AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Ved

form_srcid: Ved

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.163.26

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Ved

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/10/14 07:41:45, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Actually, my experience is just a might broader and my education sweeping by comparison.

Mr. Peach, mite your sweeping academic credentials and broad real world experience be more advanced than ours in say, the English language, spelling, grammar, and typing skills?

Quote
...it is rather the understanding how such could evolve from non-life without all the complexities in place to harness the suns energy, etc.

Do bacteria harness the energy of the sun? Do mammals?

Date: 2005/10/14 12:25:51, Link
Author: Ved
Ahh, how could I forget, language skills are just so beneath you. But hey, if you don't care about the words you type, why should anyone else?

Thanks for the edjoocation. Right, so it seems that many animals as well as plants rely on photosynthesis to sustain life. Photosynthesis makes available a very valuable energy source, and has been around for a long time. Long enough for many forms of life, especially the ones we see everyday, to become dependant upon it. But is it necessary for any forms of life at all to exist?

Just for a lark I went to the Wikipedia page for biological life, and there's no mention at all of the word photosynthesis. What gives? Maybe that's because it's not a requirement for "life in general" (meaning ALL life), but merely a requirement many forms of life that we see here and now.

Date: 2005/10/17 06:10:13, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Than goodness for the tube worms. LOL

Thank you for acknowledging the existence of a life form not dependent on photosynthesis, making the rest of your post irrelevant. See how Wiki agrees with me where it uses the word nearly? Notice also how they use the present tense. They are not talking about the life on earth that existed before photosynthesis evolved here. Certainly, at that time, 100.00% of life here was not dependent on photosynthesis, because it didn’t exist.

Understanding the Origin of Photosynthesis

Interestingly, it seems that photosynthesis first appeared in a purple bacteria.

Date: 2005/10/18 08:24:20, Link
Author: Ved
My guess is that he wanted to start calling everyone here Helium heads.

Date: 2005/10/19 06:40:45, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
He does refer to the combination of a proton and a neutron as the element helium.

No, he absolutely does not. This is what he said in your quote:
Quote
...protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements...

Hawking is talking about only the nuclei of heavier elements. No whole elements could exist until 300,000 years later when the the universe was cool enough for those nuclei to combine with electrons. He says this very thing in the very next paragraph of your link.

Date: 2005/10/19 06:53:00, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
There is no other designation for that combination as it is not a single elemental particle but rather the comination of two elemental particles.

You're wrong. That combination of particles is called a nucleus.

Date: 2005/10/19 09:49:06, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Unlike you people, I am at work and doing something creative
Wrong again. I'm at work doing some civil engineering right now.

Date: 2005/10/21 05:24:17, Link
Author: Ved
You're seriously in denial evopeach, seriously. I mean, so often I feel that anything you say about us is not true in any way, but accurately describes you. It's hard to come up with anything better than your own unwitting description of yourself. It brings to mind that old playground tactic, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you - except I wouldn't wish your threats back on you.

I'm impressed with the lengths you've taken this evopeach parody character. By all means, continue to act like an a hole, I'm fascinated, but please, really, threats just aren't cool,

man.

Date: 2005/10/31 08:30:53, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
...shows us stuff we never knew...

Oh yes, thank you so much, Mr Paley, for opening my eyes to such new and wonderous things. I never would have found this without you:


Tree of Life

Date: 2005/11/02 04:47:56, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
... that bacteria evolved without intellgent design [...] was already proven impossible by Dembski and Behe!

Ah, hahahahahahha! Thanks for the hearty laugh! What a crock! Hey Paley, I just ran some calculations that prove god doesn't exist, so there!

Date: 2005/11/02 05:09:22, Link
Author: Ved
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
But ignorance is bliss, or so I hear.....

Bingo!

Date: 2005/11/04 09:45:12, Link
Author: Ved
I could see there being some correlation between a species under "stress" and faster "mutation rates", but I don't think in this situation that this would mean that the mutations themselves would be happening more frequently. Instead, the results natural selection acting on the same number of mutations would have a greater affect in altering the form of that species.

If a species is threatened, in that it's population is being drastically reduced, obviously the circumstances of it's environment are exerting some very strong selection forces upon that species. These forces may be different than the forces that allowed the population to become large as well as refine that species to suit it's certain niche. The threatened species' environment may select to keep individuals that are different, that might be able to survive by finding another way to get by.

Also, probably more importantly, if the population of a once widespread species is drastically reduced, portions of that population will become isolated from each other, and then begin to drift apart genetically, because they cannot mix with their lost kin.

Date: 2005/11/04 10:38:12, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Paley's Ghost must therefore be Davison.

Ugh. Worst Doctor Who, evar.

Date: 2005/11/15 05:57:02, Link
Author: Ved
Hey Midnight, I don't have any reservations about Native American culture. In fact, I even like casinos... can I stay?

Date: 2005/11/16 07:27:48, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
...a natural selection of ideas will prevail. Can evolution handle the free-market, non-government funded competition?

Classic, just classic. Hmm, can Natural Selection survive natural selection? According to Paley, here is us be lamenting in the near future: "Oh noes, our beloved theory of Natural Selection has just been undone by... natural selection, Natural Selection is dead!"

Date: 2005/12/05 11:09:28, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,16:41)
why does [troll-hunting] so overshadow the content of a person's arguments?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are we talking about Cordova's thread here? Because I don't see any content on his part.

Quote
Are ideas really that boring?

Ideas in general aren't boring, but hearing the same regurgitated-tripe-that's-just-plain-wrong over and over again sure is.


Regarding this lurker's opinions of the thread in question:

Quote
I answered 1 and 2.


Weak. Extremely weak. That's probably why the good Dr. Flank repeated the questions, yet again.

Date: 2005/12/07 14:11:20, Link
Author: Ved
Sounds like this stuff can do it all, a kind of goo of the gaps.

Date: 2005/12/16 06:28:47, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't.

Wow, you're so right!

Quote
Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons.

Thank you so much Mr. Paley for using examples that are familiar to me, I totally understand your argument now. Since I'm so out of touch with the conservative lifestyle, maybe you can answer a question for me. I think you'll see that my question is as relevant to this thread as your above references, so here it is: Does it ever make you nervous to have a supreme being looking over your "shoulder" in the bedroom? I mean, if that's not what he's doing, how else is he going to know you're not sticking it in the wrong place?

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2005/12/22 17:47:06, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
You certainly can claim that Hitler was a geocentrist, or that Creationists eat babies, and they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's

So because cogzoid's(?) Godwining jokes don't depict the truth and "go against" the bible, all the rest of his arguments are also wrong, because they also go against the bible.
Quote
...they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's, such as the one that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa.  Without the solid rock of the Bible, all claims are merely based on the shifting sands of human opinion.

So now you're appealing to the authority of a book. What is it that makes the bible better than any other human opinion???

Date: 2005/12/28 11:47:42, Link
Author: Ved
Oh come on. Paley's no racist! He digs asian chicks.

:p

Date: 2005/12/30 06:00:09, Link
Author: Ved
Where have you been living, comrade? When did American black culture "jump the shark"? IMO it is just now starting to hit it's stride. Of course it wasn't doing very well decades ago when it really wasn't a whole lot of fun to be black in this country, and much of their original culture had been wiped out and replaced with "our" "whitebread" christianity. Nowadays there are many many young white kids out there that are doing everything they can to 'be' black, and not a pale Bill Cosby/Wayne Brady shade of black either.

Oh, and don't forget rock(and roll). There are relatively few black rock musicians, but the whole genre wouldn't exist if it weren't for white people co-opting all of the ground work that was laid as blues, jazz, etc.

Date: 2005/12/30 10:39:16, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Where do you think that Duke Ellington, John Coltrane and Miles Davis got many of their harmonic ideas? European classical musicians. Funny thing though, when blacks borrow from "whitebread" culture nobody complains, but let others borrow from blacks, and the libs whine like schoolkids.


I agree with the first bit here, it's a great example of how mixing cultures can bring about new wonderful things. The last sentence I don't get at all. I consider myself a "lib[eral]" and I just got done admiring cultural innovations that we've borrowed back from blacks and run with, specifically my rock music example, 'cause that's one thing I'm really into. It seems more like it's non-Libs like yourself who have the problem with black culture becoming more popular and mainstream (which was once mainly white). You just got done ranting about it. Now, that's not to say that I'm a big fan of gangsta culture. I think it's an unfortunate side effect of the environment a lot of black people have found themselves in due to lingering effects of slavery, racism, and more recently, the stupid prohibitionist drug laws that have opened the doors for an alluring lucrative black (heh) market. Mobsters were rich, popular and sometimes famous when you had to go to them to get a drink.

Date: 2005/12/30 11:09:30, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
If blacks and whites want to recapture their old glory, a liberal dose of Dr. Coz is very much in order.

There was no "old glory" so, no I don't feel that emulating "Dr." Cosby is in order. You do know that that wasn't his real family on the TV show. His real family was much more realistically sordid and dysfunctional, relatively.

Quote
Yep, they're awesome, and did their best work before the multicultural revolution, just as I wrote.

I can understand you appreciating music that's more classically oriented, but a lot of that really old stuff where blues and jazz were breaking new ground is from those not so good old days when those innovative musicians could only get into the white clubs for as long as they were actually playing their instruments.

Date: 2006/01/06 06:02:08, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
As I've said before, the liberal mind truly loathes the successful.

HAhahahahaha! Disgusting. Your "knowledge" of the "liberal mind" is as accurate as your understanding of the moon landings. Why is it that YOU hate success?? After all, putting a man on the moon is one of mankind's crowning achievements to date, and it was white (Christian?) Americans that did it. And for some reason you deny that it happened.

Date: 2006/01/06 08:05:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Thanks! Oh, that was meant to be an insult.

...just returning the favor. Anywho, sorry, don't let me keep you from your paper. Maybe after you get that done we can get into "what's wrong with Liberalism"

/end drive-by

Date: 2006/01/17 07:33:57, Link
Author: Ved
Paley's theory is that all of the stars we see are imbedded in a spherical shell of quintessence that has a radius of ~4.5LY?

Seriously??

Date: 2006/01/18 06:09:46, Link
Author: Ved
Hooray, Larry is finally here, well sort of...

Quote
Larry wrote:

Also, if the public does not know that ID is “deceptive,” then why not teach the public about ID in school so that they would be better able to make up their own minds about it ? By not teaching about ID in school, we are promoting ignorance, not reducing it.


Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? That's the kind of class that "dumb" Mirecki was going to teach!

Date: 2006/01/18 07:19:09, Link
Author: Ved
Those poor, poor souls. In the "Rationalizing Adultery" thread, Karen is lost. Seeing how evolution apparently rationalizes (read "justifies", not "explains") adultery, and since ID is not religious and doesn’t even address ethics or morals, then where do IDists turn for their moral code?

Commenters on that site are stuck on a sinking ship. There is no ID theory to discuss in detail because the emperor's naughty bits might be revealed, and discussing religion is right out. The only thing left is to bash Darwin.

Date: 2006/01/18 07:32:14, Link
Author: Ved
Nope, it's pretty easy to see that DaveScot took woctor out to the courtyard for the firing squad.

One comforting thing is remembering how the real papa Stalin met his end. Even after he was found dying from a stroke, no one called for medical attention until over a day later. That's friendship for ya.

Date: 2006/01/23 10:29:31, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
I am glad someone pointed out the flaw in that “one-tenth” argument. Life expectancy at birth is almost irrelevant.

True, it's irrelevant, but present-day people still only expect to live to 1/10th of 600 to 900 years. I still see a one tenth argument.

Quote
The short-term aspects of miracles means they leave little or no signature other than witnesses.

Some miracles, maybe. Here's what I'd like to know about the miraculous ages of people like Noah. I don't read the bible, and I don't plan to, so I need a little help with what may or may not be in there.

It's really easy to write down that Noah lived for 600 years, but is there any more circumstantial evidence written in his (or anyone else's) story that makes the claim more believable? In other words, if multiple people live for multiple centuries, I would expect there to some dramatic differences in the number of children they had compared to us, like, say, 10 times the number of our typical offspring. Or was infant mortality that incredibly high? Remember also, that childbirth back then was very hazardous, so I would think it would be unlikely that a woman could give birth to 50 childen to end up with 5 surviving infancy. Sorry to be arguing from incredulity, but I just don't know the answer to these questions. For me, the best explanation is that the stories are simply exaggerations.

What all of this brings to my mind is the classic lesson of any story of the genie in the lamp- that wishes granted can have profound unforseen consequences in the real world... wish for superhuman strength, and you might accidentally crush your child to death, and so on...

Date: 2006/01/23 11:02:54, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Dave manages to alienate many (if not most) ID supporters by labeling their skepticism of common descent as laughable

Not to mention J.A.D.'s recent common descent contribution...

And yet the name of the freakin' blog is UNcommon Descent. Is Dr. "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" Dembski paying attention to what's going on over there? Oh wait, he's back to posting half the articles.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:44:27, Link
Author: Ved
But who would know if this wisp is "anyone"? And who would Mr. McWhorter make it out to??

;)

Date: 2006/01/24 06:04:03, Link
Author: Ved
"Fair Warning: Comments Commenters may be moderated obliterated."

:p

By the way, to all the exiles from Uncommon Descent: welcome!

Date: 2006/01/24 06:25:09, Link
Author: Ved
RE: "open discussion"
Quote
Huh - a crackpot calling someone else a crackpot.

Hey, look! That's just what you've done! And no one erased you! Funny how that works... :p


Arden: 'refugee', check!

Date: 2006/01/24 07:58:52, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

This "magical" event is not a part of Evolutionary Theory proper. This beginning of life is Abiogenesis, and is separate from all evolution that happened after that event. And it could have been God or aliens or a natural expression of the universe that done it. I actually think you and I would agree that it was a natural expression of the universe, except that I'm not convinced at all of any conscousness having to do with it.

Oh, and thinking of a modern "cell" as the first spontaneous natural replicator is way, way too big and complex.

Date: 2006/01/24 10:06:55, Link
Author: Ved
Evolution explains species as originating from a common ancestor or only a few common ancestors. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life.

Date: 2006/01/24 13:12:45, Link
Author: Ved
mynym says:

Quote
I believe in evolution.  Why do you think that I don't?

WTF??? Uh, the extreme anti-science, anti-materialist flailing?

Date: 2006/01/24 14:56:49, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
so what difference did their decisions about how they would conduct their lives ultimately make?

hmmm...

I would say, the difference they made was in other peoples' lives, in this world, the only one we can be reasonably sure exists.

Sometimes I really wonder just what it is that people expect to find in heaven that isn't here.

Date: 2006/01/25 05:33:14, Link
Author: Ved
Dear DaveScot, does it not bother you that Dembski's recent talk was sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ?

Date: 2006/01/25 05:51:39, Link
Author: Ved
:p Isn't everyone from UD reading this forum now??

Thanks DaveScot!

Date: 2006/01/25 11:27:06, Link
Author: Ved
From Carol's very next post:
Quote
The couple in the Genesis named Adam and Eve are not the first humans and the Bible does not even imply that they are.

I have never read the original Hebrew Bible. Now I see how little I really knew about how wrong the modern Christian versions were. Here I thought that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

Date: 2006/01/25 20:35:38, Link
Author: Ved
Hi eric.
Quote
So...have I become a victim of crank-ology?

IMO as a layman, if these apparent anomalies convince you that something wildly different from the official account of that day's events happened, then yes. The thing that puzzles me about conspiracy theories concerning 911, is that they don't seem to be necessary, the official account is  f***** up enough. I find it completely believeable that under the Bush administration, we weren't prepared for what was thrown at us that day. No one was interested in the pre 911 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" until we started trying to figure out how we could have not seen it coming.

I'll pick one bullet for now...
Quote
• All three towers collapsed vertically downward, into their own footprints. Normally it takes weeks of preparation from highly-experienced companies specializing in demolition to produce the same results.

Here's how I understand it: The force that actually brought the towers down was gravity pulling straight down. The collapses started when just one or two of the few damaged floors gave way, basically all at once.  It's impossible to say the exact sequence of events, but once one side of one floor gave out, the other sides of that floor couldn't hold. (If the side opposite the initial collapse was very very strong, it might have supported the structure long enough for it to start to topple over into the collapsed "notch"' like the felling of a tree) The buildings were designed as a light tubular structures, with much of their strength in their outside edges. Tubes, like arches and domes are only strong as long as they have some integrity. Once it was breached and started to fall apart, the strength was gone. As those first damaged floors collapsed, the weight of all the dozens of floors above, with the momentum from gravity, crashed down on the floor directly below, which just became a chain reaction of collapsing floors above and below the damaged spot as the whole thing came down.

As a side note, the timing of the two collapses was consistent with the different locations of damage. The first tower to be hit was hit higher on the building. 45 minutes later the second tower was hit farther down, causing the damaged portion of the second building to have to support many more floors and much more weight. It doesn't seem surprising that the fire in the second tower didn't have to burn as long to cause complete structural failure. And as we saw, the second tower to be hit fell first.

Date: 2006/01/26 05:46:18, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
engineers are above that sort of nonsense

Riiiiiiight. He even said the engineering term for such a thing is a kludge! And since ID is about design and engineering, we should expect to find kludges in the engineered creatures, but not in any "theory", no! What part of the theory of ID is not a kludge??? Retarded.

Date: 2006/01/26 08:56:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
the WTC towers were designed specifically to withstand impact from a Boeing 707 flying at 600 MPH, which would transfer as much or more energy to the buildings than a 767 flying at 400 MPH.

And both towers did indeed withstand the impact.

But not the fires.

Before I go any farther, I'll look at your links...

Date: 2006/01/26 11:48:34, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
From your link:

   * One Meridian Plaza fire blazed for 18 hours, gutting 8 floors.
   * First Interstate Bank Building fire burned for 3-1/2 hours, gutting 4 floors.

These fires were much worse than those in the Twin Towers and Building 7.*****

(*****I think that this is a very bold assertion)

If you don't mind my non-expert opinion, let's compare the fires.

WT1 + WT2 were damaged by impacts from large airplanes, fires were fueled by whatever normal flammables there were inside the building as well as thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Firefighers did attempt to fight the fires, but I'm not sure how much success they were having in the short time they had dozens of floors above the street. These fires are difficult to compare to Meridian and First Interstate because of the impact damage, the jet fuel, and the fact that WT1 + WT2 were twice the size of the other 2.

WT7 was not significantly damaged by impacts, and there couldn't have been much jet fuel that made it there. The big difference between this fire and the Meridian Plaza / First Interstate fires though is that WT7 was allowed to burn out of control. AFAIK No attempt was made to actively combat the fire. Firefighting abilities were severly hampered by firefighter loss of life, loss of infrastructure, and general state of emergency / war zone at ground zero.

In contrast, in the Meridian Plaza fire "caused three firefighter fatalities and injuries to 24 firefighters. The 12-alarms brought 51 engine companies, 15 ladder companies, 11 specialized units, and over 300 firefighters to the scene." http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html

The First Interstate Bank fire "was controlled only through the massive and dedicated manual fire suppression efforts large metropolitan fire department." http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

IMO firefighting efforts or lack thereof should not be overlooked.

Date: 2006/01/26 17:45:23, Link
Author: Ved
Dammit, now I just watched all the south tower video links. Thanks.

And no, there are no explosions at all as they start to fall, sorry.

What happens when a 100 story building falls on itself? One argument you've used says that the whole thing fell too perfectly cleanly into it's own footprint. Then your rebuttal argument to my explaining how it wouldn't topple completely over says that it did indeed start to topple (which I would agree with) but somehow this doesn't cancel the so-called problem of the perfection of the building's fall.

Now there seems to be a problem of "secondary explosions", as if somehow no part of a collapsing building is allowed to deviate from plummeting straight down. What would happen if you squooshed a bug under your fist? Would guts not fly out away from your hand? There's no explosion going on...

Date: 2006/01/27 10:05:22, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.

Well I'm convinced (not), but WTF does it have to do with evolution?
Quote
The mathematics behind this...

What math? Where?
Quote
ACLU

F U

Date: 2006/01/30 10:39:29, Link
Author: Ved
Nah, me know other words.

Me just didn't feel the need to use any others. It seemed appropriate at the time (sorry mods) to counter yet another of your cheap shots. What more is there to say about it? You don't admire the elegant simplicity of my intelligently designed reply?

I'm starting to think that all of your so-called theories are nothing more than a springboard from which you can rail against all your percieved enemies. What kind of scientist mentions, in the middle of his discourse, that people in the ACLU are stupid? What on earth does the ACLU have to do with your quintessence sphere?

I'm not a scientist. I don't even pretend to be one. ;) But you don't find me on this board saying that cranks or conservatives or theists are stupid. Heck, I even like some of your prose, your way with words sometimes gives me a chuckle. Granted, it's usually because you're weaving insults into your theories... though the comment I was responding to was just dumb. Not your best work.

Date: 2006/01/31 04:58:58, Link
Author: Ved
Yes, yes, yes! DaveScot is moderating the wrong blog.

He should be moderating a blog named Common Descent!

Date: 2006/04/19 09:46:57, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
a) Opponents of interracial unions, unlike the opponents of gay marriage, have to deal with the fact that such unions can produce children. A social justification for these relationships is present from the beginning.
b)  It's more difficult to show social harm from such relations, since there is no expectation a priori for more promiscuity. With gays, however, two males are involved. Promiscuity may be assumed.
c) On the other hand, opponents of racial mixing can argue that the children of those unions degrade society with their allegedly low IQs, poor impulse control, or higher violent tendencies. Homophobes cannot use this argument.

a) But what about all the traditionally married hetero couples that are, for whatever reason, unable to produce children of their own? They are still able to CARE for children, and provide a loving family environment for adoptees who need one. How is this different from gay couples who want to start a family? They are in the same boat.

b) Females are gay too! (whatever that has to do with promiscuity) And besides, wouldn't wanting to marry generally indicate the opposite of wanting promiscuity?

c) I thought homophobes argued that children raised in gay families would be taught that gay families are "all right" therefore creating more people for homophobes to have a problem with, and generally "degrade society" ... etc...

Date: 2006/04/25 10:25:11, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
I turn away from lesbiands on principle since the natural attraction to females is not an adequate evolutionary orientation.

Heh, what's the big deal here anyway? I mean evolution doesn't work, right? So, there's nothing anyone can do to screw up the evolutionary process of mankind, not even by turning lesbiand, because evolution is not happening!  :p

Date: 2006/04/27 09:22:40, Link
Author: Ved
Cain and Abel married chimps, of course. That explains why we share 98 percent of our DNA with them.

Date: 2006/04/28 10:17:42, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Employment is based on performance criteria on the job and while some, indeed very many, off-the-job considerations are legally relevant, religious belief is not one that may be considered. -ds

...unless of course, your beliefs compromise your ability to do your job, like the case of certain pharmacists refusing to fill morning-after pill prescriptions, for example. But I suppose employers are supposed to just put up with nonsense like that!

Date: 2006/04/29 12:10:42, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Of course it is less discriminatory, it has one condition less

Exactly, hehe. Admit it thordaddy, the model of marriage with fewer requirements is less discriminatory, by the very definition of the word discriminate. However, this is not to say that this model is not more offensive to people who feel that allowing two men to marry is wrong. You are certainly entitled to feel that gay marriage is wrong, but you don't have the right to not be offended by it.

You've already said that gays are able to go say their little vows and have their "liberal" church recognize their pact. What's the big deal about having the state recognize this as well? Your church is not required to recognize their marriage.

Date: 2006/04/29 15:24:30, Link
Author: Ved
Yes, God cares about us so much that he decorates our sky with not thousands but billions of galaxies for us to appreciate... although, one has to commit the ultimate sin of not making sure one's wife doesn't eat from the apple of knowledge, pass one's genes on in such a way as to survive a global flood punishing the entire planet, and accumulate knowledge long enough to build and launch the Hubble Telescope in order to do so!

Date: 2006/04/30 17:52:49, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
why on Earth wouldn't it immediately follow that incestuous/group marriages should be legalised?

Because virtually no one is asking to "legalize" incestuous and group marriages!!! All these sheep-lovers you guys keep going on about are going to have to rally quite a bit more in order for me to give them any attention. They've got to get some sheep-lover pride parades, some primetime-sheep lover makeover shows and sitcoms, and so on... so until they do could you guys just please drop it? Same goes for the incest and the polygamy. No one here is arguing for any of these to be accepted. No matter who you are and what you believe, you should be able to distinguish between gay marriage, pedophilia, sheep marriage, sibling marriage, polygamy, etc, and it should be perfectly acceptable to be opposed to any of them for different reasons.

Quote
By the way, has anyone ever established a philosophical basis for the contention that marriage is a fundamental right?

I'd consider marriage a religious freedom, if not a "happiness" that we should have the right to pursue.

OK, here's what I want to know. Presently in any state in this country, thordaddy could get married in his church to his babys' momma just like any other guy. He could also get his marriage recognized by his state.

Now, say "Mike" and "Steve" want to get married. They go to their gayliberalcommie church and get hitched. What would give their state the right to discriminate against their church by not recognizing their marriage?

Date: 2006/05/02 06:39:58, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
[...] homosexuals can already get married in many liberal churches around this country and this has been acknowleged time and again [...]

Thordaddy, what gives your state the right to discriminate against liberal churches by not recognizing the gay marriages they perform?

Date: 2006/05/02 09:27:28, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
[...]rampant promiscuity and violence on the male side,  drifting and soft-headedness on the feminine[...]

Nice, I'll have to remember those... Maybe the state shouldn't recognize "trailer-trash marriages" either.

Date: 2006/05/02 10:35:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
[...] Can't suspend Heather for whacking another kid over the head with her notebook, cause her two mommies will raise a fuss [...]

What is that drifting, soft-headed female doing hitting another kid?

Can't mention "millions of years" in science class, and risk uncomfortable conversations at the dinner table that lead to angry parents complaining to the school board, and putting your job at risk.

Date: 2006/05/03 09:54:21, Link
Author: Ved
Sorry for the threadjack, but I have a quick question for him as well: afdave, If you had a time machine, would you go back to the first century and save Jesus' life?

Date: 2006/05/03 16:00:33, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
if they vote for your topic, then I'll be forced to deliver

The way you worded it it sounds like you would be forced to deliver a debate, not a model...

Date: 2006/05/03 17:24:11, Link
Author: Ved
The "radical homosexual agenda" promotes AIDS and Catholic Church rapes? ???

Date: 2006/05/04 17:26:31, Link
Author: Ved
When egg meets sperm, not only has a new human life begun, but it also immediately begins to age.  If this happens here in the good old U.S. of A., not only is the new human an American citizen, but it must file an income tax return before April 15. But... only after this taxpayer imbeds itself in the uterine wall is it required to make contributions to social security.

Date: 2006/05/04 17:48:52, Link
Author: Ved
Hi afdave ;)

Well, God made us right after all the other animals, and we share a lot of the same characteristics with them... Do you think the people who wrote Genesis knew exactly how God made all the animals, or us, out of dirt? They only write a sentence or two. How did God do it?

Date: 2006/05/08 04:08:58, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations'

We killed them. Them as in Neanderthals.

Date: 2006/05/08 04:17:00, Link
Author: Ved
Oops, I should have read farther, I see the thread's already been Godwined. Sorry, you lose afdave!

Date: 2006/05/08 05:12:23, Link
Author: Ved
More on Koko:
Quote
Koko has a great sense of humour. When asked the colour of her white towel over and over again, she eventually got bored and signed the word ‘red’. When asked again, she replied ‘red’ twice more! Then she carefully picked a piece of red thread off the towel and laughed, saying ‘red’ again.

Date: 2006/05/08 15:46:40, Link
Author: Ved
[QUOTE="Paul Flocken"]The problem is not that chimps, and the animal kingdom in general, is so far behind.  It is that you are so completely unknowing of just how capable chimps really are and that you are full of species superiority about how far advanced humans really are. [/QUOTE]

Exactly Paul. Individuals of our species get a HUGE leg up on our planet by being immersed in the current incarnation of human culture of whatever location they happen to be born. Where would they be if they were born into the wild and cared for by animals, or by parents that had no concept of language, and if they had no contact with anything manmade? That recent thread that touched on the subject of feral children leads me to think that they wouldn't fare very well. The extremely rare child that is raised by animals imprints upon their adoptive parents, crawling like dogs, or imitating chickens. We spend years with our families and in schools learning just the basics about the world and how to interact with it.

Seeing the capabilies of Koko, given the advantage of being taught an already established, open ended language that promotes structured thought, leaves me quite awestruck at how smart and similar to us gorillas are. Whoever said that these ape societies are the 'Hominid Civilizations' afdave is looking for is right. It just goes to show what a good ecological niche it is that we used to share. There's plenty of room in the jungle for apes.


edit: OK i give up, how in the world wide web do you make a Quote BY someone on this board. You see what a wrote, if that's not it I have no idea...

Date: 2006/05/09 07:44:41, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
DARWINISM:

No one here is defending these as "main points" of "Darwinism" as a "world view". Anyone who thinks we are is an idiot or a liar. This is a straw man, and several people just got done explaining why none of these points are true.

Survival of the fittest- is one tiny cog in mechanism of evolution, and is no excuse for human behavior. If I were to shoot you in the face and say "ahh well, too bad afdave, survival of the fittest, you know!" there is no doubt that I have committed a moral atrocity.

Humans are animals- nothing more- Humans are animals, yes? Do you disagree? Isn't it obvious that we are a little bit "more" than just the average animal? We've done some pretty amazing things, gone to the moon, split atoms, pondered the meaning of the universe...

No God required-I'm not accountable to anyone but myself- This is complete bull. Even if there just happens to be no God, does that mean I'm not accountable for my actions? Would your family not care that I shot you in the face?



Quote
CHRISTIANITY (American Protestantism specifically):

You may be shocked to learn that as an athiest I don't have a problem living by most of the "major points" you purport to be important to the Christian "world view".

God created mankind in His image- Here's the only big one, the way I understand it, mankind made God in our image, and many aspire to be more like him and less like wild animals straight from the jungle.

All humans are created equal- I have no problem with giving all humans the benefit of the doubt and treating them as equals.

Don't kill, don't steal, etc.- I don't do any of that stuff. Funny, seems like those things are wrong.

Treat others as you would have them treat you- Jesus heard of the Golden Rule, huh? Yeah, I agree that's a good rule of thumb.

Love one another- Cool, I love my homies, my family...

Turn the other cheek- Most times, sure. Sometimes duck.

Bless your enemies- Our supposed enemies at the moment are the terrorists. I don't agree with our present military policy.

If your enemy is thirsty, give him a drink- Lots of thirsty people over in Iraq, I agree could use some help.

Do not repay evil for evil- Better to take the high road, sounds good. Revenge is over-rated and dangerous.

Date: 2006/05/09 10:16:09, Link
Author: Ved
Don't forget Singapore

Date: 2006/05/09 11:27:59, Link
Author: Ved
Guinea pigs ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Eating Their Own Young, of course!

sir_toejam, projection and how! I think it's the only way a person can cope with making those kind of arguments...

Date: 2006/05/12 08:01:26, Link
Author: Ved
Poor afdave's faith in God is so weak that it is completely dashed upon accepting common descent.

Date: 2006/05/13 04:37:58, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)

Ah hahahahahahahaha! Yeah, if you're comparing that one little piece of DNA, and not the other ~99% of the evidence! Thanks for the belly laughs this morning!

Date: 2006/05/13 16:33:42, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ May 13 2006,21:58)
Quote

It's not even necessarily true on that 'one little piece of DNA'. Whats the sequence similarity for the GLOs? We just know in this discussion that two are broken. It's absolutely idiotic to use this single fact to infer things about common descent.

Steve!  My buddy!  You and I agree on something ... I KNEW it would happen sooner or later.

That's what I've been trying to say ... Dr. Max's article on T.O. uses this as evidence of common descent for apes and humans.  My point has been all along that this assertion is not warranted with just this little bit of knowledge that we have.

afdave, that's just retarded! And you're quote mining. steve is talking about that so called 36% similarity being poor evidence of our relatedness to rats. That might be a good number for a presidential approval rating now-a-days, but it's got nothing on our well documented overall DNA similarity to chimpanzees, not to mention the obviously plaigerized vitamin C error which is incredibly strong evidence of common descent.

Date: 2006/05/15 04:16:13, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But it is also exactly what we would expect if the Bible were true, because it speaks of a "Curse"

That's some omnibenevolent god you've got there. It's no wonder I only really ever use his "name" as profanity myself. Your God can smeg off.

Date: 2006/05/15 10:57:10, Link
Author: Ved
I dunno, but I liked that one episode where Mohammed gave Peter a salmon helmet.

Date: 2006/05/15 11:01:45, Link
Author: Ved
Actually that was South Park, but! One of the best things on that South Park was one random character's defense of Family Guy: "Hey, I like that show, at least it isn't preachy and up it's own ass with messages!"

Date: 2006/05/15 11:22:08, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
a mistake was copied identically from the common ancestor to apes and also to humans.

What we're looking for, to confirm common descent is that yes, that exact mistake was copied, and also that other mistakes have accumulated independently since the split.

You know, mutations, selection, evolution...

Date: 2006/05/16 06:02:28, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
...design 1000 or so distinct, original "kinds" and "plant them" here on earth...

You're thinking way, way too small Dave. There are approximately two and a half million descibed species. If they started from a thousand "kinds", there would need to be a whole heck of a lot of "positive", "upwards" evolution in order for them to exist.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:49:36, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
If you had 5 billion TIMES 5 billion years, it would still not be a plausible story to me, the odds are so staggeringly small for life as we see it to come into existence and develop the way evolutionists say it developed.

That's a shame Dave. Considering that the earliest life forms on earth probably reproduced "5 billion" times faster than us and outnumbered our current population by "5 billion" times, a whole heck of a lot of evolution could occur in just 5 billion years.

Date: 2006/05/16 15:33:11, Link
Author: Ved
Interestingly enough, the existence of creatures such as that flying monkey would seriously undermine the credibility of the Theory of Evolution- it would be the creationist talking point from the moment it was discovered. It's just too bad that afdave doesn't recognize the fact that since God should in theory be able to create any configuration of creature that pops into his oh so grand and imaginative intelligent  human-like mind, the fact that we can't find any creatures that don't fit on the tree of life, that don't have any evidence of more primitive ancestors, speaks volumes about the reality of common descent.

Date: 2006/05/18 15:19:44, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (siretoejam @ on the last page, hey this is a fun place to type)
this got me thinking...

90% of AF personal are NOT pilots.  Why did we conclude Dave ever flew a plane again?

did he say he was a pilot somewhere?  Did I miss that?

Tsk tsk Sir Toe. Yes, Dave is a pilot. I know it was probably easy to miss in the mess of the last 35 combined pages of Dave topics, but yeah he really is a smart capable guy. You are, Dave. Honestly I think it's pretty xxxx cool that you were a navy pilot. That's a unique experience that I've fantasized about many times.

The problem is not with intelligence at all, it doesn't matter how smart or stupid you are, you're always smart enough to outwit yourself.

Date: 2006/05/18 15:39:50, Link
Author: Ved
Why was I thinking navy? Must be Air Force. I swore I saw a picture of him with a jet in an old link. At any rate, he does currently fly, he donates service with his plane to missionaries. My grandparents were missionaries in Ziare, so I, understand...    ???

Date: 2006/05/18 15:54:29, Link
Author: Ved

Date: 2006/05/18 16:42:32, Link
Author: Ved
That's all the story I've got. I'm not sure where you think I'm going with this. I only brought up the intelligence business because it seemed to me that some of the arguments recently were getting sloppy and basically just calling Dave stupid.(edit: though, the really funny ones were well worthwhile) I know we've been over the point before, but what point hasn't been beaten to death already in any of these afdave threads? Ah well. I only posted a pic that he posted on his blog...

Date: 2006/05/19 05:55:44, Link
Author: Ved
There are always people on the fence, somewhere. You're not very convincing though Dave, not to people who hang out here and have heard every single one of your canned arguments numerous times. If you'd listen for once, you might be able to figure out why your arguments are old and busted. We're open to new ideas though... got any?

I though apologetics were for religions. Evolution is not a religion. (what has it done that it needs to apologize for anyway, huh? :p )

Dave, if you want us to take you more seriously you're going to have to stop using religious terminology to describe people who understand the reality of evolution.

Date: 2006/05/19 06:33:33, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Faid @ a couple posts up, a few minutes ago)
BTW, I think that challenging people on their views in internet debates with money bets is kinda lame.

Especially for a self proclaimed Christian.

Date: 2006/05/19 07:42:56, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Lewis goes on to call this the Law of Human Nature and he argues that this Law has been in operation throughout all of human history in every culture whether or not that culture had some sort of 'holy book' or not.

Ding ding ding ding ding!

Date: 2006/05/19 09:41:43, Link
Author: Ved
So, God doesn't mind if you engage in a little wicked gambling as long as you believe that He made us the way those ancient priests say He did?

Date: 2006/05/20 10:47:23, Link
Author: Ved
OK, I just started reading the article. I got to the part where they mention a quite accomplished serial killer... let me guess, he's was an athiest?

Date: 2006/05/20 11:27:54, Link
Author: Ved
HA!

If Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, the remorseless killer of hundreds, was an athiest, it's odd that he sent his kids to Catholic school.

Thanks norm, that article makes me want to say hurtful things about religion!  :(  :angry:  :p  :)

Date: 2006/05/20 12:11:55, Link
Author: Ved
As soon as I saw your current avatar my choice was obvious:

sir_taojam

Date: 2006/05/21 07:49:14, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Where we differ is in the evolutionist idea that everything shares one common ancestor

We tell the creationists that this one ancestor is what they should call the "kind kind!" That God guy wouldn't have to be too smart to see that that's the easiest way to make "kinds!" :p

Date: 2006/05/21 09:25:01, Link
Author: Ved
No new information has been added to languages since the original "language kinds" were created by G at Babel, right? Just bad mutations and loss of information.

/cough cough choke

Date: 2006/05/22 04:52:56, Link
Author: Ved
This quote is just brilliantly funny. Look at these two sentences together. Thanks for making my morning, Dave!
 
Quote (afdave @ , )
Truly open minded people say, "there are things I do not understand, but let me try to understand as much as I can, and I will not rule out any possibilities until I have solid evidence to do so."  The notion of an Intelligent Designer is the only plausible explanation for the phenomena we find in the universe.[emphasis Dave's]

Date: 2006/05/22 13:36:29, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (paley @ ,)
Autonomous human reasoning is worthless as a tool to come to any conclusions about anything.

Ehhhhhhhhh, whatta you know?  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/05/23 08:06:11, Link
Author: Ved
Don't ask Dave about fossil fuels. He knows that because coal can be made in a relatively short amount of time, that all of it had to have been formed that way.

Hey, we make diamonds in factories all the time. All the ones we dig out of the ground must have been formed in a short amount of time too.

:(

Date: 2006/05/24 05:53:38, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Well, Renier, I cannot say for sure since I was not there (as Ken Ham likes to say)

You know what really gets my goat? It's that "argument" that Ken Ham uses. "Were the scientists there in the beginning? NO! God was there, He knows what happened."

This argument is pure BS. Here's why. Let's just go ahead and hand it to Ham, and say that he's right, that God was there in the beginning, and of course, he knows better than modern scientists how the universe, and the earth, and mankind were "created" because He witnessed it. This would be some excellent information to get our hands on, indeed. The only problem is with the fucking priests who say they know what God knows. Bull. I don't buy it for a second. For each of the 6 billion people on the planet there is a different opinion of what God is. And there is no credible evidence of Him ever communicating with anyone.

If Ken Ham could persuade God Himself to debate the scientists in any forum, I might think that He had a chance of beating the scientists. But, it's not God that scientists are arguing with, it's assclown priests like Ham.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:23:04, Link
Author: Ved
Dave, the problem with your statement about Portugese is that it was just too simplistic.

You said that Portugese is a mix between Spanish and French. In other words, you're saying that the entire definition of Portugese is that it is a combination of those two neighboring languages, because you didn't say that there was anything else to it. You could have added "among other things" to your statement, and it would have done alot to get yourself off the hook you're on now.

Now, you may be a little bit correct, in that there are a few ways in which this is statement is true.

The problem is, others here were able to come up with dozens of ways in which your statement is not true.

So, if your statement was just a little bit true and a whole lot untrue, which would be a better way of describing your statement: true, or false?

Date: 2006/05/24 09:46:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Oh, never mind.

Sorry Arden. I counldn't figure out how to say it any better. I hope the rest of my point is somewhat correct...

Anyway, if Dave didn't want any more of that topic in this thread, he shouldn't have written a rebuttal argument to it 2 pages back.

Date: 2006/05/26 12:54:21, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
That's because the sun really does rise and set just like the Bible says.

What is it exactly, that raises and lowers the sun in the sky?

 
Quote
How can people be so immoral and stupid?!

Obviously we like doing stuff like killing babies. Even if this were true, it's interesting that apparently such an act would be morally equivalent, in your eyes, to not worshipping God.

Date: 2006/05/27 05:50:14, Link
Author: Ved
You're acting retarded again dave.

Dave, you referred to "macroevolution" as "[eyes appearing where there were no eyes before, and wings appearing where there were no wings before]"

How the F is bacteria developing anti-biotic resistance anywhere near this ballpark???

Date: 2006/05/27 19:12:05, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Looking at crocodiles and great whites, these two have million years of stasis between them. [...] they do not evolve because they don't need to. So how is this possible?

It is very interesting. My layman thoughts: Do we know that those two species haven't evolved at all in millions of years? They could have gained functions that we can't tell are lacking from fossil evidence. The shape and proportions of a great white are very ideal for the ecological niche they occupy. Large groups of these animals that stay in that niche and interbreed will stabilize their form in that ideal shape which we recognize as being around for a long time. Over time small groups that wander into other niches and become isolated will diverge from being great whites. Many species could have evolved from the great white ancestor. Would any of you experts agree?

Date: 2006/05/28 06:40:24, Link
Author: Ved
You can build that house with that randomizing molecular mechanism hammer, but if the result is not weatherproof or otherwise not viable, that particular house is not going to be attempted to be built again. Whatever is happening on the molecular level, you can't ignore the organism level feedback loop.

Date: 2006/05/28 07:36:56, Link
Author: Ved
Dave, I'm only mildly interested in your delusional alternative-to-reality history, but just for argument's sake, if what you say were true, it raises some questions. Adam wrote down God's dictation on stone tablets. Later, Cain and Abel were born. What did Adam use to teach his sons how to read and write? Did they go out to a quarry and make stone tablets to do lessons on? Did they have to do this generation after generation to teach the written language? If they didn't make more early on, how many people could learn to write from just one set of tablets? What kind of stone do you think they used? Marble? Limestone?

Date: 2006/05/28 10:11:28, Link
Author: Ved
(what's up with this thread? Since PuckSR posted on May 28 2006,15:16, posts only show up in the reply page and on the ATBC page, not in the thread) -edit: page 30 is showing up now...

Dave, What did Adam use to write down God's words in stone? A hammer and chisel?

Date: 2006/05/28 10:17:18, Link
Author: Ved
I just had that happen. Posting in the thread seems to fix it.  :D Ahh, I love computers. If something doesn't work just bang on it a bit with your fist or a sonic screwdriver...

Date: 2006/05/29 08:13:45, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
It is also quite believable that there were many corrupted versions of this history that were not passed down so scrupulously


State Trooper God and his partner Satan pull over a suspicous car on I-95. As they so often do, he and his partner interview the two passengers separately. The two then meet back at the patrol car to determine how to proceed. Satan tells God that the passenger told him he was on his way to meet Mohammed and Allah and recieve his reward of 70 virgins. God says "These jokers are lying, they can't keep their story straight. The white dude told me he's on his way to meet Jesus in Heaven"

The pair determine they have probable cause, pop the trunk and find that it's full of fertilizer. Satan starts sharpening his claws when God says "I got this one" and throws the pair into the sun. Satan laughs and says "How far through eternity did that guy think he could make 70 virgins last??"


(sorry my avatar's giving you trouble BWE  :(  maybe I should rehost it or publish it to a gif. It's not like I've made the flash game of life interactive there... yet)

Date: 2006/05/29 08:53:11, Link
Author: Ved
afdave, thanks for the reply. You may have missed my other little question which gets at why I was asking about the stone tablets, which was: what did Adam use to carve the tablets, a hammer and chisel? A steel hammer and chisel? A copper one? Even if God taught Adam all about metallurgy, Adam would still need to make all the tools he would need to make the tools to make a hammer and chisel. Why can't we find Adam's tools? The earliest metal tools we can find are copper. Did God only mention copper to Adam? And I'm curious about the many stone tablets that you say have been found. I don't know which ones you're referring to or why they are important evidence for your claims. Can you elaborate?

More questions. Where in the Bible does it say that God told Adam much detail about anything like your example of metallurgy. Also, WHEN did God do this? Before A+E ate the apple everything was perfect, right? God of course told Adam about himself and about how He made Adam, but how much about the rest of creation did He reveal at that time? He wouldn't have told Adam how to make hammers and chisels before they needed clothes would he? Then, after the pair disobeyed him and learned right from wrong, and God got angry and cursed them and all creation and cast them from the Garden of Eden, did God sit down and tell Adam how to make the clothes he would need, and how to make the hammers and chisels he would need to teach the children that he now would have to have how to read? Do you see where I'm going with this? Adam didn't need to know much of anything besides "God is awesome" before the fall, and after the fall, why would God be so generous as to then tell Adam all the stuff he'd need to know?

If you've got THE TRUTH, I don't want any speculation, just so stories, fairy tales, etc.  :p

Date: 2006/05/30 08:48:40, Link
Author: Ved
Congrats man. Anything fishy is good. Here's a pic of my babies.

Date: 2006/05/30 11:32:24, Link
Author: Ved
Good eye! Yep that's a PJ cardinal, there's not too much confusion there, and you nailed the rabbitfish as doliatus but those rabbitfish common names are all over the place. I think it's because there are so many varieties of rabbitfish that have wild coloration, and there are probably many hybrids out there. What's a species, anyway? Hehe!

Yeah, I'm going for a natural tank. A true reef tank. So far so good, except for one extreme setback (36 hour power outage > temp drop > messy system crash) a year or 2 ago. I've had this 75 gallon tank running for 5 years. Every time I have a bit of spare money in my pocket I start dreaming of upgrading to a 180 gallon, but i have to remind myself that 600 bucks for the tank is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the equipment, not to mention the operating cost of more lights and pumps. Plus, I want to make my 75 as awesome as possible before I upgrade, and there's still plenty of room for growth.

I started with a little bit of rock and crushed coral, wet/dry sump, no skimmer, and 8 damsels that the fish store said I needed to cycle the tank... right. I had most of my inverts slowly die off in the first few months because I didn't realize my tap water was so "dirty." I changed to a full-blown RODI unit for all water replacement. I added lots of live rock and corals bought from established tanks. I added a deep fine sand bed only to have it become fully saturated with junk after the crash and I had to get rid of it. I've made the transition to a bare-bottom tank: no sand. I also replaced the wet-dry sump with a larger refugium sump, and most recently I added a giant skimmer rated for 400 gallons that is working great.

Currently all the circulation in the tank is provided through two Carlson (autosyphon) surge containers, one big enough to add rocks and light for another refuge. This makes some nice natural random wave action.

The pic above is shortly after I got the rabbitfish. You can see how I have good coralline algae growth on the back wall, but the rocks look pale with patches of hair algae. This is because the rabbitfish had just completely decimated the macro algaes I had allowed to dominate the tank after the crash.

I'm also now feeding live phytoplankton and I'm happy to say that the small-polyp stony coral colonies that had lost color before are now gaining it back. I rarely test many water parameters, I watch the critters, so this is a good indicator.

Thanks for the photo tips. I do use digital. Mostly autofocus and default settings... I'll have to try to ISO thing, cause I've got lots of pictures where the middle of a fish is in focus and the head and tail aren't!

Hope you like reading about my tank, I could go on all day! Cheers!

Date: 2006/05/30 16:32:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (formlessandvoid @ UD, Think of atheists like the mafia and ID as cutting into their profits)
passion and honesty belong to nonmaterialistic categories. If your worldview is materialistic, you cannot meaningfully speak of nonmaterialistic things — they are nonexistent in that worldview.

If you don't have at least one foot on the ground it's hard to walk out your front door.

Date: 2006/05/31 04:08:22, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Meanwhile, the modern synthesis gets a free pass even when science luminaries like Richard Dawkins freely admit it has religious implications - “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Davetard1, you might have had something if Dawkins had said “Evolution made it possible to be an spiritually fulfilled atheist.” But he didn't.

Date: 2006/05/31 18:45:14, Link
Author: Ved
That's an interesting bit of intelligent design. Co-opting a Darwin Doll and vise.

(ten seconds later) It's hard to imagine either one could exist without the other.

Date: 2006/06/01 07:34:17, Link
Author: Ved
Man, those last few "arguments" were some of the dumbest things I've ever read!

I know there's more than a few of us that haven't given up "conversing" with Dave, it's tough competition here clamoring for tard time...

But Dave, take a look at my questions buried at the bottom of page 31. They are Biblical in nature, so I thought you might like answering them.

Date: 2006/06/01 10:49:17, Link
Author: Ved
Can we talk about the flood yet Dave? Let me know when I can pull this out:
   
Quote (http://www.inu.net/skeptic/flood.html @ ,)
The Ark, so decreed that great naval architect in the sky, was to be built entirely of Gopher wood, and its dimensions were to be 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits height (Gen. 6:14-15.) Although the perceived length of a cubit may vary4, based on an average length of 18 inches, that translates into 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet. This presented our farmer-turned-ship-builder with a daunting problem because the Ark would have broken apart with the first wave. According to Robert A. Moore (Creation/Evolution XI, vol 4, no. 1, pages. 4-5) there is an upper limit, in the region of 300 feet, on the length of a wooden ship. Beyond this a wooden ship is subjected to great stress and the hull cannot be maintained watertight. This is the major reason why the naval industry turned from wood construction to iron and steel in the 1850s. In that regard, the largest wooden ship ever built, the six-masted schooner U.S.S. Wyoming, measured 329 feet in overall length. It required diagonal iron strapping for support and leaked so badly that it had to be pumped constantly. It was declared unseaworthy and too long for wood construction. Yet the ark was deemed to be over 100 feet longer.

Just an interesting tidbit. Though, I guess if God is performing miracles for you it doesn't matter how flimsy your ship is.

Noah should have used Pykrete.

Date: 2006/06/01 12:32:17, Link
Author: Ved
But if some dude like Flew is merely a deist, afdave will crow up and down about it!

Date: 2006/06/01 13:30:48, Link
Author: Ved
Yeah, a SCUBA diver would never phrase a sentence like that.

1000 feet can be done with a rebreather, but you have to be pretty much batshiat insane.

A mile down and ambient pressure would be about the same as inside a full cylendar.

Heck, below 15 feet too MUCH oxygen can kill you!


I love diving!

Date: 2006/06/02 12:25:52, Link
Author: Ved
Wow, wow, wow! Oh man Ichthy, that's cool looking. I haven't given much thought to ice diving yet. I've mostly pictured ice diving in freshwater where there's not nearly the biodiversity of the mother ocean. I'm only fairly recently qualified for open water, and I mostly look forward to more trips to tropical reefs. I have some attraction to caves, and anticipate training to swim them some day, but the most accesible caves are also freshwater. I hadn't thought of ice diving in the ocean!

The only thing I know about ice diving is that you shouldn't breathe your reg before you get in the water if the air is below freezing. You need the um, warmth of the water to keep the reg from freezing solid!

Date: 2006/06/04 17:18:21, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (paley @ ,)
Deep space probes?--My arse! Yes, the images have gotten sharpe[r] since the crude clay models used in the whole moon landing shoot, but its still the same charade!

Crude clay models? Of the moon landings? They really simulated that moon dust well, the way when it's kicked up it arcs in a parabola, slowly, back to the surface. It doesn't swirl around in a cloud.

I know your model "doesn't depend on it" but I've been curious about your view of our accomplishments in rocketry since I joined here last year. So you believe that there have been no moon landings. And no deep space probes, at all?

What about satellites? You do believe people when they tell you we've sent man made satellites into orbit, don't you?

In a related thought, do you believe the earth has been struck by objects from say, beyond the moon? Do you think it's impossible that we could send a rocket up the reverse path of a meteor? Where's the cut off?

Date: 2006/06/04 17:46:37, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
the liberal evolutionists who have the power in our modern world

What liberal evolutionists are those? Bush? The Republican Congress? Or are you referring to another part of the world... ?

 
Quote
All the inquisitors in the evolutionist religion must do is accuse a suspect of being "mentally ill"--a charge against which it is impossible to defend oneself--and its off to the Cuckoo's nest.

Is there a wood panel station wagon circling your block or something? All right guys. Who ordered Paley to be locked up? I know we burned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a long time ago, but give the guy a break, he's not so bad... Wisp and let wisp?

Date: 2006/06/05 05:34:30, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (paley @ from source,)
Foucault came to enjoy imagining “suicide festivals”
 
Quote (paley @ ,)
I have no sympathy for those who unrepentantly traffic in death.

Hmm so did Foucault actually go beyond imagining these events and actually organize them? Huh???

I enjoy imagining all surviving Apollo astronauts that have walked on the moon lining up to slap Paley in the face.

Hey Dave, did you know that Paley doesn't recognize the fact that we've been to the moon, or that we've sent probes to other planets? How do you feel about that?

Date: 2006/06/05 08:30:36, Link
Author: Ved
Was the Tower of Babel incident before or after the Flood?

Date: 2006/06/07 02:31:59, Link
Author: Ved
***********************************************

Quote
Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish among other things ...  
Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish among other things ...  
Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish among other things ...


I can't believe Dave is still talking about Portuguese!! I can't believe he took my suggestion and ran with it so literally. Dave, you ass.

I can't find my exact quote now because this thread is 47 stupid pages long, but I was offering Dave a rough suggestion when I said this:

"If you said something like Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish among other things it would go a long way towards helping you out."

I did not say tacking my exact phrase onto your original stupid hypothesis would win you the argument.

This was intended to point out that Portuguese is defined by much more than French and Spanish influences. (which is a much better way to say it)

***********************************************

Date: 2006/06/07 15:34:35, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 06 2006,08:31)
why do you think the claymation "moon dust" has any more basis in reality?

Well Ghost, it's just that I've never seen dust modeled with clay, in stop motion (that's how they do claymation, right?) Not to mention in 3D.

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 07 2006,21:05)
How about the mirrors placed on the moon for distance measurements?

That's one, simple, hard to ignore piece of evidence right there. Lasers don't bounce off of just anything. How is it possible to receive a return signal from the Sea of Tranquility?

I wish I had access to a total station again. Is a modern surveying total station strong enough to get a signal back from the moon?

Date: 2006/06/07 16:05:10, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,21:07)
Well, I hope at least some of the people here know who that quote is from!

"I am intrigued by your theory of a donut shaped universe, Homer. I might have to steal it."

Stephen Hawking


"How many gazebos do you she-males need?"

Clancey Wiggum


Classic!

Date: 2006/06/07 16:25:52, Link
Author: Ved
"Passion" was better. Mel Gibson is a genius.

I haven't seen either film.

Date: 2006/06/10 05:18:34, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But to each his own I guess.  Who am I to mess with a person's beliefs no matter how weird they are?

That's rich, Dave. If you're going to charaterize our "beliefs" at least get them right!
 
Quote
evolutionists get very excited about Humans being a hair closer to gorillas than Gorillas are to chimps.  1/2% closer.  Pretty exciting stuff, to be sure!  Never mind all those HUGE differences ... we're 98% similar!  Let's give 'em minority status and voting rights!  Yippeee!

First, it's "humans are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas", you dolt!

Second, where do you get the "let's give them voting rights" bit from? Who believes that?

Third, your "excellent evidence" wasn't convincing to me either, about anything.

Date: 2006/06/10 05:33:42, Link
Author: Ved
Fourthly, I didn't learn anything interesting in the slightest from Dave either, except from a psychological case study of a modern IDist. Contrast this with the volumes of interesting things I've gleaned from pretty much everyone else. Thanks everyone. This place has gotten a lot cooler in the last few months.

(it is obvious, Dave. How could you get it wrong? Bad memory. Too much spouting off about zircons and Helium diffusion and special pleading, and all the other hoops you're jumping through. Too much typing to remember what was said.)

Date: 2006/06/10 07:11:02, Link
Author: Ved
Stephen Elliott, it was easy to miss in the 100 pages of dave threads, but I believe Rilke is referring to the brief discussion of the possibility of considering what he teaches children to be a form of abuse.

While I could agree that it is a form of abuse, I don't think it's in the same realm as what is usually implied when calling someone a child abuser.

Therefore, I wish she'd quit doing it (too). There's plenty of other fodder for comebacks to dave.

Date: 2006/06/10 16:45:01, Link
Author: Ved
Dave, I double-dog dare you to go ask Dembski if he thinks common descent happened.

There's a lot of room for freaks in your big tent!

Date: 2006/06/12 11:49:09, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Do we have 100 million Americans wandering around dismissing any number of years they hear that's more than six or seven thousand?

IMO, yes. I think these people basically just cringe when they hear stuff like that, picture the big Evilution Cult Religion as the enemy, and if anything it just makes them cling that much more to their comforting faith.

There is probably a higher percentage of those people in that midwestern state, but, just an idea, how many of the people on the actual train do you think were from that state, or other midwestern states?

I think people like afdave see the world inside out. As much as they accuse humanists of making themselves into gods, so does their little world revolve completely around themselves as the most special of all creations in the universe. They see God creating us in "his" image. We see all the gods that man has created in our image.

I've followed all the dave threads all the way through. I've only skipped a few paragraphs and links here and there. To continue my inside out analogy, I've seen dave, a few times, come close to being able to see in the other direction. One in particular was the beginning of the conversation on the shared vitamin-C error. At first, I thought I could see that dave understood the plaigerism analogy perfectly, and it seemed like he got excited about it in a scientifically inquisitive way, briefly. Then, of course, as started he started getting more confused about the not-so-black-and-white and simplistic realty of the way that error can actually be seen through the clutter of other things happening (which all help to paint the broad picture perfectly logically), he got lost and went back to clinging to his bible. Idolator!  :p

I've been doing some experimenting with 3d flash animation and I was picturing dave's view of the world as he approaches being able to see the other side as what happens when I move an object so close to the "camera" that part of the object goes inside it. With that very short focal length and the object spread between the two sides of the lens it gets very wierd.

Hmm... maybe a better analogy would be that dave's looking at a stereogram. Dave's got a bible in each hand held out before him. He's focused so hard on them that his eyes have crossed so he can see one book. Or is that three... trinity!

Date: 2006/06/12 12:46:28, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 12 2006,13:30)
Just so we get this straight, are you proposing that some kind of meeting took place where it was decided that science would say the earth was a particular age just to prove evolution. Presumably you think that science is holding up evolution to disprove God?

Also, dave, did you look at this link someone posted a while back? Thank you whoever posted it:

History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth

It's by an Evangelical Christan geologist, and it is a very interesting read. It clearly shows in great detail the gradual historic change in (especially, Christian) mainstream geology.

Date: 2006/06/13 07:30:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
Chris Hyland wrote "So no one thought the earth was old before the theory of evolution did they?"

Oh no.  I'm sure many people throughout history have thought the earth was old.  But my focus is on modern times.  Prior to Darwin, the majority of scientists were YECs and Catastrophists.  My focus is on this time period up until the present day.  I am not sure who came up with the number 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth.  I would like to find out.

Dave, did you happen to read the link I re-posted on the last page? It is a very long article, but the first part of it deals with Christians following the evidence away from Noah's Flood Geology, before Darwin, as well as after.

Date: 2006/06/13 08:15:08, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (improvius @ June 13 2006,13:51)
Quote (afdave) "It is quite likely to me that gorillas and chimps did have a common ancestor."

So what, exactly, is your basis for that statement?

And why the heck would he argue this? Chimps are 40% closer to Humans than they are to Gorillas. (is that the right phrasing?) And yet in his mind it's impossible that Chimps and Humans shared an ancestor!

Date: 2006/06/13 08:22:35, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (stephenWells @ June 13 2006,13:52)
He even doesn't know that, until radioactive dating, people were thinking in terms of hundreds of millions of years, and the idea of a billions-of-years-old earth was a surprise to most everyone, geologist and biologist alike.

Plus, how does a 4.5 billion year old earth really impact biology? Not much unless you're studying the very beginnings of life, and that only happens in the area before 550 million years ago. If evolution only needs 600 million years, why would biologists need to argue for 4.5 billion???
dave... ?

Date: 2006/06/13 08:47:19, Link
Author: Ved
Thanks jeannot, I had a feeling I was cutting the beginnings off a tad short.

Date: 2006/06/13 08:55:04, Link
Author: Ved
Every zero we add makes you and your god's tiny universe appear ten times smaller!

Date: 2006/06/13 09:29:51, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ June 13 2006,14:48)
Just look at them, Ved.  They [Chimps and Gorillas] are hairy all over, have hand-like feet, are good at climbing, have funky lips and beetle-brows, make animal sounds, both live in zoos, etc. etc.  Think about how silly it sounds to ask a question like you just asked.

   
Quote
If you compare humans and chimps, on the other hand, the differences are very great.  Do you want me to go through those with you?

Not really, unless you want to define what a soul is or what consciousness is, and why we have them and other animals don't. (As well as tool usage, emotions, senses of empathy or humor, etc...)

I'm not arguing that Chimps and Gorillas aren't related. I'm wondering why you do think that they could be, and yet not have Humans related to both- considering that we just showed you genetically that Humans are more closely related to Chimps than Chimps are to Gorillas.

By the way "they both live in zoos" = hilarious!

Date: 2006/06/13 10:21:50, Link
Author: Ved
"So what, exactly, is your basis for that statement?" was asked by improvius, by the way. I was just tagging along  :)

Date: 2006/06/13 12:42:55, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Draw a cartoon or something!

Or tell us more about the close-by part of the universe. We haven't sent probes to other planets (for some reason), we haven't been to the moon (for some reason), have we put up satellites? Is our moon a satellite?

Date: 2006/06/14 03:38:35, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
So I guess you're stuck with the fact that there have been, in fact, interplanetary unmanned voyages to various planets. Otherwise, this whole thread will rapidly degenerate into farce. Feel free to dispute the moon landings, mars exploration, etc.—just not on this thread.

Well, dang. I've wanted to hear about Paley's impenetrable solar system since, oh, October. Can we start another thread unrelated to this one about it? Paley can use it as a platform to rail on liberals and evolutionists, and I can ask him why he hates America and white people. ... and laugh and laugh.

Date: 2006/06/14 09:06:12, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
We're a representative democracy; it could happen that we vote in a government of Muslims.  Are you quite sure that you want the government in the religion business?

Ha! Or even Catholics??!!!! I can just see dave shuddering at the thought. Heck we've even had a Catholic Pres. Close one, davey!

Date: 2006/06/16 11:49:48, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 05 2006,21:06)
nice catch, Steve.

Your workaround does the trick every time I've run across the issue so far.

Yes, nice detective work!

Also, in case anyone hasn't figured it out, a one click solution is to just hit "add reply" and the missing posts show up, though in reverse order.

Steve, is there any correlation between the length of a thread and this error? It seems like it doesn't happen on short, non-trolly threads. And, if so, maybe the number of posts that cause the error is a clue to what is causing the error in the first place...

Date: 2006/06/16 12:55:55, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Probably tv.

I believe that wonderful man Mr. Colbert said that recently, no? Though I'd be surprised if he was the originator...

 
Quote
BTW...God apologized for AFDave.
He told me that when trying to plan a final product 300 trillion years ago...sometimes it winds up flawed.

LOL indeed. Tell Him I understand. HE can't be responsible for the things people do with their free will.

Date: 2006/06/17 00:19:58, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2006,03:43)
hey, it's Gawp's model, but I don't see any reason why it can't spin in a geocentric model.

Right, it seems like there are any number of equally rediculous arrangements that could be called geocentric. We have no idea what Paley's is. Though, I'm pretty sure he did say the earth doesn't spin. (but that's not a problem for his model) Remember his motivation for (allegedly?) believing this. The good book doesn't say anything about the earth moving around in the heavens or spinning, so obviously it doesn't.

For all we know, Paley's earth is shaped like his klien bottle. He never did tell us what the heck it was a 'model' of, did he?

Date: 2006/06/17 05:11:02, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
The level of hatred in this "holy war" is amazing and everyone should really sit back and take a breath.  A perfect example is the labeling of Dave as a child molester, what a stupid analogy.

See, I just knew that someone was going to read it that way.

No one said afdave was a child molester.

The term used was abuser. And, I, among other people, thought that that was taking it too far and we spoke up about it. Not that I didn't agree that afdave's brainwashing of children was abuse, but that it's not in the same league as kind of crimes associated with the use of the term "child abuser". Also, I would be reluctant to do anything about the abuse besides argue with Dave. It's sad to see, but it's his religion. He's doing it in his church.

It would be awesome if you could either provide evidence of  people here labeling afdave a child molester, or if not, you should retract your statement that we did such a thing.

Date: 2006/06/17 06:26:14, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (me @ ,)
See, I just knew that someone was going to read it that way.

I see I could have phrased that better. It's obvious that people will read it that way. I'm not surprised that the term "abuser" is being repeated as "molester" in a whisper-down-the-lane kind of way.

Date: 2006/06/17 06:45:53, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Forget for now the difference between this 50,000 year date and my 6000 year old hypothesis.  That is a separate issue, which I will explain to you later.

How do you not see that this 50,000 year result is a really big problem for your scenario that this coal is supposedly 50-350 million years old?


This is your hypothesis thread, afdave. Don't worry about our "problems" with carbon dating. Get to your problem of 50,000 year old coal.

Date: 2006/06/18 05:41:28, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
1) Faid really thinks his Portuguese argument is better than mine
2) Arden agrees
3) Both of them forget that I've had several people on this thread agree with me -- unprecedented! -- who ever hear of an ATBCer agreeing with a Creo!!

Agree with you, on what??? I've certainly never agreed with you. I don't remember anyone who has. Name one person who's agreed with any of your points for your hypothesis. Just because I take your personal claims about being a sucessful businessman and Air Force pilot at face value, doesn't mean I agree with you.

If you're referring to one of my posts, I was trying to help you understand that your original statement about Portuguese was hard to defend because it was so simplistic: That your original statement defined Portuguese as a mix of French and Spanish and nothing else!!!!

You don't get to add my (stupidly) suggested phrase "among other things" to your original statement and claim victory!

You never said "among other things" until I did.

Date: 2006/06/18 05:57:57, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
4) Arden has chided me about 'the proper way that an academic argues' and yet he says, '"Listen you *&%$, I'll tell you what, you *&%$^#, you're nothing but a stupid little &^%$%&!!!"  -- very academic, indeed!

Boy, I totally get it, Arden. I'm only a minor player here. With the flood of responses to afdave, it's taken a while for him to get to some words of mine to have his way with. I can clearly see how angry it makes a person feel to have his words raped by afdave. He is impervious to reason.

Do you guys remember the time when dave started counting points that he conceded? He got to one, then stopped. Now he just says "we've covered that"

Date: 2006/06/18 06:13:27, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
afdave wants a Young Earth ... afdave NEEDS a Young Earth.  He has found what he thinks is scientific confirmation of his Young Earth in radiometric dating.  And it is a bit tempting.  If one looks at nothing else, one would be tempted to trust it.  But therein lies the problem.  Multiple other lines of evidence are literally screaming out that the earth is old.

I totally agree with all of your projections afdave!

Date: 2006/06/18 06:17:07, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 18 2006,12:07)
Wasn't Larry Fafarman suffering some sort of mental problem? AFDave sounds as if he has the same one. The arguments are different, the blindness to being repeatedly defeated  is similar.

Larry had a helium problem too, remember? LOL

Date: 2006/06/19 06:18:34, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2006,12:00)
That's nothing compared to Dave saying a chart of 3 languages is MORE DETAILED than a chart of 6 languages (which contains all the data in the 3-language chart). Wow. Something sort of snapped when I read that.

Might want to sit down, Arden. Afdave is cornered. Now he has to stretch so far in order to support his position that he's becoming extremely difficult for a sane person to read.

Date: 2006/06/19 09:02:52, Link
Author: Ved
Afdave made a bet, BWE took him up on it, dave says he easily won the argument, and yet he hasn't tried to collect on the bet.

What's that tell ya?

Date: 2006/06/19 11:11:56, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But I'm curious, Bill: what do you think would happen if you performed the double-slit experiment using planets instead of photons or electrons?

LOL, well... couldn't Paley's klein bottle earth fit through both of the gaps at the same time?

(oh, and don't yell at me to say that's not the earth you're modelling, 'cause you haven't exactly said what it IS yet)

Date: 2006/06/25 05:59:40, Link
Author: Ved
Keep in mind, Dave, that if we were to accept that you've debunked C-14 dating (50,000 year old coal doesn't help you anymore than us), and dendrochronology, and whatever else, then that means that you also don't get to use those methods to date things for your arguments. What unequivocal evidence does that leave you with, Dave? An inscribed date on a clay tablet? "Adam - 3200BC" ? What methods could we use? Does the bible give solid dates?

Oh, and what year was Jesus born, by the way?

Date: 2006/06/25 14:05:10, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But where [scripture] speaks about the natural world, it is accurate

Accurate like pi = 3 and bats are fowl?

What a crock.

Date: 2006/06/26 04:29:08, Link
Author: Ved
incory- well, I for one sure did appreciate your detailed post about the history of the current understanding of the divergence of Humans, Chimps, and Gorillas. Thanks for the excellent read!

Dave's summary is the Disney movie version by comparison, firmly grounded in reality the same way as "The Bridge on the River Kwai" movie was, to put it mildly. I don't really blame him, I suppose. Unless he's going to start opening up his mind anytime soon, there's not much of a possible comeback to the kind of a knockout blow you dealt him.

Date: 2006/06/26 06:35:49, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Then we have goofballs claiming that the Bible is inaccurate because it says that PI=3 based on I Kings 7:23. [...]  Has anyone ever used round numbers before?

Excuse me, but the Bible doesn't even use just a "round number" for pi. If the authors knew the number to any precision at all they would have said 31 cubits, not 30.

You keep screaming that the Bible is the pinnacle of accuracy about pretty much everything. Yet here is a simple case where numbers were rounded to the nearest ten for no good reason. Besides, I don't think this passage is proof that the authors knew anything about the magic ratio of pi at all, otherwise they would have noted that it was an important number. What evidence do you that the authors knew pi, or that the builders of the pyramids knew pi? Anyone, including ancients, can make a perfect circle using a compass or a string. It doesn't mean that they had any appreciation of that golden ratio or that they had calculated it out to a even a few decimals.

Date: 2006/06/26 06:52:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
This is about as nonsensical as claiming that the Bible writers were geocentrists because it talks about the sun "rising" and "setting?" Has anyone ever heard of metaphors?

Wait, it's a metaphor??? Gosh, your amazingly accurate inerrant book has metaphors in it? Like the 6 day creation right? Oh, it all makes sense now. Now tell me, which passages are metaphors, and which passages are not? This is important in order to figure out what the REAL TRUTH is, because apparently God wasn't content to inspire a straightforward tome that any humorless truth seeker could figure out.

Speaking of metaphors, you should tell your buddy, Ghost of Paley that the rising and setting thing is just a metaphor. On his "Finest Geocentrism" thread, he's busy explaining to us how it's not.

Tell me Dave, you've had some stick time at 30,000 feet in some pretty impressive technology, do you take at face value the claims of Neil Armstrong that he walked on the moon? Paley would have you believe not. Where do you stand on the issue, Dave? Was Apollo 11 an American Tower of Babel incident that got swept under the rug?

Date: 2006/06/26 07:01:04, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
You get a figure for PI b/t 2.81 and 3.21.  Covers PI pretty well, now doesn't it?  

Come on, Ved.

Oh, Dave! That book of yours is sooooo acurate! I'm soooo impressed! ???

Poo. It doesn't even mention the existence of the ratio. Anyone with a rope can measure the diameter and circumference of an object and write it down. Feel free to explain to me that they did more than just that.

Date: 2006/06/26 10:01:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ regarding deadman,)
So immediately his mind goes to work and conjures up images of my dad as a rich plantation owner in a remote jungle, using and abusing the natives to do all his dirty work for him.  [...]  When my dad came along, he imagines, those poor natives were enslaved to haul water and pick cotton for my dad, while my dad sat on his veranda sipping tequila and enjoying the scenic views while beautiful native women fanned him.

Dave, whatever point you were trying to make about deadman's supposedly delusional fantasies is illustrated beautifully by this post of yours, only not the way you think it was.

I'd be willing to bet good money that thoughts such as these never crossed deadman's mind. In fact, I would bet that deadman recognizes some of the benefits that your father brought to these people. Wells are good. Schools are good. Modern medicine is good. But at what cost? Benefits of progress come at the expense of unique cultures. Oh, and dispelling belief in evil spirits is good... except that he didn't exactly do that last thing. He replaced one set of evil spirits with another. I assume your father told them they were going to "heck" if they didn't believe him, right?

Date: 2006/06/26 11:16:14, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.

And yet Dave's God only told Noah about the floodey parts, and only promised not to destroy the world with water again. Was God lying to to us by not mentioning the enormous tectonic and volcanic parts of his actions? Or is Dave making stuff up.

Maybe God was just dumbing things down for us again in his book: "The Christian Scriptures Consisting of the Jewish Scriptures Plus What is Commonly Called the New Testament, the Most Basic and Foundational Collection of Documents for all of Mankind's Activities on Planet Earth--From Scientific Endeavor to Family Activities to Government Structure: FOR DUMMIES"

They are popular books!

Date: 2006/06/26 12:34:09, Link
Author: Ved
This from a guy with a calvin & hobbes style pissing avatar.  :D  :D  :D

Is that a panda watering the grave of Darwin?



(To tell the truth there's a muppet poster up in our band's studio. Don't ask me tho, I didn't put it there...)

Date: 2006/06/27 08:52:44, Link
Author: Ved
HA! yeah, fire up Google Earth and punch in "tyre, lebanon"

Date: 2006/06/28 06:57:25, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Better to give it to you straight and have you thank me on your deathbed

It's been said before, but seriously Dave, fuck off with your deathbed crap. Take it outside. Don't confuse a fear of death any of us here may have, with a fear of anything that comes after it.

Here's how I want to go when it's my time. I'm gonna get on a boat to some deep spot in the Bermuda triangle, strap on a rebreather and follow a one way dive plan as far as I can go.

Date: 2006/06/28 08:47:55, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
And just WHERE in this scriptural diversion are my curling up antibonding orbitals that leave the corresponding bonding orbitals untouched?

In a related note, where in the SCRIPTURE does one find the text to justify all this bonding orbitals, etcetera, junk?

Can you quote a Bible verse for us, Paley?

Date: 2006/06/28 09:00:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
This is a pattern of deliberate deception, Dave.

Dave, please note that deadman's use of the term "deception" doesn't mean that you've actually been successful in deceiving or convincing anyone here, except of course, yourself.

Paley's the only one here who supports you at all, and trust me, you don't want him on your side. He's so crazy, he thinks America's never been to the moon. How do you feel about that, Dave? You've never answered me.

Date: 2006/06/29 03:27:33, Link
Author: Ved
Paley, what specific part of scripture leads you to the specifics of your "geocentric model"?

Does it go something like "thou shalt suffer no liberal to live"?

Date: 2006/06/29 16:53:45, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not immoral b/c it falls under God-Ordained Government Killing.  Ditto for Joshua and Canaanites.


Here's a key difference between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Joshua and Canaanites, God ordained or not.


The bomber crew that dropped the bomb and the president who gave the orders, were using a (high tech, but) crude, blunt force weapon, not capable of discriminating between combatants and strategic targets, and children (other than being able to pick a general target area to destroy).

Joshua and his soldiers however, unless they employed a massively destructive weapon like fire, pretty much had to walk up to their victims and slit their throats. There would be every opportunity for every individual soldier to decide, purposefully, to kill a child.

The pilot of the Enola Gay, and the pilots of the bombers who much more destructively fire bombed Dresden and cities in Japan, had no way of preventing their weapon from killing innocents, short of aborting their entire misson.

Therefore, Joshua's soldiers' actions are reprehensible, and Truman's pilots' are not.

Date: 2006/06/30 04:39:13, Link
Author: Ved
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 30 2006,07:00)
     
Quote (blipey @ June 29 2006,22:56)
Dembski's lauding a new magazine dedicated to the downfall of materialism!  I know; it's exciting.  :D

But ID isn't about religion.  No sirree Bob.  it's just them lying atheist darwinists who say it is.

Ugh, that's so LAME!

Salvo Magazine, ie Salvation with a militant connotation. Fire another round at materialism, boys!

Brought to you by the Crux Project. "Crucifiction? Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each"

Who do they think they are fooling? Oh, right, themselves. Just look at afdave!

Date: 2006/07/03 06:52:33, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
INSIDE NOAH'S ARK -- NOTICE THE YOUNG DINOSAURS



Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood at 3kBCE? When did they die out?

Why did you post this picture, Dave? To impress us about how grand an undertaking the ark was? To inspire us? To get our minds working? Well I know it's just an artist's conception (Noah didn't have a camera, I understand) but really Dave, just look how stupid it looks. The thing looks like it's made out of popsicle sticks. How much space did they waste on that open cathedral area? Don't they need every square cubit for animals, or food for a year? I guess they needed a lot of space for praying to keep the thing from breaking up. What's holding the roof on? You can't build a structure like that out of wood on land, not to mention taking it to sea. And weren't there super-earthquakes with mega-tsunamis cris-crossing the globe and volcanoes going off left and right?? How come Noah didn't notice?

How much steel, I mean iron, went into building the ark?

Date: 2006/07/03 11:31:58, Link
Author: Ved
Somehow - somehow, I got dragged to Superman the other day. It was gay. And not in a pleasant homosexual way. It was terrible boring agony.

I blame Christianity for that horrible movie. It made Christianity look pretty bad, Paley!

Date: 2006/07/06 08:05:08, Link
Author: Ved
Dave, I have a bible question. I don't think you want to make any part of your hypothesis (heh) conflict with your great book.

You say there was nothing but small rolling hills prior to your singular flood event. The bible seems to not have much to say at all about the landscape of the earth until the passage about Noah, where it mentions:

1) high hills, and

2) mountains:

Quote
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


Now this is a little confusing. It does indeed mention high hills and mountains that were already there before the flood, but it seems to imply that the mountains were 15 cubits (20 feet?) higher than the high hills.

Now maybe you can help me out. Your super accurate foundation for all knowledge either calls things mountains that really weren't mountains, or it gives a rediculously small measurement for the height of those mountains. I assume you have an explanation?

My explanation is that your book is a crock.

Date: 2006/07/19 01:42:31, Link
Author: Ved
Good, Dave is back. I see he's "bombing" again... Could you answer my question, Dave? I want to know why your theory conflicts with your bible!
 
Quote (Ved @ July 06 2006,14:05)

Dave, I have a bible question. I don't think you want to make any part of your hypothesis (heh) conflict with your great book.

You say there was nothing but small rolling hills prior to your singular flood event. The bible seems to not have much to say at all about the landscape of the earth until the passage about Noah, where it mentions:

1) high hills, and

2) mountains:
     
Quote
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Now this is a little confusing. It does indeed mention high hills and mountains that were already there before the flood, but it seems to imply that the mountains were 15 cubits (20 feet?) higher than the high hills.

Now maybe you can help me out. Your super accurate foundation for all knowledge either calls things mountains that really weren't mountains, or it gives a rediculously small measurement for the height of those mountains. I assume you have an explanation?

My explanation is that your book is a crock.

Date: 2006/07/20 01:45:07, Link
Author: Ved
Clearly Glen just got done talking about rapidly forming channels being U shaped. I'm pretty sure "rapid = V shaped" is either a typo (remember <,> dave?) or he means rapid in terms of real geologic time, of which you clearly don't have the slightest grasp, in other words thousands of years, as opposed to billions. Not one year or less.

Date: 2006/07/21 08:21:27, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (ericmurphy @ July 20 2006,12:22)
the only reason ["long age"] interpretations seem outlandish to you [Dave] is because—guess what?—they conflict with your Bible.

Color me unimpressed by your "skepticism."


Really. Look, Dave's own hypothesis conflicts with his bible. His bible clearly refers to mountains existing and being covered up by the "great flood." Dave says there were no mountains before the flood!!

Quote (Ved @ July 19 2006,07:42)

   
Quote (Ved @ July 06 2006,14:05)

Dave, I have a bible question. I don't think you want to make any part of your hypothesis (heh) conflict with your great book.

You say there was nothing but small rolling hills prior to your singular flood event. The bible seems to not have much to say at all about the landscape of the earth until the passage about Noah, where it mentions:

1) high hills, and

2) mountains:
       
Quote
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Now this is a little confusing. It does indeed mention high hills and mountains that were already there before the flood, but it seems to imply that the mountains were 15 cubits (20 feet?) higher than the high hills.

Now maybe you can help me out. Your super accurate foundation for all knowledge either calls things mountains that really weren't mountains, or it gives a rediculously small measurement for the height of those mountains. I assume you have an explanation?

My explanation is that your book is a crock.


Care to comment, Dave? Or are you going to keep ignoring this one too?

Date: 2006/07/24 01:43:47, Link
Author: Ved
Hey, I just saw some more Evo Lies on CNN this morning. The news report claimed that the city of Tyre is being evacuated- but we all know, by reading the bible, that there aren't even any people there. Why would people who don't exist need to flee?

:p

Date: 2006/08/02 11:03:52, Link
Author: Ved
Well you sure got us pegged. I for one am so committed to my Liberalism that I'm compelled to take your caricatures at face value and incorporate them into my belief system.

Except that you're white too, so you're probably evil!

Date: 2006/08/03 07:15:14, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 02 2006,19:06)
 
Quote (Ved @ Aug. 02 2006,16:03)
Well you sure got us pegged. I for one am so committed to my Liberalism that I'm compelled to take your caricatures at face value and incorporate them into my belief system.

Better start reading Foucault and move to an all-white neighborhood! You've got a lot of catching up to do!

(Better do it quick, Paley might post another one of his photos of sweaty, oily, half-naked boxers.)

Eh, why read faux Coult when we have the real thing currently pumping out books?

Seriously though, I'd never heard of Foucault till I got here. Chalk that up to my lack of higher education, I suppose. No philosophy courses for me...

Does my playing in a black metal band (for lack of better term) make up in any way for my lack of knowledge of the dude? I've been told we play the evillest Prague rock ever!

Date: 2006/08/07 04:39:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Hmmm ... who WOULD you believe if they came out and said Dendrochronology is not reliable?

The same sort of person who comes out and says that airplanes can't fly. In other words, no one.

Date: 2006/08/08 09:02:56, Link
Author: Ved
(regarding the rainbow post) Seriously, why don't these people just off themselves? Oh that's right, only Jesus can do it for them.

Jesus came and went already, I don't think he's coming back for you, Dembski. If you really dislike the planet so much, don't you think it's time you got the #### off of it?

Date: 2006/08/09 09:03:14, Link
Author: Ved
Wow, afdave, you just made it to the bigtime! Your flashy flash production just got picked up on our very own favorite, Uncommon Descent!

Congrats! Aren't you gonna go over there and hang out with the admirers of your work?

Date: 2006/08/09 11:46:54, Link
Author: Ved
Did I miss something on my soap opera? I see a J.A. Davison posting on UD... I thought he got booted outta the big top?? Is it 'cause DT#1 is now gone?

Date: 2006/08/13 04:47:04, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,16:32)
Jonny, Jonny, Jonny ... you're from MIT right?

From Wikipedia (and probably anyplace else I might happen to look) ...
     
Quote
Formation [of sedimentary rocks]
Sedimentary rocks are formed from overburden pressure as particles of sediment are deposited out of air, ice, or water [Shameful of you pretending that I'm stupid for saying sedimentation usually involves water] flows carrying the particles in suspension. As sediment deposition builds up, the overburden (or 'lithostatic';) pressure squeezes the sediment into layered solids in a process known as lithification ('rock formation';) and the original connate fluids are expelled.


Now, JonF, my opinion is that MOST sedimentary rocks we see in the Grand Staircase appear to be water laid.

>>>>>>Shameful of you pretending that I'm stupid for saying sedimentation usually involves water<<<<<< [LOL]


Too bad that link doesn't support your position. It only mentions water as one of three different ways to lay down sediment.

That's 33%, Dave- not a majority.

If you want to make a point you should make sure the reference you cite actually helps you.

Date: 2006/08/21 04:47:34, Link
Author: Ved
This thread needs more sweaty wrestler dudes...



... for Paley

Date: 2006/08/21 09:29:02, Link
Author: Ved
"Paley, why do you hate America, white people, and Western Civilization?"

Date: 2006/08/21 18:09:23, Link
Author: Ved
Paley, Dave could be arguing that 2 + 2 = 4, but he'll quote an article that says it's 3, and say that we're wrong.

Because of our "religion"...

Date: 2006/08/22 04:12:32, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Have you, or have you not ever sued anyone for verbal insults?

It's an open book test, Dave. The answer is right in front of you.

Is this really all you've got left for your "hypothesis"?? Fishing for a threat from deadman??

Date: 2006/08/24 04:41:13, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
Going back to the Grand Staircase shown above, we have seen that some of you have already agreed with me previously that MOST of the layers were laid down by water.  Before paleosols were brought up, I was under the impression that you meant what you said.

I have no trouble believing that most layers anywhere were laid down by water. The majority of the earth is covered with the stuff. That doesn't mean there aren't layers NOT laid down by water interspersed throughout the "staircase" where they could never be if all those layers came from the FLUD.

Most people aren't serial killers. That doesn't mean there's not one in your back yard exactly where you don't want one.

Date: 2006/08/28 05:14:32, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
I have spent a considerable amount of time on the Grand Staircase because it is quite important to show the vacuousness of claims that the layers can be dated radiometrically.  What have we (or at least I) learned so far?

Dave's learned to use the word "vacuousness" to make it sound like he's got an argument.

Date: 2006/08/30 07:48:02, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 30 2006,11:49)
I do not consider myself to be religious because that brings to mind images of incense and candles and long robes and long faces, etc.  I do none of those things.

Hmm, candles, long robes...





:p

Date: 2006/08/30 08:30:04, Link
Author: Ved
Thanks, Dave. I know you like pictures. Please make your next flashy animation as pithy as possible!
 
Quote
 
Quote
You are a deacon at a church that has, as far as we can tell, lost millions of (presumably) donated dollars through questionable investments.

That is an untrue statement.

I understand that you disagree with the second half of the sentance, but you ARE a deacon at a Christian church aren't you?
 
Quote
The Bible also is not a "religious book" just because you think it is.  God is also not "religious."  In fact, Jesus had very sharp rebukes for religious people.  Think about it.

YOU think about it, All-Caps. If you only love God and not religion, why are you even a member of any church?

(guys I think you mean 200 years)

Date: 2006/08/30 11:14:09, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Aug. 30 2006,15:24)
Ved
 
Quote
(guys I think you mean 200 years)


FYI, Cicero used it first (or, at least, a version):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

Wow, cool! I stand corrected.

(see Dave, that wasn't too hard. Oh, and I can make flash animations too, see my avatar? Nice and simple...)

Date: 2006/08/31 04:56:37, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 29 2006,18:38)
Wow, you guys are entertaining.  Please.  Keep going.

PS  I think Ghandi was a great guy  :-)

How cute, Dave. I don't want to be one to tell you what you believe, but you do believe that Ghandi is in [heck], right? Come on, don't josh us.

Date: 2006/08/31 09:05:35, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Who thought ATBC would be a haven for greying punk rockers?

Hey, I'm not greying... yet! :D

Date: 2006/09/01 17:51:45, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 01 2006,23:11)
Quote
You say you've seen massive amounts of evidence supporting your beliefs, but when we ask you to provide that evidence, you come up empty-handed.
Yeah ... empty handed ... forget about 2 mile thick sedimentary rock layers, 3/4 of the present globe covered by water, evidence that mountains used to be under water and sea floors have sunk ... but, yeah ... other than that little dinky minor evidence, I'm empty handed.  Sure Eric.

Um Dave, our "millionsofyearsism" has all that stuff too, so

W H A T   E L S E   H A V E   Y O U    G  O  T  ?

Date: 2006/09/06 03:46:06, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 01 2006,13:43)
I could spend a lot of time on the details of the geologic record, and I have done so and plan to more for various reason (I like it and so on).

You only "like" the details in that you like battling it out with the Evos. You're not interested in learning what those details tell us about the universe.

Quote (afdave continues @ ,)
What I see though is that the biggest evidence for a global flood doesn't even require reading a single scientific paper.  It doesn't require a geology degree.  It doesn't even require any high school level science classes at all.

Dave, to see your "biggest evidence for a global flood", you absolutely must avoid all those things.

Quote (afdave continues @ ,)
Guys, I don't know how to say this any more clearly.  We have something like 2 miles thick (maybe I'm off a mile or two--doesn't matter for my present point) of mostly water-laid sediment on planet earth!!  All you have to do is look at the abundant pictures of the Grand Canyon or any other exposed area.  The evidence is there.  There was a whale of a lot of water required to lay down all that sedimentary rocks, friends!

Yeah. 3/4 of the Earth's surface covered by water multiplied by 4 billion years is way big enough to be that whale.

Quote
Now HOW exactly did it happen?  OK ... now we need to do some scientific work and write some papers.  I agree.  But to show it DID OCCUR?  No scientific papers required, friend.

We know all that rock is there, All-Caps.

Quote
All that's required is some eyeballs and some functioning synapses.

... and for those eyeballs and synapses to be buried in the bible.

Date: 2006/09/06 05:23:39, Link
Author: Ved
Everyone knows a god is measured by the size of his *ahem* universe. Dave's god has a tiny, flaccid, and boring member. And he's mean. Made in the image of some very ugly people.

Date: 2006/09/06 10:36:22, Link
Author: Ved
Nihilists! **** me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

Date: 2006/09/07 05:00:07, Link
Author: Ved
I've heard it said that any major event will inspire conspiracy theories. Sounds like the sort of thing that should be recognized as [Someone's] Law... Is it?

Theories about anything other than those planes taking those buildings down are just dumb. The reality of what happened is sufficiently bad. Besides, what is more dangerous to us at this point, inside guys sneaking into buildings to set explosives to go off when planes fly into them, or, just guys flying planes into buildings.

I'm gonna go with just the guys flying planes into buildings- it's a lot easier.

I also tend to think W would be slogging around in Iraq right now whether 911 happened or not- though he continues to try to use it as an excuse for being there, direct connection or not.

Date: 2006/09/08 03:53:00, Link
Author: Ved


Date: 2006/09/08 06:49:57, Link
Author: Ved
What happened to the "Plan B" thread? I don't see it anymore...

Date: 2006/09/11 02:32:06, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,19:33)
Yes, and it would be equally interesting to have seen Darwin's face when he met his Creator.

Yes, Darwin's a Creationist now!

(You will be too, one way or another)

So, you're absolutely sure that Darwin has and that stevestory is going to meet his maker and become a Creationist??

Quote
Did you read the verse?  It said, "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."  This includes you, my friend.  Don't wait until it's too late.


Dave, if there's such a thing as "too late" then it's quite possible that steve will in fact wait until it's too late, just like Darwin and Ghandi. I know I'm never going to become one- unless I'm somehow injured in the head just right, but if your god does that to me, F it, he can have me for his zombie army.

About Darwin. I'm pretty sure he was not opposed to god. And if he were to wake up in christian heaven and learned the truth that he was right about the way god made us, he'd be happy. But, if he found out that his theory that explains things so well merely describes the illusion of a cheap parlor trick, I think he'd be pretty pissed off!

Date: 2006/09/11 13:42:24, Link
Author: Ved
Dave, if you think you might be a cultist you could always take The Cult Test. Actually, lets not put it that way. I'm sorry, I should be nicer.

You could see how much like a cult's your beliefs may be. I'm pretty sure you'll never be involved in a mass suicide, but some of the questions you might score highly on, if you actually considered them, I mean your belief is the only way to heaven, right?

Date: 2006/09/12 05:37:15, Link
Author: Ved
You're still on with that bridge analogy, huh? Here's a better version: Snelling tried to prove that you can't build a bridge a mile long. He knew that it wasn't possible already, so he didn't even really try. He built his bridge out of popsicle sticks.

Amazingly he was able to complete the bridge and he proceded to send a line of 20 trucks over it. 4 of them fell off on the way across, 'cause it was a crappy bridge, but despite this, the other 16 made it. Yet somehow Snelling is still sure that it is impossible to build a bridge a mile long.

I think the trucks must've been carrying sour grapes.

Date: 2006/09/13 06:15:27, Link
Author: Ved
OK Dave, I'll give it to ya that I should have included differing lengths of bridges in my version of the analogy, but that's about it...

Quote (all quotes by our fabulous afdave @ ,)
ATBC is a "buglite" for skeptics.

ATBC is meant to be a place to come together and critique the claims of creationists. It is appropriately named Antievolution.org because that's pretty much all the creationists ever do- criticize evolution. Got a positive argument for your theory yet?

Quote
But on your deathbeds you'll love me!

Riiight. Is that like the "rhythm method" of soul saving? I'm dying and I'm skeered of He11, Davey! Help me! Sorry, but I'm gonna wear my little atheist jimmy-hat on my little atheist head all the way to the end, baby. Gotta play it safe and not end up in "christian heaven" ugh!

Quote
26:14, 21 - never be rebuilt or found.  FULFILLED.

I can see it with my own eyes right here on Google Earth! Tyre is FOUND! I can see some portion of it that does indeed look like ruins, but part of that area is being filled up with a graveyard. You gotta put the bodies of all the people who have lived there over the years somewhere!

Quote
What's your goal 7 Popes?  Is it Truth?  Or is it Skepticism?

Can I answer for 7? I'm only interested in learning what is the truth, with a small t. Anyone selling "capital T" Truth is most likely full of shiat, and should be considered with healthy "small s" skepticism.

Oh, and what do you care what [you wish] the Pope said about evolution? He's not even a Real Christian ™. There's lotsa room for freaks in your bigtop when you want to show how many are on your side.

Date: 2006/09/14 04:45:06, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
There is no objective means by which we can know if the radiometric "clocks" are even in the right ballpark.  Historical accounts are the best means that we have for dating any event of world history

Can you say "Pompeii"?

Date: 2006/09/18 06:40:55, Link
Author: Ved
Welcome, Mike!
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 18 2006,05:58)
The latest Isochron set-up by AFDave went over the top for me.

Me too. Except that for me it just got too boring. I was able to keep up with and be interested in the likes of the zircon discussion and the xenoliths discussion but this one just catches my brain flat-footed. I could even write this one off in my mind having dave "win" this argument and he'd still be no closer to supporting his "hypothesis".

Date: 2006/09/18 06:53:34, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 16 2006,10:19)
I am happy to take a much closer look at dendro, ice cores, limestone, C14 and many other things in due course ... however, I am only one guy with a limited amount of bandwidth and I have to take one topic at a time.

It seemed logical to me to look closely at radiometric dating since we just finished looking at the Grand Staircase in some detail and it is claimed that the layers of the Grand Staircase can be dated (or at least bracketed) radiometrically.

Is this such an unreasonable approach?

In order to finish looking at radiometric dating, you're going to need to look at dendrochronology and core samples and how they relate to RM dating.

RM doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Date: 2006/09/18 07:37:33, Link
Author: Ved


"What??? Someone here hates The West? Lemme at 'em!"

Date: 2006/09/18 09:39:34, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 18 2006,15:29)
Eric ... "This is a recording ... you haven't presented one scintilla of evidence for your hypothesis ... This is a recording ... you haven't presented one scintilla of evidence for your hypothesis ...This is a recording ... you haven't presented one scintilla of evidence for your hypothesis ..."

BWE ... "Who cares about RM dating anyway ... just pay your money to some lab and move on down the road ... and gimme a beer! ... after all Ice Cores is it, man!"

Arden ... your Indians had writing and lost it because ALL people groups are descended from Adam who had writing.

Bing ... think PRE-FLOOD continents, my friend.

... and with those 4 deft quips, Dave destroys you guys yet again. What skill. :p

Date: 2006/09/18 10:32:19, Link
Author: Ved
jeannot, try this brand:

:D

Date: 2006/09/18 10:40:17, Link
Author: Ved

Date: 2006/09/19 10:02:13, Link
Author: Ved
This has even less to do with Dave's "hypothesis" than the rest of this thread.

You wouldn't conflate America, United States of, with America, North, would you?

(poor troll)

Date: 2006/09/21 05:59:29, Link
Author: Ved
I'd wish Dave and everyone here a happy steaming 200 pages, but 200 is just a number relative to the number of posts per page and numbers really are meaningless.

666

Date: 2006/09/21 06:03:08, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Ved @ Sep. 18 2006,16:40)

I finally thought of the right caption:

Look! I created life!

Date: 2006/09/21 06:19:31, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2006,12:05)
Quote (Ved @ Sep. 21 2006,10:59)
I'd wish Dave and everyone here a happy steaming 200 pages, but 200 is just a number relative to the number of posts per page and numbers really are meaningless.

666

Get with the times! We all know 616 is the Mark of The Beast™ now.  :p

Steve, you are on fire this week!

Oh, come on now. 616 is like so like 3rd Century or something.

And "straight" is the new "square"   :p

Date: 2006/09/22 08:02:55, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 22 2006,13:19)
Quote
I am sorry that you don't like "my" Jesus.  You will bow before Him someday whether you like Him or not.

How do you know that?

Because he's an arrogant assclown.

It's such a shame that when afdave's body bites the dust, his mind won't be around to realize that he's squandered his one shot at existence by living a lie.

He thinks that when we die we'll learn the Truth. I think he will never learn the truth.

Date: 2006/09/22 08:45:38, Link
Author: Ved
So Dave, I know you're having fun with the isochrons now but...

I understand that according to you, at any time any of us would be able to have a change of heart, accept your Jesus, and be taken in, and spend the rest of eternity in the light with your God.

I also understand that you believe that this is still possible right up to the very end, no matter what kind of evil, Jesus-rejecting life we've led. This is your beloved Death Bed Scenario.

Now, here's what I don't understand. Imagine for a minute that someone were to miss out on that last chance for salvation during life here, on purpose. I thought that that was supposed to send a person straight to [Hades]. Instead, what I think you're saying is that Jesus calls you up and makes you bow before him whether you want to or not. What does he do, have an angel poke you with a stick? Or is he just impossible to resist against? At what point do you lose free will? Do you get another chance to accept him then and there and possibly change your fate?

Date: 2006/09/25 08:00:55, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 25 2006,11:16)
On the other hand, the dark ages were not quite as dark as people used to think.  I certainly dont think the dark ages were due to christianity, instead invasions and plagues and the fragmentation of the Roman Empire.  To blame all this on Christianity is silly.

Can't we blame the weather a bit as well? Wasn't the Little Ice Age at about that time? ... Oops, now that I look it up, I see it's not even close, with the DA at ~500-1000 AD and the LIA at ~1550-1850 AD.

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 25 2006,12:44)
Squirt all the ink you want, Arden, but I'll defend the West if I wish.

Eh, who needs the West? It couldn't even get mankind to the moon!

Oh, and for the puposes of this discussion, are Catholics considered Judeo-Christian?

Date: 2006/09/26 03:59:24, Link
Author: Ved
Dammit, quit shouting. It's too early.

Quote
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.


Yes, it is.

Date: 2006/09/26 06:42:13, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS

Who are the eyewitnesses, specifically? If an eyewitness' name and actual quotation aren't preserved, do you still have an "eyewitness account"?

Date: 2006/09/27 09:06:07, Link
Author: Ved
That might be the same camp that was mentioned on Colbert last night. One lady was saying something like "I wish kids over here were as fanatical about Jesus as they are over there are about their religion."

Little Johnny, is your love for Jesus this big? (/holds up AK47) or this big? (/holds up grenade launcher)

The bullet said "Fighting Fire with Kids on Fire"...

Date: 2006/09/27 10:22:25, Link
Author: Ved
Steve, thanks for splitting afdave's broken thread. Can I make one suggestion? What I've seen done elsewhere is to put a link to the original thread right at the very top of the new one. I know Davey's been concerned about the original "Best Thread Ever" slipping off the top page, and he's said he's going to be reposting links to it throughout the new one. Maybe we can save him the trouble so he can have more time to consider backing up his hyper-thesis.

Also, I know that the UD thread isn't broken, but could it's size be contributing to sever performance issues? When I hung out at reefcentral I remember seeing some huge threads getting split up before, and the reason given was that the large size was taxing the server.

Date: 2006/09/28 04:56:43, Link
Author: Ved
Well, now that I've been home from work and actually watched that vid, I see my paraphrase wasn't the best (dang drug-addled brain). But that was the one, it was "good" to see the rest of it. Speaking in tounges??? We need them to do that more often so they won't even be able to understand each other!

Date: 2006/09/28 05:20:12, Link
Author: Ved
"secular"=bad word
"liberal"=bad word
"feminist"=bad word
"from New York City"=bad word
I suppose it's her technical description, and one might need all those words to distinguish her from the subjects of the film, but I would describe her as just "a person"  :p

Quote ("skeptic" @ ,)
By definition, the fittest are those that reproduce and survive and in this case it seems that conservatives are out-producing their liberal counterparts.  Interesting irony.

How do you know they are surviving? Also, there are two different strategies to producing offspring. Quantity, and Quality. They are kind of old fashioned I guess, so they might as well go back to being salmon in a stream.

Am I not successful because I haven't bred yet?

Date: 2006/09/28 07:27:52, Link
Author: Ved
Is it racist to recognize general differences between different races? Or is it only racist if the qualities in question are negative and/or false?

If it is true that Africans have darker skin than Germans would it be racist to say so?

If it is true that Africans are less intelligent than Germans would it be racist to say so?

Date: 2006/09/28 08:50:53, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 28 2006,13:33)

[You probably have to throw an 'on average' in there]

You bet. I was just following the sloppy format of our beloved Moonshot.

Date: 2006/09/28 10:24:24, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,15:50)
By the way, I've known a couple of Black people who did claim this, so this isn't hypothetical.

Hey, me too!

"Praise White Jesus!"

Date: 2006/09/28 10:38:48, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Christ, as the completion of our scientific theories, maintains the conceptual soundness of those theories

Man, I just love that one. Though I must confess I'm never quite sure where to add/carry the Jesus. Is it something like this?

While 1+1=2 may be true,

1+1+Jesus=2+Jesus is True!

Date: 2006/09/29 09:16:43, Link
Author: Ved
Has Moonshot been able to show that a gay gene refutes evolution yet?

And where is afdave??? This is his thread, is it not?

Date: 2006/10/09 05:13:42, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (skeptic @ ,)
You can not prove that God exists any more than Dawkins can prove that God doesn't.  Any attempt to do so belittles both disciplines.  The real questions concerning the unique qualities of mankind will never be found in a testtube or under a microscope and any attempts to do so leaves you searching for answers in the wrong places.

I would agree with this if I assumed God existed. However, if I assume he doesn't exist, when one goes from discussing God to discussing humans, the same qualities of unprovable and unknowable do not apply, it's just not in the same ballpark.

We can study humans in a lab under a microscope or in a test tube, or in the field, to our heart's content. Who is to say that we, armed with science, couldn't find everything there is to know about ourselves?

Date: 2006/10/09 09:45:53, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,regarding definition of kinds)
OK.  Here it is ... are you ready?


hehehehe...

/checks calendar...

Hold on! I'm not ready yet!!!!!

Date: 2006/10/10 06:05:10, Link
Author: Ved
I'm pre-moving my post here to the BW...
Quote (Phillip Bruce Heywood @ ,the PT CERN thread)
It negates the words of Christ, St Paul and others, where they say or imply the immutability of various “kinds”, such as the impossibility of thorns bearing grapes or figs, or whatever.

Hey Heywood, have a raspberry!  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/10/10 17:12:49, Link
Author: Ved


Wouldn't an imaginary tree shaped like this better fit Dave's creation model? One giant continent and God's blessing of perfection constraining diversity, then catastrophe!!! Millions of dead things buried in massive layers of rock, you know. Surely Noah failed to save the trilobite and the tyranosaurus, am I wrong? Then after being distributed around the globe and subjected to the isolation of fragmented continents, God's curse, and decay, millions of species evolved.

Date: 2006/10/11 09:47:47, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
Why do you mischaracterize AIG as a sort of "lie peddler"??  Can you not allow Carl Wieland to make an honest mistake about an arcane topic?  Do you ever make mistakes?  Would you like it if someone took one of your mistakes and trumpeted to the world that you are now a "lie peddler"??


The reason you think that this is just "a mistake", singular, is because this is the SINGLE significant concession you've made in this debate of over 300 pages.

Remember the running score at the time? Someone just reposted it. You said    
Quote
we have +1 for the "Evos " and -1 for the "Yecs."

I wonder what the total stands at now?? Is it perhaps:

Evos: 1
Yecs: -1

???

Since you haven't budged a smegging inch on any subject since then, of course you don't understand that AIG is ALL LIES. Every last sciency article is most likely a lie.

Some people here were interested in having YOU contact them about their error that you recognized, because they want you to see AIG's reaction to the news for yourself. I'm pretty sure everyone here expects AIG to do absolutely nothing about their mistake. This is one case where you really could prove us wrong.

Date: 2006/10/13 02:41:18, Link
Author: Ved
HA! afdave scoffs at gradualism and considers himself a catastrophist. His AIG tree sure doesn't look very, ahem, catastrophic. If anything, for languages it shows time from Babel onwards, or for living things it seems to show time from just after the flood. I think ericmurphy has the right idea. His afdave tree looks pretty similar to mine:

Date: 2006/10/14 09:18:05, Link
Author: Ved
Paley, you assclown!

Yeah, it's not like no one called him on being a Loki troll. It's just that if a person keeps denying it, there's only so many times a person can be called out. Just like the last two Presidents. The one thing W has on Clinton is that he never ever, ever gives up on a lie.

So, I'm bummed that my favorite aspect of Paley is fake- the moonlanding denial. I'm gonna have to retire my Neil Armstrong photos.

But, I'm not surprised at all to learn that the political crap was at most just an exaggeration. It seemed to me all along that every Paley post that was in the slightest bit sciency was just there to make a platform to attack liberals. So fine, the kooky science was fake. Still, go to ####, Paley.

Date: 2006/10/16 07:08:14, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 16 2006,11:50)
Then why are you the one that's ranting and begging for censorship? Seems like it should be the stupid bigot who's reduced to these tactics. Just sayin', hoss.

How is Louis begging for censorship? Has he done more than to say that his vote would be for your banishment? He's really only saying that he thinks the terms of service rules NOT be overlooked in your case. And, I don't believe there IS a vote, so it's pretty hypothetical. Besides, banning is not exactly the same as censorship.

And as far as ranting goes... where's the eye-roll emote?

Date: 2006/10/16 07:15:42, Link
Author: Ved
From the Dawkins forum:

Quote
The most gratifying feature of this thread is the ratio of views to messages which as of this time is 129 to 1. Isn't that some sort of record?

I love it so!


He's kind of like a travelling exhibit.

Date: 2006/10/17 05:02:52, Link
Author: Ved
Hmmm, I was just going to pop on here to say that Davison sure knows how to get what he wants: his thread over on the Dawkins forum had just been closed.

But, now that I look at it again, the thread is reopened with no sign of the mod's closing post.

Come on Davison, you can do it!

Date: 2006/10/17 08:33:19, Link
Author: Ved
PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS

Was not your original argument. Not that "+ other factors" really helps you much...

Date: 2006/10/17 08:50:55, Link
Author: Ved
See, I remember when "+ other things" came up, because:

I was the one that suggested it to you Dave, albeit stupidly, thinking that you could grasp a simple concept.

Date: 2006/10/17 09:21:49, Link
Author: Ved
One more time Dave.

You don't get to use "+other factors" in your argument.

You never mentioned "other factors" until many days into the incident when I tried to point out that it's stupid and difficult to argue that "[something] is [something]" (implying nothing else).

Date: 2006/10/17 10:06:06, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
I simply conceded to add "and other factors" because that is in fact true and helps my generalization be more accurate.

OK, but see it gets confusing. Ever since people started to disagree with your original argument you started saying. "I already won the debate!"

P=F+S ... "I already won the debate!"
P=F+S ... "I already won the debate!"

later,

P=F+S+other factors ... "I already won the debate!"
P=F+S+other factors ... "I already won the debate!"

When you change your argument and keep saying "I already won" it just doesn't look good. The reason I'm getting bent out of shape about this little "peripheral issue" is because it the one thing you've done with MY words that really gets under my skin.

I won't ever claim to have an argument about this whole Portuguese deal. I'm not a linguist. I'm not a scientist. But I think that you, afdave, lost the argument. It doesn't have anything to do with you being a creationist. It doesn't have anything to do with not wanting you to win any arguments. You just keep saying that you've won- and it's not even funny anymore.

Date: 2006/10/18 04:31:16, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (deadman @ ,)
Now, what are the odds of that NOT being deliberate, and that it "just happened " to emerge from Dave in the EXACT wording and order?

That's not evidence of common ancestry of those words, it's evidence of a common designer! Obviously Dave wrote those words the first time and he's only repeating them now. ;)

Date: 2006/10/18 04:46:29, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
There are now hundreds (probably thousands) of PhD level scientists who reject Darwinian Evolution

Care to cite a more exact number? I doubt there's any list of more than just "hundreds"...

Date: 2006/10/18 07:35:58, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Russell @ ,)
To challenge my "afdave is a spoof" theory, I continue to solicit any evidence of something written for kids, written by "afdave" (or by a real person named Dave Hawkins whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking), that seriously misrepresents science.

Have you seen a Dave Hawkins listed in the credits of the Watchmaker "dynamation" at Kids 4 Truth?

IMO afdave is not a loki troll. But if he reveals that he is after a full year of this tripe, like Paley, I'd personally consider him excessively annoying. Not because of his "hypothesis" but because of his tactics and complete lack of logic.

Date: 2006/10/18 14:36:17, Link
Author: Ved
What, no thread for Richard Dawkins on the Colbert Report yet? I was tuning in regularly and last night and saw it. It's on again right now, Eastern Time. Also found:

on YouTube
on RichardDawkins.net

Date: 2006/10/19 11:34:03, Link
Author: Ved
I can't even really follow the afdave thread on a daily basis anymore without seriously slacking on my work...

Anyway, since I started hanging out here I've become accustomed to seeing "Darwinism" as kind of a bad word that only creationists use. I noticed that Dawkins was using the word a decent amount in the interview, and it seemed to make sense to embrace it's use in that context. It's a nice succinct term and an audience of lay people will immediately know it's meaning.

Date: 2006/10/20 10:36:06, Link
Author: Ved
From the link:

Look familiar??  ;)

Date: 2006/10/23 06:06:02, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Flint? Eric? Stephen? Anybody reasonable?

Well, not me. This topic is not even that interesting. Why am I supposed to care if Muslims are the least integratable group? If I wanted to read about politics I'd go to a political board. What does this have to do with anti-evolution again?

Date: 2006/10/23 07:37:44, Link
Author: Ved
1) Can't say I didn't see this question coming... I check your threads every now and then just to see what you're still doing here.

2) Apologies, you see, I'm not really following the thread. So either they do or they don't. Should be easy to figure out, right?

3) No. I also don't see any Lenny vanity threads, although it is understandable that someone taking the side opposite from the majority of the board will receive a lot of attention.

Also, I accept the fact that antievolution IS mostly political. I just don't know what Muslim integration has to do with it.

I thought you came out. All you did was drop your most fun arguments, the sciency ones.

Date: 2006/10/23 09:49:46, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
[afdave's] opponents do freely admit their occasional honest errors


Actually Dave HAS admitted a few errors of the same magnitude, just nothing any larger than those since the one he's contacted AIG about...

Date: 2006/10/23 10:03:29, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Oh and don't forget ... White noise contains more information than a Winston Churchill speech.

One contains more pure information and the other is more informitive to circa 1942 Britons.

Date: 2006/10/24 05:05:53, Link
Author: Ved
Isn't Paley's gripe mostly about assimilation of Muslim immigrants? If so, I'd think that the stats of Muslim inmates wouldn't be too helpful because it doesn't differentiate between Muslim immigrants and already westernized American converts to Nation of Islam.

[Edit: Nevermind, I'm not reading enough of this thread to be able to keep up properly]

Date: 2006/10/24 07:03:31, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,11:34)
OA...  
Quote
Even your "stuck heater" in Antarctica is beneficial if it gives you a better chance of survival in -60 deg weather that a heater that fails 50% of the time and you freeze to death.
Agreed.  That's why I gave the example.  But only a twisted mind would say this is an INCREASE in specificity (upward evolution).

A stuck heater is ENTIRELY MORE SPECIFIC than one that is controllable. Can it be set to any temperature? No, it's specifically set to ONE setting: Specificity.

Date: 2006/10/25 08:25:56, Link
Author: Ved
Hey, we all know that the Huge Native American wasn't designed, but it's iPod was!

Date: 2006/10/27 04:44:14, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Dave, you lying sack of shit

Sorry, but this isn't exactly what I want to read in this thread.

Date: 2006/10/30 08:15:01, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
What's wrong with women staying at home and taking care of their family, so long as it's their decision?

Nothing. And that's just the start of it.

What could be better for a dude than being head of his household? Being god of his household, or course. How sweet is that?

Date: 2006/10/31 05:42:50, Link
Author: Ved
Fascinating. So where do lesbians fit in? Are they more on the confident / brash / easily manipulatable side? Are they hard-wired to hang out with gay dudes?

Tell us about women, Paley.

Date: 2006/10/31 06:48:47, Link
Author: Ved
Implications like what? That there are shades of sexuality between male and female where individuals might fall, and some people may even end up somewhere on the side opposite the kind of naughty bits they have?

Date: 2006/10/31 07:19:06, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But evolutionary biology is a theory with real-world implications. If you accept it, then you have to be prepared to accept any possible social ramifications that flow from this model of reality.

Why yes, of course. And one of those social ramifications that follows from evolution is that there is no right or wrong way to do anything. Even if it was found that over thousands of years human men and women evolved so that one was socially dominant over the other, there is no reason to believe that that relationship is superior to any other.

Date: 2006/11/02 10:23:46, Link
Author: Ved


Why it's Columbo, of course. So apt. Apt, I say. Like Paley, he leads people to believe he's just an idiot.

Date: 2006/11/07 15:19:35, Link
Author: Ved
How does a person know which ways of knowing things are better than other ways of knowing things, to say nothing of which way of knowing things is "the" actual correct one?

Date: 2006/11/08 16:31:36, Link
Author: Ved
Only liberals still believe in Freudian concepts? Like projection?? Is that supposed to be a negative thing? I mean is the concept of projection bogus?

You're my favorite, Paley.

Date: 2006/11/08 19:53:43, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
If not, then this is one example of the limitations of science.

Either that or all revelations of external information flowing from god are imaginary, and it's not and example of the limitations of science.

Date: 2006/11/09 12:11:20, Link
Author: Ved
Can knowing any concerto, or literary work, or painting, or revelation be considered "better" than say, knowing what AIDS is?

Date: 2006/11/10 08:54:17, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 10 2006,00:02)
 
Quote (Ved @ Nov. 09 2006,12:11)
Can knowing any concerto, or literary work, or painting, or revelation be considered "better" than say, knowing what AIDS is?

I would submit, that knowing any concerto, literary work, etc allows you something greater than simply knowing what AIDs is, it allows you to cure AIDs (or at least try).

It might help to understand what I meant by "knowing what AIDS is" if you consider the opposite. For this exercise, move any knowledge of the virus to the realm of the unknowable. So, no matter how inspired people are by art, music, or literature, they can never put two and two together, and can never figure out why some people just spontaneously start to waste away and die.

Date: 2006/11/13 12:42:00, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Science is like the drunk who searches for his keys under the lamppost because the light is better there.

So, you'd prefer to look for your keys in a place where you wouldn't even be able to tell if you'd found them or not?

Date: 2006/11/13 12:51:28, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
You seem to be reasoning in a circle, because you say that all useful knowledge is acquired by a reasoning process, and then proceed to define useful knowledge as that which is uncovered by reasoning!

How else do you know if you know something useful? What useful knowlege is not that which is uncovered by reasoning? Knowing that god loves you?

By the way, which Paley are we talking to? Is there any way to know that?

Date: 2006/11/13 15:35:37, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
No, I don't prefer the dark place, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the keys may be located there. After all, if you search the well-lit area and don't find the keys, there's a good chance they're somewhere else. Louis prefers to circle around in the spotlight while cursing those who grope around.

So, if you find something out there while you're groping around, how do you bring it under the light so that you can figure out what you've got? How can you tell you've found something at all, or even something that is not a figment of your imagination?
 
Quote
do you think it's likely that the universe is fully comprehensible to us apes? What are the odds of that coincidence occuring?

What are the odds that the universe contains the "key" that apes like you are looking for???
 
Quote
Now maybe after some genetic engineering..........hmmmmm.

Sure! But what about even just some regular engineering? Can an ape see an atom? Or hear radiation? It can if it builds the right tools.
 
Quote
There are many things that enrich life that don't fall into the "scientific reasoning" category. Discovering a new way to interpret a novel's imagery; learning a new way to play a song that's not demonstrably better than the old interpretation, but that keeps the material fresh....writing a poem. And that's just art.

Well, I do know about art. I'm a musician. Yes, art can be enriching. Enjoyable even. But what is any art beyond being ideas, imagery, or soundscapes transmitted between one person and another? It doesn't come from outside of humanity. Let's move on to another "way of knowing".

Date: 2006/11/14 09:54:24, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 14 2006,00:33)
I thought there weren't any big mountains before the flood. Is that AFDave? Or a different creationist?

You are correct. We went over this before with afdave, and he agreed. The bible passage goes:
 
Quote (Bible @ King James Version, Gen.7)
[19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

In other words the "mountains" were only a couple feet higher than the "high hills". There was nowhere to run!

Date: 2006/11/14 10:19:37, Link
Author: Ved
P.S. - Funny, when I was looking this passage up, the first place I looked had some kind of new fangled translation that went like this:
Quote (bibleresources.bible.com @ ,)
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

  20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, (Q)and the mountains were covered.

Kinda changes the meaning a bit, eh? Revisionist scum!

Date: 2006/11/14 11:31:01, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 14 2006,11:40)
...the Alanis Morrisette song "Ironic" which contains no irony...

No, no, old man!! :p That song definitely contains irony, it's just a little light on the backstory. It's ironic that the black fly lands in your chardonnay, 'cause you're two-fisting it and it would have been much less noticible if it landed in the merlot in your other hand. And that rain on your wedding day, that's ironic because you're marrying a native american, and they all know how to control the rain with dancing!!

Date: 2006/11/14 14:10:38, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But let me give you another example of something important that can't be investigated scientifically: morality.

How can that be? Aren't people are currently investigating morality, scientifically?

Date: 2006/11/15 08:48:25, Link
Author: Ved
Word!




"We are talking jape of the decade. We are talking April, May, June, July and August fool..."

/thread spirals out of control...

Date: 2006/11/16 15:29:34, Link
Author: Ved
Welcome, RevTragic. I'm sure you'll do fine here. Look at Paley, he's doing fantastic!

Heh, this thread's already not about you, you, you...   :D

Date: 2006/11/20 12:08:07, Link
Author: Ved
Popular request? There was like one person you were talking sweaty wrestling with...

Is this one of the "other ways of knowing"?

Date: 2006/11/21 14:29:44, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Many lefties have admitted to me in private that they favour current policies because they want to see whites become a minority in every country. A couple of people on this board have conceded that whites need to be punished/bred out

 
Quote
Please reply by PM if you disagree. Seriously, I'm done with this topic.

That's fine, we don't have to discuss it or anything but since you mentioned it here, let me just say that I'm a "lefty" that doesn't agree with either of those statements.
 
Quote
some dislike me even more since I've come out (read Ved's sig).  :D  :D  :D

Sure. I dislike you more now. But to me you've always been this fat red thing with a shiny spinner, flying past my hook-scarred, bass-lipped face, that I just can't resist.

Are there still two of you posting under that name?

Date: 2006/11/24 12:55:20, Link
Author: Ved
Oh come on Lou, clearly Paley is done talking about the topic. What he's not done with is merely mentioning his nasty thoughts about lefties and saying he doesn't want to talk about it.

Look, I can do it too: Fred Phelps is a right winger. I'm done with the subject. If you disagree take it to PM.

Date: 2006/11/27 12:24:43, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (skeptic @ ,)
You may join him and believe that science justifies your beliefs but in doing so you are the same as ID advocates.

You are completely wrong. Science can't justify my "beliefs", because as an athiest, I don't have any "beliefs".

Have a look at the Dawkins quote you're twisting around, in it's entirety:  
Quote
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

It's really hard to say it much better than that. Do I believe in god? No? Well than where did we come from? The science of evolution tells us we're descended and evolved from a common ancestor of just about everything else on earth (and it's not inconceivable that this ancestor came about naturally). Do I believe this??? No. I know it as a fact. Do I trust in Darwinism? No! I don't have faith in Darwinism any farther than I could throw it. And by throw it I mean: answers that are proven true, I'll take as fact, and questions that remain open, remain open.

Here's another question. By joining this discussion, have I outed myself as an Evangelical Atheist?

Date: 2006/11/27 18:52:36, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (skeptic @ ,)
...you might consider Outspoken Atheist to [Evangelical].

Heh, how 'bout Practical Atheist? Sure, I'm a "strong" atheist, I'm even "unashamed" (lol)... I could even conceive of something unknowable out there, but I know that if I ever gave it a name, 6 billion people would disagree with me.

Date: 2006/11/28 12:28:14, Link
Author: Ved
Lenny, it wouldn't be not Tao! ;) Oh, and I know it's not like getting shot or anything but when a man who became president of this country a couple years back said that he thinks atheists probably shouldn't be considered citizens, it's a bit disturbing.

Quote (skeptic @ ,)
Society as a whole does not bend over backwards to accept The Pledge and "In God we Trust", they are the norm and unthreatening.

Yeah, they're the norm now. "In God we trust" wasn't the norm until after 1864 for coins, and 1964 for paper money, and Congress didn't add "under God" to the pledge till 1954.

Date: 2006/11/29 09:38:24, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS

You're welcome, Dave. Just popping in to see how you're thread is doing. Nice to see you're still getting mileage out of my suggestion.

Date: 2006/11/29 14:03:22, Link
Author: Ved
Does it take more information to describe the rusty truck or the same truck when it was new?

The truck is degenerating, it must be losing information, right?  :p

Date: 2006/11/29 23:53:06, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Until this question gets answered, atheists cannot assume their scenario is more likely.

But atheists can say "So what? Oh Lord thank you for making the universe life-friendly, or at least holding the space-time envelope open with your mind. Amen. Pass the whores."

Date: 2006/12/01 12:48:21, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 01 2006,01:12)
So John, were you inspired to do this by the movie Borat? You know, the funny accent, 'care about the true', all that?

What do you mean? Borat's the real deal, man. I mean, he's as real as Stephen Colbert's balls are big!

Wa wa wee wa!

Date: 2006/12/04 12:58:45, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.

How amazingly generous of you. I'm sure you'll find a lot of common ground with atheists there

Date: 2006/12/07 14:37:19, Link
Author: Ved
No.

Date: 2006/12/11 12:15:12, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
many of you will have to eat massive crow. (No pun intended)

It really is hard to believe that afdave didn't intend the pun. Oh, and on today's tirade: Ah-hahahahahah! "[See? The theory of airplanes doesn't work because when you take the vertical stabilizer off they crash more!]" L. O. L.

Date: 2006/12/11 12:50:14, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Do whaaaat?

Who, me? I was just making a nice little airplane analogy for you; something that's on par with your Crow argument.

Date: 2006/12/13 12:27:40, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Why are there no elves?  Or wizards?

Because our past is not a fairy tale.
 
Quote
Or ___ (fill in the blank)?

There were Neanderthals, but we killed them. There's also all the "races" of man that didn't make it into the Bible, but I guess that's not good enough. And then there's Bonobos who are a little more distanty related... they're kinda cute. :D

Date: 2006/12/15 15:44:37, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
This might be a little harsh towards fundamentalism.

Russel wasn't being harsh on fundamentalism. He was saying that he feels it's the davethink that's the problem with Bush, NOT his fundamentalism. And I think even afdave would agree that fundy-ism isn't the main problem with the shrub. I think he's a terrorist hooligan.

Date: 2006/12/16 11:25:03, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
DAVE'S DEFINITIONS (Off the top of my head)

Could you define design as well? And more particularly could you tell us where the design for the watch in your analogy came from, and what this tells us about where the design for the butterfly came from?

Date: 2006/12/17 10:55:32, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
... if you all will petition Steve Story to keep the thread open, I will answer many more.

Just do your thing, Dave. Nobody's martyring you yet.

Quote
Here's Deadman's original list [...]

Look at that, I got one right there. Number 27, baby!

Date: 2006/12/18 09:11:01, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Especially when the alternative idea, ToE, has ZERO experimental proof of new structures being formed by RM+NS.

Maybe if you keep saying it, it will become true. Stephen Colbert would approve.

Date: 2006/12/18 14:54:07, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But wait... What are we doing here? ... This argument was debunked 150 years ago...

Yeah, but this is the AFD UCG "H" part deaux. When someone brought up the wee analogy "in passing", I just knew it was gonna blow up like that Portuguese thing -and I'm no Nostradamus. Strap yourself in for another 10 pages of talking past each other...

Date: 2006/12/19 10:48:01, Link
Author: Ved
While you guys are on the topic of tree snakes, I just wanted to say that ever since I discovered flying snakes I've had a whole new appreciation for evolution and what trees have enabled to happen to creatures that moved into them- including our ancestors. The trees provided stepping stones into the vertical where a creature as seemingly un-flightworthy as a snake can first take advantage of being able to parachute, and then take it to the point of actually being able to truly glide (farther than it falls). Sadly this is the kind of stuff that people like afdave have absolutely no interest in.

Date: 2006/12/19 11:47:30, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Eric ... I have an idea ... if I just say I agree with you, will you go away?  I haven't experienced such a motivated gnat buzzing around my head since my S. America days.  :p

Hey, I like Eric's posts. Quitchyer bitchin' and answer his questions. Pretend every one of them is being asked by me as well.

(hehe, 400 pages of drivel to find out that God is a possibility...)

Date: 2006/12/20 11:21:27, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
You would like this website:

Heh, very cool. That was the site I had stumbled on that actually had video of the snakes moving through the air. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... I think a video is worth a million. I remember one particular vid where a snake quickly flipped around so that it flew back towards the building it was released from, I guess to try to evade recapture. Obviously it was very nimble and very much in control of it's glide.

Hmm, if I'd have paid more attention to the references at the time I probably would have recognised you. Cool, man. Small world.

Date: 2006/12/20 15:19:58, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
What does it mean if somebody says something after being promised a reward for doing so? IMO it means as much as a big fat zero without the ring.

Yeah, I agree. It's just like, say... Christianity. Promises, promises!  :p  Eh, if nothing else I'd consider the challenge to be something refreshing in a country where it seems most people assume everyone else is a good Christian...

Date: 2006/12/20 15:51:50, Link
Author: Ved
I'm sorry, I was just razzin'. I mean, I realize that a person can get Peter Popoff’s Miracle Spring Water for free!  :D Oops, there I go again...

Date: 2006/12/21 10:19:33, Link
Author: Ved
jujuquisp- I was gonna apologize for my part in instigating the religious argument, but we've got heddle mirroring some of the comments on that UD thread which are rather curious.

First of all the real question should be: What the F does a Blasphemy Challenge have to do with Intelligent Design??? Oh, LOL, who are we kidding?!?

I think Louis has hit the nail on the head. While it is very convenient indeed for the religion, for followers to be able to argue that people who don't know God can't possibly blaspheme themselves to heck by uttering a single phrase, it's beside the point for non-believers. The "kids" (aren't they the ones Dembski's trying to target now?) aren't doing it for the "benefit" of a being they don't think exists, they are doing it for the "benefit" of other people in the real world.

It's not the non-believer's job to sort out every specific thing that they don't believe in. Religions diversify over time to the point of rediculous variation. I mentioned Christianity because that's the horse my family bet on. I also feel like I should speak up for what I don't believe in, to help to balance out the actions of my missionary relatives.

Date: 2006/12/21 11:30:39, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 21 2006,12:02)
 
But look at the staggering popularity in Denmark!  Considering that the Danish population is 1/60th of the US, that means ID is approximately 40 times as popular in Denmark as in the US!  Danske Waterloo!  Danske Waterloo!



"We're huge in Belgium."

Date: 2006/12/22 09:47:01, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
RUSSELL'S YOUNG SON: "Dad, there's a helicopter flying over!  Let's go outside and see it!"
RUSSELL: "How do you know, son?"
SON: "Hear the wop wop wop?  That's a helicopter!  C'mon, dad! Hurry!"
RUSSELL: "Son, you must understand.  Just because something goes wop wop wop doesn't mean it's a helicopter."
SON: "Hurry, dad, it's gonna be gone!"
RUSSELL:  "I think we need to investigate further before we make any rash decisions, interrupt our dinner, and walk all the way outside."
SON: "Hey dad ... See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!"  (Bolts outside)

I thought you were gonna say the kid ran outside into a hail of gunfire, but then again, we're not on the same wavelength...

Date: 2006/12/22 10:46:14, Link
Author: Ved
Born in Charlottesville, VA... raised in Bucks County, PA. Now I'm in Philly. Nice and small for a big city...

Date: 2006/12/22 10:57:42, Link
Author: Ved
I suppose that next you're going to "inform" us that the majority of the species on earth are parasites?

Date: 2006/12/22 17:35:40, Link
Author: Ved
Dembski's new flash contest

Cash in on ID! Poopy noises are bonus, for private collection only, of course, possibly...

Date: 2006/12/22 17:52:43, Link
Author: Ved
Funny that he would want Dawkins to brainwash Colbert with reason. I think my hero, Stephen Colbert, turned out just fine.

Date: 2006/12/26 11:23:29, Link
Author: Ved
I thought this thread was about ADave's Creator God Hypothesis! When are we going to get back to that?

Date: 2006/12/26 12:54:51, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (ericmurphy @ ,)
you're playing word games with MacNeill

Which basically boils down to being a quote mine, which is among the lowest of the low. Didn't dave learn what a bad thing quote mining is a long time ago??

Date: 2006/12/27 09:25:01, Link
Author: Ved
Boy, afdave's god really farked up. I mean, he destroys practically the whole earth with all it's old wicked cities, unmistakably revealing his awesome power to the 8 people left on the planet... and then, 180 years later (a hundred and eighty years later!!! ) we've got the Egyptians, the immediate descendants of witnesses of the flood, building monuments to their own god-kings! I think afdave's god picked the wrong man to preserve his message.

Date: 2006/12/27 14:19:24, Link
Author: Ved
I would have though that besides your own thread, the next most appropriate thread for your post, dave, would have been the "new years resolutions" thread.

Date: 2006/12/27 19:08:18, Link
Author: Ved
I agree, Malum.

Dave's hypothesis is made of coconuts.

Date: 2006/12/27 19:51:13, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (GilDodgen @ ,)
Quote (Zachriel @ ,)
Darwinism proposes a mechanism, a process, whereby a bacterium turned into Mozart in 10^17 seconds through purely materialistic means.


...minimize the time involved by using an exponent...


Yeah, seventeen zeros is a lot of zeros. Also, the theory only explains how Mozart is possible after 3 billion years.

Date: 2006/12/28 08:37:51, Link
Author: Ved
Ice Age: A mechanism for distributing animals between far-flung continents, a time of abundant bioactivity, growth, and diversification.

Date: 2006/12/28 10:19:25, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,10:37)
The overall and arching complaint that I have with evolution is this idea that the utterly complex and highly organized and highly ordered physical universe was created by chance.

Welcome, dgszweda. OK, what does evolutionary theory which deals with changes in life forms over time, have to do with the creation of the universe?

Date: 2006/12/28 10:32:31, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (improvius @ ,)
Your problem is with the very concept of "chance" rather than with any scientific theory of evolution.

Heh, imagine how problematic "chance" would be in an unordered universe!

Date: 2006/12/28 11:56:08, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list @ ,)
Early Dynastic I

Ante-diluvian kings, legendary, or earlier than ca. the 26th century BC....

   * Alulim of Eridu(g): 8 sars (28800 years)
   * Alalgar of Eridug: 10 sars (36000 years)
   * En-Men-Lu-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 12 sars (43200 years)
   * En-Men-Ana 1, 2
   * En-Men-Gal-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 8 sars (28800 years)
   * Dumuzi of Bad-Tibira, the shepherd: 10 sars (36000 years)
   * En-Sipad-Zid-Ana of Larag: 8 sars (28800 years)
   * En-Men-Dur-Ana of Zimbir: 5 sars and 5 ners (21000 years)
   * Ubara-Tutu of Shuruppag: 5 sars and 1 ner (18600 years)
   * Zin-Suddu 1


 28,800
+36,000
+43,200
+28,800
+36,000
+28,800
+21,000
+18,600

=241,200 years of kings before

+ 2,600 BC

= a start of rule at 243,800 BC!

+ 2006 AD

= 245,806 ybp!!!

When did your universe start again AFdave?

Date: 2006/12/28 15:42:12, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
...interesting article on mutant dogs.

No shiat. Would you mind explaining please, finally, what the fuck a baboon dog is?

Date: 2006/12/29 08:47:56, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,09:16)
Malum...  
Quote
[AFD]2) That the loss of alleles (caused by mutations) thus eliminates much of the diversity

[Malum]Dave,
Just for clarification, are you saying that the loss of of the alleles was caused by

mutation, or that alleles that were caused by mutations were lost?
The latter.

In other words, mutations brought about alleles. It's so nice to agree during this holiday season.  :)

Date: 2006/12/30 19:57:45, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
And Eric wonders why I don't answer him any more.

Your loss, afdave. If you can't defend your hypothesis from the questions of someone of the scientific caliber of ericmurphy, i.e. an average joe, it really shows that your "scientific theory" is all bluff. Coconuts, all the way down.

Date: 2006/12/31 10:17:00, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
I HAVE NO INTEREST IN MOVING THIS "MESS" TO MY OWN BLOG
Carlson, you read me wrong ... I want to be HERE, where the skeptics are.

Mmmm-hmmmm. 'Cause where you are, there are no skeptics. And without anyone to be skeptical of anything, there's really not much chance of finding out whether or not the ideas in your head have anything to do with reality or not.

I have to say I'm opposed to closing the thread outright.

It seems to be more out of control than ever right now, and is a bit disturbing how nasty it's become, but I do have a fascination with train wrecks, and the science contributions are great. Maybe Russell has the right idea; just walk away from it. I'd say something like this:

 
Quote (anyone feel free to improve and repost this protest letter to dave @ ,)
Dave, you are incapable of honestly upholding your end of scientific conversation. You are undebatable. If you want to play with the skeptics in a thread titled YOUR HYPOTHESIS, you are going to have to respect the rules of honest scientific inquiry. Otherwise, you are going to have to deal with the fact that your supposed hypothesis is not science and is illegal to teach as science in public schools in this country.


If everyone just leaves in protest, afdave's already hollow cries of victory will be that much more rediculous.

Date: 2007/01/02 07:03:19, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Stop swallowing science lies...

...and, there we have it. To dave, science is lies. Maybe not all of it is lies, obviously whatever science is behind working computers and airplanes is sound. Sure there's some bad science out there, but referring broadly to any science, flat out, as lies, shows that he doesn't understand how science works, and that he is really an enemy of science.

This is why I think it's best to refuse to debate dave under the pretense that he has a hypothesis.

Date: 2007/01/02 07:40:34, Link
Author: Ved
Look, I was doing you a favor by staying out of your thread. Maybe you could return it/there. I don't know what Millionsofyearsianism is, and Darwinism by itself is a little old fashioned. Probably the most honest thing you're capable of is to keep preaching like your 7AM post, but I'm not sure that's welcome on this board...

[edit] p.s. Sorry, but disallowing any date before 10,000 years ago puts you at odds with a lot of science. You don't think it's important stuff, only because you don't accept it as valid.

Date: 2007/01/03 08:47:19, Link
Author: Ved
I didn't think creatures had to *jump* to new species, I thought they drifted... or at most, they moseyed or sauntered...

Date: 2007/01/03 13:53:33, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (dgszweda @ ,)
The problem still exists on how causality occured on a singular event when time, space and nothing else existed.

Sure it's an interesting problem. But don't you have a similar but more complex problem in how an uncaused cause (being) caused time/space/matter/energy to come into existence?

Oh, and not to pooh-pooh the big bang discussion, but it seems silly to debate someone about it who doesn't think that it happened. The more relevant stuff came billions of years later, when our solar system and planet formed. I assume dgszweda disputes those events too?

Date: 2007/01/03 16:21:39, Link
Author: Ved
That was a great lil tirade Mr Pin. And to offer a suggestion on spelling wierdness: cut and paste is your friend. No muss, no fuss.

Date: 2007/01/04 14:56:50, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Good riddance

Given that last post of his especially, I'm inclined to agree.

dgzweda is welcome to believe what he does about himself and his god, but if he's not inclined to learn anything about us, and science, and instead just spout crap about both, well... deadman said it best.

Date: 2007/01/04 21:22:31, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,12:35)
Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.

Don't you have a thread that's getting a bit cold right now? Oh wait. That's not till just a little bit longer...  :p

Date: 2007/01/05 08:57:30, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
best to filter out repetitious posts, and have merely representative ones, or leave it as a "complete work of art"?

Complete work, definitely. A good portion of afdave's intractable sciencsh was his ability to ignore.

Date: 2007/01/06 16:41:29, Link
Author: Ved
Steve's alleged quote mine post of
 
Quote
WESLEY ELSBERRY BANS CREATIONISTS [pic] (snip)

seems to accurately quote the title of your blog entry.

:p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p


So cry me a river, Gallileo. You had your chance to have a friendly discussion on this board, and you blew it. And note the title of the board, please:

Antievolution.org: The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Not:

Antievolution.org: A Platform for cranks

Date: 2007/01/06 17:26:20, Link
Author: Ved
Scary, no problem.

For a while now I've wanted to give you props for having such an even keel in this world, no matter what your beliefs. Oh, and regarding your post on dave's blog, you do know that not all here are "non-Christians"... Our dear Wesley is one. I'm (not) surprised dave didn't mention it or try to appeal to him on that basis.

Funny, I had been picturing you and dave as D&D mages, duking it out with magic I can't relate to. Anyway, cheers from this atheist!

Date: 2007/01/06 18:43:32, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Ved--  Would you like to provide the quote where I said all of you here are non-Christians?

Uh, dude, I was talking to Scary, about his post, that happens to be on your blog, where he said you had pissed off the non-Christians, making it seem like maybe there were none here. It's not hard... It wasn't even really that important.

Date: 2007/01/07 10:12:11, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Are these posts replying to AFDave in the Bathroom Wall violating any of AtBC's policies?  Shouldn't the bathroom wall be reserved for true garbage, such as only AFDave posts?  Otherwise, what is the point of discontinuing AFDave's thread?

If you look back you'll see plenty of replies to the detritus that's been siphoned off to here. Seems like it's fair game.

I believe the point, as someone else eloquently put it, was to put an end to afdave's MAGNUM OPUS.

For a thread on a science board entitled an "Hypothesis" it was a complete joke. Notice particularly how in the very beginning he stated he was going to use Lenny Flank's "template" for doing science, so as to avoid getting himself into trouble here. That statement itself was dave's scientific high point for the thread, 'cause he never even came close to doing what he said. It was all downhill from there.

Date: 2007/01/07 11:29:51, Link
Author: Ved
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 06 2007,18:42)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 06 2007,17:13)
But most sentences about "universe" seem to use it to mean "the space (or space-time) in which we live"

Which, of course, leaves out the "multiverse", or other spacetimes which are not part of ours.

;)

Not the multiverse???!!!

The Multiverse ... The Multiverse ... The Multiverse!

Anyone who would make it the subject of a song, is cool.

Voivod rules!

Date: 2007/01/07 12:10:04, Link
Author: Ved
I got a chuckle the other night, thinking of afdave's thread, when I happened to turn to some junk court TV true crime show. The narrator was saying that the detectives were disappointed to only have eyewitness accounts of the events, and that they were hoping to soon have (wait for it) ... scientific evidence!

Date: 2007/01/08 11:08:28, Link
Author: Ved
afdave, something tells me that your continuing your old God Hypothesis thread is not what Steve had in mind...

Say... when you finally start up at Dawkins' site (I see you've registered), I'd suggest that you not use the same thread title, 'cause what you got ain't an hypothesis.

Date: 2007/01/08 21:41:48, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Mmmmmmmmm, that's good stupid!

Holy crap, yeah!

Quote
Christians feel particularly aggrieved because we believe that Jesus invented secularism.

Thank you Jesus!

So what the heck are they complaining about?!?!

Date: 2007/01/09 08:17:02, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (you know who @ wiki,)
It should be noted that while a novel allele is produced in this way, no new information is being created by this process.

Ahh, I see.

Recombination doesn't change information it changes alleles.

And what's produced isn't new, it's novel.

Got it.



P.S. Dave you're retarded.

Date: 2007/01/10 09:22:22, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
Why not just let new species evolve rather than try to preserve the endangered ones?

1) New species will continue to evolve no matter what we do. But, they will not be the same species. They will never, ever be the same. So, if you like, say, elephants, you have to preserve them.

2) It takes thousands to millions of years for new species to "replace" the old extinct ones.

3) It takes us only hundreds of years or even just decades to wipe out a species.

4) Do the math.

5) A new fledgling species could be considered endangered right from the start, and if we kill it then, it won't ever really become a new species then, will it.

Date: 2007/01/10 11:40:05, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 10 2007,11:28)
 
Quote
4) Do the math.
I think if I do the math, everything goes extinct eventually.

Does that fit into your world view?

Yes. But keep in mind saying "everything goes extinct eventually" is about as vague a statement as you can possibly make.

If you want me to be a tad more specific, I'd remind you that we were talking about not preserving endangered species. If we do manage to preserve endangered species, within reason, then many things will not go extinct in a human-relatable timescale.

Date: 2007/01/10 15:50:29, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
Eric says extinction is going to happen soon (humans within the next few thousand years).

Wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! You are impossible.

Eric clearly says that YOU say that humans will be extinct in a few thousand years!

Read!

Date: 2007/01/10 16:03:46, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Ichthy @ ,)
fun, huh?

It's addictive!

Date: 2007/01/10 18:49:50, Link
Author: Ved
Hmm, yes, what's important about "soon"? A semantics trap?

Soon in a Deep Time scale, I wonder what that means exactly. I'd say Eric's right that 500 million years from now is not "soon" on a geologic time scale. And if we're talking about biological evolution as we know it on earth, then "Deep Time" would refer to geologic time. For comparison if we look back at the earth 500 mya, we'd see no land animals at all. The most significant things we'd recognize would be fish and algae, and maybe some land plants.

500 million years might, (might) be considered soon if you're talking about the whole universe. We think it's been around for 13 billion. Who knows how long it'll be around, hundreds of billions of years? If that's the case then maybe half a billion years is soon, but that's not what you mean by Deep Time, is it Dave?

It's a matter of perspective. More than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second. Is that a lot?

Date: 2007/01/11 16:54:45, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Ichthy @ ,)
are you guys seriously considering discussing the difference between 500 million years and 13 billion with a guy who thinks the entire universe is newer than 10K years???

Yea, I know. Part of my motivation for my last post was as an exercise for myself. Even as a "Deep Timer" (whatever that means), because I'm just an interested layman, it wasn't till I started hanging around on boards like this that I started to try to really pay attention to what specific dates in the distant past actually relate to. What does half a billion years in the past mean to me? I had to look it up to be certain. But there are a few dates now that I actually have a handle on in my mind that give me some perspective for where (I mean, when) we are. Like 65 mya was the KT boundary, clearing the way for mammals to get started, and about 5 mya was our split from chimps. Even just going by those two dates, 500 mya appears to be a very long time ago, in evolutionary terms. 500 million years in the future, couldn't possibly be considered "soon".

Date: 2007/01/12 12:00:34, Link
Author: Ved
So this is what you're reduced to, eh Dave? Posting that fraud of a clip... and it is a cobbled-together fraud.

[edit] Oh, and even if were real, so what? It's an interview, not a science paper.

Date: 2007/01/12 12:42:32, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
I didn't say it's true.

Oh, I see. So now you're just flat-out trolling.

At least it's already in the proper thread.

Date: 2007/01/12 14:27:21, Link
Author: Ved
...and if Paley has "come clean" and is done trolling, why on earth is he continuing to use his original troll thread?

It would be puzzling if I didn't think he was still just trolling.

Date: 2007/01/12 15:01:23, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
How about something I haven't addressed yet?

Honestly dave, if you would just stop asserting shiat that just plain isn't true, no one would be asking you questions. Your universe is the one that's boring.

When you finally start posting at Dawkins' site, take my advice and don't call your thread a God Hypothesis. That you pretend to be scientific is the most blatant of your untruths.

Date: 2007/01/13 19:10:12, Link
Author: Ved
1) It is possible that there are things in the universe that Dave doesn't understand, that could have either natural or supernatural explanations.

2) As demonstrated by Dave's threads, Dave choses to be pig-ignorant of many things in the universe that are understood to have natural explanations.

3) Therefore it is possible that supernatural explanations may not be necessary for anything, but Dave would never know.

Date: 2007/01/14 00:19:17, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Louis @ ,)
Stevestory's announcement that the AFDave experience was going to die:

Not to comment on moderation ;), but:

If I was going to give Paley the benefit of the doubt, I'd mention that your quote of Steve was not the post that terminated afdave's thread (within the following 250 posts). Here is the relevant post, which does prominently feature the "making anticreationists look bad" angle:  
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,12:52)
Announcement:

[pic]

I've been thinking on it overnight, and reading email, and I've come to a conclusion. A few people want to insult Davy and Davy wants to blabber nonsense and pretend he's winning and such. That's true. Some people want to Stay the Course. But the thread is worthless w/r/t the board, and figuring out new ways to call him ShitForBrains Liar Moron Embezzeler Dave is not doing anybody any good, and is degrading to the board. So this thread is going to end. we're not going to Cut and Run, we're going to do a Phased Withdrawal. The previous AFDave thread got 6,047 responses. This one's currently on 4725. So make the next 275 posts count, because at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end. After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog or he can continue this on his own blog, or wherever else.


However, in my opinion, the quote that Louis did post, which came a short time earlier, is actually the one that is the most important, and clearly describes the situation more accurately.


[eagles lost, I'm drunk, there's probly more spelling errors that I missed...]

Date: 2007/01/14 12:25:11, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Can Dave be THAT retarded?  :O

...if that's what it takes!





Dawwwwwwkiiiiinnnnns... Dawwwkiiinnnnns........

Date: 2007/01/14 12:30:24, Link
Author: Ved
In the interest of making this 'hollowed' ground pure again, here is a pic of the bathroom wall from our old studio:

Date: 2007/01/14 20:53:10, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
Ved catches Louis in another lie

Your interpretation.

I stand by what I actually said.

Date: 2007/01/15 21:40:04, Link
Author: Ved
PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times  :)

Date: 2007/01/17 09:04:10, Link
Author: Ved
Louis, my good man. I had come to believe that you must like writing page after page after page bashing Paley. It was the only thing that made sense to me.

I have no smegging clue if Paley is "racist" or not. Either way, it wouldn't change my opinion of him very much. I also don't think it's worth exploring that particular issue with anyone on this board.

I'm afraid you've developed a nasty habit. You're wasting brain cells and electrons on those threads. Stick around. Stay away from Paley, and maybe pick up a bottle instead.

Date: 2007/01/17 09:36:46, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
I would like the members opinion on whether or not I have DISHONESTLY misrepresented GoP in ANY sense. If you think I have been harsh or uncharitable, I agree and sorry, but this is a very different thing to dishonest.

I haven't read ALL of the most recent exchanges, but I don't think you're being dishonest.

And I don't think teasing someone about sweaty wrestler pics makes the teaser a homophobe.

Date: 2007/02/14 09:28:58, Link
Author: Ved
Ugh, I need my afdave fix!

Science dammit, richarddawkins.net!

Date: 2007/02/15 09:12:25, Link
Author: Ved
Last night Fox just happened to re-run the anti-evolution episode of the Simpsons from last year...

Coincidence???

Should I have posted this on Zero's thread?

:p

Date: 2007/02/15 10:23:25, Link
Author: Ved
Hehe, I know it's confusing. I meant Anti-evolution as in about or against anti-evolution, like the name the site we're posting on right now.

:D

Date: 2007/02/16 15:26:03, Link
Author: Ved
That's all ya got, huh?

Date: 2007/02/16 15:46:41, Link
Author: Ved
You're welcome to go ahead and use the word Truth with a capital T with impunity. No need for a trademark... use it all you want. We know what that word means. We don't have any need for it.

Date: 2007/02/18 18:38:09, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ ,)
I don't think there is a single question that I have not answered on this topic [at Dawkins' site]


Yeah, we all know you're not even very good at not thinking.

My top unanswered question over there I've asked you a half a dozen times since page 12.


Way to go out on a limb, Gall-ileo. You don't think you've left a single unanswered on-topic question!


:p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2007/02/19 09:40:38, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (stevestory @ ,)
at some point the moderators at RichardDawkins.net will get tired of Street Preacher Dave Hawkins, and give him the boot, and he'll need to look for a new home.


Yup. No matter what Dave says, I doubt very much that the moderators at Dawkins' gave him a blank check to do whatever the heck he wants over there. He very well could be banned outright. His thread could be locked... it's not like there aren't any netizens there that have asked for it!

Date: 2007/02/20 10:25:10, Link
Author: Ved
Nah, he can't go to UD 'cause there's no evilutionists there to abuse him!

Date: 2007/02/20 11:58:42, Link
Author: Ved
Ha-ha, you assclown. You just got your thread locked on Dawkin's site!


:p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

Date: 2007/02/20 12:16:56, Link
Author: Ved
Actually, Dave, if it's any consolation I don't think Kevin Ronayne got it quite right about that particular post moving the goalposts... Maybe he doesn't realize that each day or so you start a new sub-topic. But, I do think the goalposts were in constant motion right from the start.

You said you were going to "try to" keep your criticism of Evolution in another thread. You failed.

Back over there you asked me how your calling Evolution a historical science was criticising it.

Ordinarily such a statement by anyone on the face of the earth would not be considered a criticism of Evolution. But we all know what you mean by "historical science" - you mean it to be some sort of lesser science, a non-nomological one, that doesn't conform to Popper's falsification criteria for REAL science.

And that is criticizing Evolution. Period.



P.S. Your double post in one, a complete repeat from yesterday, ignoring all of yesterday's responses, is fucking insulting. Cheers!

Date: 2007/02/20 18:49:28, Link
Author: Ved
That's not what happened. I'm pretty sure Dave was not online when Kevin locked the thread. The post is gone now, but right before SpaghettiSawUs wrote "Looks like the mods didn't appreciate Dave's change of topic.... " Dave had posted his daily post, but it was a doubly long duplicate of his February 19 morning announcement, complete with the "no time for a furball today" bit. Eric counted 7300 words... classy!

Kevin locked the thread and split it off starting at the new duplicated announcement. Then the "hypothesis" thread was re-opened briefly before RichardPrins finally closed it again.

Date: 2007/02/20 19:03:46, Link
Author: Ved
Kevin Ronayne apparently saw Dave's announcement of a "new topic" as itself a shifting of the goalposts. I disagree. It's subject was right in line with Dave's original post. And if Kevin's been following Dave's thread he'd know that every day brings a new sub-topic announcement. I don't see it as a goal post shift. Dave, as usual, is just trying to hurry on to the next topic (somewhere in part 2 of the introduction to his "hypothesis") without admitting defeat, but his daily announcements are in the proper order. The things that aren't in the proper order are the majority of his arguments. Like the evolution criticism that even according Dave, belong in a different thread.

Date: 2007/02/20 19:10:20, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
But Dave hasn't really started a new topic anyway.


You're right, LOL


Dave?  New topic???!?!?!!!!



:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2007/02/21 06:52:43, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 21 2007,06:32)
Lesson to Steve and Carlson--

Things are not always as they appear.  Darwinists may not hold a monopoly of knowledge after all.  Could it be that Creationists might just be right about a thing or two?

Dear jerk,

A few of us so-called Darwinists have already demonstrated our knowledge of the truth about what happened to your thread.

No Creationist perspective needed.

Date: 2007/05/03 22:03:44, Link
Author: Ved
I'm appalled. Over at Dawkins' site, it's just gotten out of control. That one mod, obscured by clouds, especially, is plain insulting our intelligence. And they had just banned that dude Stipe for pretty much the exact same shiat.

Disgusting.

Date: 2007/05/03 22:32:36, Link
Author: Ved
It's a train wreck right now, I can't believe those mods aren't hacked troll puppets.

Someone, one of the Steves I think, put forward the theory that they're actually trying to drive some the good guys away, in favor of the troll that lays the golden eggs, and between obc and Matalanifesto waffling on the meaning of "rules," I'm half convinced.

Date: 2007/05/04 06:51:03, Link
Author: Ved
If you want a hit of some mindblowing tard from the officials, no less, just pick up here:

Flood Debate Comment Thread

It's not IN the specific rules set up by the debate participants on how to enforce said rules. And yet some mods took it upon themselves earlier to make up some way of enforcing the word count rule...

!!!!!

Oh yes, and afdave is just loving the "fairness," of course!

:p

Date: 2007/05/04 19:12:40, Link
Author: Ved
Oh by the way, regarding warnings:






BWE you're just tops.

Quote (BWE @ May 04 2007,15:37)
Here might be a better place to start. I forgot how much I enjoy reading intelligent posts. I've been sipping here but oh boy, I've been sittin down under the spigot of the dawkins keg. And it's barly frickin wine. Ohhhh. I don't feel so good dad.

Those mods are manifest morons. Ved understates his case a bit.

Actually, I've started working outside quite a bit more recently, doing a spot of surveying (nice weather for that this week 'round here!) and I've been away from my machine at the office... Thanks for the link, as it happened I had skipped that portion of the thread (one of the very few only recently) that had apparently gotten the mods interest up. Still haven't managed to get through it, I'm sure it'll be similarly delightful.

Date: 2007/05/05 12:50:17, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (afdave @ May 05 2007,12:22)
I think what you mean by "annoying" is "annoying to me, Wesley Elsberry" because you are an anti-creationist who poses as an unbiased promoter of neutral science, when in reality you are a Darwin Apologist.   And I am an informed creationist who argues my points persistently and forcefully from the science literature.

Can you handle that on your site or not?

I guarantee you that Wesley is not alone in considering you to be "annoying." Some people (and bulletin boards) just find it a more endearing quality than others.

Is it not obvious that this site is dedicated to the study of anti-evolutionists? This is not a site for arguing about whether creation or evolution happened.

Sure, science itself is neutral, but you are mistaken if you think that that means all ideas are equal, or that there is the slightest amount of legitimate scientific controversy over the validity of the Theory of Evolution. What you don't realize is that your arguments against evolution (you never have a positive argument for creation science) don't have a leg to stand on. Any other arguments you bring to the table were made and defeated long ago.

But I understand how in the position of the creationist, this seems like an attack on creationism.

Date: 2007/05/05 13:42:20, Link
Author: Ved
afdave


Posts: 1556
Joined: April 2006


Date: 2007/05/08 07:24:44, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
I also want to look at the question of what is a “radical” atheist?

A "radical" atheist is no more dangerous than a "radical" religious zealot or a "radical" agnostic.


Quote
Anti-religion is displayed in his repeated and exclusive reference to Christianity.  That is his target and example in all arguments.  His enmity, as he explains it, comes from the fact that he once was a Christian and feels lied to and misled.  He is definitely anti-Christian and one wonders how much of his motivation stems from this basis.

Lack of belief in "God" doesn't exist in a vacuum of belief. Wherever an atheist is or comes from, one religion of another always dominates the area in one way or another.

Why is it wrong to argue against your ex-religion? Would being motivated by feeling wronged by said religion negate the validity of the atheists arguments, or his rights to his own beliefs?

As an white American in 2007 I don't go out of my way to criticise Islam. IMO the percieved Christian America has done more than enough of damage to our relations with Muslims.

It should go without saying that atheists disbelieve in equally, not only your god, but everyone elses.

Also, as a practical matter, does this Smith guy know Arabic and the Koran? Is he writing to Arabs? I don't know that he doesn't, but if he's writing in English I'm sure he can safely assume that the majority of his readers have an understanding of Christianity, and not Islam. In that situation, to not use the common ground of Christianity to argue against, would be stupid.

Date: 2007/05/08 17:38:26, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ ,)
Quote (Ved @ ,)
As an white American in 2007 I don't go out of my way to criticise Islam. IMO the percieved Christian America has done more than enough of damage to our relations with Muslims.

Nothing should be beyond criticism, even by <gasp> white people (the nerve of them!).
Quote
It should go without saying that atheists disbelieve in equally, not only your god, but everyone elses.

Then why is Christianity singled out for criticism?

Oops, I forgot to be sure not to mention anything about race...  I suppose you think Americans should antagonize muslims more?


Was my previous explanation not clear?

Why should I visit a muslim country or bb to criticise religion? In America, the religion most would consider to be default, and that most people can relate to enough to discuss thoroughly, is Christianity. Specific religions are merely cultural language about "God." If an atheist wants to criticise religion he uses the language of the religion he and the expected readers can identify with.

You could also look at it like attending to the matters of our own house first.

Date: 2007/05/09 06:50:28, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ ,)
   
Quote (Ved @ ,)
Oops, I forgot to be sure not to mention anything about race...  I suppose you think Americans should antagonize muslims more?
No, but Americans have the right to criticise Muslims if they wish. If Muslims take criticism as antagonism, then that shows how weak their religion is (or how hostile their religion is to civil rights). Consider this example: South Park has been spoofing Christianity without restraint. Part of the satire involves showing blasphemous pictures of Jesus. Despite the fundamentalist hegemony gripping America, the show is not censored. But what happens when they try to show a drawing of Muhammed?

Something to think about.

Yep. I'm not convinced that the entire episode wasn't scripted, including the censorship. It almost doesn't matter. The end result was a funny episode critical of islam as well as mainstream censorship.

Quote
Quote
Why should I visit a muslim country or bb to criticise religion? In America, the religion most would consider to be default, and that most people can relate to enough to discuss thoroughly, is Christianity. Specific religions are merely cultural language about "God." If an atheist wants to criticise religion he uses the language of the religion he and the expected readers can identify with.

You could also look at it like attending to the matters of our own house first.

Ok, but as Muslims become more prominent in Western countries, should Atheists address Islam?

I will consider spending equal time critiquing Islam and Christianity when the same number followers of each is elected in the House and Senate. I'll even overlook the last 250 years of christian cultural domination.

Date: 2007/05/09 06:55:47, Link
Author: Ved
Quote
When anti-Christian filmakers get their throats cut, I will.

But what about the rights of murderers? Won't someone think of them?

Give me a break.

Date: 2007/05/09 13:48:55, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 09 2007,13:25)
What are you talking about, Ved? I don't support people who kill filmmakers. I'm just pointing out that criticising Christianity is much safer than criticising Islam, and this makes the carping about Christian intolerance a little hollow.


I was trying to answer your question about why atheists pick on christianity. And you've just supplied another reasonable answer.

Are you saying that because Islam is less tolerant of and more violent towards outspoken atheists, that that negates any reason to criticise christianity? Do I have to quit my job and move to Iran to avoid discriminating unfairly against christianity because it's a 'nice' religion now?

Can't you tolerate atheists criticising your religion?

Date: 2007/05/09 21:57:28, Link
Author: Ved



No farking way, BW... Masterful!

Date: 2007/05/28 07:57:17, Link
Author: Ved
/yawn.   :D  :D  :D

I'm more interested in seeing the results of the two new Farcical Debates you're starting over at Dawkins' (or seeing a response from you regarding the meat of the last few replies I've given you, instead of just accusing me of attributing that Ayala quote to you of all things)


Oh, and I see Ghost of Paley was finally banned?!?!?!?!

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

There is a God!

Date: 2007/06/03 14:25:53, Link
Author: Ved
Quote (Kristine @ June 01 2007,17:55)

Is that picture on the right an exhibit? It looks like the poor chap landed in that position after falling out of a plane!

Date: 2007/06/03 14:42:14, Link
Author: Ved
LOL, 2nd hit GISing for "creation museum paleontologist display"



And you know, stuffed paleontologists can be relied on to toe the party line...

Date: 2007/06/23 23:00:33, Link
Author: Ved
Hey Mike, that's so great that you got the Dr. Brown call to happen. I'm sorry to say that I'm so beyond completely bored with reading afdave now that I can't bear to force myself to hunt for and read the account of the exchange. I'm sure it was as great as everything I imagine it was!

Date: 2007/06/23 23:05:09, Link
Author: Ved
Hey Spagsie, old bean!

Sorry I missed your PM when you were on forced hiatus here. I've been so preoccupied over at Dawkins' I haven't really been checking in here, and I didn't get it till a little while ago.



(looks like this page is getting one of those bugs of old :p )

 

 

 

=====