my religion.

Calling Bruce Alberts a Gnostic (not agnostic) was weird to say the least. But then this-

 
Quote
Don’t miss Butler Day at the Cambridge Science Festival next Saturday where evolutionist Ben Irvine will knock down straw men objections to Darwin’s theory and explain “how understanding Darwinism better can help us all to achieve well-being.”

In other news evolutionists performed over 40 million abortions last year.

Religion drives science and it matters.


Link

So, according to corny, over 40 million abortions were "performed" last year by "evolutionists". Hmm, I wonder if he personally asked every person who "performed" any or all those alleged abortions if they're an "evolutionist"? Obviously, to corny, anyone who performs an abortion must be an "evolutionist" and corny absolutely hates "evolutionists" and blames "evolutionists" for all the world's ills whether they really are "evolutionists" or not.

joe g likes to say that ID isn't anti-evolution but anyone who pays attention to the ID agenda knows that ID is anti-evolution, and in corny's case it's really, really obvious that he is ANTI-evolution! He constantly bitches about "evolution" and "evolutionists". He's a religious nutcase, just like all the other IDiots.

Date: 2012/03/12 21:01:07, Link
Author: The whole truth
I'm wondering if someone would be willing to create a thread about the Coppedge case?

There's an article on Yahoo News about it here.

Date: 2012/03/13 01:22:41, Link
Author: The whole truth
I've been keeping up with the case on other sites but when I saw that Yahoo News article and wanted to bring it to the attention of people here I realized that there isn't a thread devoted to the case. I wasn't sure where to post about it and didn't want to clutter up the wrong thread. I just thought it might be a good idea to have a thread where posts about that case could be placed. I'll leave it up to the powers that be here. :)

Date: 2012/03/13 12:23:37, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 13 2012,08:52)
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 13 2012,01:22)
I've been keeping up with the case on other sites but when I saw that Yahoo News article and wanted to bring it to the attention of people here I realized that there isn't a thread devoted to the case. I wasn't sure where to post about it and didn't want to clutter up the wrong thread. I just thought it might be a good idea to have a thread where posts about that case could be placed. I'll leave it up to the powers that be here. :)

I'm just being grouchy - of course a thread can be devoted to it. This is the place for it! But these &$%#@ lawsuits are just becoming just like the moment in your childhood that you realized that both "The Road Runner" and "Scooby Doo" always had the same ending. :p

I understand. :)

I'd prefer that the lawsuit weren't even happening and that all of the IDiots would just STFU and leave science alone.

Date: 2012/03/13 18:24:17, Link
Author: The whole truth
So, joe says:

"What kind of SC is not CSI? The kind that does not deal with bits of information- the kind we see in buildings and the kind we see in machines."

But, he also says:

"Computer programs, computers, cars, houses (built to code), etc., etc., all contain and are made from Complex Specified Information."

In this thread.

Aren't computers and cars machines, and isn't a house a building whether it's "built to code" or not?

Date: 2012/03/15 06:13:58, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 15 2012,03:14)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 15 2012,10:19)
I can't see your comment either - must have failed to upload I think.

There's nothing in the moderation queue, nor the spam filter.

Can you try again?

I'm sorry the software is glitchy.  Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to optimise it.  I'll gradually try and fix the glitches, but each new fix seems to come with another downside.

ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.

 
Quote
ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.
Thanks, and thanks for looking! It's absolutely possible that I botched it...

 
Quote
Can you try again?
I haven't saved my comment. What a pity: it was the one last edit to end all editing, the one comment which made all further comments superfluous. But let bygones be bygones - I'll mumble on in my usual manner :-)

You might want to look at this.

Date: 2012/03/15 06:50:46, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 15 2012,04:42)
Liz reports that kairosfocus has attempted to post at TSZ, but got caught in a spam-trap.

(I haven't bothered looking to see if she's set it free, since I might be tempted to read it, and I'm nearing the limit of my capacity for being told that Western Civilisation is on the steep slope to perdition, because chi-squared and Plato, or something)

Surely that post, from that poster, means UD has twitched its last anti-evolutionary spasm?

Do we get to dance on its grave?

A spam trap is a fitting place for gordo.  :D

Date: 2012/03/15 07:15:59, Link
Author: The whole truth

Date: 2012/03/15 12:43:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 15 2012,06:29)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 11 2012,17:58)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2012,10:57)
Dude, buy a fucking vowel- archaeologists cannot say one fucking thing about the designers until they determine they even existed. And they do that by finding evidence of their existence via the determination of artifacts

And the only way they make any scientific determination about the designer(s) is by studying the design and the relevant evidence. That is what Intellignet Design is all about. And all the other questions prove that ID is not a dead-end as there are obviously unanswered questions that we will attempt to answer.

Stonehenge, made up of stones, stones mother nature can produce yet for some reason no one thinks mother nature produced Stonehenge. And after centuries of study we still don't know exactly who nor how...

I come back from a nice vacation to even more epic fail.

So, provide us the evidence that your 'designer' has existed.

Unfortunately for you, to eliminate circular reasoning, you can't use the things you claim are the designs as evidence of the designer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Another dimbass response from the KevTARD-

How do we know there were designers of Stonehenge? Stonehenge is evidence there were designers of Stonehenge.

And again, dumbass, if you don't like the design inference just step up and demonstrate matter, energy, necessity and chance are all that is required.

Your position has all the power but unfortunately your position is full of cowards.



















Date: 2012/03/15 13:11:03, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 15 2012,10:46)
The Whole Truth... you forgot Cthullu.  Now I has a sad.

Oh well... Joe has probably flounced again.  No actual discussion how expected.

Date: 2012/03/15 15:33:49, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 15 2012,13:27)
Joe and KF continue to console each other at UD.

Shouldn't console be cornhole?

Date: 2012/03/16 11:13:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 16 2012,08:25)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 16 2012,10:13)
The new mall is plenty busy.

I give KF two more weeks - tops - until he tries to comment at the new mall again instead of talking about it at the ghost mall.

Any place where gordo doesn't have total control and some sheeple to preach to is of course a fever swamp to him, and I'm sure that entering the new mall is a terrifying thought for such a sniveling coward, although he might do a hit and run there at times. If he does he will undoubtedly spew his usual sanctimonious vomit and get all pissy like a sissy when his sermon isn't worshiped as the words of a god.

Date: 2012/03/16 22:27:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 16 2012,17:52)
he's a poster child for something but i can't figure out exactly what...

Drama queens?

Date: 2012/03/17 02:10:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 16 2012,09:31)
He might be in two minds; of course he loves to control discussions. OTOH, he craves an audience, and his audience has migrated elsewhere.

Good points.

He's likely praying that the new mall evo-mat fever swamp will be utterly destroyed by his imaginary god, and in the meantime he's probably searching the internet for a suitable pulpit where he can proselytize, and rage against atheists, during the moments when he's not 'accidently' looking at porn.

Date: 2012/03/17 10:22:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 17 2012,07:27)
I was scolded for posting a Leprechaun for Amadan's birthday. Would it be fine to post St Patrick today?

Sure, why not?

Date: 2012/03/17 10:29:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 16 2012,17:52)
he's a poster child for something but i can't figure out exactly what...

Basement dwelling incorrigible booger eating brats with inverted peens and ankle length butt hair?

Date: 2012/03/17 10:56:31, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 16 2012,20:41)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 16 2012,22:58)
Quote (REC @ Mar. 16 2012,14:03)
I saw this title at another site and had to peek.

Without comment, from news:...

You guys are like all junkies. You tell everybody that you have "quit for ever." Then for a few weeks you whine how much you missed the "stuff."

Then, you boast how you are finally clean forever.

Then you go get a hit. But this time its different. Now you are getting the tard 'just because I "had to peek."

fucking drunks

i aint looked in that shitbin

I haven't looked at UD for 2 or 3 weeks and I really don't miss it. At first I was tempted but that's wearing off. There's plenty of ID tard in other places and some of those sites don't block or ban people for no good reason, and the IDiots who post on some sites have to face their challengers or run like scared chickens back to UD or some other echo chamber sanctuary.

It's a lot more fun and productive to take on IDiots on sites where they aren't protected by pompous, dishonest tyrants like that dickhead arrington.

Date: 2012/03/17 11:47:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
Cap'n Guano:

"Prove that A fairy who could magic a Prince into being a frog wouldn't be natural."

Date: 2012/03/18 11:22:39, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 17 2012,15:57)
I like this for no particular reason:
 
Quote
But anyway beavers are intelligent agencies because they can and do puposefully manipulate nature to produce a desired effect.

I've come across some beavers that have purposefully manipulated my nature to produce a desired effect.

Date: 2012/03/19 00:02:46, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 18 2012,11:51)
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 18 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 17 2012,15:57)
I like this for no particular reason:
   
Quote
But anyway beavers are intelligent agencies because they can and do puposefully manipulate nature to produce a desired effect.

I've come across some beavers that have purposefully manipulated my nature to produce a desired effect.


Hopefully that has nothing to do with scat.... :p

eeeewwww....perish the thought  :p

Date: 2012/03/19 16:33:13, Link
Author: The whole truth
Cap'n Guano:

"That said ,Madelyn Murray O'Hair is nothing compared to what I have coming. So keep chanting that I have nothing- I am sure people said the same thing about O'Hair, and look what she did..."

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That he's going to kidnap murder and dismember atheists or something?

Date: 2012/03/19 16:35:14, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 19 2012,12:20)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 19 2012,08:45)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 19 2012,03:44)
Hey Joe,
http://www.plosone.org/article....0033288

Which mutations did your designer do?

Well, somebody has to say it:

"But they're still Drosophila"

I want to see frikkin' laser beams.  Is that too much to ask?


Excellent, except there's no scat!  :D

Date: 2012/03/20 08:15:19, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 20 2012,03:15)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 20 2012,07:32)
So, here is the terrible thought I have not seen addressed directly; What will you all do now that UD is dead? I know there are still twitches, but those are just maggots burrowing under the skin.

I have suggested commenting on newspaper sites. We could even return with creationist scalps still bleeding to post here at AtBC.


There are myriad varieties of weapons-grade TARD available should the UD/anti-evolution vein run dry.

Example:


Date: 2012/03/20 19:11:33, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:37)
I'm not actually predicting church attendance numbers.  Just asserting there are people who place a positive value on faith over evidence. Some go for new age stuff, some for quack medicine, etc.

I see more and more people (especially women) saying that they are "spiritual, not religious" or are "spiritual but not part of organized religion", in personal ads. Earlier today I saw one who said she is christian, attends church, but is "more spiritual than religious".

What cracks me up are the ones who say they're spiritual, christian, attend church, are tattooed, pierced, kinky, and like death metal, and want a badboy "Master" or "Dom" or "Daddy" with lots of tattoos and piercings who will get high and drunk with them and spank them.

Date: 2012/03/20 21:09:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,17:33)
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 20 2012,19:11)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:37)
I'm not actually predicting church attendance numbers.  Just asserting there are people who place a positive value on faith over evidence. Some go for new age stuff, some for quack medicine, etc.

I see more and more people (especially women) saying that they are "spiritual, not religious" or are "spiritual but not part of organized religion", in personal ads. Earlier today I saw one who said she is christian, attends church, but is "more spiritual than religious".

What cracks me up are the ones who say they're spiritual, christian, attend church, are tattooed, pierced, kinky, and like death metal, and want a badboy "Master" or "Dom" or "Daddy" with lots of tattoos and piercings who will get high and drunk with them and spank them.

The funniest one that I saw was a Christian Humanist.

Oxymoron

It seems that most peoples' "spiritual", "religious", or "worldview" belief systems are like a homemade food recipe. A cup of this, a spoonful of that, two of this, one of that, a dash of this, a sprinkle of that, etc., and often the recipe/ingredients for their beliefs conflict, and are subject to change for no apparent reason.

Even people who attend the same church often disagree on the details of their beliefs, and a lot of people who are "spiritual" or "religious" also go for other strange stuff, like what midwifetoad mentioned, and ghosts, Bigfoot, aliens living amongst or replacing humans, alien abductions, ancient alien visitors, crystal healing, and who knows what else.  

Speaking of aliens and ghosts, joe g comes to mind. I wonder if the aliens found any CSI when they 'probed' him?

Date: 2012/03/22 10:02:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 21 2012,18:44)
Thank you, everybody! :)



(Wes, should I combine this with the "still spry" thread, or can I just be 29 again-again?) ;)

Bon Appétit...

Date: 2012/03/24 06:57:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 23 2012,17:58)
Ahem.... And this is going to get Louis back here how????

FTK - Do you have any pictures of you and the sheep that you could post, so we can get Louis back?  And is the sheep wearing any stockings?  I think Louis would like to know.*

*He also wants us all to know he's NOT Welsh.

Date: 2012/03/24 12:53:46, Link
Author: The whole truth
Not sure if this is the right place for these buy I thought you all might find them interesting.


robertson's tard


religious tolerance


vile cult

Date: 2012/03/29 16:09:00, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 29 2012,06:05)
Joe appears to be making death-threats against Nick:

   
Quote
And more evidence that Nick Matzke misrepresents reality- as if we needed more evidence to that effect:

Yet another Scopes Monkey Trial on the way in Tennessee

Unbelievable- Nick do you ever properly represent anything? Do you realize that people who can read know you are lying?

Nick- ever hear of Madeline Murray O’Hare? She had nothing on what I am going to bring down on you and your ilk…


My bold. His threat.

Link

Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick there? Seems clear to me...

And joe recently said:

"That said ,Madelyn Murray O'Hair is nothing compared to what I have coming. So keep chanting that I have nothing- I am sure people said the same thing about O'Hair, and look what she did..."

It looks as though joe is either making death threats or he is going to become an atheist activist. The latter is much less likely.

Date: 2012/03/29 19:40:58, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 29 2012,15:47)
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 29 2012,16:09)
And joe recently said:

"That said ,Madelyn Murray O'Hair is nothing compared to what I have coming. So keep chanting that I have nothing- I am sure people said the same thing about O'Hair, and look what she did..."

Hmm, well If Joe achieves something then I'll go with that.

So, Joe, when you have your own personal Wikipedia page documenting what you've done then I'll consider you in the same league as O'Hair re: achievements.

You won't be, no doubt, but just for the sake of argument. You have to achieve a certain threshhold to get your own page, whatever it's for, so seems reasonable to me that if you achieve only a fraction of any notable activist you'll get a page.

So, Joe, your move.  Heck, I'll even start it!

Let me know when you achieve something Joe. And I don't mean getting off the pot.

I'm all for a Wikipedia page devoted to joe. It could be titled: The arrogance, stupidity, and cowardice of a tick infested, basement dwelling, loud-mouthed, incorrigible, muslim, creationist IDiot. :D

joe is playing some kind of game with the references to O'Hair. It's strange that he would bring her up unless he is planning on kidnapping, torturing, murdering, and dismembering some atheists. If he's got some other plan up his sleeve I would think that he could find a more appropriate person to refer to.

joe likes to claim that he is working on something that will scientifically refute "Darwinism" once and for all, but of course he never reveals what it is. He also likes to claim that he would easily crush "Darwinism" in a courtroom, and that all he needs is the chance to do so. Maybe his plan is to take "Darwinism" to the supreme court and have it outlawed, and then to somehow become ruler of the world, and then to force sharia law on everyone, and then to kidnap, torture, murder, and dismember all atheists.

Whatever he's planning, I'm sure it will be laughable, IF he ever reveals it.

Date: 2012/03/30 03:10:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
I've been under the impression that only certain people can start new threads here but then I noticed the new topic button. So, I'm wondering if anyone can start a new thread and if there are any guidelines, rules, or special permissions that apply?



Date: 2012/03/30 03:33:56, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 30 2012,01:29)
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 30 2012,03:10)
I've been under the impression that only certain people can start new threads here but then I noticed the new topic button. So, I'm wondering if anyone can start a new thread and if there are any guidelines, rules, or special permissions that apply?

The general rule is that you check through the already-existing threads to see if one of those is close enough for your post. Only if no existing thread is suitable should you start a new thread. It should be titled such that it can be re-used in the future. For example, a new topic I recently created was one for discussing "Religion and Co-Workers". The spur to doing so was the Coppedge v. JPL case, but with that title, it also covers the old Peloza case and any future cases with similar issues at play.

Obviously, there has been quite a bit of topic creation that doesn't meet these desiderata. If you find an old topic that could be re-purposed with a different title, send it to me as a suggestion via PM. Birthday threads get a pass.

If you start lots of new threads willy-nilly that are needlessly specific, that would be annoying. They will be closed and you might lose new topic creation privileges.

Thanks for asking about what works.

Thanks for the information Wesley.

Date: 2012/03/30 23:20:40, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey joe, does this guy look familiar?

Date: 2012/03/31 14:32:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
joe gallien, creationist

home page

also see this

Date: 2012/03/31 17:43:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Dembski's new job

And more

Date: 2012/04/01 02:31:44, Link
Author: The whole truth
Take a look at this page.

Date: 2012/04/01 18:10:39, Link
Author: The whole truth
The latest on the coppedge saga.

Date: 2012/04/03 17:25:19, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 03 2012,10:58)
Has Barry blamed us for the shootings at the Christian college yet?

If he doesn't, KF likely will, and Hitler will probably get a mention too.

Date: 2012/04/04 21:17:58, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (utidjian @ April 04 2012,19:00)
Is Joe taking a breather? He seems to have almost fizzled out over at TSZ and no longer dominates recent comments or the Guano sections. For a while there he seemed to be working himself into quite a lather... perhaps he slipped on the soap.

-DU-

He's probably recuperating from being 'probed' again by his alien friends. That, and he's busy with extracting ticks from his inverted penis.

Date: 2012/04/04 23:14:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (afarensis @ April 04 2012,20:13)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 04 2012,21:17)
Quote (utidjian @ April 04 2012,19:00)
Is Joe taking a breather? He seems to have almost fizzled out over at TSZ and no longer dominates recent comments or the Guano sections. For a while there he seemed to be working himself into quite a lather... perhaps he slipped on the soap.

-DU-

He's probably recuperating from being 'probed' again by his alien friends. That, and he's busy with extracting ticks from his inverted penis.

Something like this maybe?


Yeah.  :D

Date: 2012/05/03 18:01:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 03 2012,11:11)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 01 2012,04:32)

Well, it looks like Joe has earned NCSE another 30 bucks. However, he missed a golden opportunity when he used a scientific term when he could have used something fit for a bathroom wall. - No, I'm not going to elaborate.

And now I give you a thing of rare beauty:

Joe G:
Evidence- no one cares what any “theory” says. People care about the evidence. And to date there isn’t any evidence for a self-replicator and no evidence tat a self-replicator can become a living organism.


Elizabeth:
Joe, living organisms are self-replicators.

Joe G:
Humans are living organisms and we are not self-replicators.

Hmm, maybe joe was designed, but certainly not by an "intelligent" designer.

Date: 2012/05/04 11:13:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 04 2012,08:05)
Joe's war on materialism continues, largely in moderation. This nugget still needs to be released :

 
Quote
Submitted on 2012/05/04 at 1:27 pm
Evidence- evidence is what materialism doesn’t have


Especially PHYSICAL evidence, Joe.

joe likes to believe in 'immaterial' things, like ghosts.

Awhile back he said that he would bet money that no one would spend a night in a haunted place of his choosing. I asked him to reveal the places and said that I would spend a night in any of them if he would actually pay up. Guess what? No response from him.

There is one haunted place where I wouldn't spend a night or a day or any other amount of time, for any amount of money: joe's delusional mind.

Date: 2012/05/04 12:51:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Would it be fair to say that organisms are a collection of molecules?

Date: 2012/05/04 13:14:45, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 04 2012,10:59)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 04 2012,12:51)
Would it be fair to say that organisms are a collection of molecules?

Sure... but then, so is a rock.

Is a rock a collection of molecules, or is it a collection of bonded atoms (sometimes containing molecules)?

Date: 2012/05/04 14:28:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey joe g, since you watch this thread, maybe you will answer these questions:

Does anything in nature 'operate freely'? If so, what, and how do you know? If not, what, and how do you know? What's your definition of "operating freely".

Also, who designed and built Stonehenge? Was it beings from another planet? How about the Nazca Lines?

Date: 2012/05/04 14:45:56, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 04 2012,12:19)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 04 2012,13:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 04 2012,10:59)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ May 04 2012,12:51)
Would it be fair to say that organisms are a collection of molecules?

Sure... but then, so is a rock.

Is a rock a collection of molecules, or is it a collection of bonded atoms (sometimes containing molecules)?

Well if you're using the chemistry definition of molecule, then you're probably right... there are some minerals that would considered molecules (Carbon subsulfide can be a solid) and rocks are collections of minerals.  I really was being imprecise.

That's really an interesting question and chemistry is my worst subject (which explains why I taught it for 5 years).

I would be willing to argue that the chemical structure of many minerals is as complex as the smaller life-based molecules.  Montmorillonite being a good example with the formula

(Na,Ca)0.33(Al,Mg)2(Si4O10)(OH)2·nH2O

But (like DNA) capable of forming long strands of repeated units.

That's okay, I guess I'm being pretty imprecise too.

I'm just curious about how others define some things, and how it might relate to "self-replicators".

Date: 2012/05/04 23:19:56, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ May 04 2012,13:52)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 04 2012,12:13)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 04 2012,08:05)
Joe's war on materialism continues, largely in moderation. This nugget still needs to be released :

       
Quote
Submitted on 2012/05/04 at 1:27 pm
Evidence- evidence is what materialism doesn’t have


Especially PHYSICAL evidence, Joe.

joe likes to believe in 'immaterial' things, like ghosts.

Awhile back he said that he would bet money that no one would spend a night in a haunted place of his choosing. I asked him to reveal the places and said that I would spend a night in any of them if he would actually pay up. Guess what? No response from him.

There is one haunted place where I wouldn't spend a night or a day or any other amount of time, for any amount of money: joe's delusional mind.

Dollars to donuts says that, had you actually followed through on your side of the bet, Dishonest Joe would have stiffed you on the grounds that you couldn't prove that the place that he had chosen was actually haunted.

Yep, joe is quick to challenge people to bet, fight, or whatever blustering BS pops into his feeble mind, but he always runs away.

Date: 2012/05/05 15:27:40, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (JLT @ May 05 2012,12:38)
Oh goody, KF discovered the loudspeaker in the ceiling. Now he can post two responses and insert his drivel into the comment with which he disagrees.
 
Quote
9
tragic mishap

I posted Scripture with no comment whatsoever, much less any twisting, and I never once mentioned violence. If you think I was talking about violence, you’re putting words in my mouth. I was talking about free speech. I think you’re the one who needs to chill.

[--> TM, you knew exactly what you were doing by snipping out of context like that, following the general context and style of the now increasingly common web version of village skeptic tactics. Your attempts to pretend otherwise simply underscore the force of the point. Sorry, we were not born just this morning. KF]

DANGER ++ UD linky ++ DANGER

So the god zombies at UD are now eating each other?

The more that site is ignored by rational people, the more the lunatics there will come apart at the seams. Authoritarians need someone to boss around, and if there are no "Darwinists" to attack, the IDiots will turn on each other.

Date: 2012/05/05 15:41:28, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Amadan @ May 05 2012,04:21)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 04 2012,20:28)
Hey joe g, since you watch this thread, maybe you will answer these questions:

Does anything in nature 'operate freely'? If so, what, and how do you know? If not, what, and how do you know? What's your definition of "operating freely".

Also, who designed and built Stonehenge? Was it beings from another planet? How about the Nazca Lines?

Sorry TWT: if ya got NO evidence, ya don't get to ask questions.

Is that straight from the joe g rules of IDiot procedure?  :)

Date: 2012/05/06 01:49:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (REC @ May 05 2012,20:32)
What a little shitstain Sal is-

He says--"Top Johns Hopkins Surgeon Persecuted for being a Creationist" in a "witch hunt at Emory."

Real story:
Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give Emory's Commencement, and receive a honorary degree.

Professors and students wrote a letter: “deeply concerning  . . . That he equates the acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality.” And that “not only encourages the insertion of unnecessary and destructive wedges between Americans but stands against many of the ideals of this university.”

“Dr. Carson was a childhood hero of mine, and he still is a hero of mine,” said Arri Eisen, Ph.D., Emory University Department of Biology. “What worried me the most was the fact that he said if you do accept evolution that you’re somehow ethically lacking.”

"The professors say this is no protest and they still want Carson to speak at the commencement.

They say they simply want to draw attention to Carson’s stance."

“I credit my university with being open to and engaging in these conversations because it’s not having those conversations where that can lead to many dangerous situations in politics and beyond that we see in our country today,” Eisen said.

Lions at the Colosseum, I tell ya....

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012.......versity

And of course the acceptance of natural evolution is the acceptance that we humans descended from an ape-like ancestor and many other ancestors, all the way back to star stuff, which just won't do with the egotistical god zombies. They arrogantly believe that humans (and especially themselves) were specially created by their chosen god in its image, and that absolutely everything else is inferior and was provided for god worshiping humans to exploit.

If it weren't for science's position that humans evolved like other life forms, from other life forms, I doubt that godbots would have any disagreement with the ToE. To the god pushers it's all about setting themselves above nature.

To thumpers, nature is crude and amoral. Ethics, morality, altruism, love, intelligence, etc., just couldn't have come from apes, fish, and molecules in a primordial swamp, so that stuff must have come from their chosen god and was given to humans out of loving generosity and in exchange for blind faith and worship. Anyone who disagrees with that is seen as a blaspheming, ungrateful enemy of their chosen god that must be converted or wiped out.

The human ego can be a terrible thing.

Date: 2012/05/06 16:58:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Speaking of dogma/world views, etc., I started a thread on my site to ask what the acceptance of "ID" would change in science. A couple of people have responded, and to me their responses show that they are only concerned with giving "the designer" (god) credit, regardless of whether that does anything useful for science.

I'm bringing it up here because some of you might want to stop by and comment in the thread. I think it's very important to keep pressing the IDiots about why "ID" or the "ID inference" should be accepted by science and exactly what it would do to change (in a positive, useful way) the way science is done.

Click here to go to the thread



Date: 2012/05/07 02:39:52, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Woodbine @ May 05 2012,08:42)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2012,16:21)
IOW, he's just trying to hang on to his latest job.  After all, the mind boggles at what sort of a career move might be downhill from SES.  The next place might not even rate a parking lot.

Not rate a parking lot? Have you seen where his next gig is?

It is a parking lot.



Oh, BTW....stop posting at ARN!

:angry:

There's only you and that bonkers literalist keeping the lights on over there!

dembski's 'office' will probably be one of the parking spaces, complete with a portable outhouse for him to do his research in.

Date: 2012/05/07 04:12:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (JLT @ May 04 2012,23:46)
Did anyone read Todd Wood's response to Dembski (Part I, Part II)?

I'm not very interested in the compatibility stuff, not my problem. Darrell Falk's response was not at all what I had expected, though, it was basically a 'This is what I believe' declaration, and for the main part, he was kissing Dembski's backside agreeing with Dembski. One difference between the two was their take on human exceptionalism. Dembski seems to believe that humans should be qualitatively different than animals in a scientifically detectable way, and if science says otherwise, too bad for science. Falk OTOH says that God cares for us makes us exceptional, so no problem.

Both seem to agree that if science doesn't agree with something they believe, science must be dismissed.

I just don't get it.

Anyway, this is from Todd's response:
   
Quote
Even odder, though, are the non-negotiables* for Darwinism: Common ancestry of all organisms, natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution, humans continuous with other animals, and methodological naturalism. For an evolutionary biologist, however, the first three of those non-negotiables are entirely derived from interpretations of evidence. Could you have an evolutionary biologist who doubted the efficacy of natural selection to explain most of evolution? Sure, there have already been such evolutionists. Could you have an evolutionary biologist who thinks humans (or maybe some other critters) did not come from the same ancestor as everything else? Of course. Here's a famous one:
   
Quote
I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. ... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

So if Darwin himself equivocated on one of the non-negotiables of Darwinism, does that make him not a Darwinist?

And that brings me to my final concern: The ubiquitous use of "Darwinist" and "Darwinism." The way Dembski uses it implies that it is some kind of dogmatism, as if it actually had non-negotiables. Since three of Dembski's four non-negotiables are contingent on evidence, I'm not sure what a "Darwinist" could be philosophically. Dogmatically committed to an untenable scientific position? I am dubious such a creature would exist (present company excepted, of course). If we think of Darwinism as the version of evolution that Darwin believed, then there are no Darwinists left, since science has advanced much in 150 years.

and
   
Quote
A consistent methodological naturalist when confronted with Christ's resurrection (or any miracle) could only say that science is extremely limited in such cases to understand what happened or how. There is no way that methodological naturalism could rule out the miraculous. That's what philosophical naturalism does. Dembski insists that evolutionary creationists "have to confront why this naturalism [i.e., methodological] shouldn’t extend to salvation history as well." Frankly, I'm not sure what the problem would be. If methodological naturalism means that science limits itself to naturalistic explanations (as Dembski himself asserts), then science would merely have nothing to say about Christ's resurrection. How is that incompatible with Christian theology? It sounds like Dembski is conflating methodological and philosophical naturalism.

This is what Falk should've said, instead of his own version of the Nicene creed.

*According to Dembski:
   
Quote
Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

(C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
(C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
(C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
(C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

(D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
(D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
(D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
(D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.

I just read Wood's response to dembski and I grimaced when I saw this paragraph:

"For those still not quite sure what to make of me, let me say again that I'm a young-age creationist, and I have profound and troubling disagreements with evolutionary creationism. I also happen to believe that the disagreement over evolution isn't getting anywhere and that the strategies creationists have employed to debate the issue have been colossal failures. Insofar as Dembski's essay is yet another unsatisfactory rehash of old arguments, I think it too will fall on deaf ears. Resolving this conflict (which I think is quite possible) will require much more than just more of the same."

I wonder what "evolutionary creationism" is. I wonder even more about why creationists need "strategies" of any kind, for any reason. If their chosen god actually exists, and is as powerful as they claim it is, then why doesn't that so-called god just show its fucking face to everyone on Earth and settle the "conflict"? A being that could create an entire universe could EASILY prove its existence.

All the crap about "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter", and especially concealing itself, and all the other bullshit spewed by religious kooks who make every excuse imaginable as to why their so-called god hides itself is just plain lame and diversionary. A couple thousand years ago their chosen god (and its illegitimate son) allegedly did lots of awesome things right out in the open to prove its existence and powers, but lately it must be taking an extended nap or is just too chicken to show up. And don't forget that the christian god, and most or all other gods, are depicted as demanding, jealous, vengeful, petty, murderous, violent, genocidal, all powerful tyrants that won't tolerate any disobedience. Would such a god hide from us lowly humans?



Date: 2012/05/07 22:38:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
I  agree with you about wj murray. I feel like I need to be power-washed after reading his spewage.

On another note, joe g has made an appearance on my site, as frisbee_kid. Open a beer, fire up some popcorn, and come join the fun.  

Your table is ready

Date: 2012/05/08 06:34:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
WJM is psychoplasmtastic!  :)



Actually, he's just psycho.

Date: 2012/05/08 17:43:09, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (JohnW @ May 08 2012,13:24)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ May 08 2012,12:55)
   
Quote
kairosfocus: In particular, I must note how this post plainly reflects a violation of confidence of correspondence in the teeth of an explicit act of protest regarding earlier violation of confidence.

We did not quote anything that kairosfocus wrote to us privately. We did quote what he wrote publicly. The only thing we mentioned about our correspondence was that he demanded an apology for a comment before allowing any further communication. Furthermore, we told him that we would be posting our comments on AtBC, provided a link, and invited him to read our comments here.

     
Quote
kairosfocus: I asked Zachriel to cease and desist from further communication with me  

Which we did, but we are certainly not going to refrain from discussing his public statements.

     
Quote
kairosfocus: It therefore evident from this thread that he has twisted my request that he respect confidentiality, into a ducking of issues and trumpeted that to the public elsewhere. Shameless.

We happened to have archived the email exchange — just in case kairosfocus insists upon dredging it up.

Most of his post is the usual KF meltdown-by-numbers (yes, there are strawmen soaked in oil of ad hominems).  But I liked this:
   
Quote
It is plain to me that Zachriel, the pseudonymous advocate of darwinism, has violated trust because he thought it would be to his advantage and he could get away with it. Let the record reflect this, for all to see.

How dare you use a pseudonym when talking about Gordon E Mullings, Zachriel!  The nerve!


Yeah, as if "Kairosfocus" is the real, not pseudonymous name of gordon elliott mullings of Manjack, Montserrat.

Date: 2012/05/09 17:11:52, Link
Author: The whole truth
dembski pukes up some tard

Wow, is that guy nuts or what?

Hey joe g (or any other IDiot), do you still want to argue that ID isn't a religious agenda? Do you still want to argue that your hero and often appealed to ID expert and authority dembski doesn't believe and assert that the designer is the christian god? Do you agree with dembski that the designer is the christian god? Do you still want to argue that ID has no dispute with common descent? What all do you think of dembski's comments?

And hey joe, is your muslim god allah the same as the christian god yhwh?



Date: 2012/05/11 05:39:40, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (JLT @ May 11 2012,01:11)
More in-fighting!

Tragic Mishap is unhappy with BarryA because:
 
Quote
I would have to agree with butifnot and tjguy. Your description of YEC is horribly out-of-date. I suppose you still think YECs accept the vapor canopy theory of the Flood as well?

So he commits the ultimate crime:
 
Quote
 
Quote
I tried very hard to be respectful while disagreeing.

So as long as you’re respectful it’s okay to have no clue what you’re talking about?

Which is answered swiftly by BarryA:
 
Quote
Tragic Mishap, you are warned.

Tjguy wants to know the rules:
 
Quote
Barry,

Just out of curiosity, what are you warning Tragic for? His attitude? His posting a link? Are there rules I’m not familiar with? Thanks.

tj


Also, all science so far (StephenB):
 
Quote
YEC has a different protocol. It begins with an analysis of God’s word and seeks to harmonize the data with it. Science, though, needs it own room to breathe. If science was simply the act of harmonizing the data to match God’s word, it would not have the power to confirm God’s word. On the other hand, if, with its protocol, science corroborates truths found in Scripture, which has a different protocol, that would be far more impressive. Indeed, that is the case. Truths provided by God through his Divine revelation are consistent with truths apprehended through God’s revelation in nature. Faith and reason are perfectly compatible. TEs do not believe this, to their discredit.

Tragic Mishap:
 
Quote
YECs are in the business of Truth. As such, we acknowledge that divine revelation constitutes the highest possible level of truth available. As such, science is flawed if it doesn’t match divine revelation. So the goal of a creation scientist is to match science to divine revelation to make science better.

Tjguy doesn't really like ID:
 
Quote
ID too has a framework through which it interprets the evidence. The ID framework is to accept the basic assumptions and conclusions of science that come out of a uniformitarian framework of interpretation – even if it contradicts the Bible. Then they take those conclusions and go back to the Bible and find a way to read long ages into it. This is a new interpretation of the Bible since Charles Lyell and friends began spreading the uniformitarian doctrine. It also gives priority to scientific conclusions over the historical record of the Bible concerning the flood, tower of Babel, and for some even Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.

You said that truths provide by God in the Bible are consistent with truths apprehended through nature. We agree that they should be and that is why we use the interpretive framework that we do. Using your framework, biblical truths and the “truths” of nature are not consistent.

StephenB about bible exegesis:
 
Quote
Obviously, we can safely discount anything that liberals pass along to us because we know that they distort the truth and turn it into a lie.

Definitely sig worthy.
 
Quote
You say that science is not inerrant and may produce error. Granted. Still, science sometimes gets it right (or comes close) and when it does, it will harmonize with Scripture properly interpreted, that is, Scripture understood as a faithful interpretation of what the author meant to convey.

Ah, so that is the difference between YECs and IDists. YECs start with the bible and discard all science that disagrees with it. IDists start with the science and discard all science that disagrees with the bible. Obvious!

TARD!

What a bunch of fucking loons. I doubt that they can tie their own shoelaces. They're probably not potty trained either.

Date: 2012/05/11 05:42:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 11 2012,01:36)
Gil reveals an amazing fact: (Linky leads to UD)  
Quote
When I was in elementary school back in the 1950s a man came into my classroom and talked to the teacher. I was taken into another room by this man. He gave me puzzles to figure out, and timed me with a stop watch. I thought that this was very weird. After these tests I was returned to my classmates with no explanation.

Many years later, upon reflecting about and remembering this event, I asked my mom what this was all about. She told me that as a result of an IQ test I had taken (they did that back in those days) I had scored the highest IQ ever recorded in the local school system at my age level, and my parents were asked to give permission for further testing.


POTW



Is gildo's head expanding faster than the universe?

Date: 2012/05/11 05:51:29, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 10 2012,21:08)
Thanks for the Dimski links. He isn't aging well.

"He isn't aging well."

Likely due to his terminal case of early onset tarditis.  :)

Date: 2012/05/11 06:37:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Woodbine @ May 11 2012,04:07)
Gildo has always been desperately insecure about how he is perceived.

See this archetypical post from 2005, the last paragraph in particular.

The tragic fuck even provides links to prove he's not a complete fool..... :D


I would absolutely love to play a game of chess, in person, with that bloviating gasbag.

You're certainly right about his insecurity. I guess having a monstrous IQ (LOL) can't make up for having no balls.

Date: 2012/05/12 01:06:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (JLT @ May 11 2012,16:30)
Quote (sparc @ May 11 2012,21:03)
     
Quote (JohnW @ May 09 2012,11:30)
I don't think any of us have ever provoked a Gordshite meltdown.
Obama just did exactly that.

     
Quote
And yes, the evil that is now upon us, homosexualisation of marriage and family -- thus, of community, education and law -- in defiance of the patent creation order, is the full moral equivalent of slavery.
 
Quote
Likewise, we should note the implication of "members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together."  It should be quite clear from reading between the lines that Mr Obama has long immersed himself in the ideology of the homosexualist activist sub-culture.
 
Quote
So, should the law now be perverted to pretend that marriage -- a key aspect of creation order for humanity (as the very complementarity of the sexes testifies) --  can be extended by human fiat to same sex unions, that will be what is taught in school, and what will be enforced by the police, by force of law. If you disagree, you will be deemed the moral equivalent of a racist bigot, and subjected to criminal prosecution. Indeed, eventually, you will be seen as a scapegoat for social ills.
 
Quote
And of course, that ugly issue will be twisted about to blame the victims of the persecution: fanatical bigots, wanting to turn the clock back, hating those who are different from themselves, etc etc.  Sadly, we have been down this sad and dangerous road to persecution before, and Stephen has had many who have followed in his shoes. Worse, even this will be twisted in hostile minds to say that there is a stubbornly hostile and probably insane persecution complex here

KF's mind must be a dark and frightening place. "Insane" definitely was on the list of adjectives that I considered while reading that. Although I enjoyed the part about Obama being immersed in the "homosexualist activist sub-culture".

As expected, it's all the fault of those evil scientists:
     
Quote
Yes, the erosion of the moral fabric of our society traces to the imposition of evolutionary materialism in the name -- and under the false colours of  --"science."

Okay, that does it, I'm going to get down on my knees and pray to the volcano gods of Montserrat and beg them to open a lava spewing fissure right under gordo's computer chair, while he's sitting in it.

The "ugly issue" was the birth of gordon elliott mullings, the monster of Montserrat. His putrid existence almost makes me believe that the devil is real, and living in Manjack Heights.

Date: 2012/05/12 01:13:50, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (NormOlsen @ May 11 2012,14:17)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 11 2012,06:37)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ May 11 2012,04:07)
Gildo has always been desperately insecure about how he is perceived.

See this archetypical post from 2005, the last paragraph in particular.

The tragic fuck even provides links to prove he's not a complete fool..... :D


I would absolutely love to play a game of chess, in person, with that bloviating gasbag.

You're certainly right about his insecurity. I guess having a monstrous IQ (LOL) can't make up for having no balls.

He just can't stop talking about how super smart he is:

IQ, Puzzle Solving, and Darwinism

 
Quote
Many years later, upon reflecting about and remembering this event, I asked my mom what this was all about. She told me that as a result of an IQ test I had taken (they did that back in those days) I had scored the highest IQ ever recorded in the local school system at my age level, and my parents were asked to give permission for further testing.


Wow, Gil, tell us again about your checkers program!

Yeah, and tell us what really happened in that room with that strange man.

Date: 2012/05/12 01:23:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 11 2012,08:26)
He's just had a good cry about TSZ on his popular and well read blog.

And he's blocking some comments, as usual, yet he calls other people cowards.

joe g is the kind of guy that would dress as a woman to get a seat in a lifeboat from a sinking ship.

Date: 2012/05/12 01:32:07, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kristine @ May 11 2012,12:18)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ May 11 2012,14:03)
WTF is a tunie?  Does Joe have access to a special dictionary the rest of the world doesn't know about?  Because that word doesn't exist.

I'm guessing "tunie" = tune up. He fixes things, all kinds of things, yanno. Plus talks to himself a lot, thus demonstrating the mutation of language (which "ID does not oppose!" In case you forgot!;) :D

So, no wonder he thinks that genetic algorithms have a "goal" and that everything is, well, fixed. Life is a boxing match and Teh Designer is the bookie.

I want to read more about how information is carved into the bonds between codons, like grooves in a record or a CD. How groovy! :)

And he does floors, all kinds of floors! Hmm, I wonder if he uses tongue and groove flooring. ;)


I'm pretty sure that joe is referring to tuna fish with the "tunie" remark.

Edited to add the icthyic explanation.



Date: 2012/05/12 01:35:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ May 11 2012,12:03)
Quote (Joe G @ May 11 2012,09:24)
Thanks for the bunnies- now time for your tunie:


(Porn image removed by a mod because JoeG is a child who can't act like a grown up.)

WTF is a tunie?  Does Joe have access to a special dictionary the rest of the world doesn't know about?  Because that word doesn't exist.

Neither does "galour", Joe.  But at least in that case you picked the least stupid misspelling of what you were trying to say, instead of a word that isn't a word at all.



What an offensive, brainless waste of space you are, Joe.  If you weren't so entertaining in your blustering, vacuous stupidity, you'd be of no use at all.

And didn't joe say that his kids see everything he does on the internet? They must be so proud of their dad.

Date: 2012/05/12 15:59:07, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Febble @ May 12 2012,08:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2012,10:03)
 
Quote (Febble @ May 12 2012,06:23)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 12 2012,02:05)
I found the meaning of "tunie".
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.....m=tunie

I've bookmarked an array of slang dictionaries and need them daily; in grammar school, we didn't get beyond Macbeth.

Yeah, the link was to a female crotch shot.

I have suspended him and announced a rule against porn links, which he needs to undertake not to violate as condition of reinstatement.

Thanks for the heads-up - I guess I should have checked the link earlier.

Very obvious death by cop

Yes, I think so.  He seems to have been trying to get banned for a while.

But he now knows what the deal is, what he has to do to get back, and, surely, that it's an obviously reasonable request.

Nobody should booby-trap another person's site, and the implicit misogyny was just bloody rude.

Reasonable request? He knows what the deal is? Do you actually think that reasonable requests will ever work with joe? Do you actually think that he cares what the "deal" is? Are you really that naive? What does it take to get you to stop coddling and enabling him?

Get back? You must be joking. WHY on Earth would you allow him back?

Yeah, the "tunie" (tuna fish) remark referred to a vagina, as the picture confirmed. Frankly, neither the link to the picture nor "tunie" surprises me, coming from joe. He has amply demonstrated, for many years, that he's capable of any despicable behavior.

When I think of joe I picture a jerk that goes to other peoples' houses every day and shits on the floor in every room, and even though he is repeatedly asked or told to stop shitting on the floors he sneaks in or barges in and keeps doing it anyway. joe is a totally disrespectful, ill mannered, deranged menace. He gets a kick out of being a complete asshole.

Date: 2012/05/14 09:06:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 14 2012,06:34)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2012,05:16)

     
Quote
Life is good, RichTARD Hughes finds an old photo of me and thinks he can deduce what I look like under a 2XL sweatshirt. There is about 200 lbs with about 5% body fat under there Rich.

bwwahahahaha. There's also a fucking idiot under that jumper.

Joe, as long as I'm around that picture will appear on every fucking page of this thread until the end of time. And there is fuck all you can do about it.

LOL!

Over on his blog JoeTard tries to rewrite history

   
Quote
Joe G:  Hey Richie- do you know why Luke removed that picture and the little bio from his website? He found out it wasn't me you freak- as if I would allow my picture to be posted...


So even though Joe admitted the photo was him, now it's NOT of him, doncha know.

What a pathetic lying ass.

PREDICTION:  Joe will get lonely, attempt to sign back on at TSZ with a sockpuppet in under a week.  His style will give him away in less than a day.  Wait for it.

And joe is unobservant too. I found the photo of him and posted it here. No wonder he's a blind IDiot, and not a scientist.

Date: 2012/05/14 09:12:06, Link
Author: The whole truth
joe g: "There is about 200 lbs of stupid with about 500% flatulence under there Rich."

Fixed that for you joey.

Date: 2012/05/14 09:37:23, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Soapy Sam @ May 14 2012,05:30)
Latest nonsense

   
Quote
This evolutionary myth that adaptations arise by the slow process natural selection acting on random change appears several times in the standards, in spite of the fact that science shows that adaptations arise rapidly and non randomly in direct response to environmental shifts. Again, even some brave evolutionists are admitting these findings to each other.


Other than the 'rapid' part (how rapid is rapid?), that could have been written in 1865. Darwin thought adaptations arose in response to environmental fluctuations!

Incidentally, it is to Hunter's credit that he appears to allow all comments (though little else about his highly selective viewpoint reflects credit upon him). KF shows up with the usual guff, and BA77 chips in with a shedload more - quite like old times! Then off KF scuttles to UD to pontificate interminably on the comments, untroubled by right of reply from the people he directly quotes.

hunter used to allow most comments but now he's blocking or deleting comments that are derisive (in his opinion) toward him and/or other IDCs even though everything he says and everything his fellow creobot IDiots say is derisive toward non-IDiots. ALL he does and ALL he has ever done is attack evolutionists.

Want a good laugh? Picture him, ba77, mullings, and joe g out on the town trying to pick up some women.

Date: 2012/05/14 18:28:41, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2012,07:01)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 14 2012,08:34)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2012,05:16)

       
Quote
Life is good, RichTARD Hughes finds an old photo of me and thinks he can deduce what I look like under a 2XL sweatshirt. There is about 200 lbs with about 5% body fat under there Rich.

bwwahahahaha. There's also a fucking idiot under that jumper.

Joe, as long as I'm around that picture will appear on every fucking page of this thread until the end of time. And there is fuck all you can do about it.

LOL!

Over on his blog JoeTard tries to rewrite history

     
Quote
Joe G:  Hey Richie- do you know why Luke removed that picture and the little bio from his website? He found out it wasn't me you freak- as if I would allow my picture to be posted...


So even though Joe admitted the photo was him, now it's NOT of him, doncha know.

What a pathetic lying ass.

PREDICTION:  Joe will get lonely, attempt to sign back on at TSZ with a sockpuppet in under a week.  His style will give him away in less than a day.  Wait for it.

Also:

http://www.blogger.com/comment....3047836

 
Quote
Joe G said...
Yes TWiT, there is a point. Ya see, TWiT, RichTARD said that the pic shows I have chins- plural, yet it only shows one.

8:13 AM


Chubby aint bright..


Speaking of chins:

Date: 2012/05/15 02:04:09, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (fnxtr @ May 14 2012,21:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2012,17:44)
I do believe he's mentally ill - and I accept that that means I'm not a nice person for fucking with him. I can't bring myself to want him to get better, although he's not right, I think he'd still be a wanker if his brain worked normally.

I was just thinking this thread has smacked of schadenfreud for quite a while now.

If it weren't for his enemies, joe wouldn't have any friends.

joe reaps what he sows, and never was there a person more undeserving of friends.

joe is an incorrigible brat who acts up to get attention, even though it's negative attention. He's an attention whore who simply must be noticed, and who simply must ruin or try to ruin everyone else's day. Like I said the other day, he gets a kick out of being a complete asshole.

And unless he proves otherwise, I don't believe that he is married, has kids, does the ID awareness day thing, that he was ever in Iraq or any other foreign country, that he has ever flown a plane, that he has ever done any engineering, that he has ever programmed or worked with genetic algorithms, that he has any sort of lab in his basement, that he ever graduated from high school, or that he has ever had, or ever will have consensual, intimate relations with another human being.

Date: 2012/05/15 17:37:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 15 2012,10:02)
Quote (REC @ May 14 2012,14:20)
SCheesman sticks his neck out on Barry's 9000th post celebration:

     
Quote
I wish I could celebrate, but I fear 9000 is a reflection of a vast inflation in the number rate of postings in the last year or two, with a corresponding decline in comments.

I owe a good deal of what I know today about ID from UD, both from a scientific and theological perspective, and used to enjoy the long threads and back-and-forth between proponents and opponents.

But now, many, if not most posts get nary a comment, and the ones engendering some debate often are lost in the crowd. Since the recent purge of participants who failed to pass what amounted to a purity test, it’s been pretty quiet here. The most lively recent discussion featured a debate between OEC’s and YEC’s. Now I enjoy that sort of thing (like on Sal Cordova’s old “Young Cosmos” blog), but it’s hardly what UD used to be known for.

Maybe the new format gets more visitors than it used to, but I’d be interested in seeing the stats, including comments per post, posts per month, unique visitors etc. over the last few years.

I miss the old days. I expect a lot of us do.


Please, Barry, celebrate this milestone with a Loudspeaker/ Bannination.

The audience is no longer amused and starts to grumble.

johnnyb:
 
Quote
So, we’ve lost PCID, ISCID, UD is now a news site, and Telic Thoughts is pumping very slowly. Does this mean ID is dying? No, on the other hand, it is professionalizing. There are starting to be conferences on ID, ID has a journal, and ID is starting to appear more in other journals (though not usually under the title “Intelligent Design”).

It would be nice if there were a research spot where ID’ers and their critics could hang out and discuss things like men, but there is not.


Slimy Sal (who inspired my current avatar) offers a solution:

   
Quote
Given the success of the discussions at the Young Cosmos website during the summer of 2007, I have the acquired the domain: “CreationEvolutionUniversity” where I hope to host such discussion and exchange of papers.
...
There will be a separate discussion forum where thread starters can invite who they wish to publicly dialogue with.


I've bolded the bits that made me laugh the loudest.

No linky, it's the comments right after SCheesman's.

This too made me laugh:

"exchange of papers"

Papers? IDiots don't need no stinking papers. They can (and do) just make shit up as they go along.

Date: 2012/05/15 17:41:16, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 15 2012,11:45)
The content is unavailable, but you can see by the topic titles how YEC Sal is.

http://web.archive.org/web............ttp

You can read many of his "puppy beater" posts on this page:

http://web.archive.org/web............ttp

I'm only slightly aware of cordova's history, and the more I see of it the more I see what a rancid turd he is. No wonder he's called Slimy Sal.

Date: 2012/05/15 18:20:32, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2012,15:16)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-425156

Quote
14Barry ArringtonMay 15, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Commenters,

Thank you for your comments.

The management at UD has wrestled with the identified issues for over a year now. The problem is, like most decisions we have to make in our lives, there are no clear “good” and “bad” answers to these questions. Instead, you have tradeoffs.

On the one hand, we know that the lifeblood of a blog is constant new content. On the other hand, we love the intense, largely civil discussions that go along with some of the more in-depth posts. So the tradeoff is between higher traffic (more posts) and more opportunity for discussion before the in-depth posts move down the page (fewer posts).

At UD we try to achieve both goals though a system that is similar to the one KF suggests. You might have noticed that the four posts just under the lead post “stick” longer than the other posts. The reason for this is that the news posts do not go into this area. They are pushed down by any new post that comes along. The posts in the “sticky” area tend to be the more in-depth posts that draw more comments. We are trying to have the best of both worlds, higher traffic attracted by constant new content; and in-depth discussion of the posts in the “sticky” section.

I am not worried about the comments-per-post data. As Denyse points out, that ratio was bound to go down when we added a news desk.

I am also quite pleased with the quality of the discussions at UD. This is especially the case when I look at other sites around the web (all pro-Darwin), where the discussion is barely above schoolyard taunt level most of the time.

All in all, while we continue to look for ways to improve, I am pleased with where we are at UD, and I am especially proud of Denyse’s news desk. She does a fantastic job for us.

Barry


LOLOCAUST.

Yes, definitely a LOLOCAUST, and the usual demonstration of denial and IDiocy.


"we know that the lifeblood of a blog is constant new content"

What new content? It's really just the same old shit, and could all be distilled down to something like this:

Darwin was evil.

Anyone who isn't a zealous evangelical intelligent design creationist fundy is evil, and will burn in Hell forever.

Evolution doesn't happen, and the ToE is evil.

Science is evil, but we thoroughly enjoy the perks it provides.

Worship me and my God, or risk my and God's wrath.  

We're exceptional, and specially created in God's image.

We're God's official spokesmen.

We are inerrant.

Darwinists/evolutionists/materialists/naturalists/atheists are the spawn of the Devil and are always wrong.

Reality sucks. Fantasy rules. The crazier it is the more we like it and believe in it.

Everything is rapidly decaying and sinful. Repent now!

God-did-it.

Date: 2012/05/15 22:54:39, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (fnxtr @ May 15 2012,06:34)
What about the toasters, though?

Ah yes, the toasters. Here's one that joe must have 'fixed':



Date: 2012/05/17 05:04:23, Link
Author: The whole truth
joey g is flipping out on his pathetic blog about what is being said on TSZ, even though just the other day he said that he doesn't care about TSZ and other 'evotard blogs'. For a guy who doesn't care, he sure does care.

He's angry and pouting because he can't go to TSZ anymore and try to get the attention he so desperately craves, and he can't constantly butt into every thread with his childish tantrums. Of course he blames everyone but himself for being banned even though HE is the only one responsible for his asshole-ish behavior.

He's banned from TSZ, UD is as good as dead, joey's blog has advanced rigor mortis, and he always flounces here, so little joey just doesn't know where to go anymore where he can shit on the floor in every room to get attention. Poor little joey, the incorrigible brat and graduate of The Online College of Tick Farming and Inept Toaster Repair (with a side order of muslim baraminology and dembski butt kissing) just can't get a break. I feel sorry for him, NOT.

Date: 2012/05/17 17:23:58, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 17 2012,09:58)
Quote
Having studied under a prominent anti-ID professor, James Trefil, I asked him in a public Q&A, where I identified myself as a creationist and his former student, whether it was OK to give him answers he wanted on an exam even though we didn’t believe what he said.

He basically said he was fine with that. He has to assign grades based on what you answered, but he has no domain over ones personal belief. He was kind enough to also tell the audience I got an A in his class.

I don’t mean to offend – I realize just how high the stakes are – but I don’t know of any other way to say this. When you follow this path, what you’ve done is practice being a coward.


It is more subtle than that. There was a time when the Apostles fled jerusalem under persecution, only to be martyred another day. It would seem there is a time God will call his people to flee persecution and then ask the same people to be martyred later…..

It is also strange who gets through the system, and who gets punished. 3 creationists got their PhD’s in biology at George Mason University (Gordon Wilson, Tim Standish, Tim Brophie), yet 1 ID proponent was dimissed (Carline Crocker).

Some are hated after they graduate, some are still on good terms. Stephen Gould never spoke ill of his creationist student Kurt Wise. That’s certainly not the case with Bill Dembski and his teacher Jeff Shallit!

My thoughts. If you really want to get good at creation science or ID, there are other disciplines than biology where you can still study biology. Get your BS, MS, or PhD in a field where the Darwinists will be hard pressed to hold your finances, your career, your wife, kids, and loved ones hostage to the Darwinist inquisition. Maybe it is wise to go where you can be free. If you really want to do the biology thing, perhaps consider double-majoring or something, just so you have an out. Even the Apostle Paul was known to flee at times despite being quite eager to be martyred. There is a time and place for everything.

As far as specific non-biology disciplines, consider the founders of the modern ID and modern creation science movements:

A.E. Wilder-Smith : Chemistry and Pharmaceuticals
Henry Morris : hydraulic engineering
Walter Brown : Mechanical Engineering
Duae Gish : Bio chemistry
Charles Thaxton: Physical Chemistry
William Dembski: Mathematics and Theology
Michael Behe: Bio Chemistry
Michael Denton: Bio Chemistry
Fred Hoyle: astro physics
Walter Bradley : materials engineering
Roger Olsen: geo chemistry
Phil Johnson : Law

The astonishing thing, the minority discipline is biology.

If you want to be martyred for ID, you may have some choice in how you want to be persecuted. It doesn’t necessarily mean taking classes with the Paul Mirecki’s of the world to by martyred in a way that you’ll be forgotten.

Personally, I’m glad about those who’ve kept their mouth shut. Its nice to hang out with PhD creationist biologists who are in hiding. ID circles would otherwise be a lonely place without the stealth support of those in hiding.

I will mention, creationists applying to grad school from undergrade creationist schools like Liberty have had success in being open about who they are in grad school interviews if they have sufficiently good qualifications.

Furthermore, almost all diciplines in biology are agnostic to evolutionary ideas, so even in some cases it never becomes an issue. But perhaps a little caution is always wise. Don’t go around looking for trouble, especially if you have family that might be counting on you for their food and shelter.


S-Sal

Wow, that is some seriously crazy crap.

That self serving, delusional mess from Slimy Sal just goes to show that he sees himself and his IDC comrades as clones of the imaginary jesus character, who is alleged to have been wrongly persecuted and crucified but rose again to become a martyr and savior. The persecution complex and delusions of godhood that the IDCs have are a profound demonstration of their insecurity, arrogance, and insanity.

Date: 2012/05/17 22:38:06, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ May 17 2012,15:58)
I'm amazed these lunatics are still going.

I thought about this place again when some random whackjob on the Randi forums linked to UncommonlyDense. I couldn't believe it!

Well actually I could, since he's a YEC and all.

Apparently, lunacy (especially religious lunacy) comes with the very strong urge to spread it around and force it upon others (misery loves company). The lunatics are thoroughly convinced they are right about absolutely everything and that they must 'minister' to all the people who are wrong and bring them into the righteous (lunatic) fold. People like that are a great example of deleterious brain mutations.

Date: 2012/05/17 23:01:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 17 2012,06:36)
How dare they moderate him for driveby bad language then finally kick him for posting porn? What EvoTards*


*Have you noticed how incredibly uncreative he is? Every insult he uses he lifted from someone using it at him.

Yeah, I've noticed.

joe g has never matured beyond the mentality of a tantrum throwing child.

P.S. He has blocked several comments that I have submitted at his blog recently.

Date: 2012/05/17 23:24:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 17 2012,07:09)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-425217

Quote
JoeMay 17, 2012 at 5:19 am
Nice topic- In the 70s I got into a fight with one of my biology professors over evolutionism, said the heck with biology and went into technology.


HmmMmMmmm. Anyone care to guess the professors take? and the world of toasters was never the same again.

If I were the professor I would have been overjoyed that joe said the heck with biology to pursue instead the "technology" of tick farming, burnt toast analysis, and making a gigantic fool of himself on the internet while hiding in his basement.

Pfft, as if joe ever went to college and took a biology course. He's just making that up like he does so many other things.

And if joe ever "got into a fight", it was with the voices in his head, and the voices won.

Date: 2012/05/18 08:59:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Quack @ May 17 2012,05:01)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 16 2012,20:49)
the surgery she had as a child (brain transplant?)

Brainectomy?

 
Quote

Leading expert on brain disorder research, treatment & surgery.

No suitable replacement found?

Well, the jar containing the first replacement choice was dropped and the brain was destroyed, so Igor (pronounced eye-gore) then chose another brain containing jar that was labeled "abnormal" (pronounced abby-somebody).

I hear that o'leary is still trying to learn how to dance while singing "Puttin' on the Ritz".

Date: 2012/05/20 05:22:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
joey g says:

"So the bottom-line is if any RNA World existed it existed in the designer's lab."

The designer's lab, eh joey? Let's explore what went (or goes) on in that alleged lab a bit, shall we? Tell me, did 'the designer' design, in its lab, all the diseases and disabilities that affect living things? Did the designer design, in its lab, all the harmful mutations that have ever occurred and will occur? Did the designer design death, in its lab?  

Where is the designer's lab located? Who designed and built the lab? Where did the supplies come from to build and equip the lab? Where are the plans/blueprints for the lab and everything else located? Are any or all of the plans/blueprints available for viewing free of charge or are they behind a pay wall? Can you describe the lab?

How many designers work in the alleged lab and what are their qualifications? If only one, who designed the designer? If more than one, who designed the designers? Are the designers all male, or are there some females working in the lab? Do the designers even have a gender? If so, why? What 'kind' are the designers? Are the designers animal, mineral, or vegetable? Do the designers of the designers have a lab too?

Date: 2012/05/21 01:28:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 20 2012,04:09)
Too easy.
 
Quote
The designer's lab, eh joey? Let's explore what went (or goes) on in that alleged lab a bit, shall we? Tell me, did 'the designer' design, in its lab, all the diseases and disabilities that affect living things? Did the designer design, in its lab, all the harmful mutations that have ever occurred and will occur? Did the designer design death, in its lab?  


the organisms we see today are not the same organisms that were originally designed.
 
Quote
Where is the designer's lab located? Who designed and built the lab? Where did the supplies come from to build and equip the lab? Where are the plans/blueprints for the lab and everything else located? Are any or all of the plans/blueprints available for viewing free of charge or are they behind a pay wall? Can you describe the lab?


ID is not about the designer, but there is nothing that stops you from investigating the designer.

OR

Science will provide answers to those questions, that is what it is for.
 
Quote

How many designers work in the alleged lab and what are their qualifications? If only one, who designed the designer? If more than one, who designed the designers? Are the designers all male, or are there some females working in the lab? Do the designers even have a gender? If so, why? What 'kind' are the designers? Are the designers animal, mineral, or vegetable? Do the designers of the designers have a lab too?


ID is not about the designer, only the design.

Party pooper!  


:)

Date: 2012/05/21 01:30:28, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (REC @ May 18 2012,14:23)
Joe, at UD:

"Baraminology is, in a nutshell, descent with modification."

joe g, in a nutshell, is nuts.

Date: 2012/05/21 07:11:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Amadan @ May 21 2012,04:05)
Does anyone else see a passing resemblance to George Tierney of Greenville South Carolina?

May be we should inform George Tierney of Greenville South Carolina about JoeG.  As well as lots of other people...

It would appear that joe g and George Tierney of Greenville South Carolina are the same 'kind'. Evil twins separated at birth perhaps? Or maybe just similarly deranged offspring from alien abduction experiments with artificially inseminating a female alien PREDATOR with semen from THE BLOB?

Date: 2012/05/21 07:33:37, Link
Author: The whole truth
Might as well face it, IDiots are addicted to tard.

Date: 2012/05/21 07:55:10, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2012,05:37)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ May 21 2012,07:33)
Might as well face it, IDiots are addicted to tard.

I don't think IDiots are addicted to tard.  I think that we are addicted to tard.

IDiots just generate it.  It's like breathing... or more like excrement... they can't help it.  Random tard just flows from them like...

nevermind, the images I'm getting are too disgusting to continue with.


I was having a little fun with the picture that k.e. posted.  

See this:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=....vKUvm6A

I'd say that IDiots are addicted to tard, and that we are just pointing that out. I get your drift though.  :)




Edited to correct attribution to k.e.



Date: 2012/05/21 19:47:17, Link
Author: The whole truth
joey g barfed:

 
Quote
MONDAY, MAY 21, 2012
EvoTARDs' Transparent Lunacy
-
Elizabeth Liddle has a blog entry in which she tries to argue that a sculptured statue (of David) refutes the claim that merely throwing stuff out created the statue and therefor refutes Gil Dodgen's claim that throwing stuff out isn't creative.

This is all in reference to natural selection, which is a result, basically eliminative and doesn't do anything.

Unfortunately none of the evoTARDs making and trying to support that argument will be testifying in any Court case involving the "theory" of evolution.

Just how fucking stupid and dishonest can people be to compare an agency intentionally designing something to a blind and mindless result?

It is obvious that Elizabeth is bitter over being dumped from Uncommon Descent and will just say anything in order to strike back. Too bad she just whiffs and strikes out.


Aw, little joey is throwing yet another bitter, crybaby tantrum because he was dumped from TSZ and can't post his projectile vomit there anymore. Poor thing.

Hey joey, just how fucking stupid and dishonest can you and the other IDiots be to spend your lives pushing a religious and political agenda that is based solely on controlling people with insane fairy tales and lies?

And speaking of striking out, if a baseball game were compared to ID vs. science, you IDiots and your so-called inference would be like a T-Ball team trying to beat World Series winners. In fact, a T-Ball team would do better than you IDiots because they would at least bring SOMETHING useful to the game. You IDiots bring nothing but your big mouths and delusions.

You bring no research, no evidence, no tests, no coherent definitions of your own terms (e.g. "CSI"), no tools, no foundation, no specific or useful predictions, no peer reviewed papers that are directly supportive of ID in credible scientific journals, and no balls.

You think that you're actually playing in the scientific majors and can change the rules by lying about your agenda and by screaming 'kill the umpire' from the armchair in your basement, but you're wrong. You're not in the science stadium and you can't even find the parking lot. You're just a lost, noisy, player-wannabe who will never even come up to the plate in T-Ball, let alone the major leagues.



By the way joey, didn't you say that you don't care about what is said on TSZ and other "evotard blogs"? For someone who says they don't care you sure do care.

Date: 2012/05/22 19:18:06, Link
Author: The whole truth
Isn't it interesting that kf, arrington, ba77, and the rest of the UD holy rollers don't seem to have any problem with the very 'unholy' way that joey g behaves?

And think of how kf, especially, regularly uses all kinds of guilt by association weapons in his attacks on "evolutionary materialists", but for some reason he doesn't mind associating with little joey. It obviously doesn't matter how foul joey is as long as he defends and promotes ID.

I have a feeling that if Charles Manson or 'El Loco' (Daniel Elizondo Jesus Ramirez) were pushing ID, the IDiots at UD would welcome them with open arms.

Date: 2012/05/23 00:10:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 22 2012,21:26)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 22 2012,19:18)
Isn't it interesting that kf, arrington, ba77, and the rest of the UD holy rollers don't seem to have any problem with the very 'unholy' way that joey g behaves?

And think of how kf, especially, regularly uses all kinds of guilt by association weapons in his attacks on "evolutionary materialists", but for some reason he doesn't mind associating with little joey. It obviously doesn't matter how foul joey is as long as he defends and promotes ID.

I have a feeling that if Charles Manson or 'El Loco' (Daniel Elizondo Jesus Ramirez) were pushing ID, the IDiots at UD would welcome them with open arms.

Very likely.  Look at Dictator Rios Montt and Pat Robertson.  Jerry Falwell was also Montt's buddy.  Montt is accused of killing as many as 200,000 people.  He wiped whole villages off the map.  That makes 'El Loco' and Charles Manson combined look like pikers.

The "righteous"? Could any description be more backassward?

pat robertson reminds me of gordon e mullings, the monster of Montserrat. And they both SUCK.

Date: 2012/05/23 00:25:33, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (blipey @ May 22 2012,16:23)
Quote
I'm sure this has been brought up, but I wonder if Joe realizes that the information content of DNA is insufficient to create an organism.


No.

All else is superfluous.

POTW


I know it's subtle but it really cracked me up.

Date: 2012/05/23 01:10:26, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (NormOlsen @ May 22 2012,19:05)
Sayeth Joe:

       
Quote
The programming was received in the beginning, when the designer(s) implemented the design. I am just not sure exactly where it resides in the cell.

Venter synthesized DNA and the cell worked, so I infer the programming/ software is not in the DNA. So the next step would to be keep synthesizing parts and see if the cell is still viable.

How is it downloaded into the cell? Well to know that would be to know the design and that is what science is for.


"I'm just not sure exactly where it resides in the cell".  Such humility!  I'm sure Joe has a pretty good idea where it resides, he just doesn't want to brag until he finishes his synthesizer.

I've got to have some fun with joey's comments.


"The programming was received in the beginning, when the designer(s) implemented the design."

In the beginning, the designer god(s) created the heavens, the Earth, and a cake recipe, times 5.

"I am just not sure exactly where it resides in the cell."

I'm sure that joey g resides in a dark, moldy basement.

"Venter synthesized DNA and the cell worked, so I infer the programming/ software is not in the DNA."

I infer that joey's brain cells don't work right and that his programming is defective.  

"So the next step would to be keep synthesizing parts and see if the cell is still viable."

Nothing could make joey's brain parts or cells viable. He's hopeless. I'm really wondering if he was synthesized from toe jam.

"How is it downloaded into the cell? Well to know that would be to know the design and that is what science is for."

Ah yes, that's what science is for. Science is the orchestra that joey desperately wants to conduct, even though he can't read the music and has never been to a concert. joey is a scientific maestro only in his own delusional mind.



Hey joey, I thought you IDiots claim to "know the design" when you see it, and I'm surprised that you're not 'inferring' that the "programming/ software" was downloaded into all organisms by Lt. Data, under the direct supervision of allah, with the approval of Star Fleet Command.  Isn't that how it was done?



Edited to correct a correction. :)



Date: 2012/05/23 02:51:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread where links to various examples of religious discrimination, bigotry, hatred, and oppression are posted. Whenever you see such examples, please post them here.

Like this one:

black pastors against gay marriage

"CAAP says it believes gay Americans should have equal civil rights, but that it does not believe there should be a right to legally marry someone of the same sex."

Huh? What? What "equal civil rights"? I wonder how they would like it if someone said to them, 'Black Americans should have equal civil rights, but I do not believe there should be a right for blacks to legally marry someone of the same skin color.' ?

Of course a lot of religious zealots of other races also hate gays and want to restrict their rights and behavior (or kill them), but I'm especially infuriated that members of a so-called 'minority' that has been bitching about discrimination and oppression for centuries would be eager to discriminate against and oppress others.

I'm not gay, and I don't think that gays should be off limits for what they think are offensive remarks (just like everyone else), but I also feel that laws should not be used to discriminate against or oppress people for things that they were born with and cannot change, as long as those things don't hurt anyone else. I'm pretty damn sure that most gay people would say that they can't change their sexual orientation any more than a black person can change their skin color.

Why does anyone give a shit about who marries who and what consenting adults do behind closed doors? All marriage really is anyway is a three party legal contract, between the two people getting married and the state. Legally restricting marriage to hetero couples won't make gay people stop being gay, just like Prohibition didn't make people stop drinking alcohol.  

Yeah, I sometimes get irritated at gay people who obnoxiously and publicly flaunt radical behavior but I don't care if they want to get married to other gay people or screw each other in any way they like. Besides, if they're allowed to get married, some of them will find out that it's not necessarily a great idea, just like a lot of hetero couples.

And what's with that "God's law" bullshit? Fuck "God" and its so-called "law".

By the way, last time I looked, marriage was a "civil" matter and comes under the heading of "civil rights".

I'll bet that gordon e mullings (who is black) is a strong supporter of CAAP. He's on the warpath against gays.



Date: 2012/05/23 04:05:11, Link
Author: The whole truth
It's Bigfoot, run for your lives!

Hmm...

toitles

There's gold in them thar hills:

It's gold, gold I tell ya!

Bring on the lumpers and splitters:

doggone it

A whale of a story:

Thar she blows!



Edited to add more links.



Date: 2012/05/23 16:51:01, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 23 2012,08:13)
Joe explains why ID is betterer then Darwinism:
 
Quote
But anyway Intelligent Design is a better match for the evidence than the modern synthesis, doesn’t violate known laws, doesn’t have too many unfounded assumptions, is testable, is supported by multiple lines of evidence from different disciplines and can be applied to unkniown situations.


So there!

I'd like to offer my serious and thorough assessment of joey's assertions:


"But anyway Intelligent Design is a better match for the evidence than the modern synthesis,"

ROFLMAO!

"doesn’t violate known laws,"

ROFLMAO!

"doesn’t have too many unfounded assumptions,"

Double, triple, quadruple ROFLMAO!

"is testable,"

ROFLMAO!

"is supported by multiple lines of evidence from different disciplines"

ROFLMAO!

"and can be applied to unkniown situations."

ROFLMAO!

Date: 2012/05/24 04:35:33, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,01:13)
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19)
I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent:

On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski

     
Quote
Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem.

The whole essay can be found here.

I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know?

Regarding ear stoppers, it wouldn't surprise me if one of these days that IDiots are found to have evolved a flap inside their ears that automatically and quickly closes at the first sign of any sort of reality trying to get in. Of course if such a flap were found the IDiots would claim that it's the result of intelligent design by their designer/creator, who did it so that they won't be plagued with hearing realistic challenges to their unsupported beliefs and assertions.  :)

Date: 2012/05/24 21:14:33, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Louis @ May 24 2012,13:59)
 
Quote (rhmc @ May 24 2012,20:50)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 24 2012,11:53)
So, still not answered, how did Abbie done fuck good?

for something louis doesn't want to talk about, he sure spends a lot of time talking about it.

Oh sorry, was I posting above my approved limit?

Am I talking about Elevatorgate? No.

Am I talking about talking about Elevatorgate with people I think incapable of talking about it sensibly? Yes.

Does this difference escape a simpleton like you? Yes.

Did I start this? No.

Did I refuse to accept my answer that I am fucked off to the back teeth with the topic and not bothering with certain people on the topic? No.

Are you just a pointless shit stain lacking both the intellectual ability and courage to do anything but snipe because your likkle fee fees are bruised? Why that would be a yes. How about you fuck off.

Got any other "clever" remarks? Go on. I'm sure I've done something you can whine about like the waste of flesh you are. Surely someone can come and make a really insightful remark about the amount of times I've said fuck or the length of my posts. You know, something substantial.

Fuck me, what a waste of space.

Louis

Louis said:

"Am I talking about Elevatorgate? No.

Am I talking about talking about Elevatorgate with people I think incapable of talking about it sensibly? Yes."

So, you're being nitpicky on that point, but when rhmc said...

"srsly?  ell oh fuckin' ell.

is that pz's version of "crossing the street" or is he just a chickenshit?

pretty funny.  abbie could have some fun with that.  i certainly would."

...you read something into his comments that no one with a clue would have done, and when rhmc pointed out that he "indicated nothing about your support or lack thereof for pz's position", which is true and honest, what did you do? Did you 'honestly' and 'sensibly' realize and admit that what you read into his words is wrong? Did you 'discuss' it 'honestly' and 'sensibly', or did you make an erroneous assumption and then blast him?

And then, when rhmc said...

"for something louis doesn't want to talk about, he sure spends a lot of time talking about it."

...how did you respond?

You like to be nitpicky when it comes to words, so let's take a nitpicky look at his words. He didn't specifically say that you are spending a lot of time talking about "Elevatorgate", and he didn't say that you are doing so in your recent comments in this thread on this site. And for all you know he was referring to the talking you've done about Abbie's fuckups, or elevatorgate, or talking about elevatorgate, or talking about 'Abbie's fuckups', or talking about talking about talking about talking, on this site and/or other sites, throughout the whole big stink about it all. He MAY have meant that you are talking a lot about elevatorgate, or Abbie's fuckups, and he MAY have meant that you are talking a lot about them here and now, but you don't know that. You could have asked him what he specifically meant, and you could have 'discussed' it honestly and sensibly but you instead assumed something, went on a rampage, and are acting like a joe g clone.

You obviously get thoroughly pissed when people 'assume' things or make comments that aren't what you think are nitpickingly accurate and honest in regard to your words and actions, but you're doing EXACTLY those things when you address others. For someone who nitpickingly expects others to perceive your words and actions with anal retentive precision and no assumptions, and who says they're so concerned with honest and sensible discussion, you've got a helluva a lot to learn about honestly, sensibly, and charitably perceiving and addressing others.

You would do well to ASK questions and be clear on what other people are saying before going off like an atom bomb, and when you make erroneous assumptions and it's clearly pointed out to you you'd be wise to admit your mistakes and not keep digging a hole.

It seems to me that there's a similarity in how you're responding and the way the woman in the elevator responded to that situation. Maybe you should both take up writing soap opera scripts.


I'll remind you that you have talked a lot about "Elevatorgate" and/or 'Abbie's fuckups', whatever they allegedly are, not only on this site but on other sites too. Just because you say that that's not what you're talking about right now doesn't mean that you aren't talking about them in some way right now or that you haven't talked a lot about them, including more specifically, on this site and others in the recent past.  



FYI: I read some of the "Elevatorgate" stuff awhile back but haven't kept up with it and I don't remember who "Abbie" is (by name anyway). Based on what I read, my opinion is that the woman in the elevator is a paranoid drama queen. I can't imagine why a woman would get bent out of shape just because a guy invites her to his room for coffee, or a drink, or whatever it was that he offered. It's no wonder that many men won't approach women with friendly offers, even though many women wonder why men won't approach them, and want men to approach them (well, certain men anyway). Does anyone remember the skit on SNL with Tom Brady in briefs?

I can't help but wonder if the woman in the elevator would have been upset if the guy had been Tom Brady, or Pierce Brosnan, or Brad Pitt. And if it had been one of those guys or someone similar, and she had reacted the way she did, I wonder how different all the talk about the situation would be.

Overall, to me, she made a huge deal out of nothing, and should have kept the whole thing to herself. If that's all it takes for her to be offended and to make a public stink about it, then she has lead a very sheltered life and needs to get out more.

And since I'm stating some opinions I might as well state my opinion about FTB, or at least on what the initials "FTB" stand for: Banning people JUST for disagreeing is bullshit, and while I agree with some of the things PZ Meyers says I think that he is a hypocrite, a jerk, and a drama queen in some important ways.



Date: 2012/05/24 22:44:30, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Badger3k @ May 24 2012,20:02)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 24 2012,21:36)
I had to Google 'Tom Brady'.

I thought it was that bloke in the new Batman but it turns out he's an American Hand-Egg player.

An oldie but a goodie:  Brady

I'm not sure if that's a link to the skit I referred to (I can't watch internet videos because of a slow connection) but here is a link to what appears to be that skit just in case:

Brady on SNL

Date: 2012/05/25 01:10:46, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,06:12)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 24 2012,10:35)
 
Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,01:13)
   
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19)
I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent:

On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski

         
Quote
Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem.

The whole essay can be found here.

I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know?

Regarding ear stoppers, it wouldn't surprise me if one of these days that IDiots are found to have evolved a flap inside their ears that automatically and quickly closes at the first sign of any sort of reality trying to get in. Of course if such a flap were found the IDiots would claim that it's the result of intelligent design by their designer/creator, who did it so that they won't be plagued with hearing realistic challenges to their unsupported beliefs and assertions.  :)

I exchanged emails on this subject with Bob Marks back in 2010! Even before the paper was published in the first place, I had pointed out this problem - in private and in public. In Sep 2010, Bob Marks informed me that has a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of him or his work, as independent of the validity or invalidity of the details of the exchange, these things are best discussed thoroughly before any public pronouncements. So he willfully  chose to ignore every unpleasant critic, on his own peril.

Ignoring critics, whether in public or in private, is a skill that IDiots have thoroughly mastered.

I'm sure that Marks and the other IDiots never even consider that their assertions are or could be perilous, because to them being wrong just doesn't compute. They want to dictate and preach, not listen, discuss, learn, or be corrected.

From what I've seen Marks seems to be one of the most isolated IDiots (and willingly so).

Date: 2012/05/25 04:27:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (utidjian @ May 24 2012,23:32)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 24 2012,21:14)

FYI: I read some of the "Elevatorgate" stuff awhile back but haven't kept up with it and I don't remember who "Abbie" is (by name anyway). Based on what I read, my opinion is that the woman in the elevator is a paranoid drama queen....

[snippage]

Based on what you have written here you didn't read enough. Quite understandable because there is SO much to read. You would have to dedicate a sizable proportion of a week reading for hours a day to just get the basics.

 
Quote

I can't imagine why a woman would get bent out of shape just because a guy invites her to his room for coffee, or a drink, or whatever it was that he offered.


You wouldn't have to "imagine why" if you had read/listened to what RW actually originally said about the incident. In case you were wondering here is the original post and video that started it all:
LINK

 
Quote

It's no wonder that many men won't approach women with friendly offers, even though many women wonder why men won't approach them, and want men to approach them (well, certain men anyway).


As you can see, if you listen to what she says, it was not a "friendly offer" from her point of view.

 
Quote

Does anyone remember the skit on SNL with Tom Brady in briefs?


No. Is it relevant in this context?

 
Quote

I can't help but wonder if the woman in the elevator would have been upset if the guy had been Tom Brady, or Pierce Brosnan, or Brad Pitt. And if it had been one of those guys or someone similar, and she had reacted the way she did, I wonder how different all the talk about the situation would be.


Again, you don't have to "wonder" because that isn't what happened. Is there a point to wondering what would have happened if one of those people you mentioned was the guy on the elevator?

 
Quote

Overall, to me, she made a huge deal out of nothing, and should have kept the whole thing to herself. If that's all it takes for her to be offended and to make a public stink about it, then she has lead a very sheltered life and needs to get out more.


All RW did was mention the incident and say, “Guys, don’t do that.” It took all of, what, 30 seconds? a minute? in an eight minute video which was little more than a sort of two-weeks-in-review update.

RW gets out plenty. She is invited to talks, conferences, and conventions all around the world all the time.

 
Quote
And since I'm stating some opinions I might as well state my opinion about FTB, or at least on what the initials "FTB" stand for: Banning people JUST for disagreeing is bullshit, and while I agree with some of the things PZ Meyers says I think that he is a hypocrite, a jerk, and a drama queen in some important ways.


If you are talking about the banning of Schroedinger's Dog then, as I recall, it wasn't just a matter of disagreeing. I can't find a link to the thread of when the banhammer came down on SD but I think if you read it you would see why he was banned.

-DU-

"As you can see, if you listen to what she says, it was not a "friendly offer" from her point of view."

Well, my point of view is that her point of view is ridiculous.


"No. Is it relevant in this context?"

I think it is. If the guy had been one of the ones I mentioned or someone similar I think that she would have bragged about the situation instead of saying "Guys, don't do that". And like I said before, they were just WORDS, unless you can show evidence of the guy in the elevator doing more than just saying something. Can you?


"Again, you don't have to "wonder" because that isn't what happened. Is there a point to wondering what would have happened if one of those people you mentioned was the guy on the elevator? "

See my comment above.


"All RW did was mention the incident and say, “Guys, don’t do that.” It took all of, what, 30 seconds? a minute? in an eight minute video which was little more than a sort of two-weeks-in-review update."

Precisely WHY should guys not do that? And what exactly did the guy do? Are you saying that men should not ever talk to women in elevators, or ask women if they would like to come to their room for coffee, or ask women any other question that the woman MIGHT take as a proposition for sex or something else that the woman MIGHT think is inappropriate? For fuck's sake, they were just WORDS.

Did the guy whip out his dick and demand that she have sex with him? Did he grab her and force her to his room? Did he brandish a weapon? Did he even say anything about sex? If it had been the other way around and SHE were the one doing the asking, would your perception and opinion about the 'alleged' situation be the same?

During my life I have been asked by some women if I wanted to have or meet for a drink or some other similar offer, and sometimes I got the impression that they had something more than the drink or other offer on their mind. I have also been bluntly propositioned for SEX by women on more than one occasion. Did I take offense and bring it up in a public way? NO. Would I say that women shouldn't do that? NO.

Let me tell you a true story about something that once happened to me. I was in a bar in Wyoming about 20 years ago and was talking with a couple that I slightly knew when another guy, whom they knew, and who was quite drunk, joined us. I was sober.

The drunk guy was going on and on about how hot his girlfriend was and that she was going to join him there any minute. Before long I heard the door of the bar open and looked over to see a tall, good looking blond walking in. I said something like "Check that out", whereupon the drunk guy said "Yeah, that's mine."

The blond joined us (she was sober too) and the conversation was pretty much dominated by the drunk guy being fairly obnoxious. Before long it was apparent to me that she was looking me over in a way that indicated more than a passing interest and was not thrilled to be there with the drunk guy. After only about 20 minutes or so I got up and said that I was taking my leave and going down the street to another bar. At that point the blond asked "Which bar?" which, to me, was a clear message that she was going to show up there, although, frankly, I didn't care one way or another. At NO point did I do or say ANYTHING to lead her to think that I was interested in her. For all she knew I was happily married or gay or just didn't like tall blonds.

The other bar was just a few blocks away and I was walking to it, and as I came to the street where the bar was I saw a car coming across the intersection and then the car pulled up and blocked my way. Guess who was in it?

She rolled down the window and I asked "What are you doing?" and she said "Looking for you." and then she asked me if she could buy me a drink in the bar I was headed to, which was across the street. I said "sure".

So, we went into the bar, had a drink, maybe two (don't remember exactly), chatted about this and that (NOTHING SEXUAL) and then I said I have to go. She asked me if I wanted a ride to my car, which was parked back by the other bar and I said "No, that's okay, I can walk." She persisted and kept trying to get me to accept a ride, and I figured why not and said I'd accept the ride. We got into her car, whereupon I still did NOTHING to show any sexual interest in her, and then she proceeded to ask me if I wanted to come home with her for the night. I paused for a few seconds and then said "No, not tonight." She asked "Why not?!" I said "Well, we just met and I don't know you well enough."

It was obvious that she was shocked, and a bit pissed, so I said "Tell you what, let's go out on a date tomorrow night, start out sober (if not stay that way) and just have a good time dancing and so on and at the end of the night if you still want me to come home with you you can ask and we'll see." She said "Oh, we'll see?!" and it was obvious that she was not taking it well. So I said calmly "Yeah, we'll see, as in you can ask or not and I can say yes or no. In other words we can both make up our own minds." That seemed to cool her off a bit but she was obviously still surprised and not very happy about it.  

She sat there across the bench seat in the car staring at me for a couple of minutes and then asked "Can I at least have a kiss?" I said "okay" and leaned over and kissed her. I didn't touch her with my hands or grope her or do anything other than the kiss, and then I just sat back across the seat against the door. She looked surprised and befuddled and then said "No one has ever said no to me. In fact, I've never had to ask, and I've never even had to ask for a kiss." I said "Well, you never met me."

Now, there are a couple of points here. First, I wasn't 'offended' by her questions or offers, but she was offended by my refusal to go home with her and that she had to ask for a kiss. Of course no one forced her to ask but she 'felt' that she 'had' to ask. Another point is that she, a woman, and a good looking one at that, was not used to hearing the word "no" and it clearly irritated her. If I hadn't suggested the next night date and explained my "We'll see" comment she would have been totally pissed and ordered me out of the car.

If you think for one minute that all men are obnoxious when it comes to making offers to women, try saying no to a woman who makes an offer to you, and especially a sexual offer.

Believe it or not, I know a guy who says that it's more fun to watch the pissed off way women react to the word "no" than it is to actually go home with them. I know what he means.


So, should I have been offended by the blond's offer to come home with her? Should I have made a public issue of it? (Remember, at that point she had known me for an hour or so and still had no idea whether I might be married, gay, or just didn't like blonds.) Should I have done so when other women have offered me something, including sex? Does my being a guy matter? If so, why exactly? You have heard the terms 'equality' and 'women's lib', haven't you? I know I have, plenty of times, and not in a calm way many of the times. The words "I'm equal, I don't need a man, I can take care of myself, this is the 90s." will ring in my ears forever.

If women want to be thought of 'equally' and be treated 'equally' they need to STOP being two-faced, demanding, paranoid, easily offended prima donnas who want everything that men may have or achieve and expect special treatment too. Equality is EQUALITY, not special favors, and most women say that they want equality in everything, not just the workplace. Some women have figured it out but many have not.

My main point is that there's nothing wrong with asking questions or making offers, unless a PERSON (male or female) won't take no for the answer. If I were to get pissed every time someone asks me something or offers me something, including sex, I'd sure be pissed a lot. If I don't want something or don't want to do something I am very able and willing to say no, and I don't need any support from anyone else to do so. I can stand up for myself.

And if anyone thinks that I'm a card carrying woman hater, think again. I have a grown daughter that I love more than anything and who I raised to be fair and to stand up for herself when necessary, and I'm ALL FOR equality as long as it actually is EQUALITY. And if you think that the situation in the elevator and the subsequent big stink about it has nothing to do with equality, you have a lot to learn.


By the way, has the guy in the elevator ever told his side of the story? I don't remember if I ever saw his version.



Almost forgot:

"RW gets out plenty. She is invited to talks, conferences, and conventions all around the world all the time."

Big deal. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.


"If you are talking about the banning of Schroedinger's Dog then, as I recall, it wasn't just a matter of disagreeing. I can't find a link to the thread of when the banhammer came down on SD but I think if you read it you would see why he was banned."

SD isn't the only one who has been banned by PZ. Maybe SD was banned legitimately and maybe he wasn't, but PZ takes joy in sending people who don't kiss his ass to his so-called dungeon. And it's not just the bannings.

Date: 2012/05/25 06:45:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Woodbine @ May 25 2012,02:55)
Quote
If women want to be thought of 'equally' and be treated 'equally' they need to STOP being two-faced, demanding, paranoid, easily offended prima donnas who want everything that men may have or achieve and expect special treatment too.



Are you a woman who expects 'equality' and special treatment?

Date: 2012/05/25 22:59:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
expelled for not thumping hard enough

Date: 2012/05/26 02:57:49, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Robin @ May 25 2012,08:02)
For TWT:


So, expecting 'equality' to actually mean 'equality' is somehow wrong?

Date: 2012/05/26 22:57:01, Link
Author: The whole truth
Just a few points:

It's funny, in a face-palm sort of way, that some of you are SO damned eager to condemn the guy who was ALLEGEDLY in the elevator, and who ALLEGEDLY said what was ALLEGEDLY said to the woman, even though you are REAL QUICK to thoroughly blast IDiots who ASSUME things and automatically believe things that are ALLEGED, but WITHOUT verifiable evidence.

And SO fucking what IF he did say what she says he said?


'Oh the poor little dear sobbing buckets of tears! We MUST stand up for her and protect her and all the other women on Earth from evil, rotten, crude, drooling, sex crazed, pushy men who are POTENTIAL rapists! After all, ALL men are sex crazed knuckle dragging monsters and POTENTIAL rapists who are deliberately looking for a situation where they can TRAP a woman in an elevator and then force themselves on her! That poor, poor dear, what horror she must have gone through in that elevator! How DARE that despicable manbeast offer coffee and a chat! How dare he speak to her! Castrate him! Burn him at the stake! Cut off his head and his dick and put them on a tall spike in the town square as a warning to all other POTENTIAL rapists! All men should be leashed and ball-gagged and never allowed to talk to women! Women are just too frail and innocent to take care of themselves and they must be shielded from men who have the unmitigated gall to speak to them!'

That's how some of you, and many others on other sites, are coming across.  



Most of the responses to me are just way too ridiculous, distorted, and irrelevant to what I've actually said that it's not even worth responding directly to them. I did write a fairly long response to one of you yesterday but then hit the wrong key and it vanished into oblivion, and I'm not going to rewrite it.

And in case anyone gives a shit, I did show this thread to my daughter and to a female friend (who is happily married to another guy), and they both strongly agree with what I've said. In fact, they also both said that some of you women (you should know which ones) need to get off your princess-wannabe thrones and come down to Earth and actually practice the 'equality' you say you want so much. They also said that some of you men (you should know which ones) are clearly pussy-whipped.


I never thought I'd say this on this site but some of you sound way too much like kairosfocus and his extreme 'morality' crap (especially the "verbal rapists" bullshit), and I'm also reminded of all the so-called and self-proclaimed "free thinkers" and "rational skeptics" who, when the religious IDiots are whining about being offended and are demanding "respect" (actually special treatment) for their beliefs and practices, are quick to bring up free speech and say to the religious wackos: "You don't have the right to not be offended."

Double standards anyone?



Date: 2012/06/01 03:07:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (clamboy @ May 31 2012,23:22)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 31 2012,19:32)
   
Quote (clamboy @ May 31 2012,15:41)
(I will now stand by to be labeled "pussy whipped.")




"[S]ome of you men (you should know which ones) are clearly pussy-whipped." - Thewholetruth, 5/26/12, p. 592 of The Roomba Thwall.

Isn't there a martyrs' memorial at Oxford? Must investigate...

And here I thought that misquoting people is considered a bad and dishonest thing on this site.  If you (clamboy) knew how to read you'd see that I was passing along what others said, so the words you put in quote marks are not directly attributable to me.

By the way, you are not only pussy whipped (now you can honestly quote me) but you're as brain dead as joe g when it comes to reading comprehension, and, in a manner that is reminiscent of the way IDiots behave you distorted, grossly exaggerated, and dishonestly misrepresented what I've said.

You, and some others here, really don't have a clue.

Date: 2012/06/03 05:33:08, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (JLT @ June 01 2012,04:43)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ June 01 2012,09:07)
By the way, you are not only pussy whipped (now you can honestly quote me) but you're as brain dead as joe g when it comes to reading comprehension, and, in a manner that is reminiscent of the way IDiots behave you distorted, grossly exaggerated, and dishonestly misrepresented what I've said.

Coming from you that is pretty rich. Or do you claim that this is a fair summary of anything that has been said here (or anywhere, for that matter)?
       
Quote
And SO fucking what IF he did say what she says he said?

'Oh the poor little dear sobbing buckets of tears! We MUST stand up for her and protect her and all the other women on Earth from evil, rotten, crude, drooling, sex crazed, pushy men who are POTENTIAL rapists! After all, ALL men are sex crazed knuckle dragging monsters and POTENTIAL rapists who are deliberately looking for a situation where they can TRAP a woman in an elevator and then force themselves on her! That poor, poor dear, what horror she must have gone through in that elevator! How DARE that despicable manbeast offer coffee and a chat! How dare he speak to her! Castrate him! Burn him at the stake! Cut off his head and his dick and put them on a tall spike in the town square as a warning to all other POTENTIAL rapists! All men should be leashed and ball-gagged and never allowed to talk to women! Women are just too frail and innocent to take care of themselves and they must be shielded from men who have the unmitigated gall to speak to them!'


How far we've come.
   
Quote
And in case anyone gives a shit, I did show this thread to my daughter and to a female friend (who is happily married to another guy), and they both strongly agree with what I've said. In fact, they also both said that some of you women (you should know which ones) need to get off your princess-wannabe thrones and come down to Earth and actually practice the 'equality' you say you want so much. They also said that some of you men (you should know which ones) are clearly pussy-whipped.

Debate on the ‘Conciliation’ Bill, to enfranchise about 1 million Women voters, 28 March 1912
   
Quote
[There had been a postcard census of women’s opinions1]   Of the replies which have been received there are against the Suffrage 42, 793, in favour of it there are 22,176, neutral 9,404.   That is the opinion of women.   This is a man-made Bill which they are forcing upon the vast majority of women against their wishes…

     
Quote
The way in which certain types of women, easily recognised, have acted in the last year or two, especially in the last few weeks, lends a great deal of colour to the argument that the mental equilibrium of the female sex is not as stable as the mental equilibrium of the male sex.   The argument has very strong scientific backing…   It seems to me that this House should remember that if the vote is given to women those who will take the greatest part in politics will not be the quiet, retiring, constitutional women… but those very militant women who have brought so much disgrace and discredit upon their sex.   It would introduce a disastrous element into our public life…

     
Quote
Militantism and hysteria are inherent and inseparable from the Suffrage movement.   They grow and progress as the Suffragist movement grows and progresses and, if this is so, then these militant outrages are a strong and serious argument against Woman Suffrage itself.

So, a woman ALLEGES that a guy in an elevator asked her if she'd like to come to his room for coffee. PZ Meyers and a lot of other people made a GIGANTIC stink about it, and are still making a stink, for how long now??

I don't think that what I said is an exaggeration, a distortion, or dishonest at all. If anything it's an understatement of the way that many people think and have acted (and are still acting).

Maybe what amazes me the most is that you and some other women don't understand how making such a GIGANTIC stink (or any stink at all, and especially very publicly on the internet) about a NON-incident (in every sense of the word) reinforces the perception that women are helpless, fragile, inferior weaklings who are unable to take care of themselves and need to be protected from men even talking to them.

Yeah, you've come a long way baby. Not.

Date: 2012/06/03 18:45:10, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (George @ June 03 2012,10:32)
Quote (The whole truth @ June 03 2012,05:33)
So, a woman ALLEGES that a guy in an elevator asked her if she'd like to come to his room for coffee. PZ Meyers and a lot of other people made a GIGANTIC stink about it, and are still making a stink, for how long now??

I don't think that what I said is an exaggeration, a distortion, or dishonest at all. If anything it's an understatement of the way that many people think and have acted (and are still acting).

Maybe what amazes me the most is that you and some other women don't understand how making such a GIGANTIC stink (or any stink at all, and especially very publicly on the internet) about a NON-incident (in every sense of the word) reinforces the perception that women are helpless, fragile, inferior weaklings who are unable to take care of themselves and need to be protected from men even talking to them.

Yeah, you've come a long way baby. Not.

I'd just like to say a couple of words on this subject on behalf of all the lurkers and quasi-lurkers here.

Grow up.

The whiny children (of either gender) who have and still are making a stink about something that doesn't even have any evidence of it ever actually occurring, and that even if it did happen was absolutely NOTHING to get upset about, are the ones who need to grow up.

Poor little dears sobbing buckets of tears. Waaaah.


And who authorized you to speak for the "lurkers and quasi-lurkers"?

Date: 2012/06/04 05:44:50, Link
Author: The whole truth
SD, as you said you brought it up here recently and I don't see anything wrong with that unless I or someone else is prevented from speaking about it. I accept that you're now trying to sooth the hostilities and promote peace, and that you didn't intend to stir up a hornet nest. You brought it up but you're not responsible for what other people say about it.

There are some things that I wonder if anyone else has considered:

WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion? Even IF it did occur, what's his agenda in portraying himself like a knight in shining armor who is slaying dragons to keep the women of the world (or just the ones who speak at atheist/skeptic conferences) safe from harm? Did PZ and the others on the 'most-men-are-misogynistic-monsters-and-potential-rapists' bandwagon speak out so strongly (and for so long) against sexism (or alleged sexism), that allegedly happens at atheist/skeptic conferences and/or elsewhere, BEFORE this alleged incident occurred?

What better way to make yourself look like a swashbuckling hero than to publicly come to the aid of a damsel in distress, even though there's no evidence that any damsel was ever actually in distress (or at least not legitimate distress)? Call me suspicious but maybe it's PZ who's trying to get laid. Is Rebecca Watson young-ish and attractive? Hmm, I wonder if he has ever asked her if she'd like a coffee or a drink, and/or has ever been in an elevator with her.

And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen? Is she the one who pushes the Skepchick and Skepdude calenders while at the same time bitching about "sexism" and "sexualization"?

What if a similar alleged incident had occurred at a theists conference, or a plumbers conference, or a lesbians conference, or a conference of gay men? Would the same people have said the same things about it? Think about it.

One more thing, who the hell is Rebecca Watson and what has she ever done that makes her or anyone else think that she's so damn important that such a NON-incident (that doesn't even have any evidence of ever actually happening) is worthy of being so publicly magnified into a gigantic tempest and crusade?

I can't help but think of all the legitimately serious problems that people (men, women, and children) have that many people don't give a shit about. Being uncouthly asked if she'd like to go to a room for coffee (IF it did happen) pales in comparison to a lot of actual horrible things that are going on on this planet, and there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities.

Date: 2012/06/05 00:34:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Cubist @ June 04 2012,10:11)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ June 04 2012,05:44)
WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?


Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out.

       
Quote
Even IF it did occur...

Yes, yes, "bitches lie."

       
Quote
And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen?


Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink".

     
Quote
... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities.


Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure.


"Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out."

To me (and apparently to a lot of others) it was not a simple, calm, reasonable assertion, and I don't agree that "she had good reason to feel creeped out", especially since there's no evidence that the alleged incident ever occurred. There wouldn't have been any "shitstorm" if she had not made it public. And shouldn't a self proclaimed "skeptic" be ready and willing to provide verifiable evidence before going public with such an accusation? And where does it say that people shouldn't be skeptical of her assertions and complaints unless her assertions and complaints are reasonable and supported by at least some actual evidence?

Assuming the alleged elevator incident actually occurred: If that's all it takes for her to "feel creeped out" and make it public, and to keep on complaining about it, and to fan the flames with other complaints about alleged sexism and harassment at atheist/skeptic conferences, especially to the point of saying she won't attend a conference because she doesn't feel "safe", I'd say that she has led a VERY sheltered life. Of course I can't speak for all women but I do know some who would have seen the alleged elevator incident as no big deal and would have put it behind them in a matter of seconds, and some might even have taken it as flattering or possibly taken the guy up on his offer. (The Tom Brady thing keeps coming back to my mind too.)

"Yes, yes, "bitches lie.""

Well, women do lie, and so do men, especially when it serves an agenda. Just look at the IDiots and their lies.

"Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink"."

I wasn't referring only to her "Guys, don't do that". She is STILL making a stink. Here is just one example. Other women on the Skepchick site are complaining about sexism and harrassment too. Frankly, they come across like feminazis, and they sound a lot more 'sexist' than the men they're complaining about. I get the impression that they expect special treatment just because they're women.

Notice the stuff about women on stage. I'm sure that there are a lot of men who would like to be on stage at those conferences too but they're not, for what could be one or more reasons. One reason could be that the men who are usually on stage have earned more clout and don't want to relinquish the positions they have earned (Why should they?). Another reason could be that the men on stage, or behind the scenes, are dictatorial assholes who just want to control things. And yet another reason could be that the women, or men, who want to be on stage, but aren't asked or allowed to be, haven't EARNED the privilege. Equality is achieved by being equal, not by simply demanding equality, and whether anyone, women or men, like it or not, you have to pay your dues if you want to play in the big leagues.

There appears to be a lot of atheist/skeptic conferences around the world and different men speak at different conferences, although certain speakers are more 'popular'. Men who want to hold a conference or speak at one have to do what it takes to get it done, and if they don't like the way some conferences are organized they have the option and freedom to set one up any way they like. Women can do the same thing if they don't like the way conferences are organized. If they have paid their dues by accomplishing enough in science (and/or in battling religion) that people are eager to hear them speak, they would probably be successful at conferences they organize, and would likely be in demand at conferences that other people organize.

I find myself think about Danica Patrick. I think that she or any woman should have the opportunity to drive in car races as long as she has earned the privilege, but if she wants to be thought of as equal to the men in the sport she is going to have to earn that too. Shitloads of men would love to drive in car races, like Nascar, and win, but they don't get it handed to them on a platter and neither should women. Some of the men in car racing are thought of a lot more highly than other men and it's because those guys have earned that respect and popularity. Yeah, some of them may have had advantages over other men like being born into a 'racing family' but they still have to produce positive results to earn respect and be thought of as great drivers. And surely there are women who have advantages (over both other women and men) and are born into 'racing families'. I seriously doubt that car racers have only ever had male children.

Personally, I would be real happy for Danica Patrick if she wins any race. If she wins it's because she earned it, by working hard and persevering through all the difficulties of highly competitive auto racing, just like ALL the men have to do if they want to win.

I also find myself thinking of Shirley Muldowney. She earned the respect and popularity that she got and still has. Just ask 'the good ol' boys' of drag racing, and drag racing fans. And I'd be willing to bet that she ran into a lot more obstacles and 'sexism' in drag racing (especially back then) than Rebecca Watson will ever even imagine, let alone have to contend with at atheist/skeptic conferences.

"Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure."

I'll have to take your word for it that those things have happened because I haven't kept up with the whole thing and I haven't seen any rape threats or beyond. I certainly wouldn't condone any rape threats but I think that RW brought the "shitstorm" onto herself and is still doing so. If she had a verifiable, legitimate complaint she would likely get much more universal sympathy and respect.

RW could have stopped the "shitstorm" long ago, and she could have easily prevented it right from the beginning. Methinks she has some growing up to do, and I also think that she needs to realize that neither she nor any other woman (or man) is going to be invited "on stage" unless they earn it and are in demand. I don't know about the rest of you but I wouldn't attend an event to hear someone speak just because of their gender, and I wouldn't NOT attend just because they're a woman. Regardless of their gender they had better have something worthwhile to hear, and be good at saying it. Plenty of women draw audiences at all kinds of events around the world and it's because they worked hard to be that draw.

I used to have a girlfriend who authored books and got paid to speak at events all over the USA for many years. She never complained about sexism or misogyny or harassment or any other problems with discrimination at events or otherwise, and I seriously doubt that she never encountered any of that. She spent her life working very hard at learning and writing and speaking, and didn't play the victim card even though she had experienced some awful things (from men) in her personal life when she was young and had been married to a less than stellar guy. She had very good reasons to be a man hater but wasn't, and she didn't see herself as someone who needed special rights, treatment, or privileges. She also didn't see men as competitors or that they were holding her back, even when some people thought that she had good reasons to do so. She knew that hard work and dedication would pay off and that she had to pay her dues to get what she wanted and deserved. She loved what she did and was really good at it. Damn, I miss her.

Date: 2012/06/05 08:50:41, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Badger3k @ June 04 2012,11:58)
 
Quote (Cubist @ June 04 2012,12:11)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ June 04 2012,05:44)
WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out.


Well, whether she meant it that way or not, apparently people felt that she was demanding that people obey her, which ruffled feathers of men and women.  While there were some assholes originally (there always will be, so why anybody was surprised I have no idea), even the people who were saying that she didn't speak for them (the women responding to her) were tarred and feathered with the MRA/mysoginist/gender-traitor/etc labels, told to shove porcupines up tender places, edited, censored, banned, and more.  Debate was impossible because RW could do no wrong and spoke for everyone.
   
Quote
     
Quote
Even IF it did occur...

Yes, yes, "bitches lie."


No, merely that the tale kept getting bigger and bigger, and more intricate, just like all other tales we see in history.  They just grow into things a bit hard to swallow.  The original story sounds entirely plausible, but when all the rest were added in - Rebecca's problem that seemed to develop and disappear fast - the one where she can't remember/ID faces so she knew this guy was at the talk and bar how? - it sounds suspiciously like a political move.  Altering the tale to counter arguments or make it worse than it was.  

   
Quote
     
Quote
And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen?

Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink".


This I have to agree with...to a point.  The original point was trivial and not a stink, but when it blew up...virtually everything was a public stink over the further arguments, and the original points (both hers and her lack of professionalism when speaking) went to the curb.  

 
Quote

     
Quote
... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities.

Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure.

   
Quote (cubist  <!--QuoteBegin--The whole truth @ June 04 2012+05:44)
WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

Answer: It's [i--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cubist    
Quote (The whole truth @ June 04 2012 @ 05:44)
WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

Answer: It's [i)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->not[/i] the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out.


Well, whether she meant it that way or not, apparently people felt that she was demanding that people obey her, which ruffled feathers of men and women.  While there were some assholes originally (there always will be, so why anybody was surprised I have no idea), even the people who were saying that she didn't speak for them (the women responding to her) were tarred and feathered with the MRA/mysoginist/gender-traitor/etc labels, told to shove porcupines up tender places, edited, censored, banned, and more.  Debate was impossible because RW could do no wrong and spoke for everyone.
   
Quote
     
Quote
Even IF it did occur...

Yes, yes, "bitches lie."


No, merely that the tale kept getting bigger and bigger, and more intricate, just like all other tales we see in history.  They just grow into things a bit hard to swallow.  The original story sounds entirely plausible, but when all the rest were added in - Rebecca's problem that seemed to develop and disappear fast - the one where she can't remember/ID faces so she knew this guy was at the talk and bar how? - it sounds suspiciously like a political move.  Altering the tale to counter arguments or make it worse than it was.  

   
Quote
     
Quote
And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen?

Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink".


This I have to agree with...to a point.  The original point was trivial and not a stink, but when it blew up...virtually everything was a public stink over the further arguments, and the original points (both hers and her lack of professionalism when speaking) went to the curb.  

   
Quote

     
Quote
... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities.

Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure.


If internet trolls are considered the standard for people in society, then I think we have far bigger fish than people think.  If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky.  I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am).  There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world).

I do wonder if anyone knows of any study that can show a relationship between online interactions and real world?  Do the trolls on YouTube act that way in real life, or only do it from the safety of their computer?  Do they say those things because they mean it or because they want to cause a flamewar?  Just curious.

ETA: I tried to quote parts, but really blew it and am not sure why, so my apologies for a messed up post.[/quote]
"If internet trolls are considered the standard for people in society, then I think we have far bigger fish than people think.  If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky.  I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am).  There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world)."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking more of face to face situations (e.g. being in an elevator with someone) than internet conversations or confrontations but I suppose it could apply to them too. If anything though, it's often easier to deal with face to face situations than ones on the internet. Written words can often be misinterpreted and it can sometimes be very difficult to explain what was meant in the first place, especially after the other party has made up their mind in an incorrect way about what was written.

I was also thinking of how the alleged elevator incident has been described and how easily RW could have dealt with it, and I was thinking of how RW makes it sound like a gigantic problem. I think it was Ogre who suggested that she could have just said no, and that if the guy wouldn't take no for an answer the police could then be called if necessary.

Am I the only one who finds it interesting (and revealing) that she is not only complaining about an alleged guy in an elevator, but also about the lack of "women on stage" and in the audience, and about the way that she and/or other women are allegedly mistreated or not taken seriously enough by male conference organizers and/or male attendees? Talk about a 'lumper'.

She makes it sound like women are being regularly harrassed, accosted, raped, flogged, and keel hauled and/or banned at those conferences. 'Drama queen' comes to mind. If it's as bad as she says maybe she and her fellow female 'victims' should organize their own all female conferences. Maybe PZ could sneak in in a dress. He might have to shave off that weird beard though. :)

It should be remembered that there has been no claim (that I'm aware of) that the alleged guy in the elevator ever touched her or that he was actually mean to her. There isn't a shred of verifiable evidence that she was ever even in an elevator with some guy or that some guy asked her if she'd like to come to his room for coffee. No one made her get into an elevator with any guy and no one, including some guy, made her do anything. Going by her own claims, all the alleged guy did was ask her a question that she didn't like.

Apparently her fragile sensibilities were offended by the alleged question and she had the vapors over it, and when she recovered she just had to bring it up in a video on the world wide web and tell guys not to do that. The more I think about it the more ridiculous the whole thing sounds.

When it comes to thicker skins, I'd say it's RW who needs one, along with anyone else who is so easily offended by something so trivial and harmless.  

It's more understandable to me that people can be legitimately offended (to a point) by what others say on the internet if what is said is obviously meant to offend. I know that it's just written words but emotions can kick in when someone says something that is clearly meant to attack or offend. If the alleged face to face elevator incident had been one where a man or a woman had said something to another man or woman (or child) that was clearly meant to be an attack or offensive, even if they were just words, I would be more inclined to be pissed at the offensive person and supportive of the offended person. From what I've seen of this story that was not the case in this alleged situation. Asking a question, even if not the smartest question to ask, is not a big deal or a crime.

I'll admit that I've asked many not too smart questions of women and others, and I'll probably do it again in the future. I'd like to think though that a person I ask a harmless dumb question of in a face to face situation won't complain about it on the internet.

When it comes to sexism, in my opinion women are every bit as sexist (in a bad way) as men, if not more so. Of course there are exceptions, in both genders. So-called 'sexism', like most other things, is something that has huge variables depending on who is asked. What pisses off one person may barely bother another person or even please them. The world is full of highly variable opinions and feelings about all kinds of things, and that's fine except when someone gets unreasonably upset or offended over a harmless question, or some other trivial thing (like drawing a picture of Mohammed).

As Badger said, if people "want to live in the real world", they need to grow (reasonably) thicker skins.  

By the way, I wonder what RW would think of joe g? Now that's a face to face meeting that I'd like to see. LMAO


Edited to add: I don't know what happened with the formatting so the easiest thing I could think of is to add the dashed line. My current response is everything below that line.



Date: 2012/06/06 01:38:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Badger, I read again what you said and I may understand it better now. When you said...

"If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky.  I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am).

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that you were thinking of the 'shitstorm' response she has received on the internet and that my comment about there being bigger fish to fry than protecting her sensibilities applied to that; in other words that there are bigger fish to fry than protecting her sensibilities from "mean" internet comments.

As I tried to explain last night (but probably didn't say very well) (Is lack of sleep a good excuse?) I was thinking more along the lines of there being bigger fish to fry than protecting RW's fragile sensibilities from a guy allegedly asking her a face to face, harmless question, but it could be applied to what has happened on the internet too, at least in the sense that there are bigger fish to fry than protecting her fragile sensibilities from a face to face, harmless question and/or "mean" comments on the internet, especially when the scale of 'protecting her fragile sensibilities' has been magnified to a ridiculous level by certain people, such as PZ Meyers. If a guy asking her a harmless question or if people saying "mean" things to her on the internet are the worst things that have ever happened to her, then yeah, she has been very lucky.

So, you weren't necessarily wrong in your interpretation of my point, since all the thoughts that I just tried to express above were surely in my mind at the time, along with the thought that "mean" comments that have been directed at her on the internet would never have occurred if she hadn't made the alleged incident public and handled the whole thing so poorly since then, and from what I've seen in this thread and elsewhere it appears that she and others who are on her side have made some comments on the internet that should be expected to piss people off and attract some "mean" responses.

It's amazing that such a trivial, alleged incident can turn into such a big stink.


Just so that no one misunderstands me I do want to add, as I said before, that I haven't seen any rape threats or similarly over the top comments directed at her and I certainly don't condone that sort of thing. However, putting comments like that aside for the moment, I feel that she has brought the "shitstorm" upon herself, and is continuing to do so, and that some other people are also responsible for attracting the negativity that's aimed at her.




ETA: corrected a spelling error.



Date: 2012/06/06 02:33:37, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 05 2012,19:45)
Ad hominem attacks are so bad, somebody must be forcing IDC advocates to use them.

Right?

Right.......


Date: 2012/06/06 07:41:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
I came across a site where an 'Ashley Miller' is complaining about harassment, "TAM", and "DJ". I left a comment that some of you might find interesting.

Date: 2012/06/06 08:01:23, Link
Author: The whole truth
PZ Meyers: "There was also an incident on twitter in which a prospective attendee threatened to grope Rebecca Watson on an elevator at TAM..."

Huh? What? Is that what RW originally claimed happened?

Date: 2012/06/06 20:54:23, Link
Author: The whole truth
Got this in my email today:

Friend request

You have received a friend request from TINA123
(amsalutina@yahoo.com) Hi, Dear My name is miss Tina, l saw your profile today @ (http://theskepticalzone.com),doing my search in Google, and after going through it then l made up my mind to contact you as my friend. so l want you to write back to me through my email address (amsalutina@yahoo.com) so that l will give you my picture and for you to know more about me. I hope to see your mail soon. Cares Tina. (amsalutina@yahoo.com)
Go to The Skeptical Zone...

Please don't reply to this email
Powered by WP Symposium - Social Networking for WordPress v12.05.14

-------------------------------------

miss Tina, eh? Sounds legit. I'm really tempted. LOL

Date: 2012/06/06 21:16:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 05 2012,08:51)
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012.......ts.html

Quote
Jerry the Liar Coyne and his Mental Midgets- all Drooling Spewage and No Evidence
-
Yup, go figure. Jerry the liar Coyne opens a thread for me and yet he doesn't let me post and no one there offers anything that refutes what I said. Sure I can read many ignorant-filled comments and plenty of lies, but not one piece of evidence.

Is Jerry the liar Coyne an ignorant fucking coward too?

It seems that Jerry is still playing with that little "toy" between his legs...posted by Joe G @ 12:48 PM



joey bitches about not being allowed to post there yet joey doesn't allow a lot of comments on his site. I have submitted several comments at joey's site recently, and many in the past, that he never posted. I can't help but wonder how many other comments he won't post.

Even though Coyne's thread is more about joey than "for" joey, I think that Coyne should allow joey to post in it, as long as he doesn't go on too radical a rampage. If nothing else it would be fun to see joey add more foolishness to his already infamous reputation.

Date: 2012/06/06 21:49:37, Link
Author: The whole truth
I got the impression that PZ was referring to RW's original complaint, but maybe he's referring to something that happened recently on the internet. If it's just something that was said on the internet, rather than in person in an elevator, is it a big deal?  

I've noticed that PZ's choice of words is often exaggerated (sometimes grossly so) and it appears to be for the purpose of making some things look a lot bigger than they actually are. I'm reminded of the way-over-the-top fit he had about the ice cream parlor owner refusing to sell ice cream to atheists (or whatever it was that the store keeper refused to sell them). Man, did PZ make a huge stink about that trivial incident or what?

I'm not saying that I'd be happy if I were refused service because I'm an atheist (or for any other stupid reason) but I'm sure that I wouldn't make that kind of stink about it. I'd be a lot more likely to just tell the store keeper they're a jerk and then go spend my money elsewhere.


ETA: Yes, Badger, your points are good. If there really is a credible 'threat' the proper awareness and precautionary steps can be taken. Unnecessary paranoia and whining about alleged 'threats' of groping or about alleged sexual harassment at skeptic conferences isn't going to accomplish anything positive.



Date: 2012/06/07 01:29:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
In this thread, stephaniezvan says  the "evidence" points to me being a "denialist asshole". Yeah, I guess that asking a so-called "skeptic" for actual evidence of her claims of harassment, and for evidence of negligence or discriminatory practices on the part of TAM, and pointing out that the so-called "skeptics" (especially the female ones who are complaining of being harassed) have some responsibilities in dealing with such matters and are expecting unreasonable 'protection', makes me a denialist asshole.

Of course I'm actually a "denialist asshole" because I don't instantly and automatically believe all the claims and don't blindly and robotically believe, defend, and protect every damsel who claims to be in distress.

Show me a damsel who is in legitimate distress and I'll run to help her, but if she's just whining or expecting special treatment I'll say so. That's part of the price of 'equality'.


ETA: I had refreshed the page at Ashley Miller's site several times and there was no way to submit a reply or comment, but I just looked again and now it shows a reply button but it flashes in a strange way. Maybe comments or replies are still allowed. I try again and see.

ETA again: My reply worked, so I retract, and removed, the first part of my comments above.



Date: 2012/06/07 07:59:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 07 2012,03:08)
Aaaahhh, I love living in a federal state which is predominantly Catholic! Bavaria has got holidays (= days off) the other states can only dream of.

Of course, it's a special brand of Catholicism. E.g., not so long ago sons of wealthy farmers used to ensure the fertility of a future bride by marrying her only when she had become pregnant; it was meant to ensure the unbroken line of inheritance. That was perfectly acceptable to the church. It was practised in my family, too; I found out when I had to submit my family tree to get a position as a public employee.


Edit: Kitteh for The Whole Truth.


I'm not sure if you're presenting me with a Kitteh because you think I'm being a jerk or instead as a nice gesture or something, but I'll take it as a nice gesture unless you say otherwise. The Kitteh is adorable and makes me smile. Thanks. :)

And that's very interesting about the special brand of Catholicism.

I have a sister in law who lives in Germany but I don't remember the name of the town right now. She works for the government in some hush-hush job. My brother, whom she's married to, lives in Idaho. Now that's a long distance relationship.

Date: 2012/06/07 08:16:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Badger3k @ June 06 2012,20:14)
Going back through the comments on Coyne's site, I liked
This one

"Wow! Can a whole blog be a troll?" (by mikespeir).  That's it, the whole comment.  Says it all, though.

I got a kick out of that comment too.

Date: 2012/06/07 08:31:03, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 06 2012,11:35)
Hey kids!

http://www.facebook.com/discove....verycsc

It's Facebook, so I'm not sure they can suppress comments as they do on their own sites.

Damn, I looked at that page and a bunch of my brain cells committed suicide. There's a lot more tard there than should be allowed by law.

Date: 2012/06/08 19:04:50, Link
Author: The whole truth
I guess men should just stop talking to women altogether.





More later.

Date: 2012/06/12 07:25:49, Link
Author: The whole truth
While it's a generous offer to invite gordo here, it's never going to be accepted by the chicken-shit monster of Montserrat.

For Record: gordon elliott mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat is akin to a vampire. He cloisters himself in a coffin of fearful darkness and depravity and won't come out into the light because a deadly stake of reason would be driven through his insane, ignorant, sanctimonious, willfully dishonest sermons by people with intelligence and rational character.

When gordo's not exposing his theocratic fundamentalist fangs and slobbering his self-righteous venomous drool on his own dead websites he cowardly dwells in a moldy graveyard (UD) that is a sanctuary for a small mob of mouth-foaming zombies who, like gordo, will eagerly stoop to any lie or other despicable act in their attempts to push their furtive dominionist agenda (under the guise of "ID") and to try to suck the lifeblood out of reason, freedom, rationality, and the scientific pursuit of knowledge.

Oh, and gordo's wife must be the most unsatisfied woman on Earth.

Date: 2012/06/14 02:43:51, Link
Author: The whole truth
dr. jammer, KF (gordon elliott mullings) is too much a sniveling coward to come here and face the direct, crushing defeat that would easily be dealt to his insane, incoherent, ignorant, dishonest, sanctimonious, rambling sermons. UD, not this site, is the one that bans people simply for disagreeing with them, which shows just how fearful you IDiots are. You god zombies must realize how wrong and delusional you are, otherwise you'd have confidence in your 'position' and would be eager to welcome challengers on UD and all the other IDiot sites that censor opposition. It must be terrible to live in so much darkness and fear. You poor babies.

You even ran away from the thread that was set up for you here, just as gordo is doing. Running away is a major part of the modus operandi for you IDiots, isn't it? I wonder why your designer god didn't give you any confidence and courage? Maybe you need to get down on your knees and beg for some. I'm sure that that subservient 'position' is very familiar to you.

BOO!

Date: 2012/06/14 04:19:44, Link
Author: The whole truth
dr jammer:

"The presumption of innocence applies to a court of law, not to public opinion."

Is that what your so-called god and his holy book condones and teaches? Is that what cordova's and arrington's so-called god and holy book condones and teaches? Where's all your christian godsy stuff about not judging, and  forgiveness, and logs in your eyes, etc., etc., etc.?

And you are aware, aren't you, that UD is operated and controlled by barry arrington, a lawyer, and being a lawyer he's supposed to be well versed in the concept that people should be presumed innocent unless and until they are convicted in a court of law, not in a court of "public opinion", yet arrington, who also claims to be an evangelical christian, is allowing the hypocritical, completely irrelevant post by slimy sal and the comments supportive of it. I wonder if the people of Colorado would like to be informed about the sanctimonious swill that arrington allows, encourages, and contributes on his site? Maybe you should ask him.

By the way, you IDiots seem to have missed something. IF Matheson, a christian, and the woman, also a christian, actually did do something that is immoral according to your bible, what does that say about the alleged power of christianity to keep people from doing immoral things? Hmm, I can't help but wonder what immoral and/or illegal things you and the other IDiots have done or are doing and just haven't been caught for, yet.

One more thing: The woman was and is over the age of consent, right? The only thing that applies is a technicality in the policy of the college, right? Matheson didn't break any laws, right?

What is Matheson 'guilty' of, and why aren't you IDiots judging and condemning the woman? In the eyes of the law, which legally represents "public opinion", she's an adult and is as responsible for her actions as any other adult. In the eyes of your so-called god and his holy book she's a fornicator. She's reported as saying that she had a multi-year sexual affair with Matheson. Did Matheson force her to do that? Did she claim that Matheson forced her? And why do you suppose she suddenly told the college about the alleged sexual affair after engaging in it for so long? A "woman scorned" comes to mind.

Date: 2012/06/14 09:02:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey jammer, why don't you just admit that you have weird hangups about sex and that you've never had sex with another person and that's why you call Matheson and Starbuck "degenerate"?

What exactly is "degenerate" about Matheson (allegedly) having sex with another adult, and especially a female adult?

Do you call yourself jammer because you regularly jam your head way up your imaginary god's ass and cordova's ass as your way of making love to them? I guess you haven't figured out that that sort of thing is sleazy, appalling, disgusting, and degenerate, and clearly exposes your weak moral fiber. Maybe some competent sex therapy would help you shed your bizarre sexual hangups and perversions.

You said:

"I believe U.D. should be devoted to any subject relevant to I.D. in any way, ..."

Do you mean subjects pertaining to the theocratic dominionist fundagelical creationist religious beliefs that are the actual basis/motive for the promotion of the ID agenda by you and the rest of the IDiots? Don't worry, UD already pushes that crap more than enough and I seriously doubt that they are going to change their tune.

Date: 2012/06/14 09:09:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 14 2012,03:23)
Well, it's alright, we all know nobody on the religious side has ever been deviant...

Anyway, I have to read a few pages back to understand what all this is about...

Yeah, those pure as driven snow godbots never do anything immoral.

Also see this.

Date: 2012/06/14 10:13:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,04:44)
For those who were wondering about the health of Uncommon Descent...



The Trollocaust  was in mid-February, right on the 02/12 marker, more or less.

As we can see, the two months, post-bannings, resulted in far more unique visitors (the only traffic stat I can find), on average, than the several months prior to the banning.

So, no, the absence of trolls hasn't hurt U.D.'s traffic. If anything, it may have improved it. While Elizabeth livened the place up a little bit, in my opinion, the rest of you clearly brought it down with your stupidity and horrible arguments.

U.D. is better off without you smelly turds stinking the place up. Thank God Barry flushed you down the toilet.  :p

What you obviously don't want to believe is that most of that traffic is likely to be people who just want a good laugh. Do you actually think that UD and its gang of IDiots has any legitimate influence on science or anything else? UD is just a handful of delusional losers who erroneously and arrogantly think that they matter to the world. If you think that UD is so important, why don't you go out on the street and ask everyone who passes by if they have ever even heard of UD or any of the IDiots who dwell there?

And maybe you can show what the IDiots at UD have ever accomplished in science? You know, things like legitimately published, peer reviewed scientific papers and how much they're cited, speaking about and presenting evidence of new scientific discoveries at science conferences, leadership or involvement in actual scientific research, authoring books about real science instead of books about pseudo-science that only appeal to a small number of delusional god zombies, involvement in science topic TV shows where they are the host, writer, or consultant, and any other important and relevant accomplishments. Go ahead, show all the evidence of just how important and influential all you IDiots at UD are to science and the lives of people around the world.

Why not start with fatty arrington, kairosflacid (gordon e mullings), o'leary, joe g, vj torley, corny hunter, and uptight biped? I'll come back later and check out your list of all their scientific and world-influencing accomplishments.

Date: 2012/06/14 10:31:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 14 2012,07:14)
Quote (The whole truth @ June 14 2012,09:09)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 14 2012,03:23)
Well, it's alright, we all know nobody on the religious side has ever been deviant...

Anyway, I have to read a few pages back to understand what all this is about...

Yeah, those pure as driven snow godbots never do anything immoral.

Also see this.

Because anything sanctioned by their god is automatically considered moral.

Things like slavery, mass rape, genocide, torture, intolerance, lying, theft... all OK as long as God commands it OR you are doing it for God.  Right?

Date: 2012/06/14 11:30:56, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,01:21)
Quote (Tom A @ Feb. 11 2012,00:12)
You all know that he doesn't have the stones to show up right?

He's so  brave among his fellow bullies on UD, but he runs when confronted outside his turf.

I'm not even sure what you mean. Why wouldn't I have "have the stones" to show up here? You people aren't deluded enough to believe that anyone actually fears anything you say, are you?

Most of you, if not all of you, have been given ample opportunity to present formidable challenges to the people of Uncommon Descent. Each and every one of you failed miserably.

Let's see, you ran away months ago after some hit and run posts, and now you're showing the same IDiocy you showed then and you'll likely run away again soon.

"Most of you, if not all of you, have been given ample opportunity to present formidable challenges to the people of Uncommon Descent."

Really? You know for a fact that most or all of us have been given ample opportunity, eh? When I first registered at UD my site didn't exist, and I had never posted here or on any other site that challenges ID or UD. I had no history of challenging, opposing, or bashing ID or UD at all. I submitted a post at UD and simply asked a few relevant, decently worded questions. That submission went to moderation and was never posted. I tried again and that submission went to moderation and was never posted and I was banned, even though UD says that they are confident in their position and welcome open and honest discussion. UD is run by and populated with fearful, lying IDiots, and you are a clueless moron.

By the way, how much "CSI" is there in a banana?

Date: 2012/06/14 11:36:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 14 2012,07:50)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,03:21)
Why wouldn't I have "have the stones" to show up here?

Showing up is one thing, having an adult discussion or debate is quite another.

So far you've done neither.

Are you one of Dembski's students trolling for his 15 posts or something?

Or maybe he is dembski.

dr. dr. jammer dembski?

Date: 2012/06/14 11:57:30, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,01:18)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2012,10:48)
Jammer, are you an ID expert?  Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.

If you have some knowledge of ID, then I would appreciate answers.  I would hope that you have some knowledge of ID, since it is obvious that you have no knowledge of evolution... or tact for that matter.

But nonetheless I would like to discuss this notion that is ID.  Just let me know when you are ready.

kthks

I wouldn't say I'm an expert, no. That designation should be reserved for intellectuals such as kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, and the great (and dearly missed) DaveScot.

My guess is that your queries have been answered repeatedly, and that you refuse to accept said answers. That's how it usually goes with you guys.

Intellectuals?? ROFLMAO!

And I'm especially ROFLMAO at you calling kf an intellectual. That guy is as ignorant and wacked as any nutcase who has ever existed. It takes a lot more than spewing a massive amount of nonsensical words to be correctly labeled as an intellectual.

You and I do agree on one thing though. I wouldn't say you're an expert either.

Date: 2012/06/14 12:26:30, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 14 2012,09:45)
I was "prebanned" by Dave Scott before I even tried to register. What punks.

Your history of education and work in psychiatry, medical research, anthropology, teaching, and archaeology probably scared him plenty. The last thing IDiots want is to face people who actually know something and can see through their bullshit.

Date: 2012/06/14 12:35:52, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 14 2012,10:16)
Yeah, I've already thoroughly destroyed kf's giant webpage link argument and he declined to comment on my thrashing... or allow it to post for that matter.

As I'm sure you're aware, kf is a tyrannical dictator, and won't listen to or tolerate challenges to or corrections of his 'commandments'. No one on Earth is in a bigger state of denial than gordon e mullings, the monster of Montserrat.

Date: 2012/06/14 13:09:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey jammer, if you're so concerned about wrongful behavior, why don't you go to UD and press kairosfocus (gordon e mullings) to confess to how many times he has beaten his children, wife, students, and others with "Mr. Leathers", and be sure to also ask him about his admitted friendship with murderers. Go ahead, show how concerned you are about "degenerate", "appalling", "disgusting", 'sleazy', "weak moral fiber" behavior.

And while you're at it, ask him to produce evidence of me threatening him and his family "mafioso style". He has accused me of that several times but won't even respond to my repeated requests or challenges to him to produce evidence of the alleged threats, and of course that's because he is willfully LYING.



Date: 2012/06/20 01:38:20, Link
Author: The whole truth
cudworth barfed:

"I can to some extent forgive the BioLogos folk regarding the self-contradiction; they in most cases don’t have the intellectual tools to deal with the contradictions they have embraced. (They don’t know any philosophy at all, and they use mostly bad sources for theology — generally very recent works written by liberal evangelical theologians from Britain and the USA, rather than classic early-to-mid-20th-century scholarly works and primary sources such as Calvin and Aquinas.) What I don’t forgive them for is *not listening* when people whose knowledge of philosophy and theology dwarfs their own tell them they are making mistakes. Ignorance due to confusion is forgivable; ignorance due to willfulness isn’t."

What a demented, delusional, deranged, dishonest dullard.

And frankly, I don't see any significant difference between a theistic evolutionist and an IDiot. According to joe g, the self-proclaimed expert on ID, ID does NOT go against evolution and evolution was/is designed and/or guided by a supernatural entity (i.e. "God", or in joe's case, allah). TEs accept evolution and claim that it was/is designed and/or guided by a supernatural entity (i.e. "God").

Every TE or IDiot has their own version of their religious beliefs as to whether their god intervenes in evolution or doesn't intervene or how much it intervenes or when it intervened/intervenes or whatever. The bottom line is that they ALL believe that their chosen god did it, does it, will do it, has done it, sometimes did it, might get around to doing it, or WHATEVER. It's ALL just a steaming pile of religiously based bullshit fairytale beliefs.

What cracks me up is that the TEs say that the IDiots are wrong and the IDiots say that the TEs are wrong, and they fight over the nitpicky particulars of their beliefs, which are ALL based on the SAME insane delusion. What it really comes down to is 'authority' (power). god zombies, regardless of the particulars they promote or argue about, ALL have the insatiable desire to be, and they proclaim themselves to be, THE authority. THEIR version of their beliefs are THE right ones. THEY are THE authority. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is WRONG. Everyone MUST accept, believe, and worship whatever THEY say. THEY are NEVER wrong. In their totally pompous minds, they ARE god.

They're all fucking nuts.

Date: 2012/06/21 23:26:31, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 20 2012,00:47)
"The whole truth":

   
Quote

What cracks me up is that the TEs say that the IDiots are wrong and the IDiots say that the TEs are wrong, and they fight over the nitpicky particulars of their beliefs, which are ALL based on the SAME insane delusion. What it really comes down to is 'authority' (power). god zombies, regardless of the particulars they promote or argue about, ALL have the insatiable desire to be, and they proclaim themselves to be, THE authority. THEIR version of their beliefs are THE right ones. THEY are THE authority. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is WRONG. Everyone MUST accept, believe, and worship whatever THEY say. THEY are NEVER wrong. In their totally pompous minds, they ARE god.

They're all fucking nuts.


My disagreement with IDC and all other religious antievolution is and always has been that their arguments are wrong, irrelevant, or counterfactual, and that insisting on teaching falsehoods is a poor way to show devotion to God. I'd be interested in knowing where I've argued over "nitpicky particulars of belief", where I've insisted that others worship as I'd specify, or where I've been wrong on something decidable and not admitted it. There's a lot of what I've written over the years available online, so you should have plenty of ready-to-hand material to back up your claims ... if they were true.

The truth is that I advocate the teaching of science in science classrooms, and leaving the non-science out of those classrooms. I have documentable decades of this mode of advocacy behind me. What I believe personally is, in my opinion, of no importance to this issue.

Are you saying that you're a theistic evolutionist?

Date: 2012/06/22 06:17:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,16:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

Others have already asked but I'll ask too. Will you present at least some of the "many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life"? It should be easy if there are "many".

And hey, that's just regarding the origin of life, which leaves all the rest of the stuff that actually pertains to evolution and the theory of evolution. Maybe you will present some "valid" pro-ID arguments about all that too?

It's obvious that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Ogre, and others, have asked you relevant questions, but you ignore them and keep bringing up worldviews. Are you ever actually going to respond to the questions or are you going to continue to play games?

I can't help but notice the crap in your signature. Do you really think that Dawkins, or Moran, or any other non-IDiot is scared of IDiots? If so, you've got a lot to learn.

If you're genuinely concerned about who is scared, why don't you ask the powers that be at UD and all the other IDC sites that either don't allow any comments, or don't allow some or all dissenting comments, or ban people for no good reason, why they are so scared of facing challengers? And no, the lame and dishonest claim that all comments from non-IDiots are vulgar or some other allegedly horrible thing just won't cut it. Besides, UD welcomes joe g, and no one is more vulgar than he is, well, on second thought, many of the IDiots are just as vulgar whether they use four letter words or not. For example, the constant, sanctimonious, dishonest, vicious attacks by kairosfocus (gordon e mullings) on anyone who doesn't kiss his massively pompous ass are as 'vulgar' as anything I've ever seen.

What's really vulgar are all the lies, arrogance, bald assertions, illogical fairy tales, false accusations, libelous attacks on real scientists and science supporters, hypocrisy, deceptive quote mines, self-serving distortions of scientific hypotheses, theories, and findings, and the malicious denigration of anyone who disagrees with the IDC dogma, that are constantly spewed by the so-called "Christian", and self-proclaimed "moral", IDiots. And their cowardice, sneakiness, and censoring just adds more layers to their vulgarity.



Date: 2012/06/22 23:30:10, Link
Author: The whole truth
klinghoffer the coward

Reproduced so that you don't have to add clicks to ENV:

When You Can't Answer the Argument, Attack the Credentials of the Person Offering It
David Klinghoffer June 22, 2012 4:29 PM | Permalink

Some critics of Science and Human Origins charge that the authors have no business writing about the subject because they aren't paleoanthropologists. One anonymous critic posted on Amazon that because Ann Gauger, Doug Axe and Casey Luskin have degrees in the wrong fields, they can be safely ignored. What a relief that must be for Darwin defenders!

Quote
Three ID creationists, none of whom have a background EVEN REMOTELY related to physical anthropology, purport to write a book on "Science and Human Origins," published by their own execrable propaganda mill, the notoriously dishonest Disco 'Tute. Why should anybody not a drunk-the-koolaid devotee of fundamentalist wingnut pseudoscience care?

Of course, this critic started his discussion thread before the book was even released, so obviously he didn't read it. Oh well, we've come to expect these kinds of attacks on books and authors that challenge Darwinist orthodoxy. Still it's worth using this example -- outlandish though it is -- as an occasion to respond to the objection.
First, if the critic had read Science and Human Origins, he would have learned that there's a lot more in it than just physical anthropology. In fact, three or four of the book's five chapters arguably aren't about physical anthropology or paleoanthropology at all -- they're about molecular biology and genetics. And two of the three authors of those chapters -- Gauger and Axe -- are biologists with strong backgrounds in those subfields.

So as far as the subject matter of the book is concerned, they have scientific training in precisely the topics they're writing about.

For example, in Chapter 2, Doug Axe writes about the ability of the mutation-selection mechanism to produce, in humans, features that require multiple coordinated mutations. Since Axe has published peer-reviewed research on the evolution of multimutation features as well as experimental research showing that these features exist in nature, he's well suited to address the subject here. His chapter argues that it would be mathematically impossible for multimutation features to arise by mutation and selection in humans in the six million years since their most recent alleged common ancestor with apes.

Likewise, in Chapter 5, Ann Gauger addresses a specific subfield of biology called population genetics. Dr. Gauger has a strong background in molecular biology, genetics, cell biology, and developmental biology, having studied at MIT as an undergrad, the University of Washington for her PhD, and as a post-doc fellow at Harvard. As credentials go, those are not bad.

As for other parts of the book, Casey Luskin wrote Chapter 3, which is the chapter that by far deals the most with paleoanthropology. Luskin holds two degrees in earth sciences from UC San Diego, took many courses covering evolution -- including courses studying fossils relevant to human origins -- during undergraduate and graduate studies, and conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. While it's true that Luskin doesn't hold a formal degree in paleoanthropology, he's scientifically trained in closely related fields. A few years back he published a technical paper titled "Human Origins and Intelligent Design: Review and Analysis" in the ID journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design.

Luskin is an informed outsider and perfectly well suited to consider the evidence, bringing a fresh perspective and drawing a credible conclusion. Trained as an attorney, he does a fine job of spotting logical problems in the evolutionist's case for human/ape common ancestry. Casey's chapter on the fossil record is the longest in the book, with well over 100 citations to mainstream technical scientific articles and books related to human origins. Critics need to respond to his discussion of the evidence.

Will they? If past experience is a guide, there's reason to doubt it. Critics of intelligent design are more comfortable attacking people than they are answering arguments. So it goes with the community of Darwin boosters. Their ranks are heavy with bullies and their leaders are almost all cowards, who flee from a fair fight on the merit of the ideas that are up for debate.

--------------------------

All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.


ETA: fixing some formatting glitches.



Date: 2012/06/23 19:53:19, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 23 2012,15:54)
I love watching Upright Biped and kairosfocus just annihilate the trolls who pollute U.D. It's such a joy. kairosfocus is especially brilliant. It's no wonder he's so hated here. He's like LeBron James -- so brilliant at what he does that it's almost scary.

Every single one of you who have had the balls to face kairosfocus in the debating circle  have been severely trounced. Every one of your claims have been demolished. He is a one-man, Darwinist-destroying machine.

How many of you wake up in the middle of the night with cold sweats after having nightmares of kairosfocus? Be honest. His superior intellect scares you.







Date: 2012/06/24 07:41:38, Link
Author: The whole truth


Date: 2012/06/24 23:54:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
Bummer

Date: 2012/06/25 07:29:12, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey jammer, have you seen this demonstration of the religion/creationism that is called 'intelligent design'? Take a good, long look at that whole site (and any other site that pushes ID) and then try to convince me that the ID agenda is scientific, not religious.

And do you know that joe g (now going by Joseph on UD) used to be listed as an "author" on that site? Yep, it's true. Check out this screen grab of their previous authors page, and scroll down to "JOE GALLIEN":

Date: 2012/06/25 09:13:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 25 2012,04:47)
Gordo talks tone with Jerad:
   
Quote
PS: On tone. I did not make up the names of the relevant fallacy, question-begging. As to the insinuation that I have been belligerent in the teeth of civility, that is patently over the top. Over several weeks others and I have tried to walk you through a range of evidence but in so doing, a pattern of errors in reasoning on your part has emerged. It is that which I have highlighted, using fairly standard terminology for fallacies, save that I have given my own descriptive term for what Greenleaf called “the error of the skeptic.” At some point, I did take time to speak to snide and smearing remarks at Anti Evo, in a context that celebrates your foray here as in effect an exercise in laughing up your sleeve. I do appreciate the fact that you have not been overtly abusive, but that does not change the fact that there are identifiable and correctable flaws in your arguments, some of which have been highlighted. Do, please correct such. And, do notice, I am not arguing to “prove” to you that the design view is right — scientific reasoning has been known to be inescapably provisional since the days of Newton — but that there is reasonable warrant for someone to hold such a view, and indeed it is superior to the Darwinist mechanisms on an inference to best current explanation in light of observational evidence basis.


What a POS:
   
Quote
I do appreciate the fact that you have not been overtly abusive, but that does not change the fact that there are identifiable and correctable flaws in your arguments, some of which have been highlighted. Do, please correct such.

This from someone who has never admitted error despite being shown to be wrong?

Gordo, beam, mote, eye etc.

Lol.

In the comment preceding that one he finishes with:
   
Quote
But, at least, onlookers can see that if so intelligent and informed a defender of the Darwinist position has to use rhetorical resorts like that, the game is pretty much over.

Yeah Gordo, who else thinks rhetoric beats science? Hmm, let me think now....

What a piece of work. And yes, Gordo, I for one am laughing up my sleeve. Constantly...

Date: 2012/06/25 19:32:44, Link
Author: The whole truth
This crap should be considered child abuse and the perps should be impeached, prosecuted, and jailed (or at least tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail).

Carrier said, "We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children."

Yeah, like a real education about reality. Indoctrinating them with insane religious fairy tales will be a lot less confusing to them, eh?

I'm embarrassed to be a US American. This country is going down the shitter.

Date: 2012/06/25 21:03:40, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ June 25 2012,12:48)
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what kairosfocus is talking about when he references a "constitutional crisis"?  I've looked at the Montserrat news recently and didn't see any kind of crisis nor any mention of anyone with the initials GEM creating one.

Unfortunately, he's no worse than some politicians in the deep south of the US, so I'm willing to believe it's possible that he might be a semi-prominent member of the street sweepers union on a sufficiently small island.

gordo uses the "constitutional crisis" bullshit (and a lot of other self-inflating bullshit) to try to make it sound as though he is an important statesman and has substantial political/governmental power and influence, not only in Montserrat but also in the UK and other countries. He's actually a nothing, a nobody, and has no political/governmental power or influence, anywhere. He's just a loud-mouthed, insignificant, bigoted, dishonest, insane coward with delusions of god-hood.  

I picture him as an insufferable, drooling pest who shows up at public meetings in Manjack Heights and spews a looooooooooooooooooooong, convoluted, sanctimonious sermon about the "crisis" of the world-destroying immorality of whatever conflicts with his anal-retentive religious dogma, even when the purpose of the meeting is just to discuss funding for patching a few potholes in the local roads.

Date: 2012/06/26 07:38:32, Link
Author: The whole truth
And a permanent record of this, in this thread, won't hurt either:



It's a previous authors page from wasdarwinright.net. The authors page has been changed and now doesn't show joe as an author.

Date: 2012/06/26 08:15:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
I think I know one of the reasons that gordon e mullings won't come here. There's a limit of 76800 characters per post here and that would thoroughly frustrate that bloviating gasbag.

Date: 2012/06/26 09:53:08, Link
Author: The whole truth
In Paulmc's review of "Science and Human Origins" he says:

"Some consistent themes strike the reader by this point in the book. After the introduction and Gauger's first chapter, it is clear that the defence of a Christian worldview is a major undercurrent in this book. The introduction (by the Discovery Institute's John G. West) introduces a cultural context for the book, where Darwinian evolution is seen as a secular tool "to topple the idea of human exceptionalism". This is what is seen as being at stake. Then in Chapter 1, Gauger introduces human evolution in the context of Christians losing faith in a literal Adam and Eve, and lamenting Christians who accept the scientific evidence for evolution. And now, Chapter 2 begins with Axe disapprovingly quoting "vocal atheist" Richard Dawkins about the illusion of design in biology. Axe is unconvinced that it is an illusion and reminds us that the question of human origins is important because, once again, it connects "to how we should think of ourselves." I have never understood this line of thinking. The implication is that if we think of ourselves as descended from apes, we will treat other people as apes, which is to say apparently badly. "

As he said, that is what is seen as being at stake. In other words, god zombies see humans, or at least themselves, as being special, exceptional, created in the image of "God", and 'I ain't no ape!'.

It's ALL about ego, arrogance, self-righteousness, power, and SUPERIORITY. Everything else on Earth and in the entire universe was created FOR humans, or at least god zombie humans, to use and abuse as they want to. Everything else is INFERIOR. Even other humans who don't believe in the same "God" are INFERIOR. Only 'the chosen ones' are SUPERIOR. Only the ones who do all the right things will get any favors, including eternal life, from "God". Everything else and everyone else is EXPENDABLE, and everyone who doesn't do all the right things and believe in the 'right' "God" deserves to and will suffer unimaginable pain and torment for eternity.

Could there be anything more arrogant, malicious, selfish, and insane than religion?

Oh, and what's with the religious shit in a book that is allegedly about "Science and Human Origins" that was written and is being pushed by IDiots? I thought they claim that ID has nothing to do with religion? NO science so far!

Date: 2012/06/26 10:48:30, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2012,07:39)
It seems that "Joe" has been at this longer then I imagined.

Here are some posts from "Ark Guy", a very very YEC creationist active in 2003-4. Anybody see any similarities to caek boy's "style" of writing?

 
Quote
I still have not seen any real proof that the earth looks old. This is an un-proven statement that the evos keep repeating always failing to prove their point.

I had said CERTAIN aspects of the creation had apparent history.
Such as the apparent age of Adam.
Not all of creation had an apparent history.

http://www.christianforums.com/t85460-....1578261
 
Quote
In the bible God said he did it.
In the science books it says God didn't.
Is this really too much of a concept for you guys to grasp?

http://www.christianforums.com/t77909-....1433986
 
Quote
I don't really care what Darwin thinks.

I care what evolution says, and how they say it. Currently evolution says there is no need for a God and this view is shoved down our throats.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in Intelligent design ? Behe style? or are you in the camp of the other 99% of evolutionist who argue against Behe claiming God had no part in evolution?

http://www.christianforums.com/t77909-....1433603
 
Quote
What part is anti-God?

Well the part that says God what not required...duh.

Or can you show me a public school text book that says God was behind the formation of the universe, formation of the planet, abiogenesis and the director behind the making of man from primitive life.

Now if you can't, then hush up.

It is a known fact that evolution is anti-God and shoved down our throats.
 
Quote
Exactly...and the bible tells us in the accounts presented in Genesis and in the ten commandments that it took six literal days...or can you show me otherwise with scripture references
http://www.christianforums.com/t76757/#post1405137
 
Quote
Funny how the Theo-Evos on this forum never argue for intelligent design...instead they PUSH evolution by random mutation that is selected by nature.

Now if evolutions is just plain pure and simple natural chance...then why God?

Besides if God used evolution, then why not just say so in the creation story? If God used evolution then why did he say six days? Why did he say Adam was created from the dust? Why did he say Eve was made form his side?

Why not say just man was created from pre-existing animals? I mean, if God used evolution.

http://www.christianforums.com/t76757.....1404992
There are a total of 867 posts from Aug 2003 to Jan 2004. The funny thing is that even the "turn the other cheek" gang get pissed off with him, and it seems his YEC leanings are out in the open.
 
Quote
KINDS, not species were on the ark.
I wanted to correct a Theo-Evo strawman.

The YEC's do not claim that 2 of every species of animals were on board the ark.
I always hear this claim from the anti-ark crowd...how could two of every species fit on the ark. I just wish they would have done their homwork prior to posting such strawman statements.

Actually Noah had brought KINDS of animals onto the ark.
In a sense, but not exactly, it would be like Noah bringing on board Genera, or in other words, two species of all the seperate species that belonged to and were to represent that particular genera, or KIND.

The following is a list from Noahs Ark A feasibilty Study
Number of animals genus (Male & Female) present from each order-class on the ark.

http://www.christianforums.com/t74165.....1352653
 
Quote
Nope...The differance is between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution requires no mutations. The changes is just a variation with in already established genes.

Macro-evolution is the molecules to fish to lizard to ape to man theory held to by the Theo-evo sect and not the YEC's.

 
Quote
There were about 8,000 kind of animals on the ark.

Fish were not included.

From these 8,000 kinds of animals left off of the ark speciation occured and formed todays current species of animals.


and on and on and on.

Joe, you YEC you.

LOL @ JOE.

That sure does appear to be joe, and I've seen him push the ark feasibility study bullshit elsewhere.

Date: 2012/06/26 23:53:14, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 26 2012,16:06)
Quote (The whole truth @ June 25 2012,22:03)
Quote (Patrick @ June 25 2012,12:48)
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what kairosfocus is talking about when he references a "constitutional crisis"?  I've looked at the Montserrat news recently and didn't see any kind of crisis nor any mention of anyone with the initials GEM creating one.

Unfortunately, he's no worse than some politicians in the deep south of the US, so I'm willing to believe it's possible that he might be a semi-prominent member of the street sweepers union on a sufficiently small island.

gordo uses the "constitutional crisis" bullshit (and a lot of other self-inflating bullshit) to try to make it sound as though he is an important statesman and has substantial political/governmental power and influence, not only in Montserrat but also in the UK and other countries. He's actually a nothing, a nobody, and has no political/governmental power or influence, anywhere. He's just a loud-mouthed, insignificant, bigoted, dishonest, insane coward with delusions of god-hood.  

I picture him as an insufferable, drooling pest who shows up at public meetings in Manjack Heights and spews a looooooooooooooooooooong, convoluted, sanctimonious sermon about the "crisis" of the world-destroying immorality of whatever conflicts with his anal-retentive religious dogma, even when the purpose of the meeting is just to discuss funding for patching a few potholes in the local roads.

Did you read that Meade decolonization link? Even the newspaper has this neo-Victorian verbal style... It might affect the whole island...

Ripley's advice might be best.

I just read the Meade article and I see what you mean. I followed a link there to another site where the Meade decolonization thing is reported and that one was somewhat more readable.

I can't help but think that the people of Montserrat should all* just get the hell off that volcano. Since they're living off of UK money maybe they should all* move to the the UK? Seems to me that they're nothing but a financial burden on the UK, and that whatever plants and wildlife are still left on Montserrat would be a lot better off if there were no people living there. There are some places where people just shouldn't live, and on a volcano is one of them.

* gordo could be left on Montserrat to keep an eye on the feral pigs and make sure that they don't do anything immoral.

Date: 2012/06/27 00:26:36, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ June 26 2012,16:19)
I notice on Montserrat's Wikipedia page that no one with the initials GEM is listed in the section "Famous Montserratians."  An oversight, surely.

The population of the island is less than six thousand, spread over a number of towns and villages.  I wonder how many know kairosfocus by name?

With that small a population on the entire island you'd think that it would be easy to find the occupation and/or business activities, political power/influence, public service, participation in clubs/organizations/churches, or any other activities and contributions of someone as important as gordo thinks he is, but he's practically a ghost.

I think that he's just an unemployed, un-liked, avoided, unproductive, totally unimportant, basement dwelling nobody who spends almost all of his time spewing his insanity on the internet. What's left of his time is likely spent on beating his wife and children with Mr. Leathers while yelling 'Praise the Lord!', and on viewing porn.

Date: 2012/06/27 01:03:00, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2012,11:25)
Quote
If the key cell-level mechanisms of life are based on FSCO/I and that is best explained per observation on design — it is a reliable sign of it — then it is part of the shift in balance on how we view FSCO/I across the world of life.


Hey, Gordo, you keep saying "if" don't you? Why?

You talk about "reliable signs" not "certainty". You talk about "if" not "is".

Yet you'll then proclaim with absolute certainty that somebody else is wrong, that "islands of functionality" preclude evolution, but then can't make a coherent answer to pertinent questions other then to mumble "proteins, configuration space" and chant some numbers like a voodoo curse.

Let's look at your post.
 
Quote
Ah, Joe:

Ah, your first mistake. Getting down that low in the barrel and shit is going to stick to you, no matter what. But let's face it, what choice do you have? Talking to BA77 is not an option is it?
 
Quote
While I await the outcome of the no-confidence debate.

Just like everybody else who had no influence in it what-so-ever.
 
Quote
I think that, at least, the people can hear for themselves what is going on, and begin to realise what changes we will need to take the country and region forward.

As long as they realise the right sort of change, yeah? Like keeping the gay people down, huh?
 
Quote
You are right to highlight that the ability to carry out self-replication is indeed an instance of what has to be explained, FSCO/I.

Then why don't you explain it?

Go ahead......

Explain self-replication.

Oh, what's that? You can't? You can't actually say anything about the origin of life at all except some dubious calculations about how improbable it is?

Lol @ you then, moron.
 
Quote
Which is what Paley pointed out 206 years ago, long before the debates that strawmannised and lampooned him.

Yes, even Paley knew about FSCO/I. The magic quantity that you can't calculate or otherwise use in any way what-so-ever.
 
Quote
And, the truth is, the only empirically and analytically justified causal factor known to be adequate to cause FSCO/I, is intelligence.

Is it? As a moment ago I had you down as an "if" or "reliable signs" type of guy? Now it's down to a single, certain cause?

What was that cause? What caused FSCO/I Gordo?
 
Quote
One would have thought that at least the Anti-Evo habituees would have learned to do their homework before trotting out talking points.

And lo! The pot speaketh, and it say: "Hey, kettle, look at all that soot on you!".

If you did your homework KF, you'd never speak again.
 
Quote
But, yet again, they did not.

They? You are only talking about me, who is they?

If "they" is everybody then you are obviously judging them by my words alone.

And yet you greet Joe in the first line of your post as a comrade in arms.

You are so far down in the dirt Gordon Mullings....
 
Quote
And, we need not further underscore the basic lack of broughtupcy that seems to be so characteristic in places like Anti Evo. One hopes, they will wake up and clean up their act.

Yeah, the place you can't stay away from, the place you read every fucking post on despite the fact it's such a disgusting swamp.

It never seems to work out so well for you Gordo when I come to yours. So why don't you try it over here? You might be surprised at the welcome you'd get!

 
Quote
PS: The point here is that OOL cannot be separated from OO body plans or basic morphologies of life forms across the world of life.


I'm going to have to put this in caps BUT GORDO, NEITHER ID NOR YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OF THAT ANYWAY!

So regardless of your basic misunderstanding, which I believe to be deliberate, of conflating OOL and what comes after, what's your fucking point?

EXPLAIN SOMETHING THEN! IT'S YOUR TURN IDiot!

duh.

gordo only says "if' sometimes in a dishonest attempt to fool people into believing that he's open minded and not trying to be a know-it-all authoritarian, but every other word he pukes abundantly demonstrates that he is a deliberately tyrannical, dictatorial authoritarian AND an evangelical, fire and brimstone, completely inflexible, religious fundamentalist/creationist.

He's a legend, and a god, in his own mind.

Something I've noticed about gordo is that he tries, although often unsuccessfully, to sound less religious on UD than he does elsewhere. He tries to sound 'sciency' on UD, but fails miserably. His real self shows, abundantly.

It must be really difficult and frustrating for him to hold back any of the religious crap that saturates him from top to bottom. Of course more than enough of his extreme fundagelical beliefs shows up in his sermons on UD but he really lets out his religious insanity on his sites and in comments on some other sites.

Date: 2012/06/27 01:15:41, Link
Author: The whole truth
Speaking of islands of functionality, searches, irreducible systems, and all that jazz, I have a question for gordo:

Hey gordo, picture a remote oceanic island that has organisms living on it and around it. It's a complex, integrated/interrelated system, an eco-system. Did/does that eco-system come about via stochastic events and processes, or was/is it intelligently designed?


ETA: irreducible systems



Date: 2012/06/27 03:12:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Just one of the things that comes to my mind when I think of IDiots like Luskin is this:

I am 5' 11 and 1/2" tall, my younger brother is 6' 3 and 1/2", and my older brother is 6' 1 and 1/2" tall. My dad was 5' 7" tall, and my mom was 5' 4" inches tall at her tallest. She has since shrunk a little like most old people do. Luskin and company would likely tell me that I have to prove that there were a bunch of gradual intermediates between my parents' heights and those of me and my brothers. Such a 'gap' in heights, in a single generation, would surely be impossible in his limited mind. How could a relatively short man and woman produce much taller children? Surely that would take millions, maybe billions of generations via "Darwinian" processes. My height and that of my brothers must be because of the intervention of the christian god. It's a miracle!

And our hat sizes, and hair and eye colors don't all match either. Praise the lord!



Date: 2012/06/27 09:39:32, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (afarensis @ June 27 2012,05:59)
Quote (paulmc @ June 27 2012,01:45)
My review of Science and Human Origins, chapter 3 is now online for those who might be interested.

Sounds like Luskin has recycled his "Human origins and intelligent design" paper for the third time...

Isn't recycling the same old crap all that religious zealots do? After all, it isn't as though they're actually doing any scientific research and coming up with any new and interesting evidence.

Just for fun I'd like to meet with luskin and some other religious IDiots in the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming and watch them demonstrate their extensive knowledge (LOL) of geology/stratigraphy/paleontology/biology. I'm sure (LOL) that their belief in things like 'the flood' would really come in handy and would guarantee that they would find fossils that no one else has ever found, like trilobites in the Meeteetse Formation, or brontotheres in the Morrison Formation, or dinosaurs in the Willwood Formation, or lagomorphs in the Sundance Formation, or humans in the Chugwater Formation, in situ of course.

With all the mixing during 'the flood' it shouldn't matter which formation one looks in because it's all just a bunch of dirt with some fossilized remains of dead things in it, that were violently killed a few thousand years ago by their loving, merciful god. And with just the right prayer they could get their god to direct them to just the right spot and easily find fossils that would demolish the ToE and solidly establish the truthfulness of 'the flood', and sudden, special creation, and the lack of any 'macro-evolution' since the original creation. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that they're not out in the fossil fields turning up what must be massive evidence of their claims, that evilutionists have either missed or are deliberately hiding in a secret warehouse somewhere.

Date: 2012/06/27 10:12:49, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 27 2012,07:49)
KF has just recycled another 10,000 words saying the exact same thing for the Nth time.

Only 10,000? He must have a 'crisis' to attend to and was in a hurry.

Date: 2012/06/28 20:56:01, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 28 2012,09:50)
 
Quote
PS: One of the things that truly disgusts me over those who resort to the nastiest personal attack debate tactics that we so often see on the part of objectors to design theory, is their pretence that it is all a nice little intellectual game. Sorry, when you smear, slander, lie and besmirch, it is no longer a game. For those who need a reminder, over at Anti-Evo and other similar fever-swamps of rabid, nihilistic evolutionary materialist ideology, one word: “bydand.”

Guess who? Gordo.

And gordo,

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

     
Quote
BYDAND, n. The motto of the Gordon family; hence, the regimental motto and crest of the Gordon Highlanders. Bydand is the old Sc. pr.p. of Bide, v., and hence means “abiding,” “steadfast.” [?b??d?nd]
   *Bnff.(D) 1918 J. Mitchell Bydand 14:
   Fa wears “Bydand” hauds heech his head.


So, that's you is it Gordon?

I think that needs updating - "coward", "will never admit error". How about that as a motto?

The thing is Gordo, you might have "just one word" for me, but what exactly is it that I'm supposed to be worried about?

What exactly are you going to do? Perhaps you'll write another blog post about me? Or perhaps you'll update your "always linked"?

Or will you get your kilt on and come beat me around the head with a haggis?

What will actually happen, I suspect, is nothing at all. You'll keep reading this, fuming impotently then perhaps writing a comment at UD about how bad I'm going to get it just you wait.

Welcome to the internet Gordo. There's only one thing you can do to show me up and that's to engage me in an argument and prove me wrong.

There is a thread waiting. Waiting for you, you coward.

Stand and fight? Your motto? Don't make me laugh. You'll only fight strawmen. And you'll never advance the battle into enemy territory, it's too scary!


Does weasel latch? George L. Farquhar says hi!

Since gordo constantly smears, slanders, lies, and besmirches anyone who doesn't worship his arrogant, self-righteous ass, and has been doing so for a VERY long time, he should be thoroughly disgusted with HIMSELF. Of course in his pompous, sanctimonious, deceitful, deranged mind it's not a "personal attack" to falsely accuse people of being evil, immoral, amoral, wicked, sinful, and a long list of other derogatory things just because they don't cower and grovel to him and his imaginary god.





Hey gordo, you stinking LIAR, I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence that shows that I threatened you and your family "mafioso style". You're a LIAR gordo, a chronic, blatant, willful, cowardly, disgusting LIAR.

Date: 2012/06/29 02:20:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (paulmc @ June 28 2012,19:34)
I have reviewed Chapter 4 of the increasingly painful Science and Human Origins.

It's about junk DNA and attacking Francis Collins. But not really about Science.

I am stoked there is only one chapter left. This book is a dreadful, infuriating read.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who realizes that the god zombie IDiots fight against the idea of "junk" DNA because they believe in the 'perfection' of their chosen designer god, and that their perfect god just couldn't and wouldn't create anything that isn't perfect. Creating "junk", or anything 'non-functional', at least in 'faithful' human beings, would be out of the question.

Well, with that in mind, chimps, which are part of the alleged perfect creation, are perfect then, and so are all other organisms that have ever lived, along with everything else in the universe since it was all allegedly created by their perfect designer god. And since absolutely everything was/is perfectly created by their perfect god, and there is no "junk", the god zombie IDiots shouldn't be offended by the concept of common ancestry with chimps or anything else and they shouldn't consider humans to be superior to chimps or anything else.

If everything was/is perfectly created by a perfect designer god, then how can anything be inferior or superior to anything else? Everything would be perfectly equal, but of course that's not the way religious zombies see it. They see humans, or at least themselves, as vastly superior to not only chimps but to everything else in the entire universe. They see the universe and all other life forms as being created just for god zombie humans, to use as supplies, or to abuse, and for whatever needs or selfish desires humans may have. And if something isn't suitable as a supply, or for entertainment, it's a nuisance or a threat that must be the work of the devil.

Maybe the biggest problem they have with "junk" DNA is they will not tolerate the idea that they are or even could be partly "junk". What they really believe is that they are perfect and that no part of them is or could be "junk", or non-functional in any way. In their arrogant minds they are the perfect image of their perfect god. Every DNA molecule in them is perfect. Every atom in them is perfect. Everything in them functions perfectly and has a perfect, designed function. They are flawless and are never in error. If there are any flaws in living things or in the universe it's the fault of non-believing, non-worshiping, non-obedient, non-faithful, Satanic, evil trouble-makers who don't believe in and worship the 'right' god and only those horrible people will suffer the consequences (especially eternally) for their blasphemous thoughts and actions.

According to christian godbots, adam and eve sinned and that caused the subsequent problems in the designer god's perfect creation. Before they sinned everything was allegedly perfect, and I'm sure that the bible thumpers believe that if sinners could be eliminated or 'brought back into the fold' everything would be perfect again. Of course it will be perfect in 'heaven' once all the imperfect sinners and blasphemers are eliminated and sent to hell.

One of the things I find interesting, and irritating, is that godbots often say that all humans are sinful and imperfect, and that only god/jesus are perfect, but they also can't stand, and won't tolerate, any suggestion, implication, or assertion that THEY or their fellow religious zealots are or could be flawed in any way. They say shit like "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." but they say a lot of other things to the contrary and ACT as though they are perfect.

The word "junk" really bothers them. "Junk" implies waste, flaws, uselessness, no value, mistakes, sloppiness, deliberate imperfection, and/or ineptitude, especially when considering 'specially created in the image of a perfect god, by that perfect, omnipotent, omniscient god'. And since they won't tolerate even the slightest implication that their god isn't perfect, or that its special creations aren't perfect, they really like to blame any waste, imperfections, sin, etc., on the imaginary adam and eve or the devil or whatever/whoever else is convenient, even though, according to their own dogma, their perfect god created EVERYTHING, which includes adam, eve, the so-called devil, sin, flaws, waste, etc., etc., etc.

Have any of you ever seen an IDiot arguing that there's NO junk DNA in a slug, or a maggot, or a petunia, or a fungus? How about a chimp?

I seriously doubt that they would be offended at the suggestion, or even absolute proof, of there being "junk" DNA in 'lower life forms'. It's all about humans, well, the special-ness of 'faithful', 'chosen' humans that is.



ETA: special



Date: 2012/06/29 03:36:52, Link
Author: The whole truth
By the way, if any IDiots want to show that I could be wrong about it being about the special-ness of humans, or at least 'faithful', 'chosen' humans, I'll be looking forward to your soon to be published, multi-IDiot-authored, strictly scientific book, titled 'Science and maggot origins', with nothing at all about humans or religious beliefs mentioned, and chapters devoted to there being no "junk" DNA in slugs, petunias, and fungi.

Hey joe g, since I'm sure that you're reading this, why don't you publish a book on science and tick origins?

Date: 2012/06/29 08:21:47, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 29 2012,05:09)
Quote
Have any of you ever seen an IDiot arguing that there's NO junk DNA in a slug, or a maggot, or a petunia, or a fungus? How about a chimp?

I seriously doubt that they would be offended at the suggestion, or even absolute proof, of there being "junk" DNA in 'lower life forms'. It's all about humans, well, the special-ness of 'faithful', 'chosen' humans that is.

I remember DaveScot suggesting that junk DNA might be involved with creating consciousness. I used mildew as my counter-example. :-)

Sounds interesting. Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more?

Date: 2012/06/29 09:46:46, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 29 2012,05:29)
Summertime - when newsworthy topics get scarce and journalists have to scrape the bottom of the barrel ...

DeNews brings the dregs straight to UD:
   
Quote
Remember serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer? Darwinism played a role in his crimes too


... Add this one to the files about the Darwin-driven Columbine shooter and Finnish school shooter. And Norwegian mass murder Anders Breivik, who tumbled a generous dollop of Darwin in with the Norse gods …


Click for bottom of barrel

Edited spelling and vocabulary

I'm tempted to click on the link but I'd rather not add clicks to UD's visitor count. Just seeing that much of o'leary's post is more than enough anyway.  

I'll try to hold back what I really feel and just say (for now) that o'leary is a sick, twisted, shriveled up, frigid, completely insane, totally fucked up old prune. She also has a real bad or real selective memory and has conveniently forgotten or ignored the fact that enormous numbers of people have been killed, raped, molested, plundered, punished, imprisoned, tortured, lied to, brainwashed, enslaved, oppressed, etc., in the name of her religion. Isn't it convenient that she never brings that up and only condemns what she thinks are 'Darwinists'?

Also, many cultures have been deliberately wiped out or severely altered and stifled by the catholic cult, and that agenda to 'convert' everyone on Earth into the cult of catholicism is still going on. The catholic cult, to which o'leary eagerly belongs, is as vile and destructive a cult as the world has ever seen. Her so-called 'church' and religion makes the low-lifes she brought up look like rank amateurs when it comes to being monstrous and murderous.

Date: 2012/06/30 00:35:37, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (sparc @ June 29 2012,20:43)
Quote
The O'leary Writing Words Award for Understanding
For the next year I nominate Kairosfocus to honour the presumably longest blog post title ever, his writing skills and the depth of his underdtanding:  
Quote
Matt 24 watch, 157: Michelle Malkin reminds us of the power of Samizdat and the long tail in the struggle vs spin in the mind/ ideas/ news and views/ "facts"/ education/ truth culture-struggle battlespace in our spiritual war
He must be living on a hostile planet.

Wow, that post by gordo is yet another profound demonstration of his EXTREME insanity. His mental derangement knows no bounds. And if anyone is a 'willing servant of demonic evil', it's him.

Date: 2012/07/01 04:27:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (paulmc @ June 30 2012,16:09)
It's a shame that none of the UD folk have been willing to discuss the review.

Ann Gauger had been posting in the last thread they did on the book, but has vanished along with everyone else* when I made criticisms from having read the chapter.

*Everyone except Joe, I should say. And Joe just told me there isn't evidence that purifying selection happens or that mutations fix. So that conversation's going real well.

What? They won't discuss the review? That's amazing. Maybe they were all called away to deal with a Constitutional crisis and just can't respond right now. After all, we all know that UD folk all love to discuss challenges to their claims, openly and honestly, because they're confident in their position. In fact, just the other day the founder of UD, little billy dembski, complained that Ken Miller is "someone who has no interest in any real conversation, no desire for a real meeting of minds" which just goes to show that little billy and his faithful flock at UD are eager to have a real conversation and a meeting of minds in regard to science and ID.

So, all I can figure is that they're dealing with a critical crisis or that they're searching the vast archives of ID scientific discoveries to find what surely must be mountains of valid, well established evidence against the points in your review. joe g, being the brave and selfless person he is, must have volunteered to engage you with his incomparable wit and charm during what I'm sure will only be a slight delay in the rest of the UD folk responding to your review with their well thought out, evidence based, strictly scientific, non-religious arguments of course. The last thing UD folk would do is run from a challenge, an open and honest discussion, a real conversation, a meeting of minds, and a fair fight, right?  ;)

Date: 2012/07/01 21:52:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2012,14:20)
It's amazing the post-hoc rationalisations Gordon creates to justify his decision to not participate in what is commonly known as "science":

   
Quote
So, at this stage, I no longer take the demands for proof that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design, or for separate proof of a “supernatural” designer at the origin of life on earth or of major body plans seriously.

So next time somebody objects to one of your claims and asks for evidence, simply stop taking that person seriously.

Problem solved!
   
Quote

These objections are put up and insisted on in the teeth of duties of care: design implies intelligent action, not necessarily supernatural intelligent action. As has been pointed out for decades and as has been routinely swarmed down by those wanting to make talking points instead of dealing with issues on their merits.


So Gordo really thinks that aliens are here, getting organisms from one body plan to another? And have been here for millions upon millions of years and the only evidence of their designing is the design itself?

Not a single dropped tool in all that time?

   
Quote
Pretences that chance and necessity can do the designs actually don’t pass the basic common sense test.

Much less, the sort of analysis of blind samples or searches of config spaces that have led to the concept that the gap between what blind search can reasonably do and what is being achieved can be used to estimate the intelligently injected active info.


Sounds like science. Citation please.
   
Quote
And yes, evidence that points to the intelligent origin of the world of life — and this seems to leave too many shuddering — leaves God on the table as a possible creator. Similarly, evidence from the fine tuning of the cosmos also invites such an inference as to the identity of the intelligence involved.


This is in the very same comment where Gordo said design implies intelligent action, not necessarily supernatural intelligent action.

So a non supernatural intelligent designer fine tuned the cosmos?

The only person you are fooling is yourself Gordo.
   
Quote
So, the pivotal question is: are there empirically credible signs of intelligence at work. Plainly, yes.

Next, does the world of life show such signs? The observed cosmos? Yes, and yes.

The reasonable person will go with those signs, regardless of the fulminations and maledictions of the evo mat ideologues.

It's telling that Gordon prefers "signs" over any other type of evidence.

Gordo, you could at least rule out one thing - just have the guts to say the designer is your god, after all you can't fine tune the cosmos from inside it after it existed can you? But you don't mention any possibility of two designers!

So rule out the "alien designer" and you'll probably have taken one of the most significant steps to progressing ID in the last decade!

Somebody, somewhere, sometime made a decision about what the evidence for ID tells us!

Go for it Gordo! Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once saying different things....

Is the designer

A) part of the universe, material, did not fine tune cosmos.
B) other

?

Have the courage of your claimed conviction, coward-o!

Link.

Hmm, let's take a look at what gordo really believes, but just won't openly admit on UD. There is an ENORMOUS amount of his
creationist/evangelical/fundamentalist/dominionist/theocratic/IDC religious crap on his sites and some other sites he has commented on but my blood pressure is rising into the danger zone while reading it so I'll just post a a small sample for now:

"Thus, we see the Bible as being the recorded Word of God that breathes out his redemptive, life-transforming, perfect truth, love, moral purity, wisdom, authority, and power. Consequently, we understand ourselves and our world in light of the biblical plot-line 11: God is the eternal, holy, perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, loving Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, who made humanity in his image, to be his stewards of the earth."


"Instead, let us return to our true roots: in God.  For, there is a mountain of solid evidence — let us just open our eyes and look around us at the wonders of Creation — that the Living God is our Creator; that he has given us our intelligence and planted a conscience in our hearts; and that he loves us enough that Jesus came, brought healing and deliverance, died for our sins and rose from the dead as victorious Lord, with over five hundred eyewitnesses!  [John 1:1 - 18, 3:12 - 21; Rom. 1:18 - 32; 1 Cor. 15:1 - 8; Eph. 4:9 - 24.]"


"Thus, secularist, materialistic philosophies, science and technology — both Marxist and Capitalist — have proved themselves to be spiritually barren, and too often environmentally devastating, economically impotent, corrupt, unjust and morally bankrupt. Further, as the current fears over environmental degradation, global warming and genetically modified foods and organisms show, science and technology have now lost their heroic stature in the popular mind."  


"Let us thank God, then, that the global wave of unsatisfied spiritual hunger has unlocked the door of opportunity for true, Christ-centred renewal, revival and reformation across the Caribbean, and beyond.  That is, our time of crises presents us with a major strategic opportunity for global evangelization."


"We must seize the initiative in the battle of ideas.  In spiritual warfare we "demolish [deceptive] arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."  [2 Cor. 10: 5.]  Let us take the Christian case to the campus, the school, the media, the Internet, business, institutions, the man in the street and people in their homes. The recent issue in Barbados over a proposal to use the Sai Baba Book of Human Values for School Assemblies is only the tip of the iceberg."


"We must therefore have a clear and powerful strategy for the evangelisation of college and university students:

1.) Ideally, a campus ministry should operate as a united expression of the body of Christ on that campus, under the united corporate leadership of the Church in the community or nation within which the campus is located, since it is the unity of the Church which is the ultimate demonstration of the truth of the gospel.19  Sadly, such united corporate leadership, as a rule, does not exist.  In its absence, such a ministry should maintain strong links to a broad array of church leaders in the community or nation, and should firmly stand for the visible unity of the Christian community on the campus and in the wider community, without compromising the fundamental truths of the Faith.

2.)  The operations of such a campus ministry should emphasise the WIN, NURTURE, SEND cycle of discipleship, within the framework of the vision that the purpose of the Church is to fill all of life --  including the academic, the professional, the socio-political, the cultural, the commercial, and the familial spheres -- with the fulness of Christ.  This will demand that Bible Study, teaching and training, fellowship, body ministry and nurture, prayer and worship, and evangelistic outreach and missions, receive their due and balanced emphasis.

3.) The central structural feature of such a ministry should be the cell or small group.  Cells are ideal for nurture and training; easily support dyadic sub-groups focussed on specific individual needs; provide exposure and opportunities for developing and expressing gifts, skills and leadership; can be integrated into larger group structures; and are simply the most flexible, handy structures available to us for ministry to students.

4.) Students involved in the ministry will require basic training in sharing the gospel on campus (and, often, in general) and in handling the challenges to their faith which they are likely to encounter.  Support for students going through personal value system crises, as pointed out by Gene Denham, will also be important.

5.) Most students will only be on campus for a few years, so support staff who provide continuity, training resources and long term planning support are a vital part of the strategy.

6.)  A strong emphasis on student involvement in the wider Christian community, especially attachment to a specific local congregation, helps them to maintain a focus on body life and ministry, as well as support and ready-made outlets for ministry in the post-campus phase of a student's life.

7.)  This post-campus phase is a vital part of any student evangelisation strategy which aims to reach the future leaders of the community -- if graduates flounder, fail to become effective church and community leaders or generally backslide, then the student strategy has failed.  Therefore, we must explicitly address the challenges graduates and prospective church and community leaders will face:

* Marriage, singleness, sexuality and family life are the single most important challenges students will face in life.
* Graduates will have to learn how to become positive change agents in the family, congregation, workplace and community.
* As the most highly educated Christians in the community, they must be able to lead the church as it struggles against the forces which seek to secularise and/or paganise our culture and isolate the Church to a  narrow religious ghetto.  In particular, they must deal with issues in the media, professional ethics, law, education, the arts, government and politics.
* Finally, they must view themselves as bound to obey the mandate to disciple the nations and fill the world with the fulness of Christ under his Lordship."


"As Paul pointed out to the Athenians, God’s message is to all nations:

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.  From one man he made every nation . . . and hedetermined the times for them and theexact places where they should live.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him . . . . since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone — an image made by man’s design and skill.  In the past, god overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.  For he has set a day when he shall judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.  He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.  [Acts 17:24 – 31.  Emphasis added.]

Thus, through Bible Study, we return to the four R's of revival: (1) repentance as we surrender to the truth; (2) transformation of our lives through "the renewing of [our] minds”; (3) revival as God pours out "times of refreshing”; and, (4) reformation as repentance, renewal and revival spread through and fill communities and nations with the light of God's glory in Christ."


"'Fundamentalism' is really akin to [C. S.] Lewis's 'mere Christianity' discussed earlier, or the rules of faith in the early church; it means adherence to the fundamental facts - in this case, the fundamental facts of Christianity. It is a term that was once a badge of honour, and we should reclaim it.

At the end of the nineteenth century, evolution and the new higher biblical criticism began to challenge biblical authority. This assault affected even great theological institutions such as Princeton Seminary, which, though once orthodox, began questioning fundamental doctrines such as the Virgin Birth and inerrancy of Scripture. Meanwhile, a lively social gospel was also surfacing. Strong in good intentions, it was weak in biblical doctrine and orthodoxy.

So a group of theologians, pastors and laypeople published a series of volumes titled "The Fundamentals". Published between 1910 and 1915, these booklets defined what had been the non-negotiables of the faith since the Apostles' Creed:

1.       the infallibility of Scripture

2.       the deity of Christ

3.       the Virgin Birth and miracles of Christ

4.       Christ's substitutionary death

5.       Christ's physical resurrection and eventual return.

These were then, as they are today, the backbone of orthodox Christianity. If a fundamentalist is a person who affirms these truths, then there are fundamentalists in every denomination - Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren, Methodist, Episcopal [i.e. Anglican] .... Everyone who believes in the orthodox truths about Jesus Christ - in short, every Christian  - is a fundamentalist. And we should not shrink from the term nor allow the secular world to distort its meaning.  [pp. 185 – 6.]"


"The underlying rejection of the biblical view that God acts supernaturally in creation, redemption, healing, prophecy and judgement, which owes more to debatable atheistic philosophies and associated skeptical assumptions than to established facts."


"That is, godliness and commitment to righteousness are non-negotiables.

In short, those who would isolate the gospel and godliness from the affairs of day to day life at once deny the Lordship of Christ, and fall into deepest heresy."  


"Likewise, a secularised, apostate and neopagan Gentile world needs
to hear again that message: this same Jesus God has raised up and
vindicated. he is the One who shall judge us all at the Last Day.
In token of this, for two thousand years, we have had a church that
has borne witness, worked miracles in his name and even now calls
all men to repent."


"Thus, we need to go beyond just shoring up defences against the
Islamic and Secularist-Neopagan-Apostate tidal waves now battering
the region. While we need to study and equip our people to respond
to misleading arguments and agendas that seek to block the true
knowledge of God, we also need to see ourselves strategically: a
potential major Mission Force in the world, to carry the Gospel of
the Kingdom to all nations.

Let us now arise and build!"

Date: 2012/07/01 22:13:14, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Woodbine @ July 01 2012,18:30)
Quote
Am wiping a tear from the corner of my eye just now. Of course he believes in UFOs visiting earth, of course he does.


Oh, he's been quite open about it.

TARD


When joey first posted that I asked him to name "these places" and I told him that I would glady go into any of those places if he'd like to place a bet on it. He never responded. What a surprise, not.



Date: 2012/07/01 23:24:31, Link
Author: The whole truth
Some of you may already be aware of this but gordo likes to use the term "extra-cosmic" in addition to the term supernatural when he refers to his imaginary christian designer/creator god. Here's an example of him using "extra-cosmic" in a lame and dishonest attempt to sound more sciency than religious on UD:


"When we go on to look at the origin of the “observed cosmos on a fine-tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life,” in turn we see — again on empirical evidence and inductive inference, not a priori imposition of a worldview — that the complex functional organisation becomes evidence that the cosmos we see is itself designed, including not only the specific parameter values, but also the system of physical law, materials and energetic processes that set up the world in which we can live.

x –> It it this case that points to an extra-cosmic, highly intelligent and astonishingly sophisticated, powerful designer of a cosmos set up to facilitate the kind of life we experience and observe. Which grounds the empirical claim that the laws and processes of nature are designed, including mechanically necessary and chance/stochastic ones.

y –> And so, the issue is not one of battling a prioris, but the contest between a consciously empirical, epistemological approach and the imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism that begs the key questions at stake,creating the false impression of empirical warrant for what is actually an a priori: darwinian and related mechanisms, on the naturalistic view, MUST account for the phenomena of nature.

z –> And therein lies the fatal crack in the foundation of the imposing edifice of evolutionary materialistic science as reigning orthodoxy today."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....refutes

I got this from UD back when I was still looking at that garbage dump.

Date: 2012/07/02 02:57:12, Link
Author: The whole truth
Warning: more gordo insanity ahead.


"I am NOT open to going along with bigotry. Period."

"FYI, let’s get something straight off the bat: I am not a liar."

O RLY, gordo? Let's take a look at just a smidgen of your tirades and see if you're a bigot, and also see if you're a liar:

"Taking specific action on the threats we face, and the global challenge to be witnesses to Christ, including in the lands of the 10/40 window and in the now secularised and paganised apostate, formerly Christian countries of Europe and North America. (The recent sodomy issues in the USA and Canada just serve to underscore this.)"


"Sadly, in Literary Arts secvtion, The SunDay Magazine, Jamaica Observer, p.2; a Ms Peta-Gaye Stuart has published a naive gush piece on the Pride Week events in Toronto, where "same sex marriages", so called, have been ever so unwisely recently given standing under the colour of law. That is, we see evidence that the "normalising" of perversion is happening among the Caribbean's upper and middle classes, who are most vulnerable to fashionable trends in secularist, apostate and neopagan thinking."


"Self-evident truths: If you reject them, you end up in foolishness. For instance, Psalm 14 points out that it is fools who say to themselves "there is no God" – for they thus become morally and intellectually bankrupt. Current events in North America and Europe provide abundant proof – e.g. contrast the rhetoric and the reality of counterfeit, so-called "same sex marriage." [Cf. Rom 1:16 – 32, 1 Cor 6:9 – 11, Eph 4:17 – 24.] Equally sadly, many of our brightest people in the region have also lost sight of the fear of God; which Prov. 1:7 highlights as the first point of wisdom."


"...after all, in many an atheist's opinion, Christian faith is merely a discredited, damaging superstition and only the weak-minded cling to it. There is another word for such prejudiced, arrogant contempt: BIGOTRY. For, in fact God has shown that he will judge all men with perfect justice, by raising Jesus from the dead: with over 500 eyewitnesses -- there is convincing proof of the truth of the gospel, if only we would humbly listen. Moreover, if one is honest, s/he will also have to admit that all of us are a strange mixture of the glory and the shame; the wise and the stupid; the good and the bad – this simply shows that while God made us in his glorious image, we are ALL fallen sinners who need to repent and be reformed."


"Credibility: Intellectually, the world is dominated by the post-/hyper- modern mood of Western Secularised thought. So, while there is a more open attitude to the possibility of the supernatural, those who stand in prophetic witness to truth or right [cf Ac 17:16 - 34] are immediately suspected of wishing to impose a narrow, intolerant agenda on the public in support of potentially violent so-called "fundamentalist" agendas. Consequently, the more welcome types of spiritual expression are neo- (or even paleo-) pagan, relativistic and welcoming of "diversity" – i.e. immoral, personally and socially destructive lifestyles. The inner inconsistencies (and even hypocrisies) of such post-/hyper- modern thinking need to be exposed, so that the evidence for the gospel can be heard on its own merits."


"It seems, the underlying problem is the blinding influence of the hedonistic, secularist and/or neopagan worldviews that are now a rising (and arguably damaging) influence in our society."


"Clearly, there is need for a serious re-thinking of our current rush to embrace hedonistic secularism and/or neopagan worldviews, lifestyles and agendas that play to our proclivities rather than our better angels."


"That is why we cannot accept the same-sex family. It serves no public purpose."


"In short, there is an intuitively recognised core of conscience-guided reason and awareness of the creation-based, morally conditioned nature of reality that leads us to God; if we would but listen. Sadly, we are instead tempted to suppress this as it is often inconvenient to our desired agendas, profits and pleasures. If we do so, we have no excuse and find ourselves victims of darkened understandings, benumbed consciences and out-of-control, sometimes perverted passions -- leading to massive social disruption and disintegration. In turn, when anarchy reaches a critical point, as Germany in the 1930s showed convincingly, the public will accept tyranny on the hope that it will restore order. In short, once we ignore the moral context of liberty, it becomes suicidally self-destructive."


"Similarly, it is plain that the fact that so-called same-sex marriage is a novelty with serious moral questions and concerns that there are major harmful socio-cultural impacts attaching thereto is simply passed over in silence in the rush to accuse Christians who take say Romans 1 - 2 seriously, of hatred for homosexuals. [A pause to address the Christian principle of opposing sin while loving sinners would have made a difference, especially if joined to actually tracking down those who are dealing with this issue on the ground. Likewise, a reflection on recent cases where Gay activists and their supporters are moving to censor or persecute Christians for making a fundamental objection to the promotion of homosexuality as a desirable norm, should be looked at. For, there is a recognisable and material difference between Adam and Eve, and Adam and Steve; one that has at least potentially serious consequences. [Cf here Matt 19:3 – 6 for Jesus' view on the matter of marriage.]"


"Thus, our region is plainly at kairos. For, on the one hand, we are increasingly a part of the ongoing bewitching and captivity of the Christian West by those riding on a tidal wave of secularism, apostasy and post-modern neo-paganism."


"And, BTW, on what rational basis does an evolutionary materialist thinker assert moral -- as opposed to self-servingly rhetorical -- claims?"


"Finally, liberty is about establishing jusrice, which in turn protects our rights. But, a right, properly, is a moral claim we make on others based on our inherent nature as creatures under God fulfilling the purpose set for us by our Creator -- no other sustainable basis for rights exists. Indeed, the evolutionary materialist alternative [the relevant competing view] in the end boils down to this: might makes right, i.e power substitutes for rights; thence its absurd relativism and skepticism about rights, which wreaks havoc in the community, especially through manipulating institutions of power and law; it is a sign of the disintegration of Western culture as it seeks to forget God [Deut 8:17 - 20]. No wonder, then, that those caught up in a culture dominated by that self-referentially inconsistent worldview [follow up the links to see why I say that!] seek to undermine sexual morality and family life."


"Worth a few thoughts on the Tidal Wave # 1 front . . . secularism and its fellow travellers, modernist/liberal-liberationist apostasy and neo-paganism [with its fellow travellers inthe radical feminist and homosexual movements that wish to turn Western Civilisation on its head, starting these days with redefining marriage out of existence], from the north, brought right to your friendly little cable TV screen . . ."


"Sufficient has been shown to see that there is good reason to accept that the NDT and the wider evolutionary materialist paradigm are in unacknowledged crisis, and that the evo mat advocates at various levels are resorting to ruthless tactics to cling to power and domination in the teeth of mounting anomalies and a rising credible challenger. The resort to personal attacks and to persecutions and inquisitions is diagnostic of a thought-police mentality, and are reflective of -- in too many cases -- the underlying point: evolutionary materialism underwrites a lifestyle of amorality in which might makes right so I do whatever I think I can get away with and show myself utterly;y disrespectful to the rights of others, their reputation and persons, as well as old fashioned truth and logic. (So much for that mythical species,the wonderful, highly principled atheist -- now on the deeply endangered list as the waning influence of Judaeo-Christian morality lets loose the forces of amorality.)"


"It is plain that there is much moral confusion, decadence and perversion -- and indeed an air of defiance of God -- across Western culture, which they are exporting to the world; including the Islamic world. So, as we discussed in recent days, it is inherently credible that in part the consequences of that tidal wave of willful cultural sin are coming back to haunt the American nation and the wider West."


"For, the repeated, insistent public parading and media trumpeting of decadence and perversion and the associated subverting of the language of liberty and rights in the cause of licence, amorality and perversion, have indeed helped lend credibility in much of the world to the Islamist denunciation of America as "The Great Satan.""


"Or, worse, like Mel White and Soulforce, they set about redefining Christ and the Bible (or other religions such as Islam) to accommodate their particular “orientation,” which is actually a bent toward perversion that must not be indulged – just as “heterosexual” men must not indulge their seemingly inborn and natural “orientation” toward lust for women (pornography, etc.)."


"To see that in action, just pop on your friendly local cable TV and channel surf a bit, to observe the evolutionary-materialism driven, secularised and/or neopagan or apostate, post-/ ultra-modern worldviews and agendas of an increasingly decadent, morally and intellectually en-darkened, dying Western Civilisation."


"Notice, too, how sodomy/buggery legalisation -- e.g in the USA -- has rapidly led to the "mainstreaming" among "educated" cultural elites of the notion of so-called same-sex "marriage," never mind the actual effect: [in some cases quite calculated -- many know just what they are doing and have said or written as much] destruction of a foundational institution for society -- as, if something can mean anything, it means nothing. Some profess to not see any difference between Adam and Eve and Adam and Steve, or Eve and Shelly.

Shades of Rom 1."


"But note, the ruler acts as God’s agent, God being the supreme authority and judge, and the one who holds the original power of the sword as creator and governor of the cosmos and as the supremely Just.

So, we must immediately recognise that God acting in just government against evil doers holds special duties and just powers. It is in that context that cultures that become a sufficiently destructive contagion and plague of evil in the world are destroyed by him: first by the self-destructive implications of such a way of life and society; second by their stubborn disobedience to the Tao and to those who stand up to warn them, thus proving that they must be held in check by force; and, thirdly by destructive force — the just power of the sword."


"Because, for many decades now, there has been an active politically messianistic agenda driven by evolutionary materialist secularists, post-modernist neo-pagans, homosexualists and many others, to gain a critical mass of support to reject the Judaeo-Christian heritage of our civilisation, and to replace it with one species or another of a radical secularist-pagan utopia."

Date: 2012/07/02 03:27:26, Link
Author: The whole truth
And one more.

Hey gordo, let's take a look at some of your dishonest word games, with this statement of yours in mind:

"FYI, let’s get something straight off the bat: I am not a liar."

Fasten your seatbelt. Here we go:


"I never ever said that atheism as proposition was a worldview, but if you have projected that misreading, all else follows, down to the gratuitous (though relatively subtle) ad hominem."

What? You never ever said atheism (as proposition, whatever that means) was a worldview? Then you never said all this (and lots more), eh?:


"Athism in disguise: On the further absurdity that evolutionary materialism ands functional atheism do not constitute atheism, the word “tantamount” is as good a rebuttal as any.
Let’s see:
(a) atheists affirm they know there is no God and so any reference to God is based on delusion.
(b) as a major force in modern intellectual thought, references to God are ruled out a priori, by appeals to the incredibility of such, or by appeals to the rule of methodological naturalism.
Why is (b) imposed, in contexts where in fact theistic worldviews are plainly live options, and where comparative diffiulties across live options are the only way to get out of question-begging?
Elementary, my dear Watson: it is atheists who hold power in critical institutions and are imposing their beliefs by exerting censorship. The case of Sternberg and especially the chilling effect on others who had at any time expressed theistic leanings is a telling illustration in point."


"In short, science redefined in terms of MN becomes a game played by evolutionary materialist — or more bluntly atheist’s — rules, with no reference to seeking to discover and discern truth."


"Evolutionary Materialism as a [quasi-]religion: When the core of the concept, “religion,” is provisionally identified, evolutionary materialism turns out to be, functionally equivalent to a traditional religion, thougfh of course not a theistic one. This observation will be hotly contested, but it is plainly true and goes to the heart of the contradictory decisions and arguments that come from secularists, most recently as highlighted in the Dover decision. Thus, some serious soul-searching is in order for those who, through the fact that secularism is not a theistic religion, are in fact de facto establishing their quasi-religion as the state church of the united states, complete with the atheist’s veto on public policy, censorship on education and what can be viewed in the public square, and a question-begging redefinition of science as, in effect, the best evolutionary materialist explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans."


"(And BTW, evolutionary materialistic systems are equally amoral, as they have only survival, not morality save as a convenient, culturally relative, social fiction."


"Thus we may see in outline — notice onlookers how the objectors protest ever so loudly when a detailed exposition is either developed or linked — why it is that Judaeo-Christian redemptive theism is a solid ground for morality. We also see why pagan and neopagan altenatives and skeptical evolutionary materialistic — which last, on the testimony of Plato in the Laws Bk X, go back to 400+ BC and men like Alcibiades — alternatives are inherently amoral, thus the pattern of moral disintegration of Rom 1"


"So, let us understand: we live in an ideologised, deeply polarised age dominated by ideologues influenced by avant garde evolutionary materialism and related ideas, which are inherently amoral and both personally and socially destructive."


"We must therefore pause to say that we have a Dominical warning to those who would put up such misleading that can deceive the innocent and naive: ’twere better that a millstone be put around their necks and that they would then fall into the deepest sea."


"This is of course precisely a case in point of diverting the naive reader from being critically aware on a significant and dangerous possibility for abusing science for indoctrination in various avant garde schools of thought that are often precisely capital examples of propagandistic advocacy, misleading or outright deceptive manipulation and indoctrination. And, given the painful and at points horrendous history of Social Darwinism, the eugenics movement and several other claimed scientific schools of thought over the past 100 years, this is inexcusable. In our day, the self-referentially incoherent and amoral worldview of evolutionary materialism often operates under the false colours of "Science," even seeking to redefine science to suit its agenda."


"I find it rich that in a context where atheists demand to make a definition of atheism that conveniently allows them to duck the challenge of warranting a worldview on comparative difficulties –across factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory power on first principles of right reason and warranted, credible first truths — they wish to project a loaded definition on design thought.

But then, self-servingly loaded definitions now seem to be a standard rhetorical device of evolutionary materialists: for science, for atheism and for design theory."


"In short, the common observation of angry and disrespectful atheism so common online, is linked to some plausible psycho-social dynamics. (For those struggling with the problem of evil, deductive, inductive or existential/pastoral, I suggest this may help at a first response level.)"


"Darwinist objectors to design thought, your side has crossed the nuclear threshold here, to outright criminality, and your side has now underscored the nihilistic amoral bankruptcy of what all too many on your side have been doing and the implications of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic factionalism, as Plato warned against in The Laws, Bk X, 2,350 years ago."


"Further to that, B’s gutter tactics illustrate the point that the evolutionary materialist worldview’s censorship of theistic thought and even of entertaining the possiblity that empirical evidence supports that intelleigent agency is at work in the origin of life and the cosmos, is unjustified, question-begging censorsip designed to protecyt a view that cannot stand the scrutiny of comparative difficulties on the actual merits."


"My own interst in this thread is that through Scalia’s review of Smith, we again see the reductio ad absurdum of evolutionary materialism and its handmaiden functional atheism."


"That is, he pointed out the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism, which BTW is one way ti reduces itself to self-refuting absurdity."


"For many, the acceptance of evolutionary materialism is organically linked to their rejection of GOd."


"Second, evidentialism [the underlying point in the Sagan quote], is plainly logically incoherent, through self-referential inconsistency, and arguably so is the wider evolutionary materialist project. In short, these are credibly rejected by rational people as IRRATIONAL systems of thought."


"Then, he has compounded the crime by wishing to adopt a policy of indoctrination in evolutionary materialism, in the name of science education. Sorry, I am not a propagandist, nor will I entertain such deception."


"In short, science redefined in terms of MN becomes a game played by evolutionary materialist — or more bluntly atheist’s — rules, with no reference to seeking to discover and discern truth."

-------------------------------------------------------

And here's something from gordo you might find interesting.


Onlookers interested in a responsible approach to issues of textual authenticity, one readily available online, might take a look at the following links, offered for further follow up by the serious, though of course a good library or bookstore with serious authors on the subject, should not be overlooked:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp....i....it.html
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocde....ub.html
http://www.carm.org/questio....ten.htm
http://www.carm.org/questio....nce.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/qm....u....ub.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias....as.html
I think these sources provide food for serious thought for those who are not simply parading the fallacy of confident manner riding on that of the closed mind, and manifesting it self through question-begging selective hyperskepticism.
It’s time to climb out of the modernist cave!
Grace, open eyes
Gordon


------------------------------------------------------

And let's not forget these famous words by gordo:

"Deal with the issue on the merits, rather than attacking people as if they were threats."

"It is high time we move the discussion on beyond malicious caricatures.."




ETA: fixed a typo


ETA more bullshit from gordo:

"So, the only worldviews worth investigating seriously are those that do ground OUGHT in a foundational IS."


"My immediate point is, that — given that we face a world in which ought is credibly real and binding — the best candidate for such a worldview foundational IS sufficient to ground OUGHT is the inherently good, wise, fair Creator God, Lord and Just Judge of all."


"On Judaeo-Christian monotheism [theism for short], the morally virtuous Creator-God is the IS who grounds OUGHT in his character. that is the cosmos and especially that aspect where mind enters the picture, has morality built-in, AND morality is reasonable not an arbitrary, capricious imposition. So, it is improper to try to extend the Euthryphro dilemma to such theism."


"When we turn to methodological naturalism, it is in fact the thin edge of a wedge, used by those with an agenda to redefine science, especially origins science, as in effect applied atheism."


"the evolutionary materialist worldview is, sadly, evidently and demonstrably:

       1] Blatantly factually inadequate to account for the origin of the cosmos, life, mind and morals relative to explanations that infer to a Cosmogenetic Designer.
       2] Absurdly reduces mind to delusion and morals to contests of power.
       3] Resorts to questrion-begging ad hoc assertions and prejudiced rules of reasoning, such as the one cited above: functional atheism, and its cognate in scientific circles, methodological naturalism.
       In short, it is high time that the dominant status of evolutionary materialism in the hearts and minds of many of the educated across western culture was seriously re-examined."


"... only a worldview that has a grounding IS that is a proper foundation for OUGHT is a reasonable faith."


"...only views that properly ground morality are credible"


"Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. "


"I have pointed out, on evidence:

1: just how evolutionary materialist atheism is inescapably self-contradictory and necessarily false.

2: just how it is inescapably amoral and so cannot ground OUGHT in a foundational IS, so it undermines rights and justice.

3: how a step by step analysis of credible worldview options leads to the conclusion that generic ethical theism is the soundest worldview option.

4: how the specific, Judaeo-Christian worldview and tradition is grounded in the historic evidence that undergirds the gospel as truth that brings us hope for redemption and transformation under God.

5: just how destructive and willfully, slanderously unfair is the attempt to smear Bible-believing, gospel-teaching Christian disciples with the false accusation that we are in effect the same as Al Qaeda's terrorists, would-be theocratic tyrants and general menaces to liberty, progress and democracy.

Unfortunately, this commenter, TWT (the same who threatened my family mafioso-style some months ago), amply underscores just how hateful, recklessly irresponsible, angry, and potentially dangerous -- please, listen to the podcast, here -- are all too many of today's new atheists."

The "podcast" gordo is referring to is one with Dawkins, I think. And I'm still waiting for gordo to show evidence of his FALSE accusation that I threatened his family "mafioso-style" or in any other way. It NEVER happened. He's a LIAR.

More of gordo:

"Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces].  (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)

Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.

Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'.

For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.

Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit.

Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'. [[Emphases and paragraphing added.]"


"First, early twentieth century Christian thinkers had to reckon with the impact of evolutionary materialism (the atheistic philosophy often adopted by those who accept Darwin’s picture of the origin of life on earth)."


" The underlying rejection of the biblical view that God acts supernaturally in creation, redemption, healing, prophecy and judgement, which owes more to debatable atheistic philosophies and associated skeptical assumptions than to established facts."


"It seems to me that if the Cobb Board wishes to help students see that, they are aiding rather than undermining true science as opposed to evolutionary materialistic scientism, a philosophical wolf that is often fond of hiding under the sheepskin of science."


"In fact, thought-through morality is based on worldviews, and all worldviews have theological components [even atheists believe that there is no God, and draw out implications.] You cannot but have some worldview foundation for thinking, and that includes ethics. "


As can be seen, gordo thoroughly equates atheism to evolutionary materialism, methodological naturalism, atheistic naturalism, scientism, and anything else he opposes, and he obviously sees them all as worldviews, and ultimately the SAME worldview. The worldview that opposes HIS judeo/christian, theistic worldview. And if theism is a worldview to him, so is atheism.

Remember, gordo said:

"I never ever said that atheism as proposition was a worldview, but if you have projected that misreading, all else follows, down to the gratuitous (though relatively subtle) ad hominem."

LIAR. Amoral, immoral, willful, blatant, falsely accusatory, scum sucking, shit faced, cowardly fucking LIAR. Yeah, gordo, that's YOU.



Date: 2012/07/02 04:03:01, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 01 2012,21:08)
Joe + Google = Research!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012.......os.html

Both of those threads are hilarious, and I really laughed MAO at "salad-dodger".

Date: 2012/07/02 04:47:36, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 01 2012,19:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 01 2012,21:27)
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012.......ng.html


Do you think it's become such an ingrained habit that he is now actually physically unable to support any statement he makes?

joey obviously prefers fantasy over reality. He eagerly swallows the craziest word of mouth and hearsay without question if it feeds his delusions, but he ignores or condemns actual evidence that challenges or defeats his fairy tale beliefs. To him, as with the other IDiots and their ilk, authority is all that matters and he believes that he and his delusional ilk are THE authorities. No other support for his claims is necessary to a self-proclaimed know-it-all like joey.

joey either likely or surely believes that Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman are real, along with Nessie, crop circles, leprechauns, ghosts, demons, angels, witches, warlocks, magic spells, voodoo, jesus riding dinosaurs, noah riding dinosaurs, dinosaurs on the so-called ark, dinosaurs still living in a jungle somewhere, the shroud of turin, lots of other so-called miracles, heaven, hell, eternal life, a talking snake, a dead guy now named jesus walking around for awhile and then magically rising to heaven or wherever he allegedly went, fire breathing dragons, 72 virgins waiting for him in muslim heaven, alien abductions, aliens living among us, aliens replacing us, aliens building Stonehenge and pyramids, etc., and most or all of the other goofy beliefs that anyone has ever conjured up.

He probably does believe that unicorns are real, and that they're just shy and are hiding with the dinosaurs or Bigfoot.

Hey joey, since you're reading this, why don't you honestly list all the things that you believe are real from what I mentioned above and add anything that I left out? You're not afraid to, are you?

Date: 2012/07/02 08:40:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 02 2012,03:45)
Now null-a-dull is using quotes from Dembski to show that ID is nothing to do with religion at all.

Hell, null, did you not get the memo? Dembski just said it was dog all all along!

The IDiots remind me of someone who is cheating on their spouse, and even though the cheating is videotaped and clearly shows cheating, the cheater WILL NOT admit that they cheated. Evidence doesn't matter to liars.

Some of you have probably seen the TV show Cheaters. It shows just how determined liars can be. The IDiots are just as obvious with their lies as the liars are on that TV show and they are just as, if not more, determined to lie, lie, and lie some more to try to cover up their lies.

The IDiots are rotten to the core. They know they're lying and they live to lie. Their entire being is based on lies, and they are so immersed in lying and their egos that they believe everyone else will and must believe their lies. They feel no shame for their lies because they believe they are too special and superior to have to feel shame. Like the liars on Cheaters they believe they are entitled to take whatever they want and lie to whoever they want and get away with whatever they want. The IDiots make a big noise about 'morals' because they think it makes them look good and because they hope that others will be fooled into believing that they actually care about morals.

It could be said that they care about other peoples' morals but if they do it's only because they don't want other people to treat them in the same way that they treat others. In other words, a liar hates being lied to and the IDiots would hate to be lied to. In their corrupt minds it's perfectly fine for them to lie but don't even think about lying to them. That would be BAD.

Think about why people tell lies and especially chronic lies, and what the lies do for the liar. They give the liar control over others. The lies allow the liar to manipulate others. Lies are means of having power over whoever is being lied to, or at least an attempt to have that power.    

With all the sermonizing by the IDiots about 'morals' in mind, at least these things seem clear to me:

Because they are rotten liars they think that everyone else must be too, and that scares them. It scares them because if everyone is a liar then the IDiot liars have nothing special by which to control and manipulate others, and it scares them because they don't want to be controlled by others, either by lies or otherwise. THEY want ALL the power, and lying gives them a feeling of power that they can't receive or exert in a legitimate way because they are unaccomplished, ignorant, incompetent, impotent, frustrated nobodies.

Because they're not worshiped as the superior, divine, specially created beings they think they are they feel that they are the dispossessed (expelled), and since they don't have, and are unwilling to do, what it takes to even be somewhat popular and respected legitimately, let alone worshiped, they seek and have found refuge in self-serving religious fantasies and chronic lies, including, but not limited to, the dishonest inflation of their own importance and authority.

They are so desperate to be important and worshiped that they will do anything to convince as many people as possible that their lies are the truth and that the truth is lies. By making it look as they know the real 'God-given' truth, and that anyone who defies them is an amoral, evil liar, they hope to achieve 'star-status' as the specially chosen ones by "God" to dispense the real truth about absolutely everything. Since they are unwilling or too inept to do anything legitimate to advance human knowledge they just latch onto primitive fantasy bullshit and make things up and then dishonestly push that shit as though it's more important and more revealing of the truth than all the credible scientific discoveries ever made. They're power hungry charlatans, the lot of them.

Date: 2012/07/02 10:05:06, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ July 02 2012,06:52)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 01 2012,05:27)
So, all I can figure is that they're dealing with a critical crisis or that they're searching the vast archives of ID scientific discoveries to find what surely must be mountains of valid, well established evidence against the points in your review. joe g, being the brave and selfless person he is, must have volunteered to engage you with his incomparable wit and charm during what I'm sure will only be a slight delay in the rest of the UD folk responding to your review with their well thought out, evidence based, strictly scientific, non-religious arguments of course. The last thing UD folk would do is run from a challenge, an open and honest discussion, a real conversation, a meeting of minds, and a fair fight, right?  ;)

Even Joe is just phoning it in:
 
Quote
And how do you know that Schulz et al., are not just speculating given the evolutionary scenario? Ya see they cannot provide a history because they were not around so they can only speculate given a certain scenario.

I'd hoped that Gauger at least would have enough integrity to respond.

If I understand correctly, joey is using the 'Were you/they there?' crap?

If so, I wonder why he doesn't apply that to his claims and the claims of the other IDiots. (Okay, I don't really wonder)  :)

Integrity, in an IDiot? Perish the thought.

Date: 2012/07/03 02:11:19, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 02 2012,15:20)
I think I made him cry:

Quote
And Joe shows his 'expertise':

"because as I told oleg the ignorant, only organisms have genomes."

Meanwhile, in reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......orithm)

"In genetic algorithms, a chromosome (also sometimes called a genome)...."

YOU'RE A BIG FAT MULTI-CHINNED IDIOT, MAKING IT UP.


joey is also crying about being moderated at Ogre's site, even though joey moderates every comment that is submitted to his pathetic blog, and he won't allow many of them.

joey's insanity appears to be getting worse (if that's possible) and his assertions about UFO's are just plain hilarious. I'm hoping that he will bring up ghosts and Bigfoot pretty soon.

I must say that your back and forth with joey on his blog really cracks my up. It never ceases to amaze me that joey is such a stupid, obstinate, arrogant, deluded, ignorant, yellow bellied, lily livered, sniveling coward, yet he thinks that he's smart and courageous. He lives in a dream world, about himself and a lot of other things.

Hey joey, what's stopping you from posting here? No guts? Come on joey, show me some evidence of aliens, ghosts, dinosaurs on the ark, and some other sciency stuff. Hey, maybe you can get Lt. Data to help you gather and present the evidence, and maybe he will demonstrate his GA for everyone here too. I'm sure we would all find that to be informative and entertaining. And while you're at it, you could describe in detail all the things that aliens did to you each time they have abducted and probed you.

Hmm, I was just thinking joey, maybe YOU are an alien, from the planet Crybaby-Dumbfuck in the Tard Solar System, and the Shit For Brains Galaxy. Yeah, that would explain a lot.

Date: 2012/07/03 02:45:14, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey joey, I have some more questions for you.

Does Lt. Data have a genome? Is he a living organism? Does he have a genetic algorithm? Is his neural network biological or artificial? Can he reproduce? If so, sexually, or in some other way? Is he real or fictional?


ETA: joey, you posted a link on your blawg to what you consider credible evidence for UFOs from other planets, and when Rich pressed you for more specific credible evidence, and the best eye witness evidence for UFOs, you kept telling him to click on your link.

I clicked on your link and Google shows 187,000 results for "credible evidence for ufos". Then I did a Google search for "unicorns" and there are 18,200,000 results, and I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of alleged eye witnesses and that there are lots of claims of credible evidence for unicorns somewhere in all those results. I guess that must mean that unicorns are real, eh joey?

Your link to "the bible and ufos" shows 3,040,000 results. That's also a lot less than the unicorn results, and you're obviously afraid to specify some sites that you think support your claims. You must think that just the number of results at the end of your links is credible evidence for your claims. Well joey, if that's what you think then dig this: I did a Google search with the word "evolution" and there are 656,000,000 results.

So, that's:

656,000,000 for evolution

18,200,000 for unicorns

3,040,000 for the bible and ufos

187,000 for credible evidence for ufos

You can't even win on numbers, joey, let alone on actual evidence. You're just a loser all around. Poor baby.



Date: 2012/07/03 04:08:24, Link
Author: The whole truth
joey, here is a site from the first page of the results from your link to "the bible and ufos". Do you think that site provides credible evidence of the bible mentioning UFOs? Do you agree with what all is said on that site? If you don't agree with all of it, please specify which parts you do agree with.

And how about these sites, also from the first page of results? Do you agree with them?

http://http/....ttp........ttp

http://http/....ttp........ttp



Date: 2012/07/03 04:34:52, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2012,01:23)
Of course, the scientific explanation is that the designer keeps watching over his creation, adding and deleting features as needed. The Lord giveth and he taketh away.

If that's the case, I want backeth whatever he tooketh away.  :)

Date: 2012/07/03 05:18:59, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2012,02:58)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2012,03:23)
Of course, the scientific explanation is that the designer keeps watching over his creation, adding and deleting features as needed. The Lord giveth and he taketh away.

Robert Byers must have read my post:  
Quote
Instead it shows a innate triggering system that gives and takes such pads as need arrises.
Its just like human colour.
It happened suddenly upon need and so mechanisms are there in biology to bring this about.
Just as it would be if a creator makes so that creatures can survive.

So, according to byers, humans can become different colors suddenly? Hmm, that's interesting but it makes me wonder why black people don't suddenly become white if they move to Scandinavia and why white people don't suddenly become black if they move to Kenya. I guess the innate triggering system must be malfunctioning.

Date: 2012/07/03 07:25:34, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Amadan @ July 03 2012,03:52)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 03 2012,11:18)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2012,02:58)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2012,03:23)
Of course, the scientific explanation is that the designer keeps watching over his creation, adding and deleting features as needed. The Lord giveth and he taketh away.

Robert Byers must have read my post:    
Quote
Instead it shows a innate triggering system that gives and takes such pads as need arrises.
Its just like human colour.
It happened suddenly upon need and so mechanisms are there in biology to bring this about.
Just as it would be if a creator makes so that creatures can survive.

So, according to byers, humans can become different colors suddenly? Hmm, that's interesting but it makes me wonder why black people don't suddenly become white if they move to Scandinavia and why white people don't suddenly become black if they move to Kenya. I guess the innate triggering system must be malfunctioning.

Well, it is scientifically established that Hawaiians can become Kenyan if they're elected President!

Yeah, and suddenly all black and a muslim too!

Seriously, it amazes me that many people believe that Obama is a muslim, and that he is referred to as black or "African American". Even Wikipedia says "He is the first African American to hold the office." I guess they forgot that his white mother "was born in Wichita, Kansas, and was of mostly English ancestry along with Scottish, Irish, German, and Swiss", even though it's in their very own article about him.

Shouldn't he be called an English, Scottish, Irish, German, Swiss, African, Kansan, Hawaiian, black and white American? Or maybe better yet, just an American? :)

Date: 2012/07/03 07:39:11, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 03 2012,05:07)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 03 2012,05:18)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2012,02:58)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2012,03:23)
Of course, the scientific explanation is that the designer keeps watching over his creation, adding and deleting features as needed. The Lord giveth and he taketh away.

Robert Byers must have read my post:    
Quote
Instead it shows a innate triggering system that gives and takes such pads as need arrises.
Its just like human colour.
It happened suddenly upon need and so mechanisms are there in biology to bring this about.
Just as it would be if a creator makes so that creatures can survive.

So, according to byers, humans can become different colors suddenly? Hmm, that's interesting but it makes me wonder why black people don't suddenly become white if they move to Scandinavia and why white people don't suddenly become black if they move to Kenya. I guess the innate triggering system must be malfunctioning.

I'm white and I turn red after exposure to the sun.  That's the same thing in their world right?

too much?

I wonder how byers would explain freckles?

Date: 2012/07/03 08:51:41, Link
Author: The whole truth
joey must think that things like bee stings, snake bites, spider bites, bicycle crashes, dog bites, slipping in the bathtub, falling off roofs and ladders, burns and cuts in the kitchen, smashed thumbs from hammers, all genetic and infectious diseases and disabilities, old age, being a victim of assault and battery/rape/a hit and run driver/drive by shootings, nearly drowning, all the accidents/injuries that kids have, Lyme disease from tick bites, parasites, and everything else that can harm or even kill a person can be prevented by eating healthy, so no medical insurance or treatment is necessary.

It's funny too that he said that car insurance would take care of car wreck situations (even though it often doesn't cover everything and many people don't have it), so he apparently doesn't have any problem with legally mandatory car insurance, but he obviously thinks that overall health insurance isn't necessary and shouldn't be mandatory, even though people get hurt or contract diseases whether they're ever in a car or not.

Something else joey hasn't considered is that even people who eventually die run up medical bills, and often huge medical bills. Not everyone lives a perfectly healthy life and then suddenly drops dead on their couch. Many people end up in a hospital for days, weeks, months, or even years before they die and the bills are enormous, and the cost is not just ignored by the hospital. Many babies are born with serious problems and need extensive and expensive medical care, and of course many children come down with serious illnesses or incur injuries that require extensive and expensive medical care. joey must think that all their problems are caused by unhealthy eating. And most old people spend a lot of time and run up large bills at clinics and hospitals because of all the things that afflict old people. Being hurt or sick is COMMON, and while eating healthy might help with some things it sure won't have any effect on many things that cause harm.

Could anyone be dumber than joey gallien?

Date: 2012/07/04 02:10:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Nice one Kattarina.


On another note, over on his pathetic blog, in the
"Oleg Tchernyshyov- Still Ignorant of GAs" thread, joey says: "And no, I do not have any rights to post code that I wrote for a company some 15 years ago. I don't take that stuff home and keep it around."

joey has also said that he has written, used, and debugged GAs. So, with all that in mind I submitted the following comment on his blog, which he will likely never allow to be posted:  

Hey joey, why don't you write a GA right now and post it here? You say that you don't have the rights to post the ones you allegedly wrote for some company in the past but what's stopping you from writing one or more now?

Go head joey, show your GA writing skills.

Date: 2012/07/04 08:38:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,00:02)
Denyse informs us that BIO-Complexity proudly published a review by Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen, Douglas Axe: Lignin—Designed Randomness
       
Quote
Here, we review what is currently known about the structural components of wood that make these materials so difficult to process industrially and so difficult to degrade biologically. We then move to a more philosophical level by considering whether the existence of lignin and the absence of an organism that can grow on lignin are more readily explained from the Darwinian perspective or from the design perspective.

You didn't expect actual research, did you? It's a critical review - duh!

       
Quote
In the end, it seems plausible that dining on lignin is only difficult, not impossible, but either way the design view seems to offer a more satisfactory account of what we know.

The fatal blow to evolution is already dealt in the abstract:        
Quote
The Darwinian account must somehow reconcile 400 million years of failure to evolve a relatively modest innovation—growth on lignin—with a long list of spectacular innovations thought to have evolved in a fraction of that time.

Exactly! And if flight appeared several times, why didn't humans evolve it by now? Because evolution doesn't work and the designer doesn't want us to fly, that's why.

An interview with Matti Leisola in Creation Ministries International here.

ETA: My emphasis

I think we should move on to a more philosophical level ;) by considering whether the existence of IDiots is more readily explained from the "Darwinian" perspective or from the design perspective or from the 'some people are just arrogant loons that believe and promote religious bullshit pretending to be science' perspective.

We should also consider, from a more philosophical level of course ;), that the design account/perspective must somehow reconcile an allegedly perfect, omnipotent, omniscient designer-god creating bullshit believing/promoting IDiots, and that that allegedly perfect god has had at least 13 billion years to get its creation (the universe and everything in it) right and yet it's still far from perfect.

And one more thing we should consider is that the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient designer-god account/perspective must somehow reconcile the thousands of years of the failure of religious beliefs to provide any useful human knowledge, especially in comparison to the fact that reality based science (which also isn't perfect, and has been stifled by religious zealots) has produced an enormous amount of useful knowledge in far less time and continues to produce useful knowledge.

Date: 2012/07/04 10:07:17, Link
Author: The whole truth

Date: 2012/07/04 10:48:51, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ July 04 2012,08:10)
kairosfocus [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/for-record-new-atheist-objectors-to-design-thought-at-anti-evo-etc-reach-new-lows-hit-rock

-bottom/]declares his independence from reality[/URL] on July 4th.

Seriously, can anyone tell what he's on about?

It figures that the first time I clicked on a link to UD in several months all I got is 'page not found'.

Is the link wrong or did they remove gordo's post?

Date: 2012/07/04 11:17:17, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 04 2012,08:59)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,10:48)
 
Quote (Patrick @ July 04 2012,08:10)
kairosfocus [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/for-record-new-atheist-objectors-to-design-thought-at-anti-evo-etc-reach-new-lows-hit-rock





-bottom/]declares his independence from reality[/URL] on July 4th.

Seriously, can anyone tell what he's on about?

It figures that the first time I clicked on a link to UD in several months all I got is 'page not found'.

Is the link wrong or did they remove gordo's post?

The board SW breaks long links.

Try this one

Gordo's classic meltdown

Thanks, that link worked. I hated going to UD even for just long enough to copy gordo's rant but it was probably worth it because it is a feast of gordo's insane tard and will be fun to chew to pieces.

Date: 2012/07/04 11:39:04, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,08:40)
Zachriel has posted two papers about termites merrily digesting lignin on the Uncommonly Dense thread; one was published in 1979.

The lignin thing is just another stupid game from the IDiots anyway. Where does it say that lignin has to be digestible for evolution to be true? Next time they'll probably say that because nothing eats and digests uranium evolution is false.

Date: 2012/07/04 13:10:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (NormOlsen @ July 04 2012,09:32)
I wonder if this post by The Whole Truth is what set KF off??

It looks that way but I think the posts where I quoted some of the things he has said really riled him up and he's just trying to divert attention away from being exposed as the liar, homophobe, and all around monstrous lunatic he is. Some of the things he says in his rant show that he is riled about those posts. I don't believe for a nanosecond that he actually respects women. To a controlling, dictatorial fundy like him, women are chattel.

Everything that is said here (or anywhere else) by any opponent of IDC must rile gordo. He's completely intolerant of anything that isn't absolute worship of every word he spews, and he didn't start hating this site only after I came along. It's pretty funny that he goes on and on about "dealing with the issues", "on the merits", while he spends every waking moment of his miserable, worthless existence making shit up, LYING, hiding in the UD sanctuary, running from discussions/debates, avoiding the real issues and merits, erecting and attacking strawmen, moving the goalposts, endlessly repeating already refuted talking points, closing comments on his UD threads, blocking or closing comments on his sites, falsely accusing people of things they never did, falsely accusing people of every horrible act and thought imaginable, condemning people via completely bogus guilt by association bullshit when no credible case can even be made for any association, and using every other dirty trick that his deranged, malicious mind can conjure up to try to make himself look good and make anyone who doesn't kiss his sanctimonious ass look like an evil, degenerate demon.

He portrays himself as the ultimate knight in shining armor (bydand!) when in reality he's just a rusty, moldy, cowardly, lying piece of trash.

Hey gordo, I know you're reading this and I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence that I threatened you and your family "mafioso-style". LIAR.

Date: 2012/07/04 14:32:55, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (afarensis @ July 04 2012,11:13)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,12:17)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 04 2012,11:39)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,08:40)
Zachriel has posted two papers about termites merrily digesting lignin on the Uncommonly Dense thread; one was published in 1979.

The lignin thing is just another stupid game from the IDiots anyway. Where does it say that lignin has to be digestible for evolution to be true? Next time they'll probably say that because nothing eats and digests uranium evolution is false.

I thought there were extremophiles that use the heat from radioactive decay in lieu of sunlight. Or is it the radiation. I forget.

Yes

Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything at the end of that link that says anything about anything eating and digesting uranium. I also didn't see anything about extremophiles that use the heat from radioactive decay in lieu of sunlight. What I saw is an article about resistance to radiation. It's interesting but I don't think it refutes what I said.

Besides, it really doesn't matter whether I put uranium or lugnuts in that sentence. What really matters is that the IDiots are playing their usual game where they look for something unrelated to whether evolution (at least in general) occurs and then they try to get people to take them seriously and play along with their ridiculous game.

I'm sure that there are plenty of things that are not digestible and that organisms can't "grow on", yet evolution obviously occurs anyway. For instance, I really don't think that a human can digest and "grow on" water hemlock plants or asteroids but I'm pretty sure that humans have evolved. Even if nothing could eat, digest, or "grow on" lignin, it wouldn't mean a thing to whether evolution occurs.

Date: 2012/07/04 14:52:19, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,12:06)
I was thinking of this peer reviewed journal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.....71.html

That study appears to link the bacteria to using radiation in lieu of sunlight but it also appears that the bacteria are feeding on sulfur, not uranium. It's pretty cool anyway.

Date: 2012/07/04 22:32:58, Link
Author: The whole truth


Date: 2012/07/05 00:29:37, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (sparc @ July 04 2012,19:33)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 04 2012,12:14)
 
Quote (NormOlsen @ July 04 2012,11:32)
I wonder if this post by The Whole Truth is what set KF off??

Well, at the time I thought it was a bit drastic. But the lady in question linked Dahmer with Darwin shortly afterwards.

Although I've made fun of KF quite often myself I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just ignore him. UD is dead and I doubt that any poor soul over there would really read KF's writings. In addition, I must admit that I've stopped reading the whole truth's comments quite some time ago because I don't like his obsessed style and because they are rather about what he thinks is KF's personality than contributing much to the discussion about UD/ID. He is repeating the same stories again and again, most of it being just ad hominem and I really don't like his illustrations.

"Although I've made fun of KF quite often myself..."

It's okay for you but not for me?

And if what I post are the same stories again and again it's because gordo's and the rest of the IDiots' bullshit and lies are the same old swill, again and again. He and many other IDCs have been repeating the same, sanctimonious, falsely accusatory, insane crap for years on the internet and for thousands of years elsewhere. If anyone needs some new material it's gordo and all the rest of the IDCs.

When it comes right down to it, everything said here has been said many times, in so many words or "illustrations".  It's repetitive because the IDiots are nauseatingly repetitive. If the IDiots would come up with something new I'm pretty sure that they would get a new response. And if they actually had the balls to 'deal with the issues on the merits' in an open and honest way, this site probably wouldn't even be necessary.  

You might want to consider that this is the 4th Uncommonly Dense Thread and that I didn't start any of them, and I didn't even know that this site existed when the first two or three were started. I don't remember right now but I may not have been here when the fourth one was started.

Yeah, I can be blunt, and often am, especially with lying, pompous assholes that are trying to shove their theocratic, dominionist, dishonest, insane, science and freedom destroying agenda down the throats of everyone on Earth. The IDiots deserve every bit of ridicule they get.

And I don't know about you but I really don't like being equated to or falsely and maliciously associated with hitler, stalin, dahmer, pol pot, breivik, "Islamist" or other terrorists, and other murderous monsters and I don't like being constantly told that I and others are amoral and evil (by self-righteous, lying lunatics who claim to be "loving", "moral" people while supporting genocide and many other heinous acts committed by their brethren and allegedly commanded by their "loving", "merciful", "perfect", "good" god) just because I and others accept the theory and fact of naturalistic evolution and don't believe in and worship them and their imaginary, murderous, petty, jealous, monstrous god.

Sure, I could ignore the IDiots on the internet and did so for most of my life, but I haven't found that ignoring (or being nice to) religious zealots has done any good for the world, and especially the religious zealots that are trying to destroy science and freedom, brainwash children, silence their critics, eliminate their opponents, and control the thoughts and actions of everyone on Earth. I don't know how you see it but the tyrannical religious wackos see it as a war, an all out war or 'crusade' that they must "win" at any cost. That just can't be allowed.

Date: 2012/07/05 08:42:11, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 04 2012,13:17)
Feeding is associated with "burning" in animals, but what does feeding mean to an organism that turns radiant energy into complex molecules? Couldn't you say that some organisms feed on energy gradients?

Just asking.

I suppose it depends on how "feeding" is defined. In a way it could be said that all organisms "feed" on radiant energy because without radiant energy there wouldn't be any organisms. Feeding is usually thought of as something that's done through a mouth but of course there are many organisms that "feed" on various things in ways other than through a mouth.

A bunch of words could be used to describe the ways that  organisms take in the energy they need to survive, such as feed, eat, consume, absorb, drink, digest, inhale, burn, convert, synthesize, and probably more that I can't think of right now. I guess the phrase "Nature will find a way" is true.

By the way, I didn't mean to sound harsh to you or afarensis. That's the trouble with the written word. It leaves a lot to be desired when trying to convey some things.

Date: 2012/07/05 09:58:52, Link
Author: The whole truth
Want some laughs? Check out this thread. Besides the other funny stuff joey says, he actually let through one of my questions. His answer is pretty funny.


In another thread there joey said:

"One thing is clear, there isn't any credible evidence for evolutionism"

To which I submitted this response, which hasn't been posted yet and may never be:

It's interesting that you chose to use the word "evolutionism" instead of evolution. You and the other IDiots constantly condemn "evolutionists" which must mean that you and the other IDiots believe that "evolutionism" exists.

Plus, here is a definition of the word "evolutionism":

"Evolutionism, as opposed to Creationism, is the advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.[1] Therefore one who believes in or supports a theory of evolution[2] would be referred to as an evolutionist. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses any type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two."

There's more here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evoluti....tionism

As even you should be able to see, "evolutionism" is not the same thing as evolution itself. Evolutionism is the acceptance, belief, or advocacy of evolution, and based on the above definition and on your own constant condemnation of "evolutionists" or what you call "evotards" there certainly is credible evidence of "evolutionism".

Wanna try again?


ETA: IDiocy

I don't think he's going to post my last submitted comment in that thread.



Date: 2012/07/06 02:57:41, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Freddie @ July 05 2012,22:10)
         
Quote (olegt @ July 05 2012,20:01)
Can you guess who wrote [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-rob-sheldon-offers-some-thoughts-on-sal-cordova-vs-granville-sewell-on-2nd-law-t











hermo/#comment-427306]this[/URL]?
                 
Quote
I’m a very simple person, au fond. I play Chopin on the piano, write artificially intelligent computer programs as a hobby, and earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D.

Granville (now rested):
             
Quote
But by now I realize I have completely wasted 11 years of my life, and put up with unbelievable ridicule and abuse for nothing, because I now realize that anyone who can read my original, common sense argument above, and believe that 4 unintelligent forces alone can create “encyclopedias and computers,” is always going to find a way to avoid the obvious conclusion, no matter how clearly and accurately you state the second law argument. They will argue that the second law only applies to thermal entropy, or that what has happened on Earth is just too difficult to quantify, or use the most popular argument: “you’re just an idiot who doesn’t know anything about the second law”, whatever it takes, they will find a way to distract attention from my main, obvious, point. I have wasted 11 years of my life.

I trust that his DI colleagues have removed his belt, tie and shoelaces.

Aw, poor fella, he's not getting the accolades he deserves. He spent 11 years pushing something, therefor everyone simply must accept it. Sewell is important, important I tell ya, and must be exalted. He sees things that no one else sees, well, no one except some other IDiot godbots. They can see things that mere mortals can't even imagine. They are endowed with specially created God-O-Vision™, which is only available to chosen people who are willing and eager to shirk reality and make a substantial donation to their favorite den of thieves house of worship.

Date: 2012/07/06 08:28:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 05 2012,09:48)
Quote (Patrick @ July 05 2012,11:29)
Does kairosfocus have a special email address for reporting vile sexual slurs?  Kind of like an internet bat signal?  I would love to have it since I see those EVERYWHERE.

They are everywhere, and KF keeps tracking and tackling them; that's one of his ongoing crises.

And he watches lots of porn to see if it's porn so that he can complain that it's porn that no one should watch.

Date: 2012/07/07 13:19:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 07 2012,09:36)
Cross post from the Uncommonly Dense thread:

It's getting even weirder - now Gauger has defended Axe et al.'s paper on lignin at BioComplexity, and O'Leary has copied it onto UD. What a bunch of cowards.

Edit: http://tinyurl.com/c6p6u5a....c6p6u5a leads to UD

Man oh man, are those IDiots screwed up or what? Why on Earth do they think that lignin, or the digestibility of it, or anything else about it, has ANYTHING to do with whether THEIR god or ANY god exists or not?

Something I often think about is that even IF it could be shown that the universe is designed or is likely designed, it would NOT show that the universe was/is designed by the christian god or any other particular god, unless the IDiots can find and show DIRECT evidence to the christian god or some other particular god.

And of course they will never accept that a god other than the christian god is the creator/designer, so any suggestion of a different god is a non-starter with IDiots anyway. Oh sure, they're a so-called "big tent" and they pretend that they're open minded about "the Designer" or "God" or which god is the alleged creator/designer but it's abundantly clear that the only designer/god they believe in and promote is the christian god, and of course they all have their own version of the christian god.

Arguments/assertions that lignin somehow disproves evolution and proves design shows just how desperate, delusional, arrogant, and ridiculous the IDiots are. They KNOW that their beliefs are absolute bullshit and they have no faith in their own so-called faith. They constantly bring up shit that is so absurd, and so irrelevant, and so insane that it's just mind-boggling!

They spend all of their time looking for so-called "gaps" and other even more ridiculous shit and will resort to ANYTHING, no matter how asinine, desperate, or dishonest it is, to try to destroy science and to con people into swallowing their fairy tales. What a way to waste their lives.

And what's next from the IDiot god zombies? No organisms have evolved that eat black holes dipped in galactic quasar sauce with atomic sprinkles on top, therefor jesus?

Date: 2012/07/08 05:07:36, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (paulmc @ July 07 2012,15:39)
Another layer of WTF - Gauger just admitted she wrote her Biologic piece accusing me of misunderstanding without having read the review.

This is the same Gauger who admonished others for exactly the same thing regarding her book previously.

And hasn't o'leary been condemning The Selfish Gene for a long time without reading it?


ETA: Speaking of gauger, o'leary, etc., this thread may be of interest to everyone here.

afarensis, there are some comments in that thread that you might find especially interesting.



Date: 2012/07/08 06:06:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 07 2012,17:54)
nullasalus nods in this direction:
 
Quote
Listen, I can appreciate that some people – particularly swampers (Hi guys, do you really think you’re not noticed?) – are perpetually on edge with this kind of thing.

Love it - those in UpsideDown land keep a constant vigil on all things worldly and here we are in our little echo chamber.

UD link


Hi paulmc - keep up the good work here, there and over there. Beaut arvo over here, eh mate?

They must think that "swampers" is a derogatory term, but I don't mind it at all. Many interesting things in nature are in or around swamps. I've spent a lot of time studying things at swamps and I must say that I thoroughly prefer swamp plants and critters over IDiots.

Date: 2012/07/08 16:39:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 08 2012,05:44)
Could KF be one of those creationists who think that a transitional fossil is a chimera, e.g. the transition between fish and amphibian doesn't look somehow like Tiktaalik but has the body of a pike and the head and paws of a salamander?  
Quote
So, we are in our rights to draw out that the dominant pattern of the fossil record, after 150 years of diligent search — and despite the misleading headlines, museum exhibits, and textbook or Nat Geog Channel icons, declarations, reconstructions and footage, and even outright fraud [ a la Haeckel] etc — is that we have islands of body forms. Precisely the opposite to what the darwinian tree of incrementally varying life forms branching out by RV + NS, would lead us to have expected.

And in all of this, we need to remember, that the diversification to yield the varied forms is so complex that transitional forms SHOULD be utterly statistically dominant, ...


UD link

gordon elliott mullings has obviously been living on an insignificant little island for way too long. Because he's limited he thinks that all of nature is subject to the same limitations. His thinking is small, incredibly small. He can't and won't think big because he's an irrelevant, cowardly nobody who has never ventured beyond his self-imposed, anal-retentive fairy tale beliefs and has never accomplished anything except soiling himself on the internet.

gordo has made himself into an island, an island of toxic crap.

Date: 2012/07/08 18:25:38, Link
Author: The whole truth
I just have to say more about this, from gordo:

"So, we are in our rights to draw out that the dominant pattern of the fossil record, after 150 years of diligent search — and despite the misleading headlines, museum exhibits, and textbook or Nat Geog Channel icons, declarations, reconstructions and footage, and even outright fraud [ a la Haeckel] etc — is that we have islands of body forms. Precisely the opposite to what the darwinian tree of incrementally varying life forms branching out by RV + NS, would lead us to have expected.

And in all of this, we need to remember, that the diversification to yield the varied forms is so complex that transitional forms SHOULD be utterly statistically dominant, ..."

gordo, you pompous, ignorant windbag, you don't have the "rights" to "draw out" anything. You haven't EARNED the "rights" to say anything about anything when it comes to science, evolution, or fossils.

You, like so many other IDiots, use the word "we" as though it actually means something significant. You, like so many other IDiots, must think that the word "we" will make it sound as though you IDiots are a part of science and that there is genuine scientific strength in the minuscule number of IDiots and in your scientific knowledge and accomplishments.

Tell me, gordo, WHAT have YOU ever done to contribute to science? What biological/evolutionary research have you ever done? What discoveries have you made? What papers or books have you written or contributed to? What scientific conferences have you attended and/or spoken at? Which scientists have you worked with? What scientific projects are you working on right now and what projects do you have planned for the future? Tell me about all the time you've spent in the wild, or in a lab, discovering, studying, researching, experimenting, and documenting anything about nature.

Tell me about all the fossils that you have personally examined. Point me to the peer reviewed papers you have written about them. Tell me about the courses you've taught about paleontology, geology, stratigraphy, or paleo-anthropology. What fossils have you personally found? Name all the places where you have looked for fossils and how much time you've spent doing so. Where are you going on your next fossil hunting expedition and what will you be looking for?  

Since you're too much a sniveling coward to face me at UD or on your proselytizing websites, I posted this here. I know you read this site but I also know that you are way too chickenshit to respond. Face it gordo, you're a nothing, a nobody, a coward, who has never contributed to science in any way whatsoever. You're just a big mouthed asshole who arrogantly thinks you have the "rights" to bash science, scientists, science supporters, and anyone else who doesn't say exactly what you want to hear. Nobody who does science is ever going to take you seriously. Nobody who does science is ever going to change their methods or interpretations because of what you spew. Nobody who does science is ever going to see you as an equal, or a colleague, or a contributor, or as a source of scientific knowledge and experience in any way. Most scientists have never even heard of you and the ones who have see you as a deranged, religiously and politically motivated, loud-mouthed, self-inflated, sanctimonious, basement dwelling, laughable internet preacher with delusions of godhood.

Date: 2012/07/09 07:22:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs....so-fast


another


and another



Date: 2012/07/09 09:08:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 09 2012,05:08)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 09 2012,03:18)
Creationists like to point to the morphology of "living fossils", e.g. the Tuatara or the Coelacanths, to prove that those "kinds" didn't change over millions of years. However, genetics tell a different story.

Yes, it's a coelacanth.  No, it's not the exact same species (or even genus IIRC) as the coelacanth's from 150 mya.

Perhaps if the creationists (and Joe, whatever he is) actually learned about the things before arguing using them...

what am I saying?

yes, apparently it is too much to ask for logic, consistency, and actual knowledge.

And apparently it's too much to ask for them to actually DO any science. All they do is tell scientists HOW to do science.

joey is a good example of that. Take a look at his site and everything he says elsewhere and what do you see? Post after post of him trying to tell people how to do, define, and interpret experiments, GAs, and every other aspect of science. joey, and the other IDiots, never actually DO any science, but they sure do think that they are the only ones who know HOW to do science.

In their arrogant and feeble minds they know everything. They think that they know how to do experiments and how to interpret data. They think that they know how to define and do science better than scientists themselves. If scientists do, define, or interpret something that contradicts what the IDiots believe, the scientists must be doing it, defining it, or interpreting it wrong. joey and the rest of the IDiots believe that they are right in advance, and no amount of showing them otherwise will have any effect on them. They are experts at everything, or so they erroneously believe.

They are prime examples of the 'armchair quarterback'. They have never played the game, have never been on the field, have never even practiced, and don't even know the rules, yet they think that they have already won the Superbowl and the MVP award and should get a ticker tape parade in their honor.

The IDiots are insanely jealous, and envious. They want all of the attention, credit, and awards but aren't willing to put in the effort it takes to actually accomplish something. They spend their lives trying to make themselves feel big and smart by attacking people who have put in the effort, paid their dues, played by the rules, and received credit for their hard work.

They constantly complain about being left out (expelled) even though they have never even tried to be involved. They're not team players and they want to make up their own rules, and they think that the science 'team' or 'league' should come running to them to recruit them. They obviously think that they can make the team or league into a winner and that their superior talents and knowledge are being ignored. They believe that they have the 'right' to be the coach, the star player, the trainer, the owner, the referee, the management, and the commissioner even though they haven't even earned the privilege to be the water boy.


ETA: fixed a typo



Date: 2012/07/09 09:47:59, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Robin @ July 09 2012,05:46)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 09 2012,07:22)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs......so-fast


another


and another

Read these. Good follow-up on research. We'll see how it plays out over the next five years or so, but it's fascinating researching either way.

I'm just waiting to see what the ol' IDers make of this.

It should show the IDiots that science is self correcting (and this time it was pretty fast) but I doubt that they will see it that way. One way or another the IDiots will likely twist the whole thing into some sort of condemnation of science and into some sort of support for ID.

I find it interesting, and somewhat surprising, that Wolfe-Simon is standing by her original claims. She's quoted as saying "There is nothing in the data of these new papers that contradicts our published data, which is also consistent with our current results." but the writers of the new papers apparently don't agree with that. I think she would be wise to get together with the writers of the new papers and pay attention to what they found, rather than be stubborn in the face of evidence that contradicts her claims.

Date: 2012/07/09 10:34:08, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 09 2012,07:32)
Yep.  I agree totally.

I have offered to help almost every creationist and ID proponent that I've talked to.  

I (and I think the majority of scientists) would be thrilled to actually have a valid hypothesis.  Have a series of tests to run, in cooperation with Behe (for example) and determine once and for all what the most likely answer is.

But that's the one thing that, almost by definition, can't happen with ID.  Because, despite what Joey thinks, ID is a religion.  It is based on the supernatural.  Which, cannot be tested by science.  Actually, the results can be tested by science, but in hundreds of years of looking, no verifiable evidence of anything supernatural has ever been found.  There is no signature in the cell... or anywhere else.

Joey, I think, is a special case.  He absolutely thinks that he is right about everything and everyone else on this planet is wrong.  Heck, I've even seen him attack someone who was agreeing with him.  Joey exists in his own little world and the rest of the world is better off with him there.  He's the Coppedge of the Northeast US.  He's actually probably worse.

Yeah, people who think they already know everything don't think they need any help and take offense at the offer of help. And they aren't willing to 'cooperate' either. All they want to do is dictate.

joey certainly is in his own little world, and it's an extremely limited and insecure world.

Like you said, ID is a religion, based on the supernatural, and a valid scientific hypothesis doesn't exist and isn't going to be forthcoming. The IDiots are wrong in thinking that scientists shun ID just to be defiantly biased. They shun it because it isn't scientific. As you said, if there were a valid hypothesis, many scientists would be eager to positively consider and test it.

I'm off to do some science now. I'll be spending the day in a beautiful mountain setting, in nice weather, observing, photographing, and enjoying many things in nature, and I doubt that joey and the rest of the IDiots will cross my mind for a second. It will be a great day. :)

Date: 2012/07/10 18:52:31, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2012,14:07)
Oh I can play this game.


INTERWEBS, WHO AM TEH BESTS?



CREATIONIST LIAR DOUCHE

  ~or~



ATHIEST WAR HERO NFL PLAYING AMERICA LOVING PATRIOT?

Is the first picture slimy sal?

Date: 2012/07/11 01:34:58, Link
Author: The whole truth
Between the two, who makes the more compelling case for their claims?



Date: 2012/07/11 16:28:06, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2012,11:48)
Barry crows:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....g-crowd

Quote
The world has been cooling, not warming, for 2,000 years.  Not that the facts will change the minds of the religious zealots pushing global warming hysteria.


He's being dense on many levels. I'd like to propose a new fallacy 'Arrington's missmeasurement' that uses denominator drive growth from a cherry picked interval to make a case.

The article states:

 
Quote
a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium

(which is 0.03°C per centuary, by by math)

but if we look at more recent history:



Ballpark, what is that per century?


So who are the "religious zealots pushing" an agenda?


edited

It's pretty tough for arrington the fundagelical troll to know what's going on since he lives under a bridge and never watches weather reports. Obviously he hasn't noticed all the indicators that the temperature is increasing overall and all the high temperature records that are being set already this summer. Apparently it will take temps like 150 Fahrenheit under that bridge before he gets a clue.  

I'll never understand why religious zealots are so determined to deny human-caused global warming. Why the fuck do they fight it so much? What does it have to do with their stupid religious beliefs? And if they're so "moral" and caring and loving and such good christians, WHY don't they care about the terrible effects that human-caused global warming is having and will have on people and other organisms as the temperature goes up, the glaciers melt, the sea level rises, the droughts and storms and floods get worse, etc.?

Date: 2012/07/11 16:32:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2012,11:54)
looks like someone had the same thought:

Quote
1Prince of EternityJuly 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm
The scientific materialist elite who dominate the media and academia say there’s global WARMING… but real science shows there’s global COOLING… *Snicker*

Further evidence of the moral bankruptcy of the evolutionary materialist elite. The REAL science described in the paper shows that the Earth COOLED at a rate of 0.3 degrees C per millenium, up until about the year 1900.

So we can expect that this trend will subtract 0.03 degrees Celsius from Earth’s temperature in the coming century! Ha ha! That’s a reduction of 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit, per century!

So much for the materialistic fanatic “scientists” with their databases of “observations” and “measurements” and their fancy “math” who projected so-called “greenhouse gases” will increase so-called “temperature” by 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the next “century”!

Buh-bye, 5 degree F increase *Snicker*. So sorry, Soviet central planners of the atheist Darwinist elite! We’re subtracting 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit from your atheistic worldview, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

And look, look at the squiggly graph of the climate trend for the last 2000 years, the graph in the linked article.

Notice how the temperature only starts to increase about the year 1900? 1900– the very time that society’s elites abandoned traditional Christian values and converted to evolutionary-materialistic philosophy!

Oh, like I’m sure THAT’S a coincidence! *snicker* Coincidence? Or the beginning of the atheist evo-materialist fraud?

Intelligent Design is real science. “Global warming” and “computer models” and “temperature” are believed on faith. And faith is all you have.

Dear pagan environmentalist tree-huggers: Go flush your database of “observations” and “math equations” down the toilet.

Meanwhile, I’m going to go fire up my high-lead coal-fired grill and cook me some baby penguin. And there’s nothing you liberals can do about it.


Where was that demonstration of religious insanity *Snicker* and arrogance *Snicker* originally posted?

Date: 2012/07/11 16:38:09, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ July 11 2012,12:26)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 11 2012,11:09)
I predict KF wil escalate his word count.

Is that possible?

I suppose since no one reads his screeds anyway that he could copy and paste text from random Web pages.  That would lack the spittle-flecked passion and incoherence of his genuine work, though.

I hate to say it but it likely is possible, and what worries me is that if he adds too many words to his screeds the Earth will be knocked off its axis by the sheer weight of the tardacious word mass all in one place all at one time. Repent now! The end is near! ;)


ETA: fixed a typo



Date: 2012/07/11 16:47:28, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Henry J @ July 11 2012,14:39)
That's only if his words have any weight to start with. ;)

:)

Date: 2012/07/11 16:51:59, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 11 2012,14:43)
Quote (Henry J @ July 11 2012,16:39)
That's only if his words have any weight to start with. ;)

Hmm. What's the oppostive of a citation?

Gordo:
 
Quote
Viruses, of course, are not self-replicating. They hijack the machinery of a living cell, and act as rogue programs. (The use of the term computer virus was in part inspired by that.)


But Gordo, these "rogue programs" were also designed, remember?

Programs have programmers etc etc.

So, Gordo, explain that! He's a bit of a shit this "designer" of yours, no?

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/id-foundations-15-migneas-simplest-self-replicator-the-vnsr-and-a-designed-origin-of-cell-



based-life/#comment-427656]DUH![/URL]

EDIT: Even KF's post titles are overly verbose and break the links. Fuck it, it can stay like that as a testament to his windbaggery.

Deadly viruses are just one of the ways the designer-god says 'I love you'.

Date: 2012/07/11 17:05:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 11 2012,11:37)
OK, it's me. This is the second time FireFox has decided that the main page should open on the highest numbered page. I keep forgetting that the lowest number is the most recent on the main page, and the highest number is most recent on all the other forums.

This only happens on FireFox.

I recently switched from Firefox to Google Chrome, and what a difference. Chrome is WAY faster and gives me a lot less trouble overall. What I don't like though is that I haven't been able to find an ad blocker for Chrome yet.

Date: 2012/07/11 17:45:06, Link
Author: The whole truth
Today is the first time I've looked at this thread for awhile and from what I see (and from a few links I followed) PZ Meyers is still being a hypocritical jerk that needs to get over himself, the feminazis are still feminazis (Hey, if the shoe fits....), the hysteria/paranoia being spewed by PZ, his sycophants, and the feminazis is way out of control, and ftb is trying hard to be like UD in their blocking and banning actions. So much for 'free thought'.

And one more thing before I go back to ridiculing IDiots:

What's with all the "culture", "community", "commune" bullshit about atheists? I'm an atheist, but not because some other people are atheists, and I'm not a member of some atheist community, culture, or commune. I think for myself and don't need to be a member of some so-called culture, commune, or community to do so.

The PZ and Rebecca Watson type of atheists are in some ways feeding the claim by religious zealots that atheism is a religion.



ETA: fixed a typo



Date: 2012/07/11 21:27:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Badger3k @ July 11 2012,16:02)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 11 2012,17:45)
Today is the first time I've looked at this thread for awhile and from what I see (and from a few links I followed) PZ Meyers is still being a hypocritical jerk that needs to get over himself, the feminazis are still feminazis (Hey, if the shoe fits....), the hysteria/paranoia being spewed by PZ, his sycophants, and the feminazis is way out of control, and ftb is trying hard to be like UD in their blocking and banning actions. So much for 'free thought'.

And one more thing before I go back to ridiculing IDiots:

What's with all the "culture", "community", "commune" bullshit about atheists? I'm an atheist, but not because some other people are atheists, and I'm not a member of some atheist community, culture, or commune. I think for myself and don't need to be a member of some so-called culture, commune, or community to do so.

The PZ and Rebecca Watson type of atheists are in some ways feeding the claim by religious zealots that atheism is a religion.



ETA: fixed a typo

I think part of it (other than egos) goes back to the "dictionary atheist" fiasco where PZ links atheism with a whole host of other things, and those who just have a lack of belief in gods can go F'-themselves, IIRC.  All I really remember was reading his posts and scratching my head saying WTF?  Now, to be an atheist, we have to be in a "movement", and "atheism = social justice" (which is defined by them only).  I think John Loftus has it far more accurate, with atheist communities.  Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to believe the same things, or want to work for some narrow ideology to the exclusion of other things.

Good, thought provoking points.

Date: 2012/07/13 11:34:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 12 2012,10:02)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 11 2012,18:05)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 11 2012,11:37)
OK, it's me. This is the second time FireFox has decided that the main page should open on the highest numbered page. I keep forgetting that the lowest number is the most recent on the main page, and the highest number is most recent on all the other forums.

This only happens on FireFox.

I recently switched from Firefox to Google Chrome, and what a difference. Chrome is WAY faster and gives me a lot less trouble overall. What I don't like though is that I haven't been able to find an ad blocker for Chrome yet.

Adblock Plus with a subscription to EasyListUSA works pretty well for me.

I had it installed in Firefox when I was using that, and I was tickled to find out there was a Chrome version.

I'll check it out. Thanks.

Date: 2012/07/13 13:50:21, Link
Author: The whole truth
In a comment on his blog, joey says:

"ID makes the same claims as archaeology and forensics, namely that when agencies act they tend to leave traces of those actions behind. Then, via cause and effect relationships, we can detect those traces and study them.

That said, as per Newton's rules for scientific discovery, if what someone thinks is designed can be produced by blind and undirected processes, the design inference falls. And that is how it has gone throughout history.

Some design inferences have been refuted and others have withstood all tests.

So, just as with archaeology and forensics, we study thed esign and all relevant evidence to help us figure it out and hopefully answer those unanswered questions.

Ooops- yes there is a criteria for determining design:

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

He goes on to say:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”"

------------------------

Hey joey g, since you claim to know all about experiments, tests, traces, complexity, relevant evidence, intelligent design (including the criteria for determining it), baraminology, origins, GAs, code, CSI, and absolutely every aspect of science, let's see you put all that claimed knowledge to work, and this (a wild banana) will be the subject of your 'study':



Is the wild banana intelligently designed? How much CSI is in it? Describe and demonstrate the GA/code in the banana and specify where it resides in the banana. What 'kind' is the banana and where and how did the banana originate? Who or what designed wild bananas and when was it done? What raw materials were used and where did those materials come from? Why did the alleged designer design bananas? What traces are there in wild bananas that indicate or verify intelligent design? Show all the details of your banana tests/experiments/calculations/study so that we can all see how you arrived at your conclusions.



Date: 2012/07/13 20:30:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Hey gordo, since you read this site I'm sure that you'll be happy to see some of your own words here. Remember these?:

"We must seize the initiative in the battle of ideas.  In spiritual warfare we "demolish [deceptive] arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."  [2 Cor. 10: 5.]  Let us take the Christian case to the campus, the school, the media, the Internet, business, institutions, the man in the street and people in their homes."

And:

"God is the eternal, holy, perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, loving Creator and Sustainer of the
cosmos, who made humanity in his image, to be his stewards of the earth."

And:

"In short, those who would isolate the gospel and godliness from the affairs of day to day life at once deny the Lordship of Christ, and fall into deepest heresy."  

And:

"Thus, we need to go beyond just shoring up defences against the Islamic and Secularist-Neopagan-Apostate tidal waves now battering the region. While we need to study and equip our people to respond to misleading arguments and agendas that seek to block the true knowledge of God, we also need to see ourselves strategically: a potential major Mission Force in the world, to carry the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations."

And:

"And FYI, proud and disrespectful mockers on UD, that T in my name that you and your ilk so lightly play scornful games with is there because the self same blood that stood on that hill courses in my veins.

A name that is a war cry."

And:

"There is a time and place for compromise, but there is a time where one has to stand on the hill with the pruning hook one has beaten into an impromptu spear and be willing to die for “wee bit hill and glen.”"

---------


Hmm, a war cry, eh? Beat a pruning hook into a spear, eh? Mission "Force", eh? And then there's that millstone that you think should be put around the necks of everyone who disagrees with you so that they can be drowned in the deepest part of the sea. And of course there's the fact that you support the genocide that was commanded and/or carried out by your chosen god yhwh (according to your so-called holy book that you believe is inerrant), and the fact that you say that any command by your "perfect" god is a "good" command. I've seen your support of willy 'genocide' craig too. Oh, and there's your favorite bible passage: Rom 1. And don't forget Mr. Leathers!

Sounds like you want to kill people rather than "die". You say an awful lot (more than what is above) about weapons and bombs and war and killing and beating and punishing and taking your religious "force" and "cells" to every nation of the world and cramming your insane dogma into everyone's thoughts and life. You're the aggressor, not the victim, and you're the one promoting going "beyond shoring up defences". You sound as though you're threatening your opponents "mafioso-style" and then some!

Like so many other christians and other religious monsters of the past and present you obviously want to wage a bloody "war" on everyone who doesn't kiss your sanctimonious, genocide-supporting ass, and by your own admission you have friends who are murderers. Would you like to do the spearing and drowning yourself or have your murderous friends do it for you? Have you killed anyone lately? Beaten yours or any other children? Beaten your wife? Kicked your dog? Killed your dog? Is your basement stocked with guns, pruning hooks, spears, and millstones? Have you got a spare Mr. Leathers or two in case you break it on your kids or wife or someone else?


ETA: fixed typos



Date: 2012/07/16 21:47:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 16 2012,15:22)
Gordo wets em:
       
Quote
That’s a gratuitous smear, and you just put it before someone who takes such VERY seriously.

You are being rude, disrespectful and falsely accusatory.

You owe the blog an apology and a retraction.

As a first step, I suggest you work your way through the summary on ID here, and the weak argument correctives here. (You have already willfully ignored a correction above, on the material contribution of the Christian milieu to the rise of modern science, having dismissed it in a fit of assertive ignorance.)

If you cannot substantiate your assertions in the face of these — and I am morally certain that you cannot, as I have done my homework — then you owe an apology, bigtime.

Otherwise, you are simply being a willful slanderer.

GEM of TKI


Bigtime? Woah, he's serious now!

http://cat.www.uncommondescent.com.meowbify.com/intelli....-427987

gordon elliott mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat is the most disgusting, despicable, degenerate, dysfunctional, disrespectful, deranged, dissembling, drooling, LYING dullard on planet Earth. He has got NO room to be accusing ANY of his opponents of being a disrespectful, falsely accusatory, willful slanderer. He constantly LIES, falsely accuses people, and willfully slanders everyone who doesn't bow down to his pompous commands.

On UD gordo barfed:

"Remember, just a few days ago I had to deal with dragging the name of a decent woman through sexual filth, and with the implications of snide allusions or outright open false accusations of mental instability.

The photoshopped pictures tell us we are dealing with some sick puppies, as well as providing targetting info.

Remember, too, these are the jokers who threatened my family."

First of all, gordo, dense o'leary is NOT a "decent woman". She's a certifiably insane, lying, "filthy" freak who willingly supports pedophilia, murder, genocide, culture destruction, robbery, oppression, lies, corruption, and a long list of other atrocities as an eager member of the monstrous catholic cult.

And second, gordo, you are absolutely, positively LYING about me threatening your family and you know it. You have been falsely accusing me of that for a long time and have NEVER produced one bit of evidence to back it up (because there isn't any). And I notice that you said "jokers". Yeah, plural. You will say anything, no matter how false a "smear" it is, to deceitfully try to amplify your false accusations.

You say:

"Pardon, but after a substantial matter has been pointed out and the mischaracterisation has been corrected more than once, it cannot any longer be a mere mistake if stuck with."

Well gordo, I've pressed you many times for evidence of my alleged threats and have corrected and pointed out many times that you are willfully LYING about me threatening your family but you've "stuck with" repeating your slanderous, smearing, filthy, sick, snide, false accusations anyway. So, it can't be a "mere mistake" and must be deliberate. Surely you can do better than that. Well, okay, you're a piece of trash willful LIAR so you obviously won't do better.

And what's with the ad hominems from the self proclaimed master of morality, respect, and decency? Sick puppies? Jokers? What would your imaginary buddy jesus think of you saying that, gordo? And why aren't you complaining about o'leary calling people "Trolls"? And, why aren't you all over joe g for his "sexually filthy" language, threats, slanders, lies, and posting a picture of a woman's crotch on EL's site and calling it "tunie"?

Isn't it interesting that you have no problem with joe g and his disrespectful, smearing, slanderous, falsely accusatory, snide, sick, indecent behavior. You really love to blame your opponents (which is anyone who doesn't kiss your ass) for all kinds of terrible things via guilt by association even when there is no actual association yet you willingly associate with joe on UD. Obviously your so-called 'god-given morals' are 'conveniently' absent when it comes to judging your IDC comrades.

Oh, and maybe you could point out the "sexual filth" that you say I dragged the name of a decent woman (o'leary) through the other day? What exactly in what I said was "sexual filth" and in what way is o'leary a "decent woman"?

"targetting info"? WHAT targeting info? Your name, gordon elliott mullings, and whereabouts, Manjack Heights, Montserrat? Your name and whereabouts that YOU put on the internet? Is that the "targetting info"? Do you really think that you are important enough for someone to go to that shitty little town on that shitty little island and kill you or something? You're a fucking joke gordo. An extremely sick joke.

Hey gordo, does being a dictatorial internet LIAR with a massive god complex actually compensate for your lack of accomplishments and lack of courage? Just wondering.  



Date: 2012/07/18 05:06:49, Link
Author: The whole truth
I think it should be pointed out that Mr. Leathers is not a leather belt. It's worse than that. gordo referred to Mr. Leathers as "good Guyana cane". Guyana is a producer of sugar cane, and lashes with a whip or cat o' nine tails (made of very sharp and tough sugar cane leaves) on bare skin was/is a traditional form of punishment in some countries, and in Guyana corporal punishment is legal.

There's something else though. gordo, as you will see a few paragraphs below, uses the phrase "six of the best...". Well, look what I found in Webster's online dictionary:

"Caning is a physical punishment (see that article for generalities and alternatives) consisting of a number of hits (known as "strokes" or "cuts") with a wooden cane, generally applied to the bare or clad buttocks (see spanking), shoulders, hand(s) (palm, rarely knuckles) or the soles of the feet (foot whipping). The size and flexibility of the cane itself and the number and mode of application of the strokes (usually more numerous and faster when wielding a light, flexible cane) vary significantly."

"The frequency and severity of canings in educational settings have varied greatly, often being determined by the written rules or unwritten traditions of the school. The western educational use of the cane dates principally to the late nineteenth century, in order to replace birching - which is only effective if applied to the bare flesh - with a form of punishment more suitable to contemporary sensibilities. For example, in some schools corporal punishment was administered solely by the headmaster, but in many English and Commonwealth private schools authority to punish was also given to other staff and even certain senior students (often called prefects). A typical punishment in an English primary school in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century consisted of one or two strokes on the hand. In many secondary schools in England and Wales it was in use, mainly for boys and only infrequent for girls, until the early 1980s, while elsewhere other implements prevailed, such as the Scottish tawse. In this setting it was more often administered to the clothed buttocks, typically with the student bent over a desk or chair, and usually with a maximum of six "strokes" (known as "six of the best"). Such a caning sometimes left a student with weals and bruises, making it painful to sit down for days after the caning."  (my emphasis)



Awhile back on UD gordo accused Elizabeth Liddle of "derailing a thread" and for that horrible crime (yeah, as if gordo never derails threads) he also accused her of having no "broughtupcy" (manners) and said:

"Can you understand how I feel like the parent having to correct a child who decides to act up in front of guests? [That noise you hear is foot tapping and old Mr Leathers being limbered up to be applied to the seat of learning with vigour. Six of the best is about right . . . ]"  (my emphasis)


So, Mr. Leathers is either a whip or cat o' nine tails made from sugar cane leaves or it's a wooden cane.

And yeah, that gordon elliott mullings who wants (threatened) to flog or beat EL with Mr. Leathers for allegedly "derailing a thread" on UD is the same gordon elliott mullings who accuses me of disrespecting a "decent woman" (o'leary the indecent catholic monster) and who repeatedly (and deceitfully) accuses me of threatening his family "mafioso-style".

Date: 2012/07/18 20:27:26, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 18 2012,13:33)
(Thinking) Hmm, I've had my sig line (welcoming arrogant idiots to UD) for over a year now; maybe time for a new one. What's on offer over at UD? Oh here's one.

With that statement wouldn't joey be admitting that "no one on this planet knows anything" about the alleged design/creation of humans by yhwh/allah or any other so-called designer/god? After all, that alleged event would certainly predate human history (especially if "pre-history" is defined as before written records).

And think of all the other things that his statement would apply to.

Date: 2012/07/18 22:14:12, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 18 2012,18:05)
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 18 2012,19:42)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 18 2012,15:33)
(Thinking) Hmm, I've had my sig line (welcoming arrogant idiots to UD) for over a year now; maybe time for a new one. What's on offer over at UD? Oh here's one.

Ah yes, the famous argument that prevents juries from functioning.

Let's give ID proponents credit. They are lawyers, and they do know the law. They know that it is impossible for mere physical or material evidence to support a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

They would never ask a jury to convict a person or deprive a person of liberty, life or money based on materialistic, forensic reasoning.

Edited for syntax.

Excellent points, and to expand on them a bit, I offer this:

Let's say that an IDiot or any other science denying/bashing religious zealot has a young daughter, and one day she tells her parent (the IDiot) that she was raped by someone. She's crying and freaking out as most rape victims would justifiably do and the IDiot, like most parents, runs to the phone and frantically calls the cops. The cops show up, and so does an ambulance which takes the girl to a hospital. The hospital does a rape kit to collect evidence and the cops question the girl for more information but she cannot identify the rapist.

In this situation there's no video, no photos, no witnesses,  no fingerprints, and the girl does not know who the alleged rapist is, but there is medical/biological/scientific evidence of a rape. There is some vaginal bruising/abrasions and a single pubic hair but no semen because the rapist used a condom. The cops eventually match a guy to the DNA of the hair and charge him with rape and the case goes to court. The DNA of the hair matches the DNA of the suspect with an accuracy of 98% and the suspect has no alibi or any other evidence to show that he didn't do it.  

Now, would the IDiot parent argue that the suspect cannot be guilty because the DNA doesn't match 100%? Would the IDiot argue that there are 'gaps' in the case because there is no video, no photos, no description of the rapist, no fingerprints, and no eye witnesses? Would the IDiot argue that since the cops and prosecutor and science can't account for every single nanosecond of the suspect's actions and whereabouts that day and for the history of his entire life that there are 'gaps' and therefor no case against him? Would the IDiot argue that biological/forensic/medical/DNA science can't be trusted and is nothing but a corrupt, materialistic, atheistic, amoral, evil, "Darwinian" agenda?

Would the IDiot devote his/her life, recruit others, publish books, create websites, bash material evidence, bash science, join or create organizations that spend millions, and do all the other things that IDiots do in their 'war' against materialism, in order to vehemently campaign for the release and freedom of the suspected rapist, or would the IDiot want to see the rapist swiftly convicted on the material evidence, imprisoned for a very lengthy time (or worse) and burn in hell for all eternity for raping the IDiot's daughter?  

And what if the suspected rapist used a defense based on supernatural, immaterial woo? Would the IDiot parent of the raped girl be swayed by that?

I think that the answers to the questions are obvious. The IDiot, like most parents, would want to see the rapist hung by his balls in the town square and would be totally convinced by the 98% match (and likely a much less convincing match) of the DNA from a single hair. No other evidence would be necessary and no 'gaps' would even be considered. If something like the rape described above were to happen to an IDiot or someone they care about they would suddenly be totally concerned with only the material evidence and would expect and demand that the cops, prosecutor, jury, and judge take only the material evidence into consideration and convict the suspect. Suddenly science would be completely trustworthy. The SAME science the IDiots fight against every day.

And who do you think the IDiot would want to see testifying about the DNA evidence that would convict his/her daughter's rapist? behe, wells, dembski, luskin, klinghoffer, joe g, gordo 'liar' mullings, arrington, o'leary, ba77, corny hunter, axe, wl 'genocide' craig, uptightbiped, torley, freshwater, or any of the other IDiots? Would an IDiot trust one of their ilk in such a case or would they want a real scientist who's an expert on DNA to testify for the prosecution?

Date: 2012/07/20 02:20:02, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (sparc @ July 19 2012,20:57)
See what Dembksi and others will present at asa 2012:    
Quote
Science, Faith, and the Media:
Communicating Beyond Books

“Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.”—Ephesians 4:25, NIV
July 20–July 23, 2012
Point Loma Nazarene University
3900 Lomaland Drive
San Diego, CA 92106
The 67th Annual Meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation


E.g.  
Quote
Saturday, 21 July 2012 2:45 PM

A Taxonomy of Information andthe Design Inference

Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Casey Luskin

Within the technical literature of the information sciences, the concept of information has been defined in various ways. One finds discussions of Shannon information, information carrying capacity, functional information, complex and  specified information, Kolmogorov information, syntactic information, and semantic information, among many other concepts.
This paper will present a taxonomy of different types of information, and will define and distinguish different types of information from one another.
It will also ask what type or types of information need be present in a system in order to indicate the prior activity of a designing intelligence. In so doing, it will also examine the claim, made recently in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, that the presence of only semantic information, rather than functional information, is necessary to justify an inference to design.

They will also have Ann Gauger, Caroline Crocker, Paul Nelson and Walter Bradley.

However, NCSE's Josh Rosenau will also give a talk.

“Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.”—Ephesians 4:25, NIV


If there is a hell, the IDiots are going to burn.

Date: 2012/07/20 02:22:01, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (NormOlsen @ July 19 2012,07:48)
Gil, tell us again how clever you were as a child:
 
Quote
During the summer between my sixth- and seventh-grade education in public school, I became enamored with Greek mythology, and read the great classic, Edith Hamilton’s Mythology. When I entered seventh grade, on the first day of school, our English teacher asked us what books we had read over the summer. I responded with Edith Hamilton’s classic.


That's right, Edith Hamilton's classic, IN SEVENTH GRADE!  And the teacher was all like "Oh Gil you are ever so clever!  I do declare you'll one day be famous rocket scientist and frilly concert pianist!"

Gill as a child:


And the rest of us:

This is hilarious.  :D

Date: 2012/07/20 05:17:18, Link
Author: The whole truth
This is pretty funny, in a way. The christians are discriminating against islam and they say that islam isn't a "real" religion but they're finding out that religions other than christianity are just as "real" by law (even though no religion is actually "real").  

So, to all you christians (and especially you IDiots) out there who want to shove your version of your christian religion into schools and government and science and everything else, know this:

If your religion is allowed by law, so is any other religion, no matter how much you don't like those other religions. The so-called "academic freedom" and "allow both sides" crap that you christian IDiots are pushing would ultimately open the door to any and all religious beliefs being allowed (or forced) into your childrens' classrooms and whatever else that christianity is allowed or forced into. Is that really what you want? Just because you believe that your religious beliefs are the only "real" ones doesn't mean that every other religious person agrees with you. What you think of as 'religious freedom' is not 'christian only freedom' and it's not 'your version of christianity only freedom'.



Date: 2012/07/20 05:44:07, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 20 2012,01:57)
This is also at the ASA. Ironic much?

 
Quote
Exchanging a Lie for the Truth:
On Responding to Scientific
Misinformation
Davis A. Young
At the beginning of the nineteenth
century, scientific information was
transmitted via a few broadly scientific
journals, hand-written letters, books,
classroom instruction, public lectures,
and word of mouth. Since then,
we have added radio, telephones,
motion pictures, television, audioand videotapes, compact discs, digital
versatile discs, cell phones, email, chat
rooms, websites, social media, a vast
array of specialized scientific journals,
e-books, and skywriting! The potential
for the transmission of scientific
information is unprecedented and
seemingly unlimited. Given that
evil is the perversion of the good,
the potential for the transmission
of distorted or false information is
likewise unprecedented and unlimited.
Examples of the latter kind of transmission illustrate poor understanding of
scientific theories, belief in scientific
conspiracies and hoaxes, confusion
about the limits of science, suspicion of
the scientific community, and rejection
of well-established data and theories
that challenge strongly held beliefs.
The fact that we will never eradicate
pseudoscience any more than we will
eradicate poverty is no excuse for indifference but a call to concerted action.
Distortions of science must be met with
responses to authors; television, radio,
and video personalities and producers;
websites; and politicians. A major
initiative for ASA must be the promotion of scientific knowledge among
pastors and other Christian leaders.
Theological seminaries should expect
greater scientific understanding by
entering students. Professors of
apologetics and systematic theology,
in particular, must be knowledgeable
about the basic science that relates
to biblical data and themes. ASA and
its members are well positioned to
encourage such an initiative

I'm seriously starting to doubt common descent, 'cause there just ain't no way that I'm related to IDiots.

Date: 2012/07/20 05:46:57, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (DiEb @ July 20 2012,02:59)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 17 2012,22:18)
 
Quote (Freddie @ July 17 2012,16:05)
For crying out loud - someone get her a science book, or a maths book.  No wonder she thinks the world is only 6,000 years old.  Does she think 'm' is short for millenia?

Twice in the past week.  What an embarrassment.


PotW

 
Quote

14
DiEb
July 19, 2012 at 12:30 am

If you are not able to use the simplest terms (mya: million years ago, not millenia – or myllenia?) correctly, why should someone trust your interpretation of the more complex ones?

 
Quote
17
Joe
July 19, 2012 at 8:37 am

m is for millenia ;)

And even though she has been told, she hasn't corrected her posts, has she?

Date: 2012/07/20 15:30:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Zachriel @ July 20 2012,11:07)
Argument by definition.

 
Quote
StephenB: By definition, a “natural cause” is defined as law/chance. Intelligence from any source, therefore, cannot be a natural cause.

That is, unless there is an overlap between the categories, such as intelligence being due to law/chance, even in part.



 
Quote
StephenB: We must differentiate between [1] “nature,” which is not creative and repetitiously follows the laws of matter as an effect vs. [2] “art,” which reshapes matter and creates something new as a cause.

Unless, of course, nature can be creative.



 
Quote
StephenB: Beyond that, we must differentiate between (2a) Divine or Angelic art (or any other alleged superhuman cause) and (2b) human art. I refer to the former as “supernatural intelligence” and the latter as “non-natural” intelligence. When the ID proponent analyzes data, he can scientifically detect the difference between [1] and [2], but he cannot, without the help of a philosopher, detect the difference between (2a) and (2b)

Only a philosopher can tell whether or not the Brooklyn Bridge is Angelic Art? The workers who built the Brooklyn Bridge may not have been devils, but it is highly doubtful they were angels.


"When the ID proponent analyzes data, he can scientifically detect..."

Date: 2012/07/21 03:47:59, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (didymos @ July 21 2012,00:27)
Quote (BillB @ July 20 2012,23:45)
Anyone care to place bets on whick UD regular will be first to blame the cinema shootings on Darwin?

Barrogant.  He's always gotten a ghoulish delight out of these things. Plus, it happened in Colorado.

You're likely right, although it wouldn't surprise me if o'leary beats him to it. And of course mullings will chime in at some point and blame it on "Darwinism", methodological naturalism, evolutionary materialism, and the 'de-christianization' of the USA.

I'm sure that arrington is also thinking of how to make money off the situation by suing somebody. He probably rushed to the scene, chased the ambulances, and handed out his business card to the survivors.

Date: 2012/07/21 04:07:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 20 2012,06:35)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 20 2012,05:17)
This is pretty funny, in a way. The christians are discriminating against islam and they say that islam isn't a "real" religion but they're finding out that religions other than christianity are just as "real" by law (even though no religion is actually "real").  

So, to all you christians (and especially you IDiots) out there who want to shove your version of your christian religion into schools and government and science and everything else, know this:

If your religion is allowed by law, so is any other religion, no matter how much you don't like those other religions. The so-called "academic freedom" and "allow both sides" crap that you christian IDiots are pushing would ultimately open the door to any and all religious beliefs being allowed (or forced) into your childrens' classrooms and whatever else that christianity is allowed or forced into. Is that really what you want? Just because you believe that your religious beliefs are the only "real" ones doesn't mean that every other religious person agrees with you. What you think of as 'religious freedom' is not 'christian only freedom' and it's not 'your version of christianity only freedom'.

I once calculated (and this was some time ago and I'm not doing it all again, so the numbers may be off slightly) that if I were to teach the creation story legally and I spent about 3 minutes on each one, then I would have to spend 100 school days teaching all the known creation stories... not including science based ones.

Of course, between that an the pretest for testing, and the review test, and the post review exam, and the make up pre-test, and the review of the tests and teaching that...

Oh don't forget to leave time out for football, basketball, volleyball, band, cheerleading, academic UIL, theatre, and sick time...

It would take me about 3 years to teach Intro to Biology.

Of course, I had to explain to my principle that evolution actually is in the Texas standards after some students complained that I was teaching evolution.

I find myself thinking of the phrase, "Be careful what you wish for..."

If the IDiots were to succeed in cramming their religious beliefs into science classes in public schools they would soon find out that other religions or versions of religions can do the same thing, and as you pointed out that would present some BIG problems with the time it would take to teach all the thousands of various religious beliefs on creation/design/evolution or whatever, plus all the other problems that would be generated.

Imagine kids telling their parents, 'Hey mom and dad, we studied Voodoo in science class today and tomorrow we're going to study Satanism!'

Date: 2012/07/21 04:30:58, Link
Author: The whole truth
"I feel deeply sorry for the victims and their friends and families."

Me too.

Date: 2012/07/22 04:11:19, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 21 2012,12:11)
I always thought scientists are the girls and guys who do research in the lab or in the field or do really difficult stuff with computers. However, says KF:        
Quote
Pardon, but could you address the pivotal question for us scientist types ...

How about some examples of gordo the scientist type:


"Indeed, it was theistically inspired belief that our minds and senses were made by a benevolent God to function in a world that reflects the orderly mind of that Creator that gave men confidence to embark on use of the inductive method to identify empirically what were the patterns put into the world by the Creator."



"In particular, it is indeed he consensus of scholarship that the Bible text is pretty reliable as to the originals."



"the key authenticating argumentr for that faith is the resurrection of Jesus with 500+ witnesses, some 20+ of which we have identities for. And the Spirit poured out gives life ot the promises int eh Scriptures so that there are millions of witnesses to meeting God in the face of Jesus."



"There ARE angels who are glad to accept worship: fallen angels, i.e devils or demons.

Historic, authentic, NT-based Christianity is clear on the matter: as the angel of Rev 22 says — WORSHIP GOD!"



"And, remember just what you are mucking around with when you start to play footsie with pagan gods.

[And on this subject the real authority is Jesus of Nazareth; the risen Christ. he took demons very seriously and he has the resurrection from the dead with 500+ witnesses to prove that he know what he was talking about. Acts 19:8-20]

PPS: My recommendation is that you go find yourself a solid pastor who knows what he is dealing with, if you have been playing footsie with pagan gods. No joke!"



"On Judaeo-Christian monotheism [theism for short], the morally virtuous Creator-God is the IS who grounds OUGHT in his character."



"the Bible is in major respects — both OT and NT — historical record, and abundantly confirmed as good record too."



"On the strength of that historical record and resulting supernatural power that is present and active all around us on the terms of the promises of the Scriptures, we know or should know that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord of life, Lord of Death, Light of the World, reason Himself, the Way, the Truth and the Life."



"For, God is gracious and has given us many points of evidence whereby we may see just how credible and authentic — thus trustworthy and authoritative (even as as a top class dictionary is trustworthy and authoritative) — is the witness of the Scriptures, NT and OT."



"As we turn to the OT, it is worth noting again that we have some rather direct authentication in hand, from the Lord of truth Himself.

23 –> And, on the single most contested teaching in our era of secular humanist evolutionary materialism, Creation, it is worth pausing to hear God out of the storm in Job 38:

   38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind:2

   38:2 “Who is this3 who darkens counsel4 with words without knowledge?

   38:3 Get ready for a difficult task5 like a man; I will question you and you will inform me!

   38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation6 of the earth?

   Tell me,7 if you possess understanding!

   38:5 Who set its measurements – if8 you know – or who stretched a measuring line across it?

   38:6 On what9 were its bases10 set, or who laid its cornerstone – 38:7 when the morning stars11 sang12 in chorus,13 and all the sons of God14 shouted for joy? . . .

24 –> So, we should not be unduly overawed by Nat Geog sagas on TV, or by Dawkinsian village atheist rhetoric railing against God our Creator, or bones in museums or the many misleading icons of macro-evolution, or by “dating” technologies [you should see how isochrons -- the star technique -- can give misleading results!] or by various cosmological speculations.

25 –> For, these are at best stories made up by men to model the unobserved, unobservable past as they imagine it might have been, not indisputable truth based on direct observation, knowledge and record of the deep past of origins.

26 –> And remember the embarrassed silence when the implications of the observations we can make were brought out: in the cell and in the heavens and even the models such as the Big Bang, that the cosmos and life are the product of intelligence.

27 –> But also, yesterday, I put up a useful summary slide show, by Hugenberger; which shows case after case where skeptical dismissals of the OT record run up against subtle clues and subsequent discoveries."



"32 –> It is against this backdrop of (a) enslavement and (b) attempted genocide, that when Moshe is born, he is hid in the house until he has to be put in the famous basket in the river set up just where the princess is likely to come for ablutions, with big sister Miriam watching from a strategic spot.

33 –> The princess, who plainly knows just what is going on, adopts the boy [Take that, daddy-o! You got a Hebrew grandson now! Pow!], and makes the birth mother into his wet nurse and nanny. (In short, right in the king’s household, there is opposition to the genocide. And genocide is inherently plausible as absolute kings tend to be very corrupt. indeed, event he wonderful monuments and art, from a different perspective, reflect long term exploitation of the peasantry.)

34 –> The rest is history: Moses rises to be a prince of Egypt, mighty in word and deed, but then becomes a murderer and felon in exile on the backside of the desert, for 40 years; when he kills an Egyptian beating up on an Israelite. (It is when the king and those who sought him die, that he returns and becomes the famous liberator; tempered by in effect a life sentence of exile.)

35 –> I have already noted and linked on how the hard hearted response of the King of Egypt sets up a power confrontation between YHWH the liberating Creator-God and the demon-backed magicians and mythological gods of Egypt, listing specific gods [and demons] bested by each plague in turn, culminating in the living god, the Pharaoh.

36 –> In that cultural context, the visible contest was the reflection of a war of the territorial gods — note how in the prophets Satan himself is prince of Tyre, Michael the fighting archangel is prince of Israel, and there are princes of Persia and Greece! [Let us hope the prince of Barbados is one of the good guys!] — and YHWH plainly bests the pantheon of Egypt without breaking a sweat.

37 –> Against that backdrop, genesis is a cosmology that sets the real record straight on origins, and in so doing just happens to lay out a unique ground of existence in the Morally upright Creator God who provides an IS that is an adequate foundation for OUGHT.

38 –> In fact, the ONLY philosophically adequate foundation for ought. “What a coincidence!” [NOT.]


So, we have now laid out a framework for the authenticity of the Scriptures, anchored in the resurrection of Jesus, but with ample corroboration and a system for understanding why we can trust the record.

That is important in an ate where just as peter predicted in 65 AD or so, mockers would come, dismissing the testimony of the said scriptures.

But, only to their own self-deception and the misleading of those unwise enough to take them seriously.

“A word to the wise . . . ”"



"And, Jesus’ resurrection did in fact place him in the land of the living to the point where he was hugged by women, he walked miles with men on the road to Emmaus, ate a fish supper with his disciples, and even later made breakfast for them on the shores of the sea of Galilee. Jesus’ resurrection body is transformed, but it is fully capable of operating in this world!

he is no mummified green-coloured pagan god of the underworld."



"We are the children of the ONLY Living God and Father!"



"Our loving Heavenly Father listens to us."



"Jesus was buried in a specific tomb prepared by Joseph of Arimathea for his own burial, and just north of the city gates of Jerusalem.

–. on the followinfg sunday mornintg, women went, not to search, but to anoint the body with spices.

–> but as they arrived the tomb was already opened, and the one formerly within had long since risen!"



"Satan has no power to win against God, and was decisively beaten at Calvary: “IT IS FINISHED!”"




All science so far!

ID isn't creationism or religious in any way!

gordo is interested only in the 'science' of evolution and origins, not religious creationist fairytales. He's a scientist type!


Most of that stuff above is from this thread, where gordo posts with the username "Dictionary". Read that thread if you want to see some of gordo's religious zealotry. There are some other threads there with gordo's lies, preaching, and sanctimonious insanity in them.

Don't forget that gordo has said that "any command" by "God" is a "good command", and he says that the bible, both OT and NT, are "abundantly confirmed as good record". In the bible the "God" that gordo chooses to worship and promote commanded or carried out massive murders (genocide), destruction, plagues, sacrifices, suffering, etc., etc., etc. Yep, that's the "God" that gordo says his morals are grounded in. No wonder gordo has no morals.

gordo also supports wl craig's lame justifications for genocide.

Date: 2012/07/22 04:38:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Woodbine @ July 21 2012,20:59)
Quote
I’ve always been a detail guy — whether learning, memorizing, and performing every single note in an 80-page piano score of a Rachmaninoff piano concerto, or writing complex computer programs — but immersion in detail can deceive one into not being aware of the overarching theme.


He must be mentally ill. Seriously.

I've ran into some weird folk on the internet - we all have. But i've never encountered anyone so desperately narcissistic and hopelessly insecure as Gildo. And his endless repetition indicates a problem so deeply ingrained it can't possibly remain confined to his online scribblings.

Thus, Gil's pathology must be as readily apparent in real life as it is on the internet. Can you imagine knowing this bloke? Working with him? Being married to him?

Fuck...... :(

"Can you imagine knowing this bloke? Working with him? Being married to him?"

The first two I can sort of imagine, and it makes me feel nauseous. The last one, well, that's just cruel. ;)

Date: 2012/07/22 04:50:29, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Quack @ July 21 2012,04:03)
Equal opportunity, time for Darwinism, Atheism, Spiritism, Scientology, everything with 'ism' at the end and soo much more, would be fun!

Time to incorporate the Church of Darwinism?

"Time to incorporate the Church of Darwinism?"

Maybe so. Think of the tax breaks. :)

Date: 2012/07/22 04:59:31, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 21 2012,06:56)
I've thought for some years now that a true discussion of the "alternatives" would pit science directly against religion. I don't think kids are dishonest enough to buy the unnamed designer crap. They would know.

Any real discussion would have to discuss the history of science, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton's speculations on angels as the tweakers of planetary orbits.. In short, the history of the successive retreat of the design hypothesis from all other areas of science.

If religion (e.g. ID) were allowed or forced into public school science classes it would also pit religions against religions and against thousands of versions of religions, in a science class.

Date: 2012/07/22 05:02:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kristine @ July 21 2012,09:59)
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 28 2012,12:20)
Head of the "Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention", Richard Land, caught plagiarizing?  Who'd a thunk it?

From Sarah Posner, Religious Dispatches:        
Quote
   Richard Land, currently under investigation by his employer, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told the group, "We must all be willing to stand up and tell the government 'no.' Secularists don't like people of faith because the ultimate authority for us is not the state. The ultimate authority is God."

   Aha! That explains everything, doesn't it? If all those state-worshipping liberals would just let the conservatives put God in charge, we wouldn't have all these problems with health insurance coverage for ladyparts and gay people getting married and whatnot.

   Land, as you may recall, said some really racist, spiteful things on his radio show about the Trayvon Martin case. He apologized for those comments, but Baptist scholar and blogger Aaron Weaver called it a "non-apology apology" and questioned Land's assertion that "I have been committed to the cause of racial reconciliation my entire ministry."

   Weaver also caught Land plagiarizing, specifically reading from published work of others and passing it off as his own on his radio show. For that, the ERLC is investigating him, but lo and behold, the head of the committee in charge of the investigation just stepped down to spend more time with his church. (The resigning trustee, in a you-can't-make-this-up-twist, is the Rev. Steve Faith.)  His replacement, the Rev. Richard Piles, tells the Tennessean's Bob Smietana that Faith's departure did not signal any dissension within the committee. Piles added, "I am a fan of Dr. Land. I am in his corner through this process and want to see him succeed and hope that he can continue in his ministry." So I guess there won't be any surprises when the investigating committee issues its report June 1.

(underlines are additional links in original)

Again with the "ultimate authority" nonsense. There is no "ultimate authority" with me. There is only an ecosystem of facts placed in context, tested hypotheses, theories, statistics, anecdotes, opinions, and my impressions and observations. "The state" is also not a monolithic thing, but a collaboration between people. I love how people like this always get all teary-eyed about "democracy" but hate its practical application, or compromise, or gray areas in life.

Well said.

Date: 2012/07/23 03:49:35, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Patrick @ July 22 2012,15:17)
Bartax speaks truth to power impotence:
Quote
Quote
This is a case of ill-informed, assertive hostility and outright slander in action.

No it isn’t you windbag.

Since kairosfocus is, in actual fact, a windbag, surely Bartax can't be banned for pointing it out?

Well, stating facts and truth is a banning offense at UD, but projectile vomiting insane, arrogant, two-faced, dishonest, sanctimonious bullshit is welcome. For example:

"25
kairosfocusJuly 22, 2012 at 7:15 pm

F/N: It seems that it needs to be explicitly pointed out to those of the ilk of Cooper and Myers, that if one has slandered, a retraction and apology are matters of common decency and basic broughtupcy. And, BT, slander is not mere disagreement, cf. the exchange with TIL above. As in, slander implies willful, irresponsible or knowing false accusation that hopes to profit from the falsehood being perceived as truth, to the detriment of others. A gross failure of duties of care to the truth and to fairness. Where, habitual utter disregard for such duties of care — which at certain threshold is actionable under tort, FYI — points to the massive unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, resulting moral bankruptcy and invitation to nihilism that lie in the heart of evolutionary materialism. Cf Plato on this, 2350 years ago. KF"



There is no god. If there were, gordo would now be fried from a massive bolt of lightning. In fact, he would have been annihilated long ago and his wicked 'soul' would have been sent straight to hell for eternity. Sometimes I wish that "God" did exist. ;)

Hey gordo, I know that you read this thread, so tell me, what do you think your god should do to you for the numerous lies you tell? Like your lies about me threatening you and your family "mafioso-style"? That's a libelous lie, gordo. Yeah, libelous, not slanderous. Slander is oral, libel is written, and your lies about me are in writing. And since you keep repeating that irresponsible, indecent, unfair, willful, morally bankrupt, habitual utter disregard for the truth, and gross failure of duties of care to the truth, and knowing false accusation that hopes to profit from the falsehood being perceived as truth, to the detriment of others (me), what do you think a court would do if I were to bring a tort claim against you for your libelous lack of basic broughtupcy?

Tell you what gordo, you sue "the ilk" of Cooper and Myers and I'll sue you, and we'll see who prevails, okay? I'll be generous and advise you that the truth is an effective defense against a libel suit, so you'll have a HUGE problem showing that the "the ilk" of Cooper and Myers have libeled you. On the other hand, you would have no truthful defense against my libel claim since you have no evidence of the threats that you falsely accuse me of, and I do have written evidence of your false accusations.

How much money/property do you have gordo? If it's enough I'll get the suit going and take it from you, with pleasure. And of course I'll ask the court to order you to retract your false accusations and apologize profusely and publicly. What do you say you lying windbag, are you ready to rumble in a court of law?

Date: 2012/07/23 04:10:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 23 2012,01:47)
Quote (keiths @ July 23 2012,01:08)
This is pitiful.  Barry "Law of Non-Contradiction" Arrington suddenly decides that contradictions are a-ok after all... as long as you're talking about God:
 
Quote
God is powerful enough to combine apparent contradictions in his person.  He is three, yet he is only one.  He is both immanent and transcendent.  He is sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent; yet despite the evil that exists in the universe he created, he is also omni-benevolent.  It never ceases to amaze me that skeptics are surprised when they are unable to fit God into neat human categories.  But if we could understand God completely, would we not be gods ourselves?  I know I am no god, so I am unsurprised to find that I cannot comprehend God in his fullness or understand fully how such contradictions can be combined in him.  Nevertheless, I am quite certain they are.

That post is a textbook example of how faith addles the mind.

Barry, ban yourself.

"Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi".
It's knitted in their sweaters and embroidered in their handkerchiefs.

And 'pia fraus' should be tattooed on their foreheads.

Date: 2012/07/23 05:15:26, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote
God is powerful enough to combine apparent contradictions in his person.  He is three, yet he is only one.  He is both immanent and transcendent.  He is sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent; yet despite the evil that exists in the universe he created, he is also omni-benevolent.  It never ceases to amaze me that skeptics are surprised when they are unable to fit God into neat human categories.  But if we could understand God completely, would we not be gods ourselves?  I know I am no god, so I am unsurprised to find that I cannot comprehend God in his fullness or understand fully how such contradictions can be combined in him.  Nevertheless, I am quite certain they are.


What a load of irrational shit.




Date: 2012/07/23 05:57:15, Link
Author: The whole truth
Paul McBride has responded to axe and gauger:

Here




If this isn't the right thread for this will a moderator please move it to the right one?

Date: 2012/07/23 16:28:27, Link
Author: The whole truth
A couple of interesting articles:

Here

And here

Date: 2012/07/23 16:31:39, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Badger3k @ July 23 2012,12:43)
Picked up off Poorly Dressed, the "Micro'be" line of clothing, produced by fermenting bacteria.  Maybe you'll be able to grow your own clothing one day.

Now I have images of clothing produced by moonshiners (I know, different processes, but monks aren't as funny as rednecks).

That's pretty amazing.

Date: 2012/07/23 18:49:50, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 23 2012,04:51)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 21 2012,04:18)
     
Quote (BillB @ July 21 2012,01:45)
Anyone care to place bets on whick UD regular will be first to blame the cinema shootings on Darwin?

It will be someone who can write a nice No True Scotsman script accounting for the fact that the shooter was a churchgoing Christian. So my bet is on KF.

ETA: I feel deeply sorry for the victims and their friends and families.

KF:
     
Quote
“He wasn’t an extrovert at all. If there was any conversation, it would be because I initiated it, not because he did,” said Jerald Borgie, senior pastor of Penasquitos Lutheran Church. Borgie said he never saw the suspect mingle with others his age at church.

Italics by KF
     
Quote
If you have a bright, somewhat shy academically inclined kid of a family in your church, who is pursuing university studies for an advanced degree, it would be reasonable that a pastor would try to keep in touch. That suggests that the lack of interaction basically since Holmes went off to college was probably because the young man drifted from church involvement, which was already inadequate

     
Quote
He also probably had very little social and counselling support, in a context where a solid line to a good pastor, priest or Rabbi would be worth its weight in gold.

 
Quote
Multiply that by the evolutionary materialistic scientism milieu of neuroscience and the top candidate explanation is that this young man was moving to the sort of worldview that dominates this field and similar fields.



Told you so.  ;-)

UD link

ETA last quote

Yep, you were right, but can I share in the prize because I got it right that gordo would blame evolutionary materialism? ;)

By the way, what is the prize?  :D

Date: 2012/07/23 19:04:16, Link
Author: The whole truth
Regarding who or what gordo blames, he of course won't accept the fact that the killer attended a church for a long time and has a mother who is obviously very religious and when it comes to the 'self worth' gordo brought up nothing could be more destructive to self worth than having it pounded into you (especially from early childhood onward) that you're a dirty worthless evil sinner, and are gripped by "Satan", and will burn in hell for eternity unless you get down on your knees and worship some so-called god that is allegedly the only redeemer and the only way to goodness, salvation, and worth.  

One of the fundamental things about the christian crap gordo pushes is that it preys on and amplifies peoples' lack of self worth. The whole 'look outside yourself', to "God", for guidance, morals, redemption, salvation, and worth is a profound example of christianity (and many other religions) brainwashing people into believing that they are powerless, worthless, amoral slaves that must blindly serve and worship some so-called all powerful "God" if they want to be "saved" from their evil, sinful, intrinsic worthlessness.

The entire premise of christanity is based on the worthlessness of people: "God" creates people (slaves) to serve and worship him. "God" kills people and destroys entire cultures because they don't meet his demands and are therefor worthless to him. "God" floods the entire planet to wipe out everyone and everything that has no worth to him. "God" punishes and kills whomever and whatever has no worth to him, or commands his obedient, slaves to do it for him, and even sends the worthless 'souls' of people who don't kiss his tyrannical ass to suffer in hell for eternity. "God" regularly reminds people that they are worthless to him unless they blindly worship him, and if they don't like being his obedient worthless, 'owned' slaves he will punish or kill them or their worthless first born or other children or all of their descendants, or wipe out their crops/cities/livestock, etc. "Jesus" is sent by "God" to remind people that they had better be obedient slaves to "God", or else, and to "die"* for the evil, sinful worthlessness of the human race that his sky daddy specially created to be worthless slaves to him.  

christianity, like many other religions, is abuse.


*According to christians, "Jesus" is the son of "God" but also IS "God", so how can he "die"? An all powerful, perpetual "God" can't "die", and especially one that was allegedly up and walking around a short time after he allegedly "died".

Religion is insanity, and christianity is one of the most insane, abusive, and tyrannical religious cults that have ever been conjured up.

Date: 2012/07/24 01:04:03, Link
Author: The whole truth
despicable slimeballs

“If a Christian dies early, if a Christian dies young, it seems tragic, but really it is not tragic because they are going to a wonderful place.. on the other hand, if a person doesn’t know Jesus Christ.. if they knowingly rejected Jesus Christ, then, basically, they are going to a terrible place.”



Date: 2012/07/24 01:59:10, Link
Author: The whole truth
Add Frank Pettit's name to the list of people who have been banned from the biologic institute's facebook page, and 100+ of his comments were deleted.

Here is a link to Frank Pettit's FB page:

Pettit

And here is a link to the FB thread titled "A Veil Is Drawn Over Our Origin as Human Beings".

So much for open and honest discussion

Date: 2012/07/24 02:41:40, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 23 2012,19:47)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 23 2012,19:49)
By the way, what is the prize?  :D

A crocoduck sweater with stripes on the sleeves.

Cool. :)

Date: 2012/07/25 03:24:22, Link
Author: The whole truth
A much more accurate header:

Date: 2012/07/25 03:49:48, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 25 2012,01:44)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 25 2012,03:24)
A much more accurate header:


Mouse stabbing bastards!

Yeah, and notice the red line from the mouse going flat. Mouse murderers!

Date: 2012/07/25 06:32:37, Link
Author: The whole truth
"What do those blobs of slime in the upper right represent - Sal Cordova writing guest posts? "

Or maybe gordo's spittle?

Date: 2012/07/25 06:35:05, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Cubist @ July 25 2012,02:47)
TWT, the font they used for the logo is Arial Regular, with 89% horizontal scaling. Like so:


Picky picky. :)

Date: 2012/07/26 02:26:36, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (sparc @ July 25 2012,21:20)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 25 2012,04:22)
P.S. If you do happen to be in church on Mountserrat on a Sunday morning and KF IS preaching and you get flecks of the Holy Spittal on your face, then you have officially been blessed.

IMHO all his writings just indicate that nobody on Montserrat will let him preach or if he does nobody is listening. Otherwise he surely would have told the world.  It's guys like us that provide him with the impression that there is somebody out there who is waiting for KF's musings. Kind of reverse SETI.

I think you're right. For instance, I've looked for any connection gordo has or may have to a church in Montserrat and haven't found any. Montserrat has a very small population (somewhere around 6,000) for the entire island. If gordo has ANY following or prominence there it should be easy to find.

And when I've found his insane blabber on websites that are focused on Montserrat or the rest of the Caribbean, it's all dated from a couple of years or so back, or older, and he pissed people off and wore out his welcome on those sites.

For someone who makes it sound as though he is important (especially with so-called Constitutional crises and alleged 'clients'), it sure is hard to find anything worth mentioning that he actually does or has ever accomplished in government, business, church, public service, etc. And of course he's done nothing in science. The amount of time he spends typing his nauseatingly looooong, self-righteous, convoluted diatribes on the internet demonstrates that he has nothing else to do and that he has no local audience willing to listen to his slobbering sermons (which describes everything he ever says).

Unless he can show otherwise I'm convinced that he's just a basement dwelling nobody who is avoided, ignored, laughed at, or even despised by most or all of the locals. I'm also convinced that he finds ways to fool himself into believing that he is not only important but absolutely critical to the survival and advancement of Montserrat and the entire human race. It's obvious that he believes that his insane spewage on his sites and UD is reaching and positively influencing billions of people and that all the people of the world should and will (or already do) see him as a "God" (or at least as an official messenger from "God") and that they should and will come running to worship him like a group of teenage girls would come running to a rock star. He's a legend and a god in his own malignantly narcissistic mind (what's left of it).





Date: 2012/07/26 03:10:54, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Freddie @ July 25 2012,23:58)
ENV has a new post up regarding the evolution of the mammalian ear.
     
Quote
Secondly, if one reads the paper carefully, it is curious that (as noted by the authors), "Given the phylogeny, the [definitive mammalian middle ear] evolved several times independently." An earlier paper in Nature, published in 2007, reported on the discovery of a fossil of a eutriconodont mammal species called Yanoconodon (Luo et al., 2007). Curiously, as explained by this editor's summary of the paper,

     
Quote
The situation is not as clear-cut as it seems. The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage.

It thus appears to be the case that the middle ear evolved independently at least twice: in monotremes and in placentals and marsupials. Multiple occurrences of difficult evolutionary trajectories is something that is not easy to square with the standard neo-Darwinian narrative.


Whenever I see a quote like that from a 'summary' of the paper the alarm bells start ringing.  The paper is behind a paywall but perhaps someone can check to see what was said in the body rather than in the 'teaser' summary text.

Oh, and heads we win tails you lose:
 
Quote
There are a few points that are worth raising here. Firstly, even supposing that the hypothesis of common ancestry is valid, this lends little traction to neo-Darwinism (one has to distinguish between pattern and process) and it does nothing to undermine the hypothesis of design. ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry. ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so. Many of us Darwin critics, therefore, also happen to be skeptical of common ancestry. But it would not invalidate our position on ID if common ancestry turned out to be true.

Linky

"ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry."

Somebody better tell joe g, stat! After all, he, as a card carrying spokesIDiot for ID, says a lot about common ancestry/descent (as do many or all other IDiots) and he says that "ID is OK with common descent" (when he's not arguing against common descent or is redefining it as common design of course).  

Like with joey, the other IDiots are obviously "OK" with common descent but they're also "OK" with no common descent. The bottom line is that as long as 'God-did-it' can be crammed into something, they're OK with it.

Oh, and the "hypothesis of design"? WHAT hypothesis?

"ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so."

The pink unicorn 'hypothesis' does, however, open up the possibility that pink unicorns can fly, perhaps gracefully so.

That IDiot did say one things that's true. They're "Darwin critics". It's all about bashing Darwin, "Darwinists", scientists, science, the ToE, etc. They have NO positive evidence for ID. To them, absolutely nothing could or would "invalidate" their "position". Their delusional, arrogant minds are already made up, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will have any effect on them.

Date: 2012/07/27 15:57:33, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (Joe G @ July 27 2012,05:54)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,07:51)
     
Quote (Joe G @ July 27 2012,07:50)
I never said it was a problem, assface. I was just correcting Kevin's ignorance because you evos are too stupid to do so.

     
Quote
Now for that 23 to get passed along it had to team up with a 24:

23 + 24 = 47


ROFL. I can imagine what sort of "teaming up" you have in mind. But you'll never reproduce like that, you realise that right?

LoL! Do you know how sexual reproduction works? Or are you ignorant of that too?

Ya see two gametes from the opposite sex have to get together, ie team up, in order to make a baby.


But then again obviously you are too stupid to grasp that.

Hey joey, if you know so much about sexual reproduction, maybe you can explain exactly how "God's" gamete teamed up with the virgin Mary's gamete to produce the baby jesus?

While you're at it maybe you can explain how you know that the abrahamic god (aka ywhw or allah) is male ("the opposite sex" of Mary)?

Oh, and since you believe that 'kinds' can't 'team up' their gametes with the gametes of other 'kinds' and make babies, you must believe that "God" and Mary were/are exactly the same 'kind', and since the alleged person Mary was allegedly a human, "God" must be a human, right? Or was Mary a goddess?

Date: 2012/07/28 01:36:42, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,15:09)
Quote (blipey @ July 27 2012,16:55)
Let's start simple.  Joe, why do we observe the sky as being blue?

I doubt Joe can see the sky from his basement room. Joe, shout up to mom and ask her to describe it for you.

POTW!

Date: 2012/07/28 03:12:53, Link
Author: The whole truth
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,16:43)
Did you hear that cock crow Gordo?  
Quote
And, the timeline projected — here, across three million years (as though someone was ticking off on a diary) — is riddled with all sorts of circularities. And this is not just a matter of those despised silly Young Earth Creationists — note the “typical” adjectives that show another problem of projection of a programmed dismissal talking point string — who cannot accept the all but certain findings of “science.” If you cannot see and understand the circularities in geo-dating systems, you have a problem with basic inductive logic. (I have a lot more respect for say the dating of star clusters based on the physics of H-balls leading to the HR plot and the observed branch-points heading to the Giants branch. There are some assumptions in this, but there is nowhere near as much circularity in the system.)


Watch Gordo assert that because "geo-dating" is wrong he don't have to answer no specific points.

He makes it clear what he's after:
 
Quote
At no point has there been an actual empirical demonstration with actual direct observations and measurements of the actual facts.


Er, about that whole ID thing Gordo?
 
Quote
See the problem, and notice how you are lining up next to another objector who evidently does not understand the inductive logic of science?

I’ll let that stand for now.

That is what you have to face.


His entire argument seems to be this:
 
Quote
The pivotal problem is, no such thing has been SHOWN.

Nothing specific. Just "dating is wrong, therefore nothing like the claim can be shown".

You total utter coward Gordon E Mullings.