AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: blipey

form_srcid: blipey

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: blipey

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/06/14 19:29:15, Link
Author: blipey
Don't worry Steve, your ability to successfully read an entire first- and surname, and bring it whole to another forum will soon be the stuff of legend.  We will chant your name for generations to come...if you give us permission, that is.  :O

Date: 2006/06/14 21:39:38, Link
Author: blipey
So wooden artifacts found in the pyramids are actually from the 20th century?

That certainly makes me go, "Hmmm.  I never saw that glaring hole..."

It also upsets me a little since I'm going to have to return all those antiques I bought. :angry:

Date: 2006/06/16 03:46:01, Link
Author: blipey

Since you apparently paid attention to what I said when I gave you the link to UD, I'm going to ask you to do one more thing.

As others have done here at this forum--ad naseum--I ask you to start talking about the issue.

It surely must be apparent to you that the number one reason for many of us to not take any ID calim seriously is that none of its adherents EVER talk about the EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS in a rational manner.

If you do not start to present  evidence and rational arguments that are on topic, you too will be lumped into this category.  It will be your own fault and nobody will feel  sorry for you.

You've been asked very kindly to stop crying and complaining--now it is time to do so...or accept the reasonable conclusion that you ARE, in fact, a baby that whines and complains and does little else.

If you think this is a personal attack on you, I cannot help this.  However, please note that I gave you a very easy out--PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS.  If you do this, you are not a baby.

Date: 2006/06/17 12:09:40, Link
Author: blipey
I must say, skeptic, that you take the cake.  At least in my book--fantastic.  Your dedication is utterly inconceivable.  Thordaddy has nothing on you, WTG.

In fact, your performance has led me to guess your actual occupation.  You are a professional athlete...probably a dodge-ball player.  Your quick first step, your slithery ellusiveness, your gutty performance in the face of inimitable odds...your ability to get kicked in the balls and not even know it....

You are my hero.

I just have one thing to ask of you, if you see, I'm a cancer patient and would like to meet a fine professional thinker such as yourself before I die.  Please come and sign my cast (It's a pancreatic'll need a special pencil).

Of course, if you are unable to get to my bedside in time, could you just phone and inform me of an idea you have...any would do, please, pretty please...just one nugget of your wisdom that I can independently confirm before I die?

What d'ya say?

Date: 2006/06/17 12:26:19, Link
Author: blipey
I'm sorry, I obviously meant "professional dodge-ball player"--not "thinker" in my above post; I hope I didn't anger you.

Date: 2006/06/18 05:43:49, Link
Author: blipey
Every morning I get up and check in--just on the remote (probably way over the UPB  :D ) chance that skeptic will present some actual arguments with real data, but woe is me.

Come on, skeptic, how 'bout it?  Make coffee come out of my nose one of these mornings...I promise I'll send a picture.

Date: 2006/06/18 17:04:14, Link
Author: blipey

skeptic, you've posted twice since you promised to make coffee come out my nose--AND STILL NO DATA, NO RATIONAL ARGUMENTS, & NO RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU.

I know, you haven't had're getting around to it...maybe sometime after the rapture....  I mean, if you couldn't address any points in the dozens of previous posts, why start now?

You are boring.

Deadly dull, really.  Let me sum up your argument if I may:

Hey, guys.  Look over here, I figured out that arithmetic doesn't work.  Yeah, the way we add numbers; we've been doing it wrong since the beginning.  You see, when I add numbers I get different things.

Yeah, it's different.  No fooling.  Well, I suppose I could teach you, but I'm really tired to teach bio-chemistry in the morning.  My first lesson will be forthcoming...just a matter of time...wait for it.

***a few hours later***

I think the proliferation of hot dog vendors on city streets creates a culture of drones which just can't wrap their heads around the new arithmetic I've shown.  What do you propose we do with these vendors so my new theory of arithmetic--which I've shown in detail above--can catch on?

***a few hours later***

Yeah, see numbers are unimportant to my theory of arithmetic.  It's really about how we believe the major groups, sets if you will, go together in a new way.  I'll get to showing you the numbers in just a second.

***the next morning***

Wow.  You guys sure have been discussing things; I had to like pretend to read a lot--a LOT--of posts before writing this one (which will have nothing to do with my new theory, either).  You see, I've just finished reading the literally 18,000 pages of material you guys have given me since last night.  While I have finished it, it just doesn't seem too convincing.


So, do you think hot dog vendors hate me?

Oh, has everyone started using my clear and well-defined new theory yet?


please make this untrue, skeptic.  Until then, *yawn*.

Date: 2006/06/19 05:45:57, Link
Author: blipey
Which of your um...ideas will I be reading about in a textbook in 40 years, GoP?

1. The Earth is flat

2. The Earth is the center of the Solar System (well, certainly the textbook will identify it as the Earthal System)

3. Logical argumentation is best advanced through multiple non-sequiters

I think they are all equally likely, so I was wondering which you were really shooting for.

Date: 2006/06/19 08:27:53, Link
Author: blipey
Hey GoP:

If you want that geocentric theory in books sooner than later, how about posting the details of your model somewhere.

And, I'm very interested in what you think about the non-sequiter argumentation method.

Date: 2006/06/19 15:01:57, Link
Author: blipey
No wonder you presented the model math-free.  I can see where it might get quite complicated:

As the planets and sun move about each other and the Earth...The planets are free to move within, and occasionally rupture, the ecliptic plane!

I can just see all the manufacturers of mobiles crying out in agony.  How on Earth are they going to make cute models of the Earthal System to hang over a baby's crib?  Will they have to include a warning tag:

Do not hang close to baby, model may rupture

Also, even if I grant you all the nonsense in this "model?", I find this odd:

In this installment, I give a math-free interpretation....


...probability density...

...the divergence is non-zero...

...these are mathematical descriptions for regions...

I will expand on the details in future installments and avoid math whenever possible.

Hmmm.  I can certainly understand where an avoidance of math might be to your advantage in explaining all of these non-mathematical claims....

Date: 2006/06/20 07:03:49, Link
Author: blipey
Randy also shows that his legal scholarship is right in line with Disco:

Randy, something in your email address seems to be causing your comments to land in the moderation queue. I haven’t figured out what it is yet. You’re not being moderated on purpose. -ds

LOL. Maybe you have an automation filter that says: “If E-mail address has posted on PT, moderate until proven innocent


Comment by rmagruder — June 20, 2006 @ 11:53 am
  emphasis mine

That's what we like here in America: Guilty until proven innocent...Luskin may need an errand boy.

Also, I think Randy may have somewhere accidently posted something lucid...that would explain be moderated at UD.  Though this lucid posting may be just a rumor.

Date: 2006/06/20 07:21:00, Link
Author: blipey
Makes you wonder if DaveTard is amazed that he can pick up a gallon of milk out of his fridge all by himself--against the gravitational field of the entire planet Earth.  With strength like that, he must have worked in a circus freak show.

From the OED-American Edition:
regime = a system of government, administration


Gravity is only weak in low mass regimes. In high mass regimes it overwhelms the other forces...

Is he saying that gravity follows a two party system: Lilliputians and Beer-guzzling, Braut-eating Couch Potato-Guys?

Date: 2006/06/20 07:48:58, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (GCT @ June 20 2006,12:29)
It seems our Randy Magruder seems to be fitting right in.

It's the "Darwinism is just another faith" argument.  Yep, he'll fit in quite nicely over at UD.

Remember, however, that he is NOT a creationist!

Date: 2006/06/27 02:59:28, Link
Author: blipey
DT would read others but he didn't think that Bone, The Atmosphere, or--certainly--Journal of Applied Logic sounded sciency enough.  By claiming SA as his magazine of choice, he affirmed 2 things that are incredibly important to him:

1.  He is on top of the heap as far as being SCIENTIFIC
2.  He is a flag-waving, right-wing (the only true) AMERICAN.

you can wave your ass right outta MY country. homo.  -dt

Date: 2006/06/27 06:53:11, Link
Author: blipey
Whether objects heavier than the Planck mass (about the weight of a large bacterium) have a de Broglie wavelength is theoretically unclear and experimentally unreachable. The wavelength would be smaller than the Planck length, a scale at which current theories of physics may break down or need to be replaced by more general ones.

I hope this is not the "last section" you were talking about.  If it is, you now not only need to provide a complete geo-centric/stationary model but also a replacement for the Standard Model.  Yikes.

Also, you present Eric's basis for complaint, while providing no rebuttal of your own.  Do you concede his point about planetary scale objects.

Or, are you claiming that planets are actually under 2 nm in diameter?

Date: 2006/06/27 07:39:07, Link
Author: blipey
Well, that's  good, I suppose.  It does still beg the question of whether GoP has sufficiently answered your complaint.

It would seem that he needs to prove that something the size of Jupiter (slightly bigger than a baseball and moving a wee bit faster) produces something other than unobservable quantum properties.

Ghost, what is your argument that these effects are indeed observable?

Date: 2006/06/27 14:08:59, Link
Author: blipey
Ah, good.  Larry Laugherman is back seeking not quite so fresh legal angles.

DaveScot once again gives a wacky interpretation of the First Amendment:
Unfortunately they can’t ask that either because they can’t afford to be wrong. So they have to err on the side of restricting someone’s freedom of religion rather than risk restricting someone’s freedom from religion. And that’s the whole problem - the constitution has been tortured into granting an absolute right to freedom FROM religion. It doesn’t say that and that tortured interpretation won’t last much longer. -ds

Of course, what many--if not most--of the right-wingers want is freedom to practice a particular religion.  Remember this one?

Date: 2006/06/28 16:09:04, Link
Author: blipey
Jury nullification is a jury’s refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. Instead, a jury bases its verdict on other grounds.

The people have been stripped of this right to be judged by a jury in federal constitutional rights cases by the prevalent practice of seeking only injuctive relief (technically less than $20 in damages) and using exhorbitant attorney fees as a proxy for punitive damages.

Is DT claiming that people have been stripped of the right to be judged by a jury of their peers that will ignore the evidence?

I don't get it.

Date: 2006/06/29 11:07:30, Link
Author: blipey
Wesley R. Elsberry Posted on June 29 2006,14:32

I seem to be an enigma to the UD types. I'm an interdisciplinary scientist, with biology and computer science education and work experience.

I'm sure it's the work experience that's throwing them.

and now you can pick up your check at the unemployment line. -dt

Date: 2006/06/29 11:12:05, Link
Author: blipey
Posted: June 29 2006,15:47    

These "I can't see how" folks are of course hamstrung by their own intellectual shortcomings. That’s why the non-theory of ID is so good. There’s nothing to not understand.

That's fantastic.  I want to steal that for one of my stage shows.

Date: 2006/06/29 16:36:04, Link
Author: blipey
In 1982 one of my portable computer designs made the cover of Popular Science magazine along with Adam Osbourne's, the Kaypro, and a few others.

Now I understand.  He's heartbroken about being shunned by Scientific American.  It's driven him to increasing depths of insanity as he frantically searches for any sciency topic that will set the balance right. Popular Science, indeed.

Or, wait...Dave, I should've asked: Do you consider Popular Science to be a hard science publication?  You never know....

Date: 2006/06/29 17:24:41, Link
Author: blipey
Hilarious.  Just hilarious ... this guy has absolutely no idea that not only has 'idiot' AFDave been in the 'corporate world' of the AF for 10 years and did just fine, but he has built and sold two companies already, both of which involved a huge amount of direct interaction with large, sophisticated customers, suppliers and government entities.

emphasis mine

You aren't selling companies to the mafiosa are you dave?  I mean, if you are I certainly won't tell; Guido says that would be bad.

Guido also tells me it is VERY cool to talk about yourself in the third person.  Blipey thinks so also.

Date: 2006/06/29 17:28:18, Link
Author: blipey
But...with or without clothes, pz?  People magazine wants to know!

Date: 2006/06/29 17:56:41, Link
Author: blipey
Dembski's lauding a new magazine dedicated to the downfall of materialism!  I know; it's exciting.  :D

I especially like the the coming soon part.  Sorry, I can't link directly to the flash image, but maybe someone can explain exactly how that form of intercourse is either natural or safe.  If anything, I think it would be painful...not to mention unfruitful.

Date: 2006/06/29 20:20:12, Link
Author: blipey
This must be a typo.


As arden pointed out, Salvo is a right-leaning Christian publication.  It's about time that minority finally got an outlet for their views.

Date: 2006/06/30 11:52:42, Link
Author: blipey
sorry for multi-comments… but one last thought, can’t wait to see Salvo #2! The teasers are nice intro. Crux is great. Nice to see an intellectual alternative unafraid to tackle the issues head on.

Comment by Michaels7 — June 30, 2006 @ 11:42 am

.Click the coming soon link.

I find that stupendously--if accidentaly--funny.  Nice to see the fundies supporting the alternative lifestyles of skull-sex afficianados.

Date: 2006/07/01 11:19:28, Link
Author: blipey
Can I nominate Lino D'Ischia as the dumbest IDiot around?

Read the comments above the link also...he's a genius.

Date: 2006/07/03 20:07:27, Link
Author: blipey
Paley, why don't you make a movie proving the moon landings were faked?

Ooooh!  Then I can make a movie proving his movie is a fake!

Date: 2006/07/05 14:42:42, Link
Author: blipey
Is David Icke the guy who said that Lizard people secretly rule the world?

He certainly is.  You should also check out his very convincing theories about The Matrix and   The Illuminati winning the space race.

I'll bet the Soviets were pissed they came in third.

Date: 2006/07/07 20:43:34, Link
Author: blipey
I generally agree with the conclusions reached by everyone else.  I am, however, a proponent of essay tests.  I think that they are the best way to evaluate what someone knows.  I think the quibble here is on how we evaluate said tests.

As Louis stated, merely making the "essay" requirement one that has a cite and a conclusion is never productive.  But, if this is the model, I don't see it as really being an essay.  The point of essay tests is (or should be) to evaluate an argument.  It is not enough to merely quote someone and leave it.  Rather, find a reference, evaluate it, state a theory and support it with logical argumentation.  This is an essay.

Here in the US there is much clamor in educational debates over "teaching to the test."  However, I think that this is a fabulous idea.  When people bring this argument, I think they really mean we "teach to the answer."  This is the flaw as I see it.  I believe it is the responsibility of educators to design tests not for answers, but for arguments.  These tests can only be evaluated by exploring what the students comprehend about a subject--a properly evaluated essay is a fine demonstration of their knowledge or lack thereof.

Date: 2006/07/08 20:42:07, Link
Author: blipey
And yet current teaching of evolutionary theory at the high school and early college level is expected to be accepted, memorized and regurgitated.  No original ideas are tolerated and there are "Right" and "Wrong" answers.

This is a telling statement.  The role of high school education has been discussed a great deal.  I tend to agree with those who say its purpose is to introdduce the fundamentals and the very basics of research and modern ideas.  By introducing the topic, we can hope to encourage interest which may be pursued at a higher, college and university level.  Notice that I do not include critical thinking in this plan, because I believe that ALL levels of education should involve critical thinking (it is NOT education otherwise).

I would like to know, skeptic, why you do not latch onto cosmology, geology, or any other branch of science with your critique.  Surely, they must all conform to the same scutiny?  It is this silly obsetion with Evolution that makes the IDC crowd look foolish.

Date: 2006/07/10 20:23:32, Link
Author: blipey
Richardthughes   Posted on July 11 2006,01:14wait for the spin..


Well, since we can obviously design things based on nature, nature was obviously designed by intelligence that knew I wanted new drug delivery methods.  Easy.

then move next door to a crack house, 'cause you're outta here, homo. -dt

Date: 2006/07/13 09:51:23, Link
Author: blipey
I think the infection's already peaked, so I should feel better by next Tuesday.

But, Paley, I won't have hamburgers ready until Thursday....

Date: 2006/07/13 13:40:44, Link
Author: blipey
No, not true! Don't you remember last winter, when all those Discovery Institute archaeologists discovered that Tiktaalik fossil in Greenland last winter...

You don't mean this dinosaur, do you?

Date: 2006/07/13 16:27:48, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2006,21:08)
And of course, in this case, Kent Hovind's noble, lofty principle was 'building permits suck'.

They certainly do suck.  I mean, what are the chances a rampaging dino rider will actually run through your office and/or fantasy museum?

Date: 2006/07/13 16:52:28, Link
Author: blipey
Reviewer: N. DuQuette (Northern California) - See all my reviews
I really enjoyed Adam's story. He not only tells about his healings but details of how he does it. Never boring. I admire his honesty. He writes in such a way as to bridge the beliefs of the skeptic to the believer. I think anyone who reads this book will come away from it with an expanded belief system.

One of the reviews of the book you linked to.  I must agree, my belief system has expanded (if only slightly), by merely reading some of the reviews.  Holy Moly!  I have new belief in how gullible people can be.

Date: 2006/07/13 16:57:16, Link
Author: blipey
Makes you wonder if any of his "true believers" have ever seen this.

Date: 2006/07/13 17:30:32, Link
Author: blipey
An island came to him in a dream?  It obviously wasn't big enough to do him any physical harm.  Too bad.  Unless, opf course, his book is a how-to detailed enough to teach me to peddle snake oil?

Date: 2006/07/13 18:43:11, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2006,22:45)
The problem with selling snake oil is simply that, if after accumulating enough money, you have a great big laugh by announcing the scam, and mocking your followers, which honestly I would not be able to resist, said followers are likely to meet you in parking lots and courtrooms.

Which is, of course, why you make sure your snake oil is 110 proof.

Date: 2006/07/14 23:41:33, Link
Author: blipey
He didn't go far enough.  

And neither have they, the finches that is.

wtg, show those chance worshippers the truth.  unfortunately, since there can be only one genius of ID on this blog, you'll have to show them somewhere else. -dt

Date: 2006/07/15 08:16:16, Link
Author: blipey
"The curriculum is designed to open their eyes so when they go back to school (and hear about evolution) they say, 'Oh, that sounds goofy!' "

I sure hope they have a lot braille in their buildings.  Or, perhaps, they're trying to set up some sort of comparison:  you think school is goofy, check out a summer with us.  Then they can write some sort of compare and contrast paper in composition class.

Date: 2006/07/17 10:09:57, Link
Author: blipey
Why wouldn't he let her post?  He strokes Dembski and is allowed to play with UD.  He's been doing it long enough (stroking and playing) that he now expects to be stroked.  If he thinks he's getting it, who are we to tell him otherwise?

Date: 2006/07/18 10:30:17, Link
Author: blipey
I think improvius's point is valid.  We should only ridicule the things she has control over...her publishing history, for instance.  DaveTard on the other hand:

I just want to say that I think the posts ridiculing Denyse O'Leary's physical appearance are in very poor taste.  I mean really, isn't that sort of thing beneath us here?

all you all are beneath me, if you know what I mean. homos. -dt

Date: 2006/07/18 10:33:14, Link
Author: blipey
Though the humor factor of violating SLoT with someone's mother is priceless.

Date: 2006/07/18 10:48:59, Link
Author: blipey
Well I guess we're going to have to hope for that Dave's The Pleasures of SLOT Violation Blog.  He's done at UD.

I'd say we might get something out of him at Janie's, but his posting there reminds me an awful lot of his posting at Alan Fox's Blog.

Where will he go?

Date: 2006/07/18 10:55:04, Link
Author: blipey
oops. doubled it up.

Date: 2006/07/18 11:26:50, Link
Author: blipey
Now THAT'S a pathetic level of detail.  I think it shall remain unmatched, Midnight Voice; nice job.

but I need a match now that I"m heading off into the wilderness. -dt

Date: 2006/07/19 19:53:47, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ July 19 2006,15:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2006,14:10)
BTW, could whoever is playing JanieBelle, email me and tell me who you are. I just want to know.

If JanieBelle really isn't a real person, I have to say that not only has she pulled off a great hoax, but the patience she has shown is astounding.

I've always leaned toward the "she's acting" camp.  I wouldn't be completely shocked if she really were a 17 year old girl, but I just don't know.  I did ask her a while back, but got no real answer, so I let it be.

If it is an act, I agree with BR, bravo.  It's really well done and really of no consequence either way.  In fact, if it is an act, I feel I need to apologize for being a part of the early "outing".  She was obviously doing a good enough job to ruffle the feathers of the IDiots in a new and enlightening way.  Perhaps we put a crimp in that?

So, it really doesn't matter to me, as long as she still stirs the ID pot a little (by keeping her science thread going--at least a bit), I think it's a nice place to have a little cake (UD baiting) and discuss a little theatre...not too many places to do both.  Besides, if any of the IDiots aren't convinced one way or the other, the style of her blog can only help.

Above comments predicated on only the assumption that Janie is acting.

Date: 2006/07/19 20:43:27, Link
Author: blipey
It's the patience issue again.  Or, I suppose, we just don't know what "Janie" gets out of it--that could be enlightening.

While I agree, it's probably an act, my lingering doubt is--unfortunately--based on an argument from incredulity.  What possible aim could you have that you would do this (in as much detail as has been done--good or bad doesn't matter, just the fact that it was done) for so long?

Off the top of my head I can think of:
1. You have copious amounts of freetime to waste
2. It's some sort of challenge to see exactly how gullible everyone is
3. You're bedridden and don't have Netflix
4. You really, really hate DaveTard (my leading candidate)
5. You're deranged in some, probably none-dangerous way
6. I'm no more

It's not the acting per se, but the dedication to it that is fascinating to me.  It seems a lot of effort for no readily apparent goal.  This is why I wouldn't fall over dead if it turned out to be true, but I agree, steve.  The topics and comments in her blog read like a movie script...they all tie nicely together and create a precise picture...a managed picture.  I'd be almost as interested in knowing what the goal was as to whom it might be.

Date: 2006/07/20 03:41:05, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ichthyic @ July 20 2006,06:03)
While I agree, it's probably an act, my lingering doubt is--unfortunately--based on an argument from incredulity.  What possible aim could you have that you would do this (in as much detail as has been done--good or bad doesn't matter, just the fact that it was done) for so long?

you might try asking the same question of our resident ghost.  His act has been going on for about a year now, best i can recall.

Oh, for sure.  But there is something different about the two.  Paley seems to have his character based completely on a disconnect from reality.  Janie, if a character, is apparently based on some strategy or purpose...she doesn't rave as a lunatic (well, there is the famous f-bomb tirade...), discusses legitimate topics, fairly rationally.

While they may both be playing, they're playing different games.

Date: 2006/07/20 03:45:18, Link
Author: blipey
Ah well at least tonight I get to interrogate Prof Steve Fuller no less. I imagine he'll obfuscate my arse around the room, but it'll be fun to try.


Please take good notes, Louis.  I think you could be on the verge of posting some AtBC gold.  You will gives us the rundown asap?

Date: 2006/07/20 04:55:44, Link
Author: blipey
Fuller:  Cast down the Gourd of Darwinism, follow the Shoe of Obfuscation!

Louis:  Even when it finds its way so far up your arse it's firmly inserted in your mouth?

Fuller:  Yes, even then, my child.

Date: 2006/07/20 11:07:59, Link
Author: blipey
Speaking of dangerous idiots, have you seen the latest from Jim Bakker?

I'm collecting a list of improvements here if you have suggestions.  When I get enough good ones, I'm going to send them off to the good Rev.

Date: 2006/07/21 04:35:26, Link
Author: blipey
Essentially, I predicted in mid-2001 that the ID controversy would be very hot by mid-decade, and events seem to have borne that out.

Well, I predicted in 2001 that gas prices would increase over then next decade.
Also that paparazzi would follow Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie.

Let's talk about who has the greater predicative power, Denyse...come on, you know it's me!

Date: 2006/07/21 09:09:36, Link
Author: blipey
OMG.  Comedic value still riding high.

And DaveScot, if you did leave yourself a backdoor, could you please get rid of my IP ban?  I'd love to look at it in person.


Date: 2006/07/21 10:06:11, Link
Author: blipey

In recognition of the new UD regime.

Date: 2006/07/22 04:43:48, Link
Author: blipey
DAve scot has already started trying to re-write history over at janiebelles blog.

1. As the foremost (and highest IQ) Historian on the planet, it is only natural that DaveTard should write the history of the ID movement.

2. As he would no doubt agree, "History is written by the victors."

Wait, there're problems with both of those...hmmm, can't figure out where it went wrong.

Date: 2006/07/22 05:08:11, Link
Author: blipey


   Vestigial organs like eyes on blind cave-fish are direct predictions of evolution, this is why they are used as powerful evidence of evolution.

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. The fact that a fish lost the ability to see doesn’t say how the fish got here in the first place.

Comment by Mats — July 22, 2006 @ 7:32 am

-emphasis added

Yeah, can you kick it from there?  Oh, you can?  Hold on...uh, I meant can you kick a 50 yard field goal.  Yes?  Uh, well...hold on a sec.

Date: 2006/07/22 09:09:53, Link
Author: blipey

I am puzzled. Why is cooperation amongst animals only evidence for ID? Why can’t the TOE account for cooperation amongst members of the same species? Your comments seem to imply that the TOE requires constant and harsh competition.

Comment by Strangelove — July 22, 2006 @ 12:10 pm

Maybe she will start talking about actual theories?  We'll see.

Date: 2006/07/22 12:29:43, Link
Author: blipey
Next time, she'd better get informed on the topic she wants to discuss.  

When has that even slowed them down before?

Date: 2006/07/22 19:40:33, Link
Author: blipey
Just as Monty Python’s Black Knight was whittled from a full human to a stump, so evolutionary theory is finally being whittled to its proper size. Where, in the whittling of the Black Knight, is evolutionary theory (stage I, II, III, IV, or V?):

So, ask an open ended question, with no readily meaningful answers and this qualifies as work on ID?

This might be fun; let me try.  If you like it Dembski, can I be a fellow at Disco?

Here goes:

Just as the number of court battles ID has lost has increased over the past decade, so has the number of tasty ice creams grown over the same period.  Which ice cream flavor goes better with terrible cross x performance?

The White Kind
Fish Food
The One that's Green with Chips in It
Pork Loin
I don't eat ice cream

Date: 2006/07/24 03:25:50, Link
Author: blipey
Who won, then?

Looks like steve was 3 hours under; did someone guess 29?  If not, I would like to tke this opportunity to guess 29.  :p

Date: 2006/07/24 08:44:09, Link
Author: blipey
A partial list of words I never want to hear again from IDiots.  They simply like to show us they know how to say them--screw actually knowing what they mean and/or applying them correctly:

1.  ad hominem (I personally think they should from now on use "ad homonim"
2.  strawman
3.  science
4.  is
5.  activist judge
6.  model

They can, if they want, continue to use the phrase "Monty Python's Black Knight".

Date: 2006/07/24 15:45:14, Link
Author: blipey
Some of the new Wiki content:

Current ID-programmatics
[edit]Discovery Institute program
The most notable program is the research structure being continually developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which is mostly based on the concepts of Specified Complexity of William Dembski and Irreducible Complexity of Michael Behe.

my emphasizing!!

seems very solid, and sort of definite...maybe.

It then refers you to the Disco site for more info.  I can hardly imagine that there could be even more info than is contained in the above paragraph.  Very robust program.(atics).

Date: 2006/07/25 10:11:21, Link
Author: blipey
Wesley Elsberry, in blogging about Denyse O’Leary’s recent coming on board here at UD, refers to her as a “pseudo-journalist”  What a curious designation.

I must give the IDiots props in this area.  They are much better at making up words than Wesley is.  For some real humdingers, go here.

Date: 2006/07/28 12:04:12, Link
Author: blipey
Another Dave?  Or, another Tard?

Date: 2006/07/30 02:44:33, Link
Author: blipey
Artsies (those who are not crazy) understand some aspects of intelligent original design better than most people.

We prefer to be called actors, painters, dancers, cinematographers, etc.  Or artists...artsies doesn't really have a professional ring to it....

So, I guess we know what their opinion of the arts community is.  That'll go over well--"hey, if you have any idea of how our stupid idea can be spread better tell us about it, unless of course, you're a stinking, liberal, crazy-head homo."

Also, as a member of the arts community, I do indeed understand ID better than a lot of people.  I do gab professionally; I don't do science professionally.  I recognize gab.

And, lastly, why does Johnson need help in this area?  As a lawyer, shouldn't Johnson have a deep insight into the workings of what makes good art?  His training should have made him peerless in this regard.  Or does legal training only prepare you for a career in biology?

Date: 2006/08/04 05:56:58, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 04 2006,00:46)
At any rate, girls, the noteworthy thing is that NONE of your erstwhile ATBC "friends" have stood up in your defense. I guess chivalry IS dead in some circles. ATBC is a snakepit where nothing is below them and making fun of retards and cripples is considered great sport. What a bunch of weak little boys. These would be the kind that pee their pants in Marine Corps boot camp or claim to be queer in order to get medical discharges.

So we're like gay snakes? Okey dokey.

Hey, dt does have a way with words, doesn't he?  However, in the spirit of Dave Berry, The Gay Snakes would not be a good name for a band.

Date: 2006/08/04 07:14:30, Link
Author: blipey
It's pretty obvious. Hasn't davetard even noticed that 'JanieBelle' and 'Corporal Kate' sound exactly alike?

Yeah, but so did:

Paley & Dembski
Dembski & Johnson
Johnson & Behe
Behe & Luskin
Luskin & Aquinas
Aquinas & ....

Holy shit!  Dembski is St. Thomas Aquinas of Informational Type Structures reincarnated!  Who knew?

He did believe Dembski. And JAD. And Granville Sewell. Pretty much the only thing we know about Davetard is his weakness for cranks.

And his IQ and 10k times (150 & 31, respectively)...wait, it might be the other way 'round.

Date: 2006/08/04 08:29:23, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 04 2006,13:19)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 04 2006,10:56)
However, in the spirit of Dave Berry, The Gay Snakes would not be a good name for a band.

I disagree.

Okay.  It is a pretty funny name for a band, but I don't think a successful one.  Maybe we can get a TV show made about it and find out.

Date: 2006/08/04 09:15:27, Link
Author: blipey
Talks a bit like GOP.


Who ever it is talks trashy...

I am so %$@*ing hurt!  Are you saying I'm a poor man's GoP?  I want to go on record as saying that I am at least a high rent GoP!  I also am at least 78% sure the Earth revolves around the Sun.

I'll take the trash out with ya, ya homo. -dt

Date: 2006/08/04 09:34:47, Link
Author: blipey
No problem k.e.  I just wanted an opportunity to type "%$@*ing".

BTW, I really like saphroligious; it sounds tasty.

Date: 2006/08/04 10:54:33, Link
Author: blipey
The following is O'Leary's definition of evidence-based
evidence-based dissent (”In my professional opinion it did not happen that way”).

I asked her very strightforwardly if anyone's OPINION was a legitimate source of evidence.  Comment never saw the light of day.

However, this completely obvious smart-ass comment of mine makes the cut on another thread:

Wow. Certainly is tough to be a Catholic these days, huh? I thought it was tough living in a ghetto, or in the Sudan, or wasting away in prison…but Catholicism must hold the record for being dumped on. I feel for ya.

Did she think I was actually concerned about the living conditions of poor, put-upon Catholics?

Date: 2006/08/04 12:29:28, Link
Author: blipey
Not only ignorant of evilution, she seems unaware that the water in the river doesn't all come from one spring.

Hey, the Designer spontaneously created more water after the tiny stream started, thereby creating a raging river.  Everything can be explained if you JUST BELIEVE!

Date: 2006/08/04 19:52:11, Link
Author: blipey

Mr. Colbert is a practicing Catholic and a Sunday school teacher.

Comment by dodgingcars — August 4, 2006 @ 11:46 pm

As far as I can tell, this comment actually references nothing in particular.  I think I might try to post "Pizza is round." on the same thread.

Date: 2006/08/05 09:27:05, Link
Author: blipey
The racism edit was specifically referenceing this post:

I missed it first time time, too.

Date: 2006/08/05 19:50:51, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 05 2006,19:11)
I'm not really 'famous,' but I pretend to be on my blog.

And I'm gay.

That's funny.  I think I wet myself.  Does that make me gay, Joel?  Seriously, I just did a 3 hour comedy show and that's the biggest laugh I had all night...maybe I should look at my show.

Date: 2006/08/05 19:55:43, Link
Author: blipey
how much you wanna bet he didn't get laid in high school?

Why are we making the cut-off his high school graduation; let's make it to the present moment?

Either way, I'll wager, ah, hmmm.  Oh yes, make it a true daily double, Alex.

Date: 2006/08/07 10:34:31, Link
Author: blipey

I’m not averse to life existing on other planets. I just don’t think it be there except through intelligent origin.

On that subject, I feel it my responsibilty to say traces of biotic material have been found in meteors. If such meteors impact on mars we might thus see traces of life that way. One scientists, Walter Brown, hypothesized an explosion on Earth some time ago sent biotic materials into space and thus that explains traces of biotic material in meteorites. It’s a radical theory, but if we ever find meteorites with remnants of Earthlike creatures, I can at least say a few IDers hypothesized the possibility.

Comment by scordova — August 7, 2006 @ 11:54 am

-emphasis added

Sal should get himself a job as a cosmologist; he has a lot to offer.  First off, it's nice to know that he, personally, isn't "averse to life existing on other planets".  Is he somehow in control of this matter?

Second, is he aware of the orbits of any of these meteors that may have come from Earth?  If so, could he calculate the dates of their ejection, and tell us what we might expect to find in them?  Now, that would be a prediction.

And lastly, exactly how would this prediction support or negate any "ID hypothesis"?

I know you can tell us anytime, Sal.

Date: 2006/08/07 11:29:00, Link
Author: blipey
Peter did not recognize Jesus when Peter was asked if he was one of Jesus' disciples.

Isn't the point that Peter did recognize Jesus, but then denied this three times?

Seems there's a moral in that somewhere.  About denial of facts, lying, obfuscating for your own advantage.  Hmmm.  Do we know anyone like that?

Date: 2006/08/07 11:33:27, Link
Author: blipey
International TV!  That's like, way better than national TV, isn't it?

If Sal knew anything about physics, you'd think he would've claimed being on Universal TV, or at least Intergalactic TV.

Date: 2006/08/07 11:46:59, Link
Author: blipey

I think I may be close enough to attend.  I really hope my itenerary works out.  Might turn out to be the highlight of my tour.

Date: 2006/08/08 07:13:46, Link
Author: blipey
WaD asks:

Why is she thanking me?

He is speaking of the autograph from Barbara Forrest he got last year.  He insinuates that it's because he is personally responsible for her career.  Wait, I mean he comes right out and says it.  IT must be hard to be personally responsible for so much of what goes on in the world today.  No wonder Dimski hasn't had time to publish any actual research.

I think, however:

Perhaps she's thanking you for providing such a lame argument for your side that you are winning the battle for evolution, materialism, and let's see, oh yes--EVIL.

Date: 2006/08/08 10:01:31, Link
Author: blipey

Two things:

1.  Isn't gratuitousness a sin?

2.  Don't you think it's a little odd to be seen responding to comments that aren't there (mysteriously)?  It makes you look like raving lunatics.

Date: 2006/08/11 08:30:32, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 11 2006,11:48)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2006,11:00)
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Fewer U.S. high school students are having sex, and the ones who do are less likely to have multiple partners, according to a report issued on Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

How long before this makes it to

Or even

Or www.Gosh, you sure are pretty, but I can't, my beliefs don't allow...are you taking your shirt off???...gosh, I never seen...huh?...please don't do...(faints dead away).com

Date: 2006/08/11 12:30:25, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Dante @ Aug. 11 2006,15:12)
Am I the only one who read and said "What the f**k?"

Spaghetti, fish, evolution is illegal...what?

Nope.  I just read it and I have no idea what ####'s going on there.  Wow, is that a mess.

Date: 2006/08/11 17:51:46, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (GCT @ July 25 2006,07:01)
July 25, 2006
More Logical Fallacies

Appeal to fact is a powerful technique if one has an indefensible position. For example, here is a way that one can argue against ID:

ID is incorrect.
Here are the facts.
Therefore, ID is incorrect.

Around 2003, Shallit and Elsberry put together a paper attempting to refute ID’s claims. They did not succeed in their attempt, but in the process they left behind a legacy in the art of using facts.

Facts should not be used in an argument against ID, because it is a logical fallacy called "appeal to fact" and therefore ID is correct and their arguments are wrong.

Filed under: Intelligent Design - scordova @ 8:00 am

This should win an award; it is sublime.  May I suggest the "It Smacketh of Truthiness" award?

Date: 2006/08/11 18:00:07, Link
Author: blipey
We're not soylent green?

Date: 2006/08/11 18:15:21, Link
Author: blipey
Yes. I'm going to Hustle right out and see this one; your Kung Fu is strong, steve.  Dimski as head of the Axe Gang would make a great sequel to Dover.

Date: 2006/08/11 18:33:17, Link
Author: blipey
Cordova is still plugging his intergalactic, universal, not-only-in-Denmark TV appearance.

The main focus will be the case of Caroline Crocker, a former professor of biology at George Mason University. Six years ago, in the course of her research, she came to see that Darwinian evolution was scientifically indefensible and untrue. This TV report details the ordeal she endured for the cause of scientific truth in the face of those seeking to suppress it.

-emphasis mine

Interesting that the program will detail the ordeal but not the evidence that led her to her beliefs.  I, for one, am shocked.  Shocked, I say!  SHOCKED.

Date: 2006/08/11 20:46:53, Link
Author: blipey
so why do you post them?

It's either:

A.  whiskey induced, or

B.  he's wearing the wrong trousers.

Date: 2006/08/11 20:50:11, Link
Author: blipey
I think that Jason, like other crackpots, has nothing new to say.  He's just found a faster way to use more space while saying nothing.  It makes him feel important.

Date: 2006/08/12 04:41:22, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Wonderpants @ Aug. 12 2006,05:25)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2006,00:50)

Scott, how be you explain your point? I’m not psychic, so I can’t guess what you think is circular reasoning if you can’t explain. I bet a lot of other people would have the same reaction.

Comment by O'Leary — August 11, 2006 @ 8:28 am

Journalistic excellence, church lady.

O'Leary: "I'm so smrt! S-M-R-T!"

Geez, there's going to be a turf war any day.  Joel's going to have to ban the church lady as her primary language is destroying English.  This is bad, see here.

Date: 2006/08/12 17:51:17, Link
Author: blipey
Wait. Being able to produce 58 books and articles on a subject is a BAD thing. It just proves how little anyone knows. It would have been better if the 'Darwinist side' only had ONE reference.

Well, of course.  They only have one reference; why shouldn't everyone else be held to the same standard?

Date: 2006/08/12 19:59:08, Link
Author: blipey
That said, given his, uh, analysis on that UD thread, I have to wonder if BarryA has ever shopped at IKEA, and further, what the furniture looks like when he's done assembling it...

Date: 2006/08/14 19:07:06, Link
Author: blipey
He should have been able to figure it out (as could any normal human) from the letter sent to him...

Or from the blurb that describes building a dinosaur skeleton out of KFC bones and forgetting to hide the receipt.

On a serious note, it must be really hard to live your life absolutely assured of 30 different conspiracy theories.  How do IDiots manage to leave their homes?

Date: 2006/08/15 05:07:55, Link
Author: blipey
For instance, I’m starting a website ( — not yet up and running)

What's the point of that?  Does cyberspace really need a vast collection of new posts with no comments?  ???

Date: 2006/08/15 09:30:25, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (thurdl01 @ Aug. 15 2006,14:19)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 15 2006,11:07)
For instance, I’m starting a website ( — not yet up and running)

What's the point of that?  Does cyberspace really need a vast collection of new posts with no comments?  ???

Also, isn't that the project that he claimed was the reason he stepped away from UD and handed it over to Davetard to begin with?  That was what, about 8-9 months ago now?

Well, the workload was overwhelming and all.... :O   He is only one IDiot and can only obfuscate so much for so long.

Date: 2006/08/18 19:22:33, Link
Author: blipey
your insights have been missed.

Well, I certainly missed it.  What insights did DaveScot have again?

At least I'll get the chance to laugh at him with more regularity again.

Date: 2006/08/21 06:11:01, Link
Author: blipey
Wow.  Now the UD crowd are experts in the scientific background and working habits of South Africans!


Maybe someone can tell me how this relates to ToE?  Or why South Africans don't cotton to that particular theory?

Date: 2006/08/21 07:45:09, Link
Author: blipey
Does Joel think ID is behind the Bible Codes too?

I would be shocked if he doesn't.  His personal blog is one long conspiracy theory buy in.

Date: 2006/08/21 08:30:03, Link
Author: blipey
from Joseph, on DaveTard's new post:

My bad as I (wrongly) thought that PT was calling it a “free living parasite” and my next question would have been “how long can it live without a host?” However you have cleared up my misconception.

"Um, yes; I thought that the PTers said something stupid and that is bad.  However, as I see that they are not stupid, and it was actually you, DaveScot, that said something stupid--well, carry on!"

Date: 2006/08/21 10:32:21, Link
Author: blipey
Regarding South Africans and the ToE, maybe it has something to do with the Coriolis force.

That's funny.  :D

My amusement is only tempered by the realization that GoP will now start a thread to prove this relationship.

Date: 2006/08/22 10:37:22, Link
Author: blipey
Sal comes to his senses on this thread.

This is a weblog that is basically a variety show.

Maybe there is hope.

edit: keiths beat me to it

Date: 2006/08/22 19:34:30, Link
Author: blipey
I was awarded millions of dollars in incentive compensation at Dell while we took it from $1B to $40B in revenue in the 1990’s. No fellowships though. It never occured to me to ask Michael for one. Imagine how sad I feel as I sit on my yacht writing this. Boo hoo.

Comment by DaveScot — August 23, 2006 @ 12:29 am

Could this mean that Paris Hilton is several times smarter than DaveTard?

Date: 2006/08/23 19:41:05, Link
Author: blipey
How is awarding points for win, lose or draw not a fitness function? It sure looks like one to me.

I think the point is that no specific function was expected or necessarily likely.  There was no "WEASAL" or "Steiner Tree" to find.  Absolutely anything that scored more points could "win".  As the generations grew, this probably led to some very interesting and very different strategies, many equally effective.

As was mentioned in the original post, strategies would have to compete against each other to be evaluated, not just against criteria to see how close or far it was from a particular function.

This experiment represents more of a "free-for-all" than some GA experiments.  I believe this is what was meant; I'm sure someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Date: 2006/08/24 03:22:26, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Aug. 24 2006,07:30)
Hitler thought everyone having their own car was a good idea. Hitler was evil.  Therefore individual auto ownership is evil.

Or, perhaps, it's just ownership of the individual car....

I like to think Dimski has this same wide-eyed, OH S###!!!! look as he gazes over the IDC landscape.

Date: 2006/08/24 03:57:03, Link
Author: blipey
I feel for Tom English.

God bless him, he's trying to explain what models are to people who wouldn't recognize one or what its purpose was if it fell on them.

Again, modeling is abstraction. You seem to be asking for artificial life here, not an evolutionary algorithm. If you don’t know the difference between the two, Wiki will help set you straight.

I give 5,000 : 1 it won't. ;)

Date: 2006/08/24 04:06:07, Link
Author: blipey
I could still whip the snot out of it but that’s because I knew exactly what it was thinking and that’s enough of an advantage to nullify the card counting.

Um, Dave.  If your program always made the best decision available, the randomness of your hands would preclude you winning all of them.  If he had better cards than you, he would always win.  If the cards were evenish, he's most likely win, and he'd probably even steal couple when at a disadvantage.

Also, how exactly would you whip him when he was dealt: 5C,  5D, 5H, JkS, and 5S comes on the cut?  By knowing he was going to kick your ass, you nulified his superior hand?  The play of cribbage is by far the least important aspect of the game; it's the meld that counts.

Date: 2006/08/25 07:31:13, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 25 2006,09:00)
So if each individual can be considered a population (within a population) then it is populations that drive evolution.
Comment by Joseph — August 24, 2006 @ 9:31 pm

My brain just shrieked and tried to leap out of my skull

What?  Your brain couldn't wrap around the concept:

If we completely forget what the word population means, instead inserting another word...say, glockenspeil, thereby creating a completely novel sentence-form with much CSI--completely by intelligent means--the Church of Darwinism is dead.

Doesn't seem that confusing to me; let's see what this concept might create:

So, if each individual can be considered a glockenspiel (within a bistro), then it is glockenspiels that drive panini sales.

Perfectly clear.

Date: 2006/08/26 12:08:53, Link
Author: blipey
[quote=stevestory,Aug. 26 2006,16:42]
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Aug. 26 2006,17:29)

And now for something completely different.

Joel's Blog:

Something to Ponder

If man has no ultimate purpose other than to exist, then how do we avoid absolute despair in life? How do we truly enjoy or even experience anything?

***NOTICE*** Some comments will need to be moderated prior to posting. If your comment does not show up, give it time because it could possibly be in the moderating process

If I had a nickel for every fundy idiot who said "If you don't believe in god, how come you don't kill everybody / have unprotected sex with strangers on the sidewalk / torture your enemies/kill yourself / punch little old ladies / blah blah blah.

He doesn't want to talk about it.  I tried to leave a reply and it never saw the light of day.  Looks like little Joel has learned a lesson at UD.

In fact, I tried to comment a couple weeks ago at Please_pretty_please, and was told that if I wanted my comments to appear, I would have to be nicer.

Seems I hurt his feelings.  Ahhhhh.

Date: 2006/08/27 07:06:26, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2006,11:10)
Did you know that christians have been placed in a ghetto by the secular elite, kind of like native americans were? Joel does:

I especially like this part of his post:

The second is a bit more complex and even more disturbing. It also occurs much more often. Christians willingly place themselves in the ghetto due to a misunderstanding in personal piety, an unwillingness to engage in difficult conversations, because it makes life much easier, and because of legitimate fears.

emphasis mine.

Hey, Joel!  Why don't you come out and talk to us sometime?  Joel?  Joel??? oel...oel...el...el...el...l...l...l....

Date: 2006/08/27 08:19:58, Link
Author: blipey
Extra! Extra!  Read all about it!

Darwin Attacks the Established Science of Intelligent Design!

If my memory doesn’t fail, it was Darwin who started to propose that biological life forms were NOT the result of design, but the result of unguided *natural* process. So ID didn’t attack Darwin first; Darwin attacked the design hypothesis first.

We're going to have to adjust that ID ppy (papers per year) number now.  Let's see: roughly 2 papers (one rescinded) in  3000(?) years.  That works out to 0.0003 papers per year! Surely the fall of the Church of Darwin is upon us.

edit:  I'm trying to be generous with the figure of "2" (minus 1).

Date: 2006/08/28 18:24:41, Link
Author: blipey
Lee Smolin an Id Theorist.  Who knew???

Dimski must really enjoy writing for a captive, docile and stone-stupid audience.  Could you mis-represent a man's views any more than this?

Perhaps Dimski is unaware that Dr. Smolin's discipline of Loop Quantum Gravity actually posits progressive ideas and does not exist entirely to discredit String Theory (which also provides positive argument...though perhaps not all testable ideas, but that's another problem entirely).

Date: 2006/08/28 18:35:33, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2006,23:26)
Blipey - are you going to give Davetard a trouncing? :D

I think I'll skip the chainsaws.  I thought it was interesting that I left the door wide open and he missed his opportunity.  He could have suggested brains and made the joke his--I was  going to let him.  Guess using brains for a battle is the furthest thing from his mind....

Think I will invite him to provide positive argument in person when I get to Austin next January.  Maybe I should start a pool to see if he actually shows.

Date: 2006/08/28 18:49:58, Link
Author: blipey
Uh oh.  What's DaveTard up to now?

It isn't just fungus in the basement anymore, is it?

Date: 2006/09/01 19:57:16, Link
Author: blipey
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 01 2006,22:26)
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Aug. 31 2006,11:34)
Cordova quoting Jerry Coyne at UD:
if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits

Neither has heliocentrism.  (shrug)

No, but it has had a very detrimental effect on the ultra-giant chariot wheel industry.

Date: 2006/09/01 23:24:07, Link
Author: blipey
I believe that the Bible is God-inspired, inerrant, and true (in it’s original languages).

What does that even mean?  Surely, he can't be including English?  And if not, on what authority does he speak?  I'm sure he has studied, what?  Arameic?  Hebrew?  Greek?  If he isn't fluent in these languages, what is the basis of his faith?  Yes, a trick question.  I'd love to ask him--if I weren't banned.

Some lovely O'Leary stuff on the thread, too.

Date: 2006/09/03 13:36:27, Link
Author: blipey
I think steve may be right.  As far as subject matter for AtBC, UDOJ is pretty tame.  Of course, DaveTard manages to be pretty stupid there, but that particular quality is blog-independent.

There just isn't that much actual science discussion that goes on.  Actually, when it does go on, it is a pretty decent introduction to science.  Biogeer, guthrie, lifewish, and others hae actually presented interesting (if fairly basic) posts on chemistry, biology, and a little cosmology.

Dave chimes in with inanities, but with only him to hold forth, the ID / anti-science brigade doesn't provide much fodder.  We already know he's stupid and he provides what little new stupidities he has on UD, not UDOJ.

Date: 2006/10/03 16:26:34, Link
Author: blipey
Thank-you, k.e., for defending clowns.  I don't want to speak for all clowns, but I think it safe to say we don't want to associate with DaveScot or any of the other IDiots.

Except, of course, when I see him in Austin next spring.  You do remember, Dave, right?  Don't be'd be really embarrassing to have it get out that you're running away from clowns.

Date: 2006/11/06 15:27:39, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 06 2006,13:15)
DaveScot came to my blog to say Hi. (Actually, he called me a "potty mouth freak.") :D

I don't feel so special anymore.  I was sure (no, really) that DaveTard only had special feelings for me.

He doesn't say hi to anyone, though he does state clearly that he will not skip out on my visit to Austin.  I'm looking forward to meeting will be a high (low?) light.

Date: 2006/11/24 16:43:54, Link
Author: blipey
Has anyone here met the guy? Is he the Real Deal, e.g., a raving personality disorder on display?

So, what’s the deal with DaveScot? Anybody know?

I'm going to try this Spring.  He's promised to beat me up when I go to Austin on my tour.  He said to look him up, he's in the book.  I guess I'll have to do the leg work there too, but I'm looking forward to it.

In fact, I'm looking forward to the meeting more than anything else in my yearlong tour.  Don't go on vacation, Dave.  :D

Date: 2006/11/24 16:57:42, Link
Author: blipey
You are substansively right, Guthrie.  I am actually interested in getting his supporting ideas on local school curiculum.  He seems to be coming from a very libertarian place, but....

I'm not sure what his point is (as is often the case with Dave) since he provides almost nothing but an opening statement or blather.

I don't think that states' rights are what motivates him.  This is something I hope to get a handle on at our meeting also.  As of this moment, I think he is almost entirely motivated by ego and whatever trappings of power he can accumulate (small as those may be).  The ideas he supports seem to me to be a secondary concern.  The one's he's chosen are just the easiest to dominate--wingnuts and creobots speaking about evolution are not the brightest bulbs.

DT just found it easier to get to the head of this particular class.

Date: 2006/11/25 08:36:41, Link
Author: blipey
Reciprocating Bill (on DaveScot):

Bright as he may be, I don’t see a shred of evidence within Dave’s output that suggests that he has given real thought, in this way, to the positions and postures he has so glibly and arrogantly advanced, or that he is moved at all by the world-picture he would construct in place of modern evolutionary biology.

I completely agree with this (possibly excepting the "bright"); Dave's shown no insight or original thought at all.  He certainly has shown no fresh thinking about biological matters, as is the case with all IDCers of recent times.

His Daveness is not passionately interested in pushing ideas--he has none--he is passionate about pushing personality, namely his.  And as I said earlier, he can push his personality to the top in IDiot circles rather more easily than anywhere else.  A small pond indeed.

Date: 2006/11/25 18:56:47, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 25 2006,18:31)
Should professional societies issue position statements at all? by William Dembski on November 25th, 2006 · No Comments

This has direct application to the ID debate and the public statements issued by the AAAS, NAS, AAS, etc.


Professional societies shouldn't issue position statements.

Peer review is bad.

Engineers are better at life science than biologists.

Local school districts should be able to decide for themselves what qualifies as science.

I think I see a pattern here.

After a rigorous bout of single-malt scotch drinking, I have isolated the next two terms in this pattern:

x = "The US gevernment should require lactose intolerant eskimos to drink milk to qualify for the school lunch program"

x + 1 = "Sub-boatdeck mushroom growing should be a tenure-track position in Amish biological furniture making"

Date: 2006/12/05 22:22:42, Link
Author: blipey
I thought Jesus loves and saves all the little comments.

I think it's all the little comets....

First they'd have to recognize that their (and my) hero Isaac Newton (the real one) said that, in order for his theory of gravity to work, action at a distance was required.


my kicking your ass from my keyboard.  how's that for distance, homo? -dt

Date: 2006/12/09 15:20:32, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2006,13:37)
I have now been challenged to "prove" that life is its own meaning. (Huh?) Well, I'm kind of busy at the library working on my take-home final right now, so I'll just send a distress call:

Anyone out there up on their math? Because I'm not--and math is the only realm in which one "proves" things. :D

But seriously, this is a joke--right? This cannot be real.

It's performance art--gotta be.


Please confine your comments to the topic of the thread. It isn’t HIV or Dembski’s opinion on HIV. If you want a soapbox for that topic find it somewhere else.

from the original DaveTardese:

Yeah, we monitor the threads here at UD to a bullshit tolerance of less than 997,892 parts per million.  So, go do your sciency stuff elsewhere.


Date: 2006/12/12 22:28:10, Link
Author: blipey
Hey, whatever happened to Joel Barflowski?  I really loved reading his site, but no new posts since 11-11.  What's up?  At least Joe G. has picked up the slack.

Date: 2006/12/16 21:21:04, Link
Author: blipey
I'd like to nominate Joe G. as the new Tardiest Tard in Tardville.


I have now sbmitted this inquiry that will clear up the troubles between Joe and I.  There's about a 50/50 shot he'll actually answer, too.

I am afraid I am unable to continue with this until you provide me 6.2 reasons that ID shrinks my shirts in the wash.

And it would be very helpful to know if professional baseball players with birthdays on Tuesdays are able to sufficiently counteract the strong correlation between academic success and sedimentary lobe disfunction that we see in many old world primates.

Without the answers to these pressing questions, I don't see how we can get any further in the conversation.

I eagerly await your answers to these needful things.



Date: 2006/12/16 21:35:21, Link
Author: blipey
And, of course, at the bottom of his last comment he calls women dickheads.  He's such a nice guy.


BTW I looked at your picture and your gender, however those can be faked. It's the way you argue. But then again you could just be a d!ckhead.

Date: 2006/12/20 21:29:02, Link
Author: blipey

Posted: Dec. 20 2006,20:35

30. GilDodgen // Dec 20th 2006 at 9:16 pm


That was a great essay, and I’m not easily impressed. DaveScot is a Christian. He just doesn’t realize it yet.


Comment by GilDodgen — December 20, 2006 @ 9:16 pm

Poor DaveTards, always the last to know..

"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield / "ATBC poster child" : DaveTard

I hope DaveTard's not having a bad day.  A comment like that might get Gil banned.  It would be a sad day in Romper Room if that happened.

Date: 2006/12/21 23:39:56, Link
Author: blipey
Born in Alamosa, CO.  Basically a Kansas Citian most of my life, the saner Missouri side.  Have lived in Florida (Orlando and the armpit of the world--Daytona Beach) and now basically live in hotel rooms all across America.

Someone tell me AFDave isn't living in KC, please?  Please.

Date: 2006/12/22 23:34:55, Link
Author: blipey
'Tis a season of joy and I can't tell you how much laughing makes me joyful.  Of course, you also made sure that I do not over-indulge these joyous feelings, thereby causing myself harm, by creating perfect moments of jaw-dropping inanity.

I only hope that the new year finds you happy, wealthy, and funny.


Date: 2006/12/24 01:50:35, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 23 2006,16:09)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2006,15:21)
but all my life I’ve spent most of my spare time reading science and hard science fiction so I was pretty well informed on a wide range of science and engineering topics before concentrating on evolution and ID.

Wouldn't you love to show up unannounced at this numbnut's house with a Biology 101 final exam, an Information Theory 101 final exam, and a camera crew?

I'm going to do just that in a couple months.  Can't wait.  If anyone has a question, request, or procedure that you would like from the DaveTardster, post it here.  I'll be more than happy to include it in the exam.

Date: 2006/12/29 02:35:40, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 29 2006,01:18)

Consider me a skeptic
Thanks for reading, and glad to be here. I come to the evolution/ID controversy from a unique perspective.... I am both a former supporter of evolutionary theory and a former supporter of ID. I have a 'scientist's background' and was a supporter of Evolutionary Theory and all of the Blindwatchmaker and atheistic philosophy that can go along with it.

Then a funny thing happened... the more and more I became exposed to the evidence for both abiogenesis and undirected evolutionary processes, the more skeptical I became, and my skepticism soon spiraled into a state of utter disbelief.

I engaged in a quest to absorb pretty much everything I could with respect to origins theories. I am as familiar with the writings of Walt Brown, Henry Morris, Hugh Ross, and William Dembski as I am with those of SJ Gould, D'Arcy Thompson, and Richard Dawkins.

For a long time... years in fact... I was a closet supporter of the ID movement, a closet supporter, as the nature of my job doesn't permit me the freedom to discuss ID openly; the Creationist movements never quite suited my fancy for a variety of reasons. I long held out hope that the ID movement would in fact begin to produce some actual evidence, beyond theoretical musings of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson, etc.

Almost a decade after becoming interested in, evolving to enthusiastic supporter of, and finally degrading to becoming a cynical skeptic of the ID movement. I've yet to see any real science coming out of the movement. There have been allusions to the existence of 'secret research programs' and the Biologic Institute has re-sparked my interest in the movement, but for the most part, I remain a cynical skeptic, and until the ID movement starts actually publishing some real hard data, I've got to remain a cynical skeptic.

The cynicism results mostly from my observation of the Uncommon Descent website. No... I've not been banned from there, but I do find the moderation policy at UD distasteful, and not in the spirit of free-exchange of ideas.

In any case... I hope to discuss some relevant science here in coming posts. Thanks for reading, and stay tuned.


Hmmm.  At first I thought that was Billy Boy's secret, martyred friend.

Then I became skeptical.

Then I read "I hope to discuss some relevant science here in coming posts."

and laughed.

Date: 2006/12/29 12:03:05, Link
Author: blipey
Humans are in fact hairy animals.  We are not rocks, we are not gas, we are not paper, we are animals with lots of hair.

This completely ignores the basic fact derived from my comprehensive knowledge of set theory tht we could, in fact, be scissors.

Or not scissors...

[/Joe G impersonation]

Date: 2006/12/29 22:03:25, Link
Author: blipey
(* why are people so bad at apostrophes?)

the general disregard for education of any kind by IDiots?

While they certainly don't know much about science, they are equal opportunity ignorant.  Besides, they say English is the hardest language....

However, this is also the country in which the sign "12 Items or less" can be seen in every grocery store.

Date: 2006/12/30 19:49:07, Link
Author: blipey
Andrew McIntosh, a professor of engineering at Leeds university who heads Truth in Science...

There's a surprise.

The lobby group says its ultimate aim is to pressure schools to teach ID in science lessons as a challenge to Darwinism. It says it has the support of about 70 heads of science across Britain, who want ID to be introduced in the national curriculum as part of science.

At least they don't pussyfoot around.  I particularly enjoy the "pressure" statement.  We know that everyone thinks this is crap, but we're going to apply some pressure, not persuasion with evidence, I say, but PRESSURE!

Also, anyone have any idea who these 70 IDiots are?

Canon Jeremy Davies, Precentor of Salisbury cathedral, said: “I don’t see why religious education should be a dumping ground for fantasies. If it is claimed that this is a scientific theory, why isn’t it explored in science classes? Its validity or otherwise should be tested against the usual criteria.”

A topic I'd like to ask the DI about.  If the IDiots can't even get the church to take them seriously, what have they got?

Date: 2006/12/30 19:56:16, Link
Author: blipey
Too funny:

McIntosh said: “People like Dawkins are pushing atheism through schools, which is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Atheism is not the natural state of a scientist, since there have been scientists who have been theists both before and after Darwin.”

What is the natural state of a scientist?

It can't be blond, as there have been dark haired scientists before and after Darwin.

Oh, it could be Christian.  Nope, wait, there have been atheist scientists before and after Darwin.

Could it be that scientists should push science in the schools?

Date: 2006/12/30 21:07:31, Link
Author: blipey
A Smith & Wesson beats 4 aces.

Date: 2007/01/02 13:20:11, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 02 2007,06:47)
For example, I take a geologist to task from the University of Florida over basic thermodynamics and current geological theories here: Origins of Lava, Mantle Plumes and the fine work of Walter Brown

It was fun feeding this geologist remedial lessons in vector calculus.

How embarrassing.

That's awesome.  What a great thread!  Sal sure is a smart guy; I feel myself being persuaded.  Sal is sure a great guy.  A great guy for me to poop on.


Date: 2007/01/02 15:42:29, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2007,14:34)

Novelty has worn off, methinks.

Best part of this particular stat page?

"No news items..."


Date: 2007/01/03 21:14:42, Link
Author: blipey
Do any YEC whackos read any responses to any other YEC whackos?

Couldn't we just round them all up and put them in the same rubber room?  We could play continuous loops of science lectures.  Either they'd listen or they wouldn't, and an almost infinite amount of energy could be redirected to usefulwork.

Alternately, dgszweda could read the GoP Geocentric Crap Thread or the AFdave BS Thread.

Or, he could ignore everything that has gone on before and continue to wallow in willful ignorance.  There's money to be had in choice B.

Date: 2007/01/04 01:09:22, Link
Author: blipey
I was, years ago, a Biblical literist.  The final nail in the coffin of literalism for me was coming to AtBC.

Thats the difference between the whackos and the non-whackos (such as yourself).  dgszweda was invited to read the threads, but apparently had better things to do.  I know it's an awfully lot of work to do so, but if you are truly interested you wouldn't dismiss the reading out of hand.

That's why I said willful ignorance.  He won't learn becausehe isn't interested.

Date: 2007/01/05 00:00:40, Link
Author: blipey
I gotta go with wordpress, also.  It doesn't sound like you'll need to customize very much, so the no javascript is moot.  There are a lot of templates to use and a fair number of plug-ins, though, all for free.

Date: 2007/01/12 16:50:22, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 12 2007,08:39)
Intelligent Reasoning

JoeG, that’s me! I have also gone by “ID’s bulldog” and “John Paul” (John Lennon/ Paul Mc).

I don’t think I would be a good fit here because I want a fight- a knock-down, fists flying, UFC style donnybrook- and let NS decide.

That's not quite accurate, is it Joe G? Just as on Uncommon Descent, you use moderation on your blog to shut down debate, refusing to publish relevant comments, or invoking unreasonable conditions (such as having to agree to defend a strawman position). I don't think hiding behind your moderation-momma could be considered donnybrook-style debate.

Granting that all this is true, Zachriel, I still think that Joe should write more articles.  After all, DaveScot only has so much time, what with his fungus growing and all.

Yes, JoeG should absolutely put more of his thoughts in writing--even the not-quite-so-indelible writings of UD.

Date: 2007/01/12 22:18:24, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2007,17:28)

He's going to kick Blipey's arse? *shakes head and smiles*

Well, I just gotta say that I'll avoid his ginormous ass.  If he weighs 220, his ass has got to be huge!

In the tradition of UD, maybe he's conflating the numbers:  the weight of his ass and his IQ.

Date: 2007/01/14 00:16:27, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 12 2007,22:32)
When are you going to meet him in Austin?

Don't have my Texas swing finalized (the booking agent only finalizes schedules a week in advance), but we're in the area in March.

Date: 2007/01/14 09:54:48, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 14 2007,09:36)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 14 2007,00:16)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 12 2007,22:32)
When are you going to meet him in Austin?

Don't have my Texas swing finalized (the booking agent only finalizes schedules a week in advance), but we're in the area in March.

What will you do if he calls you a maggot and tells you to drop and give him twenty?

Look for the intelligent designer that created the sound system that would be piping in an actual drill sargeant's voice.

Date: 2007/01/22 17:51:25, Link
Author: blipey
Hey, I'll be in Seattle in 8(?) weeks, or something like that.  If the Seattle AtBC meetings continue, I would love to attend one.  I'll pay my dues (and buy beer).  As an added bonus, I will have met DaveScot by then and will be happy to share.

Date: 2007/01/22 19:34:28, Link
Author: blipey
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 22 2007,18:05)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 22 2007,17:51)
As an added bonus, I will have met DaveScot by then and will be happy to share.

Assuming you both survive.

As I once told DaveTard, my superior footspeed will allow me to bob and weave his tard.

Date: 2007/01/23 21:23:10, Link
Author: blipey
-edit-  Come to think of it, that sounds like Seattle, too.   ;)

They make Britons in Seattle?

Date: 2007/02/06 10:09:12, Link
Author: blipey
Just to emphasise how small a world this is, I found Dave Scot talking about his dieting techniques here:

But I thought he was 225 lbs of lean fighting machine?  How could he let himself go like that--needing to lose 40 lbs???  Maybe he should put his mushrooms in a location 2 miles away from his boat and walk there every day to check on them.

Date: 2007/02/14 23:05:29, Link
Author: blipey
This has got to be one of Joseph's best arguments to date:



Great job digging this up.

That said I can’t help but think that all we are pouring into the atmosphere is having some negative effects. And perhaps that is the key- “they” play on our pre-existing concepts.

Is there any data anywhere that shows the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

From here.

If I get him, he means something like this:

1.  I believe that global warming may just be correct; I mean it sounds like it's correct.

2.  dum aethiest, libral scintist guys know that I think this.

3.  so, they produce and make up facts from false data that support my pre-believed beliefs

4.  becuse they data supports my thoughts, it must be not true.  See, its just a conspiracy because they know that I know that I think they may be onto something.  see?

Date: 2007/02/17 11:09:58, Link
Author: blipey

A living trilobite would be very unlikely, but would not violate the nested hierarchy.

Oh zachriel must be confuzd hear.  A livign trilobite would be a creature with a father, even if he was a dead father (and i mena really dead not just deadbeat hahaha, i'm funny)  And we know from hte teachings of St Joseph the Tard  that people, uh...trilobites with fathers can't be a nested heirarchy.

Date: 2007/02/21 22:29:59, Link
Author: blipey
Ah, beer drinking and witty conversation in Seattle?  Sign me up.  I'll be in town 3rd-ish week of April (give or take a couple days); schedule is subject to some change.

Date: 2007/03/10 22:48:04, Link
Author: blipey
An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien

many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.

How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"?

Date: 2007/03/18 00:56:23, Link
Author: blipey
This topic came to mind as I was reading BWE's "passive verb" thread.  I have heard people (you know, just random people in the ether) say that there are only mathematical child savants.  This struck me as a very interesting claim.  AtBC, it seems to me, would be the place to find real, actual, knowledgable people who could tell me wheher this is true or not.

Some specifics of my wondering:

1.  I assume that "only mathematical" encompasses musical savants as well.  Music is pretty mathematical in nature, but are music and higher math processed in the same way?

1a.  Do many mathematical savants actually do higher math?  It seems that a lot of it is arithmetical and not necessarily higher math.  This may not be the case, however.

2.  Are linguistics something that a young mind cannot grasp due to lack of exposure?

3.  Is there an evolutionary path that leads to mathematical, and not linguistic (or other) type, savants?

4.  What is the difference between child (or adult) savants and those, for example, who have great facility for language (speaking a dozen or more fluently, etc)?

Any insights by Arden et al would be spiffy.

may gravity be kind,


Date: 2007/03/18 10:49:37, Link
Author: blipey

thanks for the video link.  I had seen a small clip of this on 60 Minutes or some such, but had not seen the whole thing.  It is fascinating.

Reciprocating Bill:

Thank-you for te excellent response.  I had not thought about it in quite the "math is the exception" vein before.   Though, I suppose I should have--it makes all the sense in the world, children pick up languages very easily.

I do have a couple questions on the "canalization" of evolutionary adaptions now.  By "canalization" do you mean that certain selected factors (such as linguistic ability) are "more" hardwired into us than others?  Then, because of this, significant variations are harder to realise?

At the end you say that music and dance are somewhere in between.  In terms of selected features, this may or may not be true, I don't know.  There are musical savants such as Mozart that truly showed drastic variation within the population.  But, afaik, there aren't literary (I realise this is different than linguistic) savants.  No one is writing the next great American novel at age 6.

Music (and especially composition) is something most people need extensive tutelage and/or exposure to in order to become any good at all.  Poetry, or fiction wriing seems to me to be in the same boat.  Yet, we have musical extremes in the population and not(?) poetical or literary extremes.

Though, I suppose, music in some form has been around much longer than mathematics and may have more available ways to express itself.  Is this some state between "canalized" and freedom to have wider expression?

Date: 2007/03/18 11:17:11, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2007,07:32)
She doesn't have much personality.
Nor would I have thought she would have much influence on anyone with half a brain. But, then, I am so ignorant of real US culture, I am probably wrong ???

I suppose it's true everywhere, but in all my travels around this country, I meet a surprising number of people with less than half a brain.  To them, she probably looks brilliant.

I should also mention that the .4-brainers are in the minority (not always a clear minority, but a minority all the same).

Date: 2007/03/18 11:21:35, Link
Author: blipey
Ah yes "don't let the words get in the way of a good tent-rally".

It would be interesting to know how many of the legislators actually read past paragraph 4.

Date: 2007/03/29 19:49:22, Link
Author: blipey
I'm sure the following was merely an oversight on ftk's part, but my comment on this thread never showed up.  I don't know why.

Wow.  A ginormous amount of flap-doodle.  This for instance:

ftk: <i>We are discovering things all the time that evolution can’t begin to explain...</i>

Yet the rest of the paragraph--and indeed, the comment--seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.

ftk: <i>hundreds of articles and books written by ID supporters</i>

Yes, I'm sure you can point me to some of the astounding DISCOVERIES in these papers, wherever they might be when you also point out the new DISCOVERIES in the the literature I have not yet read.

Something to ponder:  saying that the flagellum is IC is not an example of new knowledge.  Um,  "new knowledge" of a positive nature would be an example of new knowledge.  Something along the lines of "wow, the tennets of ID led me to postulate the existence of this anti-body and now I've found it."

ftk: <i>But, let’s say for the sake of argument that ID generates no new scientific research whatsoever. Hypothesis don’t particularly have to generate new scientific research. They merely have to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.</i>

This paragraph is a mess.  The first two sentences don't describe a scientific hypothesis.  They do describe something like the sentence, "That table is brown."  You are describing an observation, not an hypothesis and you apparently have an inkling of this in the next sentence about describing nature.

How exactly are we to know if an observation (your: hypothesis) is an accurate description of nature if it is untestable or uninvestigatable?  This is what we mean when we call ID a science-killer.  If all ID can do is generate information that needs no investigation, you know what?  It is boring and by definition would create no new knowledge.  We know the table is brown, no need to investigate.  But if you are asking truly interesting questions, you'll find the need to test them.  This is not what ID does.

And finally, your claim that discovering a new planet, or  moon, or star, or whatever doesn't generate new research is completely inane.  When we discover new moons, we send satellites to them.  When that produces new discoveries of minerals, gasses, or whatever, that generates new missions and new hypothesis about: planet formation, early solar-system make-up, possible extra-terrestrial life, etc.  The discovery of extra-solar planets has led to the testing and corraborating of many ideas in astronomy and cosmology: including star-planet development, pulsar study and more.

Do you really think that NASA scientists and all the world's astronomers just point telescopes at the sky, find a new piece of rock and then are done with it to find another piece of rock?  Is that all you think their jobs entail?

ftk: <i>As far as testable hypotheses, I believe that Behe has certainly provided that in the flagellum, along with the prediction of design in other molecular machines, and he has laid our the reasoning behind his claims.</i>

Are you familiar with the refutations of Behe and with his own continually changing definition of what exactly IC is?

My favorite:

ftk:  <i>But, it’s pretty apparent, that as we see paper after paper coming out trying to refute ID claims, that ID does lead to further scientific research and the advancement of science. I’ve mentioned in the past that Harvard University has a research project regarding the origin of life due to the huge push to refute the ID movement.</i>

So, ID may not generate a noticable, or even visible, amount of research, but it's certainly valid and working because real scientists have decided to do work?  Come on, which ID scientists are involved in the project?  Which ID whizzes are funding this?  Which papers are being written by the ID guys?  That last paragraph is a hoot.

Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do.  I am saddened beyond belief by this.  No, really; I'm crying.

Date: 2007/03/29 22:11:29, Link
Author: blipey
Arden asked: Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard.

Not cancelled, just postponed.  I am happy to report that I will be arriving in Austin, TX on May 13th.  I hope Dave doesn't hide at the bottom of beautimous Lake Travis.

Date: 2007/03/29 23:26:52, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 29 2007,21:34)
ftk: We are discovering things all the time that evolution can't begin to explain...

Yet the rest of the paragraph -- and indeed, the comment -- seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries.  Frustrating.

Examples of things evolution can't explain: Quarks. Neutrinos. Volcanoes. Ringed planets. Gamma rays. Astronomical red-shift. Retrograde moons. Relativity. Quantum mechanics. Supernovae. Trans-finite set theory. The periodic table of the elements.

Does that help? :)


Yes, I'm very aware of things that ToE can't (and doesn't purport to) explain, though I'm pretty sure FTK is unaware of said things (and explanations).

I'm frustrated that she doesn't bother to detail any of the things "We are discovering...."

Ah well, I'm sure she's working hard on producing tht list.

Date: 2007/03/29 23:34:23, Link
Author: blipey
Way back in the good old days of UDoJ: the Sting Operation, DaveTard told me to look him up when I was in Austin.  Since I'll be passing through Austin on my show tour, I'm going to take him up on it.

I merely want to see how he behaves in person as none of know anything about that situation.  I have a list of questions that I'll try to get him to answer.  As I'm certainly no biologist, most of the questions are philosophical, political, or behavioral in nature.

Of course, in the same thread, DaveTard threatened to thrash me with chainsaws.  So, it could be fun.

Date: 2007/03/31 11:06:32, Link
Author: blipey
Ah yes the wrath of drip.

And it goes well with chips and vegetables.

Date: 2007/03/31 14:11:50, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 31 2007,11:23)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 31 2007,09:08)
Blipey's appointment with the Tardmeister approaches.

Wait, wait, wait!  I'm either a stegasaurus looking thing or a Godzirra looking thing?  Don't get me wrong, dinosaurs are terribly cool but...Who do I petition in order to be on an evlutionary branch further away from DaveTard?

Date: 2007/03/31 23:29:02, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 31 2007,21:18)
Dembski mentions SETI in this one too, Lenny. *Sigh* But I gotta tell ya, some good stuff here:  
Even though I accept standard astrophysical and geological dating (12 billion years for the universe, 4.5 billion years for the Earth), young-earth creationists deserve credit here. They see the crucial significance, theologically, of preserving the link between evil (both personal and natural) and human sin. That’s why, when asked what’s riding on a young earth, proponents of this position invariably cite Romans 5:12, which speaks of death as a consequence of human sin.
It's an old world after all! *Shim-shimmeries* :D

Good lord, Kristine, how can you muddle through that stuff?  What the #### is he talking about and how would anyone know?

From this paragraph, one would assume that if we are all innately good (as the Barenaked Ladies say), then Arabic numerals would never have been invented--no one needing to count that high and all.  And someone named Roman is keeping this a secret from us.

Bully for you, though, actually reading in depth and all.

Date: 2007/04/01 00:33:56, Link
Author: blipey
Whitesides is welcome to his personal hunches, and is certainly welcome to state the reasons behind his hunches, but this is otherwise regrettable language.

edit to actually include Whiteside's comment:

Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth.  How? I have no idea.

This is a particular argument that has always rubbed me the wrong way.  As an actor, I very much understand the importance of language and its usage.  However, I've ever been irritated by people claiming phrases like Whiteside's are ill-conceived.

I don't believe they are.  There are situations where words need to be chosen very carefully--situations that require great specific detail in order to communicate a message.  Most situations do not fall into this category.  For the most part, we get a sense of message from the context of what we're hearing/seeing/feeling.

When a scientist is the one speaking/writing/punching us in the nose, we generally know where he's coming from.  His words can be interpretted through our understanding of his role as a scientist.

Walking on linguistic eggshells is not what we should be worried about (and, indeed, I don't believe for the most part we are).  We should be more concerned with educating people to be able to think in real life situations.  Even so, some people will not be helped--we don't need to tread lightly for them.

Date: 2007/04/02 00:02:46, Link
Author: blipey
Without real commenters, that blog will degenerate into a conversation between Larry Fafarman and her, which is a black hole of vacuity if e'er there was one!

This is certainly nothing new.  Welcome, Albatrossity2, to the world OF IDiots.  Most, if not all, ID blogs (not to mention books, conferences, and other events) involve the same sort of incestuous participation (or lack thereof).

For other not-so-stunning examples visit: <a href="" target="_blank">Uncommon Descent</a>, <a href="" target="_blank">Intelligent Reasoning</a>, or <a href="" target="_blank">Overwhelming Evidence</a>.

I would like to thank you, Albatrossity2, for being outraged at these people.  But, I would also like to remind you to take them with the grain of salt which they deserve.  Otherwise they will drive you crazy.  They are not to be taken seriously.  That is, until they want to educate your children--then make a fuss and their stupidity will become obviousl (even to the American judicial system).

Date: 2007/04/02 00:16:24, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (N.Wells @ April 01 2007,19:00)
True, but why make it easy for them?  

Scientists who are about to speak about science or scientific results are supposed to think about how to communicate clearly and effectively, taking into account the audience and the ways they could misunderstand what they are about to hear.  Why make it easy for people to misunderstand or misrepresent by saying either A) "I believe" when what you really mean is simply "I think" or "I suspect", or "I'd bet that ...", or  B) "I have no idea" or "there's no evidence", when those simply aren't true?

We know that creationist / IDists love to paint scientific conclusions as just another belief, and we know that science proceeds by hypothesis testing and disproof, not by  asserting beliefs.  Yes, I'm being cranky here, but Whitesides is being very unhelpful.

I don't mean to disagree with you, N. Wells, but I don't hold the general public in quite the same regard as you do.  I think you and I are quite simpatico in regards to our personal views of what science is saying.  Where we differ is in how we think it is appropriate to communicate these ideas.

I believe that if we couch all scientific discoveries and discussions in language appropriate for creationists we will never be able to communicate amongst ourselves.  As Lenny said up-thread, who the heck cares what the creationists think about scientific issues?

Sure, it is appropriate to use language very precisely when speaking to creationist groups or addressing the issues when debating creationists.  Other than that, screw 'em.  they'll quotemine from anything, so I don't believe it is necessary to watch your language 24 hours a day--merely a waste of energy.

It is more useful to completely reveal their quotemines and   lies.  Of course, this requires that we, as a society, respect and admire logical thought and education.  These are the areas that I believe we are most deficient in and that our educational system should most engage in.

Date: 2007/04/03 23:00:15, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ April 03 2007,13:54)

I assure you I don't have an "expansive" backside.  In fact, I'm a 5'10" blond who could probably take quite a few of you science types.  Your stereotypical nerdy scientist has never been described as particularly studly.  

My blog diet was set up in preparation for the summer bikini.

Have a nice day boys...

Awesome!  We have the female version of DaveTard.  Threatening violence in response reasoned argument....  That's awesome!

You know, she only lives about 2.5 hours away from me; I should visit her as well as the Tardmeister.  Same deal, if she wants to discuss science and education, great...or she can pick the weapons (Dave chose chainsaws).

Date: 2007/04/04 21:59:24, Link
Author: blipey
FTK doesn't have anything but social observations and she will never discuss science because she doesn't even know where to start.  From some of the comments on her blog one would think she never even wandered into a science book in her home-school.

Her comment saying she can't discuss science because last time she tried she struck around long enough to learn something is telling.  Of course, that's my own interpretation of her comment, but shes free to tell me I'm wrong.

So far we have:

1.  I can't discuss science because none of you people really want to discuss science.  (Even though we've asked you to discuss science numerous times)

2.  I can't discuss science because I find it interesting.

Wow.  Can you please stick around long enough to make this a TOP 10 list?

Date: 2007/04/04 22:09:38, Link
Author: blipey

A little helpful info on this particular board.  While serious science can be discussed here (and certainly is), this is the "blow-a-little-steam" place.

You seem to think that science is seriously discussed in all pro-ID forums, though there is very little evidence of this.  Most of the peope on this board have tried to discuss science seriously in many of your favorite type places: UD, OE, even Joe G.'s place, AiG, etc.

Since exactly zero discussion can take place in these forums, they come here to discuss the science and, more often, the idiocies of those places where they are not allowed to comment (and not allowed to provide rational content).

Try to take that into consideration (not just the behavior--the reason for it) when visiting.

Date: 2007/04/05 00:29:48, Link
Author: blipey
I'm not sure any of those were even mildly funny.  Oh well; I wouldn't expect anything more.  She doesn't know why the first two were funny in the first place.

FTK, you sure do go to a lot of trouble (as most creationists do) to be seen and heard without having anything at all to say.  Why do you think this is?

I mean, I know why I go to a lot of trouble to be seen and heard.  It's my job.  But, I'm always baffled by people who seek noteriety just for noteriety's sake.

We've all seen your blog.  We've "discussed" with you.  Why do you constantly hang around while adding nothing to the discussion?  Can't resist being the little ol' regular person who is beat down by those mean old aethiests?  (Well, except for those of us like Wesley who aren't aethiests)

You sure do seem to have a low opinion of people with scince degrees.  Why is that?  Do you think they're stoopid?  Why would you think that lay people have a better grasp of the technical issues in biology?

Really, I'd like to know why you think this in a meta-way.

Why do you think there are experts in any field?  (Music, acting, chemistry, plumbing, whatever)  Or, do you indeed think that there are not experts in any field?  Can lay people do just as well in any field in which they hold an opinion?

If you wanted to build a small 4 story office building, would you attempt this task on your own?  Why or why not?  If your son needed open heart surgery would you attempt it yourself?  Why or why not?  If there was a tricky question of astrophysics that needed to be answered to save life on this planet would you step up and be the woman for the job?  Why or why not?

Answers to this last paragraph interest me greatly.  I've asked them of many IDCers and none have ever answered me.  Why do you think that is?

Date: 2007/04/05 17:36:23, Link
Author: blipey
Well, the time draws nigh.  DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact.  I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...).

So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard.  These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever.  I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard.

So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Date: 2007/04/06 10:03:56, Link
Author: blipey
Well, Joe is now officially no longer worth slapping around:

You do realise yu are becoming John Davison, Jr?

Thanks for the compliment!

Since he admits he's a senile individual with a discredited idea, our work is done.

I love it so!

Date: 2007/04/07 13:14:49, Link
Author: blipey
Really, FTK, the paper isn't that long.  Instead of typing up 2 of your extremely boring comments, you could read the paper.  For someone who is SO interested in science (as you claim to be), it should be no problem to take a few minutes and read the paper.  Unless, of course, you have no intention of actually becoming informed on the issue.  Please don't tell us you'll read the paper when we know you aren't going to.

You promised several days ago on your own blog to post details about what you didn't like in the Hume lecture.  You have yet to do that, and you never will.  You don't like to talk about details--they screw up your story.  You like to make broad generalizations about how wrong other people are and then complain when others show  you IN DETAIL how wrong you are.

It's time to be an adult, FTK.

Date: 2007/04/07 13:57:59, Link
Author: blipey
Okay, FTK, here're a couple of softball questions from Wilkins / Elsberry:

The major problem with Dembski's EF is that it lacks a mechanism for dealing with foundational conditions.  Indeed, a slight change in what we know about starting conditions seems to change the entire conclusion of the EF.

1.  How is this not truly a problem for the EF?  Or, what changes would you make in the EF in order to address this problem?

Wilkins and Elsberry claim that we would need to know, to 100% accuracy, the starting conditions of an occurence or event in order to come to the conclusion of design (rarefied design in any case).  So:

2.  Is it possible to know with 100% accuracy these conditions?  If so, could you provide us with some calculations that show design since you have this wholely known set of data?  Or, if it is not possible, how can one successfully apply the EF?

Date: 2007/04/07 14:50:03, Link
Author: blipey
Hey FTK,

While I'd really like to discuss science with you here, amongst scientists that I can actually learn from, I have another option for you.

You claim to have spent decades, if not centuries, discussing science at forums all across the universe.  And it's a funny thing, I can't seem to find any of those places.  UD is certainly not it.  Your blog is certainly completely data-free.  In fact, if you google your name absolutely nothing sciency comes back.

So, if you could provide some links (or even email some copies of your science discussions), I'll leave you alone while I peruseyour wonderous scientific knowledge.


Date: 2007/04/09 19:57:21, Link
Author: blipey
I can't agree with argy, ftk.  I think you are absolutely, 100%, a dyed in the wool lying for Jesus, dishonest, slightly-dangerous-if-allowed-to-make-policy-decisions type.

Is it any wonder that I think that?  What are we supposed to think about people who:

1.  Say they discuss science but never do
2.  Avoid every question of substance ever asked of them
3.  Always talk about what they did--SOMEWHERE ELSE
4.  Always claim that facts are negotiable?

Seriously, aren't you always claiming that liberal atheists are the ones who think everything is fine, just as long as everyone's happy?

Come on, it's conservatives that are always going on about how facts can be interpretted in different ways.  The evidence points in all directions, it's inconclusive...blah.

That's bullshit and you know it.

So, here are questions even easier than what I asked you before.  I don't want you to discuss theories, or even science, really.  This is what i want:

I want you, FTK, to list 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology.  Just type out the facts, no interpretation.  I want to see if you know what a fact is.  If youmake an interesting list, we might be able to discuss it.

Date: 2007/04/09 20:23:10, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,15:11)


I don't know who these girls are, but I want to let everyone know Kansas City is a nice place.  Please come visit us.  Sure we have AFDave, but, um, well, there's nothing to be done about that.

On a better note, those girls looked okay in sparkly dresses and ftk assures us that fundies have better sex.


Date: 2007/04/09 22:02:02, Link
Author: blipey


I'm sorry you feel that way, but now I'll tell you what I think about you...

I am also sorry I feel this way.  I always enjoy finding people who are honest and curious.  I truly find you to be neither, and that is a sad thing.

You have left ~countless~ comments on my blog complaining about one thing or the other, yet you've said practically nothing of importance.  You kept leaving messages getting after me for not posting about the Humes lecture quickly enough *after I specifically said I'd post on it after Easter*.

While I certainly have left many comments on your blog, I believe that around 70 percent of them had actual content.  You see, that's really the point.  You complain that science in general is censoring the truth of ID, yet find no problem censoring things you simply don't agree with--regardless of the scientific or philosophical relevance of said things.

And we'll never really know will we?  If you'd do the hnest thing and really discuss the issues, people would see my 70 percent and the other 30 percent would never have been written.

As for the Hume bit, I'll certainly comment on that; I haven't read that particular post as yet.  I will; we'll see if you let me comment on it.

But, now you've moved right on to something else to complain about.  Now you want me to throw out 5 FACTS about biology or cosmology because you believe that I know absolutely nothing about either.  What difference would it make if I did that?  Then you'd just say, "google's great, huh?" and tell me what an idiot I am in regard to something else.  You seem absolutely convinced that I'm the most notorious liar on the face of the earth, so why bother even trying to carry on dialogue with me?

I do believe you know nothing about either (and I don't feel I'm alone in this, either on this board or in the world in general).  But, it would be the easiest thing in the world to show me otherwise.  Just post something that is factual or that you hink is factual and we'd take it from there.  If I agree with what you post I'd tell you.  If you really, truly, actually posted something that you thought was factual and I thought not, I'd tell you my objection.  Then we could discuss it.  I'm wrong a lot, but I generally thank the people that tell me I'm wrong when they show me.

You have no interest in showing other people they are wrong.  You have no interest in learning about where you might be wrong.  You have an interest in telling people they are wrong and telling others that you are right.  Telling and demonstrting are different things.

By your actions you show that you have no interest in demonstrating.  You come right out and tell people that you don't want to discuss things; it is the very first thing you volunteer.  Am I supposed to take you seriously, or should I be allowed to wait until you do something serious?

I've made numerous comment about my biggest concerns in regard to the science being considered in this debate and you haven't said squat about those issues.  Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent.  That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

You certainly have made many comments.  Very few of them having anything to do with science.  Your questions are of belief and faith and not of science.  It's hard to carry on a discussion when your level of understanding is an unknown.  While it would be possible to start at the beginning, many of the actual, working scientists on this board go through this all the time with AFDave, Paley, etc.  Forgive them if they don't want to start at the beginning if they don't have to.  But now that you've volunteered to start in 1st grade, it will be easier.

If you don't want to discuss those issues, lay off.

Interesting.  This is what I and a lot of others have been asking you to do for some time now.  All of a sudden it's my fault that we aren't discussing science.  Nice.  Well, I accept, if you're actually willing to discuss science finally.

Date: 2007/04/09 23:32:34, Link
Author: blipey

From what I've experienced, people with your attitude only enjoy those who are "honest and curious" if they end up changing their opinions in the end and agree with you.

Intersting.  Completely ignored the part where I said I was wrong a lot.  In fact, I'll give you a link to a place where I was wrong--admitted it, and apologized.  Joe Gallien likes to bring it up a lot.  Which is fine, I was wrong and it should be brought up lest I forger every once in a while.  You see, I admitted to Joe G that I was wrong and he irritates me much more than you do.

So, go here at Joe G's blog.  A place where Blipey was wrong.

And the point of my griping about the Hume thing was your two-faced view of the issue.  You often complain about people attacking IDers because of simple disagreement, or lack of evidence or whatnot.  You posted an entire screed about Hume in which you presented no data.  You just told us what an idiot you thought he was while not backing it up.  That was the substance of every single one of my Hume posts, bar none.


[QUOTE]Now, being the person I am, I'm not keen on letting people write crap about me that's not true.[QUOTE]

What exactly has been "not true"?  Aside from the obvious sparring with Rich contained solely on this thread?  It seems that Rich had started a thread to call attention to your lack of a grasp on things science.  So, given that you came in not wanting to discuss any science, how exactly did you plan on clearing up this little issue?

Date: 2007/04/14 21:58:29, Link
Author: blipey

To have a position one way or the other means you're 'biased', which I'm told is very very bad.

Only if you're biased against the TRUTH.  Besides, your lack of bias comes from swinging both ways. -homo.  wait, not homo, -bi.  oh, I'm confused. -dt

Date: 2007/04/15 12:21:35, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 15 2007,11:20)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,08:16)
For FtK:

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.

Are you seriously fooled by things like ID's fake science journal? Does that really look like a science journal to you? Do you really look at that, and see people doing productive research? Do you really see the Discovery Institute spending millions of dollars in 2006, and putting out lots of press releases, public shows, and articles in places like National Review, and not publishing a single scientific paper all year even in their own 'journal', and conclude that you're looking at a bunch of important scientists? Really?

That deserves being quoted, it is a very good point. I find it hard to believe that anyone of average inteligence can't spot the lies and evasions of the ID proponents after watching the arguments for any length of time. It is plain bloody obvious that one side (ID) is lying and dodging.

Steve's point certainly deserves to be quoted again.  Here's hoping that if it's seen enough, an answer will be forthcoming.  Doubt it, but you never know.  I also think stephen elliot's point actually leaves room for discussion as well.

It should be bloody obvious to people of average intelligence that IDers are lying, dodging, wankers.  However, I also think that sometimes when you are very close to a project, it looks good.  I've done a small number of shows over the years with some pretty talented people that were absolutely hideous.

Why did we do them?  Money is the cynical answer, but not the correct one I think.  I've quit projects that I saw as train-wrecks and others I've worked with have as well.  So, we must have thought we were doing good work at the time in order to stick it out.  Something else fell through--outside support (or directorial oversight), our own egos, something touched us about the piece that skewed our objectivity, etc.

I think that IDers have many things that work against their objectivity in this matter.

Cue "oh yeah, scientists are the ones who are really biased..."

Date: 2007/04/16 23:50:58, Link
Author: blipey

I don't even mind if FtK takes the same set of questions and answers them back at her little echo chamber and doesn't permit any response. She's not avoiding the questions because of us. She's avoiding the questions because she doesn't want to answer them.

my bolding

Of course this is true.  I'd like to ask another question of Ftk now:

When you take a private moment each night and think about the wonderful work you're doing for the kids, do you even answer these questions for yourself?  Seriously.  Have you ever answered them, even alone, even once?

Steve's question about science journals is not a science question.  It is a yes/no question.  We don't even require that you add anything (though it would certainly be nice if you did), just answer yes or no.

Here's my thought.  You won't answer because yes means that we can explore why you think that piece of empty (I mean actual blank pages, not just content) junior high journalism resembles a professional anything, let alone a science journal.  That would be embarrassing for you and the movement.

You won't answer "no" because that will be letting the enemy win.  It's a no-win for you, not a position I envy.

This also means that you have to increase the sphere of unanswerable questions to ANY quesstion ever asked of you on ANY subject.

This is why no one takes IDers seriously.  They have a pathalogical need to avoid discussion, people, thoughts, and data.

Do you really think that the world will just all of a sudden come over to the "light side"?  Will this happen in a religious epiphany?  If you don't think this, what plan do you have to bring the world over?  If you don;t have a plan to do this, what do you think you're accomplishing?

Thanks for ignoring in advance.

Date: 2007/04/17 00:12:22, Link
Author: blipey
I was brought here by my home's proximity to the state of Kansas.  It was back in the days before the goofy "Evolution Hearings" by the Kansas Board of Education.  Both of parents are educators and I do a little bit of teaching (theatre) so I'm interested in such things.

While I live in Kansas City, MO, I am very close to Kansas and some of my classes were in Kansas.  So, when I heard about the hearings I decided I would attend.  Attending, I briefly chatted with some of the KCFS folk and found the Panda's Thumb.

From there, I got here and must echo stevestory's enjoyment of creationists getting worked over.  Not being a working (or lazy, for that matter) scientist, I also learn some stuff here--that's always good.

Date: 2007/04/18 22:35:23, Link
Author: blipey
Crap.  I hate to be the one ask a real question again, but here goes.

Um, Ftk, could you please cite some data about how ID is so much more widespread than it ever has been?

I mean, what numbers are you comparing?  Where did these numbers come from?  What method was used to gather these numbers?

I know it's sciency and all, but it really is a simple question set that you should have no problems answering.  Don't ignore it.

You can claim that thhis is an intellectual wasteland all you want, but that only holds because of YOUR behavior.  If you'd like to talk science, it can be done.  However, the more YOU ignore the quite large portion of this forum that attempts to carry on serious conversation, the more you show your own lack of intellectual prowess.

Date: 2007/04/18 23:13:45, Link
Author: blipey
Oh thanks, Ftk, I can do my own research.  Really.  You see, the question was really just to see if you'd actually looked at any data on the matter.  Or, are you just spouting talking points?  I think I know, but it's always nice to see it confirmed.

Here's the amount of research that I'm sure you're familiar with:

A Google Fight

While this is completey unscientific and meaningless, it does illustrate the point that even by your standards, ToE is kicking ID's ass.  But, Google Fights are not how real work is done.  For that, you need actual numbers from actual people.

You see, proliferation on the internet means almost nothing to the validity of the idea.  For example, there are millions of search results for "Holocaust Denial".  Did the Holocaust happen?

I'm just interested to know where you're coming from.  I don't know what numbers you're looking at.  Maybe they're different than mine.  You have an opportunity to enlighten me.  Most reasonable people (and practically everyone here) enjoy opportunities to both learn and teach.

Why are you backing away from an opportunity to teach?  If your numbers are better than mine, I'll say so.

Date: 2007/04/18 23:31:20, Link
Author: blipey


Why would you ignore the point that googling for something doesn't legitimize it?  I mean, seriously, you think that googling a thing makes it a serious intellectual concern.  I mean, I just googled it twice in the last few minutes for the previous post and I think it's bunk.  So, does me googling it mean that I believe in it?  Do you think that other people might be in the same situation?  have you heard of Project Steve?  Do you know what it means?

Date: 2007/04/19 11:13:08, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,09:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,09:22)
Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,09:05)
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.

Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...

...or an 'Asian gang member'.

There was some 'on the cross' rhetoric in his video too.

that being said, he was a disturbed individual. I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.

I absolutely agree.  But I will use DaveTard's comments about him to club DaveTard with.  That is both right and funny.

Date: 2007/04/19 11:33:34, Link
Author: blipey

This reminds me of one of my favorite Fundies Say the Darndest Things quotes.  I can't find it right now, but it basically says that Athiesm is a subset of Islam.  Hmmm.  I know some people who need a dictionary for Christmas.

Date: 2007/04/19 11:47:07, Link
Author: blipey
Joe is the dumbest of the dumb.  All of his accumulated knowledge can be yours for only 20,000 USD.  But, if you don't have it, you're out of luck.  And this proves that he's really interested in disseminating information.

I am looking forward to the meeting. My list is completed. You will only see it once you give me the list I requested or $10,000. I don't give anything away for free.

Date: 2007/04/19 11:51:59, Link
Author: blipey
Yep. That's the one.  Thanks for wading in longer than I could.  (And probing better than I did)

That's the only thing Arden's good at--probing.  In fact, when he was down at my boat last year, he was my little probie.  Ha!  I'm such a homo sometimes!  No, Arden is, ARDEN IS!  The Islamoatheists have me confused.

Date: 2007/04/19 11:57:41, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,11:47)
Fine stuff! Does Joe the Refrigerator Repairman produce enough quality laugh-laugh to merit his own thread here, or is most of his shtick just boring?

Well, the volume of tard that he writes posts about is perhaps worthy of a thread.  After he writes the post though, he gets off track easily due to his complete lack of ability to answer questions.  And his total DaveTard-at-his-worst-personality.

But he does say a lot of funny stuff.  Of course, he'll never appear here to discuss anything, but that doesn't mean we can't poke him with a stick.  In fact, that's what I think his blog is for.

Date: 2007/04/19 20:17:50, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 19 2007,13:21)
Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,11:13)
I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.

I absolutely agree.  But I will use DaveTard's comments about him to club DaveTard with.  That is both right and funny.

He might not say much from now on; so far he has resisted this bait.
DaveScot wrote: I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure. Islam wouldn't be surprising as mass murder of anonymous strangers including women and children in innocent public settings to make a political point seems to be de rigueur for them.

Let's clarify a couple of things. I might be willing to take that bet.

What are the "mainstream" Christian churches?


What's the bet? A bottle of single malt scotch?

Yeah.  And Ftk actually censored this from that thread:

DaveScot, are you claiming that if this guy was a Christian he wouldn't have committed this crime?

That was my entire comment.  I've since resubmitted it with a note to Ftk asking why in the world she would reject such a comment, yet allow DT to post such vile things about other religious and ethnic groups...oh wait, other relig...and, uh,   other, bad atheists, bad...

I get it.  :D

Date: 2007/04/19 22:10:36, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,20:31)
Oh, get real Blipey.  Why the heck would Dave suggest that a "Christian" couldn't have possibly pulled the trigger that killed those 33 individuals unless he was baiting you guys.  

Obviously, Christians have gone off the deep end in the past.  Good grief... as if Christianity can keep all adherents completely unsusceptible to pain, grief, or whatever it is that causes people to lose touch with reality.  

I was trying to save you from looking like an idiot, but I'll certainly let it go through if that's what you want.

Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.

Well, that does bring up a few questions now doesn't it?  It's really too bad that that means you won't be answering them.

You see, as Richard said upthread, "yet he goes uncensored".  You see, your complicity in allowing him a platform to dupe (not us, but the general readers of your blog, if you have any) without any comments clearing up the clearly vile nature of what he said means you're not only NOT FOR KIDS, but perhaps Dangerous for Kids.

Perhaps you should rethink the kinds of things that are allowed on your blog.

Date: 2007/04/19 23:08:50, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,22:41)
Take a chill pill, Blipey.  I posted your comment.

Yet still don't understand why I had a problem with it being moderated.

Date: 2007/04/19 23:15:58, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,23:03)
Yeah, that "wallowing in ignorance for years" has been a real bitch.  

Oh, btw, the "sky pixie" scenario is highly overused.

One might say the same is true of "it's all how you interpretate-aroo the evidence".  Of course, you probably don't think that's true.

Which brings me back to a question I asked of you earlier:

Isn't it liberal, atheist, intellectuals that are supposed to be wishy-washy about what things mean?  Everything's okay as long as you believe it and all that?  How is it that you can take on this obviously liberal, immoral attitude while not puking?  As has been mentioned before, Do you not see a disconnect here?

In lieu of answers, you could just go away.  Otherwise, you might just have to be asked questions everyday--by people who have no interest in asking you questions--if you can believe that.

Date: 2007/04/19 23:23:25, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ichthyic @ April 19 2007,23:13)
of course you do, blipey.

stop being glib.

Right.  I do.  I apologize for undetailed typing.  I meant, "Ftk, gee, you've posted my comment, yet you still don't understand why I was upset that it was moderated in the first place."

Other than that, I really don't know why I should stop be glib  under normal circumstances.

Date: 2007/04/19 23:31:02, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ April 19 2007,23:14)
Because you were merely looking for a fight.  That's why.  Obviously, that comment isn't going to lead to anything productive.  Nonetheless, it's there now, so you can sleep peacefully.

Absolutely not.  I wanted to know if that's really what DaveScot thinks.  He has proposed a lot of things in the past that strain credulity, so I don't think that trying to understand his true feelings in this matter is really all that strange.

I find it odd that you'd like "to protect me" from stupidity, but don't have the same impulse as far as DaveScot is concerned.  Or do you not consider what he said stupid?  Even if it was only to provoke?  Which begs, "Why would you let him provoke us if you did not intend for us to reply?"  You'd think that not publishing his comment would've been a better way to stop a conflict.

Date: 2007/04/20 12:14:41, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2007,05:43)
Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,23:31)
I find it odd that you'd like "to protect me" from stupidity, but don't have the same impulse as far as DaveScot is concerned.  Or do you not consider what he said stupid?  Even if it was only to provoke?  Which begs, "Why would you let him provoke us if you did not intend for us to reply?"  You'd think that not publishing his comment would've been a better way to stop a conflict.

Umm, guys, am I the only one noticing that FtK is basically just a tease?  Her sole purpose here is to see how long she can keep you all foaming at the mouth and posting to the thread.  And with nearly 700 replies, I'd say she's getting the better of you.  Now, I know it was fun to pummel AFDave for month after month on the same point.  But, he was serious in his convictions. Delusional, but serious.  ForPlay isn't. She is having you on.

So, let's take a moment to put a bow on this piece of work:

- She won't answer any question about biology.
- She won't, in fact, answer any question about science, no matter how innocuous.
- She won't acknowledge that the ID journal, PCID, hasn't been published in almost two years.
- 10,000 years?  4.5 billion?  What-evah!
- She gets a kick out of feeding Richard's delusions of sexy hawtness.
- k.e.'s aboriginal manliness scares her.

I think that about covers it. Now can we just stop all this nonsense? No matter what approach you try, she just isn't going to put out.

This is absolutely correct.  I think we're all aware of what Ftk is.  She would only be getting the better of us if we did not know.

I participate in this thread for 2 reasons:

1.  (the least likely), something may actually be said that causes Ftk to go, "WTF! Wow have I been an illogical dumbass!"

2.  She's the kind of person that shows up at local school board meetings in order to make her policy ideas heard.  The more completely bone-headed her behavior, the more I can show up and say, "Lookie here."  It's nice when we have reams and reams of material from creationists making them look incompetent.

3.  She's occasionally funny.

Oh, I have 3 reasons I participate in this thread:

1.  possible education
2.  defending our schools
3.  chance of hilarity
4.  too much coffee...

Four, I have four reasons...oh, I'll come in again.

Date: 2007/04/20 12:36:45, Link
Author: blipey
BA - Theatre performance

with masters classes in clown theatre, juggling, mime, and stilt-walking.

This makes me qualified to drink beer, throw knives, and live in a cardboard box (simultaneously, though--that's the skill part).

I also completed 108 hours of an aerospace engineering program, before making my mom proud and becoming an actor.

Date: 2007/04/20 22:09:07, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2007,12:42)
Quote (blipey @ April 20 2007,12:36)
...with masters classes in clown theatre...

On second thoughts, mentioning WAD, DaveTard or the DI here would be just too easy.

Well, yes.  While WAD does many things poorly, I think he does "street theatre" worse than anything he's "tried".  This, of course, might have something to do with the fact that he's not really doing any theatre--street or otherwise.

Date: 2007/04/20 22:20:15, Link
Author: blipey
I'll just hang out over on the UD thread where the tard is a bit more varied.

True that.  This thread will probably wither at some point for that very reason.

Date: 2007/04/21 12:09:49, Link
Author: blipey
My own background is a B.S. in cell biology and biochemistry, UCSD.
Currently working toward an MSc/MA in molecular cell biology and vocal performance (opera singing) at the University of Kansas.

And you'd move from San Diego to Lawrence for, ubwuh, wakkawakkawakka, why?

Date: 2007/04/22 01:12:26, Link
Author: blipey
Yeah.  I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines.  that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live.

Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter).

Date: 2007/04/23 11:05:10, Link
Author: blipey

BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of the age of the earth, and I've mentioned that in that past.  If that keeps you from visiting my blog, so what?  Buzz off then.

That's just goofy.  Do you really not see why that's goofy?  Let's do a little word substitution:

BTW, I'm open minded to various interpretations of which state the Kansas City Royals play their home games in, and I've mentioned that in the past.

You know, some people say it's Missouri, others say it's New York.  I think there are good explanations for both.

Is it really that hard to take a stand on this issue, Ftk?  I don't particularly care which side you take.  But it would seem that this is an issue in which it is just plain goofy to sit the fence.

In lieu of actually answering the questions, how about you tell me why it isn't goofy to sit the fence on this one?

Date: 2007/04/23 11:13:56, Link
Author: blipey
I might as well as you this here as well, Ftk, since you can't seem to not read this forum--it's kinda like chocolate cheese cake, huh?

Ftk posted this as the last comment in a discussion thread on her blog:

I have a life outside of this debate. Do you???

That was in lieu of answering some questions I posed to her.

I then asked her why it was that she had several dozen (I believe over 7 dozen) more comments in this discussion than I have.

Could it be that I occasionally ask her to support her accusations, assertions, and lies?  This probably doesn't sit right with her--being super busy and all, not having enough time to actually get into it with we who don't want to discuss science and all.

It is tough to answer queastions while simultaneously posting over 150 blobs of drivel.

So, Ftk, I ask, "Do you have a life outside this discussion????"

Date: 2007/04/23 12:18:31, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 23 2007,11:40)
Quote (blipey @ April 22 2007,01:12)
Yeah.  I can't even challenge DaveTard's assertion that it is illegal to ship single malt scotch across state lines.  that would depend on the states involved and especially where you live.

Nor can I comment on his bad choice of scotch for pricing (or drinking, for that matter).

I am amazed. Never thought that I would defend DS. Surely you don't consider The Glenlivet
a bad choice, do you?

No.  The Glenlivet 18 yr is a fine, respectable whisky.  However (and I may be wrong), I assume that DaveTard meant the 12 yr when he merely typed Glenlivet.  The 12 yr is a bit rough in my opinion and really not in my top 25 or 30 scotches.

The 18 yr Glenlivet is not in my top 10 either, but I would certainly have a couple--neat--if you insist.

My absolute favorite is the 21 yr Balvenie, portwood aged.  The Macallan 25 yr is also very nice.  For a slightly cheaper nice drink I like both the Tamnavullin Stillman's Dram and Laphroaig 15 yr Islay.

Date: 2007/04/23 22:52:29, Link
Author: blipey
John W:
Try a splash of water.  Ice just numbs the tastebuds - you might as well save your money and drink the cheap stuff.

This is good advice, stephen.  Occasionally a whisky might need a tiny "wakeup".  If this is the case, a wee splash of room temperature water is all it needs.  You don't want to cool off the whisky--it loses flavor as it cools--but a little bit of water can make it brighter on the tongue.  I wouldn't recommend any more water than, say, half an eyedropper per 2 oz of whisky.

I like peaty malts, but laph.... leep frog tastes just too #### strong.

My recommendation here would be to generally stay away ffrom the Islay malts.  There are plenty of fairly peaty malts from Speyside or the Highlands that will do yyour taste buds better.  The Tamnavulin (Speyside) above will do you well.  Also, a cheaper  to only moderately expensive distillery that I like is Glenmorangie (Highland).

You may want to tour the distilleries here.

@ Bing:

I have not had the pleasure of Poit Dhubh, but the HP 25 is very fine.  I'll bring whisky if I can be invited to the  next party.

Date: 2007/04/24 19:41:21, Link
Author: blipey

I've never met people as rude as the Darwinists in this fight.

Uh, you have met DaveScot, right?  You know, the one who posts at your blog?  DaveScot?  Champion of forthrightness, bolding, banning, and impregnating?  DaveScot?

Date: 2007/04/24 19:54:34, Link
Author: blipey

but when they find out they aren't going to change my mind with a few post, they turn on me like gangbusters.

How about we geerally asked you for what basis you have for your views and then you answered by saying that yu would never tell us what basis you have for your views?  Then we asked why we should take your word for it if you aren't going to provide any supporting details.  Then you got mad at us because we asked?  This seems to me how it went, generally.

I think the way people treat others provides insight to their overall character, and I think that is something to consider in this debate on some level.

Hmmm.  We ask some questions.  You don't answer them, but duck and dodge and claim that we have never wanted to discuss science.  Then you continually tell us you're all about the science and never once, not once, talk about science even when sked to countless times.  You claim to be for the kids, but you show:

1.  No scholarship
2.  No desire to discuss issues with anyone.  Not here, not at your blog, not in public, not with the establishment, not with scientists, not with public officials, not with kids, not with anyone.  But you expect to be taken seriously?  For that, I have one question that you HAVE TO ANSWER.


You have never shown anyone the respect of actually engaging with them in a discussion.  To me, that is the ultimate sort of respect.  I respect you enough to engage with you in meaningful dialogue, to teach, to learn, to share.  As far as this goes, you show zero, and I mean zero respect for any other breathing being.

Respect belongs to those who know what to do with it.

Date: 2007/04/24 20:04:52, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk (from the fossil forrest thread):

I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum.

It was my conception that you were a person who evaded questions, never talked about facts, andgenerally behaved the same way that all creationists behave.

You're doing a lovely job of changing my mind.

Date: 2007/04/24 20:13:58, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 24 2007,20:05)
My apologies, but can we stop talking to / about / around ftk and get back to the scotch?  The doublewood is very fine and if you're paying $50, you're not shopping around.

On a related subject, I must say that Bombay Saphire gin is quite good, but only if it is not the primary ingredient.  Add have a shot to 1.5 shots of vodka (anything above de-greaser will work), at least act like you're adding vermouth* and you have a fantastic martini.  Do not shake, dammit; stir.

*Winston Churchill liked his dry  - why argue with a man like that?

I am so sorry; I don't know what got into me.

I was going to comment on the double-wood Balvenie earlier.  It is a nice whisky (the proper spelling for Gaelic whisky, we Americans added the "e") and you can certainly obtain a fifth for around 36-40 USD.

I can't do the gin myself except as a mixer.  I appreciate your taste in gin, however.  Take this from a non-gin drinker, but the best gin I've tried is Citadel (from Pierre Ferand).  A little pricey for me (non-gin drinker here), but I thought it was fairly smooth.

Add some #### vermouth to the martini, though.  (Even if you do a vodka martini bastardization like I do.)  You don't have to go original recipe and add an entire half a jigger, but I like about 1/4 ounce.  And definitely stirred; we agree there.

Date: 2007/04/24 20:36:30, Link
Author: blipey
can you tell the difference between shaken and stirred? What's the difference?

Yes.  a shaken martini is a little watered down--the process melts more ice into the cocktail (though this is a term that only technically applies to a martini with vermouth in it, cocktails needing more than one ingredient).  This causes the flavor to be a little flat on the tongue.

A stirred martini chills while melting about 1/4 the amount of ice into the cocktail.

I have noted that I like more intensely flavored things as I age.  More tannic wines; gin.  I guess I killed enough taste buds to appreciate a little more intensity.

I agree totally, I like the single malt whisky, big reds, spicy carmeneres, an armagnac once in a while.  Gin is just not something my tongue likes, a little too herbal for me.

blipey, are you the guy living near KC?

Yes, I live in downtown Kansas City, MO (though I am currently performing in a natioanlly touring theatre production so god knows what KC's like at the moment).

Of course, your statement could also apply to: AFDave or Ftk--maybe I jumped the gun  :O

Date: 2007/04/24 21:56:56, Link
Author: blipey
Differences aren't always imaginary. I'm a coffeeholic, and can tell the difference between a 16-second shot of espresso and a 22-second shot and a 28-second shot. You can tell me it's a nice Sumatra, but if it's actually a lightly-roasted Kenya AA, one sip and it's going down the sink.

(And don't tell me some people prefer a nice lightly-roasted Kenya, Costa Rica, or Guatemala. There's no such thing, and those people are perverts.)

Wow.  I thought I liked coffee, but I don't think I could tell the difference between 16 and 22, very impressive sir...  Drip coffee, yes!  Just had the first of some nice Bad Ass Kona this morning.

The shaking seemed to bring out a little too much aroma from my gin.

This is not illusory; it is called "bruising".  Some people like this, but they are poof-tas.  Vigorous shaking can change the flavor of an aromatic or herbal liquor like gin.

Date: 2007/04/24 22:23:47, Link
Author: blipey
And now for something completely different.  Well, for this thread.  I was reading a book a couple of months ago about the Gypsies that I thought was fascinating.  It seemed to not be able to pin down the origins of the Gypsy people, but talked a lot about language.

In fact, one of the people in the book was a linguist the author had met and who was accepted into the Gypsy community (as much as outsiders can be) to a fairly large degree.  Sorry, I can't recall his name right now and the book is back in KC.

I was wondering, Arden, if you had any input on the origin of the Gypsy?  Are they an Indian sub-continent people?  Have you studied any of the origin or development of the Romani language?

Date: 2007/04/24 22:27:13, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2007,22:13)
Quote (blipey @ April 24 2007,22:56)
Wow.  I thought I liked coffee, but I don't think I could tell the difference between 16 and 22, very impressive sir...  Drip coffee, yes!  Just had the first of some nice Bad Ass Kona this morning.

Kona is pretty badass. Almost as good as Jamaican Blue Mountain was, a few years ago, when that meant something. After a while, you develop a palate. A 16 second shot, at its best, would be somewhat watery. Not detectable in a latte, for instance, but totally distinct straight up. By the way, the Kona you had was a blend, probably between 10%-40% Kona. Can you imagine 100%? It would be a coffeegasm.

They had some Kona they were selling for upwards of 50 USD per pound.  I passed--too many other habits to support and all.  But I should give it a try, I imagine?

Date: 2007/04/24 22:40:46, Link
Author: blipey
Right, I'll have to go back.  I bought the 35 USD / lb stuff.  It's 30% (I looked now that I know I should have--the things you learn at AtBC).

Date: 2007/04/25 14:17:30, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,07:19)
Doesn't anybody here like vodka?    :(

Well, in that it doesn't taste particularly bad, sure.  I do prefer my liquor with a little flavor, however.  Vodka is a great thing that: adds alcohol to grapefruit juice, makes dry vermouth drinkable, puts a finish on a good bloody mary mix, and generally makes the women a little tipsy while drinking their foo-foo drinks.

Date: 2007/04/25 14:38:15, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 25 2007,13:35)
Back to DRINKS!

Tea=Assam, English breakfast, Yorkshire tea (hardwater).
Coffee=Couldn't give much of a ####.
Gin=Bombay Saphire, Gordons, Waitrose own. TBH I normally drink gin with tonic, ice and a slice of lemon and so the quality of gin is pretty much negated.
Brandy=VSOP fine champagne cognac. Anything better is wasted on my palate. I can't really distinguish between VSOP and XO by tongue (by wallet damage is a different matter).
Whisky=Almost any single malt and particularly the peaty ones. Johnny Walker will do, mind (don't care too much about label colour here). Jamesons is OK and Jack Daniels is drinkable (not sure if JD is really a whisky though and have serious doubts [still, it is an ok drink]).

BEER!=Too many to name but they are all "real ales", none of that dead chemical crap. Short list (just a taster)....Abbot's Ale, Bombardier, London Pride, Old Speckled Hen. God but they are good. The drinks of champions.

I like the English Breakfast myself.  Can't say I'm much of a tea snob, not quite like I (and certainly not Arden or stevestory, those girly, 22-second espresso-sipping, coffee-house sitting homos) am with the coffee or the scotch.

I'm taking this time, stephen, to tell you the grand designer is thinking of terrible ways to undesign you for your malodorous statement on coffee.

Don't drink the gin, at least not since I stopped bartending a few years ago--Citadel and Tanqueray #10 being the ones I could choke down sober.

Brandy: like it as a mixer, but not often straight.  There are certainly things I like better at lower prices.

Tequila: delicious, Don Julio 1942 being my favorite sipping tequila--pleasantly warm without biting you from the get-go.  Some of the cheaper stuff that make good ritas: sauza Hornitos, Petron Silver, Don Eduardo Anejo.

Whisky:  the johnnies are blends (well, most of them), not to be compared to the single malts.  Though the black label makes a decent rusty nail or godfather.

Beer:  the nectar of the gods and one of the things that makes me ashamed of my American heritage.  Fortunately, the micro and craft breweries have ecome popular here and there is a lot of decent beer to be had if you look for it.  A few of my favorite American brews:

Unfiltered Wheat (hefeweisen):  Boulevard Brewing Co., Kansas City, MO

Moose Drool brown ale:  Big Sky Brewing, Missoula, MT

Winter Ale (English olde ale, malty): Alaskan Brewing Co., Juneau, AK.  Their rauchbier (smoked porter) is also worth a shot.  It's not for everyone, but their version is not so overly smoked as to be identical to liquid smoke flavor additive.

Date: 2007/04/25 15:02:09, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (jeannot @ April 25 2007,14:59)
If you're getting bored by someone who dodges scientific questions, there's a first-class creo over at PT ("uncommon despair" thread), called Philip Cunningham. He sounds like an average AFDave, and he apparently doesn't fear venturing on (pseudo)scientific grounds.
You could attract this beast to AtBC.

Oooh, sounds like fun.  While talking about drinking is all well and good, actually drinking is better.  And drinking a bit while discussing (cussing?) things with a creationist is best.

Date: 2007/04/26 02:07:46, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (deejay @ April 25 2007,22:29)
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,19:06)
Several times lately people have pointed me to Moose Drool. I'll have to check it out.

Hi Steve-

I lived in Montana for 12 years, and as much as I'd love to be a homer for the local stuff, I still prefer most of the brews from Deschutes, particularly Black Butte Porter and Obsidian Stout.  Deschutes makes a pale ale called Mirror Pond, and lots of people like it, but I much prefer Sierra Nevada, which is my default beer.  

I agree with Wes on Spaten Optimator, but I have worlds more international beers still to try.

I will second the Black Butte Porter.  It slipped my mind; I do like it more than Moose Drool (which is still a good beer).  The Obsidian is decent as well.

As for a Varsity Drinking Team name, here are my proposals:

1.  International Society of Creative Imbibers & Drunks

2.  World-wide Association of Drinkers

3.  We may be drunk but we know that beer was invented more than 6,000 years ago.

4.  Sorry, DI who?

Date: 2007/04/26 02:38:47, Link
Author: blipey
DaveTard is a weak excuse for a human being.

Well, it looks as if DaveTard is going to duck our meeting after all.  What a pussy.  There's a nice pic of him though, with his dogs, and a nice Texas size, 13 mpg truck.

Date: 2007/04/26 12:57:50, Link
Author: blipey
I mispoke. I intended "Vicious Dodge, dog phallus and man-bra."

Now, that's funny.

Date: 2007/04/26 18:41:38, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,17:04)
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,12:57)
I mispoke. I intended "Vicious Dodge, dog phallus and man-bra."

Now, that's funny.

Blipey, it just occurred to me, what if you go out to Dave's house and he really does kill you with a chainsaw? What should we do then?  :p

I think the only proper things to do would be to either:

1.  Call Homeland Security, let the proper authorities know that there are godless atheists agnostics oh wtf atheist killers in Texas and that it is paramount that righteous Christian morally upstanding individuals punish the only class of people capable of this heinous crime.


2.  Drink a lot of Scotch, watch an old Buster Keaton film, then coninue to do what you do so well.

Date: 2007/04/26 18:50:03, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (argystokes @ April 26 2007,14:26)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,12:20)
Funny thing, I still think a really good dark Irish, English, or German beer beats the best American microbrews 95% of the time. Even a mediocre Irish stout beats the best Pacific NW stouts (in my not at all humble opinion).

Sure, the little microbrew numbers are vastly better than mainstream American mega-brewery beers, but that's setting the bar awfully low...

Tis true, I haven't found a stout out here that I particularly like. Well, Hale's has a good one, but you've got to go to the brewery to get it.

I will agree with this.  The best European brews are better than the best American brews almost every time, probably all the time as regards dark beers.  For example, I think the Boulevard Brewing Company in Kansas City does a very nice job with 3/4 of its brews (hefeweisen, pale ale, belgian white, etc).  It really completely drops the ball with its porter and stout--absolutely foul, dark beer for people who like Miller Lite imo, watery and thin, ugh.

Americans just don't like dark beer for some reason.  So, they don't make it very well either.  This isn't to say that there aren't some very nice examples of stouts and porters around in tiny places in North America, but you have to go find them.  And they're not quite as good as the best of the Scots, Irish, or German darks.

Date: 2007/04/26 19:16:25, Link
Author: blipey
DaveTard weighs in on many things not limited to, but including: his weight, his body type, and Texans' penchant for shooting people.

Date: 2007/04/26 19:22:18, Link
Author: blipey
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 26 2007,19:10)
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,18:50)
Americans just don't like dark beer for some reason.  So, they don't make it very well either.  

Hey!!!!  I homebrew the very best porter in the United States.


Watch out Lenny, you homo.  I'm into home visitations with people who make wild-ass claims.  If you don't retract that I'll be forced to come over and take your porter bottle whole...even though I'm straight.  Uh, and an agnostic.  Also I'm a marine.

Date: 2007/04/27 13:37:04, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (someotherguy @ April 26 2007,23:37)
Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2007,19:02)
Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.

It's waaaay better on tap.  

As for the others talking about American stouts, don't write them all off until you've tried the Stone's Imperial Russian Stout.

A pretty good example of a stout, the finish is ever so slightly too metallic IMO, but even so it is very nice.

Date: 2007/04/28 00:33:35, Link
Author: blipey
FTK should really read some serious adaptationist writing like What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr.

Surely you didn't mean to waste so many words?  Wouldn't this be more appropriate:

FTK should really read.

Date: 2007/05/01 21:05:48, Link
Author: blipey
Yeah.  The logic is fabulous.  We have these gems:

Guys like Al Gore really irk me though. If it's as HUGE a problem as he indicates, you'd think the man would practise what he preaches.

Yes, that's right; Al Gore's potential hypocrisy has a direct bearing on whether or not the phenomenon of global warming is happening.

I've heard some of the "experts" say we only have about a decade before things go to ####. I'm seriously doubting that prediction.

translated: I'm doubting this because my church friends that don't like evolution don't like some of the people who do some studies about things like global warming and reality.

Date: 2007/05/02 01:22:01, Link
Author: blipey

Just when you thought the supply of premium tardity was waning a pleasant surprise pops up.

WAD's former coffee drone and office duster has returned to tell us all about the evils of not being Christian.  Three new posts (not at the level of insanity that I was accustomed to last year, so maybe he's turned over a new leaf) are now available.

Here's hoping that Joel has either become more sane or will post something truly funny soon.

Joel Barofsky's "Stop Lying to Us"

Date: 2007/05/03 01:10:11, Link
Author: blipey
Welcome back, Fdp, FUkids, FcK, whoever:

Couldn't stay away from the fan club, huh?  Oh wait, sorry.  That was a question.  You've been away so long that I almost forgot how poorly you deal with those.  Please disregard any and all questions that might have appeared in this paragraph.  Okay?  Oops.

Since I have broken the question ice, here are some more.

1.  Why'd you pop in this time?

2.  What the #### does this mean:

My husband and kids are members of Ducks Unlimited so they know all the rules *quite* well, thank you.

Is quite well different from *quite* well, how about quite well?

3.  As regards this passage of yours:

Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.  It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.

Do you have scary dogs?  Or just ones like DaveTard?
Why is it weird that I would want to visit DaveTard?  I believe I have explained in great detail why I (and others) might like to visit him.  Imagination isn't your strong point is it?  Please do remember that I'm intending to visit you as well when I get home--just a couple of weeks now.  And of course Joe Gallien is on the list as well.  Is it weird to want to visit the two of you?  Perhaps I'm doing it out of Christian kindness to spread the truth?

Oh, and why do you feel your opinion should be heard on this issue and not on, you know, the important ones like science and all?

Date: 2007/05/03 09:29:58, Link
Author: blipey
Wow.  I have already met you, Ftk.  Can't say that it was super memorable though.  I was sitting about4 rows back and a few seats to house right of you.  Good stuff.  Those were th good old days, huh?  Hearings about science that didn't accomplish anything rational, a dude from Turkey who may have been certifiably insane (though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt--English is at least his 2nd language), a whole bunch of creationists who dodged questions....

Oh yeah, and the couple in front of me who said during testimony that this was certainly not about religion in any way.  Then, in the foyer during a break, they disagreed with me and told me I was going to #### because of that point of disagreement.

Good stuff.

Date: 2007/05/06 02:29:04, Link
Author: blipey
Been surfing for a couple days so this may seem a bit out of place.  However, I would like it to be known to the namesake of this thread that I do not go aound hunting down IDiots.  DaveTard and Joe Gallien have each personally invited me to their homes.

DaveScot on Janie's blog over a disagreement over who should set public school curriculum.  He told me to stop by any time I was in Austin.  Now, I didn't just take a vacation to Austin to confront him.  Several months later my job takes me to Austin and I take him up on his offer.  He reneges...hmmm.  don't see how this is too terribly strange.

Joe Gallien has done much the same thing.  I find it odd that when people actually take IDiots up on their offers, it is the takers that are called stalkers.

I have offered to visit you, Ftk, since you live less than 2 hours from me.  However, I have no idea who you are, where you live, or anything else.  I guess I now know what you look like, but that isn't much.

While I would be interested in actually meeting you to discuss education issues and what you think about ublic science education, I would only visit you after calling you or emailing you and setting up some sort of mutually agreeable meeting.  I don't think that this so strange.  When people actually meet and actually discuss things (something you seem completely unable to do) knowledge is gained.  That is usually a wonderfu thing.

Date: 2007/05/06 13:38:47, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 06 2007,13:14)
Joe Gallien has done much the same thing.  I find it odd that when people actually take IDiots up on their offers, it is the takers that are called stalkers.

oh yeah.  all talk and no walk is the IDiot way.

not surprising, since they really have nothing behind what they spout off about anyway.

Oh yes.  I don't find it odd if our set is that of all IDiots.  I just find the behavior strange when applied to the set of all human beings.

I try to look at people as fairly normal human beings first: until they prove otherwise, then all bets are off.

Date: 2007/05/07 01:20:55, Link
Author: blipey

Maybe you need some ginko-biloba or something?  Perhaps a nice chat with a pachyderm?

I also have no clue why you'd have to come to my house to talk with me about "education" etc. when we can do that on-line.

I'm not quite sure why you'd want to meet Dave at his house either.  Wouldn't email work just as well?

You are the same person who has been posting on this thread since the beginning, right?  I mean, you haven't abducted the person who was previousl posting as Ftk and taken her place?  You are the same person who said:

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.


I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.


But, I'm really not into chatting about science with ya.

Right?  This is you?  Cause that don't really sound like no person I might go round and shoot the shit with about education, the sciency stuff and all.  Hmmm.  I might be wrong.

As for Dave, you really don't get the point of it all, do you?

1.  Talking to Dave by email would be just as effective as talking to you on-line.  Zilch.  He (like you) won't do it.

2.  Oh, you might try and read what Dave has to say in my email correspondance with him.  You might find it enligtening.  See what your hero has to say by clicking here.

3.  The point is and always has been that people like DaveScot and Joe G are blowhards that really don't have anything to say if confronted in public.  Since both of them have specifically invited me to their houses, it's the perfect way to show off their blowhard natures when they refuse to act like normal human beings who invited me to their houses.

Just because there were words typed after the bit about your duplicity, don't forget to address it in your next comment.  Thanks in advance for ignoring.

Date: 2007/05/10 23:43:11, Link
Author: blipey
Gee Ftk,

I hate to screw up your little self-deluding world more than it already is, but I have to make an inquiry.

You said earlier in this thread that I should try emailing you in order to discuss science.  I did that 2 days ago (I assume you've seen that you have a message in your box here?) and you seem not to have had any response.  Why is that?  I know, you're very busy and can't be bothered to actually spend time here (except for the 250 times you've posted).

So, I assume that you're merely busy and haven't had time to address my scientific questions?  I will be getting answers, right?  Since you invited me to an email discussion and all...

Or, were you merely being pig-ignorant again?

Date: 2007/05/10 23:52:01, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,15:23)
I must be missing something...what is new in this article?  It thought we already knew that.  In fact, I think creationists predicted it.

Creationists predicted that humans diverged from apes 5,000,000 years ago?

I must have missed that.

Date: 2007/05/11 08:00:13, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,07:26)
To FTK and in Lenny's defence (coming from a science educator) You have a right to your version of Christianity and your interpretation of scripture; however. one of the DI's goals is to change how science is taught in public schools, which should be free of anyone's religious interpretation. Lenny's goal, and the goal of many here (if you see the purpose of Panda's Thumb) is to promote sound SCIENCE education, among other things. Putting a religious twist on science is called indoctrination, plain and simple, and it has no place in schools.

But, the truth of the matter is that what would be taught in regard to ID would not include any type of religious teaching ~WHATSOEVER~.  And, ID is also FREE OF A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION.  It does not exclude or include any specific religion.  The only group it might offend would be those who hold to a philosophical view that there is absolutely no designer.  

Why can none of you see that?


Please provide an ID lesson plan and curricuum.  I want 3 months of classroom lessons, preferably in the 50 minute lecture / 5 per week format.

Include lecture, study questions, quiz topics, and testing materials.  To truly be u to par, you should also include home study project and a possible lab experiment or two to be done in class.

Thanks for being the one to show us a workable ID lesson plan.  I'm very excited in advance.

Date: 2007/05/11 08:14:23, Link
Author: blipey
Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years.

Really?  Why would that be?  Please explain in your own words.  Linking to AiG or somewhere only proves that you're a sheep.  Plesae explain in your own words why catastrophe is a better explanation.  Then we can have a discussion about said things.

Oh, speaking of discussions, how're the answers to my science questions coming in our email, ahem, discussion?  Great.  Thanks.

I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something.

Um.  In your own words, please tell us exactly why each of the evidences for deep time fall flat.  I mean they must have if we're still missing something to be discovered later.

Radiometric dating?  Plate techtonics?  Cosmology problems (planet formation, speed of light, etc)?

In your own words, tell us why you can completely ignore these evidences and wait for the second coming evidence to finally come in.

Oh, also, you have some questions waiting in your in mailbox--3 days now.  They aren't difficult or terribly complicated questions.

Date: 2007/05/11 08:20:21, Link
Author: blipey

I hope you'll answer these questions because up to now only one person has been willing to discuss these issues with me and they seemed a bit tentative as to what they believe.

I'm going to start voting for you, Ftk, in the "Who's the Dumbest IDer of 'em all" competition.

You're seriously distressed that someone is behaving exactly like you?  And really, you've outclassed anyone here on avoidance of questions.  Are you really saying that someone should be man enough to answer questions posed by you?  Really?  In seriousness?  Truly?  And you're not joking?  Really?

Date: 2007/05/13 05:37:16, Link
Author: blipey
Her email invite lasted exactly one email.  In it, she provided no arguments and no explanations of her scientific positions.  She also provided no religious babble to speak of.  But she did manage to say this when I emailed back some follow-up questions:


I am going to be out most of the weekend, but I want to tell you something right up front.

The reason why I feel it is a complete and utter waste of my time to dialogue with you is because I have been here before.  I have spent hours and hours and hours of my time presenting what I feel is good science.  It doesn't matter in the end, because you will reject it as science due to the paradigm in which you adhere to.  

So, I link to save myself the time and effort of explaining something that I know is going to be completely rejected no matter how well it is put together.

Do you understand that even a tiny little bit?  I'm sick of wasting my time on certain people who I know will never consider anything that falls out of line with their worldview.

I've stated over and over, that YE theories may be wrong....they may be.  ID may be wrong, but then again, we don't have enough empirical evidence to support the historical inferences of the ToE either.  So, my mind will remain opened whereas yours has all but shut down.

I'm pretty sure it was you, Ftk, who said I should try email.  Why was that?  Should I have expected different results?  I didn't, but I'm interested to know if you did?  Because, really, as a time waster, the ruse never had any legs.

Date: 2007/05/13 05:48:08, Link
Author: blipey

So, my mind will remain opened whereas yours has all but shut down.

Would it be too much to ask for an example of my mind being closed?  Which pieces of data am I ignoring?  Exactly what am I missing and how exactly do you know I haven't considered your position?

Ftk, functioning human beings are able to make decisions.  We take in data, process it, and then make a flippin' decision.  Then there's you.

I sometimes feel as if I should track you down sometime in order to keep you from starving to death.  Do you open up the fridge, see chicken and steak, and completely shut down because you're open to both being dinner?  In what circumstances might you be able to decide between two options?

Meals? Politics? Science? Religion? Drivng iteneraries? Blouses? Alarm settings?  Anything at all?

Date: 2007/05/13 05:53:38, Link
Author: blipey
ID may be wrong, but then again, we don't have enough empirical evidence to support the historical inferences of the ToE either.

You make an awful lot of broad statemets for someone who has never once backed anything up.  Would it be too much to ask for a list of historical inferences that don't have any evidence behind them?

After providing that list, what amount of evidence (quantitatively) would be required for you to decide on steak for dinner?

Also, how about the outline of an ID lesson plan?

Date: 2007/05/13 06:07:04, Link
Author: blipey
In an unsurprising news flash, DaveTard is afraid of clowns.  I emailed the Tardmeister to tell him I was arriving.  No reply.  I called him to tell him I was in.  No reply.  I guess the just don't build marines like they used to.  I mean, they obviously build them bigger and with an inverted v-shape, but not like they used to.

Date: 2007/05/13 09:20:36, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 13 2007,09:09)
You'd think Ftk would have a link to point to for  
hours and hours and hours of my time presenting what I feel is good science
but it seems AFDave has been giving her pointers! Latley, however, it seems even AFDave has changed tatics and now gives a link to where he "covered" or "won" on various topics, yet if you follow them the real story is somewhat different....I wonder how long before Ftk takes this course?!

My money's on never.  Unlike AFDave, Ftk is too afraid to confront anyone on anything.  She's never actually made any scientific claims to link to.  AFDave is a tard, but he's a tard with gumption.  Ftk is merely an also-ran.

Date: 2007/05/13 09:53:54, Link
Author: blipey
In what way is that not a declaration of a war on science?

In the same way that my love of bacon is not a declaration of war on English poetry, but rather a rationalization of my hatred for those of cloven-hoof?

Date: 2007/05/13 20:24:41, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (dhogaza @ May 13 2007,20:23)
Oh-oh, those evil people denying Gonzalez tenure are in deep doo-doo now.  Davetard's riding to the rescue!
I’m here to tell you sir when the good people of Iowa find out their children are going to a state university where atheists are made professors of religious studies, while a Christian astronomer is being shown the door for having the temerity to publish good science that reasonably suggests the earth is a rare and special planet, heads are going to roll.

Actually it's far more likely that eyes are going to roll in disbelief at Davetard's tardicity.

Well, if DaveTard were important enough for them to know who the hell he is.

Date: 2007/05/13 20:48:03, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Cedric Katesby @ May 13 2007,20:40)
"I am glad you finally came to that realization. When will you start taking lithium bicarbonate? "

Wow.  Think of the wit it would take to come up with a comment like that.   :O

adn too spell it "right", to!!!

Date: 2007/05/13 20:51:14, Link
Author: blipey
Ditto what Lenny said.

The Tard is strong with us; it is our finest weapon.  Damn cheap as well, gotta like that.

Date: 2007/05/14 11:17:01, Link
Author: blipey
and it doesn't take a PhD in geology to see it either.

But I thought that creationists only got 2 kinds of doctorates:  Lemming and Obfuscation.

Date: 2007/05/14 13:44:05, Link
Author: blipey
Louis and Wes,

I find this discussion fascinating and AtBC is maybe the only place it could remain this civil.  Very nice.  I have a couple very small (possibly insignificant) things to add.

While I can wrap my brain around PZ's argument of religion on both sides blurring the line between plaitiff and defendant, I find it hard to picture exactly what that court case might be about.  Of course, I'm not an employee of some think tank whose only job is to come up with said court case.

Also, as PZ says in Romney II, he isn't aware of the religious positions of most of the text authors on his shelf and it doesn't matter.  What matters is the quality of the textbook.  I think it is mostly irrelevant what a person's theological bent is.  As you stated, Louis, science can answer some religious questions (6,000 yo earth, etc), but certainly not all of them.  While most, if not all, of these unanswerable questions boil down to the necessity (or irrelevancy) of a supernatural causation, I don't believe that they necessarily interfere with good science.

It seems to me that a suernatural being could remain undetected even if he were interfering with the natural world.  Is it necessary for that being to exist?  No.  But how does that necessarily interfere with people seeking the truth?

I think the happy place for TEs (and others fighting for education) is to rephrase what you wrote above:

We've tried to show the irrelevance of personal religious convictions to good science (true) by implying that religious claims/ideas are sometimes untouched by science (true).

emphasis mine.

Date: 2007/05/14 13:54:43, Link
Author: blipey
Dr. Dr. Dembski wrote:
If I ever became the president of a university

Bob Jones U might be looking.

Date: 2007/05/14 16:19:22, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 14 2007,16:02)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 13 2007,23:23)
I find it hilarious that a person who's published nothing (Robert) regularly insults anti-ID people for not publishing enough.

I am surrounded by people who have impressive publication records in mathematics and statistics, and they are my measuring stick.

Can you see over their ankles?  A lot of Lilliputians can be dangerous, but just one is merely sad.

Date: 2007/05/14 18:11:42, Link
Author: blipey
That's nice. I am also at a UC, in a more demanding discipline.

I'm assuming that the discipline is not Law and that you were rejected by the debate team?

Date: 2007/05/14 18:34:07, Link
Author: blipey
Comfort claimed he would provide undeniable scientific proof of God's existence without using faith or the Bible.

Wow.  After watching that I don't think that I'd count on Comfort to be able to prove the existence of the steak I have on the grill right now.

Not to mention the great skills of rebuttal that he and Cameron command.  My favorite moment was when Bashir asked if the had any comments to the 1st Law of Thermo argument.  And really, the way it was presented in the video there were many possible responses.  The blank stares and then Cameron's soft, "No" are fabulous.

Date: 2007/05/16 13:12:18, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2007,22:12)
Street Theater..
The best excuse for F*cking up.

Compleat nonsense, homo!  My butt-ass stupid clownish fourbarers, who travelled extensively in Europe in the 14th & 15th centuries AD (that's 1400-1599 for you non-learned homos--incidently the value of my IQ is in that range as well) used street theatre to great benefit.  Oh, and the AD stands for AutoDicktor.  That's also why most Americans are as pretty as me, the purpose of my forbears was to travel Europe planting our seed in every heathen we could find.  So you ahve me to thank for your gorgeous V-shapes.

ps. Richard wouldn't know street theatre if he was sharing a dressing room with 2 flaming clowns.  homo.

Date: 2007/05/16 14:29:47, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 16 2007,13:56)
Quote (blipey @ May 16 2007,13:12)
My butt-ass stupid clownish fourbarers, who travelled extensively in Europe in the 14th & 15th centuries AD (that's 1400-1599 for you non-learned homos-

Actually, that's 1300-1499. Homo.

Edit: 1301-1500. Homos.

Okay, don't make me violate another fundemental law of the universe by explaining to you how the strongest force in creation agnostic cheesy-poofness, GRAVITY, governs the relationship between centuries and actual numbers.  I am the Igor of Information.  homo.

Date: 2007/05/16 23:49:55, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 16 2007,23:09)
Quote (phonon @ May 03 2007,18:14)
Last week there was a historian on and FDR came up. You might think this guy's opinions are funny. He loves Warren Harding and hates FDR.

Replace Harding with Hoover and that describes my view. (Well, I don't "hate" FDR, but I certainly dislike him as a president.)

I thought he was dead.

Date: 2007/05/16 23:58:35, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 14 2007,20:25)
Quote (blipey @ May 14 2007,18:11)
That's nice. I am also at a UC, in a more demanding discipline.

I'm assuming that the discipline is not Law and that you were rejected by the debate team?

Not even close buckwheat.

Ah, I see, massah.  You ARE majoring in Law at the Johnson School of Dumbassery BUT the debate team still turned you down.   Is that it massah?

Edit: to include properly despicable racial relationship to RO.

Date: 2007/05/17 14:46:57, Link
Author: blipey
Continuing in her amazing qust to see ad hear nothing that goes on around her, we have her latest post on tenure.

So I asked her an unanswerable (in her case) question:

Wow.  Just wow.  I only ask this because you seem not to have heard any other arguments at all from anywhere.

Can you make a list of reasons that any generic professor might be denied tenure?  After making this list, look at it.  Is there more than one item listed?  Just asking.

Date: 2007/05/17 15:17:28, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 17 2007,13:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 17 2007,06:18)
According to the DI, it does. Emphasis added:


“There are two issues here: academic freedom and the First Amendment. Gonzalez has gained attention for his advocacy of intelligent design as legitimate science in his book, "The Privileged Planet."

You should know as well as anyone that there are two schools in the ID "big tent," one for "biological ID" and one for "cosmological ID." Guillermo Gonzalez is in the latter group, and as far as I know he has not specifically endorsed Of Pandas and People.

I'm sorry, where was Of Pandas and People in Wes's quote?  You're going to have to show me that evidence card, now Bob.

Date: 2007/05/18 10:09:01, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Dr Sven @ May 18 2007,09:23)
I couldn't help myself,but I had to read some of Brown's book about the Grand Canyon.

For example

All I can say is: I want to see the movie. Continent sized plates of mile thick sediment sliding of the back of the continent and crashing into each other within hours, setting of volcanoes due to frictional heat.

The special effects would have to be awesome.

Thanks ftk for pointing this book out to us. I haven't read such a good yarn in a while.

And if there WAS a movie that wold prove that people were there.  And people have been here since the beginning.  The movie would clear up the non-sense about deep time.  Get the DI working.  There's money to be made at weekend church camps!

working title:  The Quickly Moving Planet: 6,000 years of off-balanced thinking

Date: 2007/05/18 22:42:47, Link
Author: blipey
Joe Gallien is now forwarding chain mail.  This one offers up a fool-proof (fool-proof, I tell ya!) way for us to start paying 1.50 USD for a gallon of unleaded gasoline.  Wonder if these people have ever looked into the taxes placed on gasoline?  If so, does that mean that Exxon/Mobile will have to lower prices to 95 cents before we take our boot off their throats?

I have to admit, however, that this is a much better plan than DOING anything: stopping our dependance on oil, looking for alternative fuel sources, or--the big taboo from the letter--conservation.  I love these people.

Date: 2007/05/18 23:22:59, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 18 2007,20:51)

There is nothing wrong with the sort of ID Guillermo Gonzalez writes about.

but of course you wouldn't prefer to defend that statement, would ya now, bobbo?

I give him a ranking of 5 for speaker points.

Date: 2007/05/21 03:22:22, Link
Author: blipey
I think we can start the deathwatch on Ftk's blog.  About the only person she'll let post now is Larry Falafelandcoffee (and occasionally Rich, what's up with that hughes?) and this is what his content is like:

I am against tenure because I think that it is unfair to those who can't get it. But so long as we have it, I think that it should be administered fairly.

That would be like me saying I'm against super models or a case of Fladgate vintage 1984 port.  Crazy talk.

Date: 2007/05/21 11:05:24, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 21 2007,09:19)
Quote (blipey @ May 21 2007,03:22)
I think we can start the deathwatch on Ftk's blog.  About the only person she'll let post now is Larry Falafelandcoffee (and occasionally Rich, what's up with that hughes?)

Nudge, nudge, grin, grin, wink, wink, know what I mean, say no more.

A nods as good as a wink to a blind bat, heh?

And to be fair, my quote was of a Larry Phlemandbile comment on Ftk's blog.  Though it's reasonable to think that she agrees.

Date: 2007/05/21 11:14:39, Link
Author: blipey
That would be a serious blow to the multiverse explanations of fine tuning, such as the superstring landscape or cosmological evolution, explanations that rely on the fact that there is no fundamental theory...

This isn't correct is it?  I'm no cosmologist but theories such as M-Theory and brane worlds do not imply that there is no fundamental theory of everything, right?  In fact, string theory  (as far out and perhaps untestable as it is) is a quest for a unified theory.  So I don't get how disproving any of these is really an argument for CID.

Date: 2007/05/24 12:08:18, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 23 2007,16:51)
As a mathematician, I prefer the simple, clear proof, and thus frankly don’t believe you need to know much biology to reject the long complicated argument.

As a biologist, I can simply reject calculus as way too complicated to be necessary to add 2+2.

I don't think I've ever heard a lamer argument from an adult.

That can't be true.  I hate to ask you to look over any previous threads at UD, Joe's Place, or anything AFDave has ever said because it may kill you, but I m never amazed at anything these people say.  They have taken away my sense of disbelief.

Date: 2007/05/24 12:15:24, Link
Author: blipey
Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

Archaeopteryx proven to be a hoax!  Evil, atheist Darwiniasticysts using thug tactics to silence truth-telling Kiwi researchers!

Read all about it!

Never mind that the authors of the paper claim nothing of the above headline.  Ftk is quick on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, though.  Wonder if she actually can extrapolate anything from that article?  About what a "missing link" actually is?  Where one might be found, even still breathing today?  Or about error correction and new evidence?  You know, the simple stuff that her kids might be able to grasp.

Date: 2007/05/24 12:42:38, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2007,12:29)
If you're looking for something to REALLY make you want to push sewing needles into your head, just to stop the pain...

Yikes.  The comments to that thread are stupendous.  And from the blog description:  uh, since when was the holocaust a controversial subject?

And please can all the wackos who live in Missouri please leave?  I don't want you voting in my public school elections.  And Larry Frenchtoastandcheese doesn't even live here and he's titling one of his blogs "I'm From Missouri".  Can I file an injunction?

Date: 2007/05/29 14:40:46, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (J-Dog @ May 29 2007,14:19)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 29 2007,14:06)
DaveTard get's c*nsored.

Forthekids said...
DaveScot, for shame! I will not post that comment on my blog. Try again.

I think it might be a re-creation of the davescot posts that got banned at PZ's blog... but I am just guessing.

But the Tardmeister will ALWAYS get another shot and will never be banned by Ftk.  Because he is so rational and sane.  Proven by the fact that Ftk says other people rant.  Take that Mr. Logic-dude, take it in the face!

Date: 2007/05/30 16:15:21, Link
Author: blipey
I like the part of Deace's rant about Avalos that says "angry atheists (and are there any other kind)".  Then Ftk basically endorses this view on her blog as one of rationality in a post about bias.

I would love to sit in on a couple of comparative religions classes with her as a student.  With some popcorn and a tall beverage.

Date: 2007/05/30 16:28:26, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 30 2007,16:22)
Quote (stevestory @ May 30 2007,16:19)
Quote (blipey @ May 30 2007,17:15)
I would love to sit in on a couple of comparative religions classes with her as a student.  With some popcorn and a tall beverage.

I would too. I'd bring the vodka. What are the rules of the drinking game we'd have to play?

You have to take a drink every time she scowls at the prof?

You have to take a drink every time she raises her hand and says 'atheist'?

Nah, you'd kill yourself doing that.  :(

Hmmm.  Tough to come up with rules that wouldn't kill you within an hour.

I was thinking about taking a drink anytime she mentioned "bias", but....

Or perhaps you have to slam the remainder of your tumbler anytime she makes a lucid point.  Not much fun, but a lot healthier.

You get to make a new rule anytime she mentions that only Xians have a moral system of any kind.

Date: 2007/05/31 10:45:42, Link
Author: blipey
@ EG:

why would you blockquote an entire passage unless you were going to reply to it in some manner?

I'm just trying to figure out what the heck Albatrosity's post had to do with your response.  If you could bother with keeping the tinfoil off for a moment and explain?  Remember that will involve details.

Date: 2007/05/31 11:15:20, Link
Author: blipey
requenting RedStateRabble under various incarnations (Anti-Atheist, Atheist Fighter, Basement Activist, Blair, Blim, Charley, Christensen, Commentator, Emanuel Goldstein, Greg,
Heine, IANAL, Jacob, Letstalk, Lionel Mandrake, M, Nietzchean Superman, Patton, Stauffenberg, ubhawkingchawley, Wayne, Wilson, Winston, Wyatt, Yeah,

Ah, yes; that one name is worth the price of admission.

Date: 2007/05/31 11:42:22, Link
Author: blipey
Not sure how I didn't notice it before, but Ftk's blog has a link to Larry Flapjacknsyrup's I'm From Missouri (which he is not, thanking my lucky stars).

In fact, the links section of her blog are super sciency!

# Stand up for Science
# Science Standards 2005
# Evolution News & Views
# Intelligent Design Podcasts
# Uncommon Descent
# Discovery Institute
# Center for Science and Culture
# Access Research Network
# Darwin, Design and Public Education
# Center for Scientific Creation
# Truth in Science UK
# I'm from Missouri

Date: 2007/05/31 11:54:42, Link
Author: blipey
Ooooh!  Weapon of Mass Insanity!  He was over at UDoJ for a bit a while ago.  Great stuff, as Louis said, to drink to--not much good for anything else.

Date: 2007/06/01 10:22:21, Link
Author: blipey
I must stick up for right when I see it and Ftk did something right.  In comments on this thread she responds to Weapon of Mis Information with a completely rational question.

Not only that, there seems to be purpose behind her inquiry that may belie a little curiosity.

edit: to actually include quote I forgot to copy

"Heck, in his book Fighting Words he calls for the ELIMINATION of religion...ELIMINATION not SEPARATION."

Are you sure about that? Elimination? I haven't read the book...only excerpts.

What exactly does he say that lends support to your statement that he calls for "elimination"?

Date: 2007/06/01 10:39:53, Link
Author: blipey
I can't believe I was missing out on a discussion of hot sauce!  Unforgivable.  I used to tend bar at a local hotel and we specialized in the bloody mary (one of the world's finest drinks).  We'd keep an assortment of hot sauces to add individual pizzazz according to patron's preferences.  We kept all 3 versions of Dave's on hand as well as a dozen or so others (some fairly mild, some hotter, even a BBQ flavored jalapeno sauce).

We'd occasionally have "macho sauce-eating competitions" with customers.  We'd each do one drop of Dave's Total Insanity on our tongues and see who cried first.  If we did, we bought the customer a drink.

For any true (and truly insane) hot sauce lover I recommend The Atomic Wings from Quaker Steak, a Pennsylvania Restaurant chain.  I am an Atomic Wing Survivor.

Date: 2007/06/03 17:35:47, Link
Author: blipey
Hoorah, Semper Fi, Homos.

For Ftk:

1.  Do you have any idea what information theory is?

2.  Do you realize that all scientific theories are theories of information and that this was recognized well before ID was around?

3.  Do you think that research labs are merely opened because someone has a few extra bucks and a truckload of cement?  Or might it be more plausible that they have something in mind when they open it?

4.  Considering they've been around for awhile and because of our previous long-standing realization that information is at the heart of all scientific advancements, why is it they've done no experiments?

5.  Can you even begin to explain the "Evolution through informatics" thing in an ID framework?  You know, with details?

6.  Do you know what details are?

7.  How about cheesy-poofs?

Date: 2007/06/05 18:00:42, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 05 2007,16:56)
Yes, but they're still just soybeans. No one has ever seen a soybean turn into a pirahna.

I beg to differ:

Date: 2007/06/07 13:02:05, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Louis @ June 07 2007,12:49)

I lament you use of the plural when it comes to stalkers, but hey, what are the facts to one such as you.

Science topics and questions? Are you going to address any? Or are you just back here to tell us how mean we are?


Number "B", please (as my niece would say).

Date: 2007/06/07 13:21:35, Link
Author: blipey
I remember DaveScot referencing you at UD one time in regard to a 'jungle fever' article you posted here.  At least he was nice about it, and didn't rip you apart.  

Yep, if there's one thing e know about DaveScot, it's that he's such a nice guy.  Nice dogs, nice chainsaws, nice personality, nice ego....

Creationists don't think that everything was "uniquely poofed" into existence.

Is that all creationists?  I wasn't aware that they were all alike.  I can come up with a handful of them off the top of my head that like the "poof" theory.  Their fearless leader opened a museum; you may have heard of him?

But, as far as similarities between species is concerned, obviously an Intelligent Designer would not need to redesign every living organism in order to reassure us that we are not all related to a common descendant.

Is that the technical, scientific usage of "reassure"?  Is there any particular reason we need reassurance?  Is that what science is doing for us, reassuring?  I don't find anything icky about common descent, I guess you do?

Most designers we witness in our world don’t reinvent the wheel for every product they design.

I wasn't aware that you were a Mormon.  Do you believe that the Intelligent Designer works as a human works?  Do you believe that we can become as the Intelligent Designer?  If not, why invoke human works when discussing the things that his Intelligentiness can do?

Automobile designers use the same parts for most cars and tweak them for different purposes, yet they are all designed for the same driving environment. The same thing applies to all living creatures. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food.

Yet you can't fathom how this might lead someone to think that there was a common source?  Oh wait, you do think there was a common source--the designer.  Well, since your story only differs from mine by including a designer, all you need to do is show me the designer.  How's the evidence coming?  Is it in level 5 containment at Baylor?

And lastly on this paragraph, do you think your example somehow disproves the common ancestry of automobiles?  You can see how comparing the fleets of cars of today and from the 19th century show certain parallels to common descent?

Date: 2007/06/07 15:47:04, Link
Author: blipey
Why is everyone so mean to me?  All I want to do is seek the truth.  I believe that "facts" are open to interpretation by open minded people who are not closed off to "obvious" truths if they just want to open their eyes to evidence that is really just sitting around and always has been.

Do you know how hard it is to sit around and be an anonymous, hard-working, non-activist disciple of truth?  Think about it--with an "open" mind--I'm scared for my life that the Darwinists who sit around and plan ninja-style midnight, death attacks to "truth" seekers.  Sure, no one knows my name or address, and probably think I'm too "dumb" or "religified" to actually visit.  BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WON'T!  I worry every day that atheists will outsource my job to some country that scored higher on public education surveys than we do here in middle America.

You can just see that it would be hyperbola piranha, uh horrible if I were to be caught discussing anything of substance, even as an anonymous, living room typist. So, you see, it is your fault that my very life is threatened by most people around me (not that they're a majority and we IDers are in any way a minority) merely because I believe that which is completely obvious to any open minded, non-atheist person.*

* I'm still up in the air about open minded atheist persons.

Date: 2007/06/07 21:19:27, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 07 2007,18:52)
Sounds good. I'm currently drinking an Avery (Boulder, CO) IPA. Not too hoppy, lovely copper color, and a nice "nose".

How is this possible?  Did they not get the recipe from an Englishman?

Date: 2007/06/07 21:40:47, Link
Author: blipey
As for the sweeter beers, I like them as well, though I can't just pound them down like some others either.  A list of some nice sweeter beers I like:

Old Engine Oil (Harvestoun Brewery; Dollar, Scotland)  A fine example of a Scottish Ale: burnt caramel, fairly malty.

Kelpie (New Alloa Brewery; Kelliebank, UK) While not strictly a sweet ale, this has a chocolate palate that is nice.  Sold in the US under the Froach Historic Ales label.

Rochefort #10 (Rochefort Trappist Brewery, Belgium)  a stupendous beer, get some if you can.  You'll probably have to order directly from the brewery (and live in an alcohol in the mail friendly state), but your finer liquor stores may be able to get it in as well.  A very complex beer, very malty.  My favorite part is the port wine and dried fruit flavor.  My least favorite part?  The silly European 375 ml bottle--not even 3/4 of a pint!

Date: 2007/06/07 21:43:55, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,21:15)
The president explained in a letter to Gonzales the various reasons tenure was denied. For some reason Gonzales isn't releasing the letter. Wouldn't you like to read that letter? Not that there'd be anything new to it, we know the various reasons Gonzales's record is poor, but it would be kind of delicious to read it all spelled out.

Is this the "secret information" that was hinted at at Ftk's blog?  I'm all a-tingle.

Date: 2007/06/08 12:44:43, Link
Author: blipey
Double the Fun at Reasonable Kansans!  DaveScot and Ftk posting on the same thread!  I can hardly contain myself.  Of course Dave misses the point again after offering some legal advice.  He and Larry Flebotamist should open up a practice together.

Here he tells us just how threatened scientists are by GG.

Someone: However, I think it's going to be near impossible to find that GG was denied tenure because someone saw him as threatening.

DaveScot: I think you're taking threatening to mean something like "a gun pointed at you" when I meant ideologically threatening.

Dave sure does like violence a bunch.  Hope his dogs are okay.

Date: 2007/06/08 15:02:28, Link
Author: blipey
In the long term, no.  But I actually have to eat and feed myself, etc.  After my schedule clears up or if I can get a gig in Texas, I'll certainly look him up.  His little suburban neighborhood looks nice.

edit:  "eat" should be "drink", which on second thougt maybe i shouldn't be doing more of...

Date: 2007/06/09 21:14:11, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 09 2007,18:22)
FTK, I promise we will all shut up and listen if you list for us the peer-reviewed scientific articles you claimed to have read a month or two ago.

I'm sorry, Arden, you appear to have posted something but I can't seem to read it on my screen--just an empty window.  Perhaps others are having this problem and you should repost.

Date: 2007/06/09 22:03:32, Link
Author: blipey
Arden, I'm going to hire you as my straight-man.  I'd offer the job to Rich, but well, you know....

Date: 2007/06/10 11:48:47, Link
Author: blipey
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

Then perhaps you should actually take a class.  You may recall that someone once told you (I hope) that class was for attending and learning things.  Class is for asking questions.  Class is for participation, for comprehension.  Things that directly bear on education and, yes, what is best for the kids.

You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.

This place will still be here after it closes, I want you to prove me wrong.

Date: 2007/06/10 12:06:22, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 09 2007,22:58)
Quote (stevestory @ June 09 2007,22:21)
Everybody makes 'chicken caesar salads' now, but the real caesar salad comes with anchovies. I'd never had them before, but I loves me some caesar salad. Curious, I bought the one can of anchovies i could find at Harris Teeter, and chopped a few up and make a real caesar salad.

Strange taste. ...different. kind of good, kind of bad. Strong as hell. Really stinky. But not necessarily bad stinky, more like Gorgonzola cheese stinky--it's very pungeant and you wouldn't want to wear that perfume to a first date, but the taste is not all that bad. Very strong and salty and I understand the popularity of the chicken substitution. The anchovies aren't a safe choice. But not bad. Give it a shot.

They're in the dressing too, I think.

A traditional caesar salad does not contain anchovies.  Caesar salad is made with worcestershire sauce, which does have anchovies in it.  Over the years, many places have started to use an anchovie paste in the dressing, and occasionally you will see sliced anchovie on the salad.  These I hold in the same contempt as caesars with tomato or caesars that are not tossed until the dressing very lightly coats all the romaine without any pooling .

Date: 2007/06/10 12:35:39, Link
Author: blipey

I do love me some caesar salad.  It was actually a little side project of mine on my recent national tour.  I had an astounding number of caesar salads from coast to coast.  Some good, a very few stellar, and many sorry-ass ones.

Date: 2007/06/10 12:57:11, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,12:00)
Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:

You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.

WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]

I would applaud you for asking questions of KSUDave.  I do actually think that is a great idea and I learn things by reading his posts.  However, IMO, you don't actually ask him questions with the intent of learning anything from him (I may be wring, that's just my read on the matter.).

You miss the point of what he says repeatedly.  I don't say this because I think you're stupid or that I want to be particularly mean to you.  I say it because it is quite apparent from your posts that you lack the basic understanding of what science IS that would allow you follow what he says.

He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is.  And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do.  You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.

My problem with you is not that you don't know what science is.  My problem is two-fold:

1.  You aren't interested in knowing what science is (because it conflicts with your world-view?).

2.  You pretend to know what science is.  Yes, I've read the comments recently where you admit that you don't understand the literature and whatnot.  This is belied, however, by the number of posts in which you pontificate on things you know nothing about.  If you really admit that you don't know what you're talking about on biological issues, why is it that you think you should be able to make education policy regarding biology?

edit:  the "you" in the last sentence is the collective "you".

Date: 2007/06/10 13:26:59, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Louis @ June 10 2007,13:03)
I'm going with:

"Hides behind the couch pretending not to be in until he goes away"


Damnit, I wanted that one.  If you let me go in with you, you can have 25% of my winnings as well.

Date: 2007/06/10 13:32:28, Link
Author: blipey
As for drinking a beer in the UK?  Why would any sane person turn that down?  If in the London(?) area, I will certainly give you a call.  I will also come alone, walking backward, with both hands visible at all times.

An aside:  what the hell dumbass was responsible for every US corporate restaurant making an Irish Coffee with one of the following recipes:

1.  Jameson's, Bailey's, coffee, canned whip cream
2.  Jameson's, Bailey's, creme de menthe, coffee, canned whip cream, marachinno cherry.

Date: 2007/06/11 12:47:01, Link
Author: blipey
Excellent.  I will try to answer your questions, Ftk.  Now, I am no biologist, just an actor, but I'm going to explain this in my own words, without linking to anything.  You should try this once in a while--I'm not poking at you, here.  But if you write posts and comments in your own words and actually address the issues you'll find two things happen:

1.  Your brain engages and you start to think critically about the issues.

2.  You reveal your level of understanding of the issues.  At this point, other people can step in and help you more easily because they know the specifics of where to start.  This will now be seen as the more knowledgeable people here correct my following comment.

[QUOTE]Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...

2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities, though they disagree as to why that is.  We also know that before Darwin, similiarities were already being classified, and there would be no reason why those classifications wouldn’t have continued to be updated as further research took place.

As Icky said above, there were no evolutionists before Darwin.  Biology at this point was mostly classification, observational.  Anyone can observe and write down findings.  An easy way to see the differences of even this observational science is to take a look at how species have been grouped over the years.  As evolutionary biologists continued to do research and as the science of genetics has  grown, species have been reclassified.  The question is could creationists have done this reclassification?

Well, I say probably so, but would they have even tried?  In the classic creationist label of "kinds" we see a limitation of how creationists look at the world.  Your example of  "environmental similarities" shows this.  As Lenny has asked, why do fish and dolphins have different genes if they both are ocean-going creatures that look very similar?  A creationist who observes these similarities has no reason to continue to pursue knowledge of these species as regards their lineage.  If he does quit looking, he stops on the wrong answer.

Now, an evolutionist, working from common descent, notices that there are similarities between whales and hippos (not something that is apparent at first thought, perhaps).  Continuing to research this, they find morphological similarities between the two that add credence to CD.

Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?

The key here is understanding of the classification system--the why.  A creationist can say with confidence that "these things are similar, I have looked at them".  Now he asks why.  His answer is that the Designer made them that way.  Now, did the designer:

1.  use similar parts to make their bodies look the same, but their organs are arranged differently?
2.  use similar parts to make their immune systems work similarly, but their body plans are completely dissimilar?
3.  come up with a completely new way to provide a similar function?  what is the Designer's goal--the same parts?  the same ends?  how do we know?

The theory of common design requires us to know what the purpose of the Designer is.  This is something that IDers say cannot be done.  If it cannot be done, how can we possibly use the theory of common design?  If the Designer is unknown and unknowable, the theory of common design is useless from the get-go.

Now, the theory of common descent allows us to structure the plethora of living things into a knowable order.  Using this knowable order we can predict traits, proteins, and abilities that things in this order may have by comparing them to other things that have a common ancestor.

A common design theory doesn't let us know what the commonality might be.  We simply can't know before hand, unless we steal the blueprints from the designer.  We only know what the similarity is AFTER finding it.

A common descent theory allows us to say "hey, we might find this sort of thing here, because other things that are close to it in the hierarchy also have it.  We predict what we might find BEFORE looking for it, by an educated guess, not blind guessing.

Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent, look into a crystal ball and predict exactly which tree is needed and use this knowledge to propose novel ideas without researching and classifying all the trees first?

Yes.  Sometimes he will be wrong, but he has a much better chance of being right than a creationist operating from a notion of common design.  By looking up the hierarchy, he can make educated guesses as to what he will find as he works his way down the hierachy--BEFORE observing the trees.

Date: 2007/06/11 13:21:03, Link
Author: blipey
She was obviously confused by the 2 comments that Wes put up back to back.  She has admitted that she can't wade through more than one comment at a time.

So she just missed the question about whether or not she thinks transitional fossils exist because she was addressing the other, not-quite-so-interesting topic.

Date: 2007/06/11 16:54:09, Link
Author: blipey
BTW, my dear wife brought me home a liter of The Macallan she picked up in London.  I maybe be a ruined (but happy) man.

The 18 year?  Or was she really nice and it's the 25?

Date: 2007/06/11 17:06:17, Link
Author: blipey

I am certainly not of their caliber, not even close (I’m the guy who thought horizontal gene transfer was a euphemism) but since some of the “smart folk” aren’t 100% convinced about the earth’s multi-billion-year history, I think we can look at reasons besides the cliche, “lack of education” for this to be the case.

Please forgive my impulsive and intrepid venture into the world of science, but doesn’t current DNA evidence suggest a most recent common ancestor from only 3,000 to 5,000 years?

First of all, he's not of the caliber of Sal, DaveTard, and company???  Yikes.  Perhaps he has self-esteem issues.

My candidate for an alternative reason is Stark, raving, unadultarated craziness.

Quick, quick, I have a bottle of Balvenie 21 yr portwood aged whisky for the first person who can cite the paper with the evidence for a 3,000 year old common ancestor of humans and chimps.

What??????  Nothing yet?  Come on!

Date: 2007/06/11 17:12:22, Link
Author: blipey
Please forgive my impulsive and intrepid venture into the world of science...

I wonder if anyone will take this as evidence that even the posters at UD generally think of UD as a non-scientific enterprise.

Date: 2007/06/12 09:24:53, Link
Author: blipey
In a sense, she doesn't know what she doesn't know.

Exactly.  Are you advocating that we just tell her this and present no questions?  Or might it be a better idea for Dave to take the time to ask a question that requires no biology in order to get to the point?

The specifics of his question would indeed require a deep understanding of biology.  The very easy logic problem of "how might a creationist predict something that has no apparent function" requires none.

When Ftk makes statements like "evolution is just speculation" she is claiming for herself an expertise in the matter.  In doing this, all questions are fair game and her avoidance of those questions may even be helpful.  At some point the reason she is avoiding them may dawn on her.  I think Dave's polite questions lead down that path.

Date: 2007/06/12 09:28:34, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (skeptic @ June 12 2007,09:13)
ok, maybe I'm wrong so let's find out.

Ftk, could you do me a favor and give me a quick summary on  what you think the question means and how Alba's asking you to approach it.  I trust you see that I have no intention of embarassing you, I'd just like to get us all on the same page.

Also, Alba, just to clarify, when you mean creationist scientist are you indicating a YECer or an IDer?  And the same on the evolutionary scientist side (just to be fair) are you thinking of an atheist or a religious evolutionary scientist?

Doesn't matter for either group of scientists.  The logic employed by a YECer and an IDer are the same.  The logic employed by evolutionary scientists is the same.  The question isn't about biology at its core; it's about logic and, as has been stated before, being educable.

Date: 2007/06/12 09:41:32, Link
Author: blipey
Joe G's back!  I know, everyone missed him so.  He has a new post telling us all about how common descent isn't true (or is it?) and about how it's not even scientific.

Although I do not categorically deny the premise it is obvious that it is not a scientific premise.

I love this post, a perfect example of the wishy-washiness of creationists.  You see, CD isn't true, though I don't categorically deny the premise--that way when someone calls me on it I can hedge and avoid and claim I never made that statement.

I asked him about it.

Date: 2007/06/12 09:49:38, Link
Author: blipey
Just because some people answered a poll question doesn't mean they're right.

Is this the same poll that was discussed on the official UD thread:  66% pro creo / 53% pro evo?  The link in Folger's article actually goes to a credit card application--nice!

Date: 2007/06/12 23:43:56, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk, are you saying that icefish have always been just about they way they are now?  Except that maybe they have an inactive globin gene?

Do you not seriously see the explanatory power of a nested hierarchy and common descent?

You avoided answering Dave's question.  He asked you what predictions about the globin gene in icefish would a creationist make?  You gave no answer?  Why?

I ask you "what explanation does a creationist have about this globin gene"?  What repeatable process leads to this observation?

Date: 2007/06/13 11:24:44, Link
Author: blipey
because we were aware that organisms have the ability adapt to their environments before Darwin‘s time.

I'd LOVE to hear your attempt to prove this, though I bet you won't.

Since creation has always been true and I know that, everyone before me has also known this.  So we see that my knowledge base can be used as a starting point for all those who came before me.  Unless they disagree with me.

[/Ftk off]

Date: 2007/06/13 16:58:49, Link
Author: blipey
You kidding?  I was in the Bay Area for 2 weeks and I never looked you up!  Jeebus, I'm a moron.

Date: 2007/06/13 17:37:41, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Henry J @ June 13 2007,17:29)
Yowza. Wouldn't wanna meet that guy in an alley... (Or anywhere else, for that matter.)

Yeah, that is if he really existed.  I'm all for Ftk telling me how this couldn't possibly be evidence that dinos are ancestors of birds.

Date: 2007/06/14 17:06:30, Link
Author: blipey
My own experience has been that it is of great benefit to allow people who oppose my views to post at my blog (if they are civil).

And don't ask me any questions I don't like.  Or refrain from calling DaveScot names.  And asmit that atheism is the same as science....

I also enjoy discussions with those who reject my views because I believe it's more productive to engage in dialogue with the opposition rather than merely preaching to the choir.

Could I get a working definition of this activity?

I've also found that there is a lot of confusion from both sides as to what those they oppose actually believe.

Very open minded of you, of course.  Both sides are completely equal in all ways.  It couldn't be that IDers change their mind as to what they believe depending on who they're talking to, could it?  Maybe?  Look up the fascinating changes in definition of "Irreducible Complexity"  if you must.  Take a gander at any thread on UD that includes the words "Common Descent".  Or, if they haven't been nuked, any thread there with the words "ID isn't about Jesus".

KCFS pretty much ran off everyone whose views they opposed, and there's not much going on over there anymore.

Aw, that's terrible.  A site that doesn't let everyone post what they want.  I wonder if we can come up with a couple more of those.

Date: 2007/06/14 23:02:04, Link
Author: blipey
I don't think she's actually ignored this one.  I believe she's said she was mulling over a response to Wes's question; now this could be another question, but I got the impression in was this one.

Not ignoring, but not answering either.  It takes a while to google enough bullshit to confidently state that transitional fossils don't exist.

Date: 2007/06/14 23:08:45, Link
Author: blipey

You actually ascertained that there's a difference between scotch bonnets and habaneros?

There is, technically, a difference.  There are insane people out there who think that habaneros aren't hot enough.  Actually, depending on flavor of dish I might be one of those people.

Anywho, scotch bonnets are the result of habaneros that have  been specially engineered to be hotter.  I believe they are about the 3rd hottest pepper around now.  The habanero species is not as hot a the bird pepper species: pequin, etc.

There are several varieties of habanero and bird peppers.

Date: 2007/06/14 23:21:57, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ June 14 2007,17:44)
And don't ask me any questions I don't like.  Or refrain from calling DaveScot names.  And asmit that atheism is the same as science....

You poor angry little creature.  I've gotten after DaveScot several times now for making remarks about other people.  I've allowed anyone who has asked good questions minus the ridicule to post them.  And, I've NEVER stated that atheism is the same as science.

You're just a tad ticked because I won't let your nasty little jibes go through moderation anymore.  Guys like you are the reason why I keep sticking my head in correct statements like the one you just made.

Carry on, luv...I'll just keep correctin' ya.

Do you ever wonder if people who disagree with you are actually happy?  Just saying...

Which statement did you correct?  Was it:

1.  The ever-changing definition of Irreducible Complexity?

2.  The charge that UD commenters keep changing their minds about whether Common Descent is true or not?

3.  The accusation that all ID is is religion?

No?  None of those?

You just needed to correct the clear jibe at your own person?  How could I not be a happy person with all the mirth you create?

Date: 2007/06/14 23:24:33, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 14 2007,22:16)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2007,21:20)
Arden, you forgot "uphill.  Both ways."


"We used to live in a shoebox in the middle of the road..."

We used to DREAM of living in a shoebox in the middle of the road!

We'd get up in the morning, half an hour before we went to bed, go the mill and pay the mill owner 6 pence just for the privilege of going to work.

Date: 2007/06/15 04:52:32, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 14 2007,23:44)
Quote (blipey @ June 14 2007,23:08)

You actually ascertained that there's a difference between scotch bonnets and habaneros?

There is, technically, a difference.  There are insane people out there who think that habaneros aren't hot enough.  Actually, depending on flavor of dish I might be one of those people.

Anywho, scotch bonnets are the result of habaneros that have  been specially engineered to be hotter.  I believe they are about the 3rd hottest pepper around now.  The habanero species is not as hot a the bird pepper species: pequin, etc.

There are several varieties of habanero and bird peppers.

This little rascal is sposta be the hottest pepper in the world.

Jumping Jeebus on a pogo stick, that's hot.  That's twice as hot as anything I've ever put in my mouth...ack, I mean, uh...ooooh

Date: 2007/06/15 10:42:24, Link
Author: blipey
You might also note in the first quote you mentioned that I wrote:
Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not.

You may now also take the time to note that I am 5'8"...or a completely different height that is not 5'8".  I'll stand by that (of course, when I'm standing I'm 5'10", or another height).  It's part of the open-height regime, keep your options many.

Well, I guess that all depends on your definition of "transitional".

Have you googled enough bullshit to make sense of your "I believe transitionals exist but they aren't really transitionals" stance?  Seriously, this might be one of the stupidest things you've ever said.

Date: 2007/06/15 11:07:12, Link
Author: blipey
Have fun camping!  Wyoming is lovely this time of year.  My dad lives in Buffalo and likes it a ton, even the winters.  Of course, he moved there from Alaska so we know he's a bit touched.

Date: 2007/06/15 11:12:32, Link
Author: blipey
As regards te stupidity of Ftk's statement about transitionals.  It may not be the absolute stupidest things she's said (my sample size is smaller than others), but it is the kind of things that I will never understand.  Joe G does it with almost every sentence he types.

She managed to completely contradict herself without finishing a perfectly good sentence.

Date: 2007/06/15 17:32:56, Link
Author: blipey

You're "dedication to the process of science" is what I call a truth stopper.

I wet myself.  Thanks.

Date: 2007/06/15 17:36:27, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,16:10)
Because for something to be science requires empirical evidence. might want to rethink that statement.

ID is no different than Darwinian evolution in that sense.  Inference, luv, inference...

Can you please define "inference"?

Can you then show an example of the similarity between ID and ToE as regards this definition?

No?  Thanks.  Moving on.

Date: 2007/06/15 17:46:50, Link
Author: blipey
I was just noticing how far this thread was from the top.  For the life of me, I can't figure out what would cause that.  Hmmm.

Date: 2007/06/17 10:59:25, Link
Author: blipey
It is hard to argue for special creation when confronted with the evidence outlined in that article. How about it, FtK?  Once you get past those other pesky questions about icefish etc., can you read this linked article and tell us your thoughts?

Let me translate that for you Ftk.  Alby really means "can you read this article and discuss the technical aspects of it and the specific problems you have with it"?

Please don't say things like "Creationists don't..." or "an evolutionary paradigm doesn't allow us..."

Stick to the points made in the paper, please.

Date: 2007/06/17 13:17:49, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 17 2007,10:12)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2007,02:44)
Yes, - Welcome Spags, and do tell.  I'll put some more coffee on.  Or fix you a drink, whatever.

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

You'll find the scotch pours freely around here.  You may want to check out the libations thread.  Welcome aboard and I don't have any Laphroaig, but I do have: 21 yr Balvenie, 12 yr Madeira-wood Glenmorangie, and a pour or two of Ardbeg resting in my cabinet.

Date: 2007/06/18 14:16:34, Link
Author: blipey
To get some of what went n at Cornell last summer, you should peruse:

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

Date: 2007/06/18 16:37:11, Link
Author: blipey
I personally don't find anything wrong with the ad.  It is funny; sometimes stereotypes are funny and we must remember that stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.  I'm not defending all stereotypes here or their use.

However, I think the lesson was taught in this one without being offensive.  A commercial is 30 seconds long; that's not a lot of time to write out a Tony Award winning script.  The use of pigs is a quick in that serves a purpose.

I believe the real issue facing us is the reasons for Network disapproval.  Fox's is completely stupid.  As one of the commenters at Tracy's said, "Would they have aired it if the setting was a gay bar"?  Fox can't even get around to telling the truth when the truth would probably get them what they want.  Disgraceful.

Date: 2007/06/19 10:08:59, Link
Author: blipey
He is trained and educated in science, he has published in peer-reviewed journals as a scientist.

I read this and all I can think is, "Keanu Reeves is an actor, he has appeared in movies."

nuf said.

Date: 2007/06/21 00:44:46, Link
Author: blipey
I'm in.  After August 15th would be best for me, but I can swing (SHUT IT!!!) it other times as well.  Middle of July is good now that I think about it.

Date: 2007/06/21 11:12:43, Link
Author: blipey
You can walk to the Field Museum?  Why didn't I know this?  When I missed the METRA last time at 2 am, I should have at least hassled you.  Way better than waiting for the 4:50 to the south side.

Date: 2007/06/25 12:48:14, Link
Author: blipey
Now that Wes has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ftk lied outright in a previous post, can we start a pool on her retraction?

I'll take the Tuesday after the Second Coming.

Also, I know you'll never do it, but can we ban all comments that use quotation marks around anything that isn't actually a quote?

I realize this will significantly reduce the amount of humor we see from Ftk, but it will streamline the thread.

Date: 2007/06/25 15:17:46, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Mike PSS @ June 25 2007,13:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 25 2007,14:17)
I've just checked, and there is indeed room in the PM folder for incoming messages.

Suuuuuurrrrrrreeeee you "just" checked.

Oooooops.  I just got Blipey mad at me.

Or is this comment along the lines of...

"I must have money left in my account because I still have blank checks."

Nicely done, sir.  :D

Date: 2007/06/25 18:35:37, Link
Author: blipey
From Joe Gallien:

the majority of evolutionists are evolutionists because some alleged majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution and Common Descent. And that is just a sad position to hold.

But the problem is these same sheep also feel it is necessary to misrepresent all alternatives to their belief just so they feel OK about blindly following strangers.

I'm stupefied, utterly speechless.

From here.

Date: 2007/06/25 18:46:19, Link
Author: blipey
No, seriously.  I really can't come to grips with how one might say that the number of scientists that accept ToE is an alleged majority.

This doesn't even have anything to do with whether or not ToE is correct.  This is a basic count-the-number-of-hands-raised thing.

Secondly, isn't one of his main arguments that there is a scientific conspiracy, all scientists are materialists, scientists don't know what the hell they're talking about sort of thing.

And now, all of a sudden, most of them are actually ID supporters.  WTF?

Date: 2007/06/25 18:54:04, Link
Author: blipey
Now that was as good a comment to this thread as can be done, Wes.

Very nice, but as you said, it is for the lurkers.  I give it exactly zero chance that Ftk will even address one sentence of it.

Date: 2007/06/25 18:57:47, Link
Author: blipey
Oh, I'm right there with you.  I was being facetious in the previous comment.  That I understand the mechanism by which Joe receives the words he types in no way translates to my being able to comprehend how it happens.  It's just so stupendously stupid.

and I only lye to you're mother.  homo.

Date: 2007/06/25 22:41:02, Link
Author: blipey
(Wes was right, UDtards were wrong)

Well, color me jaw-droppingly flabbergasted.  Who knew?

Date: 2007/06/26 11:53:21, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 26 2007,11:35)
I have a serious question. What is it about people who are in your life position that make them want to believe the most far fetched and least supported ideas by people like Brown or Ham or Hovind? Some who's methods and research are so poor they're laughed off by even other creationists and yet dismiss the findings of the people who are the best educated, most experienced and happen to occupy the vast vast majority of the scientific population?

I know you consider yourself an open minded person, and ignoring your propensity to show that you are anything but, are you so insecure in the ability of your own mind to process the information that you have to fall back to the lowest common denominator of, and I use this term in the most loose definition possible, Science?

Cue the blather.

Date: 2007/06/26 16:05:22, Link
Author: blipey
I'm rather enjoying the conversation with her.

I do rather think I'm going to have to look up conversation.  It must not mean what I think it means.

I do wish that she would have an actual conversation with anyone sometime.  It might be truly entertaining.  But, she just can't get herself to talk to anyone.  All the people she already knows and shares a worldview with don't really provide conversation--just reinforcement, not the same thing at all.

Of course, all of us who treat her as a piranha aren't worthy of a conversation because she's already said everything that needs to be said to us (though where she might have said these things will remain enshrouded for eternity).  She even closed down a conversation that jc and I were having at her blog because she didn't like the way it was going.  JC being, ostensibly, on her side and behaving so strangely that even Ftk realized he was hurting the cause, it was time to close it down, despite her pet peeve of civility not being a problem in the thread.

It's sad to think of going through your entire life and never having a real conversation.

Date: 2007/06/27 00:36:30, Link
Author: blipey
Oh yes, Zachriel is, hands down, the leader in JoeG protective gear.  He waded in for several weeks of serious posting (by this I mean real content--none of which Joe acknowledged).

Zachriel should win some sort of award actually, by carrying on the, uh, discussion on my blog for a while.  He lured Joe out of his own personal confines to be ridiculed in a completely separate arena.

Joe's stupidity regarding nested hierarchies is hilarious, though.  He told me that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy because, wait for it...people have fathers.  That's right; try to figure that one out if you can.

His latest is that a majority of scientists don't accept ToE or CD, because, wait for it...they can't prove it.  Don't ask me what the validity of a thing has to do with people believing it, but there you go.

There are some who think that Larry Phlemandbagel is dangerous crazy, but I think it's Joe Gallien who is the truly dangerous nut case.

Date: 2007/06/27 00:47:54, Link
Author: blipey
Joe Gallien, who had previously been pretending to be a Muslim.

Oh, I must have links to this.  He would make the worst Muslim-impersonator evah!!!

Date: 2007/06/27 11:24:26, Link
Author: blipey
SFtk isn't around because she's trying to find he most ridiculously unsupported and inane thing she could possibly say this week.

Oh, she found it.

Date: 2007/06/27 11:33:28, Link
Author: blipey
Joe G is funny, but so completely impervious to any regular human interactions that a thread for him is probably useless.

That being said, I had to post this latest from his blog.  It's almost unimaginable that he would publish my comment.  I mean aren't these people supposed to be Bible Code experts and all?  If so, isn't it odd that he didn't find anything here:

blipey said...

   Jump into the fray
   Over and over we go
   Even though there are no
   Great secrets to be learned,
   I troll the waters.
   Searching for prey,
   Somedays I pounce.
   Today is one of those days.
   Up and up we go,
   Perilously high--
   I defy
   Discussion to be had.

The entire thread is more Joe not being able to fathom what his own sentences mean.

Date: 2007/06/27 17:15:40, Link
Author: blipey
Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.

Yep.  has crossed my mind, Ftk.  In fact, most of us have gone to just about every ID site out there and provided content.  For that trouble, we have been banned.  So, yeah.  I guess we would respond in hostile environments.  Isn't it interesting that we allow you to do what your friends will not?

Date: 2007/06/27 18:50:40, Link
Author: blipey
To tell me that all of life on planet earth evolved from an information free microbe is fanciful.

Methinks she doesn't know what information is.  Perhaps the relevant literature in information theory, thermodynamics, and other fields is beneath her?

Date: 2007/06/27 18:52:45, Link
Author: blipey
Well then, I guess you have the burden of proof.

This in response to Ian Brown saying that there is no evidence for God and research into abiogenesis is ongoing.

Funny, she doesn't seem to require proof for the existence of God, pitiful details and all.

Date: 2007/06/27 19:10:22, Link
Author: blipey
It is interesting that creationists are always expected to provide "proof" and address "ALL the facts that exist", yet evolutionists fall back time and time again on the pat answer:  "give it time...anything is possible over millions and millions of years".  We're then told that we suffer from personal incredulity.

1.  Everyone is expected to provide proof (no scare quotes, just normal everyday proof) and take all of the facts (not just the scare quoted ones) into consideration.

2.  Creationists have provided no proof and barely any content to anything at all.  For example, the many questions you have waiting for you:  how did the Egyptians survive the flood? (silence), why didn't the water boil away in the 60mph continental drift? (silence), etc.  This is what is meant by taking into consideration all of the facts.  Many facts have to be ignored in order to champion these theories.  If you have evidence, we'll all say rah and give you awards.

3.  Creationists often pose questions that do not rely on known facts (like the above things).  Creationist questions are almost entirely those of incredulity.  They have no (as yet) testable premises or predictions.  These questions are of the "Hey, what pathway did abiogenesis take?"

"I don't know yet" is a perfectly valid answer to these types of questions.  Indeed, if we give it some time, we might find the answer.  There is a qualitative difference between these types of questions and the "what happened to the Egyptians" kind.

Sorry, Ian, carry on, but I thought that Ftk's thought process should be pointed out to her.

Date: 2007/06/27 19:20:31, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.


Date: 2007/06/27 19:24:50, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ June 27 2007,18:45)
Sometimes Heddle can be wittier than we usually are.

Without bothering to link (it's simply so pervasive that it cannot be missed) the "Dembski's Cat" paradox is out in full force. This is where "materialism," placed in a box, is both the greatest threat to mankind and, simultaneously, dead or near death. The box is opened at the start of each post—and the direction of the post depends on the observed collapse into one of two eigenstates—"powerful and evil" materialism or "stone cold dead at the hands of the design inference" materialism.

I must say, that is good.  I like-y very much-y.

Date: 2007/06/27 19:27:59, Link
Author: blipey
More great "design detection"...

don't make me "ban" you for "inverted" comma usage, hughes.

Date: 2007/06/27 22:20:02, Link
Author: blipey
Do rest up, and I hold out for the time you'll be back.  Though I do agree that starting a purely serious thread here is problematical at best, I hope a little R&R will allow you to swim the waters here for what they are.

Date: 2007/06/27 22:23:13, Link
Author: blipey
Ah, I feel for you, Ftk.

Here's a sure-fire way to manage the number of outstanding questions you have:


Easiest possible solution and all....

Date: 2007/06/28 08:30:22, Link
Author: blipey
Next question will be:  What is that evidence?  And, I will pass on that question because ID advocates have been giving ample evidence that the comos did not arise on there own from absolutely nothing.  That is illogical.  I've also already stated that science is not the only means we have to conclude that there is a divine cause of our existence.  

I used to think that you were merely ignorant.
Then I thought you were intentionally deceitful.
Now I just know that you have a 2nd grade grasp of English.
And a kindergarten relationship with logic:

I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent.  Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference.  So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design.  

You do realize that this statement means:  Since I think there is no evidence for common descent, therefor design?

Have you even once tried to think for yourself?  Ever?

Edit:  (to try hopelessly to get you to see what you write)  That is the same logic as "I don't like ice cream, therefor I love pizza."

Date: 2007/06/28 10:52:42, Link
Author: blipey
If there is "no" evidence for common descent please explain the following (or point out where the speculation is, same difference)

So "obviously" common "design" that I'm afraid I just can't "speak" about that here--as "I've" already speaked about it in so many places, with so many mountains of "evidence" that I've pointed out so "clearly" so many other times.

*sigh* atheist assholes.

Date: 2007/06/28 11:55:25, Link
Author: blipey
Joe's inviting everyone to come to his house for dinner.  I'm going to take him up on it.  Of course I think it will turn out much like my attempt to visit DaveScot.  You can only keep trying.

There are a lot of creationists that I still need to scratch of my list.

Invite here.

Date: 2007/06/28 11:59:36, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 28 2007,11:51)
Quote (Ftk @ June 27 2007,15:29)

I guess I'm having an Icky moment.  Read the last few pages (or the whole thread for that matter) and let me know if you would respond in an environment like this if the tables were turned and this venue were a hostile ID forum.

There's really no point in dialogue on these topics because it does nothing other than stoke the fires.  Answer one question, up pops another...there's no end to it (from both sides).  We're never going to see eye to eye.

This just isn't productive, and I'd be better off spending more time with my family than wasting my time here.

But, if Richard sticks around, I'm might be compelled to chime in from time to time... ;)  I really have no idea why I am so attracted to that cute little tard hat.

That is not exactly a symmetric comparison.  Rationalists like to troll the fundatic websites too.  But they tend not to be seen because they don't get through the censorship as easily as creo's do here.  And that is at websites that allow commenting at all.  Many do not.  Very revealing, don't you think?

It seems this point may have been brought up before; I can't remember.

How about you, Ftk?  Have you ever given any thought to this?

Date: 2007/06/28 12:05:12, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 28 2007,12:01)
Quote (slpage @ June 28 2007,09:18)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

Sheesh. I have a B.S. in ecosystems assessment but I am in no way a "Scientist". Unless computer science counts...

I (along with richardhughes, I believe) have a B.A. in BS.  Does that mean I'm a scientist?  It'll look good on the resume.

Date: 2007/06/28 12:09:54, Link
Author: blipey
As regards Phelps, yep.  But he truly is one of the more despicable human beings to have ever walked around.  Comparisons to him are not warranted in many (if any) cases.

The relativism angle is one that has always fascinated me.  Fundies (and to a greater extent, Conservatives in general) use up a lot of oxygen bemoaning the relativism of liberals and anyone else they don't like.  However, when it comes to defending their pet theories, it's relative away.


Date: 2007/06/28 12:16:12, Link
Author: blipey
Merely a bit of street theatre.  The insane are never hooked by hoaxes.

Hoaxed by hookers, but never hooked by hoaxes.

Date: 2007/06/28 13:19:15, Link
Author: blipey
You know when your kids are lying to you, Ftk?  That's right, it's when they can't stay on topic, switch the subject, and generally talk around any question you ask them.

If you can tell wen they're lying (and I'll bet you can), why do you think we can't tell when you do it?

For example, when your kids are lying, do they sound like this:

Sigh...I think I'll wait 'till the weekend when I actually have time to take the questions seriously.  But, I have no idea which questions to start I try to use my "telephathy" and answer people who I think might sincerely want to discuss the issue, or do I just start picking off each question from the start of the thread?  That would probably take my entire weekend to get through.

Hell, maybe I'll just close my eyes and scan through with my cursor and wherever I stop, I answer that question.

Notice that I left you one very easy out (perhaps more).  Please use it to continue your poor-me act.

Date: 2007/06/28 13:52:20, Link
Author: blipey
You want me to spend hours researching and giving you *my opinion* on these issues.


You have to research for hours in order to give us your opinion.  Can you tell us exactly who you have to consult in order to receive your opinion?


Date: 2007/06/28 13:56:40, Link
Author: blipey
Blipey...bite me.  You're nuts, you know that?  You've left so many posts on my blog, I'm starting to worry about you.  Seriously.  Do actors have that much spare time on their hands??

You do realize why I leave you lots of messages?  Might it not be that you have shown you won;t publish comments with actual content?  So, really what's the point of trying to provide content?

As to the spare time issue, something to consider:


Posts: 366
Joined: June 2006


Posts: 427
Joined: Mar. 2007

Got anything better?  Or is this the best avoidance ya got?

Date: 2007/06/28 14:00:53, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,13:59) last time, luv.  I will get back with you this weekend.  

Oh, and Blipey, please, please refrain from your endless buzzing at my blog.

Please, please refrain from coming back here unless you plan on answering some questions.

Carry on.

Date: 2007/06/28 15:26:09, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2007,13:36)
Quote (franky172 @ June 28 2007,13:18)
Oh good god.  Now Sal agrees that HIV might not cause AIDS.

Seriously, once a bunch of undereducated people get together to defy what all them scientists say -- to basically sever their ties with empericism -- the genie's out of the bottle. Absolutely anything is fair game after that. If one can deny that 'macroevolution' ever happens, and deny that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, HIV denial is a very minor mental leap indeed.

This is fine, tho. Let UD slide into full blown Jesus freak crackpottery. More marginalization for them and more laffs for us.

Date: 2007/06/28 15:31:04, Link
Author: blipey
Darn, I was hoping that the math might pass her up.  But, now that you're showing it to her...well, okay, that's funny as well.

Date: 2007/06/28 16:46:40, Link
Author: blipey
Hermagoras said: Honestly, I don't know what the fuck I was banned for.  ??? My last two comments, neither of which made it past moderation, were about (a) how scordova's examples of equivocation were not actually equivocating, and (b) some basics in the rhetoric of science (with reference to Bruno Latour).

WHAT???  You don't think that was enough?  Just you go and show how wrong we are, will ya!!!  You're outta here, HOMOgoras

Date: 2007/06/28 16:53:09, Link
Author: blipey
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.

This is Joe's idea of a lesson plan.  He wants to show The Privileged Planet in schools and then discuss how the science might be done.  I suppose this means he wants to discuss it with the students.  Not really how science should be done, but with these guys the students are probably a lot smarter.

Maybe 3rd graders could show Joe how not to look so stupid.

Comments in the high 20s on this thread

Date: 2007/06/29 11:19:07, Link
Author: blipey
Can you really not see the difference?

Of course she can't.  She's whined and complained about the incivility of everyone here from the beginning.  She also has complained about our complete and utter lack of desire to talk about science from the beginning.

Considering this Bizarro World of hers, it's a wonder she didn't somehow ban herself and cry foul months ago.

I will, of course, not back up any of these claims because you all are homos.  Unless you threaten to ban me, Wes.  Then I will certainly cut and paste several of Ftk's comments in order to support my claim.

Cut and paste is hard.  Maybe I'll just have you look at just about everyone's sigs instead.

An actual question (number 52?) for you to ignore:

Is it now beyond your abilities to cut and paste as well as to read, think, or speak for yourself?  Perhaps we should've sent you a feeding tube instead of a biology textbook?

Date: 2007/06/29 11:27:20, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 29 2007,11:11)
I hate to say it, but FtK is, in part, correct. While Lenny DOES make points, he does do it in a really childish way, and mixes the points with insults, both overt and hidden. His ridiculously long strings of posts are both annoying and obstructing, and I have to say, FtK SHOULD retract her claim he just talks bollocks, but Lenny should really, really shut up.

While I do agree that occasionally Lenny is obnoxious, I don;t think that Wes is out of line at all.  The point, it should be remembered, is not "is Lenny obnoxious" but rather "is Ftk correct"?

That is the one thing that Ftk has possibly never been.  It is also the one thing that she has never acknowledged (not unusual for creationists).  However, when combined with her inability to even pretend to converse with people, this is the largest detriment to this thread (and others).  AFDave and Paley at least advanced arguments (stupid ones, but at least new info was put forth occasionally); Ftk does not do this.

If she can't see the difference between her behavior and Lenny's (and the qualitative difference is high), she is one of the biggest wastes of bandwidth ever.  She should face that and be forced to acknowledge it.

Edited for better sentence structure, yikes.

Date: 2007/06/29 11:45:53, Link
Author: blipey
Earlier somewhere I asked if he'd share his personal faith beliefs and he stated that it was none of my business.

What possible relationship does this have to sharing evidence of claims?  This is insane.  For example:

Could you tell me whether or not you like cherries?

Is this a request for evidence?  No.  It is a request for opinion.  See the difference?

Date: 2007/06/29 11:59:34, Link
Author: blipey
It's too long for my signature, but this is fabulous.  It's too bad that Ftk hs decided that it's a good time to be banned; she's just hilarious.

The following is her chide of Ian Brown for needing evidence:

How did it fail? Why type of evidence are you looking for? Are you one of those atheists who needs a direct conversation with the big guy himself to actually believe He exists?

See, EVIDENCE for god doesn't need to be face to face.  Yet, evidence for ToE needs to happen in her kitchen and it has to be of the kinds turning into other kinds type.

Sometimes I just get stupider reading her posts.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:23:40, Link
Author: blipey
OOOHHHH!!!!  Ftk is posting at Joe's place!

Put on a hard hat before entering.

Date: 2007/06/29 12:30:25, Link
Author: blipey
And this is his lesson plan, astounding.  What's even more astounding is he probably has no idea why he would be a bad teacher or why schools wouldn't let him present.

Blipey: So, fine, show The Privileged Planet, but under what lesson plan?

JoeG: I would show it to the whole school. It would not be a part of any particular class.

All I am looking for is to expose students to ID reality.

Blipey: Why are you taking up valuable educational time with a film?

JoeG: Films are part of that valuable educational time. And that valuable educational time is already being wasted with dogma- ie unsubstantiated and unverifiable grand claims.

Blipey: If I were to have Richard Dawkins in to speak to the class, I would need a lesson plan in order to do it.

JoeG: But you're not a teacher. Why would you need a lesson plan?

Blipey: So, what specific educational lessons and state criteria are we getting from your ID introductions?

JoeG: You would be getting a lesson in ID reality.

That last is stellar.

Date: 2007/06/29 15:24:08, Link
Author: blipey
If FtK wants to complain she's being mistreated, she's welcome to set a better example. However, something tells me that were I to visit her blog, I would not be allowed to post 447 straight comments with no interference.

Hmmm.  I made about 2 comments (on topic and constructive) before I was told I couldn't post anymore unless I was nice.  Later I was able to post a couple handfuls more.

She then allowed some of my anonymous comments through because she doesn't know how to flag IP addresses.  I then told her who anonymous was while continuing to be completely on topic.  I'd be banned now except she doesn't know how to do it.

Date: 2007/06/29 16:52:26, Link
Author: blipey
Oh, I hit Joe's soft spot.  He won't publish a comment in which I called him on his claim of being a scientist.  I asked him to provide his degree, but no publishing even though several other comments I made afterwards have gone through.

Too close to home, I guess.

Date: 2007/06/29 17:30:59, Link
Author: blipey
Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:

And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.

Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.

Date: 2007/06/29 23:22:37, Link
Author: blipey
It never got any more interesting than that.

Joe does walk a thin line--actually stepping on both sides in some random manner--between boring and stupidly hilarious.

I think it tips slightly in the favor of stupidly hilarious for the sole reason that he thinks he's interesting.

Date: 2007/06/30 00:08:57, Link
Author: blipey
More spot on scholarship from JoeG:

Monkies have a tail...

I guess he's never heard of the macaque?


Date: 2007/06/30 20:06:55, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk does indeed leave her best for last (oh, right, she'll be back--I forgot).  But it almost was worth breathing in her complete stupidity for this:

I've scanned through some of the threads here where other people from my "side" have tried to reason with you folks, and it's futile.

I present Ftk's ultra-intelligent friends defending their points lucidly and without any scientific challenges:


R Josiah Magnusson

Paley and Muslims

AFDave and his trouble with words

And this doesn't even include doozies like Paley trying to defend geo-centrism.

As I asked you (she'll be back), Ftk, at JoeG's blog:  have you ever looked at who is on your side?

Date: 2007/06/30 20:33:14, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2007,20:24)
I don't see anything at that ID Advisor to Chapman 08 link anymore, speaking of Magnusson. Wonder what happened?

What???  Are you calling Viagra and Phentremine nothing?  Those things HELP PEOPLE, you selfish bastard!


Date: 2007/07/02 10:16:49, Link
Author: blipey
From Truthism's MySpace:

Quote's Details
Status: Single
Zodiac Sign: Leo

No kidding.

Date: 2007/07/02 13:57:23, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 02 2007,13:43)
Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2007,13:22)

Because some people have no standards.

Carlsonjok  1

stevestory  nil

Date: 2007/07/03 13:51:31, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21)
Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard):

Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific.

Date: 2007/07/03 14:04:39, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:55)
Quote (blipey @ July 03 2007,13:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21)
Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard):

Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific.

Malkin isn't as in your face "Ghengis Cunt" as Coulter but she's close.

The Kansas City Star runs her fairly regularly.  I almost always try to work my way through Malkin, but it usually hurts.  It was much better when the column next to hers was Molly Ivins, may she rest in peace.

Date: 2007/07/03 18:25:31, Link
Author: blipey
A little more evidence that Ftk hasn't listened to anything anyone has said in quite sometime.  Nor has she really thought about anything in at least that long.

On Ken Ham

Now, I'm not really condoning the use of the handicapped in your digs at Ham, but I don't really think the demeaning of the handicapped is what's going on here.

Ftk, in her OP continues to say things like "atheist morality".  She's completely daft.

Date: 2007/07/03 20:46:35, Link
Author: blipey
I particularly loved this sentence in her OP  

Apparently telling lie after lie doesn't seem of concern to these jerks at all.

I made a futile comment at her blog about just that sentence.

Date: 2007/07/04 13:07:48, Link
Author: blipey
How would she know?

Indeed.  Now what topic were we discussing again?...

Date: 2007/07/05 08:28:33, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk attracts more friends.  She has yet to answer my questions concerning her friends.  I've asked her repeatedly about what she thinks of having friends like Larry F, crandaddy, AFDave, jc, et al.  Strange how she avoids this.

Now she's got a new mental giant posting at her blog.  I introduce Frank:

There is nothing inconsistent with their ridiculing mentally challenged people and the atheist philosphy...pretending to be "science"...that they are promoting.

This is about the Creation Museum somehow.  I think Frank is grammatically challenged.

He also has a winner about what Jeremy's point of comparing the number of ToE papers to Behe's papers is.  Even though Ftk had just claimed that ToE was a dead end and that ID is where it's at.

Here and here.

Date: 2007/07/05 14:13:16, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2007,13:15)
FtK has blogged about this:

The video is worth watching.

Ya larn sumfin new ever day.  What I larned:

1.  Dinosaurs were vegetarians
2.  So are bears

The funny hurts too much.

Date: 2007/07/09 17:00:57, Link
Author: blipey
Forgetting that I'm pro-common sense (and still not being able to figure out how to ban people), Ftk published this

comment of mine.

Let me get this straight. You had the opportunity to meet a person who had two things going for them:

1. This person was your current elected representative

2. This person had an opposing ideological viewpoint.

Instead of engaging them on anything important, trivial, or just anything at all--you chose to avoid them at all costs.

I assume that you did this because you think the best form of government is to ignore it until all of your guys are in office and then beat on other side for a while?

No wonder you can't stick around and talk about anything important at AtBC. It's people like you that cause the smoke in our political process. No, that's not the smoke of rubber being burnt in order to do important work. That is the smoke of broken, grinding machinery.

How about actually engaging the political process on some level. Then maybe you can apply that to the rest of your life.

I think she won't erase it as she generally doesn't do that sort of thing.  I feel bad that I've most likely caused her to spend more time evaluating every post.  But, I know moms have a lot of free time.

Edit:  It's fun to read her response.  She rewrites not only the history of her OP, but that of her time here at AtBC as well.

Date: 2007/07/09 17:47:08, Link
Author: blipey
Wait, wait, wait.  I'm confused.  She tried to make a point?  For the life of me I can't recall what it might have been.  Was it, perhaps, that atheists are all meanies?

Date: 2007/07/09 23:52:31, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 09 2007,18:49)
I.m confused too. In this thread she accuses you of forging a comment in Rich's name, and yet it is in this other thread where you posted a comment anonymously and then took credit for it here.

what am I missing????

Just a little bit of wake-up and smell yourself directed at Ftk.  I did indeed post a comment and signed it "rich."  The comment, if you read it, clearly was not intended to be able to make it through moderation.  The fact that it did illustrates nicely that Ftk is not really concerned about the content of anything, but rather about the appearance of said content.

I posted another comment that strangely did not make it through moderation which clearly showed that I was not trying to impersonate rich and his sexihawt (as if that were possible).

Many of my anonymous comments get posted because they are on topic,  As soon as I continue the on topic comments and sign my name to them, they stop getting posted even though the content is of the same composition.  In light of this, I find it hilarious that she asks me to sign my name to comments--as if she'll then post them.

Date: 2007/07/12 13:13:08, Link
Author: blipey
Extra!  Extra!  Read all about it!

Ftk finds evidence that the bible is historically accurate!

Apparently, since real people are mentioned in the bible, it is certifiably, literally, super-duper, %100 accurate.  At least this is the sense that I take Ftk is hoping for.

Rich brings up a great point in the first comment.  Guess what?  Ftk ignores it.  Much as she has ignored the historical accuracy of the Egyptians having gills.

To top it all off, she then links to Sal "I'll make sense to you after you've had nine" Corona.  He talks about the Book of Jeremiah.

Date: 2007/07/12 13:26:01, Link
Author: blipey
I responded to one of her Creo Cretin Posters™

Is that available in powder form?  Perhaps someone should check the water?

Date: 2007/07/12 13:30:55, Link
Author: blipey
Warning:  Follow Ftk's link to Sal's Young Cosmos at your own risk.  Kids, do not attempt to read at home; do it at grandma's house.

Content spoiler:  Galaxies don't exist.

Date: 2007/07/12 13:34:21, Link
Author: blipey
Wow. All scientific theories are valid, and all religions. Who knew?

Now you're getting it.  That's open minded!  Well, as long as by all you mean "Christian" and by scientific you mean "Beheian".

Date: 2007/07/13 14:59:56, Link
Author: blipey
We may finally get a picture of what Joe thinks a nested hierarchy is.  Exciting.

If he dodges this, he truly has no idea how to eat his own breakfast cereal and we should call 911.

Perhaps "descendant" is a poor choice of words.  However, the point is much th same; I think we agree.  I just want to make sure before we continue.

Any unit in the structure (say "Squad") is completely contained in the unit above it ("Platoon" in this case).  However, there exist such Platoons that a particular Squad is not contained in.  This is what I meant by using the word "descendants".  It is also what I meant by the possible unclarity of the diagram.  I merely stated that it was possible to misconstrue what the NH was in that diagram--not that it was wrong or could not be easily learned (I guess you missed that part).

So, do we agree that there exists some "Squad A" that is contained in "Platoon X" and that "Squad A" is not contained in any "Platoon ~X"?

Likewise IF "Squad A" is contained in "Platoon X" AND "Platoon X" is not contained in "Company Y", THEN there exists no situation in which "Squad A" is contained in "Company Y".

This is my contention for a NH.  Does it jibe with yours?

Read it here.

Scroll down to about the 33rd comment or so.

Date: 2007/07/13 15:19:51, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 13 2007,15:00)
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,14:40)

read that page and tell me you aren't irritated at how deceptive they're being.


they don't seem to have any option for getting an examination copy. Since I do fit their description above, I'd like to see the book. And I sure don't want to pay for it.

Of course, Of Pandas and People had the same policy; I had to pay to get a copy of that one too. I guess it was worth it; I did manage to get a six-pack of home-brew by winning a bet about one of the illustrations in that book!

You're obviously under the impression that these people are in the EDUCATION field.  I understand how that might throw you  :O

Date: 2007/07/13 16:07:09, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 13 2007,10:08)
The pot is calling the Kettle black over at UnReasonable Kansans.

(talking to Hector Avalos)
Again, perhaps you should address all the issues rather than just stating that they’re wrong and others weighing in on the case “have little knowledge of ISU or [your] activities against ID”.

I know, I don’t have time..

I don't have time being FTK's typical response when asked anything at all here. bwhahahah. And just stating they are wrong is "her" usual rebuttal in any case!

We need to give some sort of award to Ftk.  That thread is the neatest example of pooh-poohing an extremely well-reasoned argument with a lump of shit that I have ever seen.

Date: 2007/07/15 15:30:36, Link
Author: blipey
Well, it honestly something.  He's painted himself into such a corner with trying to refute absolutely anything anyone but he himself says that I don't think he knows what he thinks a NH is.

His latest try at what a NH is.

Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.

This is his stated opinion, backed up so far with...hmmm, nothing.

Blipey: The next level of ARMY includes several Corps. The next level of TREE includes several Sons (Bob, Dave, Steve).

JoeG: And they will ALWAYS be below Father A and will never be included with him in that scheme.

Ya see, just as I have already told you, the soldier belongs to ALL levels AT THE SAME TIME. The same does NOT hold for your "paternal family tree".

I guess he's never heard the term "family name".  Or ever been asked to what family he belongs?


Date: 2007/07/16 22:56:41, Link
Author: blipey


And one more time for the learning impaired:

In a nested hierarchy levels are determined by characteristic traits. "Who's your daddy?" is NOT a characteristic trait.

"Family of Bob" (for example) isn't any good if there is more than one "Bob" in the family.

And it still remains that there really isn't a paternal family tree due to biological constraints. That plus the fact there isn't any true beginning, just various arbitrary starting points.

In both examples I gave there is one and only one true beginning.

I really think that might be the single stupidest contention I have ever heard.

Does he really think that two people named Bob can never be identified as separate entities?

This really encapsulates the creationist mindset of not being able to extrapolate information from a set of basic premises.


Date: 2007/07/16 23:18:08, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,23:09)
yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.

It doesn't make any sense to me either and I think we agree that it doesn't make sense in the "WTF kind of way" not in the "that argument is dumb ind of way".

I find it fascinating that words can be put together in such a way that they form a coherent sentence which makes no sense.  Every once in a great while he puts something down that gets ever so slightly closer to the inner core of this NH dis-belief.  I truly believe that I may live to see into that dark core of whatever-it-is.

I've now asked him if he disagrees that the Sons of Steve can be placed in all of the following categories:

1.  Family of Steve
2.  Family of Bob
3.  Family of Chris

He will, of course, avoid answering this question, but someday he may slip up and give out some info on his opinion in this matter.

If even an indirect look at what his answer to that question can be had, oh what a day...for comedy.

Date: 2007/07/17 23:00:03, Link
Author: blipey
Someone should call Joe's wife and let her know he needs some intervention.

He not only claims that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy, but get this:

I am denying that a paternal family tree (which doesn't exist in the real world)
-from the same thread as above.


Boy, are the Mormons going to be pissed.

Date: 2007/07/18 09:51:48, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk now claims to be one of the few creationists who ventures forth confronting the enemy.  I know someone who's getting a dictionary for Christmas.  I asked her:

Which confrontation are you talking about:

1.  The time you ran away
2.  The time you ran away
3.  The time you ran away
4.  The time you called atheists mean and then ran away
5.  The time you claimed you would never confront atheists on the issues and then ran away


6.  The time you ran away.

Just for clarity's sake, I'd like to know.

Posted here because, like she says does, her confrontational skills are poor--even on her own blog.


Date: 2007/07/19 09:08:08, Link
Author: blipey
Joe seems to have reversed his position on whether or not a paternal family tree can be constructed:

That one can create a paternal family tree does not mean such a tree is a nested hierarchy!

Oh, but wait.  No.  He so got me in his logical vice of death:  "Reality demonstrates that I never said or implied that."

Got me.

Date: 2007/07/19 12:29:46, Link
Author: blipey
I give you the Darwin Slayer.

I think he must be laughing at Ftk's description of him.

Date: 2007/07/19 23:21:16, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Rob @ July 19 2007,18:29)
I can construct a scheme containing mythical creatures. Does that mean they exist in reality? No

I can construct a scheme based on Roman "gods" (or Greek "gods"). Does that mean they exist in reality? No

And Joe can construct a scheme based on fathers.  Does that mean that they exist in reality?  No

The onus is now on you, Blipey, to prove that fathers exist in reality.  When you're done, you might want to also prove that transitive is not the same as intransitive.  That would really clear some things up for Joe.

Yes, communication seems something of a bugbear for Joe.  I wonder how he'd do on the verbal portion of any college entrance exam--or The Wonderlic, for that matter.

Date: 2007/07/20 15:49:06, Link
Author: blipey
That is exactly his confusion.  Joe however, like most creationists and the ineducable, will not listen to that explanation.  Why?

I think it is because the argument does not start with the words Nested Hierarchy.  He likes to argue from the end and support his argument of the end by citing the end.

He does not understand proper logical argument.  If you try to make a basic point A in order to develop it into a point B and finally on to Conclusion X, he wont listen.

Since Point A doesn't make the whole argument, it is wrong.  He always makes his arguments by stating Conclusion X and never giving supporting assumptions, facts, or arguments.  This is the only type of logical that is in his grasp.

Date: 2007/07/20 17:21:12, Link
Author: blipey
@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:


Date: 2007/07/22 15:23:22, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (franky172 @ July 21 2007,01:06)
Quote (blipey @ July 20 2007,17:21)
@ franky172:

I've given Joe the link to your above excellent comment.  We'll see exactly what kind of response we get.  My thought is that he'll say exactly the same thing he always does:


I'm sure Joe will :)

Out of curiosity, where is the current discussion?

Here it is.

Both the "nananana-boo-boo" and an extra "franky172 is a stupid boob" thrown in for good measure.

I've now had my fill of JoeG; he's perhaps the stupidest person I have ever encountered.

Date: 2007/07/22 16:58:00, Link
Author: blipey
All of my pets have been way more interesting than Joe and probably smarter as well.  Let's see, Siamese Cats, Airdale Terrier, Cockatiel, a pair of Newts, Red Devil.

Yep. All more interesting.  Joe doesn't even move on to different phrasing of stupid sentences.  He says A, then A, backs it up with A, and then links to A.  Once you've looked at the 3 or so topics that Joe blathers about, it's all very boring.

I think I've actually read every sentence that Joe will ever form.  He can, at this point, add no new information to the universe.  There are other, while still stupid, more interesting tards to watch.

Date: 2007/07/23 11:03:12, Link
Author: blipey
So I suppose you will now tell us specifically why

D(p1) consists of D(p1's first son)

this is not true?

I mean, besides saying that Darwinists are only 3'8"?  That is your argument, right?  That Darwinists are wrong about everything because they're short?  Or is it because they eat bacon?

Come on, Joe.  Now that you're here, how about telling us WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY:

A FAMILY does not consist of its members.


Why does the family of Dave not consist of Dave's family?


How can franky172's definition of the sets in a nested hierarchy be wrong?


Specific mathematical refutation please.

Date: 2007/07/23 16:18:04, Link
Author: blipey
Example 1:

Code Sample

             /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.

Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.

Joe, if you have a problem with this, then why is the following not a problem?

                  D(Field Army)
                 /              \
D(Division A)                D(Division B)

An ARMY is a NH, as you have agreed, and would include all divisions A, B, C, etc.  The function D(x) here denotes all sets that include a particular level and those under it.  You have continually stated that an ARMY consists of itself and all levels under it.  How is this not represented in the above examples?

Date: 2007/07/23 16:19:38, Link
Author: blipey
Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

the original argument of a paternal family tree

What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Date: 2007/07/23 16:24:56, Link
Author: blipey

OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious.

You see, reality demonstrates that unicorns don't exist in reality but that doesn't mean I don't have one as a pet in my room...that I feed cheesy-poofs to and buy sweaters for.

[/Joe G logic algorithm]

Date: 2007/07/23 18:15:16, Link
Author: blipey
I'm going to take your appearance here, Joe, as evidence that you are absolutely lost and out of your league.  What evidence do I have for this?

Well, someone who is bombastic, rude, and generally a disagreeable person (look at this distinction, Joe)--BUT WHO ALSO KNOWS WHAT THE HELL THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT--generally will answer yes/no questions.  They will follow that answer up with a scathing attack on the asker, but they will answer the question because it proves they're right.

You, on the other hand, never answer yes/no questions, just skipping right to the scathing (warning: distinction coming up)--COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED--attack.

Here's the condensed list of simple questions you need to answer.  By answering them, you will show your superior logic skills and knowledge.

1.  Precisely what part of your argument did franky172 misrepresent in my post?  Please be specific.

2.  Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

This is tricky, Joe.  Do you or do you not agree?  You've avoided this several times.  I think it's because you don't understand the words either you or franky used.

3.  The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

Another very tricky yes/no question.  If we could just tart with this one, we'd have somewhere to go.  Either this is your position and we can start the discussion here.  Or, it isn't your position and we need to start somewhere else.

4.  In the following:

D(p1) -> D(p2) -> D(p3)

Does the level D(p2) consist of and contain D(p3)?

Yes or no?

5.  Do we agree that the following structure:

            /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

forms a nested hierarchy?

6.  What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?  And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Your answer here seems to say that the "argument of a paternal family tree" is that the father is on top.  In other words, we construct paternal family trees in order to figure out who the father is.  Is this a correct interpretation of your statement:

Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.

Thanks for avoiding these with tardarific obfuscation.

Date: 2007/07/23 18:24:39, Link
Author: blipey
That's as may be, but I like really big breasts; I get points for that, right?

Date: 2007/07/23 18:28:04, Link
Author: blipey
This does bring up a question for me, Joe.  Do you believe that a maternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?

Or, perhaps we should start with an easier question?

Do you believe that a maternal family tree is a real construct?  If you do, I'll be more than happy to continue the argument using this completely and radically different structure.

Date: 2007/07/23 23:27:27, Link
Author: blipey
That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.

emphasis added to clearly denote Joe's wonder-dumbness

Actually, I believe this is exactly what Joe is disputing.  Which makes my earlier claim that he is the only person in the world who disputes this fairly plausible.

I'm still waiting for contact by all those people who agree with you, Joe.  Send them by; have them drop a comment.  It doesn't even have to be multiple people.  One person, anyone, who agrees with you will do.  Please produce this person.

Date: 2007/07/24 10:26:18, Link
Author: blipey
I guess my claim that you're a stupid blowhard rather than a bright blowhard stands?

Remember that answering yes/no questions quickly sums up how smart or stupid you are.

A bright blowhard answers the direct question and then reams the asker.

A stupid blowhard avoids ever pinning himself down on the answer because he can't understand the question.  Then he reams the asker with nonsense.

We want the answers!  We want the answers!  We want the answers!

Date: 2007/07/24 10:31:30, Link
Author: blipey
Please reread your last post, Joe.

Then tell us how an ARMY fits in.  Specifically, I would be interested in the reconcilliation of the following:

1.  In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set.


2.  All levels of ARMY (ie FIELD ARMY) consist of and CONTAIN all lower levels.


3.  How this is different than than:

           /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)


Date: 2007/07/25 13:48:05, Link
Author: blipey
Wow.  I hate to mention this for the simple fact that it will be ignored.  However, can you reconcile the following two things, Joe?

1.  If I look closely at a paternal family tree, I will see only the name of the patriarch.  True.

2.  If I look at a diagram of a traditional ARMY, I will see only the name "Field Army" at the top.  True.

How is "2" a NH and "1" is not?  Please base this completely on your observation that "Steve" sits atop the family tree (since this appears to be your only observation).

Date: 2007/07/25 13:57:33, Link
Author: blipey
Whatever it costs, I will be getting front row seats at the trial Joe G testifies at.  Thatll make Behe look like a genius.

Date: 2007/07/25 14:30:06, Link
Author: blipey
Also, a belated "Thanks for stopping by, Joe."

This thread is becoming all I hoped it could be when I started it.

Date: 2007/07/26 01:34:44, Link
Author: blipey
Speaking her mind--link without commentary

Date: 2007/07/26 10:59:55, Link
Author: blipey
This is the best and I'm sorry I missed it (if it indeed happened).  Ftk claims that she did point out a speculation in the text that Albatrosity2 sent her.  This is what she said on her blog, though:

And, I did point to “one thing” from the book that is pure speculation. The entire book is based upon common descent and the speculation that everything we observe in nature arose from a minute microbe that popped into existence billions of years ago.

That's right.  Everything is speculation.  All of it.  Did she actually make this claim?  I was gone for several days around that time and really don't want to look for it.

Edit:  Incidently, she made this claim in the same breath as stating that scripture was unquestionably true.  I did ask why you couldn't use the same logic for the bible--it's all based on the speculation that things started somehow....

Date: 2007/07/27 11:01:10, Link
Author: blipey
He also thinks that sentences are evidence.  I'm not sure if he realizes that sentences contain information and that it is the information that can be used as evidence.

On the up side, his sentences are truly master works of surrealism.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:26:42, Link
Author: blipey
shit that probably even embarrasses FTK.

Oh, I don't know about that.  In fact, Ftk has recently taken up defending JoeG--I guess you can't get too low sometimes.  I called her on her defense and she chose not to publish the critique.

Crackpottery including JoeG defense

The relevant part:

BTW, I’ve seen Joe G. answer many of your questions as well. That is why I find it quite odd that you keep making this same claim over and over that we don’t answer questions.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:32:27, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 27 2007,13:26)
From the latest mammoth thread on her site, someone asks her if Walt "Incapability" Brown has published any papers.

She once again states that everyone knows that he would not be allowed to post but doesn't supply a reason.

Since she's told me she'll be nice if I am and engage once more in discussion with me, I decided to ask her a straight question, and since her spirit of fair play isobviously alive once more, I'm sure she will answer, because there's no need to ignore it.

My post:

"You and I both know that there is not a chance in hell that the establishment would give Brown's work fair consideration."

Ok FtK, since you've decided to be pleasant to me again, while I'm still pissed at some of your...comments, I'll go along with it. I'll start with this comment.

Why is this? Is it;

a) A conspiricy of scientists who don't let any differing views through

b) His work has no merit and he knows it

c) Something else. If it is this, please specify.

Good luck with getting that through.  She has at various times (and occasionally at the same time) held the following convictions:

1.  I don't believe that there is a conspiracy of scientists
2.  Scientists will never allow the publication of an article by someone who doesn't walk the party line.

Unless you hate yourself a bunch, why would you ever publish a comment that brings that particular lunacy to light?

Date: 2007/07/28 12:11:25, Link
Author: blipey
Clearly backing up her belief that there is no conspiracy:

It wouldn't matter anyway, the Darwin elite (NCSE et. al.) would throw an absolute fit over anything remotely resembling ID or creation science being submitted for publication.

Ftk goes on to note that Dr. Brown couldn't submit even a tiny piece of his astounding set of theories because, well, it's just so interrelated and astounding.  Really, he shouldn't even try to get it published and tested.  I hear 3rd grade classrooms are the best labs.

He couldn't possibly submit "part of his hypothesis, such as the woolly mammoth story" because it wouldn't make a lick of sense without a complete understanding of the hydroplate theory first.

I fixed it for her.


Date: 2007/07/30 22:47:42, Link
Author: blipey
I find it hard to believe that Ftk wouldn't publish your comment, ck1.  Or rather I would find it hard to believe if I was a heroin addict.  That's what I meant.

Date: 2007/07/31 16:15:49, Link
Author: blipey
I think you may be falling into the "Ftk is interested in learning something" trap.  Correct me if I'm wrong, you're very subtle.

That is the most frustrating thing about creationists.  They aren't really interested in learning anything at all.  Ordinarily, I'm okay with that; they can sink and die and I probably won't notice and nobody I care about will be taken down either.

Ftk, on the other hand, is something else.  She is someone who lies about wanting to learn.  This irritates me on a very basic level.  She then wants to spread her non-learning to everyone else.  This I care about.

Ftk couldn't care less about whether Brown is right or wrong, or even be able to follow the arguments pro or con.  What she cares about is that everyone toes her fundamentalist line.  Sure, she occasionally seems nice about it and her "aw shucks" attitude toward absolutely everything makes her a little less irritating than AFDave, DaveTard, crandaddy and the rest, but I say it is that very same attitude that makes her the most dangerous.

People actually listen to her once in a while.  They don't listen to the right things sometimes, just the attitude and not the argument, and that is the problem.  School boards beware of the Ftks.

Quick, Ftk, spin this into a conspiracy theory.

Date: 2007/07/31 23:32:57, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (JohnW @ July 31 2007,16:34)
Quote (blipey @ July 31 2007,16:15)
Ftk couldn't care less about whether Brown is right or wrong, or even be able to follow the arguments pro or con.  

I disagree, blipey.

Ftk needs Brown to be right in order to justify her worldview.  Therefore, as far as she is concerned, he is right.  It's what distinguishes religious apologetics (start with the conclusions, then find a supporting spin on the evidence) from what the rest of us are trying to do.

And it's why I don't think Ftk is, in her own mind, lying when she says she's willing to learn.  She's willing to learn new excuses to bolster her unshakeable beiefs, and new ways to handwave away the evidence which falsifies them.

Can't say that I disagree much with that.  That she wants Brown to be right in order to feel good about her own crackpot beliefs, I totally buy.

But I also don't think that she needs him to be right.  At least in the sense that the rest of us mean when we use the word "right".  In her mind she is, and always has been, right.  She doesn't need Walt Brown to confirm this; it is a given.  If it turns out that Brown disgraces himself (I mean even in the creationist circles), she'll just move on to something else.

I think we agree in principle, only messing with details and semantics.

Date: 2007/07/31 23:50:51, Link
Author: blipey
We're just so mean that she can't stand to read about herself every day!  That's right, if only that meanie Wes would let her defend herself, she'd just show us all the evidence we could need.

Read it here.

Since she addresses me specifically and probably won't publish my reply, I'll leave it here:

No.  As I have continually stated in more than one forum, I am not irritated because you don;t agree with me.

I am irritated because you lack basic logic and reasoning skills.  Someone who claims to be so open minded about everything that she can simultaneously believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and 6,000,000,000 years old is a stupid person.

I have told you that I would have more respect for you if you were to just say that the evidence points toward a young earth.  That would be a position.  That would e a reasoned position.  That would show some effort on your part.  I would completely disagree with your stance and think that you were a loon.  But this would not be because you disagree with me--it would be because you have ZERO evidence for your position.

To quote Lewis Black, "People hate Barry Bonds for the right reasons.  They hated Martin Luther King Jr. because he was black.  They hate Barry Bonds because he's a cheating asshole."  You see, not everything is about race.  Search for the analogy.

I know very little biology and have admitted to such several times; you must not be paying attention.  You may have noticed when you weren't whining that all of my interactions with creationists and IDers involve questions about logic and critical thinking.  For example, my main gripe with you has always been that you fail to address questions directed at you and always steer a conversation away from areas you wish to ignore.

That you have given me no examples of other behavior speaks to why I am in this battle.  You continually avoid answering questions and claim that you have vast understanding of issues that you have shown zero passing familiarity with.  This should be irritating in any field, but especially from someone who claims to be "for the kids".

If you would like to share some of your knowledge with us, I will retract my statement and say that I was wrong.  However, from the git-go you have told us that you have no interest in discussing the very things that you claim are so very interesting to you.  Odd.

BTW, retracting your statements (or providing evidence for your claim) at AtBC will get you reinstated.  If you're really interested, that is.  I'm guessing not--your first paragraph notwithstanding.

Date: 2007/08/01 08:40:13, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Steverino @ Aug. 01 2007,08:23)
FTK is incapable of acknowledging facts.  It's a waste of time.  She knows all she wants to know.  She is disingenuous us and dishonest with herself.

She renders herself insignificant to the discussion because she refuses to acknowledge known fact and refuses to learn.

It's obvious that Ftk has shown an amazing acumen for knowledge and research.  I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't take her seriously.  It seems to me that she has always conducted herself honestly.  (Fill in other sentences using incredulous statements.)

Date: 2007/08/01 12:55:48, Link
Author: blipey
Why would she waste valuable time telling us about the evidence when she has already discussed it here, here, and especially here?

Date: 2007/08/01 13:20:28, Link
Author: blipey
This is for Jack Krebs:


I don't want the kind of conversations that go on at AtBC on my blog. Everyone gets very nasty over there and I don't want that here.

I merely want to pop in there at times and say, "no, that is not what I believe or think, and here is what I really believe...."

But, after a good nights sleep, I think it's probably better than I don't get back in there. It's hopeless.

This could be totally true except for the part where she would tell us about what she believes.  And the part where everyone was pretty civil until she showed herself to be a complete lunatic.

Date: 2007/08/02 10:42:59, Link
Author: blipey
There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith.

Are these:

A)  Missionaries who don't exist yet
B)  Missionaries extolling various prophecies
C)  Missionaries that people are buying as commodities

Date: 2007/08/03 14:34:21, Link
Author: blipey
As one who makes his living in the arts, I have no idea what sal's response had to do with anything, let alone your comment.

Sal strikes me as that undergrad, who immediately after listening to some lecture, sits in the cafeteria discussing how the State of Missouri can easily secede from the union and become an independent country.

Except, he's 40ish, isn't he?

Date: 2007/08/09 13:09:47, Link
Author: blipey
I'll work security for you, Zachriel.  I hear that clowns are good at keeping the clowns at bay.

Date: 2007/08/10 08:30:46, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 10 2007,08:14)
I added a "Pariah" group that cannot post, but can PM, and changed FtK's membership to it.

Now that's funny, but are you sure you got that group name correct?

Date: 2007/08/10 08:33:34, Link
Author: blipey
Nicely done, Ian.  I feel your frustration at idiots, but I unfortunately I do not share your surprise.  Folk like Ftk cannot be helped; they don't want to be.  It is enough to make sure they don't pollute the waters for the rest of us and let them drown.

Date: 2007/08/10 08:40:04, Link
Author: blipey
Posted but lost to the ether:

Here's a question or two for you, Ftk.  Why do always consider disagreement mean?

Why do you consider the "atheist=immoral" equivalent to "creationist=ignorant"?

By basic definition, the first is untrue.  Which means that people who espouse it are lying.

The second can be demonstrated by basic science (the validity of Hydroplate Theory for example).  Which means that people who espouse it may be tactless but are not lying.

Date: 2007/08/11 17:46:57, Link
Author: blipey
Gee, I hate to make a point and all because you won't publish it, but here goes.

Debate in the sense that you want it is stupid.  Debate happens in all the venues that IDiots always avoid.  Debate happens in the literature.  You know, the stuff that you advise Dr. Brown to avoid.

Now why is that?  Why should Dr. Brown avoid publishing his work?  Hmmmm.

Who is your debate for?

I'm assuming that the debate is for people like you and me.  People who are not even close to being experts in whatever field is being debated.  So, what is the purpose of that debate?  your judges would have no idea what was right or wrong no matter what happened during the debate.  So, what is your purpose?  

Would you like to judge a debate between myself and someone of your choosing (who should be a computer scientist) over what the best way to present live theatre is?

Your answer should be, "no."  I make my living as a theatre professional.  A computer scientist has no expertise in the field.  A debate would be useless.

Now, to take things somewhat from your perspective.

Would you like to gather the local PTA to decide the course of Western Theatre by viewing a debate between myself and Gary Neal Johnson?

Your answer should be the same.  What does the local PTA know about how the theatre should be run?  Notice that this knowledge is independent of the fact that Gary and I are both very knowledgeable in the field.

So, again, what is the purpose of the debate?

And just for shits and grins, under which expertise can you proclaim the fate of Darwinism?

In response to this.

Date: 2007/08/12 23:55:33, Link
Author: blipey
Thank God Ftk doesn't run my schools.

Once again, I hate to make sense, but here goes.

1.  By assuming that "students will start to ask questions" do you imply that students are just stupid at the moment?

I mean, do you really think that students don't ask questions now?  Have you ever been to a place of learning in your life?  I mean one that isn't your parents' living room?

Just what do you think goes on in schools right now?  Before you answer, remember that you have to make your answer jibe with there NOT BEING A SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY going on.

2.  Do you remember the public debate that was Kitzmiller?  How exactly do you think that ID was misrepresented in that debate?

Same thread as above.

edited for two glaring typos

Date: 2007/08/13 00:11:45, Link
Author: blipey
Do you even understand what the statement "prove a negative" means?  I would ask you to explain it in your own words, but I'll bet my life you'll just tell me you've already done that somewhere else, sometime.  You really can't be bothered to explain anything at all can you?  Not your beliefs.  Not your wishes.  Not your opinions.  Nothing at all comes from little Ftk, does it?

You do understand what Rich said about math being a faith position, right?  I mean it is possible that the math will be different tomorrow.  Why not?  How can you prove that it won't be?

The sun will one day not come up in the east.  It's true.  It is a faith position that I believe the earth revolves around the sun, according to your desires.

This is obviously crap.  I don't believe that Zeus exists.  This could be a religious position, therefor a faith position.  It is not.  Or would you care to differ with me and tell that I only have faith that Zeus does not exist?

You could read it here if Ftk ran a blog that allowed interaction.

Date: 2007/08/14 10:10:10, Link
Author: blipey
While I think that the make-over of a blog into an email list is silly and sad, I can't help thinking that something positive was accomplished.  I feel slightly abashed that this is the case.

The closing of Reasonable Kansans is nothing short of gagging a voice (or perhaps a couple voices).  That's just the sort of thing I'm usually against.  I'm also always in favor of stupid people being loud and proud about their stupidity--helpful in courts, both of judicial and public opinion varieties.

That being said, I find something a little satisfying in stopping someone who was purportedly "for the kids" from being able to disseminate their loopiness.

Date: 2007/08/14 22:04:33, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2007,19:16)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 14 2007,11:10)
While I think that the make-over of a blog into an email list is silly and sad, I can't help thinking that something positive was accomplished.  I feel slightly abashed that this is the case.

The closing of Reasonable Kansans is nothing short of gagging a voice (or perhaps a couple voices).  That's just the sort of thing I'm usually against.  I'm also always in favor of stupid people being loud and proud about their stupidity--helpful in courts, both of judicial and public opinion varieties.

That being said, I find something a little satisfying in stopping someone who was purportedly "for the kids" from being able to disseminate their loopiness.

You make it sound like she was censored.

Hmmm.  I guess it could read like that.  What I meant, of course, is that we had some small(?) part in channeling her dishonesty into its current form.  That form just happens to be the best thing for the kids.

But the qualms of my first paragraph are probably related to your censored observation.

Date: 2007/08/15 17:31:40, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 15 2007,17:07)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2007,16:04)
mentalist Mentok gets suckered into a "who designed the designer" variant, and does badly.

From Mentok's comment:
God had to have a transformational cause in order to become what God is today. What this means is that the God of today has the knowledge on how to build the natural world within which we exist.

Perhaps an apocryphal story, but someone is said to have remarked about Dorothy Parker that she was smarter than god.  When asked whether she thought this was true or not, her answer was, "No, but I'm probably smarter than He was at the same age."

Is Mentok a Mormon?

Date: 2007/08/18 19:28:48, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 18 2007,18:41)
Maybe she should change the name to Invisible Kansans.


I think this is temporary. The point of having a blog is so others can see what you think. As a private blog her readership is going to decline to about zero, and she'll get frustrated. It's only a matter of time before she returns.

And gets frustrated by her own ignorance, choosing to go private.  After which:

She'll get frustrated that no one cares enough to subscribe to her blog.  Causing her to:

Become corporeal and get frustrated that her ignorance is called on every deal.  Leading to:

The rediscovery of her cloaking device....

Date: 2007/08/21 00:40:31, Link
Author: blipey
Gold.  24K, pure.

Date: 2007/08/21 10:53:23, Link
Author: blipey
Well, now that the 3 of us who ever read his blog don't go there anymore he must feel lonely.  It's tough being boring.

Date: 2007/08/24 22:32:14, Link
Author: blipey
Thank-you, thank-you.  No applause, please.  Just throw money.

Actually, if you could throw a good place to eat that would be most appreciated.  You see, I spent my B-day driving to Garden City, Kansas to perform in the Tumbleweeds Festival this weekend.

There are no good places to eat in Garden City.  But this does remind me of my recent 37,000 mile tour--just not the good parts.

Luckily, this has been a tard free birthday.  Also luckily, it has not been scotch free.

Date: 2007/08/24 22:37:47, Link
Author: blipey
Also, no one is having my babies.  My girlfriend and I understand (and can spell) birth control.

Reading that last, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not passing judgment on those confused by the use of pills, sponges, and/or condoms.

I just wanted to remind DaveTard that he doesn't need to send me any money.  I'm not after the welfare.

Date: 2007/08/27 13:54:54, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,12:53)
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired blogtrap.  He's a persistent little guy.  Does anybody want to come over  and help me whack him around for a bit?

Joe should work in a sideshow tent.  Truly a wonder of the modern world.

Date: 2007/08/27 14:26:06, Link
Author: blipey
Ah, yes.  Joe has given me this response on not fewer than 3 topics:

1.  He claimed to have debated, and embarrassed numerous scientists in fields of their expertise.  I asked for the list and he said he'd give it to me when I showed up at his door.

2.  He claimed to have used the Explanatory Filter successfully.  I asked him for the equation and work.  He said he'd show me when I showed up at his door.

3.  He claimed to have a valid, curriculum based ID teaching plan.  He also claimed to have given this lesson at schools in New Hampshire.  I asked him for the lesson plan and a list of schools that he had done this at.  He said he'd show me when I showed up at his door.

He's going to be really surprised when I show up at his door.  He should ask DaveScot for an escape plan with regard to clowns actually showing up in your hometown as promised.

edited for pronoun trouble

Date: 2007/08/27 14:44:22, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:41)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,14:26)
He's going to be really surprised when I show up at his door. ?He should ask DaveScot for an escape plan with regard to clowns actually showing up in your hometown as promised.

Watch out for freon poisoning!

Why?  It didn't seem to affect Joe that much....

Date: 2007/08/27 15:08:03, Link
Author: blipey
Joe is the Maytag Man.  The Frigidaire Biologist.  The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze.  The Kitchen Muslim....

Date: 2007/08/28 11:46:19, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 27 2007,15:24)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,15:16)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,15:08)
Joe is the Maytag Man. ?The Frigidaire Biologist. ?The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze. ?The Kitchen Muslim....

Really? ? He's a repairman? ?Fantastic.

Well, sure, in a manner. He works for General Electric, which does makes consumer appliances.  They also make jet engines, railroad locomotives, medical imaging equipment, and desalination plants to name a few.

Has Joe actually stated what he does service?

Not sure if he has made that explicit.  He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.

He never did answer my inquiry into whether or not the NSA was happy that he constantly jawed about his security clearances, place of work, and home address all in the same 3 sentences.

Date: 2007/08/29 10:02:57, Link
Author: blipey
I must agree with Louis.  Wow.  That makes it sound like I wouldn't agree with him under ordinary circumstances--which is completely untrue.  I'll now sack myself.

Date: 2007/08/29 14:45:37, Link
Author: blipey
I would like to take this opportunity to recant some recent blather of mine and say that, indeed, there are many things on which Louis and I do not see eye to eye.

Tops on that list is obviously, well, our eyes--myself being of a somewhat shorter than average height.

A somewhat close second item would be that of sliding a tanto into me belly.  Obviously Louis gets a rise out of such things.  This is because he is a homo.

I see no course of possible reconciliation between the two of us, unless it involves a pub, ale, whisky...

...or perhaps a pair of platform shoes.

Date: 2007/09/02 22:26:50, Link
Author: blipey

Livid thats what I am. My gosh,

Well, at least her language is for the kids.  I'd hate to hear what comes out when she's:

aghast, angry, fit to be tied, or stupefied.

Date: 2007/09/04 00:34:31, Link
Author: blipey
More well-wishes from the clown (even though I'm a day late in this time zone).  If you're wondering where the gift is, I'm also a dollar short.

If either of you is ever in KC, I'll buy a beer (for you).

Date: 2007/09/04 02:13:57, Link
Author: blipey
Is it your point here that ID is science because many people of different religions think it is?

This is a reasonable question.  The info in this post that was provided by you seems to imply this (and only this).

Would it not be better to defend ID as science by showing how sciency it is.

This brings me to a clerical point of your FAQ.  If this section's purpose is to let the world know what YOUR thought process is on matters, I believe it fails miserably.

You have often complained that you have answered questions before--in other places.  You have often been asked to explain things in your own words.  You seem to shy away from this.  I believe that this is because you fail--entirely--to grasp the importance of being able to convey ideas from a first-person perspective.

I began to read this section because I was promised insights into YOUR thoughts.  Instead (as expected) I was treated to the words of others, linked to by you.

You will continue to be asked questions relating to your personal understanding of matters until such time as you actually answer them.

Do you think it is a valid procedure for a high school student to merely quote others while answering an essay test?

If not, why do you think it is acceptable for you?

Probably not appearing here.

Date: 2007/09/04 12:00:49, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 04 2007,07:49)
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 04 2007,07:44)
FTK - Occam and oldman have made excellent points that you should think about. ?To me it is an obvious case of the ID mucky-mucks believing one thing, and telling their followers something else.

Do your self - and your kids a favor. ?Take your blinders off, open your mind, and ask some tough questions.

But only accept reasonable answers that provide at least some evidence and can stand up to honest inquiry.

The only problem being, she thinks she does that already.

And therein lies her talent--hilarity.

Date: 2007/09/04 12:10:06, Link
Author: blipey
All right, you've now established that it is okay for IDers to be religiously based because Secular Humanists are religious as well.

Is this really what you want to say?

A proper argument against ID being a theological movement is to refute that with evidence.  An improper defense is to point out that other people do the same thing.  can you not understand that?

Here's your starter; I'll give you a freebie, now defend ID.

The Discovery Institute does not focus on religious activities because....

Please fill in the rest.

Wouldn't even think of trying to post that here.

Date: 2007/09/04 12:28:17, Link
Author: blipey
As an admitted non-expert in any field of science what-so-ever, how is that you can state something like, "Brown's work is very insightful"?

In what way are you qualified to gauge the insightfulness of Brown's work?  This is a very pointed question that deserves to be answered.  If you are trying to make a case for ID and especially for its inclusion in future lessons for children, shouldn't you worry about the logic in your case-making?

As for the insight Brown has, take this paragraph from page 43 of his work, ostensibly try to claim that scientific knowledge of the solar system is all wrong.

All 156 moons [of solar planets] in the solar system should orbit their planets in the same sense, but more than 30 have backward orbits.e Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

How exactly is this compelling?  Or even remotely right?  I would venture a guess that I could dig up a lot of 6th graders who could punch holes in that.

You may have heard that some moons are theorized to be captured asteroids or other solar objects?  You may have heard of asteroid collisions?  Chunks being blown of off a planetary surfaces?  Junk flying around in slightly off-kilter paths?

How exactly are we supposed to take Brown seriously if this is the extent of his scholarship?

Really, we'd like answers to this.  These are exactly the questions you'll never answer, because you don't even ask them yourself.

Curiosity, Ftk, curiosity.

This was consumed by the singularity located here.

edited for clarity:  by "remotely right" I mean as a critique of cosmology.

Date: 2007/09/04 14:18:48, Link
Author: blipey
You continue to use a really terrible argument technique.  You should work on this.

By saying that the opposition does the same thing as your side purportedly does, you are not advancing the argument.

You should grasp this before you post  again.

On William Dembski

Date: 2007/09/06 10:04:58, Link
Author: blipey
Oh yeah.  That's all JoeG has really, are threats.  I find it funny that he equates threats with evidence, but I really think he's too lazy to execute any of them.

While never quite reaching the DaveScot threat level, JoeG once told me he could kill me if I showed up at his door.  This was after he invited me to show up at his door.

Since he's published it before in his invites to come and challenge him:

Joe Gallien; Manchester, NH

I'll leave it to him to tell you his address; though he's also published this before.

Date: 2007/09/06 13:37:40, Link
Author: blipey
You mean the employer that doesn't mind that Joe tells everyone under the sun that he has super-crackerjack-and-mike-and-ike-ultra-deep-foil-hat-top-secret clearance?

Date: 2007/09/06 13:51:05, Link
Author: blipey
But the new dodge may be funnier.  I have popcorn.

Date: 2007/09/06 13:58:47, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk: To quarantine ID to the realm of politics is unfair due to the fact that evolution falls into the same political category,...

That's insane.  Evolution is a political movement?  Really?

Which candidate is Evolution backing?

Can I vote for the Gravity Candidate?

Is your theory a political movement?

Date: 2007/09/06 16:07:56, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 06 2007,14:00)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 06 2007,13:37)
You mean the employer that doesn't mind that Joe tells everyone under the sun that he has super-crackerjack-and-mike-and-ike-ultra-deep-foil-hat-top-secret clearance?

I don't understand what you are saying.

Do you have evidence that Joe G's employer knows about his internet activities and doesn't care?
Does Joe G actually work in a vetted environment on secret classified subjects? He may well do. But vetting is quite concerned with honesty.

The questions could go on. I am not trying to interogate you though. I just do not understand what you are claiming and would like some clarification.

It's a reference to an answer joe gave me once as to why he couldn't talk about his qualifications to talk about an subject he may or may not know something about.

We were having a discussion as to what his qualifications for setting curriculum were.  He said he'd tell me when I showed up at his door.  As he had previously posted his address, I said I'd be stopping by.  He then told me that he couldn't share any of his expertise because he had top-secret clearance and his job involved secret government operations.

I like to point this out to Joe as much as I possibly can.

Date: 2007/09/06 16:16:16, Link
Author: blipey
Damn!!!  Can we please keep just one stinking thread on topic!


Information that is not relevant to the thread should not be allowed on!

So, what was this thread about?

Oh yeah, carry on VMARTIN, I want to know all about artists and the color wheel--unless those artists never went to university.


cripes, darwiniacs have the attention span of a two year old (who also never started college)...damn.

Date: 2007/09/06 16:21:20, Link
Author: blipey
I've been thinking about Ftk's reticence to answer questions and that brought me to this question:

Has anyone ever had Ftk answer a question in her own words?  Has she ever taken the time to explain anything (other than a religious notion) with sentences that were completely her own?

I know that she's often wondered at the importance of such a thing and I've tried to tell her on at least 5 separate occasions why being able to discuss a topic in your own terms is important.

I'd be very interested in seeing any instance of her actually doing this.  Anyone?

Date: 2007/09/07 14:33:20, Link
Author: blipey
Why HARD the questions so here?  Very mad the mind of me go to lengths to answer simple the posed thoughts here.

Too HARD understand the wants of Darwinists.

How olde the earth not ever been to me askedd, this why I never any answer to you.

I always simply to answer you, but you clearly no ask of me these things.

Date: 2007/09/07 14:50:54, Link
Author: blipey
the last comment left (obviously to die) on Ftk's blog:

A veritable hotbed of discussion.  Have you ever thought of making this blog private?

Posted by Forthekids    at 3:40 PM    0 comments  
Posted by Forthekids    at 1:55 PM    0 comments  
Posted by Forthekids    at 1:20 PM    0 comments        
Posted by Forthekids    at 8:05 PM    0 comments

Date: 2007/09/10 10:14:36, Link
Author: blipey
Yeah.  I've always been curious about that too.  I don't think anyone has ever told me the truth about that.  It's a good thing that VMartin is here to do just that: tell the truth.

Date: 2007/09/10 13:51:12, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 10 2007,11:04)
He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.

Knowing Joe, this probably means that his job consists of collecting unemployment.  I mean, c'mon, can you imagine Joe surviving in the workplace, or any other environment that requires a modicum of rationality and emotional stability?

Joe's boss:  Joe, you said that this project would take two months.  What happened?

Joe:  Reality says that "two months" means "July and December".  Ya see, in the end, all you can do is quote-mine and take things out of context.  Thanks for demonstrating that you're a @#%*% #*$%@!

Joe's boss:  You're fired, you sociopathic cretin.

Joe: You're a sociopathic cretin.

I would like to nominate Rob's comment as Comment of the Month in the category of "Most Exact Channeling of an IDiot"

Superb, sir.

Date: 2007/09/10 14:00:19, Link
Author: blipey
Thank God VMartin answered the simple question, "How old do you think the Earth is?"  Look, I'll just point it out here:

Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

Uh, hmmm.  Must be in the next paragraph

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

Nope, sorry.  The next one is the money paragraph

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.


But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Teh stupid, it burns

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.

I would like to apologize for the previous statement implying that there was an answer in the previous load of crap.

Come on, VMartin, if you're just going to be jaw-droppingly stupid, leave.  If you're going to stay, please be funny or interesting--wheichever floats your boat.

Date: 2007/09/10 14:49:32, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 10 2007,14:42)
Comment I just left on the Macro/Micro "FAQ" page.

Quick question. What, exactly, is 100% of an eye?

What features must it have? Are, for example, human eyes 100% of an eye?

If they are, what are the eyes of dogs? They can see perfectly well (as far as I'm aware) but they have no colour perception. Neither do bulls, in fact. Are they 75% of an eye?

What about the eyes of pigeons, which have been found to work much faster than those of a human, perhaps even 10 times as fast. Are these 1000% of an eye?

All good questions that I am sure Ftk has given years of thought to.  She will, no doubt, post your comment and give us her well thought out response to such relevant questions.

Date: 2007/09/11 00:10:09, Link
Author: blipey
Hey, VMartin:

I think you have some unanswered questions over on your thread.  Care to answer?

Look, I'll give you an example of how easy it is:

Blipey, how old do you think the Earth is?

Why, Blipey, I do believe it is 4.5 billion years old.

Look how easy that was!

edit:  please answer on the appropriate thread.

Date: 2007/09/11 14:21:59, Link
Author: blipey
I decided to not visit Joe's blog a while ago.  There really is no point in going there.  His moderation policy doesn't allow for commenting in any sort of non-maddening way.  Annd it doesn't do any good.

I will engage Joe anywhere else he shows up; these are the places where he has to show his ugliness to others.  Unfortunately, these are the places he usually runs away from.

Date: 2007/09/12 11:06:34, Link
Author: blipey
Is this worth a new thread?  I mean, I'm really just trying to find out HOW OLD THE F*#@ING EARTH IS!!!


Date: 2007/09/12 15:51:32, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 12 2007,15:12)
I don't think the half-life of Retardium has been reliably measured yet.

Maybe Vroomie could be enticed to volunteer a sample?

Well, it's got to be less than 3,000 years, right?

Date: 2007/09/13 08:52:39, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 13 2007,00:07)
There was a selectionist here who pursued me here and at Pharyngula. The  selectionist claimed that I am Davison. The poor selectionist made his weird conclusion analyzing of dating my and John posts at Brainstorm.

No wonder that studying of dating of evolutionary processes the poor selectionist came to the conclusion that there must have been a common descent.

Wasn't he Steviepinhead?


(Considerately all in caps because of your obvious blindness)

Date: 2007/09/13 09:02:13, Link
Author: blipey
That show hs to be my least favorite Sci-Fi Channel offering.  What a horrible piece of shit.  Of course Joe likes it; I'm surprised he just found it.

They basically follow a group of ghostbusters around.  These are not people who are interested in debunking ghosts, rather people who are actively looking for them.

And the real question begged here:

Why has JoeG never applied the EF himself, since it is so easy a group of retards on the Sci-Fi Channel can do it?

So how about it, Joe?  Care to apply the EF to any of the many scenarios that have been proposed to you?

Date: 2007/09/13 09:10:49, Link
Author: blipey
Only once all possible "natural" causes are ruled out do they come to a paranormal inference. can they be sure that ALL possible natural casuses have been ruled out?

Date: 2007/09/13 14:39:19, Link
Author: blipey

Let it be known throughout the world that VMartin thinks the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Date: 2007/09/14 05:18:51, Link
Author: blipey
Proof that Ftk couldn't recognize a rational thought if it bit her:

I posted this a couple of days ago and her response follows:


   Hey, you got a friend posting about the age of the Earth. Well, not posting about it--just like you. What's the deal? It's a pretty simple question, "How old do you think the Earth is?"

   Why all the dodging?

   6:57 AM
Forthekids said...

   Dodging? Go here. That pretty much explains my views on the subject.

The here is her "Are you a Young Earth Creationist?" FAQ.  You can read that here.

To which this maybe never to be seen comment was typed:

In that FAQ section you claim to not be able to argue with a billions of years old Earth.  Then moving down a few paragraphs you say that you find a lot of the evidence for a young Earth compelling.

Which is it?  If forced to write down an age for the Earth, what would you write?

My guess?  The question would remain blank and your head would explode.

edited for horrible C&P technique

Date: 2007/09/14 15:14:12, Link
Author: blipey
Are you saying you're a ladybird beetle, VMartin?  Or an albino?

Date: 2007/09/15 09:15:44, Link
Author: blipey
Oh, I think we knew going in it wasn't really the best use of time.  But as I've said before, the situation is somewhat mitigated by getting crackpots on record as crackpots.  That turns out to be useful from time to time.

Really, VMartin, you don't even have to answer the very simple question that my 6 year old nephew could form an answer to.  You just have to tell me WHY YOU WON'T ANSWER IT.

That may be as entertaining as anything else you could possibly do.

Just so you feel good:

1.  I'm an actor, so I may not be the best authority on aposematism, but I'll go with yeah, they are.  Most ladybird beetles are very brightly colored.  I would guess that this is beneficial because a large percentage of the other really brightly colored things in the world are poisonous.

2.  I have no idea what the color of their ancestors was.  And really, your question makes no sense as "aposematic" is not a color scheme, nor does the term necessarily refer to color.

See how easy that was.  Now, this is VERY IMPORTANT.  Don't take this as an excuse to continue off-topic with beetles.  I answered your questions in my own words (as I often tell Creationists to do themselves) to show you the value of doing such.


Do you believe in the common ancestory of apes and humans?

(Try not to be a dodging dolt anymore--it puts you in rather unsavory company.)

Date: 2007/09/15 16:52:10, Link
Author: blipey
VMartin said:

As to common ancestor of man and ape: I am surprised that people here are unable to address evolution of coloration of ladybirds, mushrooms etc... but they are obviously able to address such complicated problems as evolution of human speech, etc...

Uh, VMartin, as long as you are wildly, insanely, goofily off topic, could you at least argue coherently?

If you start a sentence with "As to common ancestor of man and ape..."


the second part of your sentence should have something to do with the common ancestor of man and ape.

You, perhaps accidentally(?), finished your sentence with mushrooms.  Just saying....

Now, how about finishing the sentence with something that makes sense?  Or do we have to wait another two months for you to say anything coherent?

Date: 2007/09/17 08:34:25, Link
Author: blipey
Actually allowing comments about the edited Dawkins video:

A response, for posterity:

Ftk: <i>I understand, of course, that mutations can take place which can account for changes to the genome, but I rarely hear of any examples of an upward increase of information...positive mutations leading to new information.</i>

This is the sort of thing that I think Dawkins was addressing that Creationists often don't acknowledge (just as you are doing now).  Notice that I did not say they dismiss them, they completely DON'T EVEN HEAR IT.

In what way do you think that mutations create an increase in information.  What do you mean by an increase in information?  Don't claim you don't know or can't answer--that would be lying.

You put forward the argument that mutations don't cause an increase in information.  By positing that sentence you make the following claims:

1.  You know something that requires an increase in information to be seen.

2.  You have a very specific definition of information that you are using.

3.  You have a method to measure this information.

4.  You have  very specific definition of positive mutation.

So, what are these things?  If you really have all these definitions and methodology, we'd like to hear them--that'd be very exciting.

Could you please address these pressing issues?

Read it here.

Date: 2007/09/17 10:00:17, Link
Author: blipey
As she has allowed my comment through I am eagerly awaiting Ftk's definition of information and her foolproof method of measuring it in mutation events.

Date: 2007/09/17 11:41:51, Link
Author: blipey
Another failure to grasp the meaning of common English words, and my response:

Ridiculous.  Did you read that article?  Exactly where did he address any science at all?

For example, he said that Behe produced some numbers.  Funny how he failed to mention any of them.  Or how those numbers may make his case.

Besides not addressing (look the word up) any science, it is a bad piece of journalism.  If you really want to make the case that Behe's new book is any better than his last one, you need provide some evidence.

This could have been accomplished in many ways.  Perhaps the easiest way would be to include a quote from the book--even in a sidebar.  Or you could show an example in an inset or graphic that would run along with the article.  None of this was done.

Please don't tell me you think that this very tiny 9ish column-inch article addresses any science at all.  It is basically a feel good plug for Behe's book.

From an HONEST review of Behe's new book!

Date: 2007/09/18 08:45:12, Link
Author: blipey
Wow.  Then menagerie is in full view.

Over on Ftk's Dawkins video thread I have mentioned several times that the question asked of him is meaningless.  To drive this point home, I asked for someone to rephrase it in their own words.  Ftk is not up to the challenge.  Luckily for comedy reels everywhere, however, Jason steps to the plate:

Me: Can you even restate the question in your own words?

Jason: Sure: can you provide an example of a genetic mutation that has added information to a species' chromosomes that (A) didn't end up being fatal or rendering the species incapable of reproducing, (B) was passed on to subsequent members of the species and © resulted in a large number of species retaining the information and benefiting from it.

For those of you who may not know (or remember) the question, it was "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolution event that has been shown to increase information in the genome?"

I've pointed out to Jason that his "rephrasing" is merely the ADDITION of 3 clauses and not really a rephrasing at all.  I give my comment a 30/70 chance of showing up.  But Jason did zing me good with the old "just because you can't see the brilliance of my argument" line.  Ouch.

Date: 2007/09/18 09:10:31, Link
Author: blipey
I guess I'll move the line into the 0/100 area.  My comments won't get published because I am repeating myself!  But, but, but...I'm not.  With the exception of one comment in my last dozen or so, I've advanced the conversation with every comment.  Strange.

It makes me want to say:

Right.  They aren't going to go through.  But not because I'm repeating myself.

You don't even know why my comment on the other thread won't go through.  You're just sure that you're not going to let it.  It has 3 very publishable qualities:

1.  It's on topic
2.  It brings up possible discussion questions.
3.  It brings new information to the post.

So, ask yourself why it won;t get published.  You're a giant, scared, faithless, weakling.  That, of course, is my opinion and not necessarily the truth--I know the difference.

Date: 2007/09/18 09:14:41, Link
Author: blipey
As for the comment on this thread, I am most certainly not repeating myself!

1.  I asked for a clarification of subject material.
2.  Jason offered something that was demonstrably not what was asked for.
3.  Jason was under the impression that he had offered what was asked.
4.  I showed how that was incorrect.
5.  I showed in what specific areas he was lacking.
6.  I asked for a new clarification.
7.  I opened a new approach to the material.
8.  I await a furtherance of the material by Jason.

This is how discussions happen.  This is not in any way repeating myself.

Take a look at why you won't discuss any topic with anyone at any time.  Hopefully it frightens you.

Date: 2007/09/18 09:58:16, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 18 2007,00:30)
We might have to take up a collection and buy ERV a bottle of Balvenie Double-Wood.

I'll buy the 21 year, portwood and send it to her myself...if she's in a state that allows liquor in the mail.

Date: 2007/09/18 11:07:15, Link
Author: blipey
So ID is not based on facts, but it is supported by lots and lots of evidence.

If only there were more room in the signature lines!  Foiled again!

Date: 2007/09/18 11:26:30, Link
Author: blipey

Try not to think about the time your pa ate teh gay swan.  Horrible, horrible contagion!

And don't listen to the listerine crap, stay strong.  Remember that no medicine actually works.  Medical science is merely an illusion created by Teh Man!

Date: 2007/09/18 11:36:05, Link
Author: blipey
As you can plainly tell by googling my name and the name of several of my friends (Crandaddy, Tribune, AFDave, etc), I often my name search for details to how good the perception of me is by evilutionarys, so the evidence is plain out there for you to find.

It is a waste of any time that i have to discuss things that in other venues UD have been trounced by creation science.

Try again oldDude!

ps, I think you mean "Creationists" in your opening line.

Date: 2007/09/18 11:38:32, Link
Author: blipey
I see you fixed that one line.  Everyone can get lukky once in a while.  I meant obviously that you need to do the replace of the word in the second sentence.

I so smart!

Date: 2007/09/18 11:59:59, Link
Author: blipey
Nicely written, J-Dog.  Can I recommend you to JoeG as a writing instructor if I am unavailable?

Date: 2007/09/18 12:10:25, Link
Author: blipey
DAMN!!!  All of my arguments have no been demolished!

Date: 2007/09/18 12:18:50, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk gets caught using words again!!!

Damn words, why don't they all mean what I want them to mean at the time that I say them but something else later?

Comment 28.

Blipey...your last comments aren't going to go through. Stop repeating yourself.

Comment 31.

Honestly, I've gotten to where I don't even read most of them before rejecting them.

Hmmm.  One might ask how she could know that I am or am not repeating myself.  I wouldn't ask.  Someone might, however.

She still loves me, though:

Sorry about that, and I still love you, but your OCD is just a little maddening.

Ah, I feel good now.  Also, I'm glad that my belief in truth has been noticed.

Date: 2007/09/18 14:29:00, Link
Author: blipey
Shamed into letting a few comments through?

Let's see.  He did not--and I demonstrated this fact--rephrase the question.  He added stuff to the end of it in order to turn it into a completely different question.

The question, as stated, was "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation that has been shown to add information to the genome?"

Jason added three (3) addenda to the end of the question.  This is NOT restating the question.  It is as if someone asked the question "Who is the greatest football team ever?"  Someone asked for a restatement of the question in order to figure out hat the heck was meant by "greatest".

Jason would then restate the question as "Who is the greatest football team that (A) had the best quarterback, (B) was the awesomest offense, and © had the greatest fans?"

The 3 additions do nothing to restate the question or to clear up the problem area of what is meant by "greatest".  This is yet another attempt b me to show the error of Jason's restatement.  I don't think I can be any more clear and be utterly ignored by you and Jason.  Without wetting myself, that is....

So, without the clarifications that have been asked for, I must restate (sorry for the repeat, but since no one has even attempted to address this I must):

You put forward the argument that mutations don't cause an increase in information. By positing that sentence you make the following claims:

1. You know something that requires an increase in information to be seen.

2. You have a very specific definition of information that you are using.

3. You have a method to measure this information.

4. You have very specific definition of positive mutation.

So, what are these things? If you really have all these definitions and methodology, we'd like to hear them--that'd be very exciting


Date: 2007/09/18 14:38:38, Link
Author: blipey
Interesting, Supersport.

Could you use your own vast mental powers to grow yourself a backbone and answer some questions?

Why or why not?

Date: 2007/09/18 14:40:21, Link
Author: blipey
Surely your mental powers must be greater than that of a flea?  Or is there more informationality in a flea than in a supersport?

Date: 2007/09/18 14:46:52, Link
Author: blipey
What is the deal with the IDiots this week?  Did they invent a time machine and travel back in time?  First we get the Dawkins video and I swear I was just at Ftk's and her lead post was about dinosaur soft tissue from 2 and 1/2 years ago.  I went to comment on it and got a 404 error because she immediately erased the OP.

What other gems will they dig out of the Wayback Machine this week; Sherman is very interested.

Date: 2007/09/18 15:06:19, Link
Author: blipey
I have an extra copy of the book, supersport.  Tell me where to send it.

Date: 2007/09/18 15:17:10, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:12)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,14:38)
Interesting, Supersport.

Could you use your own vast mental powers to grow yourself a backbone and answer some questions?

Why or why not?

I don't know about a backbone, but amazing things can be accomplished during development.

So I'll mark that down as a yes.  We'll be wanting to see it for ourselves, of course.  Is November 6th good for you?  I can be there for an eyewitness account of you growing a backbone through mental process alone.  I can't wait.

Or, you could just answer the question.

Date: 2007/09/18 15:19:51, Link
Author: blipey
So, when you are pointed to EXACTLY what you asked for, it turns out that you didn't ask for that in the first place?


Anyway, you still miss the point.  You may see the point if you'll take 30 seconds out of your day and define "fitness" for us.

Date: 2007/09/18 15:24:05, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,15:21)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
I would like a page number or a site on the net explaining this

Beware, all ye who enter here.

What?  Only 100 citations?

I'm sure you've read all of these, supersport, and deemed them unacceptable?

Date: 2007/09/18 15:48:57, Link
Author: blipey
You PROVED it?  Really?  PROVED it?  With a meticulous set of data and a cast-iron logical process?  Really?  Or did you just claim a bunch of things?  Hmmm?

As to this:
the question is whether or not this pigmentation will lead to a more "fit" organism.

I beg to differ.  I believe the question was:
Do you think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation?

I can check again--I've got the requisite 2 seconds--but I know I'm right.

Date: 2007/09/18 15:51:23, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:48)
by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological parts.

edit: here's my challenge again:

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.

Hey now!  Don't go blaming jeannot for your goalpost moving.  Do your own work!

Date: 2007/09/18 16:05:31, Link
Author: blipey
well, you've got to account for all the organs and tissues in the body

Yeah!  Like why we humans have lungs and apes don't! Oh wait, uh, I mean, oooops.

Date: 2007/09/18 16:07:57, Link
Author: blipey
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

Date: 2007/09/18 16:10:56, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

if evos can say "genes" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.

Uh.  You keep asking questions.  They keep getting answered.  You ask new questions.  They get answered too.  How about throwing me a bone and presenting an answer to how minds get passed down.  It doesn't even have to be lucid--just anything will do.

Date: 2007/09/18 16:34:22, Link
Author: blipey
Will I finally get to meet an IDiot?

I've been asked for a meeting.

I gave her several options of shows to appear at.

Date: 2007/09/18 16:48:03, Link
Author: blipey

you remain stupid, boring, and derivative.

Please fix at least 2 of these things.

Date: 2007/09/18 17:15:56, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,16:57)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:48)

you remain stupid, boring, and derivative.

Please fix at least 2 of these things.

I dunno, I'm still chuckling at his 'gay swan' post.

Alright, I'll give him that.  But that is the exception to prove the rule so far.  He could get better.

Date: 2007/09/18 21:27:44, Link
Author: blipey
Just to add to the hilarity of the moment:


Do you have any idea what the faster than light experiments showed?  To test whether or not you're blowing smoke out your ass, please answer this question:

Can you use the experiment's setup to send information faster than the speed of light?

Please don;t ignore this question, I need a laugh.

Date: 2007/09/18 21:33:46, Link
Author: blipey
I've sat through about 900 church services in my life.  I'm pretty sure I'm still breathing.

Amongst your many problems is your inability to separate ideology from reasoning.  I don't have a problem with you because you believe in God.  I have a problem with you because you can't use the brain that your God gave you.

You may understand this if you ever stop disliking me because you think I'm an atheist.

Date: 2007/09/19 07:27:32, Link
Author: blipey
Why can't Ftk separate ideology from reasoning?

Oh, and IDiocy and a belief in God do not go hand in hand for me.  Just because you think that atheism and evolution go hand in hand does not make the converse true.

IDiocy, in my opinion, is a subset of religious fundamentalism.  One does not have to believe in God to support ID, but t sure seems to be the going thing.  One also does not have to support ID if one believes in God.

The two things are VERY separate for me.  Once again, my problem IS NOT that you believe in God.  It is that you refuse to use your brain.

My biggest pet peeve is people who enjoy ignorance.

Date: 2007/09/19 09:03:55, Link
Author: blipey
details shmetails, rat tails, just shut up before I cut them off with a carving knife!  You'll never convince me!  Never!  Never!


Date: 2007/09/19 09:08:30, Link
Author: blipey
Alright, I'll bite.  But you have to trade me out answer for answer.  I'm going to attempt to answer this question:

Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome

But in order to do so, I'll need to know what you mean by "information".  How do I measure this information, what units do I use?

If you can provide this information, I will answer your question with my next comment to the thread.

Eagerly awaiting new knowledge.

Date: 2007/09/19 09:12:57, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:12)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 19 2007,09:08)
It may surprise some of you to know that I fully support Supersport's position that all life originated with and evolved by means of mind. I've articulated my position here. Supersport will agree with me when I say,

"It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.  

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations, the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, and a completed Thing Theory. Ultimately we may see the triumph of what has been derisively called the "Big Think" theory of the origins of the universe.  We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a “think” of the past." what do you disagree with me about?  If you think the mind is the source of life and diversity, what is your take on how life changes? mechanism.

you can't be serious?

Date: 2007/09/19 09:21:57, Link
Author: blipey
Whoa!  Stop!  Stop!

You are suffering from Creationist Blabbering Syndrome.  The easy cure for this is to Stop!  Wait!  Take one question at a time.

If you are truly interested in furthering your own knowledge and about educating others, you will not bounce willy-nilly about the English language, posting questions and tangential topics without coming to a conclusion about the first one.

Slow Down!

The topic at hand is
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome

Let's resolve this before moving on, okay?

We need to agree on what information is.  You seem to think that an increase in information requires a morphological change?  Is this a correct reading of your thoughts?

Date: 2007/09/19 09:24:07, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:23)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 19 2007,09:20)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,10:12)
you can't be serious?

Keep out of this, Blip. We're finally getting down to some serious science that recognizes the power of MIND. Your negative materialism has nothing to day about the Think-Thing interface.

cool bill...I've got to head out..but I'd like to explore this with you in the near future.   Take care.

you can't be serious?

Date: 2007/09/19 09:26:29, Link
Author: blipey
Wow, Bill.  You make a great straight man; even if he's not serious, that made coffee come out my nose--twice.

Date: 2007/09/19 09:42:35, Link
Author: blipey
I thought you were leaving.

But, since you're still here, can we resolve this issue:

Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
Is Bill right when he says your question is meaningless because there is no answer you will accept because you don't know what is meant by "information"?

Let's resolve one issue at a time.  If we don;t do this, you just continue to look like a moron who is not interested in the least about education.  Surely you are interested in learing and teaching, right?

Date: 2007/09/19 14:18:14, Link
Author: blipey
Oooooohhhh!  I got one!

How 'bout this:

Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome

I'm pretty sure this is unresolved.  You DO want to resolve it, don't you?

Or are your pants just full of shit?

Date: 2007/09/19 14:37:22, Link
Author: blipey
Interesting.  This coming from a person who instead of answering questions, shotguns a bunch of random bits of googled information, demands that all of them be answered and when questioned about them, shotguns another load of unrelated stuff.

Who's the 12 year old?

Adults know that a discussion progresses in a logical order.  Would you care to explain the logic of your comments?

Until then, how about resolving this issue:

1.  Either your question about genetic information cannot be answered because the definition of genetic information is unknown


2.  you can give us this definition and the question is meaningful.

Which side do you come down on?

Notice that this will require you to type one of the following things:

(1) or (2)

That's not too hard, is it?

Date: 2007/09/19 14:50:50, Link
Author: blipey
Wait.  I think I know what you mean now.  You think it is childish to expect answers to a question.  You don't think it is a reasonable thing to provide other people with your superior knowledge.

I'm sorry, I'll go and try to find someone who knows enough to share.

Date: 2007/09/19 14:57:34, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (dochocson @ Sep. 19 2007,14:54)
Man, you cannot buy this kind of entertainment. Now that I'm out of popcorn, I have to ask:

supersport: Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?

And how far away are the stars?

Date: 2007/09/19 15:13:49, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,15:11)
Am I missing something, or did Supersport absolutely never acknowledge this?:

CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment during a boring cubicle job in "real estate".

Well, he did also ignore this.

Date: 2007/09/19 15:25:06, Link
Author: blipey
Dembski is busy getting ready for his next appearance.

Looks like science will get a drubbing:

Jay W. Richards is Research Fellow and Director of Acton Media.  He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and theology.

William A. Dembski is Research Professor in Philosophy

Richard J. Martinez is Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Associate Professor of Management

Mitchell J. Neubert is the Chavanne Chair of Christian Ethics in Business and holds the H.R. Gibson Professorship in Management Development at Baylor

Ide P. Trotter organized and has been President and Chief Investment Officer of Trotter Capital Management, Inc., since 1990. He arrived there by the circuitous path of undergraduate and Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering...

I thought this was about Evolution?

Date: 2007/09/19 16:01:49, Link
Author: blipey
You seriously don't see how this is dishonest, do you?

You make a claim that an article contains something that is demonstrably does not.  That is the dictionary definition of dishonesty.

That you ignore this point doesn't speak well of you.  Again, I don;t have a problem with you because you made a mistake.  I have a problem with you because you ignore the mistake.

From false claims made here.

Date: 2007/09/19 16:38:55, Link
Author: blipey
This is your house?

Does your non-cubicle job teach you how to share photos?

I also see you're using the tried and true "argument by house size".  Surely that means your science is better than mine.

Now, how about that genetic information thing?

Date: 2007/09/19 16:42:46, Link
Author: blipey
Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is.

Date: 2007/09/19 22:27:51, Link
Author: blipey
Excellent.  Can the powers that be close this thread now.  It has been firmly established that supersport is a class A jackass who is not interested in adding interesting or new information to this thread in any way.

Date: 2007/09/19 22:28:41, Link
Author: blipey
ditto the other thread

Date: 2007/09/20 07:41:58, Link
Author: blipey
Hey Supersport,

Since your memory is all of 9 seconds long (you do believe in the measurement known as the second, right?), let me remind you of your stupidity.

People have posted about the polydactylity in horses, about increased fitness due to pigmentation changes, and numerous other things.  You don't even DISCUSS these things when brought up.

Instead of replying to the information brought up,you immediately ask other, unrelated questions.  This can be shown later on in the thread when it was the goal to resolves the issue of genetic information.

You brought up this issue by asking a question.  Several people offered to answer this question.  You responded by saying that your question was unanswerable.  Instead of trying to resolve this issue by restating the question, clarifying terms, or discussing related subject matter you:

1.  Called people childish
2.  Started to ignore the subject as if you had never broached it in the first place
3.  Moved on to other unrelated topics

By these actions, you show yourself to be a first class jackass.

Now, how about resolving one issue, JUST TO LET US KNOW YOU'RE SERIOUS:

What is meant by genetic information, or is your question meaningless?

Date: 2007/09/20 07:42:44, Link
Author: blipey
Too many the buttons I hit.  Ooops.

Date: 2007/09/20 07:50:12, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (RF Brady @ Sep. 20 2007,07:17)
FtK's alter ego.

Stellar.  I mean, it would be if stars were actually hot enough for that to mean anything.  So, I guess I should say OVENY, or MATCHSTICKY.

That video is great.

Date: 2007/09/20 08:11:18, Link
Author: blipey

Do you vote for school board members in my area?  If so, you should meet Ftk--and we have a problem.  If not, congratulations, you won't have to read me anymore.

Date: 2007/09/20 10:39:08, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:52)
ToE is pathetic, propped up by a bunch of dreamers.  No science, no proof, no evidence -- just fairytales posing as science.

He's not even trying anymore.  He's a lazy, boring troll.

Date: 2007/09/21 08:18:37, Link
Author: blipey

Is there a reason you haven't attempted to answer a question yet?  You've asked about 9,000 questions (a couple of them even related to each other) and demanded answers to them.  I'd say about 4,000 of these have been answered.  Perhaps they have not been answered to your satisfaction (mostly because of goalpost moving), but the conversation has been started on them.

The questions asked of you, however, and the follow-ups to your questions?  You haven't even attempted to answer, clarify, or continue a conversation about them.

Why is this?

Again, something you have continually ignored:


Your failure to address this issue with even one short sentence says a lot about the giant turd lodged in your face.

Date: 2007/09/22 01:38:51, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2007,17:21)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 21 2007,17:09)
I'm surprised there hasn't been an assertion of the asteroid causing the alleged Flood. :p

Or the Flood causing the asteroid. It's all good.

Isn't that already covered in Hydroplate Theory?

edit:  to acknowledge the fact that I am lazy and didn't read the whole thread

Date: 2007/09/22 16:16:34, Link
Author: blipey
I'm assuming that this means "from now on" since Ftk is completely incapable of owning up to anything?

I also assume that this means she might actually watch what she says?

I've got a dollar on "NO".

Date: 2007/09/22 16:20:57, Link
Author: blipey
Hey Ftk,

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue.  Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question.  Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong.  In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?

Date: 2007/09/22 16:33:40, Link
Author: blipey
I take it then, FTK, that you believe Newtonian gravity takes precedence over relativity, that E=MC^2 controls the maximum speed you can travel, and that *all* scientists are wicked evil atheists who are in a big conspiracy? (That includes your hero Brown).

She's open to all possibilities in these areas.  Including that E=MC^2 is the relationship between molasses cookies eaten by Santa and the number of floating forests Brown has lived on.

Date: 2007/09/23 01:20:27, Link
Author: blipey

I know you don't care for me and don't like my attitude.  However, I was going to post on your supersport answers links.  Fortunately, I finished reading the thread before I posted.  Ditto what Albatrosity2 said.

Anytime you're willing to post actual answers that superturd or JoeMental posted, I'll be here.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE remember that opinions aren't fact.  Also remember that evidence is necessary for anything you claim to be objective truth.

Thanks for continuing to be ignorant.

Date: 2007/09/23 01:24:52, Link
Author: blipey
Since you're banging around again, Ftk, I have another little truthiness matter for you.  Over on your blog, you posted about a review of Behe's new book.  You claim the review addressed the science and was all sciency and supported Behe's science-like agenda, and all.

I asked you where the science was in the review.  You seem to have not substantiated its presence.  Just in case you forgot or don't read your own drivel, here it is again.

Your Post

Wybrow's Review

I'm sure your new substantial self is really peeved at your old truth dodging self.

Date: 2007/09/23 11:46:44, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 23 2007,03:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,22:26)
Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around".

Holy smokin' monkey...then the ToE is in a whole lotta trouble, no??

So it's your position that the ToE is unsupported by facts?
Are you going to back that up or just retract?

I think this is great place to start, Ftk.  You made this statement after your re-instatement--in the new fact based incarnation.

So, I hate to bring it up, but I don't have to since jeannot already did.  Are you going back on the pirahna list so soon after coming back?

Fact 1: Speciation has been observed.

While this fact alone certainly doesn't sum up the whole of ToE, it does SUPPORT THE THEORY of ToE.

So, will you now acknowledge this fact and retract your above statement or will you give us a rundown on how this fact does not--in fact--support ToE?

I believe the choice is yours again.

Date: 2007/09/24 12:13:34, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 22 2007,21:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:15)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 22 2007,16:20)
Hey Ftk,

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue.  Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question.  Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong.  In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?

Blipster, just because you don't like or agree with a person's answer doesn't mean they didn't give one.

And, dude, I am all about substantiation this time around.  Here are just some of his answers...

Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here

Baloney. Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around". Click on those 9 links and you find that sporty's answers were, in reality

#1- a bald-faced assertion unsupported by evidence
#2 - answering a question by posing another question, which was not an answer
#3 - an opinion, later shown to be complete bs
#4 - a busted link, perhaps you copied the URL wrong
#5 - an opinion that a dinosaur fossil is 6.8 thousand years old, unsupported by evidence
#6 - an opinion, later debunked
#7 - a quotemine of an article, which was shown not to back up his assertion at all
#8 - same bs as #7, repeated for comic effect?
#9 - a bunch of bs which avoided an actual answer

Furthermore, he avoided ever backing up his claim that mental processes can generate life instantly, even though he was asked about this at least 9 or 10 times.

Sounds like your kind of guy.

Welcome back.

So, Ftk, what about it?  Are you going to let this stand?  Normal, rational persons who really are concerned with education and the kids see this sort of thing as a progressive argument.

I asserted that supersport, JoeG, and yourself dodge questions (as evidenced by many threads here and other places).

You said "no we don't".

I said, "Fine.  Could you provide some examples of questions being answered?"

After about 6,000 years (only capped at this number by the obvious age of the Earth), you provided a list of what you claim to be supersport answers.

Albatrosity2 showed that these were not, in fact, answers, but merely a slew of assertions and personal opinions.

It would now be on your shoulders to counter his (and my) claim.

Oh, wait, you don't have've done it doesn't matter...there's a conspiracy that counters whatever you say....  Let me translate that for you:

You have the attention span of a two year old are too lazy to continue an argument that you aren't smart enough to finish.

Date: 2007/09/24 22:34:00, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:14)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:09)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.

the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.

No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.

the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.  The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them.   Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi where the heck are they?  Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around.  But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.

The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?

you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.

Supersport, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

Sanfords generic entropy puts an upper limit on the number of available reproduction events.

Supersport, I know they are not degenerating because they are still there after the maximum amount of reproductive events Sanford says are available to them.

I ask again, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

And how many generations does that give us per year?

Oh look.  I found a spot where oldman explicitly answers a challenge from supersport.  As yet, supersport has yet to acknowledge that this point was even made.

And that took me 35 seconds of searching on this thread alone.  Would you care to back up your assertion that supersport's questions go unanswered?

Date: 2007/09/25 00:06:43, Link
Author: blipey
What is your argument, VMartin?

That you are anti-establishment, thereby you are right?

Date: 2007/09/25 10:53:57, Link
Author: blipey
Is this a joke?

No not the Chopra Express, you homos, the OP.

Date: 2007/09/25 11:01:05, Link
Author: blipey
I've found her problem (again).

She thinks that opinions are data.  What?  You knew that already?  You're aware of her daft thinking on what a fact is?   Well, shit.

Okay, when Behe says it is based on data and ordinary logic, he only introduces one of these into his work.  It isn't data.

He says that things are IC.  He has defined data (very clearly in that excerpt) as LOOKING AT THE MOLECULAR MACHINERY.

Looking at something is not data.  Running the numbers in data.  Could you (or he) point to a place where he has run the numbers.  Or perhaps even presented a way to run the numbers?

Date: 2007/09/25 11:07:50, Link
Author: blipey
Daniel Smith:
Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

You don't know Joe Gallien, do you?  If you don't mind me asking, could you define a nested hierarchy for us?

Date: 2007/09/25 13:13:57, Link
Author: blipey
Hi TP,

I think you misunderstood me.  My joke reference was not in reference to QM.  As for being shocked by the theory of QM, shocked may not be quite the right word.  As I am not a physicist, I don't claim any special insight into QM, but I find it interesting.  My 15 hours of university classes in QM made me think it is cool, if difficult to wrap my brain around.

I'm pretty sure my religious leanings have zero bearing on whether or not I think QM is cool.  When I was younger, I would certainly identify as a practicing Christian (though certainly not of the biblical literalism variety).  I no longer identify myself as such.  It is interesting to note, however, that my views on such scientific matters and their "coolness"  factor is the same now as it was then.

My joke reference was more in reference to equating randomness with magic.  Your comment seems to indicate that you equate magic with stuff we don't know yet.  Fine, I guess I can go along with that in the same sense that Clarke meant it.

However, the magic of ID is not this same thing; your analogy is bad. The magic of ID requires (at least at some level of recursivity) actual magic--something that is supernatural.

Date: 2007/09/25 13:19:25, Link
Author: blipey
Welcome back, Louis.  Sorry you're not still on holiday, and that you read this thread straight through without a whisky.  Wow.  Someone beat the spellcheck on this board--it wants me to put an "e" in whisky!

Date: 2007/09/25 13:30:06, Link
Author: blipey
I thought I might run this by the smart people--or the peanut gallery, whichever.

My nephew, who is 6 years old, flunked his math test and I'm not sure why.  They are teaching them to add by doubles.  Does anyone know what this is about?  Now, I got this story from my sister, so I have not seen the test or the teacher's comments.  But, this is what I gather is the case.

Wen asked what 5 + 7 =, he wrote down 12.  This is wrong.  You apparently need to double the smaller number and then add the remainder.  So you would get something like this written down for the proper answer:

5 + 7 = 5 + 5 + 2 = 12

Why would you teach anyone to add in this way?  You are introducing the concept of subtraction into teaching the concept of addition: 5 + 7 = 5 + 5 + (7-5) = 12.

This concept apparently works for other things as well: 3 + 8 = 3 + 3 + 5 = ?  Do you have to break that down to 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 11?

When I was told this the only thing that tickled my brain was they were trying to introduce factoring in some way or something because that's not quite right either.  It was baffling to me.

Can anyone tell me what I'm missing and why this concept would be used to teach addition.  Or even if this is a common approach to teaching addition these days?

Date: 2007/09/25 16:22:12, Link
Author: blipey
Yes, the thought of making the leap to multiplication was my first thought as well (at least it tied with retarded).  But the more I thought about it, the less I got it.  Sure, it sets up multiplication, but at the expense of actually being able to learn addition.  It also seems that you are teaching addition by introducing concepts that would not have been learned yet (subtraction).  It still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Date: 2007/09/25 16:33:05, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk is fond of saying that conversation with me is impossible.  

Here is the proof.

The anonymous comment #1 is mine.  As usual, she has no reply.  So I posted this:
See.  Here is where the conversation breaks down.  It isn't because of me.  You made a post.  I made a reply.  IN my reply, I put forth an argument (Behe employs no numbers in his argument, thereby making it undata-like).  I was not rude in my reply.

You will ignore my reply.  You will make no counter argument.  You will show no examples of Behe doing what I claim he did not.

You will then say "It is impossible to have a conversation with you."

You will notice that the conversation breaks down in your court, not mine.

Obviously, I cannot be reasoned with.

Date: 2007/09/26 08:14:34, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 25 2007,20:56)
Hi Blipey,

You posted your comment to my blog this morning, and I put it through because it's a fair question.  

I wanted very badly to attend a lecture at KSU this afternoon, so I worked my tail off so that I could take off early to do so.  I left for Manhattan at 2:30p and got home around 7:00p.  Then I fed my kids, and I'm still prodding them to get their homework done.  My time was limited it evasion or whatever, I simply don't care.

I can't point you to the data you want because I just don't have the time to dig.  I can't imagine that Behe has written two books on this subject and not worked through data in regard to the reverse engineering of the flagellum or other molecular machines.  I also know that many mainstream scientists have considered how molecular machines could have evolved, so ID advocates are not the only ones working on this particular problem.  

I have yet to read Behe's new book in it's entirety due to time restraints as well...I'm about a quarter of the way I can't tell you if he provides what you're looking for in it either.  Even if I had read the whole book, I'm merely a lay person, so I simply don't have the background to discuss this subject and would have to refer you to someone else anyway.  

The reason why I find it difficult to carry on a conversation with you is because your only interest in me is to stop me.  You've stated in the past that you believe I'm a detriment to the state of Kansas, and it's people like me that you intend to highlight as ignorant, wrong, etc., etc.  

Everything you post at my sight comes directly back here, where you then proceed to moan and groan whether I respond to your posts or not.  It's a no winner.  If you haven't noticed, you're about the only one that keeps resurfacing this thread over and over.  Just let it go.  

I'd consider talking to you privately about some of these issues, but I know you have no interest in that because when I tried that in the past, you posted our private conversation publically, so I no longer trust you.  For you, it's all about taking me down, not carrying on a meaningful conversation.  I don't want to waste my time on that kind of nonsense.

Thank-you for putting my question through.  As for the rest, here's what I think.

I think it's fair that you wanted to attend the lecture and I probably would have done the same thing.  I like going to those kinds of things.  So, no, I'm not going to call that evasion.  The reason many of us scream evasion has little to do with specific instances and more to do with the Ftk who cried wolf.  If you didn't so often skip answering questions (ones that could be answered simply based on your opinion sometimes) with the excuse of "don't have the time" we would never have started crying evasion.  Sometimes you have to judge a person on his body of work.  Which is a topic for a separate comment as concerns ID.

If you haven't read the book, it is understandable that you might not be able to point to the data.  However, if you haven't read the book, it is interesting that you DO point to it as something to take seriously.  Is there a basis for that?

As for my asking you to point to the data, your understanding of the argument bears only very slightly on this request (much less than your actually having read the wole book, for example).  If Behe had provided any data in the book, you should be able to copy it or quote it.  That requires little understanding of what the data may mean, only the understanding that this chart, table, or list of mathematical results qualifies as data.

"My only interest is to stop you"?  Hmmm.  That certainly play into my goals.  As a practical goal, it is probably foremost, but in an ideal situation it is not my primary goal--that would be getting you to look at the data and to THINK about it ONE ITEM AT A TIME instead of the scatalogical and disjointed manner that you do.

Everything at your blog does indeed come back here (actually only about 50% of it) because you fail to post most of it--relevant or not.  I keep resurfacing this thread because I think it keeps doing what I hoped it would do.  If you're as thick-skinned as you tell stevestory you are (just a couple of posts up thread) why do you care if this thread keeps resurfacing?  I thought you liked the attention?

As for a private conversation, I've said this to you at least 4 times before this.  You never intended to have a conversation with me in the first place.  Your first correspondence stated that you would never even think of having a private discussion with me.  If you've forgotten that I can forward it to you as a refresher.  I thought that was about the worst way to enter into a discussion (which you had invited me into) imaginable.  So I called you on it.  Whether or not you agree with how I handled it, I don't care, but the conversation has broken down in your court on that one as well.

Whenever you would like to start a meaningful conversation, I'm game.  Of course, you've never initiated anything even vaguely like a meaningful exchange, so I won't hold my breath.

Date: 2007/09/26 08:29:31, Link
Author: blipey
You mean W.C. Fields, my little chickadee.

Date: 2007/09/26 08:57:30, Link
Author: blipey

Very well put.  And let this be a lesson to all, holiday results in eloquence...or drunkenness, one of them.  Probably the second.

Date: 2007/09/26 09:30:14, Link
Author: blipey
Can't imagine why my answers might be "scatalogical and disjointed"?

Is this a question for me?  If so, I'll say that it is because you can't focus and have no understanding of any of the issues presented so you revert to throwing out any talking point you've recalled hearing.  If you're talking to yourself, I can't help you.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I am trying to answer to several arrows being thrown my way?  I've never posted to a thread in these forums where I haven't been targeted *immediately* by endless questions from numerous people at a time.  That often makes it difficult to answer everyone unless I quit my day job altogether.

I know it's easier to blame your inability to answer questions on others, but for pete's sake try to take a little responsibility in your life.  Pick a single question, JUST ONE DAMN QUESTION, and answer it.  This would be beneficial to you in several ways.

1.  It might speak well to your ability to answer questions.
2.  It would show you are genuine in your desire to participate in a conversation.
3.  It would show that you are able to process data and make decisions.
4.  It would allow YOU to dictate the direction of the conversation.

The ability to pick out the important, or even the most accessible, information in a situation is something that most human beings are able to do any time they want.  Why you have trouble with this is beyond me.  For example, a busy bartender may have 6 custmers at his bar, 5 drinks to make for the floor, someone on the phone, a keg to change, etc.  Does he complain that he has too many things on his plate?  Does he pick one task and get it done?  Is he able to work in such a way that he incorporates as many of the tasks as possible into one course of action?

You, on the other hand, choose to freeze like a deer in headlights, only remembering to move so you can run for the hills.

Perhaps that is why I have a soft spot for Richardhughes.  Right from the start, he reminded people that I'm just a lay person and that you should throw one question at me at a time rather than use me as open target practice.

Boohoo.  You kep reminding us that you are a layperson.  However, you only point that out when you want to avoid answering questions.  You conveniently forget that you are a lay person when making statements like evolution is obviously false...or that textbook teaches stuff that is merely speculation...or Behe's math is strong...or, or, or, or....

That is why I suggested that perhaps we talk privately where I could give you my undivided attention.  But, you have been such a thorough jerk to me from the very start and perceive me as some ominous enemy.  When you decided to share our private conversation, I pretty much gave up on you altogether.

Once again you have managed to completely miss the ubstance of what I said.  Do you have nothing to say on the issue of YOU NEVER WANTING TO ENGAGE IN A CONVERSATION?

Date: 2007/09/26 10:05:31, Link
Author: blipey
Materialist = believes that matter is all that exists.  No designer - no design - no specific purpose

Are you saying that a designer would not be made of matter?  This seems to be what you are saying.  Correct me if I am wrong.

If this is what you are saying, however, how would you propose that science study something that is immaterial?

Date: 2007/09/26 10:19:55, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 25 2007,23:20)
I agree that the procedure does seem a little odd, but what gets me is that a correct answer, found by a correct method, was marked wrong.

I am currently teaching basic mathematics, up to about Grade 9, to adults and one thing I stress to them is that very often there is more than one correct way of solving a problem, although one may be preferred (most people find it easier, it tends to result in less mistakes, it leads on to more advanced techniques, etc). Unless the question called for a specific method, I mark as correct any valid method that gives the correct answer.

Marking a correct answer as wrong is a sure-fire way to cause a learner to lose interest in the subject.

I agree with this.  I don't know if the paper required him to add using the doubling method or not.  If it did, I understand the marking, but that method of teaching really gets on my nerves.  As you said, there are usually multiple ways to learn a subject and requiring everyone to use the same method is not a healthy educational method in my opinion.

My brain does wrap around the idea of doubling as a method for addition, but I still don't see its overall usefulness as THE METHOD for learning addition.  Perhaps it is not though.

@ Ftk:

That was a better description of methodology than I got from my sister, thanks.

Date: 2007/09/26 10:24:43, Link
Author: blipey

did you miss this?
b) and equivocation of the word "accident"

Date: 2007/09/26 10:30:46, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 26 2007,10:23)
Hi, FTK.

I know you've got a lot of questions in the queue, but since the one I asked doesn't require any research, I thought you might answer it (and I promise to answer any questions you might have for me). Again, how do you tell when someone highly trained in a subject is bullshitting about that subject, when it is a subject that you admittedly don't understand?

Because of the bad suit and desire to drink cheap wine?

We should start a pool to see when Ftk will address this question.  It really is pertinent.

I don't believe that she will ever answer it.  Creationists and science deniers are never interested in questions because they don't truly understand the purpose of a question; to a creationist a question isn't a useful thing.

If questions were important, the possibility that they could be answered in a manner inconsistent with your a priori beliefs would exist.  This is not allowable.

Creationists don't often answer questions and rarely even acknowledge them.  But what's more interesting to me is that they almost never ask them.  Sure, they state quitea few things but never bother to ask anything--with the occasional exception of religious questions.

Date: 2007/09/26 10:35:56, Link
Author: blipey
Blipey:  just the other side of never

Argystokes:  2:00pm CST

Date: 2007/09/26 10:38:27, Link
Author: blipey
Argy's out, plenty of spots available between 2:00pm CST and the heat death of the universe.

Date: 2007/09/26 16:33:52, Link
Author: blipey
Because he's important, really important.

Date: 2007/09/26 17:02:11, Link
Author: blipey
Oh, oh, oh.  This is going to be the time that Ftk is right and some creationist answers a question!  Nice going AFDave.  Way to prove your fellow creationists right.  Or are you not going to answer the question?  That's leaving Ftk out on a limb, you know.  I know you like to stick together and all....

Date: 2007/09/26 22:16:17, Link
Author: blipey

Please tell us, Ftk, in your infinite wisdom how the hell any of your bullshit in that post actually answered the question.  Even better, could you point out were it even ADDRESSED the question.

I'll make it simpler for you.  Answer this:

Can you tell when an expert is bullshitting you in THE SUBJECT OF THEIR EXPERTISE when you are admittedly ignorant in the same subject?

This is a yes / no question.

Christ on a crutch.  You wouldn't last 4 seconds in a logic class, a rhetoric class, a script analysis class, an intro to acting class, or a composition class.

Date: 2007/09/26 22:22:09, Link
Author: blipey
Hey Dave,

what exactly is high-tech in the molecular motor?  Is it made of tungsten alloy or something?  Or is it labeled "made in China"?

Date: 2007/09/26 22:27:46, Link
Author: blipey
Just in case you still don't understand the question, here's another hint.

Let's say that Dude A, an expert juggler, tells Dude B that it is possible to do a 7 ball pattern that is 7-2-4-2.  Dude B has no idea what Dude A is talking about.  In what way might Dude B call BS on Dude A?

Study Aids:

1.  It doesn't matter what Dude A ate for breakfast.
2.  It doesn't matter that Dude B once saw a juggling show on the Daytona Pier.
3.  The pizza shop on the corner is painted blue--yet this doesn't matter.

Date: 2007/09/26 22:29:44, Link
Author: blipey
That is another reason why you won't see me promoting my "personal opinions"

As you have never presented any data, all you have are personal opinions.

Oh, excuse me, "personal opinions".  Why are those in quotes again?  Are they different from your run of the mill personal thoughts on stuff?

Date: 2007/09/27 10:03:01, Link
Author: blipey
I mean, come on, how the bloody heck would I ever convince Darwinists that *I* can spot BS.

I'm sure you really meant to say "anyone"?  Or are you trying to tell us that every human being on the planet is defined by there view on Darwin?  Wow.  THAT would be stupid.

Date: 2007/09/27 10:04:27, Link
Author: blipey
When he asks "How did Noah get all those animals on the ark" what do you say?

I explain it to him from the viewpoint of many competent creation scientists.  We also talk about the numerous ancient stories regarding the worldwide flood.  He understands that some type of massive flood occured, and he also realizes that many believe it was a local flood.

So, you don't answer your kid's questions either?  That's kind of a jackass thing to do.  If he asks HOW, you just BS him around and never give him an answer?

Date: 2007/09/27 10:13:58, Link
Author: blipey
And just so this BS from experts thing is clear.  The question I asked of you was indeed a yes/no question--you should try reading once in while.  I asked:

Can you tell when an expert is Bullshitting you in the subject of their expertise when you admittedly know nothing about the same subject?

Notice that this IS a yes/no question.

Anyway.  You position seems to be that you can tell BS when you hear it, due entirely to your opinion that it is BS.

This seems strange to me as you have admitted on this very thread that you NEVER POST YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS.

So, which is it?

1.  You have good reasons to KNOW that experts are BSing you.

2.  It is your OPINION that experts are BSing you, you tell us that all the time.

Notice that if number 2 is true, you are a liar.  Notice that if number 1 is true you have not answered the question and you are a liar for claiming to have done so.

I'll also pick the heat death of the universe for your resolution of this "back up my claims Ftk" issue.

Date: 2007/09/27 10:18:58, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 27 2007,10:14)
I don't think its being driven by Dawkins and I don't think he's doing anything in that realm.

Well, he was certainly excited about it at his KU lecture.  He's positive they will come up with a natural answer for the origin of the universe fairly soon.

I really can't think of much that would be cooler from a pure knowledge standpoint.  Really cutting edge, exciting ideas.  Is there a particular reason that you aren't excited about possible research in this direction, Ftk?  I know you're such a lover of the science, and so curious, and interested and all.  Just not in this area?

Date: 2007/09/27 10:50:17, Link
Author: blipey
Hey, Blipey, you really don't want to go there.  You REALLY don't.

Oh yes I do.  You seem to think that all Darwinists and Atheists are mean.  You whine all the time about how terrible you are treated.  I don't think you know what asshole treatment really is, but I think YOU want to go there.  So here it is.  Open your ears, and really listen to what I have to say.  Open your eyes and read what has been typed for you.

Don't you ever presume to know what it is that others think.  You need to learn that there really are different ways to look at the world.  You're always claiming that people don't understand where you're coming from.  I call bullshit.  I've written to you about where I think you;re coming from.  I've put it in my own words.  I've framed the arguments about ToE from both sides in my own words.  Now I don;t know whether you agree with me or not, due to your dislike of both ends of a question.  If you'd actually engage anyone in anything resembling a discussion perhaps you'd understand that.

Don't you for *one* second tell me that I don't answer my kids questions.  My kids, their lives, and their education is the most important thing in my life.

Not if that's the answer you give him to a "how" question.  That answer would require a methodology.  You didn't bother to give a methodology, so you didn't answer the question.  That was my claim and it is true.  Now, with more data (an answer from you), I could change my mind and say that you did answer his question.  

It is interesting that this is coming from a guy who goes to his trusty forum members to bitch about how his nephew is learning math, although he has NO clue as to what the hell he's talking about.

I was not bitching.  I was asking a question.  You may notice that by reading the OP.  I didn't know the answer to something that I would like to know the answer to.  I thought the people here might have more information on the subject than I did.  This turns out to be true (even you had more information than I did).

Just because you never ask questions, don't presume that no one does.  Just because you don't care to expand your knowledge base in any significant way, don't presume that others are as ignorant as you.  Just because you're happy being stupid, don't presume that others are equally happy with the gaps in their knowledge.

This is the question my OP asked:

Can anyone tell me what I'm missing and why this concept would be used to teach addition.  Or even if this is a common approach to teaching addition these days?

This quite clearly demonstrates that I think I am missing something in my analysis of the situation.  I am leaving open the possibility that this is, in fact, a good teaching method.  If it is, I want to know why.

This is not bitching.  This is a search for knowledge that I currently do not have.

Just because YOU don't find answers when you live your life, don't assume that others are equally incompetent.

It's also interesting that you and your sister didn't just GO TO THE TEACHER first and question her about his grade and this teaching technique rather than immediately complaining that what she's teaching seems idiotic.

I'll buy tickets on AirTran next time that there's a minor maths question 1,000 miles from my home.  Sorry.

Please show me where in my OP that I claimed this practice was idiotic.  Please show me anything in my OP that was anything other than asking what this was all about.

My point being that most of you people NEVER GO TO THE SOURCE.   You just demonize the source and rely on your own interpretations rather than ever come in direct contact with the *source of evil* in order to carry on meaningful discussions about these issues.

We never go to the source?  How's that list of peer-reviewed papers you've read going?  Ever send that along to Arden?  No?  Interesting.  I tried to find stuff on-line.  I tried to dig up a few textbooks to see if I could read the stuff from the source.  I'm not a teacher and I don't have real easy access to 1st grade texts.  I couldn't find anything on-line except for the worksheets, no actual text lessons on the method.

So I thought I'd ask here.  I wasn't sure if people could give me an answer or not--not too many teachers of 6 year olds here, either.  But, why not?  It's better than flailing away on my own.

Once again, I think you need to substantiate where I thought the teacher was "a source of evil".

If you don't, I think you should move along to a different forum or stay at home and tell your children the Earth is simultaneously 6,000 years old and 4.5 billion years old.  It'll do them a world of good.

Date: 2007/09/27 11:00:18, Link
Author: blipey
He can research all he likes, but he shouldn't condemn the concept before he knows what he's talking about.  

I think this is another thing you need to substantiate or go away.  How about it "All about the Substantiation Ftk"?

Date: 2007/09/27 11:09:35, Link
Author: blipey
Besides that, if she were paying attention in the first place and talking to her child about what he was learning, she'd have understood the method from the start.

I can't say how my sister raises her children on a daily basis (1,000 miles away and all--or do you think I should pop in every Monday to check the source material?), but as far as I know she is very involved in their education.

When I have visited, Carson often wants to do math or talk about things he did in school.  My sister is usually reading with him and they go to the museums and library quite a bit because he likes it.

He's a 6 year old who reads on a 6th grade level for comprehension and at a slightly higher lever for vocabulary.  He's not quite as strong in math, but still above his grade level.  The school is try to figure out what grade levels to send him to for different subjects.  My sister has plenty of work to do trying to get him into the proper schooling situation, let alone trying to talk to 4 teachers, a principal, and the superintendent in the first 3 weeks of school.

So, take your kids, lie to them, and shove it, Ftk.  When your kids can tell me how old they think the Earth is, maybe we can talk about education again.  They'll have to limit their answer to 10,000 -OR- 4,500,000,000.  Not both.  You'll have to teach them how to make decisions and not waffle--I could help with that, if you need it.

Date: 2007/09/27 17:21:23, Link
Author: blipey
Larry FreeFromFeta already posts there.  Some of the best legal advice in the world at Reasonable Kansans.

Date: 2007/09/27 19:55:03, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk was right!  The death of science is near!

Astronomers don't know what the hell they're doing!

Pertinent admission:

"We're confused and excited, but it could open up a whole new research field," Lorimer told

Will Lorimer finally admit 6,000 year old Earth?

Date: 2007/09/28 08:37:58, Link
Author: blipey
I think you are thinking of clowns to be honest. You see, people laugh at clowns. People also laugh at ID "research". So in your mind "clowns = ID" because they both make people laugh? Is that it?

No. No. No.  People laugh BECAUSE of clowns.  And clowns who are doing their job also teach their audience something.  I take a great deal of umbrage to this statement.

I think I'm over it now.

Date: 2007/09/28 08:50:21, Link
Author: blipey
Yes. Yes, I did.  I like to remind people that clowns (and by extension theatre, film, and fine arts) present wonderful educational opportunities.  Many people just don't think of these disciplines as practical.

And I should take this opportunity to apologize for being so horribly mean to you, Oldman.  I can't believe I was so personal in my hatred for you that I let it reflect in my deep and biting comment.

Is this the kind of thing you're looking for, Ftk.  I can offer goofy apologies for things I didn't do all day long.

On that note, how're the following coming:

1.  Backing up your statement that I believe my nephew's teacher to be "a source of evil".

2.  Backing up your statement that I condemned the concept a priori.

Nice to know that you're still the same old disrespectful blowhard that demands respect from others.

Date: 2007/09/28 14:53:45, Link
Author: blipey
Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.

Good stuff.  An omnipotent being is masculine?  In what way?  Does he look like a man?  Or does he just like football and not the ballet?

Date: 2007/09/28 17:04:53, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 28 2007,14:44)
For example, the estimate of the date for the writing of the gospel of John is less than 1/200.

Hey, we know the author, exact year and place of writing of Dianetics, much more precisely than the Gospel of John. Obviously this proves that Scientology is The One True Faith.

Praise Xenu!

You have spoken what should not be spoken!  My body thetans say I must kill you now.

Praise Xenu!

Date: 2007/09/30 22:34:40, Link
Author: blipey
Wow.  You go to work for a weekend and absolutely nothing changes.

Ftk still won't answer a question.  She still won't acknowledge that questions exist.  She won't acknowledge things that she said mere minutes before her faked amnesia.  She complains of relativism while she herself believes in the absolute of the Earth being 6,000 years old...or 4.5 billion years old--you know, whichever.

And she still won't back up statements even though she's in her new "all about the supporting details" phase.

Nice, Ftk.  while we're at it, how about backing up a couple days and backing up your claim that I think my nephew's teacher is "an instrument of evil".  Or the one where I condemned a maths teaching method a priori.


I'd say you bring the funny like no one else I've ever encountered, but the sobs make it impossible.

Date: 2007/10/01 09:29:54, Link
Author: blipey

Since you've not commented on the plethora of examples given as to why people spend time and resources promulgating lies, I am to understand that you agree that these are valid arguments.

Using that as a starting point, do you imagine that it might be possible (not even likely, but just possible) that ID supporters could (just maybe) be lying for a paycheck?

Does anyone lie for a paycheck?

Have you ever heard the term "fraud"?  What about "embezzlement"?  Could these two things be combined int something that people would spend a lot of energy lying about?

Would you like to retract your statement that people would never spend time and energy lying about something?

Do you think about what you type?  Ever?

Date: 2007/10/01 12:27:43, Link
Author: blipey
Oh dear.  Not only is Ftk promoting homosexual stereo-tpyes, she really doesn't like those homo, liberal, good-for-nothing Hollywood types either:

Or, some may not be as choosy when it comes to just a casual fling.  You'll notice that many actors/actresses are known for flipping back and forth.  It just depends on the acceptance of these behaviors.  Personally, I think casual sex of any kind is harmful to establishing long lasting relationships...which leads to the breakdown of the family and children drifting from one home to the next on a  regular basis.

have you been talking to Joe Gallien more than is healthy?  He doesn't much cotton to those damn artsy types either.  What the hell good could come from the fine arts, huh?  I'll bet every stinking one of them is a card-carrying atheist, commie, who's also a pedophile when he wants to be.  Have you ever hired an entertainer for a child's birthday party?  I certainly hope not.

And on the last part of your ignorant babbling, is there any chance you'll spend a few days blogging about the evils of heterosexual couples being bad parents?  You know, since you love het gay and all?

Date: 2007/10/01 12:39:59, Link
Author: blipey
More memory problems for Ftk.

On the mental states of young people.

my *personal* opinion (we all have them) is that 12-16 year olds are not old enough to deal with the emotional turbulence of casual sex.

Yet later on in the same comment she says:

Also, the case could be that a very young couple are truly in love and are determined to get married and make it work

Apparently it is WAY easier to make a good decision on who you want to spend the rest of your life wit--at age 13--than I thought.

Date: 2007/10/01 14:58:23, Link
Author: blipey
How exactly is the following point a piece of evidence that you can use to make any decision at all?

2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making.

That may or may not be the case.  The point is "how can this be a deciding factor in decision making"?  If that was the case, then the point number 2 should include something like "chronological order of the fossils shown to be incorrect BECAUSE..."

I note nothing like that, what am I missing?

Date: 2007/10/01 15:34:18, Link
Author: blipey
No.  You unambiguously state that 12-16 year olds cannot handle casual sex.

You also unambiguously state that you believe the case can be made that 12-16 year olds can be in love and make a go of a marriage.

Which of the above cases do you think is easier to handle?

I think she'll ignore this question.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:03:59, Link
Author: blipey
In order to build the car that you drive on a daily basis, did someone have to invent the internal combustion engine?

In order to drink the pilsner style beer in the fridge, did someone have to invent refrigeration?

In order to understand the car you drive, do you have to understand the workings of an internal combustion engine?

In order to understand the Urquel in your hand, do you have to understand the principal of refrigeration?

Date: 2007/10/02 09:16:02, Link
Author: blipey

If ever we were bombed right to the brink of extinction, how would you propose that we rebuild the modern world?

Is it your belief that this could be done "without understanding where things come from"?

Just by looking at a computer (the hardware only) you could recreate one from scratch?

Just by looking a loaf of bread in its plastic bag, you could make one from scratch?

Just by once having drunk a bottle of wine you could make one from scratch?

Just because you've looked through a pane of tinted glass, you could recreate one right now?

Just because you own a lawn mower, you could build one from scratch just by looking at the exterior parts you are currently familiar with?

Just because you've used a wrench and held one in your hands, you can make one from scratch to help you in your reconquering of the world?

Or, do you think it might be helpful to know about where things come from: semi-conductors, the principle of electricity, how to use yeast, to smelt, to forge, etc.

I know ID supporters are always saying you don't need to know first principles in order to figure out everything about a thing.  But, really, come on, do YOU believe that?

Date: 2007/10/02 09:19:38, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 01 2007,21:54)
Of course, from a PR point of view, having your Family Marriage Amendment backers funding the Ku Klux Klan is, well, not the absolute best thing you can do.

But it's so FAMILY close to the FAMILY right thing to FAMILY do in so many, many FAMILY ways.

You're right, saying Family helps out so much.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:29:02, Link
Author: blipey
Hey Ftk,

Why are you always posting links with "verbiage from" the transcripts?

Can you not just read the actual transcripts for yourself?  Is your educational level not high enough to read the long words?  Oh, that's right, you don't believe that being able to discuss things in your own words is important at all.  I forgot.

Could you tell us what you think the transcripts tell us?  You know, yourself, with no quotes (other than of the actual transcript).

Just to introduce a question you might actually address:

What do you think of women in the priesthood?  You know, your own thoughts , in your own words, with no quotes.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:33:44, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:21)

All the examples are intelligently designed machines.  Try again and relate it to mitosis.

Wow.  Could you have missed the point any worse than that?

Before we discuss the point, how exactly is yeast an intelligently designed machine?  Oh wait, I got it.

"According to Christopher's world view, yeast is an intelligently designed machine."

Got it.

Let's try it again, this time apply it to the actual point I was making.  This was nicely laid out in the direct question at the end of my comment:

Do YOU believe that it is necessary to understand first principles in order to know how a thing works?

All of the examples are of processes, not machines.

Yeast is an intelligently designed machine....marf!

Date: 2007/10/02 09:52:33, Link
Author: blipey

Since you are a proponent of front-loading, how does your stance that you have to know nothing of origins to understand current things even make sense?  It would seem that front-loading would be the ultimate we-have-to-know-the-origins scenario.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:54:26, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:51)

Since when is a lawn mower a process?  I do not need to understand nor accept evolution to understand mitosis.  I have not found internet articles that deal with the evo. explanation on the origin of mitosis.

The question was not "What is a lawn-mower"?

The question was "Without knowing anything about the origins of a lawnmower, how exactly would you reconstruct one?"

Date: 2007/10/02 11:47:50, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:09)

I will plea ignorance.  What exactly is front-loading?  I have never run across that concept.  Thanks!

Okay, I'll assume that you are telling the truth; but I am tickled pink every time I read that.

Front-loading is the concept that God (or really smart aliens who are slightly off-beige) loaded all the information that could possibly be needed into the very first thing (being, human, amoeba, whatever).  All of the information ever needed was loaded into this thing on the front end.  It has been as ever spiraling degeneration since then.

Look here for the discussion at AtBC.

Date: 2007/10/02 11:56:39, Link
Author: blipey
Behe said the bowling ball didn't knock over the pins.

He was shown the ball coming to rest just past the pins.
He was shown people all around him throwing bowling balls at pins and knocking them down.
Behe said that wasn't what necessarily happened in his lane.
Behe said a gust of wind blew his pins down.

Do you understand the analogy yet?

Which part of this analogy do you disagree with?  Please be specific.

Date: 2007/10/02 11:59:29, Link
Author: blipey
Nope.  That's a pretty good question.  In fact, it cuts right to the point of this discussion.


Please continue to ignore this very simple question.

Date: 2007/10/02 13:26:36, Link
Author: blipey
I might have missed it, but where in that giant pile of pig shit was the answer to my question?  Hold on, I'll take a second look.

Remember, the question was:


Ftk's first paragraph:  
Quote's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.

No mention of the direct object "Behe" anywhere.

Ftk's second paragraph:  
I would like to note that conversations like this are what lead me to question the Darwinist take on many issues that I may not have the scientific expertise to *completely* understand.  You might remember our previous conversation about my *BS detector*.  I also realize that Darwinists come at many of these issues from very, very strange angles.

Still no Behe in there.  Now we no longer even have discussion of the indirect object of the literature.  We DO have a little geometry, however--makes it look sciency.

Ftk's third paragraph:  
Also, blipe, you might consider what the general public thinks when they hear about this silly "stack of books" antic.  Obviously, this was staged as court room theatre in an attempt to run with it to the media.  The books were there and ready to be rolled out.  Now, everyone knows that Behe would not have read every single ancient document in regard to the speculation as to how the immune system evolved.  But, obviously, he has read more than just the most current papers on the topic.  He's been discussing the issue for years.

Now we have a mention of the literature and Behe makes an appearance in the same paragraph.  This looks promising.  OH!  Noes!  Behe is not connected with the literature in question.  No banana for you.

Ftk's fourth paragraph:  
No doubt he had read several of the articles found in that stack, but like everyone else in that courtroom and probably every scientist in the country, he would not have read all of it, and it *certainly* wouldn't be necessary to support his case.  

Still no mention of the method Behe uses to understand things he has never read.  Which ones did he read?  How do you know?  Given that he read 4 of them, how does he know what's in the others--WHICH HE HASN'T READ? (40 GOTO "top")

and lastly:  
The whole episode was very sophomoric...

No.  Most sophomores I know can answer a direct question.

Date: 2007/10/02 13:34:04, Link
Author: blipey
Wouldn't she first need to at least read the textbook you sent her?  How's that coming, btw, Ftk?

Date: 2007/10/02 13:46:25, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,13:39)
FTK, it's the equivilent of Professor Dawkins criticising the bible without even having read it.

Behe don't read the papers, Behe not know what Behe missing.

JHC, that don't make no sense, oldman!  Anyone can see through your pathetic attempt at making sense.  Anyone who's name is FTK, that is.

What exactly do find objectionable or factually incorrect with oldman's very brief statement, Ftk?

Thanks for ignoring this one as well.

Date: 2007/10/02 13:52:17, Link
Author: blipey
I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says

What about Walt Brown?  Or Dembski?  Or DaveScot?  Do you apply the same critical thinking to their statements as well?  Could you please provide one link to anything you've ever said that questions even one piece of what they call science?

If you're really equal opportunity, you will have done this--it'll be easy to post the evidence.

On that note, are you going to post equal numbers of articles critical of YEC at Young Cosmos--being that you're all for critical analysis and all?


Date: 2007/10/02 14:00:09, Link
Author: blipey
quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.

This is a statement.  STATEMENT.  A STATEMENT!  Would you care to back it up?  Do you PERSONALLY know what Behe reads?  Are you sure he reads about the immune system a lot?  Why?  How?

Date: 2007/10/02 14:01:58, Link
Author: blipey
I'll rephrase it, since you're stupid.

Is it possible for any human being to know what a book contains without reading it?


Date: 2007/10/02 14:07:06, Link
Author: blipey
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

Date: 2007/10/02 14:11:15, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Okay, let me see if I'm understanding your assumption correctly.  You're telling me that, though Behe has been considering the IC of the immune system for near a decade, he has only read one paper on the paper from 2005?

Holy buckets of monkey shite, you people really do think that IDists are insane.

Sigh.... :(

Yes.  Insane people do things like avoiding simple questions because they can't process them.

Speaking of which:

Is it possible for any human being to know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Date: 2007/10/02 14:15:45, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:14)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:09)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

Or perhaps they are just honest, and you cannot bear to come to that realization.

Well, then.  In your own words, what do you think that quote means?

Date: 2007/10/02 14:18:04, Link
Author: blipey
And while you're telling us IN YOUR OWN WORDS what As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration. means,

could you also pontificate on:

Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Date: 2007/10/02 14:22:08, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 02 2007,14:20)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:18)
Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Blipey - NOT counting the bible?

No, no, no.  Especially counting the Bible.

Date: 2007/10/02 14:37:22, Link
Author: blipey
I asked:

And while you're telling us IN YOUR OWN WORDS what As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration. means,

Ftk responded:

Applying a dose of AtBC vulgarity, that quote translated by the voice of a true Darwinist would be as follows...

[high pitched whine]

"Crap... I really, really want to figure out how in the bloody hell my majestic and all powerful evolutionary mechanisms can account for the infinite complexity of the immune system (among many other highly complex systems and machines within the human body).  

I am simply frustrated beyond belief that I cannot figure it out so that I can put a muzzle on these damn ID theorists once and for all."

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]

I had no idea you were a Darwinist.

How about telling us in your own words

Is it possible for a human being to know what is contained in a book which he has not read?

Date: 2007/10/02 14:43:17, Link
Author: blipey
After several months of thinking about it, Ftk, have you decided why being able to discuss topics in your own words is something to be held in contempt?  Do you respect people who can discuss things in their own words?  If you find people who can't rephrase a topic into their own words, would you hire that person as a teacher?

While expounding on this, what do you think about:  
Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?

Notice that this is a yes / no question.  I won't even ask you to expound in your first comment.  Just a one-word answer will do.

Date: 2007/10/02 14:51:42, Link
Author: blipey

The situation is:  the world has suffered a terrible disaster.  Much of what we have now is no longer operational, or even in existence.

Based solely on your having once seen a lawnmower, or eaten a loaf of bread, or used a wrench, could you recreate these things?

Or, would you need to have some understanding of the principles which allowed these things to be created?

You have stated that you need not know how things came into being to understand the things themselves.  I want to know how far you take this concept?  You seem to have a contempt for history and prior knowledge.

I want to know if you truly believe that just having known about a thing, you can recreate it.

Date: 2007/10/02 15:59:52, Link
Author: blipey
Hi Ftk,

Here's a simple question for you.  You seem to have missed it the previous 8 quintillion times it's been asked.  So, as a service to you, just so you won't look like a moron who has no idea what they're talking about, or a piece of crap who doesn't now how to have a discussion, here it s again:

Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Date: 2007/10/02 16:06:43, Link
Author: blipey
Not only is atheism a religious belief.  Not only is atheism a scientific belief.  It is now a logical system!

Reggie said...

   Skatje is arguing for bestiality?

   This is incredible.

   If its not a joke, its a sign of the logic of atheism; after all, whatever is, is. Your ethical opinions are purely subjective.

   6:09 AM

Reggie said...

   Oh, my God!

   It WAS Skatje.

   My sincere apologies. The atheist logic has collapsed to points I did not think possible.

   WHY would she post that here, though?

   1:50 PM

I wonder if it's like boolean?

Oops.  Linky-linky.

Date: 2007/10/02 16:42:04, Link
Author: blipey
And they can't even try to demonstrate problems with the speculations until they read the literature and find out what the speculations are.

Hey, Ftk.  How that answer coming?  Do you agree with the above quote?

Date: 2007/10/03 09:56:06, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2007,09:48)
In other news, it's nice to see that George Bush is motivated by a deep desire to help the kids, too.


Yeah.  One more dufus decision to chalk up on his side.  SCHIP is one of the most succesful bills in the history of legislating in this country:

1. Huge bi-partisan support in Congress (It passed with a very healthy majority, but borderline veto override)

2. The vociferous support of nearly 90% of the nations governors

3. Really liked by the 20 million or so kids it helped and their families

Nicely done.  Hey, Ftk, you're fairly well so lost on the conservative side that you can't see the middle, what do you think about SCHIP?

Date: 2007/10/03 09:56:54, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2007,09:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2007,15:51)
Plus, God tells him to do stuff. Directly

Directly? God is Cornish? I knew it.


P.S. I realise I may have to explain this joke.

Yes. Please.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:02:54, Link
Author: blipey
P.S. Anyone else want to bet me that she WON'T run away from the question? Anyone? Anyone????

Egads, man.  Do you think I'm made of money?  Stop your taunting.

Date: 2007/10/03 11:23:27, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:21)

It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?

Oh good, more not stamp collecting.

Date: 2007/10/03 11:36:11, Link
Author: blipey
It is the origin of the beetle type which is not a science question.

Are you saying that the scientific community cannot, in any way, ever, even in theory, discover the origin of beetles?


Date: 2007/10/03 12:21:30, Link
Author: blipey
That was very nice, JonF.  I wonder if Christopher will address any of your very specific arguments?

Date: 2007/10/03 14:33:45, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,14:07)

What I am saying is that science has limits.  As no one can ever go back into the distant past (like when beetles "evolved", then no one can ever say for certain how they came about.  So we agree to study beetles now as knowing when they came about does nothing for us now.

So, you're saying that the origin of beetles can never, EVER, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, be determined by the scientific community?

Please don't avoid this.  This is a yes/no question.

Date: 2007/10/03 14:42:36, Link
Author: blipey
John F

Sorry to disappoint you, you lose the bet.

Um.  Not really.  You managed to NOT DISCUSS any of the points he made.  Money's still coming out of your pocket, Christopher.

Date: 2007/10/03 14:43:31, Link
Author: blipey

Date: 2007/10/03 14:48:06, Link
Author: blipey
That's insane.  Asking the people who want change to provide the evidence that it is a useful change?  Crazy talk.

That's why I'm a proud member of Folks for the Implementation of Hydrochloric Acid Shake Breakfasts.

No need to test, just take my word for it--you'll feel better.

Date: 2007/10/04 03:16:51, Link
Author: blipey
FTK, I've got some news for you. You don't have to do this, your keyboard already has all the letters that make up the individual words that you've been misappropriating. You don't have to steal from other people, you can make it up yourself just with those 26 letters! Or is thinking for yourself not allowed in your particular sect?

Thinking for herself is the very thing she fears most.  It is why she is so disdainful of putting things in her own words.  She, like many creationists, is simply unable to form coherent strings of information.  They don't have the education, attention span, or curiosity for it.

Date: 2007/10/04 09:41:52, Link
Author: blipey
I doubt this will be a popular idea and I seriously doubt your ability to put into your own words what you think about evolutionary biology, but I thought I'd float the suggestion anyway.

Louis, I think this idea is fabulous.  However, I don't think it will work.  Ftk has been given her own thread; it's called Reasonable Kansans.  She doesn't even bother to put down many of her own thoughts there.  It is inconceivable that she would do so here.

She can whine about this all she wants, but she has definitely taken a page from Dembski's book.  A post the other day was just a picture with the words "Suppressing scientific inquiry is un-American".  She didn't even bother to give it a title, let alone provide any commentary on it.

I commented (without publication) that this was indeed true, IMO.  I also asked what her point was.  Merely providing the picture does nothing to further conversation, especially since it isn't that controversial.  She never bothered to tell us what her point was.

Really, she never has bothered to tell us what her point is, and IMO never will.

Date: 2007/10/04 09:44:33, Link
Author: blipey
Especially when (a) Dave is a professor (i.e., has a job), and (b):

you and Dave both joined in March of this year and have almost an identical number of posts (580 for him and 550 for you).

Hey, she's getting better!  I remember a time when she used the same argument against me and had MORE POSTS in LESS TIME than me.  Good times.

Now that you're back, Ftk:

Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

Date: 2007/10/04 09:58:24, Link
Author: blipey
Hey Christopher:

My question remains unanswered and I think it is an important one.

You don't believe that the origin of beetles can ever, even in principle, be understood by the scientific community?


Date: 2007/10/04 10:08:26, Link
Author: blipey
Some of the things you take as fact in regard to scientific issues are *clearly* speculation and you regard them as irrefutable facts.

I hate to make you look stupid, but...wait, uh, no; that's not true.  Let's start again.

In order to make you look stupid, I would like to say (ah, that's better):

Could you give an example of a "clearly speculated" thing?  Just one thing will do.  In your own words--something that we take as a fact that is "clearly speculated"?

You do understand the importance of giving an example, right?  You're not stupid enough to think that a statement like that has any weight at all without providing one example of it being true, are you?

Please don't cook lunch right now.  Don't take the kids to school.  Don't go shopping.  Don't do prep work for your 3rd dinner party of the day.


Since there are so many of them, this should take you no time at all.

Thanks for being bone-numbingly stupid.

Date: 2007/10/04 10:15:47, Link
Author: blipey
@ Louis:

I just don't know why she'd post her own ideas here.  It is not a question of venue; it is a question of her ability to do the task.  I think we have a decent sample size saying that she is 100% incapable of discussing anything in her own words. Even worse, she is incapable of understanding the importance of doing so.

Date: 2007/10/04 10:38:52, Link
Author: blipey
That really is a bad thing, Ftk.

I think you may be looking in the wrong place for the culprit, however.  Look, I'm now going to give two reasons I think this--in my own words!

1.  Most everyone here would like you to do the opposite.  We don't think you've said anything of substance yet, so the problem is not that you're babbling too much but that you're not saying anything.  Please say something of note.

2.  It's really been the Dembskis, JoeGs, and DaveScots of the world that publish personal info on the web.

Date: 2007/10/04 11:23:17, Link
Author: blipey
Funny...that coming from you blipey, because at my blog you are continuously suggesting that I go private again.

Can't discuss things AND can't grasp sarcasm--at the same time!  Amazing.

You ever read the comments in which I suggest you go private?  Do you grasp the context of said comments?  On a blog so dedicated to truth, honest conversation, and practically no comments or readers?

You ever wonder if you accidentally hit the wrong button and your blog IS private?  Only to find out that there are really just no comments?

Date: 2007/10/04 11:32:26, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,10:12)

On the beetle issue, I said that a hunch or idea may surface, but we will never know for sure.  Just like the apatosaurus had the wrong head for 50 years until something newer came along...therefore if the origin were ever determined, then someday something new would overturn that.  So I guess my answer is no.

So, since you have now come out strong in your stance that the scientific community will never, ever, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, discover the origin of the beetle, I have a follow-up question.

Why?  No, wait let me more specific since will just wheedle out it otherwise.

What specific impediment(s) do you cite that will thwart the scientific community's search for the origin of the beetle?

Please be very specific in your claims of obstacles that are EVEN IN PRINCIPLE impossible to overcome.

Date: 2007/10/04 11:40:48, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2007,11:31)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,10:47)
ie.. Dembski's doubt the admin and regents addresses are common knowledge and listed on the internet.

This is factually incorrect. We did some research (you know, checking stuff out) and I personally found that at least one of the numbers was unlisted (reverse lookup). Other posters also found that although some of the numbers were publicly "look-up-abble" some were not.

You've been proved wrong. Fact. Get over it.

What a load of BS.  Since Dembski found them, they MUST BE PUBLIC.  Right, Ftk?  Or is this another mistake you're going to ignore?  How about backing up some of your comments, in your new incarnation of truthfulness?

Why don't you whine some more about how Wes mistreats you by allowing you to come back and comment on condition that you will change your ways only you don't change and still get to comment?

That's a killer to your martyr complex, isn't it?

Date: 2007/10/04 23:10:28, Link
Author: blipey
Know what this book says?

Well, I never read it, but it says in there that Ftk is an overweight, insomniac that lost her hair in a freak chemo accident and she also like to drink the blood of small rodents.

So, once again:

Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

You never answered this question, or even came close.  If you did, you could link to the answer in about 1 minute.

Date: 2007/10/04 23:17:25, Link
Author: blipey
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Oh, I'd also like to mention that I've had enough of that flaming queer Ftk calling me names and telling everyone that I don't have a full deck.

Gee.  Did you miss junior high, Ftk?  Are you trying to grasp a bit of faded glory?  Pouty isn't sexy; that is why you're here, right?  I just can't figure anything else out.

Date: 2007/10/04 23:32:59, Link
Author: blipey
Okay.  The eight people survived the flood in what year?
The Egyptian Empire was at its height in what year?
The population of the Egyptian Empire in that year was what?
The population of the planet in that year was what?
How dat happen?

Date: 2007/10/04 23:35:16, Link
Author: blipey
I know. I know.  You can't handle multiple questions at once, so try just concentrating on this one:

Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?


Date: 2007/10/04 23:42:28, Link
Author: blipey
No, no, no.  As we continued to devolve after the fall, God merely punished us with NEW STDs!!!

In fact, I didn't read in a book that there were no STDs prior to the year 1,074 BC.

It's true.

Date: 2007/10/05 09:07:09, Link
Author: blipey
I thought I'd try to help you out, Ftk.  I know it is such a PAIN to try to answer the questions people ask of you.  I mean, sure, some people might be able to read a question and give an answer to it the first time they see it, but you like to ponder deeply about how different breakfast cereals could affect your answer.  I understand.

So, I've taken the liberty of rounding up all of the questions asked of you in the last 4 pages and putting them all in one quick-answer comment.  You'll notice that many of them are yes/no questions and many are merely asking for your opinion.  It should take you about 5 minutes to complete this form.

Won't that take a lot of the weight from your shoulders?  Won't you be a happier, springier Ftk?  I thought so.

1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over?

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire?

27. What was the population of the world in that year?

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?

29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

Some of these are more short-answer than anything else, but several can be whacked off the list quickly.  How about giving it a try?

Thanks to all the people on this thread who continue to allow Ftk to be the funniest creationist on the interwebbies.  When you put all the questions together like that, it really makes the emptiness that is creationism all the more apparent.

Date: 2007/10/05 09:13:08, Link
Author: blipey
Oh, Ftk.  I'd give special consideration to a few of those, like 12 and 12A where you make a specific claim about someone else and then fail to back it up.  I know you're a brand new person now and I'd hate to see you stumble.

Date: 2007/10/05 09:43:04, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk admits that Young Cosmos is a sham.

That tells me that YC is invitation only. {snip}
YC is for those who are interested in keeping updated, but aren't interested in arguing endlessly with people who are highly unreasonable.

Yep.  Young Cosmos (as all ID sites) is for back rubs.

Date: 2007/10/05 10:08:07, Link
Author: blipey
J-Dog, what game did you go to?  You didn't fly to Phoenix, did you?

Date: 2007/10/05 10:30:21, Link
Author: blipey
Yankees Fan!!!  I knew there was something wrong with you.  Ftk was right, you materialist Darwinist, Yankee fans are what's wrong with society!!!

Saying all of that, I'd still drink a beer with you at Wrigley.  Way cool place, even though it's not really about the baseball so much.

Date: 2007/10/05 11:26:04, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 05 2007,11:20)
So, what happened to FTK? She at work or something? I figured out how to log on here, so I can read this thread while my kiddos take a quizzie. She seemed to have plenty of time last night.

Since her memory is only good for 27 hours, she figures everyone's is.  Since that situation is obviously true, when she comes back later this evening all previous posts to this thread will have been lost to time, unable to be recalled even under serious investigation.

Date: 2007/10/05 11:42:46, Link
Author: blipey
I would never use IE7 again, except HP and Microsoft update won't work with Firefox.  Damn proprietary Darwinist, intellectual, elitist, Yankee fans!!!

edited for topicality: really like the face generator.  Any bets on how long it takes for the first IDiot to misunderstand what is going on and complain of front-loading the software?

Date: 2007/10/05 14:39:57, Link
Author: blipey
Interesting typo.  I thought "the big bank" was where Dr Dr Dembski puts the money he took from the punters.

And batshit77 returns with some exciting developments in mathematics:
10^150 minus 10^9 equals 10^141

For Dembski's sake, I hope bornagain isn't running the Big Bank.

Date: 2007/10/05 15:13:25, Link
Author: blipey
Stop pestering the poor lady.  The ADVANCEMENTS ARE OBVIOUS!  You just have to see them.  See?  I see them.  Don't you?  When I close my eyes at night I see them floating there...the advancemnts, no, NOES!!!  Stay away from me, Advancements!  I know you're there, please!  PLEASE!  PLease don't take me now, Advancements!  I believe in you!

Date: 2007/10/05 16:22:06, Link
Author: blipey
Hey, hey, Albatrossity2.  If you have the time you should go to Iluna Basque while you're in SF.  It's a very nice tapas place on Union Street (701).  One of my favorite restaurants.

Date: 2007/10/05 17:00:40, Link
Author: blipey

Yet you don't believe there is a conspiracy?  Isn't that right, Ftk?


Date: 2007/10/06 09:13:44, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 05 2007,09:07)
I thought I'd try to help you out, Ftk.  I know it is such a PAIN to try to answer the questions people ask of you.  I mean, sure, some people might be able to read a question and give an answer to it the first time they see it, but you like to ponder deeply about how different breakfast cereals could affect your answer.  I understand.

So, I've taken the liberty of rounding up all of the questions asked of you in the last 4 pages and putting them all in one quick-answer comment.  You'll notice that many of them are yes/no questions and many are merely asking for your opinion.  It should take you about 5 minutes to complete this form.

Won't that take a lot of the weight from your shoulders?  Won't you be a happier, springier Ftk?  I thought so.

1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over?

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire?

27. What was the population of the world in that year?

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?

29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

Some of these are more short-answer than anything else, but several can be whacked off the list quickly.  How about giving it a try?

Thanks to all the people on this thread who continue to allow Ftk to be the funniest creationist on the interwebbies.  When you put all the questions together like that, it really makes the emptiness that is creationism all the more apparent.

Great, you may object to all those things people call you, but you know what?

You ARE, 100%:

a question-avoiding, ignorant, dense, dangerous-to-education, psycho.  You've managed to come back at just such a time when you can pretend that all the questions that have been asked of you never existed.

You've also made some other claims since yesterday that bear examining.  You've claimed that The Establishment looks down upon question askers--implying that IDiots ask questions.

If this is true, could you list a few of the questions that IDiots ask.  While you're at it, you could ask a couple questions yourself.  You seldom, if ever, do that.

You've also made yet more claims without evidence, REMAINING IN SOLID VIOLATION OF THE NEW FTK ETHICAL STANDARDS.  Would you care to support any of the claims about people being disgusted about crosses worn as jewelry?  Along with 12 and 12A above.

Thanks, you ignorant, impolite, disrespectful blowhard.

p.s. I hate it when people just post slanders, don't you Ftk?

Date: 2007/10/06 10:33:48, Link
Author: blipey

I'm quite appalled at the time you spend here, the number of words you write, and the lack of any answer those words contain.

You do realise that you managed not to answer a single question in that last comment?  That's why I took the liberty of condensing the questions for you.  I've done half your work for you.  You'll notice that fully half of those questions can be more than adequately answered in less than 10 words, many of them with only one.

So your avoidance of these questions just makes you look stupider and stupider (if that's possible).  Or, in light of current discussion, perhaps more and more dishonest is better phrasing.

every time I come to this forum, there are questions stacked up that would take me days to thoroughly answer.

This is patently false.  This is untrue.  You are lying when you say this (at least in the soft sense that Jack was speaking of).  Most of the 36 questions can be dealt with in fewer than 10 words.

One such {ridiculous} question is oldman's HIV/ark scenario.  I don't know if he's even serious.

Not ridiculous.  Many IDers claim that HIV could not have evolved.  Do you believe this as well?  If you do, someone had to be carrying it.

Honestly, I'm interested in getting to know some of the posters on a more personal level and try to understand why they believe the things they do.

By calling them dogmatic, atheist, conspiracy mongering, know-nothings, that want to prevent them childrens learnin?  Or by never ever listening to anything they have to say.  Or by never answering their questions.  Or by never asking them anything on topic.  Which of these ways is your preferred way to get to know people?

Obviously, many of you take as "fact" things that simply just are not "facts".

You say this so often that I'm beginning to think those words comprise your entire vocabulary.  Yet, strangely, you've never provided an example of a thing that is taken for fact that is in fact not a fact. Hmmm?

If we believe SO MANY UNFACTUAL things, surely you have several right at the tip of your tongue?  You will now provide us with one tiny example?  No?  Oh well.

Date: 2007/10/06 15:05:01, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 06 2007,11:20)
FTK, why don't you agree to give honest, thought-out answers to ~3-5 of those backed-up questions per day until the list is gone? You already have 598 posts here, so it shouldn't involve any net increase in the time you spend here. Also, if you honestly answered the questions, it'd probably greatly increase the respect you get here.

Gee, I think I suggested this to you a couple of weeks ago, Ftk.  You could be done with the list by now if you'd taken that advice.

On another note, I will agree that I was wrong to use the word "lie" in regard to Ftk.  I agree with Bill's characterization of a lie 100%.

So: Ftk you are not a liar.  The dishonest approach to things is another matter, but YOU ARE NOT A LIAR.

The following is a rhetorical question, meant for you to ponder, perhaps act on, but not answer.  that should make you happy, a question you actually don't have to answer.

In a general sense, in everyday life, do you think it is a good idea to try to answer pending questions?

Date: 2007/10/08 12:23:52, Link
Author: blipey
Hey Ftk,

Thanks for starting in on the question list.  Really, I mean it.  I think you gave honest answers to the first five on the list.  I may be a little annoyed that it took 108 pages to do so, but I like the way this is going now.

My only small gripe at the moment is your condition: "not to throw anything back (and giving a quantitative demarcation as to what number is acceptable)."  This implies two things that I hope are not true.

1.  That follow up questions are not allowed.  If this is indeed the case, I must take back my congratulations.  Follow-up questions are the backbone of a discussion.  I would agree with you if your meaning is "don't just restate the question".  However, if you mean that you won't address NEW INFO on the same topic, that is a bad sign.

2.  By placing a cap on the number of follow-up issues you will address you are still trying to pen up the conversation into areas you can address and those that you can ignore.  Purposefully setting up ignorable compartments can only be done honestly after filtering evidence in such a way that it is reasonable to suspect that such areas should be ignored.  To do this, you will need to provide hard evidence, not rhetoric.

I also noticed that you continue to think that I am only interested in derailing conversation.  That I constantly ask you to address previous on-topic material, I am at a loss as to why you think this.

I have specifically apologized for calling you a liar after presented with an argument that made the case for your innocence.  I have applauded you for beginning to answer questions.  This is all I've ever wanted.  It amazes me that you still wish to play my victim.  Hopefully that will stop and your new question answering self (which leads to question asking, and from there, discussion partner) will be around more often.

may gravity be kind,


Date: 2007/10/08 19:59:17, Link
Author: blipey
This is awesome.  Thanks again, Ftk, for taking the time to answer questions and explain yourself in a manner that directly addresses previous material.

I think that your point of Behe not being a liar may fall into the same category of me calling you a liar.  It may not be true; though I think Behe should be given less rope than you as he should know how the game is played in his own profession.

That aside, however, I think the issue surrounding Behe and especially IC is one of honest logical discussion.  Granting that Behe actually did state that there are NO POSSIBLE natural explanations for the flagellum, yes or no, that specific argument has been refuted?

It thereby falls on Behe to honestly assess the state of that specific argument.  He can say that it has:

1.  Not been refuted
2.  Say that it has been refuted.

The state of this affair rests entirely on Behe's response.  Is it an honest one?

Date: 2007/10/08 22:54:13, Link
Author: blipey

You have again sidestepped the issue.  The issue is not whether or not the development of the flagellum has been figured out in every detail.

The point is that Behe said it never even could be, ever.  Is this statement true?  Yes, you have been shown the occasions where he said exactly this.

So, we have Behe stating that no working model will ever be found.  We have a slew of working models proposed.  Behe says these very things do not exist.  He says this without ever having read about them.

The ONLY argument of IC is that evolution cannot even IN THEORY take place.  This exact thing has been refuted.

Why do you avoid talking straight about this situation?

Date: 2007/10/09 17:17:23, Link
Author: blipey
I hate to distract from the fact that Ftk wouldn't know when Behe's Theory of IC was refuted if god came down and told her, but...

Does Congress stop 5 times a day to offer prayers to God? Don’t think so. I don’t see the point in Muslims doing so either.

Muslims apparently must take their religious cues from the United States Congress.  Let's not inform Congress; their heads are already too large and up their asses.

I believe this is exactly where discussions about religion belong (history classes)...not in comparative religion classes.


At the end of this thread.

Date: 2007/10/09 17:48:23, Link
Author: blipey
Also check out the new end of modern biology.

Read the paper.  Then ask Ftk if she did?  I did.  And did.  And don't expect any response.

Date: 2007/10/09 18:40:13, Link
Author: blipey
So really, since discussion is never at option at your site, what about that paper do you find detrimental to modern biology?

Anything specific?  Did you actually read it?  Or are you of the Dembski school and just interested in the title?

Date: 2007/10/09 18:48:25, Link
Author: blipey
On the topic of current questions:

1.  Did Behe say that the flagellum had no possible natural explanations?

Yes -or- No

2.  Have working explanations been proposed for the development of the flagellum?

Yes -or- No

3.  Does this mean that IC has been refuted?

Yes -or- No

I say the answer to all three is YES.

Which of those questionsdo you answer NO to, Ftk?

Date: 2007/10/09 23:22:43, Link
Author: blipey
Yeah, Ian.  But you and I both know what a crock of shit relativity is.

You do too, right Ftk?

I see you missed the easy 3 question form that would show once and for all whether it is you or I who are crazy.

Why don't you answer the 3 questions?  If you can, you can show that I am crazy; won't that be a blast?  Here they are again:

1.  Did Behe say that the flagellum had no possible natural explanations?

Yes -or- No

2.  Have working explanations been proposed for the development of the flagellum?

Yes -or- No

3.  Does this mean that IC has been refuted?

Yes -or- No

Date: 2007/10/09 23:46:06, Link
Author: blipey
Also, on the falsifiability of ToE, even I get it and I'm a useless, godless, liberal, actor.

ToE makes predictions (this is what scientific theories do).  Using these predictions, scientists have a set of results.  Sometimes experiments produce results which were unexpected and do not conform to the predicted results.  The theory is then looked at and perhaps tweaked.  Using this tweaked theory, new predictions are made AND TESTED.

Sometimes the disagreement with predicted results is small and the theory is taken to be, in the whole, correct and small changes or new insight results.

If there turn out to be a great many EXPERIMENTS and RESULTS that disagree with predicted results then it may be time to throw out the theory.

You will notice that TEST, RESULTS, and EXPERIMENT are in caps.  These are the thing that, one, ID does not have or do and, two, the very things that ToE does do.

Now, there has been a falsifiable prediction of ToE presented to you.  You seem to have ignored it (as you do with most things that you don't have an answer for).  In the discussion of IC, a falsifiable prediction of ToE was spelled out.

ToE predicts that a flagellum would not be an older structure than the parts that make it up.  If a flagellum is found to be older than the parts that make it up, Miller's theory of flagellar evolution would be refuted.  Enough of these types of refutation and ToE would be in trouble.

It is a matter of degree that creationists and science-deniers do not understand.  Science works on an accumulated body of knowledge.  Science is changed by an accumulated body of knowledge.

When ID has a few predictions AND TESTS THEM, come back and talk all you want.

Date: 2007/10/10 10:50:14, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk, I agree for the most part with Bill when he comments on talking by each other.  However, I think I am less inclined to be generous to you.  The Behe / IC question has been reduced on the stove to its simplest form.  You have continually avoided this reduced question.

The fact that you answer this black and white series of questions with 50 paragraph replies that introduce words like BUT, HOWEVER, HE MEANS, etc mean that you recognize that their is something wrong with your answer and feel the need to hedge and modify it.

The very simple IC argument is this:

1.  Did Behe say that the flagellum had no possible natural explanations?

Yes -or- No

2.  Have working explanations been proposed for the development of the flagellum?

Yes -or- No

3.  Does this mean that IC has been refuted?

Yes -or- No

That's it.  Can you answer these questions?

Date: 2007/10/10 10:53:44, Link
Author: blipey
So what's the connection between the Koonin paper and ID?

I asked that very question on her blog.  Too bad it will never be posted or, most likely, answered.

Date: 2007/10/10 15:49:01, Link
Author: blipey

You are insane.  Here is the reason why:

I thought it was obvious that I understood your explanation, and I will certainly "conceed" to your position in regard to why you believe Behe will always be "refuted" due his wording on the subject, and I have no problem or reservations in doing so.

No.  As has been demonstrated to all sane individuals, he is wrong, not because of his wording (I thought relativism was evil and left wing?) but BECAUSE HIS ARGUMENT IS WRONG.

IC relies solely on one contention: THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN IC STRUCTURE (a flagellum, for example) TO EVOLVE.

This has been demonstrated to be wrong.  There IS ZERO CHANCE of a flagellum being an IC structure.

Your next paragraph of crap says:
Behe's belief that the flagellum, the immune system and other systems or machines are ultimately irreducibly complex.

First of all, who the hell cares what Behe's beliefs are?  Show us some data, Data, DATA, DATA.

Secondly, by saying "are ultimately irreducibly complex" you are merely CHANGING the argument.  I said that A was IC, in fact I meant that some parts of A are IC.  No, I meant that parts of the parts of A are IC.  Ad naseum.

It doesn't matter, the concept of IC rests on a premise that has been falsified for all proposed IC systems.  Address the questions:

1.  Did Behe say that the flagellum had no possible natural explanations?

Yes -or- No

2.  Have working explanations been proposed for the development of the flagellum?

Yes -or- No

3.  Does this mean that IC has been refuted?

Yes -or- No

You just look stupid.

Date: 2007/10/10 16:30:31, Link
Author: blipey

I have no illusions of you responding to my posts.  Mainly for reasons that you have outlined:
I thought that perhaps discussing issues with someone like Bill, who is a much more personable and tactful fellow, might convince a select few of you that I am open to discussion.  I'm just not interested in doing so with those who have proven themselves to be completely intolerable to anyone who questions their views.

You might try convincing us with evidence not with who you talk to.  How exactly does it follow that nice people are always right?  Your problem is that you are scared of evidence and more to point, scared of thinking for yourself, of taking a concept and explaining it to someone.

So you go on and talk to nice people, the rest of us will talk to knowledgeable people--if they happen to be nice as well, that's fantastic.

Date: 2007/10/10 16:50:43, Link
Author: blipey

Your answer to number 2 is incorrect.  Working possibilities for the evolution of a flagellum have indeed been proposed.  As oldman and Bill have continually shown you.

You really have no idea how stupid you look.  I'll try it like you're 5 years old, how's that?

There exists a box with a door on the east and one on the west.  No one can see into the box.  Behe's argument is that there is something inside the box that will make it IMPOSSIBLE to enter the east door and exit the west door.  Blipey walks into the east door.  By Behe's argument, blipey will never exit the west door.

Blipey exits the west door.  It doesn't matter what happened in the box.  Nothing matters except that blipey exited though the west door.

Date: 2007/10/10 16:56:10, Link
Author: blipey
Oh, now that you have a definition of "workable" question number two is a yes/no question.  That's why you got it wrong--too many words.

Date: 2007/10/10 17:09:07, Link
Author: blipey
Just thought about this I can't believe I let it go in the last comment.  But to continue the pointing out of your immense logical failures,  how exactly would Behe have refuted any of the arguments?

I mean, the arguments were contained in the papers that Behe NEVER READ.  So, to get back to that question:

How can Behe refute an argument he has never read?

I hope your kids are smarter than you.

edited for typos

Date: 2007/10/10 17:31:57, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 10 2007,17:21)
It doesn't matter if we can't determine the exact mechanism; we just have to show that there is at least one potential mechanism.

I had not realized that, according to science, "potential", "proposed", "hypothesized",  "possibilities" had the power to refute the inference of design.

No, I take that back.  Amost every article I read in regard to evolution is sprinkled with words like, "might", "could have", "may possibly", "it could be that", "we believe", "perhaps", etc., etc., etc..


Therefore it is "poor science". :)  :)  :)

Are you seriously this dense?  Rhetorical question, I know you are, but you continually attempt new ways to show it off.  My hat's off to you.

Date: 2007/10/10 17:36:51, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 10 2007,17:23)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 10 2007,16:50)
There exists a box with a door on the east and one on the west.  No one can see into the box.  Behe's argument is that there is something inside the box that will make it IMPOSSIBLE to enter the east door and exit the west door.  Blipey walks into the east door.  By Behe's argument, blipey will never exit the west door.

Blipey exits the west door.  It doesn't matter what happened in the box.  Nothing matters except that blipey exited though the west door.

You think you are so clever, don't you? Except that you didn't establish that you walked through the east door.  You said that you walked into the east door.  

ID Wins!!!1!!11!one!!1!

I bet your red clown nose honked when you walked into the door - ds

I think I see the problem.  Preposition trouble!

Date: 2007/10/10 23:29:56, Link
Author: blipey
She might have a liberal arts education. It's possibile to get one of those and have no understanding of science whatsoever. As our friends at UD demonstrate, it's even possible to get an engineering degree like that.

Hmmm.  Maybe.

I almost got an aerospace engineering degree (109 hours) and then did get a theatre performance degree.  I am completely able to carry on a logical conversation and am also able to critically evaluate topics that are put before me.  Ftk's problems must be credited to her alone, not to the educational system in general.

edited to add: shut up hughes, I will have none of your flap-jawing about my conversational ability...

Date: 2007/10/11 13:21:09, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 11 2007,13:12)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 11 2007,08:41)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 11 2007,08:38)
Simpler analogy for FTK:

FTK: It is impossible for you to get to the end of the street from your house. It's too far and you cannot jump that far.

Me: Ah yes but I could walk there step by step, here are a selection of routes that I could take, all involving walking and all of which get me to the end of the street from my house.

FTK: But those are only POSSIBLE routes you haven't proven that you have taken them so it's STILL impossible for you to get to the end of your street from your house.

Me: Do you understand that the claim that something is impossible is refuted by demonstrating that it is in fact possible?

FTK: No. Understanding is an evil Darwinianatheistmaterialist conspiracy and I want no part of it. I am moving the goalposts and now saying that because you didn't describe each step in detail I still claim that you getting from your house to the end of the road is impossible. Especially by walking. STOP BEING MEAN WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Me: Oh, erm, is that the time, I have an appointment with sane people.


It's that simple FTK.

Yeah, unless Louis has a broken leg, no cast, and no crutches.  He could have someone give him a ride, but that would be another entirely different scenario.  And, in the car scenario, they might have a wreck before they arrive to their final destination.  

:p  :p  :p

What the fuck????????

It is still possible for him to get there in a car.  Which disproves your statement that it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to get there.

You really are dumber than I ever gave you credit for.  You're stupid.  The only other conclusion is you are severely mentally handicapped.  I tend not to believe this as you are (presumably) not in an institution.

Please, let your kids make all decisions for you; odds* are that they are smarter than you--let them care for you.

*this is a random process, I hope that doesn't throw you

Date: 2007/10/11 13:54:57, Link
Author: blipey
Yeah, they might have a wreck.  And the might NOT have a wreck.

Your point?

My point is that you are now coming out and stating the following:

It is impossible for someone to ride in a car to their house.

Do you really believe that?  Really?  How do you get your kids to baseball practice?  I hope they walk.  

To all those who hoped that Ftk had a college education, I have one question.

How do you propose that she would have gotten into a college?  Any college, even Southwestern Hoople Bible an Basketweaving Universtiy.

Date: 2007/10/11 14:02:42, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk-ista, let me try to help you not look like a jackass:

When someone says that they rode to their house in a car, you should agree that this is a possibility.  You should not state categorically that it is impossible to ride to their house in a car.

There you go, jackass really nice lady who always talks roses and christian love to everyone*.

*see my sig

Date: 2007/10/11 14:16:19, Link
Author: blipey
How's this, FtK:

I said, "Let us walk with the Lord!"

"Where is the Lord?" you ask.

He's there beside you.  That's what I'm telling you; that's what he's telling you!  Ya just gotta look right to your side!  He's walking with ya!  NO!  He's not the guy in the lab coat!  I say He's dressed in white, but not the cold white of science!

Can I get an AMEN!!!

He's dressed in white, but not the white of reason, I say!  Reason BE GONE!  Be gone and let Lord take your place!  

Reach out to him.  Don't be afraid; he's there for you.  The lab coat is gone; the fire is gone, I say!  Just let your hand go; he'll pick it up. Don't think about it, just let your hand go!

Do you feel Him?  Just a little pressure there on your palm?  CAN YOU FEEL HIM!  I say give me an AMEN!

Look at His face.  He cares for you; look at his face.  No!  Look not past his face to the lab coat on the other side!  He cares for you; He does not hold the cold white hand of science.  His white is whiter.  NO!  Stop LOOKING OVER THERE!  AMEN!

Banish the thought, all thought, and feel His hand.  The hand of love.  Feel the love.  NO!  For the last &%^#@) time stop looking over there!

Ah crap!  I mean, AMEN!

Now THAT has flair.

Date: 2007/10/11 14:20:47, Link
Author: blipey
Awww.  I'm touched.

How about posting something that addresses the issue.  The issue about you saying that it is impossible to ride in a car to a destination.  Or you could ignore it and hope that everyone forgets that you said it.

Date: 2007/10/11 14:25:54, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 11 2007,14:24)
Or you could ignore it and hope that everyone forgets that you said it.

Tabula Rasa...
Tabula Rasa...
Tabula Rasa...

Uh, what was I saying?

Klatu Barada Nikto?

Date: 2007/10/11 14:50:39, Link
Author: blipey
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Hey, what about the ISSUE?

Why do you believe that it is impossible for someone to ride in a car to a destination?

Why do you believe that something which is possible is simultaneously impossible?

You tard.

edited to more properly summarize Ftk's position

Date: 2007/10/11 15:42:05, Link
Author: blipey

You are either being deliberately dense or you are immensely stupid.

Your position (reread it as much as you like) is that Louis could not ever reach his house by riding in a car.

The scenario only requires that there exists a method in which Louis could arrive at his house.  Your position is that there is no way--including by car--that he could do this.

If you think otherwise (as "I re-read what I wrote several times, and I don't find where I said it was "impossible" for poor Louis to get to his destination." seems to perhaps be the case), then your premise that Louis could never reach his house is falsified.

I'm going with immensely stupid, others are being too nice to you.

Date: 2007/10/11 15:56:23, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 11 2007,15:48)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2007,16:43)
Let's keep the name-calling down. Difficult though it may be.

I dunno, it seems to be the best way to get her to respond to your posts.

I agree, as just stating a question or topic only gets ignored. Calling her names often gets a response.  Of course, the response is primarily about the name calling and not the question, so I suppose the result is much the same.  You get more funny with the response than the ignoring, however.

Now, just calling her names would be wrong.  Calling her names and giving her something else of substance is not something I feel bad about.

Date: 2007/10/11 16:04:21, Link
Author: blipey
Now that you're here to stay for a while, how about telling us how Louis being able to ride in a car to his house is compatible with the idea that Louis can never get to his house?

No thoughts on that?  {For the mods:} While you might not actually be stupid, your inability to answer this question certainly makes you look really stupid.

Date: 2007/10/11 16:13:51, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 11 2007,15:59)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 11 2007,15:48)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2007,16:43)
Let's keep the name-calling down. Difficult though it may be.

I dunno, it seems to be the best way to get her to respond to your posts.

I dunno, it seems to be the best way to get her to respond to your posts. you suppose I've driven teh blipster right over the edge yet?  As a Christian, I'm really not suppose to do that type of thing...but it is just soooooo easy with blipes.


Why no comments relating to the material but only comments about the poster of said material?

Still afraid or unable to engage in discussion?

You remind me of the people we call "Rennies".  These are the amateur actors that are employed by Renaissance Festivals around the country.  While some of them are earnest (if not talented) and try hard, most of these people just don't get it.  These people are the community theatre rejects--people who can't perform their way out of a wet paper bag.

They rely on schtick instead of personal engagement.  When confronted with a patron, they perform their schtick whether it applies to the situation at hand or not.  They are completely unable to engage in common conversation with a person they meet on the street.  Instead of interacting with the patron, they make the patron into a prop or set piece upon which to do their work.

The experience for the patron would be greatly enhanced if the Rennie would simply engage him on a personal level.  What the Rennie is missing the most, however, is the fact that the experience would be more rewarding for him as well.

You should try it sometime, Ftk; the world would be a more interesting place.

Date: 2007/10/11 16:54:08, Link
Author: blipey
I am not at the Kansas City Renaissance Festival, doing other shows this year.  This is what I do:

I answered your question, how about one for me?

Date: 2007/10/11 23:42:34, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 11 2007,21:08)
FtK, do you REALLY think science has to find out EXACTLY which path it is?

No, ultimately, I don't think that would be possible.  But, as we keep "teasing out and testing" these possible pathways, answer will become clearer, no?

Are you unable to understand the English language?  No one asked if you thought it was possible to distinguish the exact path of flagellar evolution.

You were asked if you thought finding out the exact path were important.

Chalk up another unanswered question.  It is unanswered because addressing the question is not the same as answering it.  Please try reading questions for meaning.

Is finding the exact path of flagellar evolution important?

Yes -or- No.

Date: 2007/10/12 13:19:40, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,12:37)
Hey, this is COMPLETELY OT

Is this qualifier necessary?

Date: 2007/10/12 14:19:43, Link
Author: blipey
Wow.  The featured article on wiki is intelligent design.  I wonder how many Udites are going to try and edit it.  Again.

Date: 2007/10/12 15:00:32, Link
Author: blipey
The whole point of taking college level homemaking is to darn socks?

Besides not knowing that homemaking could be a college level course, I am shocked that darning socks is college level material.

Do people sit around and congratulate themselves for these ideas?

Date: 2007/10/12 16:13:12, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2007,16:08)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 12 2007,15:00)
The whole point of taking college level homemaking is to darn socks?

Besides not knowing that homemaking could be a college level course, I am shocked that darning socks is college level material.

Do people sit around and congratulate themselves for these ideas?

What's amazing is that they actually pay tuition to be taught how to darn socks and bake cookies. They don't have mothers who can teach them these things?

I know, I know, their parents are paying that money just to find their daughters Nice Christian Husbands.

No.  I think they're paying tuition to get their daughter the hell out of the house so they can do the rabbit dance all day.

Date: 2007/10/12 16:47:05, Link
Author: blipey
Yeah, Dave!  Ftk, along with being an expert in biological sciences, is also an expert on who should win Nobel prizes.  In fact, let's have a look at her latest work in the field of mathematics:

I'm convinced there = is = something = horribly = wrong with the whole lot of you.

Dembski better watch out, we have witnessed the arrival of the Young Einstein of Linear Algebra.

Date: 2007/10/12 16:50:02, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (mitschlag @ Oct. 12 2007,16:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,16:19)
You're really a piece of work, Dave.  You slam IDists with everything you've got on a *daily basis* and then have the audacity to complain when they laugh at the thought of Gore with a Nobel prize.

What in hell does ID have to do with Al Gore?

What in hell does ID have to do with global warming?

There's a smell somewhere...

To be completely fair, what the hell does global warming have to do with peace?  Yes, yes, I know the argument of making the world a better place where wars will be unnecessary, but shouldn't they just create a new award?

Date: 2007/10/12 23:06:52, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,21:55)

I believe I thoroughly answered your initial post and that we came to some kind of an understanding.  You've now extended this discussion, and I'd love to continue, but it will have to go private and since I believe that once a sentence is said and a topic mentioned there will never be anything else to say about it, I believe I'm done.  I just am not the type of person who can skip over all the crap without comment, and that is not productive in the long run because I just start getting silly due to the insanity of some of the repetive questions that I've already addressed.

I also realize that posting here is a monumental waste of my time because regardless of how many questions I answer address tangentially without ever committing to a position because I'm so open minded, blipey et. al. will come back with "you never answer our questions" and then go on and on about how they perceive me as being dishonest, moronic, idiotic, etc., etc,.  It's crazy.

So, I think I'll go back to popping in here when someone is making up crap about my beliefs or what I write at my blog.

So, if you're interested, PM me.  If you need an audience, sorry, maybe later.  I haven't had a chance to post at my blog for days due to my participation here, and I need to focus on that rather than a group of deaf mutes.

edited to look quite a bit less silly than it did when some idiot submitted this: That's what I'm sure you meant to say.

edited again to clarify that I was the idiot mentioned in the last edit, not the person who submitted the first of the nested quotes, who merely acts like an idiot on occasion.

edited a third time to let everyone know that I indeed know that there are not nested quotes, but only one quote--carry on

Date: 2007/10/15 08:29:26, Link
Author: blipey
The important thing to know is whose children are getting gaved?  This is what people want!  Sure Darwinists gave children to those poor saps who only had 14 welfare tickets, but where did they come from?

Date: 2007/10/15 22:36:52, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk, I see you dropped by again.  Without answering any questions again.  You managed to spew trivialities again.  Any chance we'll see anything new?

Date: 2007/10/17 00:41:31, Link
Author: blipey
I don't know why Ftk can't grasp methodological naturalism either--or any number of other concepts: being able to counter arguments one hasn't read, what atheism is, etc.

But the fact remains that she does not--and cannot--grasp these things.  She could easily prove me wrong by taking a tiny moment to explain any of these concepts in her own words.  We know how she important explanation is to her, however, so I won't hold my breath.

Or she could explain her methodology for testing the supernatural, that'd do for me.  What type of experiment would you like to run in order to test for supernatural causation?  Do you think there is a test--logically speaking--that would apply in this situation?

Thanks for being blank about this as well.

Date: 2007/10/17 09:43:30, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 17 2007,08:40)
I'd like to take issue with this:

one who realizes that the world could not arise spontaneously from nothing

I understand that FtK believes god created everything in some way, and that's fine, bully for her, but is she now INSISTING there must be a creation event of some kind? Isn't it entirely possible everything has always been here in some form which only manifested itself into this one after the big bang event?


As evidenced by something I discussed for far longer than I had thought I would, you can read it over at Kooky Kansans for Kool-Aid.  Frankly I'm ready to discuss this any more with you meanies.  Suffice it to say that the factual answr to your question, Ian, is NO!

Date: 2007/10/17 10:34:01, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 17 2007,10:12)
oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit's point (omitsddi?) is critical: all metaphysical answers have to posit something that "just is" in order to avoid the infinite regress problem, and theism doesn't hold any privileged position in this regard.

If one holds that it is logically OK to posit that God has eternally existed, and that the question of who made God is irrelevant, then one must grant this same privilege to other metaphysical positions.  If one believes that there is a something out of which our universe arose, there is no reason why the argument that that something has always existed is any less compelling than the argument that God has always existed.

One would think that this would be practically impossible to misunderstand.  One would think...

Cue FTK:

Date: 2007/10/17 12:13:26, Link
Author: blipey
I think it is fantastic that in her search for truth, Ftk will completely ignore jeremy's point.  I also find it fascinating that she will be completely unaware that sh is ignoring the point.

Date: 2007/10/17 12:27:12, Link
Author: blipey
OOhhhh, that's a good one, Chris.

How is it that the Egyptian Old Kingdom population was 2 million a mere 1,000 years after the creation of the world?

See here.

And how exactly does your accepted date of 5,000 year old mummies correlate with the year of the FLOOD?


Date: 2007/10/17 22:11:19, Link
Author: blipey
Well, he might not.  That's another issue entirely, one that would be interesting to address.  However, I find it more interesting that you complain about J-dog and don't offer any comment on his point--just like you offer almost no comment on any point, just random blathering.

Hint:  you could ask J-Dog a question.  I know questions are scary for you, but you could try.

Date: 2007/10/17 22:19:06, Link
Author: blipey
The best!  Ftk was asked what kind of experiments could test for the supernatural; the following is her response:
I thought I answered the question about the type of experiments already:

"Design theorists are interested in the engineering aspect of the massive complexity of various organisms and systems. There is a lot of work to be done there for sure...break down these evolutionary pathways and see if they are truly accessible. If you say we can’t know for *sure* whether these pathways ever existed, then essentially you’re in a the same situation that a design theorist would be in if they gave up and said “goddidit”."

Seems to have forgot about including the actual experiment...or providing the methodology that was asked for...or the thought process that one might use to conduct an experiment...or anything useful at all.

Good thing she answers questions so well.


Date: 2007/10/18 08:24:39, Link
Author: blipey
Off Topic:

Why is it that people throw around the term "autodidact" as a self-compliment?  I found it funny when Dave Scot did so, but I find it a bit disturbing that others do as well.

The term merely means "self-taught", especially as pertains to individual subject areas.  One does not necessarily have to be smart in order to do this--merely able to read (or in DaveTard's case thumb through a picture book).  Being autodidactic certainly doesn't mean that you got the best education possible, just your own education.

Date: 2007/10/18 09:42:25, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 18 2007,09:06)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 18 2007,08:24)
Off Topic:

Why is it that people throw around the term "autodidact" as a self-compliment?  I found it funny when Dave Scot did so, but I find it a bit disturbing that others do as well.

The term merely means "self-taught", especially as pertains to individual subject areas.  One does not necessarily have to be smart in order to do this--merely able to read (or in DaveTard's case thumb through a picture book).  Being autodidactic certainly doesn't mean that you got the best education possible, just your own education.

Yes, I know what the word means, thanks for asking.  My comment was a dig at ftk's devotion to Davey.

Polymorph = same thing.

Ah, yes, my bad.  I somehow missed the polymorph reference even though I read the word right there--yikes.  I'll have more coffee and get with the tard-bashing committee.

Date: 2007/10/18 11:39:00, Link
Author: blipey
I am English and a hooker. I am also very nervous about Saturday night.

Post of the month!  I wish you hadn't been banned at UD so you could have a definition of hooker with the tards.  Shame on them for not being sporting.

Date: 2007/10/18 14:01:15, Link
Author: blipey
It's not his data.  It's publicly available.  Surely the abstract, if not the whole paper, is available online.

Why can't you look at the data yourself?

A. Not particularly interested in doing so?
B. No recent experience looking for "data" so I don't know where to start?
C. Data?  What's that?

Date: 2007/10/19 09:45:19, Link
Author: blipey
Unsurprisingly, Ftk has forgotten about her new helpful incarnation (and apparently that she's Bhuddist).  Since she basically has had no new questions asked of her, she should have been working on whittling down the list she had.

Of course she hasn't been.  So here's a reminder:

1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over?

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire?

27. What was the population of the world in that year?

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?

29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

Thanks for not forgetting about this or thinking that we would.  You're so good about that.

Date: 2007/10/19 09:52:17, Link
Author: blipey
I would like to note that I am being extremely generous to you Ftk, by striking number 5 off the list.  You never did answer this question--it being how can a dude know what is contained in something without having ever looked at that something.  You danced around that so much that it hurts and I'm pretty sure you couldn't look any stupider--so it has served its purpose.

So I'm giving you a freebie, your turn.

Date: 2007/10/19 10:27:13, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 19 2007,09:59)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 19 2007,15:52)
{SNIP}...I'm pretty sure you couldn't look any stupider...{SNIP}


Blipey, it's this kind of disgusting disparaging of FTK that I absolutely will not tolerate. How dare you underestimate FTK's ability to make herself look stupid. There's loads of questions left in that list. She will undoubtedly make herself look even stupider than she has before when and if she tries to answer them.

Shame on you.


Listen, Louis, you limey bastard, I will absolutely not tolerate anyone else being right.  EXCEPT ME!  And maybe J-dog.

Alright, I won;t tolerate anyone being right except me, J-dog, and that pancake-stater Albatrossity2.  ugh.

I. Will. Not. Tolerate. Anyone being right except me , J-dog, the pancake-stater Albatrossity2, and chatterbox ardenfield.  ah crap.

This is too difficult.  I will tolerate everybody being right, providing they show me the evidence.

Date: 2007/10/19 11:20:40, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2007,10:51)
Guiness is okay. The other stouts I've tried were bleh.

For your stout research, I offer:

1.  Young's Double Chocolate: for a beer drinker who thinks he doesn't like stouts and would like to drink one (even if it's a bit girlie)

2.  Beamish: a bit smoother and slightly maltier than Guiness, a true stout for those who want a somewhat softer beer

3.  Guiness Extra-Stout:  this is the original Guiness bottle, not the Draught can or bottle that have come around in the last few years.  This beer is not the same as your Guiness out of the tap, it's has a more metallic flavor and a much higher alcohol content.  For those who like a bite in the beer.

4.  Sapporo Black Stout (as if it could e another color): for the adventurous, who knew the Japanese could make a stout.  Well...I think they're very mediocre at it, a smoothish beer with not much bite, a starter stout perhaps?

Domestics and Craft Brews:

1.  Boulevard Brewing Co (Kansas City, MO) Dry Stout: a stout for the beginner.  This beer hasn't got a lot of body and is a little thin and watery.  Definitely for people who want to drink a stout because it looks cool, but who don't really like stout.

2.  Magic Hat Brewery (Burlington, VT) Heart of Darkness:  Delicious, my favorite American Stout.  ahas a nice bitter chocolate aftertaste, nice and malty, with just the right bitterness.  only drawback is that this is brewed seasonally--only in the winter

3.  North Coast Brewing Co. (Ft. Bragg, CA) Old Rasputin Imperial Russian Stout:  a super intense brew, very delicious, slightly metallic, hint of roasted nuts, a brew that is stout enough (flavor-wise) that one is good enough for me.

Some other darker beers you might try (these are not stouts):

1.  Old Engine Oil (Harvestoun Brewer; Dollar, Scotland):  a Scottish Ale that tastes faintly of barley, chocolate, malt, ad is slightly sweet.  sort of a dessert beer

2.  Old Peculier (Theakston's Brewery; Yorkshire, England): a full malt brew that has a slightly fruity nose.  worth finding here in the states.

Most (if not all) of these brews you can get in your better liquor stores.  So, drink up.

Date: 2007/10/19 11:25:44, Link
Author: blipey
Hey, I'm from Missouri, I gotta get the digs in--it's in all the mortgage agreements.

Date: 2007/10/19 11:51:20, Link
Author: blipey
I have not had the pleasure of a Mackeson.  I will be going to Gomer's in a couple minutes to see if I can acquire one.

On the topic of Sierra Nevada PA: I've had better, but it is a nice brew.

Date: 2007/10/19 11:53:57, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,11:46)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 19 2007,11:25)
Hey, I'm from Missouri, I gotta get the digs in--it's in all the mortgage agreements.


So the truth finally comes out.

Finally!  A diagnosis for your trollish and strange behavior... multiple personality disorder...I'll pray for you.

This is strange for a couple reasons.

1.  It's no secret that I'm from Missouri--in my profile, on my blog, etc.

2.  If you think that Larry FarFromPhlebotomy is crazy, why do you promote his blog at yours?

Date: 2007/10/19 11:56:34, Link
Author: blipey
Oh, yeah.  About those questions...

I know you're all about the education and really are terribly interested in education, children, and knowledge...

So I'm SURE you'd be more than happy to discuss topics along those lines...


You can start here:
6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

Date: 2007/10/19 12:06:33, Link
Author: blipey
Sounds like the upper Midwest version of Grainbelt, or if you're in Pittsburgh, Iron City Beer.

Date: 2007/10/19 12:09:26, Link
Author: blipey
By linking to Larry's blog.  I know you have a hate-hate relationship with evidence, but when you use Larry's blog as evidence that I am crazy, you are implying that Larry is crazy as well.

You're coming down with a serious case of the JoeGs.

Date: 2007/10/19 12:15:01, Link
Author: blipey
Now about those questions...

I know that nothing in the entire universe interests you more than knowledge.

I know that you are the most curious person in the universe.

I know that there is no topic on which you are not an expert.

I know that your concern for the proper education of children is beyond compare.

I know that you are only concerned with turning everyone into a follower of the true belief that opinion is the way of truth, that intellectual relativism is the truth when you want it to be, but is still bad whenever you can claim that someone else uses it.

That is why it hurts me deeply, eats away at me, makes me cry just beside my beer when you seem to be unable to address:
1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over?

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire?

27. What was the population of the world in that year?

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?

29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

edited to reflect current state of list

Date: 2007/10/19 12:17:41, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,12:12)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 19 2007,12:09)
By linking to Larry's blog.  I know you have a hate-hate relationship with evidence, but when you use Larry's blog as evidence that I am crazy, you are implying that Larry is crazy as well.

You're coming down with a serious case of the JoeGs.

okay, win.  God knows I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain my joke to ya.

Hug and kisses...

Oh, I got it.  I tell jokes for a living.  Pardon me for not laughing.  Still doesn't work all that well, because of your relative opinion of Larry and Myself, the joke doesn't lie in us being the same person.

Date: 2007/10/19 15:27:02, Link
Author: blipey
Right.  This thread is moderated?  In what way?  Just the same as your blog?  You care to back that up?  Any comparative examples you care to share or are you just talking out your ass again?

Date: 2007/10/19 15:29:06, Link
Author: blipey
Now about those questions that you are so eager to answer:


1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over?

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire?

27. What was the population of the world in that year?

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?

29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

I'd hate for people to get the impression that you're only interested in ragging on atheists and making children stupid.

Date: 2007/10/19 15:32:34, Link
Author: blipey
I'll even give you an answer, to number 27.  That should make writing the equation easier for you; I'm so nice.

Answer.  30,000,000

Date: 2007/10/19 15:38:14, Link
Author: blipey
So meet me at 6pm and we’ll get ripped and I’ll start picking off those questions.  And, for every question I answer and every drink I take, whoever is playing has to answer my questions (no matter how personal they may be) and then they take a drink as well.

Let's go, or are you talking out your ass yet again?  I don't think you'll go through with this for a couple reasons.  The first being that you very rarely ask questions (due, IMO, to your belief that you know everything).  The second reason is that there is very little evidence of you answering questions at any time.

But I'm game.  I'll answer your questions directly, quickly, and honestly.  Let's see if you can do the same.

Date: 2007/10/19 15:48:49, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Oct. 19 2007,15:40)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 19 2007,15:32)
I'll even give you an answer, to number 27.  That should make writing the equation easier for you; I'm so nice.

Answer.  30,000,000

What exactly was God's reason for killing all those people? All I ever hear is that they were all wicked or something. Seems a bit of a half-arsed solution to drown all of them. Even we mortal humans don't nuke the country when someone commits a crime.

Actually, 30 million is the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian Empire.

But, I'm feeling really generous Ftk.  Here are the answers to more questions.  This should make your calculation very easy--the explanation, hmmm, maybe not so much.

25.  Answer: 2300 BC

26.  Answer: during the 11th Dynasty, circa 2030 BC

27.  Answer: 30,000,000

Which leaves only one answer for you to provide in this section:

28.  How did 6 people make 30,000,000 people in fewer than 300 years?

Date: 2007/10/19 16:21:46, Link
Author: blipey
I see you did exactly what I predicted you would do.  You did not answer the question in a straightforward and honest way.  You also did not ask a question--very telling.  I'm waiting.

Date: 2007/10/19 16:25:23, Link
Author: blipey
Say one more word about my kids and I'm going to hunt you down and rip off your clown nose....swear to God.

This has several problems.  The first of which: where did I say anything about YOUR kids?  The second of which is I don't think you're strong enough to rip off my nose--I don't wear any sort of prosthetic nose.

Date: 2007/10/19 16:29:13, Link
Author: blipey
Actually, I may change my mind.  Perhaps you did answer the question in a clear and honest way.  It could be that you're too stupid to understand what the inherent problem with the numbers is.  Hmmm?

Date: 2007/10/19 16:34:29, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2007,16:31)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,16:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2007,14:59)
Me vs. fundie in drinking competition... hmmm.
Sorry, that would be unethical!

Hon, I could drink you under the table.

I've heard this from girls before. Here's the rub.

Bodyweight + acquired tolreance + male surplus of alcohol dehydrogenase.

I ran closed bars in my early twenties. 0_o

I fixed it hughes!!!

Date: 2007/10/19 16:38:33, Link
Author: blipey
Look at that!  Ftk countered an argument which included facts with a bare assertion!  I need a drink.

Date: 2007/10/22 01:23:17, Link
Author: blipey
Oh, oh, oh!  I got one, no make that two, maybe threeor more.  I'll just stick with two at the moment, however.

1.  You said a while back that Behe had refuted all the arguments for the evolution of the flagellum.  You also admitted that Behe had not read all of the literature regarding said flagellum.

My very specific problem with this is: How can Behe refute arguments that he has never read?

I believe I may have asked this before.  Somehow you ignored it and then blame me for not asking you specific questions?  Unbelievable.

2.  I specifically asked you how the population of the world could be 30,000,000 a mere 13 or so generations after the population of the world was 6.

Somehow you ignored this question and then blamed me for not asking you specific questions.  Unbelievable.

Date: 2007/10/22 02:15:44, Link
Author: blipey
Since I'm in a loving, kindly mood, Ftk, I'll even give you a hint on the math of the Ark/population thing.

To even get close to a population of 30,000,000 the following would have to be true:

1.  Every woman in every generation would have to have 4 girl children.

2.  Every girl child would have to survive long enough to bear 4 girl children.

3.  If any generation (with the exception of the most recent one) averaged less than 4 girl children per mother, everyone who had ever lived since the flood would still have to be living in the year 2030 BC.

4.  If even one generation averaged just 2 girl children per mother, the entire number of people who had ever been alive at any time since the flood would be under 20,000,000.

Does this sound plausible to you?

Date: 2007/10/22 02:41:49, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (creeky belly @ Oct. 22 2007,02:26)
I specifically asked you how the population of the world could be 30,000,000 a mere 13 or so generations after the population of the world was 6.

I think her answer was something to the effect: People just got busy. I think this would be acceptable to a little kid, and certainly if every person was able to "beget" 12+ people, of course you could imagine it.  Heck, with a little math, you could figure that they could make at least 156,728,328,192 people if that it were so simple. To treat this fairly, I think it's acceptable to question, with any logistic growth, limiting factors. Paradise was gone and there was no more endless bounty, so what was the competition like for resources? What was the fertility/mortality rate? How did they avoid obvious genetic problems associated with inbreeding?

AH!  Too many questions!  We musn't confuse the poor Ftk, who is all about answering the questions.  We should let her--as she is obviously honestly trying--go through and answer each individual question because she has shown a great ability to do this in the past.

Date: 2007/10/22 12:37:46, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 22 2007,07:54)
To all those who are trying to pull me into a discussion about a young earth....take a flying leap.  It will be a sunny day in hell before I get in a discussion like that here.

As to your pyramid/population, blah, blah, blah, issues.  Google for a while...seriously.  If you think that creation scientists haven't considered these issues, you're nuts.

So, if all this research has been done, the answers must be apparent--and easily within your grasp.  Is there any reason you won't type some of them out for us?  Could it be that these answers are so wrong as to be indefensible?  Why not tell us how it all works?  Is it because you have no idea?

I gave you all the numbers you need to do your calculation,; why didn't you do it?

You see, Ftk, this is the point: you have no interest in learning anything and no ability to learn it.  You do not know what a coherent logical argument looks like.  I have told you repeatedly, with examples, over several months how you could form coherent arguments hat would garner you a modicum of respect--you have ignored this.  You are not interested in science, facts, or data: the very things you say are unbelievably interesting to you.

You could have responded to my Ark question by questioning my numbers.  Did you?  No.  Is my figure of 30,000,000 people in 2030BC correct?  Did you check?  Do you care?

You could have questioned my choice of number of generations between the flood and 2030BC.  Did you?  No.  Do you care?

You could have questioned my choice of number of children per family.  did you?  No.  Do you think it matters?

You could have done the calculation.  Did you?  No.  Do you know how?

You could have pointed out that one of my numerical claims (using my numbers) was wrong.  Did you?  No.  Do you know which one it is?  Do you care?

The point is that the research required to answer this question is negligible because I did it for you.  All that was left for you to do was the simple fact checking and calculation that any halfway intelligent sixth grader could do.

Did you do this?  Did you take the 2 minutes it would require to earn the respect of forming an argument as regards the Flood?  No.

No.  Yet, you're selling the facts and argumentation of a field you have no education or training in.  Wow.

This has always been my point with you Ftk (and JoeG, crandaddy, etc): you don't have the necessary curiosity or logical abilities to carry on this argument.  I don't have the biological training to argue modern biology with anyone, even you--but I don't have to have it.  That should be telling for the IDC movement.

Date: 2007/10/22 13:47:38, Link
Author: blipey
Ftk, you are hopeless.  First of all, you can't grasp the fact that ANY possible scenario defeats the IDEA of IC.  It really can't be more plain than that umpteen examples you've been given.

It's like saying a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is IC.  Then someone says, "no, you can have just a jelly sandwich, look."  To which you respond, "A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is IC."  Insane.

Secondly, I'm not even sure you understand what IC is.  Maybe we should start there.  Can you--god forbid, in your own words--tell us what IC is?

Let me tell you, it certainly isn't this:
To paraphrase the original rendition of the Department of Energy's Genomes to Life web site, "the molecular machines present in the simplest cells, produced by evolution, dwarf the engineering feats of the 20th century." The dissection of the complexity and sophistication of ... machines like the bacterial flagellum are indeed a testimony to the power of modern molecular biological techniques. Yet, the elegant structural properties, efficiency, and the highly controlled genetic programming to produce these machines was neither anticipated nor predicted. The potential applications of this knowledge are legion and have spawned a new discipline focused on nanotechnology.

This is what you think IC is?  What about that even talked about things that could not be broken down?  You're getting as bad as JoeG.  You are equating not knowing something with IC--the same stupid thing that Behe does.

edit: my bolding in quote

Date: 2007/10/22 14:11:29, Link
Author: blipey
The sandwich has to be designed.



You got your peanut butter in my chocolate!

You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!

Okay, now that we got the stupid jokes out of the way, would you care to address the real issue of why a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is or is not IC?

Date: 2007/10/22 14:19:00, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 22 2007,14:15)
Well, I'd know just as much about the PB&J as you do.  The only difference would be our believe the PB&J bounced together and sealed itself up on it's own accord, while I believe that it was designed with the intent to be eaten!

With the caveat that my theory could be tested and yours can't be.

Since we can't know anything about the intent of the designer, your Pb&j will always be a thing of mystery and mine will always be not only delicious, but testable.

Care to tell me why a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is or is not IC?

edit: Or did this post insult your children is some manner which requires you to ignore it?

Date: 2007/10/22 14:44:31, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (creeky belly @ Oct. 22 2007,14:38)
As to your pyramid/population, blah, blah, blah, issues.  Google for a while...seriously.  If you think that creation scientists haven't considered these issues, you're nuts.

Can we put this one to bed now? I found a clear instance of creationists ignoring simple objections in Henry Morris's book. He purposefully avoided any legitimate discussion of population dynamics and resorts to pulling numbers out of his ass. Every creationist site I found uses the same failed method for extrapolation: modeling growth as a pure exponential without actually utilizing historical population data. It's demonstrably wrong.

They didn't ignore anything; they interpreted the non-relative evidence in a manner that you don't agree with.  For god's sake can't you google?  The interwebbies are the number one best source of info on everything!

Date: 2007/10/22 14:51:15, Link
Author: blipey
Using Henry Morris's numbers:

His number of 2.5 children per family, assuming 2 girls and .5 boys, the population in the year 2030BC would be ~ 30,000.  This is 3 orders of magnitude fewer people than actually existed.  Do you think this is a problem?

Date: 2007/10/22 15:00:45, Link
Author: blipey

Here is a definition of Irreducible:

In mathematics, the adjective irreducible means that an object cannot be expressed as a product of at least two non-trivial factors in a given set.

So, in this sense I'm wrong.  I was thinking of this from a different angle and was, for some reason blocking out everything else.

Since Bill says that *perhaps* Miller has come up with a possible function for a part of the BF, that would mean that a part of the BF *might* be able to be do something on it's own which would mean that the BF isn't IC.

This is what several people have been saying for some time.  I think we can now truly say that progress has been made.

Blipey's right.  I'm not considering the definition properly.

A new sig?

If it were concluded that these independent parts did not provide a positive independent function, then we're back to concluding that the BF was IC.

At least until we get to here.  Now we're back to no progress.  The argument of IC is not back on the table if any particular pathway is eliminated.  If you admit to the previous quote, then IC is off the table forever.

Shut up, Blipey!

Is that the loving thing to do?

Date: 2007/10/22 16:30:35, Link
Author: blipey

Date: 2007/10/22 16:31:00, Link
Author: blipey
I can't resist it; I should never add those personal quotes.  I do so love to see you address that which is irrelevant instead of that which is important.


Date: 2007/10/22 16:40:43, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 22 2007,16:39)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 22 2007,16:36)
It's irrelevant that I love you???!


Irrelevant to scientific inquiry. Relevant in other fields.

precisely, my dear watson.

Date: 2007/10/22 16:43:05, Link
Author: blipey
Oh the page turned.  I guess it's time to remember a question or two.  I'll remember the easy one:

Using Henry Morris's numbers:

His number of 2.5 children per family, assuming 2 girls and .5 boys, the population in the year 2030BC would be ~ 30,000.  This is 3 orders of magnitude fewer people than actually existed.  Do you think this is a problem?

Date: 2007/10/22 17:05:01, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 22 2007,16:57)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 22 2007,16:43)
Using Henry Morris's numbers:
His number of 2.5 children per family, assuming 2 girls and .5 boys, the population in the year 2030BC would be ~ 30,000.  This is 3 orders of magnitude fewer people than actually existed.  Do you think this is a problem?

I think that half a boy would be a problem - how the heck to you get half a boy by accumulating random incremental genetic changes from an ancestor? :p

By subjecting the mother to incrementally lager doses of slasher films, allowing for the halving of male children by plasma screen osmosis?

Date: 2007/10/23 09:38:01, Link
Author: blipey
So, you can keep badgering me about it, or you can help me understand.  It would help if you try to teach me something rather than keep asking questions or telling me I simply don't understand.  For the moment, I'll allow you to explain it to me as you would a junior high student.  Good enough?

First of all, Ftk, I would like to offer a small commendation to you for appearing interested in the topic of Behe's refutation.  Very nice.  More recently in this thread you seem to fall off the wagon again, but maybe not forever.  I do not say this because you appear to still support Behe's IC argument.  I say this because you are still having trouble addressing the argument and making coherent, logical argument.

I also don't believe that this is your fault.  I don't believe you ever learned to do so; it often is not addressed in American schools.  I would like to offer up my opinion as to why this still seems to be an obstacle for you.  It is because of the bolded portion of your quote above.

You have never seemed to grasp the relationship between knowledge and questions.  Questions are the key to understanding; insight often comes not from out of the blue but rather because you stumbled upon asking yourself the right question.  I don't think you're stupid, I think you often  act stupidly--different things.  I believe you are not interested (or don't realize the importance of) in finding the right questions.

While I think that oldman's and other's comments here are excellent, I don't believe they will have any impact on you until you can change your sentence above to:

Ask me another question; I'll find the answer.

Date: 2007/10/23 09:44:56, Link
Author: blipey
I read once that the average person's vocabulary stops growing around the age of 25.  I understand the basis of that, but it is rather sad.

Date: 2007/10/23 13:02:21, Link
Author: blipey
Okay, this is on the unanswered list of question on the Ftk thread, but it may bear repeating here.


1. What year was the Flood?
2. What was the population of the world that year?
3. What was the population of the world in the year 2030BC?
4. How do you think that happened?

You can get the relevant numbers just about anywhere, including the Unreasonable Kansans Thread here at AtBC.

Date: 2007/10/23 13:56:38, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 23 2007,12:42)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 23 2007,10:44)
I read once that the average person's vocabulary stops growing around the age of 25.  I understand the basis of that, but it is rather sad.

That is actually not true. Vocabulary size and grasp of word meaning continue to grow throughout life, even into one's 70s and up. It is the one bright spot in an otherwise depressing picture of cognitive decline. Not an insignificant one, either.

I'm glad to hear that; it makes me happy.

edited to include more stupid sentences that are dumb...yeesh

Date: 2007/10/23 14:10:28, Link
Author: blipey

Don't make me hire a qaid to kick you ka for a xu.

Date: 2007/10/24 12:13:51, Link
Author: blipey
I don't think you want Joe to come back; I really don't.  I'm not sure he's smart enough to feed himself cereal in the morning.

Date: 2007/10/24 15:17:00, Link
Author: blipey
I’m going to try to ignore everything I’ve read and go with my gut, because there have been so many debates between Behe/Miller et. al. and articles written on this issue that it borders on insanity.  It doesn’t seem to me that there is any kind of consensus as to who is right and who is wrong.

Is it okay if I stopped reading here?

Hey, Ftk, given that my sentence above is true, do you think that I can reasonably comment on the rest of your post?

Date: 2007/10/24 15:20:29, Link
Author: blipey
And, in case you didn't get it, I'll spell it out since there is zero evidence that you can extrapolate information.

Whooooooooop!!!!  So much for stepwise discussion of the issue.  I guess blathering about tangential things is the way to go!!!!!!!!!!  Who needs to know the details?????  The big picture is always so much clearer from a million miles away!!!!!  WOOOOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Date: 2007/10/24 15:35:06, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (slpage @ Oct. 24 2007,13:57)
Busily looks for Tard's claims about being built like a middle-weight boxer or a lineabacker....

Ask and ye shall receive:

I’m an extreme
mesomorph. We’re the ones who can pile on or take off bulk with little
effort - our bodies are like putty we can sculpt quickly and easily. You
recognize us by our V shape. My hips are 13 inches wide and my shoulders
are 21. Even when I let myself go to a new record high of 240 recently my
chest and shoulders were still much wider than my waist and hips. I dropped
40 in three months no sweat. I’m considering how far down to go. 160 was
my Marine Corps weight and my aging joints will appreciate that but I like
how I look more between 180 and 200. Either way it’s another 3 months of
focused but not very intense effort. I need to add 10 pounds of lean muscle
mass (which just means eating lots of protein and working out with as much
heavy weight as I can tolerate 20 minutes a day) for the higher weight and
actually lose muscle mass for the lower weight. I hate the thought of
sacrificing any lean muscle mass as it’s a lot easier to lose than to regain
and the older you are the harder it gets.

From here.
Also nice.

Date: 2007/10/24 16:11:02, Link
Author: blipey
I wonder if she has a reason for going with her gut other than that she knows her head is wrong?  Why would you ignore everything you've ever read?  In any subject?

Date: 2007/10/24 16:35:29, Link
Author: blipey
What have I learned today?


That 99.97% of people believing "A", while 0.03% of people believe "~A", means that there is no consensus and that A and ~A are equally valid.


Checks and Balances is actually misapplied as a tool of governance and correctly belongs in Statistical Analysis.  Namely, as a mathematical tool that allows 0.03% of a set to weigh as much as the other 99.97% of the group.  May also apply to material science and density.

Date: 2007/10/24 16:39:19, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 24 2007,16:35)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 24 2007,15:58)
In conclusion, I look at a microbe: I look at nature: I look at me: I remain incredulous to the “fact” that  NS & RM can account for all that we observe around us.

It seems to me, Ftk, that your position starts and ends here. And there you will stay, regardless of what the scientific consensus is.

Why not just say that, and drop the pretense that this results from some sort of inspection of the scientific evidence, or scientific reasoning?

No one will fault you for that.

Probably true.  I think there are people who will still personally fault Ftk for her view.  I am not one of them, however.  As I've told her before, I respect YECers who tell me that they believe it because the Bible tells them so far more than I respect YECers like Walt Brown.

edit: word choice

Date: 2007/10/25 08:39:19, Link
Author: blipey
I commented a while ago that she reminded me of a "Rennie", the sort of amateurish, hack actor that populates Renaissance Festivals and community theatres everywhere.  I said then it was because she couldn't converse with normal people without falling back on her shtick.

Upon further review I believe the analogy goes much further.  You can separate the professional actors from the amateurs by looking at the way they go about the work in the rehearsal process.  Ftk, and creationists in general, don't bother with the rehearsal process; they skip right to the show.  The creationist knows he has all the answers to his character, to story arc, to all partner relationships, so he never bothers to put in the work to explore the details of these things.  Then, when it's show time, sometimes he surprised by what happens: he's thrown by the crowd reaction, the real set is a bit different than the rehearsal set, the director wants to rework a scene at last dress rehearsal, etc.

The amateur is shown for what he is in those situations because he can't deal with change.  If he had put the work in on the basics and had a firm grasp of his character, the play, the director's vision, etc. he would be able to adjust on the fly and give a good show.

I think the analogy may fall a bit at the end--the difference being this:  Most amateur actors have the good sense to know when they are working with professionals.  I did not say they have the good sense to realize when they're in over their heads--and I'm not going to fault them for this.  Community theatre and Ren Fests can be great fun for all, and can serve as schools to those willing to putter around in them and learn.  I only have a problem when the Rennie gets cast in some small role at Kansas City Repertory Theatre and tries to tell the professionals there how to do their jobs.  Fortunately, that is a minority of amateur actors; unfortunately, it is a sizable fraction of creationists.

Date: 2007/10/25 08:49:26, Link
Author: blipey
I'm going to have to break my own bad habit and stop archiving here (as Ftk is completely oblivious to her own denseness and never disappears anything), but for now:

Darwinists are racist cartoon!

Date: 2007/10/25 09:18:10, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2007,09:13)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 25 2007,08:49)
I'm going to have to break my own bad habit and stop archiving here (as Ftk is completely oblivious to her own denseness and never disappears anything), but for now:

Darwinists are racist cartoon!

Troutmac made that cartoon btw.

There's a surprise.  Maybe Dembski and ilk can make some money and get something published at the same time.  I'm talking about the Sunday Comics Page for Creationists--they can claim it as peer-reviewed material.

Date: 2007/10/25 09:23:18, Link
Author: blipey
In fascism, man exploits man. In communism, it's exactly the opposite.

Exploits man exploits?

Date: 2007/10/25 09:41:05, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 25 2007,09:33)

Are you saying that Sal has no grasp of MN?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. Sal's grasp of many things at issue seems to lack opposable thumbs.

You are completely forgetting that Sal is a genius--because he has an internet connection.  In fact, he and DaveScot graduated from the same school: Keyboard Warrior and Krank University.

Funny that this (broadband) is the only requirement that Ftk looks for in an expert and yet doesn't even apply that universally.

Date: 2007/10/26 09:20:02, Link
Author: blipey
huh? please define "model types".

I believe he meant: model types = kinds.

Hope that helps.

What I do not understand is that weren't the animals of the past, like the trilobite with its very complex imaging system - and no I won't give you a reference as I'll just get yelled at by your compatriots - the models of their time?  So why did they change and today's can't?

Surely not.  You can't be talking about today's trilobites, can you?

Date: 2007/10/26 10:13:16, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 26 2007,10:02)
Thanks Bipley.

Ok, in case Christopher, do you agree or disagree with the following statement

There was a single "kind" of beetle (a pair) on the Ark that all current beetles are descended from.

ooooh.  I like where this is going.

*munches popcorn with that fake, but oh so delicious movie butter*

Date: 2007/10/26 16:54:24, Link
Author: blipey
No kidding.  My 3rd grade summer camp class tells better jokes than that spoof.  Good lord.
I'll bet Ftk gets a kick when they say "evilutionists" though.  Man, now that I think about it, that really is STOOPID.

Date: 2007/10/30 13:42:42, Link
Author: blipey
Shouldn't the idiots be trumpeting this appearance by an ID luminary on TV?

My favorite part of the interview was the way that Johnson answered every question by starting with the following thought, "If Darwinism can't..."

Especially funny after he was asked what the positive evidence for ID was.

Date: 2007/10/31 13:15:54, Link
Author: blipey
Did anyone see the word "evolution" in that quote from the alleged atheist friend of FtKs? Anyone? Anyone?

I mentioned that to her.  I got banned.

Bookstore activist, feel free to email Blipey (he left his email address above) if you're interested in further dialogue with him. He's done here. Thanks.

Date: 2007/10/31 16:02:58, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2007,15:35)
Today's steaming pile from FTK (my emphasis):

The oldest known fossil of a 500 million-year-old jellyfish was found in Utah. Wow...looks just like the modern jellyfish on the right. It's interesting that jellyfish have pretty much always looked like jellyfish, birds have pretty much always looked like birds, etc., etc.. Yet, we're also supposed to *imagine* that dinosaurs also evolved from birds. Crazy stuff.

Crazy stuff indeed.

I like the way that she uses "jellyfish have been the same for 300 million years" to disprove ToE.

wait for it...

Even though she believes the world to be 6,000 years old.

That's great stuff.

Date: 2007/10/31 17:07:24, Link
Author: blipey
Does Ftk support the placing of Satanic Cult symbols in government halls?

I think the answer may be yes.

If this is true, I take back most of the thoughts I've had of her as a crazy person.  I will replace them with different thoughts of her being a crazy person.

Date: 2007/11/01 10:08:31, Link
Author: blipey
Very briskly.  Does that mean that tea had some part in the domestication of the wolf?

Date: 2007/11/01 15:26:46, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,15:08)

She really just can't get her head around the idea that religion means absolutely nothing to some people.  Good or bad.  Nothing.

It's like saying that people who want to watch a football game hate classical music.

I happen to like both.  Some days I'll opt to walk across the street and listen to the symphony.  Other days I'll watch a football game.  Many days I'll do both.

Some people, however, will never watch one or the other.  This is not necessarily because they have a deep hatred of music or football.

Someday Ftk might realize that people can see the world differently than she does.  But I doubt it.

Date: 2007/11/01 16:14:20, Link
Author: blipey
create a woman from a single rib (beef not pork)

I found the problem here.  Any ID who purports to be all-powerful yet raises a beef rib over a pork short-end is just putting us on.

Date: 2007/11/02 09:39:05, Link
Author: blipey
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Nov. 01 2007,17:47)
you and your cohorts should spend *absolutely no* time bitching about religion.

This "logic" --and it is very common-- never fails to astonish me.

It's just like this: I'm walking along, minding my own business, and a passerby calls my attention to a stick on the ground.
"What does that stick mean to you?" he asks.
"Nothing, really," I reply. "It's just a stick."
So the stranger picks up the stick and starts hitting me on the head with it.
"Watch it!" I say. "Stop hitting me with that."
"I thought it was 'just a stick,'" he says with a shit-eating grin. (The same stupid one on FTK's face when she deludes herself into thinking she has a point.)

Thanks for dropping in Ftk.  I noticed that you once again failed to note criticism of your logic.  You also failed to even try to make a case in your own defense.  Let me remind you of the argument.

Do you agree with this restatement of your logic?  If not, what SPECIFIC point do you disagree with?

Date: 2007/11/02 09:42:01, Link
Author: blipey
I also seem--just on accident--to have found this laying around:

1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other off