form_srcid: bystander
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.98
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: bystander
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'bystander%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2005/10/23 22:15:36, Link 202.139.23.86 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Sorry F=MA full stop. American's need the proportionality because they don't use metric units. It's not some kind of universal constant. Force is in Newtons . Meter2 Mass is in Newtons Acceleration is in Meter2 bystander |
| Date: 2005/10/23 22:40:12, Link 202.139.23.86 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Interesting topic but who defines what is useful. I think that as most companies and government are run by lawyers and accountants, I think that their view of value is very narrow and science not showing immediate returns will suffer. Having worked as an engineer with engineers and scientists for a long time, I worked with some arts types for a while and it grated at first but found that the differing perspectives caused a good gestalt. It still grates but I think that it the nature of it as well as the jokes: Q:What did the arts graduate say to the engineering graduate in McDonalds. A:Do you want fries with that? I think that all disciplines should be supported. I think that the people who do arts and history can create a great counterpoint to the engineering and sciences. Anything to lessen the number of accountants and economists. For instance, I think those with a good historical perspective could see the hollowness of the ID/Creationist approach as well and after reading about classical Roman and Greek times is going think we a currently in a moral miasma. bystander |
| Date: 2006/04/27 21:50:49, Link 202.139.23.132 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Coincidentally I have spent a couple of interesting hours on the infidels site and it appears that almost nothing in the old testament holds up archeologically from before David. The book The Bible Unearthed sounds like a good source of info and I'll be looking for it in my bookshop. |
| Date: 2006/05/02 21:18:35, Link 202.139.23.132 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
Back to reality, I was reading on the infidels.org forum about the OT document theory which is (excluding apologists) the current most accepted theory about the OT origins. The theory is that there were a number of authors and a couple of editors for the OT. Genesis was written by two authors and blended by an editor and when you read genesis split like this it makes more sense as a narrative. So genesis 1 and genesis 2 have different authors. I suppose rather than throw out one of the myths they kept both (A little why the contradictions in the Gospels were kept and even a modern biography might have different versions of the same events). Though Cain's wife has me flumoxed. Even 3000 years ago people were not stupid. You think they would have put in some explanation around it. Michael |
| Date: 2006/05/02 21:18:35, Link 202.139.23.132 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
Back to reality, I was reading on the infidels.org forum about the OT document theory which is (excluding apologists) the current most accepted theory about the OT origins. The theory is that there were a number of authors and a couple of editors for the OT. Genesis was written by two authors and blended by an editor and when you read genesis split like this it makes more sense as a narrative. So genesis 1 and genesis 2 have different authors. I suppose rather than throw out one of the myths they kept both (A little why the contradictions in the Gospels were kept and even a modern biography might have different versions of the same events). Though Cain's wife has me flumoxed. Even 3000 years ago people were not stupid. You think they would have put in some explanation around it. Michael |
| Date: 2006/05/03 16:40:14, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Hello Carol, My post was meant for the evdence based people on this forum who might be interested in the current mainstream position. I am not able to come to these forums enough to hold any kind of debate. Sure this position might be overturned but that's science *shrug*. Your comment about scholars sounds more like sour grapes than anything else because rather than holding a party line they seem to spend most of their time squabling. Carol, I have seen you talk about what you believe but not the details (I think we are supposed to buy some book or other). Has it been debated anywhere on the internet? If not why not put forward you position in the Bible Criticism and History area of the Internet Infidels forum. I know that it is an atheism site but a lot of Christians and other Theists go and debate there (quite a few are knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek) as the site is generally free of fundie trolls. There was a debate their recently about explaining Genesis based on a "Gap" theory. This was also based on reinterpreting the original Hebrew which sounds similar to what you are trying to do. Although, his translations are a trifle forced. Michael p.s. It would also be good to see a defence against the archaelogicial evidence of the Bible namely: . No evidence of Jews being in Egypt . No evidence of a large group of people wandering around the desert for forty years. . Town of Ai that was supposed to be conquered had ceased to exist long before the supposed battle. . Jericho didn't have walls around the time the walls were supposed to have been blown down. . Prophesy that Tyre was to be razed to the ground never happened. The current people defending these aren't doing a particularly good job. I find it ironic that all this effort is being spent by DI and the creationists on evolution when archaeology and Bible scholarship are quietly doing more damage to their beliefs than evolution ever could. Michael |
| Date: 2006/05/03 16:40:14, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Hello Carol, My post was meant for the evdence based people on this forum who might be interested in the current mainstream position. I am not able to come to these forums enough to hold any kind of debate. Sure this position might be overturned but that's science *shrug*. Your comment about scholars sounds more like sour grapes than anything else because rather than holding a party line they seem to spend most of their time squabling. Carol, I have seen you talk about what you believe but not the details (I think we are supposed to buy some book or other). Has it been debated anywhere on the internet? If not why not put forward you position in the Bible Criticism and History area of the Internet Infidels forum. I know that it is an atheism site but a lot of Christians and other Theists go and debate there (quite a few are knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek) as the site is generally free of fundie trolls. There was a debate their recently about explaining Genesis based on a "Gap" theory. This was also based on reinterpreting the original Hebrew which sounds similar to what you are trying to do. Although, his translations are a trifle forced. Michael p.s. It would also be good to see a defence against the archaelogicial evidence of the Bible namely: . No evidence of Jews being in Egypt . No evidence of a large group of people wandering around the desert for forty years. . Town of Ai that was supposed to be conquered had ceased to exist long before the supposed battle. . Jericho didn't have walls around the time the walls were supposed to have been blown down. . Prophesy that Tyre was to be razed to the ground never happened. The current people defending these aren't doing a particularly good job. I find it ironic that all this effort is being spent by DI and the creationists on evolution when archaeology and Bible scholarship are quietly doing more damage to their beliefs than evolution ever could. Michael |
| Date: 2006/06/01 20:50:01, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
As a lurker, I have got to hand it to you guys for your patience. AFDave is channelling stuff to you straight from AIG. Even though he mentions TO he obviously hasn't read it as most of what he mentions has been dealt with there. If he had read it then he would be trying refute what TO says. Wake me up if he actually says anything that is new. Michael AFDave My Prediction: AFDave: The world was flat at the time of the flood (Quote out of context some bible verses) so there was not really that much water required. Also that the water was held up in the "vaults" of heaven. This layer by the way protected the early people against radiation. We don't have this protection anymore and so our DNA has been degrading ever since. Also throw in something about the grand canyon looking like the mud gullies in Mount St Helen. Mutter about fossil layering reproducing where the animals were struck down in flood Reality Based People: Talk about Physics of that much rain washing out all of the oxygen in the air. "Kinds" not making much sense. Asking about what happened to insects and salt water fish and trees and what did they eat after they came off the ark and no Koala fossils in the middle east. etc etc etc AFDave: Non Sequitor response to criticisms same old same old. I should replace AFDave as I know most of this off the top of my head. |
| Date: 2006/06/02 01:41:49, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
.. Oh forgot to say that as nobody knows what Gopher wood is, it must be some superstrong timber that doesn't flex etc. etc. Michael |
| Date: 2006/06/07 16:25:20, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
| Not just rum but Bundaberg Rum please |
| Date: 2006/06/08 20:40:04, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
We are having a similar debate in Australia at the moment and I can't see what is the conservative's point. Gays currently live together, some have marriage ceremonies. All this debate is about. is to allow these people (and/or goats, or whatever turns you on) have recognition that they have a significant other person (or goat) in a legal sense. This doesn't mean the government condones it. It allows them the same rights to insurance, superannuation, hospital visits. What's this got to do with sex? That will happen anyway whether the law passes or not. If Thordaddy doesn't like certain combinations to have sex with each other then outlaw the sex. If the act is not against the law why for FSMs sake not give people equal rights. Michael |
| Date: 2006/06/08 21:23:41, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
What does what boil down to? The way the current laws stand. Imagine two nice spinsters living together. No rumpy pumpy just two women who never got married to anybody else and a firm friends. Now, if one get's critically sick and into hospital the other might not get to see her. In fact her brothers and sisters who have not seen her for 40 years have more rights than these two ladies. If one dies then the superannuation (In Australia) goes to the family. Similarly things like insurance etc etc. This is what this is all about. A way that co-dependant people can have legal rights and recognition. Thordaddy, you and the bigots are making this about sex. Gays already have sex and live together. Because you don't like what people do in their bedrooms (and on chandeliers) you want to deny them some basic human rights. Anyway my last comment to you on this as I was talking to the reality based people. Michael |
| Date: 2006/06/25 17:36:08, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Guys, Guys, Guys, You are confusing poor AFDave, you are pulling him in all directions. Poor guy Dave my friend, pal and buddy, Ignore all the rest of the guys. I basically want to stop working for a living and have a cunning plan. I'll write me a creationist book. My biggest stumbling block is the fossil record. No I don't mean to tear apart the Evilutionists version of it. That's easy and been done. I want to be able to explain it. You see the same animals seem to pop up in the same layers world wide. The layers seem to appear in the same order worldwide. I tried by looking at how big they were but you have itty-bitty creatures mixed in with the big guys. I thought about how fast they could run to get to higher ground but still no good as the big slow guys are mixed in with the little fast guys. What's even worse when you cut across the layers you have fossils that look like they were buried in a desert in sand underneath fossils that look like they were buried in a sea underneath fossils that look like they were buried in a quiet lake. You're going to have to do something quick as my wife is going to insist that I get an honest job pretty soon. I'll give you 25% of all sales. If you can't help, I going to have to go with the ID crowd and a man has his dignity (besides how many ways can you say -- if it looks designed then it is, unless it isn't. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 20:27:28, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Is there another reason for the apparent number of engineer creos is that engineers along with scientists were the early adopters of computers. Most of this debate is done on computer. Outside of the web, I get the impression that most of the Creos are Lawyers of MDs. I'm 44 and have been using computers for 28 years and so have most of my engineering comrades. Even when I graduated in 1980 most of the non-engineering types (Law/commerce etc) were getting their thesis done on typewriters. Lets look back in another 5 years and see how many people from other professions are in the debate. |
| Date: 2006/06/30 01:39:46, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I went from Mechanical Engineering to writing software. Nothing in Biology but I used to do those things from Scientific American (Game of Life and Core Wars etc). What always got me was that you could get quite complex behaviour out of quite simple systems and it so doesn't surprise me that life can self organise. I surprised that Mr Tard reading Scientific American over the same period as me didn't do the same things. Although he does say he believes in Front Loading which I suppose is the same as a great software writer in the sky writing his own core wars. Michael |
| Date: 2006/06/30 01:51:07, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Going back a bit, Dave talks about his belief in front-loading. I assume that this means that everything was loaded in the original DNA. What does this mean exactly? Does this mean that you could find in a jellyfish DNA the information to create a human? If it does then it's testable isn't it? If it's just that God created the initial ancestor and started it all, how is that different from Evolution? The only other thing I can think of is that the original critter had DNA that created everything and DNA gets thrown out as species develop. That is as the first amphibians left the water they threw out the fin making genes and the fish knowing that amphibians had evolved throw out the genes for making legs. Or is it just me trying to get that pitiful level of detail stuff. |
| Date: 2006/06/30 01:55:52, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
.. and don't forget the Aussie Spiders - Redbacks and Funnel Webs. Michael |
| Date: 2006/06/30 16:35:53, Link 202.139.23.132 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
So It's testable? So they should test it. If they truly believe that things are designed there are a lot of things you can test. The things I can think of are: 1. Front loading --- should be findable in the DNA 2. Intervention --- IC I suppose. I think the current examples have enough doubt thrown on them. In fact if ID was sincere they would be trying to falsify these themselves and systematically searching for new versions. I'm sure that SETI would try to falsify any signals they found. 3. A single creation or Multiple creations. This is where God creates each of the kinds separately. I'm sure a study could actually define the original "kinds". Things like vestigial legs on whales has disproven this but I am sure that a sincere IDist could think of experiments to falsify common descent. There are a few biologists around here. If some sincere Creo came up to a univeristy with a fat cheque and no strings attached would they assist in any experiments? Also I know that Dave comes here. I wonder if he is brave enough to take the next step and open discussion in UD about real experiments to prove ID (Not strawman experiments that they think disprove evolution). Michael |
| Date: 2006/06/30 16:52:16, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Has anybody mentioned the fact that Jericho didn't have walls at the time they were supposed to have been blown down and that the town of Ai didn't exist when it was supposed to have been attacked. Michael ps Yes Jericho did at one time have walls and Ai existed but that screws up the bible dating (all those begats and when they were supposed to be in Egypt). |
| Date: 2006/07/05 17:54:55, Link 202.139.23.132 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Wow guys, I've learnt a lot over the last couple of pages. Keep the science coming. I don't expect anything meaningful from Davie boy because he has too much ego tied up in his position now but hopefully there are a few lurkers starting to slowly see that the YEC position is untenable. It might also be dawning on Davie as well but I don't think he will ever admit it. Michael |
| Date: 2006/09/01 02:19:51, Link 202.139.22.100 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Just want to add my thanks to all of the good work you guys have been doing. I have just been to Steve Locks site and it has brightened my day. It talks about de-conversions also how they are asymmetric. That is there are many cases of professional apologists/ministers/theologians deconverting and very few "professional" atheists converting. In fact he could only find two. Reading the stories many remind me of Dave where they came to convert the heathens and got converted themselves. Dave watch out it may take a decade but the subconcious meme has already been planted. It is interesting to read the stories. From it I believe that Dave currently believes his dribble but is stretching reality to fit his beliefs. A lot of the people said that they needed counselling after being deconverted to get over the mental gymnastics they were forced to perform to maintain their former belief. T.O. also has a section on creationist deconversions and this was a pretty typical quote: From Edward T. Babinski: "My belief in young-earth creationism died the death of a thousand qualifications. It didn't change overnight. I kept having to stretch it to accommodate more and more info that didn't fit with young-earth creationism until my belief in young-earth creationism and especially "Flood geology," snapped." So bad luck Dave, your chances of converting anybody here is almost nil, in fact you are probably doing a wonderful job of deconverting the fence sitters and will probably eventually deconvert yourself. What I would like to see is one of the kids Dave is poisoning see this thread and sue his pants off. It's one thing to unknowingly teach falsehoods but this thread showed that he was exposed to the truth and still went forward anyway. Michael |
| Date: 2006/09/01 11:30:16, Link 202.139.22.100 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
Dave
And the fact you ignored the substantive part of my post speaks volumes. The point is that in any INFORMED debate about christianity or science the conversions tend to go one direction only. What does that tell you. Ofcourse you know that's why you try and get the kids before they can get educated. The fact that you haven't: 1. Explained why the fossil record supports common descent not a flood. Handwaving about body size or speed does not explain the sorting. 2. Explained away the high correlation between dating methods which support an old earth. As has been noted you have plumbed the depths of AIG and have found nothing that could stand up to any examination. In fact the original thing that shows your lies is your original promise to show "new" evidence for global floods etc. Everything you presented was straight from AIG. Everything you presented was already dealt with in T.O.. *ho-hum* another boring creo.[QUOTE][/QUOTE] |
| Date: 2006/09/04 00:18:16, Link 202.139.23.189 |
| Author: bystander |
|
As an amateur in all this, I think that the fossil record is the most powerful piece of evidence for common descent for non-scientists. It's easy to understand and doesn't lend itself to any other interpretation. This is the second time that Dave quoted the AIG tract and again it got the same response that the sorting has nothing to do with body size or brains or speed but follows the tree of life. I'll bet that Dave doesn't come back to it with a theory of sorting consistant with the actual fossil record. |
| Date: 2006/09/23 15:32:10, Link 202.139.23.90 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either) 1. You say that the fossils are sorted based on body size, speed and intelligence. I have found out a lot of dinosaurs were small, fast and smart. Why aren't they mixed with mammals of the same size, speed and brain size? 2. You say that different sized sediments fell out of the water at different times forming the layers we see. I would have thought that this would mean the fine stuff would be at the top. However, in the cliffs behind my house I see shale below layers with bigger grains, how come? Jordan (age 9) |
| Date: 2006/12/15 01:41:49, Link 202.139.22.153 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
This can't be a coincidence. From Iain M Banks "Against a Dark Background" chapter 13:
Michael |
| Date: 2006/12/16 21:29:16, Link 202.139.22.153 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I'm strictly an amateur here but I am curious that there is emphasis on how our DNA life came to be. Is there any research creating life of any kind? Also is there any freely available documents from the above? Michael |
| Date: 2006/12/22 04:30:11, Link 202.139.22.153 |
| Author: bystander |
|
With the angst over the blasphemy challenge the main worry is if the atheists deconvert. However, this is pretty rare for an educated atheist: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html http://humanknowledge.net/Philoso....on.html These links show that the traffic is decidedly one way. Michael |
| Date: 2006/12/22 04:38:58, Link 202.139.22.153 |
| Author: bystander |
| Aussie boy, Born and bred in Sydney and moved 140km south when the beaches got too crowded. |
| Date: 2006/12/31 19:44:20, Link 202.139.23.215 | ||||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||||
Well this is testable. We should find a stack of atheists waking up being Calvanists. Unfortunately, the conversions are one way, educated Atheists never (with one exception) never reconvert. |
| Date: 2007/01/04 14:56:08, Link 202.139.23.215 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Too late now, but one thing that gets me is that the creo's love to point out gaps in our understanding in science, however, there is no way they can support the literalist's view of the world. Except for a brief quote from AIG on fossil sorting which is so bad it is not even wrong, they have no explanation for the fossil record and the rock strata in general. AFDave would babble on about everything else but refused to address fossil sorting and I am sure that dgszweda is the same. Isn't there a saying about taking out the log in your eye before the splinter in your brother's eye. |
| Date: 2007/01/07 22:00:46, Link 202.139.22.72 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I went to a catholic school and we were taught that it was a physical body, that the soul doesn't contain your personality and my reading of the bible seems to agree with this Is this true for all demoninations? If so I would have thought that the John Edwards of the world would be blasted from the pulpits, or is it just a case of Christians (You even hear of pastors saying that someone is with God when they die) not knowing their religions. |
| Date: 2007/01/10 01:20:10, Link 202.139.23.89 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Sorry a few pages on but I knew a guy that got around $1000k an hour baby sitting a system overnight from 31-Dec-1999. Around 1998 until 2002 we were regularly paying $750 per day (we don't pay hourly) for experienced code cutters. It is around $650 per day at the moment. Note that most of these guys are also pay agencies around 15%. Michael. |
| Date: 2007/01/12 14:40:09, Link 202.139.23.171 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
The fossil record. Why the fossil record supports common descent so well and does support sorting by size, speed, brain size etc. Rhino's and Triceratops are not found in the same layers, neither are Utahraptors and Lions. I have asked a few times... Michael |
| Date: 2007/01/13 04:16:51, Link 202.139.23.171 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Dave, This is you hypothesis, remember. The fossil column supports common descent. But this is not about evolution. Finding exceptions is beside the point. Your hypothesis is that the Bible is the literal truth. Explain the geological column according to your theory. This includes fossils but also includes forests sitting on top of each other, intact dinosaur nests etc etc. The AIG cut and paste does not match reality. That's why I asked again and this is the third time you have pasted this and this is the third time it has been torn apart. Dave, you see this is important for your hypothesis. Outlaw biology and radiometric testing if you like but anybody can go into the bush and see that the geological column doesn't show any evidence of a flood. In fact it didn't need Darwin for geologists and civil engineers to figure out that something was wrong. I read recently about somewhere there is evidence of 40 forests sitting on top of each other. Dave, you have got to solve this as everything else is just hand waving. This is a test of your honesty. |
| Date: 2007/01/13 17:32:45, Link 202.139.22.154 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Dave are you going to include how you ran away from the fact that the actual geological column and fossil sorting does not support Bible literalism. All you have posted so far is the little AIG screed which is so bad it is not even wrong and some mumbling about fossil trees. Almost any National Park I have visited goes into great depth about the local fossils and the geology. They can tell us what the local flora and fauna were going back millions of years. Creationism has been around awhile, you would think that they would be able to give us similar detail on what happened over the year of the flood and the evidence for it. They don't because anybody going out and getting their hands dirty can see that the world is old. There are no flood layers. That each layer contains all kinds of fossils and the creatures change as you move through the layers. No Hippos with the Triceratops. |
| Date: 2007/01/19 17:04:44, Link 202.139.23.217 |
| Author: bystander |
| It's true. We have some Lyre Birds in the hills behind my home and they can make a great assortment of calls. Friends of mine had a cockie which makes a perfect imitation of their telephone. Something about Aussie birds I guess although I have more interest in the other type (especially as it is now summer). |
| Date: 2007/01/20 19:29:40, Link 202.139.22.177 |
| Author: bystander |
| One of the best things I have noticed about Attenborough's documentaries is that he constantly mentions the word evolution and millions of years. It must drive the creo's crazy. |
| Date: 2007/01/28 18:44:28, Link 202.139.23.203 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Another classic thread! I wonder how many lurkers will be de-converted based on Mr Hunter's vague hand waving and the factual replies given. I wonder how long he'll last before he slinks off. For a professional purveyors of anti-science the internet can be a pain as your debates are there forever for all to see. Michael |
| Date: 2007/02/18 18:13:12, Link 202.139.22.90 |
| Author: bystander |
| This is an excellent thread. The emptiness of Mr Hunter's arguments have been clearly shown with no real insults. I think that Mr Hunter regrets ever posting here but also realises all of the potential suckers that will google his name and find this thread, so he keeps coming back but unfortunately digging himself deeper. |
| Date: 2007/02/19 19:45:47, Link 202.139.22.90 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I think DT put in a second post which never appeared. After their initial knockdown am I sure that it was full of Dave's usual profanity Michael |
| Date: 2007/02/20 05:02:01, Link 202.139.22.90 |
| Author: bystander |
|
On UD I noticed a debate between D'OL (or is it Doh) and Robyn Williams. Robyn is a well known science journalist in Australia. Robyn comes off well and D'OL as very unconvincing, although I think that Robyn could have made the point around ID being unscientific and untestable. What's frustrating in this is that D'OH is painting herself as somebody sitting in the middle of the debate and thinks there may be something in ID. As we know all her writing is about how Darwinists are wrong and there is a huge atheist conspiracy. I noticed on PT that WAD was saying something similar in a debate he recently had, where he believes most of evolution. Again his blog writing is all about the evil Darwinist atheists and poking holes in evolution where he can. Honestly, these guys couldn't lie straight in bed. A classic from DOL was where she started in on Dawkins and admitted that she hadn't read any of his books. Michael |
| Date: 2007/02/20 15:09:46, Link 202.139.22.90 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
No this is recent from UD. You have to listen close to the end of the podcast where Robyn asks D'OL if she has read Dawkins. Her reply paraphrased is that Dawkins is far down on her reading list. She would rather read the more intelligent Atheists and that Dawkins is a has been. Michael |
| Date: 2007/02/21 20:53:38, Link 202.139.22.90 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
How dare PZ infer that Dave has a friend. |
| Date: 2007/02/21 20:59:22, Link 202.139.22.90 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
No just that he has a friend |
| Date: 2007/02/27 18:57:57, Link 202.139.23.192 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I've put in my opinions. I'm sure he will value opinions from Australia Michael |
| Date: 2007/04/03 16:54:38, Link 202.139.23.205 |
| Author: bystander |
|
As a non-science type guy I think it is a shame that FtK will probably not contribute here. Although she only repeats the standard ID memes I am curious around her non-questioning of the ID leaders in non-scientific areas. A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book. Except for a brief flurry about the drawings of THOSE embryos. There has been silence. Even if I didn't understand the take-down myself, the silence from those on the ID side should be telling in itself and I would be asking why. I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves. Michael |
| Date: 2007/04/03 19:40:35, Link 202.139.23.205 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Written language has never been my strong suite |
| Date: 2007/04/03 21:24:48, Link 202.139.23.205 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I think that it is dishonest stupidity is not an excuse. If you support the minority position and blog on it, it is your responsibility to ensure that your side covers all of the bases. We see EF, NFL, SLoT and the rest of the Creationist cannards being brought up again and again without the criticisms being addressed. When a substantial (substantial in the number of pages not content) piece of creationist/ID work is produced the PT crowd will fisk it in no time flat. Isn't it dishonest of the ID to only pick and choose to what they respond. Isn't it dishonest of the people like FtK to not take them to task for not responding. Michael - I personally think that there is nothing wrong in a non-expert questioning an expert but you do have to listen to the answer. |
| Date: 2007/04/07 06:35:41, Link 202.139.21.127 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I had a read of the thread you linked to and have the opinion that Jason like most other ID proponents haven't read the Dover transcripts just other's reactions to it. They seem to focus on just the stack of papers and the astrology bits. Anybody who read the entire transcript can see that Behe made an idiot of himself through his entire testimony and I think that the peer review and tonne of dirt moments are even better. It is the funniest read I had all year. Anybody who hasn't read them, you also need to read the examination of the scientists as well before hand as it set's the scene for Behe. |
| Date: 2007/04/17 06:53:47, Link 202.139.23.153 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Luckily I live in a fairly secular area in Australia. I first got interested in the Talk.Origins site around 10 years ago. The main things there were talking about the aquatic ape and the "man as old as coal guy". There was also a discussion about ID and IC. I can't remember if Behe was the actual participant but the threads had reduced to mutual abuse so I could not pick up the gist of the arguments for and against. At the time I thought it was a shame because even through I was and am an atheist, I thought it would be powerful evidence for a god or an alien designer if IC could be proven. A lost interest for years and got interested again when some guy on a left wing political blog in Australia started to carry on about ID and how it should be taught in schools. I googled some links and found PT. This was around the lead up to the Dover trial which was very entertaining (I still believe nobody on the ID side actually read the transcripts) and basically stayed for the fun. Michael |
| Date: 2007/04/17 22:17:41, Link 202.139.23.153 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
It would be nice to separate the engineers from the scientists. More to show that not all engineers are ID nongs. BTW I am an engineer. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 01:11:50, Link 202.139.23.153 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I used to in the 80s until it got boring but I could only make one choice |
| Date: 2007/04/19 05:41:29, Link 202.139.21.123 |
| Author: bystander |
| -- removed -- |
| Date: 2007/04/20 01:54:15, Link 202.139.21.123 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Doubt it as he has posted similar stuff in the past. Weren't you saying earlier that Dave doesn't have a sense of humor. To say that they are just "joking" is a way the people in the ID/Creo world avoid criticizing the more extreme people |
| Date: 2007/04/20 02:01:41, Link 202.139.21.123 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Somebody linked to this Morton's demon on PT I think. I think this would explain Ftk quite well. On a similar note there are blogs criticizing a recent PNAS paper. Gee this is how science works. Complete opposite to ID where no criticism is allowed. |
| Date: 2007/07/08 07:43:10, Link 202.139.22.109 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I think that there is problems with both sides of the argument. There is simply not enough information to tell either way. Nothing reliable from the first century. Bits and pieces from the second century (Most of this is people such as Eusebius writing in the fourth century quoting lost documents from the second century) Not having heard Robert's actual argument, I am sure that it is no different to any fundie argument (I just hope it is better then the standard circular arguments of how the gospel was true because it was written by honorable men. We know they were honorable because the gospel tells us they were*). However, the mythical Jesus argument is still based around starting assumptions around certain documents being more authentic than others. Michael * Another favorite of mine is that the gospels are correct about the resurrection because the gospel said it was witnessed by 500 people. |
| Date: 2007/07/11 07:05:08, Link 202.139.22.109 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Mohammed was not necessarily historical either. |
| Date: 2007/07/14 01:03:10, Link 202.139.22.72 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
True in this case as Robert was self taught in the subject but Dave Springer use has changed the meaning to selfdidact=ignorant super tard. I listened to the podcast while on my walk. Robert you were not bad for a first try especially against someone as good as Bob Price. It would have been better if you had a lot more experience at debating. The arguments you made were interesting. I'm an atheist but agnostic on whether Jesus actually existed, we just don't have enough information. Michael |
| Date: 2007/07/19 17:52:39, Link 202.139.22.72 |
| Author: bystander |
|
To me the definition of neo-darwinism allows the slippery IDers to duck and weave when cornered. It allows them to separate the science of evolution from the religion of neo-darwinism. Ftk is a prime example, she will start by saying that evolution sucks and is wrong, but when presented by actual science will say that she has nothing against evolution, except that the neo-darwinists will not consider any alternatives. In time this can change to they (the tards) knowing that evolution was always correct and they (the tards) were just pointing some holes in the theory which the Darwinists refused to considered, and that though the holes were eventually filled in it meant that they (the tards) were always correct as they were pointing out problems that needed to be filled and actually not saying the science was wrong it was just the darwinists (damn them) making out that they were saying the science was wrong. In short Tards correct, science correct, scientists (darwinists) wrong as always. Sorry for the convoluted sentence but that's what happens when I put my tard hat on. The same has already happened in Australia with politicians and global warming. Michael |
| Date: 2007/07/31 18:07:38, Link 202.139.22.107 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
He's and electrical engineer and thinks that reactive power is not real. OMG. How did he ever pass his exams. How did he handle field theory? Michael |
| Date: 2007/08/31 21:25:00, Link 202.139.22.107 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I think Sal should think about what his purpose is. I thought it would have been to gather converts to the ID cause. However, we have all see him do this before. He takes an irrelevant point in a debate and turns it into a YES/NO answer and so think he wins the debate. Sure the faithful will think he is kewl but what about all the lurkers? Any lurker who is undecided will see that Sal has not actually covered the real issue and is full of it. Thats one thing that the reality side does well. I think that everybody is aware of the lurkers. We may be mean and nasty but every troll's question will still get answers followed by questions sent back at them. UD will just say it's been answered and ban them. I'm optimistic. I think that good science blogs and stupid tactics by the opposition will all but kill off creationism within this generation. People like FTK will never change but her kids might. Michael |
| Date: 2007/09/01 16:28:39, Link 202.139.22.107 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Sorry that must have been me. |
| Date: 2007/09/01 17:22:17, Link 202.139.22.107 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
It never occurs to FTK that when the IDers publishes anything that it gets reviewed at least on the blogs. Why does she think that if anything by an IDer got submitted for review would get a better reaction? Also why don't they have their own peer review periodical ... Oh yeah they do, when was it last published again? |
| Date: 2007/09/03 00:54:28, Link 202.139.22.107 |
| Author: bystander |
| So is an ati-FAQ at ATBC going to be created? There doesn't seem to be much there that is not boilerplate. It could just be pointers between fTK and Talk-Origins. |
| Date: 2007/09/03 17:02:12, Link 202.139.22.107 |
| Author: bystander |
| It would be interesting to see what Baylor have to say about what happened. Wow the chip on Dembski's shoulder will be huge after this. |
| Date: 2007/09/06 21:35:09, Link 202.139.22.107 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I suppose it is all grist for the humour mill but I am a bit disappointed. The half a feather/eye arguments are pretty old and silly and can be easily destroyed after spending 5 minutes on the internet. It shows how after all of those years in evo debates her faith in her God is so weak that she is scared to do any real investigation. So I suppose it helps our case. Anybody genuinely look for answers will quickly see that she has nothing. Michael |
| Date: 2007/09/23 00:46:41, Link 202.139.22.118 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
all languages start to look the same? The boy doesn't get out much does he. There are many languages around that look weirder than Forth. |
| Date: 2007/10/23 20:15:41, Link 202.139.22.167 |
| Author: bystander |
|
My opinion is that Dave is only half-hearted when writing about ID and that his passion is in his other hobby horses. I think he stays because it makes him feel important to be the Banninator and part of a movement. Look how lost he was when he left UD for a shortwhile. However, idiotic as he sounds he is miles ahead of BA77 and the other tards. Imagine how it must feel when these guys are your audience and have (probably) been told by WmAD to go easy on them. I started reading this just before the Dover trial, I vaguely remember that Dave in those days use to give it to the other tards as much as he gave it to the Evo side. |
| Date: 2007/10/30 20:49:48, Link 202.139.22.167 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
[quote=Albatrossity2,Oct. 31 2007,08:38]
I know this is pretty obvious to all you sciencey Guy/gal types. So if this is a prediction of ID then ID has been falsified, not even by science. It was enough me reading my wife's donkey breeding books. In fact a any breeder of animals or plants would look askance at Ba77 [1] He seems to think that a single sheep has a diversity of genes which is wrong by definition. I think he gets confused with pure bred animal populations having a low diversity and breeders bringing other breeds into their population to bring in some hybrid vigour. [2] The parent species contains all diversity. Another bit of BS. Again, the breed books will note when and where a mutation first occurs. BA77 should do an experiment and crash breed wolves and see if he can get a Dalmation. What a maroon |
| Date: 2007/11/06 16:51:04, Link 202.139.22.167 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I always thought that it was weird about the peer review schtick the IDers keep going on about. There is nothing magic about any of these journals except for their reputation. If they have the stuff they could publish and peer review their own papers. Also, Why doesn't Liberty U or another Fundie University fund an ID department. I think that they know, Dembski knows, the DI knows that they have nothing more than "it looks designed and I think that it is really really improbable that it evolved". The sciency stuff they have published so far has fallen flat. Also, everything that Dembski or Behe have put out there has been peer reviewed (torn to shreds). |
| Date: 2007/11/06 16:52:44, Link 202.139.22.167 |
| Author: bystander |
| The whole transcript is a gem. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 22:52:01, Link 202.139.22.167 |
| Author: bystander |
|
As a non-scientist, it has been hard going, but rewarding, educating myself on the whole HIV issue so I can see the holes in Behe's argument. It still boils down to Behe: X and there are no studies contradicting this Others: What about all of these studies? Behe: Insignificant Others: They are not insignificant because Y and Z. Behe: Gratuitous Insults Others: Wanker What burns me up if that I take the time to study the evidence so I can understand the majority position. Ftk on the other hand reads nothing and declares it all on gut feel. |
| Date: 2007/11/08 05:54:38, Link 202.139.22.167 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
ERV Sure, 'tis nothing compared to your great putdowns! |
| Date: 2007/11/09 16:27:54, Link 202.139.22.167 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
or got sick when the lawyers replied "You want to what .... ha ha ha ha he he he ho ho ho" |
| Date: 2007/11/11 23:43:06, Link 202.139.20.134 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
It could be my suspicious mind but it could be he saying that he can't wriggle out of this argument but I win because I have had a harder life. Is there a logical fallacy named after this? |
| Date: 2007/11/12 17:30:15, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
| come on give the guy a break. It's not easy to try and find quotes to mine when you haven't read the primary literature. He might sneak some science in around post four or five. Maybe he should get the guys at UD to help, or Lee Merrill at IIDB seems to be doing well *snicker* |
| Date: 2007/11/12 18:16:55, Link 202.139.20.134 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Sadly that's not saying a lot. |
| Date: 2007/11/13 15:30:32, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Lets see latest post: . Abbie is a meannie . Misquotes Abbie (I wonder if he got it from Sal?) . The change is minor so irrelevant |
| Date: 2007/11/14 14:59:14, Link 202.139.20.134 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
That comment will go over the UDers head but is snarky enough to be one of you guys and I bet I know who!!1!!!one!! |
| Date: 2007/11/15 00:05:38, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
| I'm betting that getawitness, poachy and bugsy are sockpuppets. |
| Date: 2007/11/15 20:09:54, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Can somebody explain the last paragraph of Behe's statement. I can't see how this is not what we expect from Evolution, why does it support ID? Michael ps. I can't wait until this thread moves to page 7. I find the photo at the top disturbing for some reason |
| Date: 2007/11/18 16:00:49, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
| Where's Dave? I'm starting to get worried about him. |
| Date: 2007/11/19 19:59:24, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
| It could be my paranoia but I wonder if UD is generally letting the trollery (?) to occur so they can eventually say: "Look they are always complaining about us censoring comments so we stopped censoring comments and look what has happened, we are overrun with trolls making stupid comments" |
| Date: 2007/11/23 19:00:46, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
|
We Aussies vote today. Hopefully this will be another step in the path of removing the extreme right and anti science from the world. Although the Labor party also has a pretty conservative platform as well, polling suggests that people want to move away from the current government due to Greenhouse issues, iraq and social justice. One thing that is nice is that Dr Karl a popular science presenter and ignobel* prize winner is running for the senate. I am not sure but the guy would have to be at least a strong agnostic. * Won for his study on the contents of belly button lint. Michael |
| Date: 2007/11/23 20:55:22, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
| His wiki entry Dr Karl |
| Date: 2007/12/02 15:18:58, Link 202.139.20.134 |
| Author: bystander |
|
She has been doing a fair few hit and runs lately. She was on PZ's blog as well. It's strange that she defends what I call the BAD arguments. PZ was writing about West's presentation. The presentation was basically that belief in evolution leads to eugenics. West said it Ftk thinks that it is true. I am optimistic enough to think that most of the Americans believe this stuff because they haven't heard the full story. I think that a chink would have appeared in some people's belief at the West forum when reality was put forward as a rebuttal and that the questions were critical but respectful. As long as stupid and easily challenged arguments are part of the DIs and Ftks toolkit, I think it will damage them in the long term. |
| Date: 2007/12/03 15:24:51, Link 202.139.23.234 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Gee you go away for a day and what happens ... This proves my earlier point. Ftk and her ilk do harm to those potential allies that are just ignorant. I think that in the real world the creationism cultural wars generally registers a zero. When Expelled is released, the backstories are going to be released as well. Has Ftk read the backstory about Sternberg (rhetorical as I know these guys don't read anything not sanctioned by the DI)? The guy is pretty odious generally and was not above lying. Also Gonzalez had not done enough to get tenure, let alone any influence that ID had on his case. |
| Date: 2007/12/05 14:44:29, Link 202.139.23.234 |
| Author: bystander |
|
We forget that the DI doesn't ever actually do anything except write press releases. They piked out of Dover and they were going to sue over the Nova program. I think they are stupid enough to think that ISU will quietly negotiate a settlement with GG. GG himself is quiet in all this. I wonder if the DI went to him and said don't worry we'll talk to ISU and try and get you tenure. GG thinking that there'll be some quiet high level negotiations. However, he opens his paper and is currently saying WTF!!!!111!!one. Denyse is pushing the persecution card a little strongly lately isn't she. maybe nobody is buying her books. |
| Date: 2007/12/05 15:33:47, Link 202.139.23.234 |
| Author: bystander |
|
My favourite Sal lie is when he debated some guys on a geology forum. He denied saying something anybody could scroll back a page and see. Least favourite is his reprehensible behaviour all through his ERV debate. Unfortunately Ftk doesn't like the sciency stuff so she has no way of judging. It's strange, Sal supposedly disappeared because he was worried about his university work but he still posts at young cosmos. could he see the writing on the wall with UD and the DI? Michael |
| Date: 2007/12/06 13:30:19, Link 202.139.23.234 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Big difference. ATBCer laugh at the unintended humour from the IDers. Sal lies to make debating points. |
| Date: 2007/12/06 13:50:26, Link 202.139.23.234 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
Big difference ATBC pokes fun, UD is being dishonest. |
| Date: 2007/12/06 13:58:35, Link 202.139.23.234 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
That explains a lot. When I first saw the article I was wondering whether his advisors have been slapping him around the head for those comments. While people like Ftk might cheer he will instantly lose all the people in the middle who have heard of Dover. These are the people that the Republicans are going to have to win over in the election. You can be sure that his rivals will start to point out the losses in every state that has tried to teach a variant of ID in the schools |
| Date: 2007/12/10 21:13:35, Link 202.139.23.234 |
| Author: bystander |
| --- quoted wrong post |
| Date: 2007/12/11 02:12:18, Link 202.139.23.234 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
That's truly stupid. Fourier transforms are just a way of describing wave like behaviour. He is supposed to be an electrical engineer for goodness sakes. I worry about the degrees in the US if Sal can graduate with such a fundamental misunderstanding of his tools. I was a mechanical engineer and we used Fourier transforms to describe spring like behaviour. You might as well say that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples and 1 quark + 1 quark = 2 quarks reveals something fundamental about the universe. |
| Date: 2007/12/14 00:48:36, Link 202.139.23.234 |
| Author: bystander |
|
It's something I have been thinking about. When I was in High School I was quite religious and our Christianity was nothing like theirs. We were more into going out and helping the poor rather than following people down the street telling them that they will go to HELL if they don't repent. We weren't obsessed with what gays were doing, we were trying to change the world for the better, even if just locally. Looking back now as an atheist, I don't think that we were very theologically correct but we were given the impression that Jesus would have been happier with the Hippies then, rather than the evangelicals of today. -- edit to say credit to Ftk |
| Date: 2007/12/18 15:47:42, Link 202.139.23.234 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I agree with ERV that Dembski is definitely unhealthy. He reminds me of stalkers. Everybody has a stalker story, but my friend broke up with his girlfriend who then: 1. Took out an AVO on him. He didn't care. 2. The next day called him up to go out for a drink 3. Was caught breaking into his house and stealing his cat and started beating at him when caught. 4. Rang up again as though nothing had happened and went into abuse when told to go away. I think you swap the boyfriend for science/Baylor and Dembski as the girl in this case. I think deep down that Dembski loved the short time he had in real Academia and is acted as a jilted lover. |
| Date: 2007/12/18 19:33:50, Link 202.139.23.234 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
I'm an engineer as well. I think that engineers seem to be over-represented because all of the reality based engineers don't pepper their posts with "As an Engineer ... " unless the subject is about engineering, whereas the creationists are right into credentialism. This is pretty much the same for everybody at ATBC, I know we have some pretty heavy credential, but very rarely does somebody say "As a double Phd in flapdoodle ...". |
| Date: 2007/12/19 19:36:01, Link 202.139.23.234 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Bwa Ha ha ha .... Closer to being one of the posts of the year. I can just see Dembski in his little Major Generals outfit singing this. |
| Date: 2007/12/22 15:54:12, Link 202.139.23.234 |
| Author: bystander |
| My question is that appears that you version of evolution in the book is a simplisitic kill or be killed version. There has been a lot of work over the last 20 years around altruism and co-operation. This is seen now as an important part of evolution and is in many popular science magazines and book. Why didn't you include this in your book? |
| Date: 2007/12/27 04:42:15, Link 202.139.23.241 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
dcost is not long for this world. 20to1 the response will be that the gaps in the fossil record show frontloading and with Darwinism™ we would expect a gradual change. I thought it would be interesting to make a model of the fossil record. Plug in the probability of a creature being fossilized and the probability of a fossil being found and compare this with the real fossil record. I'm sure the gaps would be of similar size. I also thought that this has already probably been done. Having just started a business based on waiting on phone calls I realise that randomness is not a thing that we humans deal with at get level very well. I keep converting the numbers of calls per day into a trend. I think that this is half of their problem. |
| Date: 2007/12/27 16:37:46, Link 202.139.23.241 |
| Author: bystander |
| My journey was more an intellectual journey but I have read where for some it is a hugely emotional experience. IIDB has a large number of deconversion stories. |
| Date: 2007/12/27 17:42:53, Link 202.139.23.241 |
| Author: bystander |
| I'm sure he is just using hyperbole in that comment and isn't quite that stupid but doesn't he realise that once comments like that are in the public domain that we will use it against him, forever. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 03:19:02, Link 202.139.23.241 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
This assumes a 50-50 split over God's existence which is a weak argument and incorrect. 1. Christianity is based on the new and old Testament. Well science and archeology have proven that most of the old testament was basically made up. For the New Testament there is little contemporary information to see what is true or not, but we do know that the various birth and resurrection stories are contradictory. That if the miracles happened (particularly graves opening) there would have been a lot of contemporary records. There could have been a Jesus, but a miracle worker, unlikely. 2 Religions contradicts each other, even different kinds of Christianity contradict other types of Christianity. 3 Additionally, there is much to be said that belief in higher Gods could be an innate survival trait in humans. 4 Also, events seem to be random. Good/Bad luck seems to effect people equally whether they are Good or Bad or what they believe. 5 As science explains more the gaps that God can hide in gets smaller. I can't say that there is definitely no God but it appears extremely unlikely she exists. Or in other words, if there is a God, then she doesn't seem to interact with the universe at all except for perhaps getting the ball rolling, so what's the point acting if she exists? |
| Date: 2007/12/29 16:15:49, Link 202.139.23.241 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
translation: I don't need any steenking evidence, I'm just right. I usually stay away from threads that mention atheism because they either consist of atheists patting ourselves on the back for being rational or a theist presenting zero positive evidence telling us that we are not rational. Skeptic calling himself a sceptic is the same as Ftk calling herself reasonable. "The skeptics guide to the universe" had an interesting definition of a sceptic. It is not enough to just question everything, to be a true sceptic you need to change you mind when the evidence is contrary to your current beliefs. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 20:39:48, Link 58.168.104.83 |
| Author: bystander |
| Isn't this just the courtier's reply ala PZ and Dawkins. |
| Date: 2008/01/02 20:34:44, Link 202.139.23.241 |
| Author: bystander |
|
My prediction will be the production of two more books by DI fellows that be touted as causing the death to darwinism. Contrary to what is above I think that Expelled will be like Dover. 90% of the media and most people don't care about the ID debate although they will have their default positions. When Dover happened, the media picked it up and saw what scuttled out from under the rocks. The DI lost the PR war before the judgment was given. I think this will be the same. Expelled will be released to packed houses, all the creos will cheer but the media will get interested and start investigating and come out with counter documentaries. The ID movement will then even lose more of the middle ground. I think the ID movement does well when it can stay vague and below the radar of the major media. When it sticks it's head up with verifiable facts and a major presence, they get their head kicked. edit: A number of school boards will be voted out after risk large legal settlements |
| Date: 2008/01/18 17:50:24, Link 202.139.21.146 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
Try telling that to the kids of today and they wont believe you. |
| Date: 2008/01/27 00:46:04, Link 202.139.21.146 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Well, he has to do something all day now that nobody gives a tinkers about ID anymore. The intelligent side of the equation bailed out at Dover and the creos have moved back to the AIG. |
| Date: 2008/01/27 00:47:51, Link 202.139.21.146 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Oh, the ID version of peer review |
| Date: 2008/01/27 23:48:21, Link 202.139.21.146 |
| Author: bystander |
| * edit: repeated myself |
| Date: 2008/01/28 00:19:45, Link 202.139.21.146 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
My father was East European and I am sure that a lot of his neighbours welcomed the Germans to rid them of the Jews and Moslems. They were "good" Christians and would have been aghast if they thought that Hitler was an atheist. It's strange that the side of the science debate that has a lot of the anti-gay/anti-brown/anti-moslem* people on it's side think that Evolution supporters are the Nazis. Michael |
| Date: 2008/01/28 00:25:52, Link 202.139.21.146 |
| Author: bystander |
| Behe probably believed that the Nobel would be his after this book. What is it 10 years later and he gets beaten up by a graduate student and has to go on a radical Christian radio station to get a warm welcome. |
| Date: 2008/01/28 00:55:28, Link 202.139.21.146 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Sal is going off the rails even for Sal. I wonder if it is because he is finding his studies a little tougher than expected. Uni is different in the US compared to Australia, but I assume that until now he would have survived by just using the tools he was told to use. But going from "Use a Fourier Transform to solve this equation" in lower grades to "Why would you use Fourier to solve this problem?" in higher grades would be a problem to somebody like Sal who has no idea about the underlying philosophy of Fourier transforms. I have found some of the same kinds of problems with his comments on genetic computer programs. |
| Date: 2008/01/28 17:12:44, Link 202.139.21.146 |
| Author: bystander |
| Question 5 is interesting given ERV and others revealing that Behe didn't even do a basic google search for his latest book. |
| Date: 2008/01/29 20:04:05, Link 202.139.21.146 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. No professional trader or group of traders can move the market for more than a few minutes at a time. The big meltdown last week was cause by SocGen closing out the truly enormous trades put on by their rogue trader and that only lasted a day. The real crooks in the markets are and always have been the salesmen. They push the gullible into buying instruments which they do not understand. Books such as FIASCO and Liar's Poker are fascinating reads, shame Stein has never even read the popular books on market manipulation. Short sellers have been the boogy men in the markets ever since the 1930s Wall street crash. It's like blaming the undertaker for somebody dieing. edit to add: I don't know why everybody is surprised that the NYTimes keeps him on. They don't get rid of people because they are wrong, they get rid of them because they are boring. |
| Date: 2008/02/02 21:15:18, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
How can somebody who refuses to learn the facts about biology and maths accuse somebody of not understanding something. It's not opinion but there is enough out there to show that Dembski and Behe's ramblings are just souped up god of the gaps and easily refuted. Brown is the easiest to refute with only high-school physics. The ATBC, PZ and PT crowd may be rude and noisy but they are not dishonest they will only get rid of people who have continually trolled over months, not get rid of somebody who has asked a question apparently answered before. And they would never ban somebody and pretend that the person has not been banned. |
| Date: 2008/02/05 05:52:18, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
Doff's Cap |
| Date: 2008/02/16 17:44:20, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I think Sal is becoming one sick puppy. Has anybody been to his University? Would it be apt to point one of the campus welfare people to his blog. It would be terrible to sit back and laugh at him one day and then find out that he decides that he is the hand of God. My guess is that it is not just failing grades. I'd say that he is debating one of his professors and he is finding that in real life it is not as easy to pretend to win a discussion as it is on a blog. I wonder if Ftk ever bangs her head on the table when she looks at who is on her side or she is so totally under the spell of Morton's demon that she can't really see the difference. |
| Date: 2008/02/26 15:55:21, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Kevin, When I was fourteen (32 years ago), I believed in all kinds of woo and firmly believed that science was blind. Unhappily (but fortunately) I found that each guru had feet of clay until I have become a confirmed sceptic. These guys have a good story and if you use them as your only source of information it is easy to be seduced. A lot of the people you see around here have been fighting anti-science for over 20 years. Instead of ignoring ID science and simply attacking the people (which is what Berlinski, Behe etc would like you believe) these guys have done detailed critiques of their ideas. It's all easy to find on the internet if you research. The reason that a lot of people on this board and people like PZ seem angry is that the ID people never address the critiques. I believe that this movie will be like the Dover trial. The more popular the movie, the more likely somebody will do another documentary where they do look under the rocks, where they do do the research (I have a great title "Duped"). |
| Date: 2008/02/26 16:29:14, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Unfortunately con men tell us that these are the easiest people to con.
Did you interview their critics? Gave people they criticized (basically the science establishment) a chance to rebuff. Spend a weekend reading the archives of Panda's Thumb to see the other side of their various press releases. They also have some interesting critiques of Berlinski. Please don't think we are being mean. BELIEVING that there may be more to existence than what science has shown is fine and dandy. BELIEVING that some scientist somewhere will find this is also fine. We are more curious as to why hitch your wagon to these particular characters? It doesn't take much research to discover that these guys are wrong, dishonest or both. Sternberg -- there was a senate investigation. read the appendix, this guy was pretty odious and would have been sacked from any private company. Gonzales -- Wasn't expelled just not promoted. Didn't take any students to Doctorate. Brought in hardly any research money, Did hardly any research. He did write the book privileged planet but didn't develop this any further. etc. etc. |
| Date: 2008/02/27 06:36:16, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
| I think that you miss the point. The idea that my religion is true and all other religions are false is a relatively recent thing. Before this I think that most people believed that their god and everybody else's god were real, so having a god that could do cooler miracles than somebody else's god was an advantage. |
| Date: 2008/02/29 04:36:25, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Kevin was a bit of a disappointment. He was happy to discuss philosophy but nothing about the specifics of the movie. You would think a movie maker would be interested in the "other side" of the whole expelled thing. I know that I would be nervous that I may have been taken in by the DI crowd, and appear as a fool. The only thing that I can derive from what Kevin has written is that he thinks that Science is not including the supernatural it doesn't matter that they are promoting liars (Well he didn't seem interested in defending any of the ID gang here) and slandering scientists. |
| Date: 2008/03/01 15:55:36, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Moses and the Jews certainly knew god when they left Egypt and they still strayed. Why was the unchanging god so keen to have himself known then and not now. Even in the Acts of the apostles has overt acts of God. I once heard a good comedy riff where god had used up his advertising budget by 100AD and all he could afford now was the occassional impression on a piece of toast. |
| Date: 2008/03/03 15:05:51, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I assume (because you didn't mention it) that the writing is the usual appalling O'Leary style. I wonder who proof read it for her? Secondly, I am convinced that O'leary has never read any material first hand. I heard her on an interview once. After spending many minutes criticizing Dawkins, she revealed that she had never read any of his work. This was because she didn't find him interesting. I wouldn't be surprised that she had only read reviews of Dennett's work and that is why it's arguments aren't discussed. |
| Date: 2008/03/07 14:46:43, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I agree with David and I don't think that this is a good idea. I think a better idea would be to recognise homeschooled kids officially and enforce a ciriculum on the kids. This means that the homeschoolers can teach any crackpot things they want but they must also teach a minimum of english, math, science etc. You would do this be having standardized testing every couple of years. This happens in Australia with homeschooled kids and private schools. They have to teach the ciriculum first which includes evolution before anything else. |
| Date: 2008/03/08 16:29:56, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
| All those with websites and blogs will have to make sure they link to it so it goes up the google charts. |
| Date: 2008/03/11 02:48:22, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I agree with Heddle on this. I was basically taught to think of it as a play. God not only created the universe, wrote the history of the universe and wrote himself a part in the story of the universe. So the perfect universe and story of the universe requires these miracles not because the plan was imperfect but they were a neccessary part of the plan. Of course as I am an atheist, I will note that there is a relationship with miracles. The greatness of the miracle is in direct proportion with how many years they occured before the present and indirectly proportional to the number of witnesses. |
| Date: 2008/03/12 17:05:02, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I think this is why Christianity is going to implode. This you are going to hell unless ... stuff used to be constrained to the red states in the US but the rise of the religious right have emboldened even more moderate pastors. In Australia schools have a scripture class once a week (Our kids opt out of course*) but the Angican teacher told the kids last week that if they don't read the Bible they are going to hell. A number of parents have pulled their kids out and put them in the Bahai class instead. A similar thing happened a few years ago when an instructor said that they have to love God more than their parents. Most Christians in Australia like their religion on Sundays, Christmas and Easter and that's it. * My Daughter said this morning that she was sad that none of her friends didn't believe in God so she could have someone to sit next to in non-scripture class. I hope Dawkins brings out the God Delusion in picture book form. |
| Date: 2008/03/20 18:50:10, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Looking at Stein's financial writings, I think that he enjoys going against the crowd and this is probably what attracted him in the first place. The idea that he thinks that people are generally sheep and being different marks him as being an independent thinker. Also the DI guys can present their ideas quite seductively if you have not been exposed to the other side. |
| Date: 2008/03/23 21:23:48, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
| No doubt many of you would have read Dawkins' review of the movie. I wonder if Kevin will include this and enlighten us where it was unfair? I think that it might have been too facty for him. |
| Date: 2008/03/23 21:25:44, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
That's the first step - admiting to not being objective. How many steps until the admission that the movie is just outright lying. Is it a seven step program like AA? |
| Date: 2008/03/24 21:39:24, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I think that there is a distinction between the evolution of societies and a particular society that runs based on survival of the fittest. I think that Dawkins' is talking about the second. |
| Date: 2008/04/03 17:34:11, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Kevin reminds me a lot of FTK. Even worse in a way as you would assume that for any movie you would do hundreds of hours of research (at least to find out what criticisms that your opponents are going to throw at you). Kevin is yet to give any specifics details on who is being repressed what are the actual doubts about evolution and answered any of the rebuttals about the Darwin->Hitler rubbish. We even have a quote from Kevin's boss Mathis about Sternberg being sacked. How many seconds research does it take to know this is rubbish. I think Kevin represents the Goebbels school of writing, no lie is too outlandish as long as it pushes your POV. The only question is how much is Morton's demon and how much is actual lying. This is why Expelled will not get much traction. The people who have already drunk the koolaid will like but that vast rump of Americans who would be sympathetic will get turned off by the lies. This is why I think that the creationist nonsense will only grow to a certain level. As soon as they get too public, sensible (relatively) people will take notice and kick it back down to where it belongs. Judge Jones did a good job in Dover, but I think that what killed ID was the daily reporting of the foolish statements of the school board and Behe that got enough people to notice and reject it. |
| Date: 2008/04/05 01:17:16, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Wes you left out M. I have already shown this so many times, I'm not going to do it again. Michael |
| Date: 2008/04/10 02:33:47, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I'm reading all of the reviews in the Sciam site. Some choice quotes: "The movie's one-sided version is either the result of shoddy investigation or deliberate propagandizing—neither of which reflects well on the other information in the film." This is discussing the section on Sternberg. Well Kevin which one is it? Sciam Article Link |
| Date: 2008/04/17 04:57:21, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Must have melted their site. I can't connect. |
| Date: 2008/04/20 17:39:49, Link 202.139.22.119 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
So the theatres will be losing money on this turkey (unless the fans like to eat the godless popcorn and choc tops). I'm sure that that they wont be keen on showing the next Premise Media epic. |
| Date: 2008/04/24 17:32:54, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Having just escaped from being one, Paul reminds me of managers dealing with staff. An employee comes up to you with an idea. For what ever reason you don't want to pursue the idea and don't want to say no to the person. You just say for the guy to come up with a full proposal on their own time. When the guy does it say that you need some time to study the proposal or pick up some minor point and send them back for more research (on their own time). With luck they will get bored. I think that if anybody thinks that Paul is doing anything other than wasting your time are being scammed. Reading through these pages, he has never said that he would actually do anything with the data. Behe when faced with reality say's "irrelevant". Paul says "Interesting, could you research it for me and I'll get back to you". Dembski of course calls the National Guard and publishes your kids school's on the web. |
| Date: 2008/04/30 18:37:41, Link 202.139.22.119 |
| Author: bystander |
|
The last time that ID made the major Australian media was during the Dover trial. Here is an article in the Australian: Ferris Bueller's way off as creationist damns Dawkins I actually had to read a fair way into the article before I realised that they were dissing the movie. The Australian is a conservative broadsheet. Looking around at the reviews, I am seeing quite a few that should be sympathetic that are panning the film. Ben Stein and company can easily dismiss most of the criticism as liberal slant, but when the target market starts to move away from the movie they should start to get worried. I think that they have jumped the shark with this movie. Note that even Davetard disagreed with the Nazi connection. I think that in 6 months time the movie will be buried as an embarrassing mistake and there will be few if any DVDs sold in Church basements. |
| Date: 2008/05/01 17:44:17, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Is it lazyness or is it 1. Just hard to make up this crap otherwise why recycle the same stuff over and over again. Dembski has had two ideas in how many years. Behe took a long time to make up enough stuff for his 2. Most of the stuff is so contradictory, keeping it all in one place would be embaressing. 3. Because of two -- who could peer review something that totally contradicts their own position. they would end up fighting amongst themselves and not the real enemy the elite left wing liberal atheist Muslim Darwinist media. |
| Date: 2008/05/05 17:21:55, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Phyllis Schlafly has a review of Expelled and it is ofcourse positive. I've also been googling news on Ben Stein for reviews and my favourites are the ones from conservatives and the religious. Here is another one from The Corner. The religious tend to say that he has points but has gone overboard and the conservatives tend to say that he is an embarrassment to conservatives. |
| Date: 2008/05/15 22:59:22, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| Least it's proof that Dave does read this thread. |
| Date: 2008/05/19 19:14:35, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
We have our denialists as well, but after all the years of drought they are few and far between. I think it came as a surprise to the previous Australian conservative government how much of their traditional base (DTard's idealogical cousins) believed in global warming, I think they assume that we follow the US in everything. These guys at the UD can make their armchair announcements on these things without having to face anybody suffering or actually doing anywork on the subject. I'd like to see Dave visit western New South Wales and tell everybody that GW is a left wing conspiracy and anyway it's good or you. |
| Date: 2008/05/21 02:42:52, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
A small town 2hrs south of Sydney so a long distance hello to you both. |
| Date: 2008/05/21 22:27:50, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
So has she said where the ebola boys are dishonest? We can point to plenty of places where she and the rest of the IDiots are dishonest but has she ever pointed out something dishonest from this side? Looks like she wont be seeing Jebus when she dies. |
| Date: 2008/06/02 17:43:54, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| Not to mention 50 years ago, thrashing your children to within an inch of their lives was seem as something that upstanding christians do. "Spare the rod spoil the child". How can she say that she is worried that morals become relative under an atheist agenda when they have obviously been relative for all of history. |
| Date: 2008/06/02 17:45:05, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
More interesting would have been all of the studies showing no link. What a loser. Insteading of looking at Scienceblogs for articles to troll she should actually read a few of the science articles. |
| Date: 2008/06/10 22:32:38, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I've just read about e coli on PZ's blog and the whole UD crowd are blithering idjits. So the logic runs: Behe: two mutations are almost impossible e coli paper: three mutations occured here to enable the trait Behe: Ah ha, I am vindicated UD: Stoopid darwinists Or the more probable explanation is that Behe skimmed the paper and nobody else at UD read the paper. |
| Date: 2008/06/13 17:22:16, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| I look forward to this book selling 12 copies. |
| Date: 2008/06/16 00:45:00, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
You have to give Wally some credit, at least he gives enough information of his model so that it can be unambiguously refuted. Ofcourse, even then kooks like Ftk and AFDave still try to defend him. I don't think that even Wally believes in his model that strongly. I remember in the IIDB debate with AFDave, Wally must have been watching the outcome as he was changing his model to suit. Unfortunately, he would remove one problem and show 2 or 3 others. If Ftk over the last three years read the science in the science blogs rather than finding things to concern troll over, she might have learned enough to see that Wally is a kook |
| Date: 2008/06/16 01:53:07, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
This is always the big question around what they really believe. I think that Walt knows that his theory is crap but but also KNOWS that the world is only six thousand years old, so if he keeps plugging away he'll come up with the right answer. I put Behe in the same camp, he initially believes what he has written. When the sloppy scholarship is revealed it is O' crap back to the drawing board (Never admiting the problems though). At least with Behe, I think he has had some interesting ideas and if ID was science this would be the kinds of things that it would do. I differ from most and think that Dembski actually believes the stuff he has produced and his bitterness comes from nobody that matters acknowledging his brilliance. |
| Date: 2008/06/16 02:10:07, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I think that this is what makes them sloppy. I think that if the audience actually looked at their work critically then Wally would have pulled out the calculator and Behe would have actually checked the literature first. I also think that this is what makes Ftk uninteresting as she hasn't changed her position 1 iota over all of these years. No matter how many times these guys lie. |
| Date: 2008/06/16 03:46:47, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I would say a bit of both. When I was young I always thought that you could teach anybody anything. After having staff for a number of years, I found that I was wrong and some people's wiring is just different and they can't be taught to do everything. The bigger disappointment was much later when I found out that I could not do anything I put my mind to. In this case you have to put your faith in some authority or other. This doesn't excuse Ftk, however, as the people she puts her faith into are shown time and time again to lie and to censor any dissent. Ftk does however perform admirably as a modern day Simplicio for the lurkers |
| Date: 2008/06/16 05:43:43, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
The hysteria part that gets to me and this is what will cause them to eventually fall apart. They force everybody to make a cultural choice where none is really needed. I think that if you asked most of the religious here (although we do have some creos, they aren't great in number) in Australia, their murky idea of science and of their own religion, means that they can reconcile them to each other and they don't have any issues. I spent nearly 10 years reconciling my own growing scientific knowledge with the Bible without any real issues. In the US, however, you are told that biologists are atheists and believing in evolution and deep time will take you to hell, so people are primed for the fight and if they see any cracks in ID or Creationism they tend to turn their back completely on Christianity. What is faintly amusing in this is while the biologists and geologists are being demonized, archaeologists have been, over the last 25 years, quietly disproving almost the entire old testament with barely a peep from the wider religious community. |
| Date: 2008/06/16 16:37:38, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
It might sound sexist but I think she comes here because 1. She likes to mix it with the bad boys (and girls). Except for Sal and DT most of the UD crowd are pretty dry, if you don't understand why they are funny. 2. She also needs to have the last word |
| Date: 2008/06/20 18:02:22, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Ftk came here and pretty much managed to say nothing. I am no scientist but can think of a half dozen reasons why common design doesn't make sense or paints the designer as an incompetent boob. For one, has she actually looked up why PT is called the Panda's Thumb. She comes spouts common design is true and runs away without defending it. Her willful ignorance is horrifying. She calls us closed minded but never backs up anything she says with evidence or actually refutes anything. |
| Date: 2008/06/21 22:01:34, Link 58.166.137.153 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I would have been a fly on the wall during the interview, McKnight certainly did his homework. I wonder if Stein is regretting the movie yet. This seems to be the first sighting of Stein outside of finance for quite awhile. |
| Date: 2008/06/22 18:59:36, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
What is the common design argument? To me the spectrum consists of God using the same template everywhere. This doesn't explain why the Tasmanian Tiger looks like a wolf, but looking deeper has more in common with a Kangaroo. Why not just plunk a wolf down in Tasmania? Why are the marsupials all clustered together in Australia? Why have marsupials at all? Stupid designer. The other end of common design is the trivial answer that God based Kangaroo and Tasmanian tigers on the same template and modified them to meet their particular environmental niches which is identical to evolution except you have God continually zapping beneficial mutations. I basically agree, Ftk has no curiosity about the world and picks up Creo talking points without spending a millisecond to see where these ideas actually lead. These guys are their own worst enemy as they do this out in public for all to see. |
| Date: 2008/06/25 02:03:27, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| ... at least there is some honesty and consistency there, compared to Ftk and the other Uddites who dance and sway to imply the same but avoid actually saying anything of substance. |
| Date: 2008/06/28 00:47:53, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Is there a psychiatrist/psychologist in the house. I would really like to understand the Ftks of the world. She comes onto this Forum and bleats "Common Design" answers all without a shred of supporting evidence and ignoring any discussion of it. Says that scientists are arrogant because they believe that they have disproved all of the creo arguments, without saying which disproofs (?) are incorrect. |
| Date: 2008/06/29 00:32:22, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
This is what is annoying about Australian politics, both parties are about outdoing each other on giving tax cuts to make oil cheaper. Which I think is very short sighted. What we need is a cut in consumption to give us time and a motivation to get the alternatives. The oil lobby doesn't help with the "lets drill for oil here and everything will be peachy". They don't tell us the fact that the Middle East oil fields are so freakishly large that all of the new proposed fields are small in comparison and that the Middle East fields are running out. |
| Date: 2008/07/01 20:17:08, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
The site is down for maintenance --- Boo hoo hoo. Maybe the tard melted it. |
| Date: 2008/07/01 21:27:41, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
I used to be a real Christian, I even followed all the stuff that contradicted the other stuff. (HT to Homer Simpson) |
| Date: 2008/07/03 01:18:35, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| DOL suggests that she could be in the extras part of the DVD *shudder* |
| Date: 2008/07/03 17:37:39, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
This is where the Dembskis of the world are actually evil. For people like lcd it is not a matter of learning new stuff, it is a matter of unlearning the wrong things. Saying "Information cannot be created" doesn't make sense at any level and Dembski and co are still trying to find a definition of information for which this is true. Whats wrong with the following: 1. A mutation happens which changes DNA 2. The mutation gives an advantage to an individual. 3. The individual survives to have more offspring. 4. The mutation gets fixed in the population I know that for the experts I've left out a lot of detail but lcd needs to show why this is wrong. |
| Date: 2008/07/04 00:13:02, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
It would be nice for them to prove it someday. I feel another afdave thing happening. I wonder how many posts between beneficial mutations never happen to beneficial mutations rarely happen |
| Date: 2008/07/04 20:13:38, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| The problem for Schlafly is that he has pretty much implied that if the data is correct then he is wrong. |
| Date: 2008/07/07 23:44:54, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| Yes Mike would be left with well grounded people like Joy. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 02:31:55, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| This was about the closest I ever got to joining UD. Those idiots saying "atheists think this", "atheists have a problem with that" really got my goat. Disagreeing with atheism is fine but inventing what we think and feel is annoying. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 06:22:16, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Wes, I think only those who have drunk deeply of the kool-aid would have thought otherwise. Guts just digs himself deeper and deeper. The thing that Guts should realise that much more people lurk around Atbc than around TT. So for people like me, the first introduction to Guts is the effluent he spewed over the last 20 pages. If I was Mike Gene, I would dump this guy as soon as possible. |
| Date: 2008/07/13 22:55:25, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Although the family reasons is true, the stuff with Guts could push him over the edge. Using the Dr Dr D EF filter I make two ID predictions: 1. Mike finds that in real life people down fawn over him and he is back within a month. 2. With Mike gone it reaches the popularity of Overweening Evidence as anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence is banned. I think that it is like UD. Dembski is the only reason that the denizens put up with the environment. Michael |
| Date: 2008/07/13 22:56:01, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Freudian Slip? |
| Date: 2008/07/15 02:02:06, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Coincidentally, I googled intelligent design and probably 80% were critical of ID. The first Australian links were from local papers talking about Dover and the next link was for a web design company. The positive sites seemed to consist mainly of the sites from the UD idiots. This just shows that ID supporters make up a tiny percentage of the population (0.5% of the US population went to see the movie) and the Evolution Supporters far outweigh them. |
| Date: 2008/07/15 02:06:11, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
|
And bystander's Fathers younger son would agree. Michael |
| Date: 2008/07/15 16:16:22, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
Thanks Guys, but being on the other side of the world. I get my happy birthday when I already have my hangover. I'm no good at lolcats but here is a picture of where I live. I'm on the ridge on the right hand side of the mountain in the distance. |
| Date: 2008/07/15 17:17:32, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
Oh Noes the water is now 14 degrees*. Oh Waits it's winter it is supposed to be Chilli. In proper degrees not those imperialistic running dog farenheit. |
| Date: 2008/07/16 02:11:32, Link 202.139.23.156 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Ian, That's one of our favourite LOLcats. Thanks |
| Date: 2008/07/16 17:11:28, Link 202.139.23.156 |
| Author: bystander |
| Shouldn't Dave had made a comment that Creationists use the term Darwinism and they have yet to produce a definition. Scientists study evolution. |
| Date: 2008/07/17 18:23:47, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
| I've always thought that the YECs lost the battle 200 years ago. Ftk (and Sal) like to say atheist conspiracy, but these guys were mostly Christians and through their work, which was applied science (a lot of the people using this were engineers) they found that a young earth and flood geology could not fit what they were seeing. |
| Date: 2008/07/20 20:39:35, Link 58.165.186.32 |
| Author: bystander |
| I think that it is good. It weakens the evolution == atheism link. The fact is that you have DOL writing "No True Christian" posts shows that it is working. |
| Date: 2008/07/22 19:31:25, Link 202.139.23.192 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Yes, I agree that it is one of those "at the margins things" and while people like Ftk will never be convinced she'll end up more isolated. It's like homophobia, it is hard to maintain when somebody you know is gay and open about it. As the homophobia disappears more and more people will come out of the closet causing more homophobia to disappear. A virtual circle. |
| Date: 2008/07/22 23:08:03, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I had what we would call a liberal Catholic upbringing but I think that we reconciled it by saying that God didn't do evil but allowed evil to happen due to granting us free will. I think that the whole Buddist wheel of life thing makes more sense in that having bad things happen is a way to allow us to evolve to the perfect beings or whatever. |
| Date: 2008/07/22 23:15:21, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
On less philosophical grounds the problems I a non professional have with front loading is: 1. Where the heck do you fit all this front loaded information 2. Doesn't Lenskis experiment cause a serious problem for front loading? The third issue is that I thought that frontloading would be a fertile area for making and testing hypothesis but still there is silence other than them saying that Junk DNA is not Junk. And even with Junk DNA is not Junk but hold some special code, should some analysis tool be able to tell us that there is some thing there? Michael |
| Date: 2008/07/23 18:07:41, Link 202.139.23.192 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]
This whole discussion is silly given that the last 20 years of archaeology has contradicted the old testament up to around 600 BCE. It's only because it is NOT being taught in schools, that it isn't an issue like evolution. So it again comes down to evidence. Evidence supports evolution not the Bible. |
| Date: 2008/07/24 02:04:03, Link 202.139.23.192 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Of course Dave has never been known to utter an unclean word. |
| Date: 2008/07/27 02:57:08, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
| Happy Birthday, I have pioneered 47 for you and it isn't bad so far. Nothing has dropped off yet, Well nothing that I ever use much anyway. |
| Date: 2008/07/28 22:07:37, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
It is also that LCD has bought into it has to be God or Evolution false debate. I'm an atheist now but I went to a Catholic school and we had no problem with science. Jesus talked in parables so why couldn't God have talked in parables when He inspired the OT. We were taught that Genesis was written to highlight origins and the nature of free will and sin rather than to try an be a science textbook. If you were God and had to teach stuff to a tribe with attention deficit order (Moses was gone for 5 minutes and already they were worshiping a golden calf), would you tell them that the universe is 12 billions years old and they evolved from monkeys or would you teach them morals and what happens when they don't follow orders. |
| Date: 2008/07/29 07:25:14, Link 202.139.23.192 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
the problem is that most of us did and then we started to actually read the Bible |
| Date: 2008/07/31 02:11:50, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I'll have to grab a camera. The most common non-bird critters around our place are red bellied black snakes. Even though they are poisonous, they leave you alone unless you step on them. I always think that these guys are pretty cool and like to watch them until they disappear. Blue Tongued lizards under scrap sheet metal (until the Dogs get to them). We sometimes find Echidna's curled up next to the house and in the mountain behind us there are Wallabys. There are a lot of Wombat holes around but we haven't seen one yet. As for birds, Where I live is supposed to have the highest diversity of parrots in the world. Our favourite is the Black Cockatoo. Their call is not as raucous as the white Cockie. Wes would like the Wedged Tailed Eagle. Another bird that is fascinating to watch, especially when the dive to grab a rabbit or lizard. |
| Date: 2008/08/02 01:35:30, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
This is another difference between the two camps. They will rarely if ever criticize anybody in their own camp. I think that PZ DOES have some camp followers who agree with everything he says, but there is always vigorous debate about the issues and the various approaches |
| Date: 2008/08/02 02:08:16, Link 202.139.23.192 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
I live on the coast 140km south of Sydney. Another strange bird when you see it in the wild is the lyrebird. I often see them crossing the road when I go to customer's houses further up in the hills (almost ran one over yesterday). They have a strange hopping run using their wings for balance and speed. It reminds me of some of the CGI reconstructions of feathered dinosaurs, very much unlike any other birds. Although it is probably the animators using a lyrebird as a model for the dinosaur. Another thing about Lyrebirds is that they are fantastic mimics and it is common to hear them imitating a chainsaw. The cassowary is another bird that seems ancient. I was bicycle riding through FNQ and when I heard a loud noise in the forest, I always wondered if it was a Cassowary, although I don't know if I would want to meet one. Galah's are funny but do a lot of damage. |
| Date: 2008/08/02 18:43:08, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] I think that there are people that need the kind of Atheism that PZ represents. I think that it would be useful for young Atheists who are being made piranas in their communities and families. Imagine living next to Ftk. One day she will tell you that you are her best friend and it is a matter of interpretation of the same data. The next day she would scream "Atheist, baby eater, you are going to hell". The only problem with (the public) PZ is that he is becoming a caricature of himself, where Dawkins never tries to live up to his publicity. Also stepping back from the bloggersphere you can see that there have been some very public backdowns over the last 12 months when people have dissed atheists. I think that is thanks to the PZs of the world. However, I live in an area where it is pretty much live and let live and as nobody preaches at me, I don't preach back at them. |
| Date: 2008/08/02 19:14:35, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Unfortunately, the letter was badly written and I don't think that it clearly said what the author intended. The way it is written it is easy to dismiss by saying "when doing ID science why should you care about a co-workers religion." Instead I think his argument should be around when DrDr accuses "Darwinists" of belonging to some kind of cult, why doesn't he hold Wells to the same standard. |
| Date: 2008/08/02 19:20:15, Link 202.139.23.192 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]
My point is that the only bad argument is when somebody says that their way is the only way. |
| Date: 2008/08/07 01:40:46, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
| the most amazing thing is that Ftk gets comments on that drivel. |
| Date: 2008/08/11 08:26:45, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
It's not just what is defined by IC, it is the definition of IC. Originally Behe said the flagellum is IC because there was no precursor to the flagellum. When som precursors were found, Behe said that the gaps were too large and there is no way that it could have developed through small steps. When scientists proposed an evolutionary path to the flagellum, Behe then said that it was still IC until scientists proved that this was the actual path that occured. There was also something to do with blood clotting. This was blown out of the water as well and I don't know if Behe is still claiming it is IC. But generally, the ID people will claim anything is IC if you do not know the exact path that something did evolve. If somebody proposes a possible path they are accused of making just so stories. |
| Date: 2008/08/11 17:27:10, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
| DT conveniently ignored the fact that Dembski lied about knowing where the video came from and it never went to court because Dembski stopped using the video. |
| Date: 2008/08/12 17:42:05, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Yes Behe gets to talk at important science venues such as Christian talk shows (and gets sent up on the daily show). I think that debating ERV would be a step up for him. Why would Barbara Forest want to debate DrDr? It would be like a scientist debating lab rats. |
| Date: 2008/08/21 18:21:09, Link 202.139.23.192 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Darwin's black box is doing better at #9,146. I guessed that it might be doing well. My impression is that if a fundie buys only one book on ID this would be the one. I think that the "God Delusion" holds a similar place for atheist literature, not that other books on the subject do as badly as the other ID books. |
| Date: 2008/08/24 17:49:13, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
|
It's even worse if we compare the two uncommon descent v science blogs Waterloo, Darwinism is definitely crumbling. |
| Date: 2008/08/25 18:07:46, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I think that the vagueness on anti-evolution is a symptom of a bigger problem with western governments at the moment. Everything is so carefully managed that it is difficult to find much difference between the candidates and it doesn't pay to have any vision or take any risks. I think that the danger here is that the US is at the edge of what could be a long and deep recession, admitting to it would be to somehow be un-American*. The problem for the US is that unlike other recessions, the Asian internal markets are developed enough to probably keep on growing. In five years time my prediction will be that, unless something is done, China will be the superpower and a lot of the best research and universities will be done in Asia. * In Australia, the opposition party blames the government for the downturn because they were "talking down the economy" |
| Date: 2008/08/28 20:46:40, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Leave us hanging!! I wants to know the answer :angry: You left out disembodied telic entity pushing the termites around using wormholes in the space time continum. Which is the correct answer no matter what your mere evidence shows. Teach the controversy !1!!one!! |
| Date: 2008/08/28 20:58:28, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I was just listening on the radio about a local Edward Steele. The guy talking (I think he wrote a book about him) made a lot of noises that sound a lot like the type that DI makes (Neo-Darwinists suppressing outside ideas etc etc). How is he viewed? Is he a nut or just somebody on the edge of scientific consensus? I read the Wikipedia and his ideas look "interesting" and he doesn't seem to be a nut. Like Ftk I mean interesting in the sense that it make sense to a mere engineer, but unlike Ftk I am open to education. |
| Date: 2008/09/01 20:37:28, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I wouldn't call Pallin Ftk. Although I disagree with most of her politics, it sounds like she is strong willed and stands by her convictions. Ftk, on the otherhand twists and turns when confronted by anything she *implies* she believes in. You would think after all these years that Brown would be elevated from someone who's idea's are more than *interesting*. |
| Date: 2008/09/03 16:57:43, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
| But wasn't it always thought that emus etc had lost the ability to fly? I remember seeing it in "Walking with Beasts" so that makes it at least 10 years, but I have the feeling that I had always been taught that the ancestors could fly. |
| Date: 2008/09/05 05:32:22, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I heard bits of her speech and thought she was very well spoken but I knocked me over how many errors in fact she said in one speech. I also thought that people like FTK would lap it up liking spin over substance. I thought it was quite scary and more like something you would hear on LGF rather than something that an informed future leader would say. But I suppose there are a lot of people like Ftk who never let facts stand in the way of forming an opinion. |
| Date: 2008/09/06 01:20:43, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I liked the description of Anika ... Can't wait to read the rest of the story. |
| Date: 2008/09/10 17:15:32, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I heartily disagree. I think the attacks are good. In the past everytime there has been an attack by the dems, there has been a manufactured outroar and the dems have backed down. The polls are currently neck and neck. This is not because of the attacks but because of the convention boost. Think about it, you suddenly have all the right wing fundies suddenly saying that they will vote (there were a lot that said that they would never vote for mcCain), but the boost has only been a few percent. I think that the republicans lost a lot of votes from the middle purely because the lies and hypocracy is being pointed out by the Dems and it is working. I wouldn't be surprised to see the swing go back to the Dems if Obama keeps holding McCain/Pallin to the fire. |
| Date: 2008/09/10 17:27:47, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
| I think that all this end of the world stuff is good for science, it gets the collider on the front page and people may actually get interested in the facts. |
| Date: 2008/09/10 17:32:43, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
|
So what happened with the DI denying they had anything to do with the movie? Part of the cost goes to support the Casey Luskin DI tour bus. |
| Date: 2008/09/10 17:35:22, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
| We haven't heard from Sal or Kristine lately. I hope they haven't met, you know what happens when a moron and an anti-moron collide. |
| Date: 2008/09/11 01:06:14, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
| Would the resultant particles be HEXons and Jeebons? |
| Date: 2008/09/11 01:25:42, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
countdown to daveScott disappearing his entry .... |
| Date: 2008/09/12 06:00:12, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I could see a sciencefiction story in that -- Somebody (A brave Calvinist Science Student) decoding a message prior to a gamma ray burst realises what will happen and the only people he can convince is a washed out DrDr Mathematician and an ex Dell engineer. They travel to europe to try and stop the test but are continually EXPELLED |
| Date: 2008/09/14 16:54:27, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Says the person who runs away from every discussion about macroevolution and who over the years has not learnt enough elementary physics to know that Brown is a crank. Just another liar for Jesus. |
| Date: 2008/09/15 20:21:48, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
|
The media (via the internet) certainly doesn't like Palin, although she has given them a lot to choose from. I had a quick look at Fox and they aren't criticising her but they aren't gushing over her either. The creationism bit was interesting, like global warming she has gone vague on her beliefs since the nomination. |
| Date: 2008/09/20 21:30:33, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Is there any evidence for this? Or does this translate to when he was a normal christian and turned kook. |
| Date: 2008/09/21 16:25:53, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I don't think so. Her latest foray here started with a blast on how scientists will not discuss the science. Ignoring the fact that she has run away from any scientific discussion (answering "yeh whatever" doesn't count). I just noticed that the top of this page she talks about common design again, after being shown that common design would not look like common descent. Some people just get stuck in a loop. |
| Date: 2008/09/21 23:22:33, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
Pretty much everybody was a creationist in those days. It is like saying that it was done by Homo Sapiens. Silly argument but plays well in church. |
| Date: 2008/09/24 00:17:47, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
| I keep thinking of the knights who say ni when I see the title of this thread. Damn you Monty Python |
| Date: 2008/10/15 22:01:43, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
I wouldn't be surprised if more people in forum debates deconvert based on the bible rather than science. With the science people like ftk can keep themselves ignorant and cry improbable unless the contents of millions of papers are summarised in words of one syllable. In a scripture debate the shoe is on the other foot and they are the ones required to prove the case of the Bible, and the atheist just needs to pick holes in the explanations. |
| Date: 2008/10/18 17:21:32, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I just voted and it is suspiciously 50%/25%/25%. I wonder if it has been reset. |
| Date: 2008/10/18 17:27:28, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
| I just hit refresh and I got the 57/14/29 |
| Date: 2008/10/19 15:56:46, Link 202.139.23.218 |
| Author: bystander |
| unbelievable, they cannot even do an honest poll! |
| Date: 2008/10/20 16:56:43, Link 202.139.23.218 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
A true scientist, repeat experimentation. If they were going to fake it, you think they would put a little code in it to vary it slightly. Note the message about no1 documentary for 2008. Shouldn't they take that down now that the other documentary has passed it? |
| Date: 2008/10/28 15:47:44, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I think that Dembski thinks that he has done some ground breaking work with EF, CSI and NFL and is stumped as to why nobody can actually use it for anything useful or develop it further. I think he knows that the creationist crap in his latest books is actually crap but pays the bills. |
| Date: 2008/10/31 02:17:09, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| If the mind is separate, does he explain why we get drunk? or sleep? |
| Date: 2008/11/01 15:54:45, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
So if you volunteered, you would get access to the code and could make yourself a super secret administrator and do all kinds of mischief. Lucky we are all above that kind of thing. heh heh heh |
| Date: 2008/11/02 05:04:43, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| I don't think he is being dumped, I just think his skills stopped at c programming at Dell. I agree though that DT would be lost without UD |
| Date: 2008/11/03 14:21:05, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
The interesting thing is that I think that scriptures actually support a more materialistic view of the mind. Remember that Jesus (and a few of the old testament dudes) get taken up "bodily" to heaven. The whole end of the world stuff revolves around the dead rising and getting new bodies. From what I have learned, the idea was that the soul doesn't have a mind or any real existence without a body. |
| Date: 2008/11/03 19:33:49, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I that is the problem that it is still discussed at the level of philosophy. I heard a radio program where the scientists studying this stuff want the philosophers to STFU as the physical science is bolting ahead of the philosophy. |
| Date: 2008/11/04 14:54:37, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I always wondered if DOL got paid for her work. She didn't seem to have a regular paying job and the cronic cross posting seemed to be a desparate attempt to gain traffic for all of the sites. I wonder if her story will change at all now she has been dumped |
| Date: 2008/11/04 19:40:18, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
So was this the new webmaster? |
| Date: 2008/11/04 20:15:35, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Sure but it probably depends on how they set up the security. |
| Date: 2008/11/04 21:10:39, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| Well the election seems to be going Obama's way although by Cricky, I like the way the networks call the results for a state when only a couple of percent of the vote is counted. |
| Date: 2008/11/05 15:17:21, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I think that here too, that D'ol was being paid to contribute. I think that she might have to go back to writing about trucks |
| Date: 2008/11/05 17:51:18, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I was thinking the same thing about McCain. If you look at the popular vote he still got 48% even with the media loving Obama. The social conservatives remembered what he was like and didn't want to vote for him (although Palin got these voters back). The moderates were listening to what the party was making him say now and didn't want to vote for him. What you would have to figure out is that if he hadn't picked Palin and kept true to himself, would he have picked up enough moderates to make up for the conservatives who wouldn't have voted. This Slate article is good and reflects what I saw on Michelle Malkin's blog last night. The fault lies either outside the party or because McCain wasn't like them. |
| Date: 2008/11/06 14:31:06, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I've got it! Dembski is so gullible (think Bible Codes and Healers) and so believes his self importance, that he thinks that he is going to be targeted by the new government. He has now removed his name from the blog and has removed the more inciteful posts. Note that most of the recent posts have been by O'bLeary who as a Canadian must feel safe (Where does DLH live?). |
| Date: 2008/11/06 14:47:13, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I generally agree but I don't we don't know the numbers. There were people reported to say before Palin that they wouldn't vote at all but was this 10 million people or 50 people. The same for the moderates who left when McCain was pushed to the right, were they 10 million people or just 50 people. My opinion is that the party did the maths and thought that the numbers on the hard right being lost was high enough to more than make up for the moderates that they would have kept. The fact is that 48% still voted for the McCain ticket. Who are they and what are they thinking? On the intertubes, all of the right wings sites I have seen say that they lost due to being too far to the left. Do these people represent the 48% or are they the fringe. |
| Date: 2008/11/10 19:07:12, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| but but but .. I thought that Christians were the ones being discriminated against. |
| Date: 2008/11/10 19:36:17, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Isn't another alternative that the constants are not independent or have physicists disproved that idea? |
| Date: 2008/11/11 06:06:35, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
To take this to a less scientific basis. Even if the fine tuning was solved without the need for a god, there is still the question of Why anything? I know that it is more of a question for back in the teen years over a bong or two but I still find it mind blowing. However, I don't think that the theists should find comfort in this because like most atheists, I find that organised religions are unconvincing and people who talk about a vague god principal are basically making things up. I have a hypothesis, that the ultimate answer to everything will be solved by an AI. Humans, however, will not understand the answer or the proof. It would be like teaching an ant calculus. The best explanation that the AI can give to humans is that everything exists because it has to. |
| Date: 2008/11/11 21:55:57, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
I think that in the comments on UD that they are saying that Atheists live miserable empty lives, always on the verge of murder and having sex with ferrets. When they are shown the facts that atheists are no more or less fufilled than any theists, they will retreat to your position. I don't find it difficult to see why we have developed morals, because societies with people that don't have morals don't survive. What the UDiots don't see is that morals have evolved over the last couple hundred years - 2 hundred years ago most good christians believed that slavery was okay and negros were subhuman and you need to beat your children to keep them on the straight and narrow. Now, except for some notable exceptions this is a minority view even on the right. |
| Date: 2008/11/12 17:16:04, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Strange that Daniel doesn't apply the same reasoning to his own religion. Think about it tens of thousands of fossils all in the correct places according to the theory. DNA testing showing the relatedness of life again all fitting in with the fossil evidence. A long way to go but the molecular mechanisms underlying evolution being pushed forward day by day. A lot of work being done on possible pathways for the creation of life being done. Daniel is on the side saying I wont believe any of it before you prove the entire thing. Daniel unfortunately doesn't do the same with his own religion. The old testament is contradicted by archaeology. There is no verifiable external evidence of the new testament (What Daniel is asking for to prove evolution is the same as asking what did Jesus have for breakfast on June 3 28AD). Daniel talks about opening up and accepting God. Can he show how this is different from the paranoid delusions my dear depart grandmother use to have. Daniel can sit on the sideline as long as he like. His kind have had 150 years to put up an argument against evolution. America has spoken and have rejected anti-intellectualism and the post-modernist belief that all view points are equal. |
| Date: 2008/11/12 19:08:13, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| Has somebody told WAD that there are atheists on the site? Have they lost the bannanation button? Stay tuned ... |
| Date: 2008/11/13 00:11:34, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| A bit of a dilemma for Dave. He has been pwned but can he actually banninate somebody from Nature. |
| Date: 2008/11/14 15:44:17, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| Well, that's the end of UD. We all know that DrDr is a pompous twit but to the fundies DrDr is a bit of a star. I wonder if DT will stay. The last time DT left, I get the impression that the only reason he came back was because of the DrDr. |
| Date: 2008/11/14 16:56:30, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I've had a look at the right wing sites and you have post after post of Obama is a muslim, antichrist etc. I think that this is the ultimate outcome of the republican methods and it is quite worrying. They are obviously wrong, I think that even if it isn't real, Obama won on the messages of inclusiveness and being reality based. White people over 30 voted for McCain. White people under 30 voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Outside of these bastions of the right, the web is overwhelming liberal and reality based. I have been using Digg and found out that based on Diggs, that left wing to right wing is around 100 to 1. Internet penetration isn't universal yet but what is it going to be like in 8 years time? |
| Date: 2008/11/14 17:12:35, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
|
warm up your sockpuppets Barrys welcome post says
|
| Date: 2008/11/14 17:57:49, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Yes, the American people have spoken, they have voted in a Pro ID president and vice president. |
| Date: 2008/11/14 19:52:10, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
I was wondering rtfp stood for. I googled it and in the IT world we say rtfm. Is Daniel for real. Did he really write "why would molecules do this". I'm calling sockpuppet. |
| Date: 2008/11/14 20:23:55, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
So god is a blue collar worker. That explains a lot. Life on Earth was definitely a Friday afternoon before knock off job. God forgot to tighten the anti-cancer bolts. |
| Date: 2008/11/15 18:21:58, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
saying this can actually get you banned from Add words. |
| Date: 2008/11/16 15:42:13, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Davey cant write about global warming and this in the paper today: NASA gets temperature records wrong Bwahahaha |
| Date: 2008/11/16 21:54:19, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
now that UD is open and free, why don't you post this there. Michael |
| Date: 2008/11/17 00:14:30, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| I wonder if Davey will be seen outside of UD anywhere to have a vent. |
| Date: 2008/11/17 21:46:45, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
I can see them losing their AdSense privileges. You are not supposed to encourage people to click adds. It is a part of the T&Cs. I suppose it is like scientific papers and they just read the first paragraph
Adsense Program Guidelines |
| Date: 2008/11/18 19:58:27, Link 122.110.62.3 | ||||||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||||||
Some body must have noticed. It just has the word advertisments now. Maybe somebody also told O'Leary about the link farming. |
| Date: 2008/11/24 20:35:22, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Looking at the display adds. It would be fun to do an adwords campaign (You can target particular content sites now) with adds such as Creation or Evolution? Find out why O'Leary can't write english good like www.antievolution.org Pity that most of you are starving academics and I decided to be self employed during the worst market downturn in 70 years as it wouldn't cost much (I doubt that it would be more than $1 per click, given the competition). |
| Date: 2008/11/24 20:55:00, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Maybe one of the |
| Date: 2008/11/24 22:55:23, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
You left out scant regard for copyright. |
| Date: 2008/11/24 23:04:54, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Missing Dave Scott Click for non stop Tardalogues. Now with added mother jokes. www.antievolution.org |
| Date: 2008/11/25 14:26:47, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I don't think that it was coincidental that DrDr D left UD just after the election. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody with a modicum of sense said that the only way to move forward in an Obama administration is to start to look sciency again and nix the culture war stuff. |
| Date: 2008/11/25 20:15:23, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Here is my contribution you chance-lovers. I feel better after that, kind of more relaxed. I might have to get a sock puppet and have my own thread on this forum. |
| Date: 2008/11/26 16:47:03, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| On Design detection |
| Date: 2008/11/26 20:44:41, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
If JackInHofe* is here. If they don't give you traffic for UD, you can get detailed stats for the post-darwinist post-darwinist stats It has a lot more traffic than I expected over 300 visits per day on average. * I just got the joke name. Gee I am thick sometimes. |
| Date: 2008/11/28 23:02:22, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
I know that they try to spin everything to their advantage but isn't this just saying that we are wired to see design everywhere and to believe in god. this should weaken their case enormously |
| Date: 2008/11/29 16:47:54, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||||
I get comfort when you look at the fact that PZ could have a blank posting and have 200 comments and then add to that the comments on all of the other good science blogs. What do we have on ID side - UD, Telic Thoughts and the O'Leary train wreck. UD is getting up to 20 comments per post lately, but once everybody gets banned it is going to be 5 comments per post. Not only are these guys in an echo chamber, they are in a very small echo chamber. |
| Date: 2008/12/01 22:40:40, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Olofsson is a good writer and the discussion so far has cleared something up for me. I was reading the earlier thread and thought that the idiots were saying something jaw droppingly stupid but thought that I misunderstood the jargon. But with Olofsson there I realised that it was true, they are jaw droppingly stupid they are basically saying: To calculate the probability of a protein or what ever evolving you use the probability of all of the pieces falling together at once. You are allowed to do this because the darwinists cannot give the exact probability of the actual evolution of the structure. So until you hand us the entire worked example we will use the worst possible probability number. That is amazing. It even ignores the fact that other proteins could be used and if it is a structure like the flagellum, The bugs could have found other modes to move around like a jet pump of a "back and forth" rowing motion. |
| Date: 2008/12/02 20:53:52, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Reading that thread it is obvious that Barry is going to have to start booting people. Whoever ribczynki is, he/she is a very clear writer and is doing well against the tards, and the IDiots can't maintain the paranoia that the science establishment has nothing better to do than to prop up an ailing theory. Although the paper that Barry links to is very strange. OOL has nothing to do with a Cosmological model. The physicists could be wrong about string theory and the multiverse but it doesn't change the fact that life started around 4 billion (?) years ago. |
| Date: 2008/12/02 21:28:44, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
No, I could never write as clearly as him/her. I suffer from O'Leary's inability to write coherent sentences, that's why I became an engineer, but 1. I do check what I have written 2. I dont profess to be a professional journalist. |
| Date: 2008/12/08 22:06:49, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Clive
I'm getting dizzy, they are quoting us now. Both sites are going to disappear into self-referential blackhole. And Joseph was given a severe talking to, |
| Date: 2008/12/08 22:54:27, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| Will Patrick (if it is Patrick) come clean about the silent bannination? |
| Date: 2008/12/13 17:25:40, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
So I guess that everybody in these fields would say that they believe in ID? |
| Date: 2008/12/16 19:03:46, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
1/1 As the interesting contributors get banned, interest in UD will disappear and we'll be back to bad Mother jokes. |
| Date: 2008/12/21 19:29:51, Link 202.139.23.187 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
UD is like the Simpsons, nothing ever changes. Within a week: 1. they will have stopped looking here. 2. Within a week one of them will state that darwinists leave UD because they are defeated by their superior intellects. 3. wonder why it has gone quiet. |
| Date: 2008/12/24 02:35:31, Link 202.139.23.187 |
| Author: bystander |
| Merry Christmas all. My EF tells me that Santa will be flying through here in 4 and a half hours. So after a nice Salmon meal prepared by Mrs Bystander, we are going to relax and watch Christmas eve TV until the littlies fall asleep. |
| Date: 2008/12/29 14:08:21, Link 122.110.120.34 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
The best thing about KF is that we must have all run into a KF in our lives. He is the guy at meetings who insists on a 2 hour presentation with 50 powerpoint slides on some point that could be dealt with in 5 minutes. |
| Date: 2008/12/29 14:42:18, Link 122.110.120.34 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
They are in all walks of life. In corporate life, you will usually find them in Human Resources and the talks are on the new way to define a "Lost Time Injury" and its 15 sub classifications. |
| Date: 2008/12/29 14:42:57, Link 122.110.120.34 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
POTW |
| Date: 2008/12/29 15:06:14, Link 122.110.120.34 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I did engineering and we never had slides. The lazy teacher would have a roll of clear plastic, that they would use on an overhead projector. the roll would contain the whole semester's worth of work. Australia went from imperial to metric units 5 years before I went to uni and one lecturer still taught us with his roll that was in imperial units. the good lecturers just filled up blackboards with equations. Seems archaic now just spending lecture time copying down information. Does this still happen? In office life you get a printout of the seminar, which you then can mark up with additional notes if you like. |
| Date: 2008/12/31 01:38:29, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
He should actually give examples of factual errors. I can't see him being able to write any rebuttal, his type are just used to disappearing criticism. Anything he wrote would make him look more like an idjit. "Whine, Whine, they are so mean to me. I am the Isaac Newton of everything" ETA: It is interesting that going through the history, that there is very little vandalism. In fact most of the edits are to do with people putting in things that couldn't be cited. |
| Date: 2008/12/31 01:49:05, Link 202.139.21.114 |
| Author: bystander |
|
I'd love this to be referenced on UD with all of the true believers being forced to defend it ( being as they have to defend everything any other IDist says). I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing. |
| Date: 2008/12/31 18:28:56, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
The sad thing is that it wont really make WAD think. A skeptic's next question would be to research to see if they are all fake and would expand the search to all miracles. WAD on the other hand will just jump onboard the next great thing and try that. Notice that he mentions prayer and fasting. I wonder how much he has tried that without success. |
| Date: 2008/12/31 20:31:38, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Ha ha. So translating it they agree that it is still OK because even though it functions with parts removed, it is a different function and therefore evolution is false. and when somebody pipes up and says this is what we expect from evolution they accuse people of bending meaning. (Head hits keyboard) Do these guys have feet left? There are so many bullet holes in them. |
| Date: 2009/01/03 14:39:24, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
Looking outside the flat table, there is a lot of evidence to prove that the entire world is not flat. For evolution looking to the horizon is examining the fossil record, which seems to confirm evolution. |
| Date: 2009/01/04 17:50:03, Link 202.139.21.114 |
| Author: bystander |
|
You can see the same thing at UD. It doesn't matter how lame, they have to defend one of their own (I don't see them thinking that Fuller is one of their own). Behe said that to be IC that removal of any part will stop the system functioning as anything. not it has to have the same function, not that it has to function perfectly, but it has to stop functioning. By saying that the Bicycle is IC, they are admitting that IC systems can evolve. They want to have their cake and eat it. |
| Date: 2009/01/04 17:53:33, Link 202.139.21.114 |
| Author: bystander |
|
It's strange that none of them actually went to the FSM site to actually read what it means. The are against the openly creationist school board members who want to sneak creationism into the classroom. |
| Date: 2009/01/06 14:15:10, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
You would think that being a philosopher that he would be interested in the cultural underpinnings of the entire creationist movement. I do find it hard to focus after a paragraph or two, but I think that Steve Fuller's message is changing as he thinks it through. I give it another few posts before he declares that ID is not science. |
| Date: 2009/01/06 14:19:51, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
Interesting and very clear explanation of why CSI doesn't work. The ID replies seem to boil down to: "I don't need to calculate CSI because the value is obvious. The values for proteins are based on them being randomly put together in one go because I don't believe your science." I don't know how you can be so patient with these guys. |
| Date: 2009/01/15 18:55:37, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
I don't know any fundies personally. Do you think most are like you (able to be convinced given evidence) or like FTK (fingers in ears going la la la)? I agree with you about the kids however. Whenever I talk about atheism, I always say that this is what I believe and why and that others have other beliefs. I probably bend over backwards to give the kids the message that no matter what they will be welcome to our home. I think that with Ftk she is going to have a lot of problems - either they will end up being extreme like her (which will cause them problems with their peers as I think all this crap is receding with the young'uns) or end up extreme the other way. |
| Date: 2009/01/15 19:05:06, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
What haven't they gotten past? Science as far as I can see is making leaps and bounds, especially in biology. Daniel in the Bathroom Wall reminds me of the crazy guy in the toilet at a bar. I am sure that I am not the only person that peeks in to see if he is still here. |
| Date: 2009/01/20 14:05:17, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
The problem is that it is a fundamental error that all IDists make. The environment provides the assisted search by organisms that are more fit reproducing more often. All Dembski is doing is saying that if the environment is totally random, that is, one moment an organism is on land, the next it is a hundred metres under water and the next moment in a volcano then evolution would probably not work. Which is pretty much well DUH. |
| Date: 2009/01/21 18:04:46, Link 202.139.21.114 |
| Author: bystander |
| I'm seeing a lot of interesting comments on Dr DDs post. They wont last long. |
| Date: 2009/01/24 14:44:45, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||
| Author: bystander | ||||
So we are like the no name brand peas from the supermarket. |
| Date: 2009/01/26 14:54:04, Link 202.139.21.114 |
| Author: bystander |
|
My initial thought* on this was that as Solar cells are expensive and mirrors relatively cheap, that if the efficiency was maintained then somebody would have already have done it. I suppose the frying of the solar cells would be a limiting factor. If heat is a problem, how about a mini boiler-turbine set. I think one was going to be setup in South Australia years ago. * UD style science -- pulling facts out of my a***. |
| Date: 2009/01/31 18:17:43, Link 202.139.21.114 |
| Author: bystander |
|
UD is so predictable. I can imagine the discourse. proposed FAQ:The probability of structure x evolving is 10^60000000 Rationalresponse: That assumes that all of the proteins came to gether randomly in one go. Evolution acts incrementally. Here are some precursors to the structure and the fact is the structure can work without all of the proteins. UD: Give me the maths. You don't understand probability. Tell me the exact probability of the structure evolving. Show me how the first cell came from nothing. You are stupid and biologists know nothing. Atheists are immoral and eat babies if they could. Buy my book. You are insulting and are banned. See the Darwinists have nothing. |
| Date: 2009/02/05 14:18:44, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||||
Congrats, I was lukewarm on kids until I had mine and now I (in another time and place) would be happy to have five. |
| Date: 2009/02/05 19:38:47, Link 202.139.21.114 | ||||||
| Author: bystander | ||||||
Daniel in one quote says that he believes godidit because of the "state of current science". Then he comes up with this statement about no opinions on deep time. He can hardly say that he does not believe in Evolution because the science is unconvincing when a lot of the evidence for evolution involves at least general knowledge around geology and dating and paleontology, which proves deep time. So in effect he knows very little about the state of current science. What a maroon |
| Date: 2009/02/22 15:25:29, Link 202.139.21.114 |
| Author: bystander |
| What was the crowd like? Was it a sellout? Was the crowd pro ID? |
| Date: 2009/03/03 15:26:32, Link 202.139.23.212 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
ID predicted this |
| Date: 2009/03/03 15:27:12, Link 202.139.23.212 | ||
| Author: bystander | ||
ID Predicted this |
| Date: 2009/04/27 07:36:13, Link 202.139.23.212 |
| Author: bystander |
|
Interesting about Gil. I was always suspicious because he o never got involved in the Weasel simulations o AI is a meaningless marketing term (to me at least unless you arre actually trying to model humans or building a computer action game) o Only has two achievements he keeps going on and on about. Now it's StephenB to be woken up about his "expertise" in logic and theology. Although he is so bad at logic he never knows that he has been pwned. |
=====
(no relation to Col Sanders) has an online survey that I have been having fun with. Help him assess his 07 priorities by completing it 
