AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: UnMark

form_srcid: UnMark

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.217.249

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: UnMark

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/03/14 18:39:12, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2006,19:35)
You have GOT to go read this Uncommonly Dense thread. When you get to crandaddy's statement that 'these are marginal claims' you will fall on the floor laughing.[/b]

I wonder how long comment 18 will remain?
Quote
In comment 1, Dave states, "We live in a democracy."

This may be the watered-down drivel taught in school these days, but it isn't the truth. The United States of America is not now, has never been, and was never meant to be, a democracy. The framers of the Constitution actually considered several forms of government, of which a democracy was one. It was immediately dismissed: throughout history every democracy has self-destructed in fairly short order.

Why? A democracy is the rule of the majority at the expense of the minority. In a sense, a democracy is a mobocracy - check out video footage of a riot to see a true democracy in action.

But that's not the worst thing about a democracy. The main problem that democracies face is that sooner or later the masses figure out that they can vote themselves money. At which point the end is near.

The form of government that the Constitional Framers settled on was a Constitutionally-Limited Republic. A democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A constitutionally limited republic is one well-armed sheep telling the three wolves that voting on whats for diner is illegal, unconstitutional, and will not happen.

I'll just stop there and let you all decide who's the majority and who's the minority ;)

Date: 2006/03/15 15:12:11, Link
Author: UnMark
Apparently I'm back on moderation after challenging Dave...  then I go reiterate the point I made last night.  Let's see if I'm still around tomorrow. :p

Date: 2006/03/16 17:18:20, Link
Author: UnMark
It seems that the "teach the controversy" is the next step in the post-ID world.  Ken Miller mentioned it in his January presentation that he, too, expects this to be the next big battle.  It's also considerably more nefarious than ID since it seems innocuous and common sense to laypeople.  I'm still waiting for someone to define exactly what "the controversy" is, for it doesn't mean what "they" think it means. . . .

Date: 2006/03/18 07:01:04, Link
Author: UnMark
:04-->
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,21:04)
 Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer?  Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence.  By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure or explain.  This means empirical evidence exists outside of science and science is NOT privy to all empirical evidence.  Now what do we do with such empirical evidence is the question.  Since science is either unwilling or incapable of dealing with such empirical evidence, it will naturally be left to others to interpret such evidence.

Quote
The measurable phenomenon of billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned most of recorded history.  What do scientists have to say about this phenomenon?  


Argumentum ad Populum

Quote
What does science have to say about how this belief in an IDer is acquired?

Spurious Accuracy
Post Hoc

Quote
Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer?  Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence.

No, the claim is that none has been found, nor has a method been found for detecting "design".  The only method thus far is "it looks designed to me," supported by some magic maths.  Come up with a reliable method, and maybe we'll talk.

Quote
By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure....

If it can't be measured, observed, or tested, how is it empirical?  If it can't be measured, observed, or tested, it's magical!  How can science, the method for observing and testing things, deal with unobservable, untestable things?

Now go away.

Date: 2006/03/19 16:34:34, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 19 2006,06:16)
UnMark,

You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical.

Yes, Arden, this certainly is the creationist post of the week!  Were it not so sad, it'd be hilarious!  I can't help but respond. . . .

Quote
You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical.

A dictionary lists the common meanings of words.  dictionary.com offers these definitions for empirical:
Quote
1.a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Thordaddy, please point out which of these definitions you're using.

Date: 2006/03/21 16:18:56, Link
Author: UnMark
My mother is an elementary school music teacher, with nearly 30 years experience.  She regales me with her Wintertide Concert woes every winter, including this year a "discussion" with a parent, through their child, about whether or not Jingle Bells is a Christmas song.  (It *is* a winter song, but *not* a Christmas song, FWIW.)  The parent wouldn't accept that - apparently the parent's opinion is more correct than the expert's.

My wife teaches littluns at a local daycare.  They, too, have a Wintertide Concert, in which no religious songs can be sung.  I'm all for tolerance, but the utter *ussification of America is getting more and more egregious.

Quote
Your post seeems to give the impression that you think the manner in which Tresa Waggoner is currently being treated is acceptable.

No, it's not acceptable. She should have been terminated outright and not been given a paid vacation first. -ds

I can't help but muse over how well the UD comment policy is being enforced by UD's Draconian Moderation "Team."

Date: 2006/03/21 16:50:31, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 21 2006,21:58)
What can science say about a mother that drowns her five children one by one... nothing!

If, solely for the sake of argument, I accept this, what does the Bible say about this?
Psalms 137:9: " How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!"

Date: 2006/03/27 16:23:32, Link
Author: UnMark
My wife is a mostly-non-practicing Catholic.  I am just about as atheist as one can get.  I realized early on that if all systems of belief are just as correct, then none of them can possibly be true.  We argue about the whole Santa Lie most Wintertides - I'm against lying to our kids about mythological entities while she thinks that's just a part of childhood.

My wife also happens to be a daycare teacher, and occasionally babysits here at home for some of the center's kids.  A few weeks ago she was watching two girls who brought one of their favorite DVDs: Veggie Tales.  I had to leave the room after the Veggie Kids were dropped into a 'fiery furnace' (no joking) for standing up for what they believe in.  After the girls left, I made it clear to Wifey that there will be none of THAT in our house when we have kids. . . .

Date: 2006/03/28 16:31:48, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2006,20:23)
I don't know how close of attention you pay to UD, but I've seen plenty of rhetoric against atheists and liberals there, by both Dave and the visitors, and DaveScot really cannot stand Muslims.

I've been dying all day to make a connection between DT's incenced response to the FSM and Muslims to the Danish cartoons.  But posting that comment on UD would probably get me banned if it were posted at all.

Date: 2006/03/28 16:51:02, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote
Ummm....dude...that's part of the story
it wasn't an illusion to he!!...it is from the bible....its a story about some guys being persecuted,and then "dropped into fire" for "Standing up for what they believe in".  The trick is that they weren't harmed...divine will of God and all.....
I may have missed something...why are you so offended?

IME, kids that age can't distinguish between the make-believe in Mother Goose' tales and the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc.  So, I wasn't offended so much as I was irked.
Quote
its probably a good idea to expose your kids to different mythologies....it allows them to be more well-rounded in their literacy.

Of this I heartily agree.  But I don't think the way to do that is through proselytizing cartoons.

I can't say it any better than Arden did:
Quote
Raising a child to blindly trust religious structures due to vague threats of hellfire or punishment is infinitely worse and potentially messes up a child WELL into adulthood. Look at, say, Ben Domenich or Salvador Cordova.

Date: 2006/03/29 15:54:33, Link
Author: UnMark
The story itself wasn't the source of my dismay, it was the fact that an entire cartoon series was created just to proselytize young kids: teach them to believe that a magical character will always save the day for them if only they believe hard enough in the magical character.

I guess my stance stems from how closely I relate to the "antitheist" quote made by stevestory on page 61 of the UD thread.  (Sadly, I cannot seem to find a link directly to the post.)

I hope that helps ???

Cheers!

Date: 2006/03/29 16:13:46, Link
Author: UnMark
Bravo!  I haven't laughed this hard in ages!

Date: 2006/03/29 16:18:56, Link
Author: UnMark
In college, I had a friend in the electrical engineering program who held that exact belief about dinosaurs.

Date: 2006/03/29 17:00:13, Link
Author: UnMark
Wow.  I took the anti-troll pledge, but I'm bored and just couldn't help but respond.

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,22:18)
Quote
Just because the definition of empirical included the word observation, doesnt mean that anything observed is empircal.


Now this is a doozy.  Just because empirical means originating in experience or observation doesn't mean anything experienced and observed is empirical?  OK... now I see the problem.  Your definition of empirical is distorted and limited to suit your scientific bias.

empirical: verifiable or provable through experimentation.

An observation isn't empirical unless it can be verified through experimentation/testing.  How shall we test/experiment to verify that you watched the eclipse today?  I can think of one test off the top of my head: do you live in the path of the eclipse.  How shall we test/experiment to verify that you saw a dragon attempt to swallow the sun?

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,22:18)
So no knowledge was derived from the "millions of people" that have seen "aliens?"  How about the knowledge of potential aliens?  No one said that observation and experience equals universal truth.  It was only said the empirical evidence means evidence originating in observation and/or experience.  

No, certainly some knowledge was gained "from the 'millions of people' that[sic] have seen 'aliens'."  The knowledge that was gained is that 'these' people claim to have seen aliens.  By the way, what's a "potential" alien?

You're also still trying to use your own definition of the word empirical.  Either accept the given definition from a dictionary or find a word or phrase that means what you're intending.

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,22:18)
I was mocked when I stated that science and religion were fundamentally identical and so the idea that science and ID reside on antithetical sides seemed ludicrous.  Both science and religion are driven by the same mechanism (human intelligence), both share the same function (search for truth) and only retain a very slight difference in structure (modification in intelligence).  Call it descent with modification in human intelligence.

No.  Science is driven by intelligence; religion is driven by ignorance.  Science searches for the best explanation for a phenomenon; religion claims to have The One, Absolute Truth.  Science uses a method of verifiability; religion uses a method of personal revelation.

Date: 2006/03/30 17:43:02, Link
Author: UnMark
Yes, my first reaction to 'firey furnace' was he!!.  And I think a child would likely draw the same link - afterall, he!! is firey. . . .

Now where is that Puritan Preacher Sermon about how we're all dangling by a thread over the firey pits of he!!?  Hmmmm....

Anyways, to each their own! :)

Date: 2006/03/30 19:02:55, Link
Author: UnMark
I was wondering when Thordaddy was going to explicitly commit the fallacy of equivocation with all this empirical stuffs.  At least he hasn't stooped to equivocating a scientific theory for a colloquial theory... yet. . . .

Date: 2006/04/01 17:34:43, Link
Author: UnMark
:07-->
Quote (stevestory @ April 01 2006,21:07)
Davetard apparently wants to put Intelligent Design in schools via an amendment to the US constitution.

Steve, I had asked him a few weeks ago why he hasn't pushed his Congressperson and/or Senator to attempt to change the First Amendment to allow his religious promulgation.  Afterall, if at least 50% of the population thinks that evolution is wrong and Creation is correct, and if Congress truely represents the majority of its constituents, such an amendment should be no problem.  I'd go poke him again, but my last several comments never showed up which indicates to me I've been put on "permanent moderation."

Date: 2006/04/03 19:00:19, Link
Author: UnMark
Even thordaddy makes more sense than you, Zero.

Date: 2006/04/05 15:16:46, Link
Author: UnMark
And a particularly uninteresting one at that.  I'd take Larry Farfegnugen over thordaddy, had I a choice.

Date: 2006/04/06 15:06:32, Link
Author: UnMark
I wonder if the internet wayback machine has any of the old, unedited threads archived?

Curses!  It's been blocked by Dembski.  I wonder if that's a method to control his/their version of history, or just general traffic-reduction/antispam stuffs.

Date: 2006/04/06 18:22:39, Link
Author: UnMark
[QUOTE=Davescot]The best defense is a good offense. Change the subject and go after Mims makes perfect strategic sense from the standpoint of the Church Burning Ebola Boys (or girls in this case). Plus it’s perfectly in line with the Five D’s of Darwinism - Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, and Dodge. [/QUOTE]

I need a new irony meter.  "Five 'Ds' of ID" just doesn't have as good a ring.

Date: 2006/04/07 12:56:12, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2006,23:31)
Quote
Church Burning Ebola Boys

UnMark, Sir Terriblename, Stephen Elliot, Faid, Drew, Arden, etc etc, I think we have our gang name.

Well, I just so happen to "know some people" who could help us . . . .

I best not say more ;)

Date: 2006/04/07 16:01:51, Link
Author: UnMark
"Church-Burnin' Ebola Boys" has a rather sexy sound to it, IMO.  "Earth Scorchers" just doesn't roll of the tongue that well, and Scorched Earthers sounds too much like a Young Earther for my comfort.  Also, Scorched Earth is a wonderfully-addictive DOS game from the 90's.  

Unusually quiet day on UD indeed.  I swear I'm suffering withdrawl!

Date: 2006/04/09 13:21:03, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Russell @ April 08 2006,22:34)
Quote
...who has surely read the student review saying Pianka PREACHES that 90% of the population SHOULD be wiped out by airborne ebola
Not to MENTION the roommate of the brother of the student whose friend took the class, who SWEARS that Pianka ate three babies right in front of the class!

Typical creonut: if there's 100 pieces of evidence and 99 pieces refute your case, ignore all 99 to focus on the 1 that supports it.  Wonderful science at work there.

Date: 2006/04/09 16:56:29, Link
Author: UnMark
That sounds rather similar to Scientology to me, Russel.  I wonder if DS is a closet Scientologist?

Date: 2006/04/10 14:37:34, Link
Author: UnMark
In sociology I remember the lesson on developmental models.  Most adults are either concrete operational or abstract.  Those of the latter can understand abstract topics while those of the former cannot.  For instance, a good definitional question would be, "what would life be like if there was only one gender?"  The AO's could launch into a long-winded discussion about such a world; the CO's would loudly proclaim, "that's stupid - that could never happen!"

TD is unable to grasp abstract concepts - no amount of handholding will prevent the infinities of color from being reduced to a monochrome.

Date: 2006/04/11 18:56:29, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote
3. I had to chuckle at a young hire at my work who glibly made the claim that ID could never be taught in a science curriculum at a university because there is no “Theory of ID”. I knew it was a matter of time and here it is. Biology credit for ID. I’ll tell you what ID can predict: that the Intelligent Designer has a plan for us and we are not so big as some of us like to think.

Comment by Doug — April 11, 2006 @ 3:16 pm


(italics mine) But I thought that ID does not, nay, CAN NOT, determine anything about the Designer aside from that it is capable of making and implementing a design.  Pray tell, Doug, how this prediction you talk about was formulated and how we can test this prediction.

Date: 2006/04/11 19:01:07, Link
Author: UnMark
Sounds interesting.  I'd probably take the course just for kicks...  but I'm a wierd like that.

Date: 2006/04/11 19:06:19, Link
Author: UnMark
What did I say last night about abstract concepts?  <rolling eyes smiley>

If the unique individual is created at conception, where does the second unique individual come from when a zygote splits to become identical twins?

Date: 2006/04/12 16:26:31, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Aardvark @ April 12 2006,07:40)
Quote
So we just need to find a case where "Things have not happened" to falsify ID?

I haven't showered today, does that count?


Hahahah!!  Thanks for the hearty laugh, guys.  That hits close to home today for me, too, Aardvark. :p


Relating to UD's hits...  ID has no theory, no testable conjectures, no non-spurious evidences: ID has no real science.  As DT would say, ID is a just-so narrative.  Aside from hit counts, and possibly any advertising revenue, I cannot possibly fathom the benefits of keeping "ID dissenters" from coming back.  Perhaps that really is his motivation - advertising revenue? Hmmm...  much to ponder.

Date: 2006/04/13 15:42:08, Link
Author: UnMark
So it seems, according to Dave, that once there was a cell (eukaryote or prokaryote?), there is little doubt that evolution took its course, resulting in us.  So "the controversy" is now pre-cellular only?  Moving the goal posts again?

Date: 2006/04/14 17:32:28, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Flint @ April 14 2006,20:39)
Imagine a drug (or whatever) that you could take at the age of 20, that would make you irresistable to any woman. But after 5 years, you'd be a vegetable. Would you do it? Would you think well, I'll only do it THIS year, then stop?

Intersting analogy.  The one I remember is: would you take a drug that made you live forever if it also made you a vegetable?

Date: 2006/04/16 16:43:43, Link
Author: UnMark
I seem to recall being the one to wonder, in the UD thread, where that 10% came from.  I see that theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, etc, are now being lumped into the ID camp.  I wonder what Buddhists think of that?

Date: 2006/04/17 18:26:08, Link
Author: UnMark
5 easy steps....  Harumph!  That's today's American society for you: 10 second news bites because that's the duration of a typical person's attention span.  It's so much easier to believe than to actually think and learn the truth.

Hey, what's that shiny thing? :D

Date: 2006/04/18 16:52:41, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 18 2006,11:12)
[quote=stevestory,April 18 2006,07:58]Yup, first post, an Australian named JP points out the very obvious reasons why Hovind's playground is going to be closed down, detailing the rather incompetent-at-best, slimy-at-worst financial practices of old Kent, and dismantling the ridiculous idea that Kent is some kind of victim of religious persecution.

What does DT do in response? He insults Australians.

Class act!

I find no end to the irony that only non-IDers, and especially DS, aren't required to follow the rules.  And you want to guess what DT's response would be if this were a private park for evolution? :O

All buildings, to the best of my knowledge, must meet applicable building codes in my state.  My parent's church nearly didn't have its inaugural service in the new sanctuary because of occupany inspection issues (and the building inspector was a member of the church!;), and had to lower the height of the steeple to meet local codes.  After dropping $2000 in building permits, with another $2000 left,  I have utterly no sympathy this stupid situation and rather wish they tear the whole bloddy thing to the ground.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to fill out my gas and electric hookup papers and finish designing my basement so the concrete guys know where to put the windows tomorrow. (nothing like having to change your plans because the excavator hit rock a good foot higher than planned.)

Date: 2006/04/18 17:56:56, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.

Intelligent Design has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, no siree!  </sarcasm>  Would you care to explain why your religious opinion is any better than my own and why I should be forced to adhere to your religious beliefs (learning ID, a religious conjecture, as scientific fact)?

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.

Deism has always appealed to me. . . .

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
6)  I'm skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says "that's just a religious book full of myths", but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis. . . .

Could you please provide the evidence for the Jewish Exodus from Egypt?  Could you please provide the evidence that Jesus actually lived (outside the Bible, and the Josephus forgery doesn't count)?  As far as a fair analysis, could you please analyze and interpret Deut 20:10-14 for me?

If you'd like, I could recommend a couple "anti-Bible" and/or skeptic sites if you'd like to really learn about the other side of the controversy that is religion.

As far as evolution goes: I don't "believe" it to be true, I "accept" it as true based upon the mountain of evidence in its favor.  Here's a link to a page describing the speciation (macro-evolution) of one salmon species into two in Washington State. Here's 29 evidences of macro-evolution.  Also, here is a comprehensive list of Creationist Claims and their refutations.

I hope everyone can eventually shrug off their religous beliefs and accept science, but I've found that most creationists are unable to accept any inputs that don't affirm their narrow and rigidly-defined worldview.  Therefore, I've encountered very few ex-creationists who accepted the evidence and "switched sides."  I hope, Dave, that you aren't so entrenched in your worldview that you, too, are unable to change it.

Best regards!

Date: 2006/04/23 17:35:32, Link
Author: UnMark
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1061
Quote
I&#8217;ve had to delete a number of posts proposing ways the flagellum could have evolved. That&#8217;s not the challenge. The challenge is to give a method of falsification.


I'm speechless.

Date: 2006/04/23 19:15:40, Link
Author: UnMark
I figured as much, BV, when I read the line I quoted above. Is DT moving the goal posts again?

Date: 2006/04/24 13:54:25, Link
Author: UnMark
Thanks, Corckscrew - that was most illuminating.  But you intended audience is deaf and blind to all that counter his narrow, flawed POV.

Dave, you mentioned "dog-kind."  I have yet to get a good, rigorous definition of "kind" as it relates to biological entities - do you have one?

Date: 2006/04/26 13:08:01, Link
Author: UnMark
It seems to me we're taking the wrong tack with Dave (and most other creationists, too).

Let's agree on a couple things:
1. Biological entities do change over long periods of time (evolution happens).
2. The theory of evolution is a well-tested, predictive framework that describes how biological things change over time.

et us all assume, for the sake of argument, that evolution is false.  Dave, what is your testable, predictive framework that describes how biological things change over time that accounts for ALL the evidences that the theory of evolution does, only better?


As for your religious rantings, may I kindly suggest you go read Evil Bible for a while.  In fact, feel free to sign up there and post on the forums.

Date: 2006/04/26 13:32:36, Link
Author: UnMark
Double post - two separate thoughts deserved two separate posts. . . .

All this talk of not personally witnessing evolution (or the pyramids being built) reminds me of a good analogy.

A good friend's house was broken into one night while he was out of town.  He lives a ways out in the country and therefore has no neighbors who could see anything.  The police came out and scoured the house for clues, and found a fingerprint and a shoe print that didn't belong to him.  The fingerprint was run through AFID and a match was found.  Searching the suspect's house turned up a shoe that matched the shoe print, and one of my missing articles.  The suspect was arrested and convicted based only on the evidence.

Dave, according to your, um, logic, the perp should have been let go: no one was there to personally witness him/her commit the crime, so we cannot be certain the person in fact is guilty.  Please explain why.

Date: 2006/04/26 14:56:28, Link
Author: UnMark
Blech.  I started writing first person, but decided to switch at the end to skip the antisympathy "this is just a story" stuff.  I guess I missed a pronoun in my reread. . . .  I hope it didn't detract too much from the message.

Date: 2006/04/26 18:13:40, Link
Author: UnMark
Dave, you said that you don't believe in evolution because no one was around to witness it.  (We'll ignore the several obvious cases of speciation that have actually happened while scientists WERE watching.)  Using this philosophy, since no one saw the person break into my home, the forensic evidence cannot be conclusively used to determine the accused's guilt.

I look forward to your evidence for God's existence.  My searching has turned up exactly none, and I'd like to at least know why.  Since you're willingly putting your beliefs up for scientific review, let me ask you a question: if God is omnipotent, can He create a better God?

Parting thought: God hates people

Date: 2006/04/27 17:16:30, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 27 2006,21:37)
Quote
Remember ... it's my Hypothesis and it can be anything I want ... the evidence to support it is coming later ...
Dave... if you believe the bible is the innerant word of god, and no evidence will change your mind, we will respect you for that.

Tolerance != respect. . . .

Here's a quandry: can God (A) create another God (B)?  Can B destroy/kill A?  Can A prevent it?  Would it make sense for an all-knowing A to create B knowing the ultimate showdown?

Date: 2006/04/27 17:30:52, Link
Author: UnMark
Perhaps it's because I haven't followed that "Gay Gene" thread that I my understanding here is lax, but can anyone tell me what the #### GoP is trying to argue?  It looks like only a long whine about how unfair he things the media is wrt reporting crimes.  I like to think that I'm a fairly smart person, but I'm utterly msytified here.

Date: 2006/04/29 12:49:28, Link
Author: UnMark
Dave, this seems to be your hypothesis: I believe in God.  God made "stuff."  "Stuff" exists.  Therefore God exists.  That's all.  Thanks for wasting my time hoping you'd have something new or creative while presenting only the same old banal canards.

I read Strobel's Case for Christ.  Before reading it, I was a skeptical "Christmas and Easter" Christian.  After reading it, I'm an atheist.  Anyone with some functioning gray matter should have been able to see just how abysmal it is.  I wrote this on another forum:
Quote
Strobel spent the first half of the book using straw man, special pleading, begging the question, bifurcation, and a few other fallacious arguments to attempt to prove the Gospels accurate and reliable. It failed miserably to answer any questions or provide any solid evidence to bolster its case, and I spent a good portion of the book either yelling at or laughing at the author, his "experts," and their inanity. The second half of the book then proceeded to use it's "proven to to be accurate reliable" Gospels as the only source of evidence regarding the existence ot Christ. After reading what was hearlded as one of the best Christian apologetics books I was convinced only of the intellectual dishonesty of Strobel, his experts, and the rest of the Christian Apologetics movement.


[quote="afdave"]
Quote
Have you ever read a book on evolution?
Yes ... many of them.  How can I NOT?  They are EVERYWHERE!  I have to work real hard to find my kids some science books that DON'T have some form of the Evolution Religion worked in.  By the way ... I have trouble finding museums for my kids that don't preach "Evolution and Millions of Years"....[/quote]

I've never quite come up with a suitable response when someone says stuff like this.  I finally read one in an editorial some months ago...  Dave, I thank you for deliberately making your kids as stupid as possible.  I thank you because no matter how "normal" my children turn out to be, they will undoubtably be better educated than yours.  I also note the deep hypocracy - you all demand that we teach "both sides of the issue," but refuse to do so with your own children!

Dave, how do you explain away the mountains of radiometric datings that prove the earth is some 4.5 billion years old?

Date: 2006/04/30 10:55:22, Link
Author: UnMark
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1084

Comment number 2

I still find it funny how the real questions are never answered by ID proponents.

Date: 2006/04/30 11:14:45, Link
Author: UnMark
Biblical contradictions by category

It even quotes the verses instead of just listing them.  I don't think Dave will care - he's an adept at Doublethink.

Queue: Will the real Carol Clouser please stand up? :D

Date: 2006/04/30 11:14:45, Link
Author: UnMark
Biblical contradictions by category

It even quotes the verses instead of just listing them.  I don't think Dave will care - he's an adept at Doublethink.

Queue: Will the real Carol Clouser please stand up? :D

Date: 2006/04/30 20:16:52, Link
Author: UnMark
:02-->
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00:02)
Quote
I also note the deep hypocracy - you all demand that we teach "both sides of the issue," but refuse to do so with your own children!

Oh ... I teach them both sides alright ... guess which one they pick when they are given the whole truth about Evolution! (like ALL kids should be given)

If you're searching high and low for a science book that affirms your Storybook, then how is that the whole truth on science?
:02-->
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00:02)
Quote
Dave, how do you explain away the mountains of radiometric datings that prove the earth is some 4.5 billion years old?

This is really easy ... your assumptions are wrong (long answer later in the proper sequence)

It's only easy because you can't think.  Exactly which assumptions are wrong?  Enumerate them.

Date: 2006/05/01 17:36:39, Link
Author: UnMark
Carol, given the rigor of several of your past posts, there was some discussion about whether the person using your moniker was actually you.  I guess that settles the debate. :)  Regarding yom: would not the Fourth Commandment be somewhat nonsensical were not a literal day implied in Creation?  I swear I asked this once on PT directly, but I don't recall if an answer was offered.

Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?  It makes sense, it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible that I'm aware of: why the inane illogic to support incest and a bunch of unsupportable hunches?

Date: 2006/05/01 17:36:39, Link
Author: UnMark
Carol, given the rigor of several of your past posts, there was some discussion about whether the person using your moniker was actually you.  I guess that settles the debate. :)  Regarding yom: would not the Fourth Commandment be somewhat nonsensical were not a literal day implied in Creation?  I swear I asked this once on PT directly, but I don't recall if an answer was offered.

Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?  It makes sense, it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible that I'm aware of: why the inane illogic to support incest and a bunch of unsupportable hunches?

Date: 2006/05/02 17:34:45, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

It makes much more sense than any YEC position I can think of, and is a position/view I wish more Christians would adopt.

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.


ugh - stepped on my foot again.  No offense was meant.  I don't follow every thread here or at PT, but the few posts I've seen at PT compared to the two or three I saw here prior to this thread were very abrupt and appeared almost to be two different people.  That's actually why I used that Eminem line earlier in this thread. . . .


Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06: 03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.

I must have my eyes on backwards.  No matter how many times I reread what I wrote, I cannot get from "maybe God created many familes, but only one is focussed on in Genesis" to "evolution with no divinity involved."  I can think of a number o explanations, but I'll reserve judgement until you can explain how I'm misreading myself.

(Edited to add response to Carol in lieu of double-posting)

Date: 2006/05/02 17:34:45, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
The fourth commandment demands that we (that is the children of Israel), in symbolic recognition of this and to impress upon us the importance of emulating God, divide our work cycle in an analogous fashion, actively manipulating and redesigning our environment as needed during six "human eras" (days) and then ceasing and desisting for one human era, the seventh day, just as God has done.

Hope this makes sense to you.

It makes much more sense than any YEC position I can think of, and is a position/view I wish more Christians would adopt.

Quote (Carol Clouser @ May 02 2006,00: 08)
I am not sure what to make of your comments re the rigor of my "past posts". Is that a backhanded insult or compliment? I am sometimes constrained by time considerations from writing at length, so some of my posts can sound cryptic and abrupt. I apologize for that.


ugh - stepped on my foot again.  No offense was meant.  I don't follow every thread here or at PT, but the few posts I've seen at PT compared to the two or three I saw here prior to this thread were very abrupt and appeared almost to be two different people.  That's actually why I used that Eminem line earlier in this thread. . . .


Quote (afdave @ May 02 2006,06: 03)
Quote
Dave, wouldn't it make considerably more sense to simply state that the Bible focusses only on one particular lineage in the Creation Story in Genesis, and that all the rest come from other separately created tribes/lineages?

No, because that would force me to accept the inane, illogical position of Evolution with no Intelligent Agent which is far more problematic concerning the real evidence.  More later.

I must have my eyes on backwards.  No matter how many times I reread what I wrote, I cannot get from "maybe God created many familes, but only one is focussed on in Genesis" to "evolution with no divinity involved."  I can think of a number o explanations, but I'll reserve judgement until you can explain how I'm misreading myself.

(Edited to add response to Carol in lieu of double-posting)

Date: 2006/05/07 07:11:55, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote
A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.


And I would need a step-by step, point-by point analysis, backed up by independent, third-party witnesses to subscribe to ANY of the mythological creation stories that float around in varying orders of popularity.

I thought, Dave, that you would be offering some.  So far I've wasted copious amounts of my time reading your inane rants, waiting on your evidences.  The old saying goes "put up or shut up."  You aren't "putting up," Dave...  shall I finish the thought, or can you connect the dots on your own?

Date: 2006/05/12 16:10:16, Link
Author: UnMark
Would it be possible to display links to the last few pages in a long thread on the topic page?  For instance, if the last post I read in the UD thread was on page 93 and want to catch up on my lunch break (without logging in), I have to click the link to page 95, then go backwards.

Thanks!

Date: 2006/05/13 14:12:58, Link
Author: UnMark
BWE, I completely agree.  I've been pining to state as much for well over a week now, but lack the authority to do so eloquently.  I'd have resorted to much more porochial, sophomoric rhetoric that could be easily ignored. . . . :p

Date: 2006/05/14 16:06:01, Link
Author: UnMark
Thank you, Henry and Wesley!

Date: 2006/05/14 16:36:31, Link
Author: UnMark
[quote=ericmurphy,May 14 2006,17:37]
Quote (PuckSR @ May 14 2006,17:02)

How many times do we need to tell Dave that it's not possible to prove there is no god? And as far as I know, no one on this site is of the opinion that they have "proved" god doesn't exist (I happen to believe that god doesn't exist, but I don't think for a minute that I can prove it).

It certainly IS possible to disprove the qualities normally associated with God.  For instance, omnipotence is self-contradictory and, therefore, cannot exist (que "the rock" question).  Similarly, omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive: if we humans have free will, then God cannot know what we're going to do before we do it.  Furthermore, ignoring those two contradictions, God cannot know that a disaster is going to happen and have the power to stop it and still be benevolent/morally perfect for allowing it to happen.

What says you about this, Dave?

Date: 2006/05/15 15:56:40, Link
Author: UnMark
I love the "be tolerant" rule on UD and how fantastically DM follows that rule.  What a tool.

Date: 2006/05/15 16:11:04, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (PuckSR @ May 14 2006,22:38)
Oh come on UnMark....
all AFDave needs to refute your arguments is a basic understanding of philosophy...and perhaps some light googling.

Heck...i will do it for him....

I really do hope you were joking, Puck.  Dave, I already knew was a mental midget who'd gladly claim that God can create square circles, married bachelors, and five-legged tetrapods.

Dave, I've asked before, but haven't gotten an answer: can God create another God?  Can God create a better God?

Date: 2006/05/18 12:16:02, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (afdave @ May 16 2006,12:56)
Quote
Dave, I've asked before, but haven't gotten an answer: can God create another God?  Can God create a better God?
I have no knowledge if God can do those things.  To me they are silly questions.

It may seem silly to you, but let me explain a bit, as it's related to this inerrancy discussion.  You believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect (among other things).  Okay.  If God is omnipotent, he should be able to create a better God.  If God can create a better God, then he isn't as perfect as the "new" God.  So, either God isn't able to create a better God, and is therefore not omnipotent, or God can create a better God, and is therefore not perfect.  

Can't be both, so which attribute does He have: omnipotence or perfection?

Date: 2006/05/25 18:22:32, Link
Author: UnMark
AFDave:
Quote
Actually, I think the physicists who I cited regarding Cosmic Fine Tuning do get into calculating the odds.  But we do not even need to calculate the odds to know that they must be very high if there are even close to 70 parameters and most of them have to be very close to a particular value for life to be possible.  We only need our intuition for this.  And you cannot truthfully say that this is an assumption with no basis in reality.  The exact opposite is true.


The cutting edge research in String/M Hypothesis (it is not a theory!;) and Loop Quantum Gravity indicate that many of the constants are related.  So instead of "70" different parameters, there may only be a few.... Or perhaps none at all - the parameters may be completely defined with no fine-tuning at all!

Can we please move on to age of the earth/universe?  I've only stuck around this thread to see if we'll ever cover it.

Date: 2006/11/16 23:14:31, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 16 2006,12:17)
I'm not sure that I want to know. My hands are shaking. I'm seriously freaked. (Where does he get off calling my having a sig other a "lie"? What kind of a lunatic is he?)

No worries, Kristine: DT's all blow, no go.

The double-entendres are thick here lately. . . .  Not that that's a bad thing, mind ya'll ;)

Date: 2006/11/23 00:19:12, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 22 2006,22:29)
here's something I found about ...ah, a year ago? Something like that...anyway, keeping in mind all such online "tests" are suspect: http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php


Interesting link.  I'm not sure what to make of my results, though. . . .

Date: 2006/12/10 11:42:59, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 09 2006,20:24)
However, unlike flies, but like people, Sea urchins are Deuterostomates (mouth second). Flies are Protostomates (mouth first). This refers to the way the mouth and anus develop in the embryo. If you developed like a fly, you would eat with the 'wrong' end of your digestive tube. And visa versa.

Interestingly enough, creationists/IDists regularly spew shit from their mouths.  They must by Protosomates, thereby disproving evolution in one fell swoop! :D

Date: 2006/12/27 12:40:09, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote
14. Jehu  // Dec 27th 2006 at 3:11 am

Here&#8217;s how I see the score card.

First Cause of Matter. ID wins easy because material causes cannot cause mater itself. Therefore, a non-material cause is necessary to explain the existance of matter.

Fine tuning of physical laws. ID wins because the probability of laws that allow life arising by chance are so low as to be impossible.

The Big Bang, Another easy ID win because it is really the sum of the previous two.

Fine tuning of the earth Easy ID win because again, all of the conditions necessary to life that are found on earth are so improbable by chance that design is more probable.

Origin of Life ID wins on this so easy it is not even funny. Life is IC.

Evolution of Singel Cell Organisms ID again carries the day because an honest look at the evidence shows no indication of phylogeny.

Evolution of Complex Organisms ID wins. Why? Two words: &#8220;Cambrian Explosion.&#8221;

Fossil Record of Complex Organisms ID wins because of the absence of transitional fossils and stasis.

I could go on but it is late. I see ID as way ahead of NDE. There might be some areas where NDE makes a good argument but I haven&#8217;t seen one in so long that it is not coming to me right now.

Comment by Jehu &#8212; December 27, 2006 @ 3:11 am

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1906

As a quasi-layman armchair physicist I understand that the Multiverse Hypothesis posits that there are, potentially, an infinite number of alternate universes, each with their own set of physical constants, etc.  Even if the likelihood of life forming by "random chance" is infinitesimal (not zero), there are still an infinite number of universes that have life.  That we exist, then, is not only expected, it's expected an infinte number of times.  I guess there are, then, and infinte number of me, too....  I wonder what the rest of me is like? :p

Date: 2006/12/28 00:51:20, Link
Author: UnMark
Old Man of the Desert...  you read my mind, phonon.

The Flying Speghetti Monster is missing from the list, too.

Date: 2007/03/12 23:30:49, Link
Author: UnMark
I remember having a brief discussion about E-Prime some 3 1/2 years ago with some geeky friends of mine.  I recall thinking it a moderately intesting exercise for HS or college level comp classes.  Another acquaintance likened it to Orwellian Doublspeak.  Either way, it does tend to force one to use active tense.

Date: 2007/12/24 17:37:21, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (guthrie @ Dec. 24 2007,16:46)
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who calls himself "Beastrabban" is a dolt.

I was considering mentioning the paradox, but I decided it'd be simply construed as ranting, or somesuch.  In the Prelude to Dune prequels, Rabban is considerably more severe, in my opinion, than a mere thug.  But I'm assuming true Dune fans haven't read Brian and Kevin's mediocre attempts to continue Frank's story.

"Prove God is necessary."

"Easy!  He's necessary because I say He's necessary."  :O

Date: 2007/12/24 18:05:50, Link
Author: UnMark
Frank's proposed 7th book was broken up into two - Hunters and Sandworms.  Hunters ends on a bit of a cliffhanger.  I read Hunters last winter and the 6 "Legend" and "Prelude" books over the summer.  I recieved Sandworms for Xmas this year - I'll start reading it when I'm done with The Gospel of the Flying Speghetti Monster (seriously).

Date: 2007/12/24 20:30:10, Link
Author: UnMark
The post I made some three hours ago is still in the moderation queue.  It must be that I'm a new poster?  Or that I don't have an account?  Or, I guess that's because I don't exist. :p  Seriously - WTF was that "proof" about? And why can't I say the same about my computer monitor?

Thanks for the belly laugh, Rich - turkey!

Date: 2007/12/26 20:51:01, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Dec. 26 2007,17:39)

Ilion is a tard.  He got taken by a sea water as fuel scam and became a belligerent tard when called on it.  He tried to change the subject, but instead backed himself into two corners - a double tard.  Here is some more about his "proof" of God.

Holy balls. :O  I love how Creonuts think they know everything, and fight to the bitter end when proven wrong.

I reached my conclusion that no Gods exist because there is no positive evidence or logicical proof to conclude one exists.

Date: 2007/12/28 20:58:06, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 28 2007,19:12)
Statement: God Exists.

Now prove that true or false.  It can't be done.  As you say, there is no evidence that God exists but there is also no evidence that God doesn't.  There is no rational solution but you arbitrarily choose one.  Why?  Isn't it just as justified to say that God exists?  If you truly were not attached to your conclusion then you wouldn't make one because either one could be considered wrong in a rational argument.

Ok, you're Christian and you insist God exists....

Let's assume some premises:
1: The Christian God exists (or none of this makes sense)
2: The Christian God can interact with the universe.  (Bible)
3: The Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient (I argue omniscience comes with omnipotence).  (Bible)
4: The Christian God is morally perfect.  (Bible)

Agree?  If not, support your objection(s) please.

On December 26, 2004, nearly 230,000 people were killed by the Indian Ocean Tsunami (so says wikipedia).  By the premises above, God knew about it, had the power to do something about it, and would have been morally obligated to do something.  Yet He did not.  Therefore, at least one of the four premises is incorrect: which one do you think it is?

There's my proof for the non-existence of God.

Date: 2007/12/29 01:37:29, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,00:09)
Why is this a positive claim?  The fundamental question is not what kind of God exists, or how does God work in our lives or even why does God allow evil.  These are all questions of human perception and have nothing to do with the existence of God.  That is why UnMark's argument fails.  The question at hand is whether or not God exists.


The question IS whether or not a God exists.  You are Christian, therefore you must believe in the four qualities of God that I posted.  Yes?  If any one of those qualities cannot exist, your God cannot exist.  These are simple rules of logic.

 
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,00:09)
Our answer to this question is irrelevant to the subject as the question has already been answered by the Universe at the moment of existence.  Either God,of whatever nature, exists or It doesn't.  This is a fifty-fifty proposition and there is only one logical course to follow in assessing it.  The fact of existence period presents the possibility of a First Cause.


If God existed to create the universe, the God was not the "First Cause."  What caused God?

 
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,00:09)
So, UnMark, that is why your premises are false if you're looking for evidence disproving the existence of God.  And, just for the record, in the Old Testament God destroyed nearly to a man two entire cities, so what!

Hitler slaughters millions and is condemned by history for it.  God slaughters millions and is worshipped by billions for it?

Rich - I'v got some unicorn tail hair I can sell - only 6 sickles a piece!  :D

Date: 2007/12/29 21:01:32, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,19:11)
The argument goes that because the Universe exists and it is a universe of cause and effect and it is a finite Universe then there must have been a First Cause.

We actually don't know that the universe is finite.  It may be part of a larger, infinite framework. Or the universe may be infinte itself.  Therefore one of your premises is not valid.
 
Quote
We may descend into semantics as to whether or not it is right to call this First Cause God but I'll bypass that for now.

One of the musings of M-Theory is that this universe is a result of two higher "branes" colliding in said larger framework.  If this is true , shall we define "God" as the "collision between two 'P-branes'"?  Shouldn't, therefore, your claim that the First Cause is God be THE question?
Quote
Mind you this is not the God of the Bible or any other specific deity that mankind attempts to know but it lays the foundation, if that makes any sense.

Then what is the God of the Bible if not the Creator of the Universe (Gen 1-2)?

Date: 2008/01/05 17:55:06, Link
Author: UnMark
Smith doesn't seem to have much training/education in any scientific field.  For a while my money was on engineering of some flavor, but the couple of engineering analogies used indicate otherwise.  I'd rule out most of the humanities by writing alone, and social sciences (sociology, psychology, etc) seem rather lacking, too.  What are we left with: arts/music, law, and/or general education?

Date: 2008/01/05 21:13:25, Link
Author: UnMark
I guess I'm slightly more trusting in that regard, even of a creationist/IDist.  Then again, there was that kid on wikipedia last year posing as a doctor. . . . .

Date: 2008/01/06 18:14:13, Link
Author: UnMark
Let's see how long he thinks I have some class and decency.  :p

Date: 2008/01/06 22:52:10, Link
Author: UnMark
There was a bit on UD on this?  Hmmm..  I stopped following the UD thread here over a year ago - it was causing too much brain damage.

Thanks, Oleg!  I have a few posts in the "Dissonance" thread; a couple are rather good. :)

Date: 2008/01/07 23:51:07, Link
Author: UnMark
What, did everyone get put into moderation except me?

Date: 2008/01/08 00:27:23, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 05 2008,21:13)
Oprah endorsed him [Obama].  I really can't stomach that woman, so although I wouldn't base a political decision on that, it doesn't help me like him more.

Oprah endorses people of minority.  David Blaine is generally reviled within the magician communitiy because he's very popular despite his abject magical mediocrity.  He became popular because Oprah was looking for a magician for a show, and she selected the black one for the gig.  Or, that's what my magician friend said.

I saw Obama on Leno a few months ago.  I liked what he had to say.  I remember looking at my wife and saying he had my vote.  Of course, I haven't actually looked up what his genuine positions are, and if he does indeed want to cut NASA and other science budgets, then I do have a problem with him.  I suspect that his economists will tell him there's a much bigger "return" on money spent via NASA and science in general than, say, money spent via tax refunds/cuts.  (In case I have to spell it out - a lot of innovations come out of NASA spending that end up being commercialized.)

Date: 2008/01/08 23:18:48, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2008,09:27)
OH NOES! TALK ORIGINS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED!

http://professorsmith.wordpress.com/2008....ent-809

 
Quote
Darth Piglet // January 8, 2008 at 1:08 pm

The Darwinist website talk origins itself has also been debunked. This link here should help. It has many links of its own that directly counter talk origins claims.

http://creationwiki.org/Talk_Origins

I scanned a few pages, here and there, and there were a few places were I laughed hard enough that my wife asked what was so funny.  I think it was something about dinosaurs existing millions of years ago being a, quote, "farce."  I'm not certain yet if it pays to post that....  I've mostly been hanging around due to the promise of a "scientific theory of ID."  I suspect my interest will wane quickly over the rest of the week when my request for more information is once again denied.

Date: 2008/01/13 21:14:20, Link
Author: UnMark
I notice she* glossed over that pesky money thing. . . .  I may make the "what is the intelligent agent" question my final question; I've run out of givashit.

* Though a good male friend of mine loves Collies,they are rather feminine, IMHO.

Date: 2008/01/13 22:37:48, Link
Author: UnMark
Thank you, olegt!  Perhaps it was premature to say I've run out of givashit.  I didn't read Prof's post, and I'm in the middle of something now.  I'll post about the double-standard tomorrow if I can find a free half hour to do the requisite reading.

Date: 2008/01/16 00:18:37, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 13 2008,21:24)
The latest post, citing Casey Luskin on the double standard, is complete BS.  Here's my comment at Mens' News Daily:

I posted a link to that comment on mens news, and even went so far as to look through Sal's not-so-user-friendly site to find a link to the Nature article on ID.  Imagine my suprise that my comment was put into moderation.  Was it something I said?  :D

Date: 2008/01/16 23:48:00, Link
Author: UnMark
Okay, so only two links in one post are required for a post to get caught in the spam filter.  ???

Date: 2008/01/17 22:12:18, Link
Author: UnMark
Or a physicist, or philosopher, or, or, or.

Prof says that ID is real in nature because we exist in nature.  Isn't that Affirming the Consequent?

Date: 2008/01/18 20:42:33, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 18 2008,08:03)
Maybe he's an art professor or a math professor or something.

Engineering, anyone?  Shop?  Probably not biology, but maybe something unrelated?  

My initial thought was engineering, but I don't see any analogies to engineered systems.  The posts are devoid of any mathematical insights, too.  In some random past thread I clicked on he complained about the lack of "intelligent design" in art, so I don't think there's anything down that road, either.  If we knew for a fact that Prof is a tenure-track, my money would be on mechanical or civil engineering, possibly structural engineering.

Someone suggested to me by PM that the person is working on a deep cover for trolling.  Although I cannot fathom why one would do so, I can't offer any evidence to the contrary. . . .

I was seriously asking before if Prof's claim that ID is real in nature because we exist in nature is an instance of Affirming the Consequent.  It seems like one to me, but I have no formal training in logic.

Date: 2008/02/02 16:40:55, Link
Author: UnMark
In case anyone thought I had been banned or censored, I don't think I've been back there since about the 17th.  I learned what I went there to learn: he's not a tenure-track professor in any scientific field, if at all, and he has nothing to offer ID.

Date: 2008/02/06 00:39:13, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2008,22:29)
Quote
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".

Indeed!

If anyone can find it, the essay "On Bullshit" by H.G. Frankfurt is an interesting read.

Date: 2008/04/18 20:42:15, Link
Author: UnMark
Quidam, you've brought much hilarity to my evenings the past couple days with these gems; the bald Dr. Evilstein had me in tears.

Date: 2008/04/21 22:46:30, Link
Author: UnMark
Isn't the Conservapedia the site that "refutes" the TalkOrigins Common Creationist Claims?  I remember perusing that list a few months ago, clicking on random topics until I came to an article that blithely brushed aside the ancient age of the earth as a mere "farce."  When I stopped laughing, I closed the browser and successfully attempted to forget all specifics about the site.

Date: 2008/04/22 23:57:46, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 22 2008,13:16)
The cake is a lie!

Indeed, it was.  Lou's cake looks a lot like this one (about 30 seconds in):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthZgszykLs

Happy b-day, ERV.

Date: 2008/04/25 22:44:51, Link
Author: UnMark
Note to self: mirror first, THEN discuss....

Sorry, did my inner dialog escape again?

Date: 2008/04/26 23:41:51, Link
Author: UnMark
Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis that Gonzales' decline was a result of losing his comfortable post-doc peer group coupled with a lack of creativity, not his association with ID?  For some reason I see him as antisocial, and, once out on his own, having a "deer in the headlights" problem and not having the wherewithal to get past it.  In walks ID, which he latches onto out of religious comfort.

Date: 2008/05/07 18:57:38, Link
Author: UnMark
WFT is "final cause?"  Analogous to "first cause?"

I'm with Lou. . . .

Date: 2008/05/10 01:39:10, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (didymos @ May 09 2008,00:44)
 
Quote (dheddle @ May 08 2008,11:13)
Technically WW is correct re. falling bodies, although I am not sure if the trap he plans to spring is General Relativity or relative acceleration.

He went for relative acceleration:
   
Quote

The time to fall is measured in the time to collide, and not only does the Earth pull a falling object down, but the falling object pulls the Earth up.

My math indicates that an apple falling to earth causes the earth to accelerate at approximately one-half meter per second per million trillion years (3.9 * 10^-27 m/s/s).

Date: 2008/06/29 23:19:13, Link
Author: UnMark
Very interesting article, but it left me all itchy-feeling. . . .

Date: 2008/07/07 18:00:46, Link
Author: UnMark
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 07 2008,11:17)
Another link to the topic here, one that points to the single-page archive of the whole thread.

I get a 404, Wes.

 

 

 

=====